[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 19, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69337-69360]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27288]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 98

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927; FRL-9902-52-OAR]
RIN 2060-AR78


Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program: Amendments and Confidentiality 
Determinations for Fluorinated Gas Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to amend certain provisions of the 
Fluorinated Gas Production source category of the Greenhouse Gas 
Reporting Rule. The proposed changes would reduce the level of detail 
in which emissions were reported, establish a new set of default global 
warming potentials, eliminate the mass-balance emission calculation 
method, and clarify the emission factor method. We are also proposing 
confidentiality determinations for the new and substantially revised 
reporting requirements of the Fluorinated Gas Production source 
category.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before January 21, 
2014.
    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 
November 26, 2013. Upon such request, the EPA will hold the hearing on 
December 4, 2013, in the Washington, DC area. The EPA will provide 
further information about the hearing on the GHGRP Web site, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html if a hearing is 
requested.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0927, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax: (202) 566-9744.
     Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center 
(EPA/DC), Mailcode 2822T, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927, 
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.
     Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading 
Room, William

[[Page 69338]]

Jefferson Clinton (WJC) West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted 
during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements 
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0927, Amendments and Confidentiality Determinations for 
Fluorinated Gas Production. The EPA's policy is that all comments 
received will be included in the public docket without change and may 
be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any 
personal information provided, unless the comment includes information 
claimed to be confidential business information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Should you 
choose to submit information that you claim to be CBI in response to 
this notice, clearly mark the part or all of the comments that you 
claim to be CBI. For information that you claim to be CBI in a disk or 
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as 
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the 
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as 
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information 
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. 
Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance 
with procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2. Send or deliver information 
claimed as CBI to only the mail or hand/courier delivery address listed 
above, attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927.
    If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming 
CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site 
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know 
your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body 
of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA 
without going through http://www.regulations.gov your email address 
will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that 
is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If 
you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include 
your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and 
with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment 
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files 
should be free of special characters, any form of encryption, and any 
defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Docket, EPA/
DC, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 
Washington, DC. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone 
number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone 
number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carole Cook, Climate Change Division, 
Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC-6207J), Environmental Protection 
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone 
number: (202) 343-9263; fax number: (202) 343-2342; email address: 
[email protected]. For technical information, please go to the 
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule Program Web site at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html. To submit a question, 
select Rule Help Center, followed by Contact Us. To obtain information 
about the public hearing or to register to speak at the hearing, please 
go to http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html. 
Alternatively, contact Carole Cook at 202-343-9263.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of this 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 Program Web site 
at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Regulated Entities. The Administrator determined that this action 
is subject to the provisions of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(d). See 
CAA section 307(d)(1)(V) (the provisions of section 307(d) apply to 
``such other actions as the Administrator may determine''). These are 
proposed amendments to existing regulations. If finalized, these 
amended regulations would affect producers of fluorinated gases. 
Regulated categories and examples of affected entities include those 
listed in Table 1 of this preamble:

                                Table 1--Example of Affected Entities by Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Category                 NAICS                        Examples of affected facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fluorinated Gas Production..          325120  Industrial gases manufacturing facilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but 
rather lists the types of facilities that the EPA is now aware could be 
potentially affected by the reporting requirements. Other types of 
facilities not 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 subpart L. If you have 
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular 
facility, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and 
abbreviations are used in this document.

CAA Clean Air Act
CBI confidential business information
CFC chlorofluorocarbon
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CH4 methane
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e CO2-equivalent
DE destruction efficiency
EAR Export Administration Regulations
EF emission factor
e-GGRT electronic-GHG Reporting Tool
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

[[Page 69339]]

FR Federal Register
GHG greenhouse gas
GHGRP Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program
GWP global warming potential
HCFC hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HFC hydrofluorocarbon
HFE hydrofluoroether
ITAR International Traffic in Arms Regulations
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
kg kilograms
LCD liquid crystal display
MEMS micro-electro-mechanical systems
MtCO2e metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent
N2O nitrous oxide
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NF3 nitrogen trifluoride
NODA notice of data availability
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PFC perfluorocarbon
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RY reporting year
SAR Second Assessment Report
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
U.S. United States
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
WWW Worldwide Web

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. How is this preamble organized?
    B. Background on the GHG Reporting Rule
    C. Legal Authority
    D. Summary of Proposed Amendments
    E. When would these amendments apply?
    F. How would these amendments affect confidentiality 
determinations?
    G. How does this proposed rule relate to the proposed rule 
titled, ``Revisions to Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, and 
Proposed Confidentiality Determinations under the Greenhouse Gas 
Reporting Program?''
II. Proposed Amendments
    A. Proposed Amendments to the Subpart L Reporting Requirements
    1. Background of Proposed Amendments to Subpart L Reporting 
Requirements
    2. Summary of Proposed Amendments to Subpart L Reporting 
Requirements
    3. Rationale
    4. Proposal to Revise the Set of Default GWPs Used To Convert 
Fluorinated GHG Emissions Into CO2e
    5. Other Changes to Reporting Requirements
    6. Reporting Emissions From Destruction of Previously Produced 
Fluorinated GHGs and From Venting of Residual Fluorinated GHGs From 
Containers
    7. Submission of Full GHG Reports for Reporting Year 2011, 2012, 
and 2013
    B. Proposal To Remove the Mass-Balance Approach From Subpart L
    C. Clarifications to the Emission Factor Approach of Subpart L
    D. Overview and Approach to Proposed CBI Determinations
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    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 Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP), an overview of 
the proposed amendments, and information on when the amendments would 
become effective, how this rule affects confidentiality determinations, 
and how this proposed rule relates to other GHG reporting notices. This 
section also discusses the EPA's use of our legal authority under the 
Clean Air Act to collect data under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, 
hereinafter referred to as the ``GHG Reporting Rule'' or ``Part 98.''
    The second section of this preamble describes in detail the changes 
that are being proposed, presents the EPA's rationale for the proposed 
changes, and identifies issues on which the EPA is particularly 
interested in receiving public comments.
    Finally, the third section of the preamble discusses the various 
statutory and executive order requirements applicable to this proposed 
rulemaking.

B. Background on the GHG Reporting Rule

    The GHG Reporting Rule was published in the Federal Register on 
October 30, 2009 (74 FR 56260). Part 98 became effective on December 
29, 2009, and requires reporting of GHGs from certain facilities and 
suppliers. A subsequent notice finalizing reporting requirements for 
Fluorinated Gas Production was published on December 1, 2010 (75 FR 
74774). (The final rule published on December 1, 2010 is hereinafter 
referred to as the ``2010 Final Rule'').

C. 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 rule (74 FR 56260, October 30, 2009), CAA section 114 
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.
    In addition, the EPA is proposing confidentiality determinations 
under its authorities provided in sections 114, 301, and 307 of the CAA 
for the proposed new or substantially revised data elements that would 
be reported under this proposed rule. As mentioned above, CAA section 
114 provides the EPA authority to obtain the information in Part 98. 
Section 114(c) requires that EPA make publicly available information 
obtained under section 114 except for information which is not emission 
data and which qualifies for confidential treatment. The Administrator 
has determined that this action (proposed amendments and 
confidentiality determinations) is subject to the provisions of section 
307(d) of the CAA.

D. Summary of Proposed Amendments.

    The EPA is proposing to amend certain provisions of the Greenhouse 
Gas Reporting Rule that affect fluorinated gas production facilities. 
The proposed amendments include the following changes:
     Revision of the reporting requirements to allow more 
aggregated reporting to address potential disclosure concerns (see 
Section II.A.1 of this preamble).
     Proposal of a revised set of default global warming 
potentials (GWPs) for fluorinated greenhouse gases (fluorinated GHGs).
     Removal of the option to use the mass-balance approach.
     Clarification of the emission factor approach.
     Various technical corrections.

E. When would these amendments apply?

    These amendments would apply to reporting under 40 CFR part 98, 
subpart L (subpart L) that occurs in calendar year 2015 and subsequent 
years. This would include reporting of information for reporting year 
2014 and subsequent reporting years. It would also include reporting of 
certain information for reporting years 2011 and 2012, and to reporting 
of that information for

[[Page 69340]]

reporting year 2013. We previously deferred the former under the rule 
titled ``2012 Technical Corrections, Clarifying and Other Amendments to 
the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, and Confidentiality Determinations 
for Certain Data Elements of the Fluorinated Gas Source Category'' (77 
FR 51477; August 24, 2012). We proposed to defer the latter under the 
rule titled, ``2013 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and 
Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for New or Substantially 
Revised Data Elements'' (hereinafter referred to as the Proposed 2013 
Revisions Rule; 78 FR 19802; April 2, 2013).

F. How would these amendments affect confidentiality determinations?

    In this notice, we are proposing confidentiality determinations for 
proposed new or substantially revised subpart L data elements. The EPA 
has previously proposed confidentiality determinations for subpart L 
data elements (77 FR 1434, January 10, 2012), which did not cover the 
new or substantially revised data elements that the EPA is proposing in 
the present action. The proposed confidentiality determinations for 
these data elements together with our rationale are discussed in detail 
in Section II.D of this preamble. In addition, the proposed amendments 
would delete certain existing subpart L reporting requirements, while 
continuing to require that records be kept of these elements. Should 
the EPA finalize the deletion of these data elements, the EPA will not 
take final action on the previously proposed confidentiality 
determinations for the deleted data elements.

G. How does this proposed rule relate to the proposed rule titled, 
``Revisions to Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, and Proposed 
Confidentiality Determinations under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting 
Program?''

    On September 11, 2013, the EPA proposed a rule titled, ``Revisions 
to Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, and Proposed 
Confidentiality Determinations under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting 
Program'' (78 FR 55994; hereinafter referred to as the proposed Inputs 
rule). In that proposed rule, the EPA proposed to add a requirement for 
certain reporters under 24 subparts, including subpart L, to use an 
EPA-provided inputs verification tool. For these subparts, the 
designated inputs to emission equations for which reporting was 
deferred to 2015 and disclosure concerns have been identified would be 
entered into the inputs verification tool. In addition, these inputs 
would be kept by the facilities as records for five years.
    Both the proposed Inputs rule and this proposed rule are proposing 
changes to the subpart L reporting requirements. A redline/strikeout 
version of the subpart L regulatory text that reflects both sets of 
proposed changes is available in the docket for this rulemaking. While 
both sets of changes are intended to address disclosure concerns, the 
reporting elements that are proposed to be amended generally differ. 
The proposed Inputs rule would amend and/or remove a number of 
reporting elements that are inputs to emission equations. This proposed 
rule would amend and/or remove other reporting requirements. In some 
cases, the two proposed rules are proposing changes to the same 
provisions, e.g., because those provisions contain several data 
elements, some of which are inputs, and some of which are not. For 
example, the proposed Inputs rule is proposing to remove the data 
element ``mass'' from 40 CFR 98.126(b)(6) through (b)(8). This rule is 
proposing to remove these paragraphs altogether, because the remaining 
data elements (chemical formulas of reactants, products, and by-
products) are no longer useful without the corresponding masses. (The 
rationale for these and the other proposed amendments to the subpart L 
reporting requirements is discussed in Section II.A.3 of this 
preamble.)

II. Proposed Amendments

A. Proposed Amendments to the Subpart L Reporting Requirements

1. Background of Proposed Amendments to Subpart L Reporting 
Requirements
    On January 10, 2012, the EPA published proposed determinations 
regarding whether the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program data elements in 
eight subparts of Part 98, including subpart L, would or would not be 
entitled to confidential treatment under the CAA (77 FR 1434). In that 
proposed rule, the EPA proposed that the chemical identities and 
quantities of the fluorinated GHG emissions at the process level, 
reported under subpart L, are ``emission data.'' Under section 114(c) 
of the CAA, ``emission data'' are not eligible for confidential 
treatment and must be made publicly available.
    The EPA received two comments on that proposed rule related to 
subpart L. These commenters, the American Chemistry Council and 3M 
Company, raised concerns that the release of certain data elements that 
the EPA proposed to classify as emission data (and that therefore would 
not be eligible for treatment as confidential business information), 
would reveal ``trade secrets.'' Both commenters stated that the 
disclosure of the identity and quantities of the fluorinated GHGs 
emitted at the process level, from either process vents or fugitive 
sources, would reveal ``trade secrets'' regarding individual chemical 
production processes. 3M stated that process-level emission data 
provides specific information on reactants, by-products, and products 
that would provide competitors with a detailed understanding of 3M's 
manufacturing process. They noted that competitors with knowledge of 
fluorine chemistry could use such information to identify the 
particular manufacturing pathways used by 3M. They asserted that 
competitors could then duplicate these processes without having to 
incur research and development costs, putting 3M at a ``competitive 
[dis]advantage.''
    The American Chemistry Council and 3M Company also expressed 
concern that the disclosure of the identity and quantity of emissions 
at the process level could violate export control regulations. 
Specifically, the commenters stated that the release of some data 
elements would make available to the public information that is subject 
to Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and International Traffic in 
Arms Regulations (ITAR) that prohibit public disclosure for reasons of 
``national security, anti-terrorism, nuclear non-proliferation, and 
chemical and biological weapons security.'' The commenters stated that 
the EAR and ITAR control not only export of products, but also export 
of technical knowledge, such as the design of a product and production 
information, and that the release of process-level emission data may 
provide such insight into the design of a product or production 
information that is export-controlled. The commenters stated that if 
the EPA attempted to protect export-controlled information from 
disclosure by implementing ``an export control plan,'' this would be in 
conflict with EPA's position that emission data cannot be withheld from 
the public under the CAA.
    Following receipt of the public comments on the proposed CBI 
determinations, the EPA proposed and promulgated temporary, less 
detailed reporting requirements for reporting years 2011 and 2012 (77 
FR 51477,

[[Page 69341]]

August 24, 2012).\1\ This was intended to allow the EPA additional time 
to evaluate the concerns raised by the commenters and to consider how 
the rule might be changed to balance these concerns with the EPA's need 
to obtain the data necessary to inform the development of future GHG 
policies and programs. The EPA presented several reporting options, 
along with some of their advantages and disadvantages, in a memorandum 
(``Potential Future Subpart L Options'') that was placed in the docket 
to that rulemaking when the temporary reporting requirements were 
proposed (EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0147). The options presented in the 
memorandum were based on reporting emissions at varying levels of 
aggregation for both the source of the emissions (ranging from 
reporting by process and by emission type to reporting at the facility 
level) and the chemicals emitted (ranging from reporting by speciated 
fluorinated GHG to reporting in CO2e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The EPA subsequently proposed to extend the temporary 
provisions through reporting year 2013 under the Proposed 2013 
Revisions Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA received two written comments on the alternatives presented 
in the memorandum. In addition, the EPA discussed alternative reporting 
options with fluorinated gas producers and other stakeholders. These 
comments and discussions are summarized further in the ``Rationale'' 
Section II.A.3 of this preamble.
2. Summary of Proposed Amendments to Subpart L Reporting Requirements
    Following review of the comments submitted on the proposed 
confidentiality determinations (77 FR 1434, January 10, 2012) and the 
memorandum entitled ``Potential Future Subpart L Options,'' and 
considering discussions with stakeholders, the EPA is proposing to 
permanently amend the subpart L reporting requirements to require 
reporting at a less aggregated level beginning in calendar year 2015. 
Specifically, we are proposing to require owners and operators of 
facilities producing fluorinated gases to report (1) emissions by 
fluorinated GHG group (chemical type) at the process level for each 
generically defined production or transformation process, and (2) 
emissions by chemical at the facility level for certain fluorinated GHG 
emissions.
    Fluorinated GHG emissions would be reported by chemical at the 
facility level when (a) the fluorinated GHG was emitted in quantities 
above 1,000 mtCO2e and the facility produced more than one 
fluorinated gas product,\2\ or (b) for facilities that produced only 
one fluorinated gas product, the fluorinated GHG emitted was a major 
fluorinated GHG constituent of a fluorinated gas product and the 
fluorinated gas product was sold or otherwise transferred to another 
person. (Other fluorinated GHG emissions at the facility level would be 
reported by chemical type.) Where the emission factor or emission 
calculation factor approaches are used, facilities would be required to 
further disaggregate process emissions by emission type, i.e., into 
vented vs. leaked emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ We are proposing to define fluorinated gas product as the 
product of the process, including isolated intermediates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These changes would apply only to emissions from production and 
transformation processes; emissions from venting of container heels and 
destruction of previously produced fluorinated GHGs would be reported 
by chemical and by process as required by the 2010 Final Rule.
    In addition to the changes above, we are proposing to replace the 
requirements to report process-specific emission factors, activity 
data, and destruction efficiencies with a requirement to identify, as a 
range, the level by which the emissions of each process are reduced or 
controlled, e.g., by destruction devices. We are also proposing to 
remove the requirement that facilities report the following data 
elements: The contents, locations, and functions of the streams 
analyzed under the scoping speciation (40 CFR 98.126(a)(3) and (a)(4)). 
In addition, we are proposing to revise the set of default GWPs used to 
calculate and report CO2e emissions under subpart L. We are 
also proposing to amend several provisions of subpart A to be 
consistent with the revised subpart L reporting requirements for 
purposes of reporting emissions monitored under subpart L.
    As discussed in Section II.A.7 of this preamble, all of these 
changes would apply to (previously deferred) reporting for Reporting 
Years 2011, 2012, and 2013, as well as to reporting in future years. 
The amendments would not change other requirements of Part 98, 
including the requirement under 40 CFR 98.3(g) that data used to 
calculate GHG emissions for each process be retained as records.
    The EPA is also proposing to remove the option to use a mass-
balance approach from the calculation and monitoring requirements of 
the rule. No facilities are currently using this approach. With this 
change, facilities would still be able to use the emission factor and 
emission calculation factor approaches to monitor, calculate, and 
report their fluorinated GHG emissions.
3. Rationale
    As discussed above in Section II.A.1 of this preamble, certain 
subpart L reporters have raised concerns regarding reporting and 
potential disclosure of ``trade secrets'' and ``business sensitive 
information.'' We believe that these reporters have raised legitimate 
concerns regarding the potential disclosure of this information and the 
possible consequences to the reporting businesses. Based on our 
evaluation of these concerns and potential reporting alternatives, we 
are proposing amendments to subpart L that would address these concerns 
while continuing to collect the data necessary to inform the 
development of future GHG policies and programs. To enable the EPA to 
evaluate future GHG policies and programs, reporting should allow the 
EPA to understand the magnitudes and growth rates of emissions of 
different chemicals from different sources and to identify and analyze 
potential approaches to reducing emissions of these chemicals from 
these sources. In addition, reporting should enable the EPA to verify 
reported emissions. The proposed amendment would continue to meet these 
objectives, while at the same time addressing the potential disclosure 
concerns discussed above.
    The EPA has considered a range of reporting options including 
varying levels of aggregation for the source of the emissions and for 
the fluorinated GHGs (chemicals) emitted. The levels of aggregation 
considered for the emission source included reporting by process and 
emissions type, by process type and subtype, and by facility. The 
levels of aggregation considered for the fluorinated GHGs included 
reporting by speciated fluorinated GHG, by fluorinated GHG group, or in 
terms of total CO2e only. In addition, the EPA considered 
implementing various combinations of these options.
    As discussed further in Sections II.A.3.a and II.A.3.b of this 
preamble, both process-specific and chemical-specific reporting are 
important to understanding sources of emissions and assessing 
approaches to reduce emissions. Process-specific emissions information 
allows the EPA to identify processes with high potential for emission 
reductions as well as measures to achieve those reductions.\3\ 
Chemical-

[[Page 69342]]

specific information allows the EPA, as well as the public and the 
international community, to better understand the atmospheric impacts 
of U.S. emissions, to compare U.S. emissions to atmospheric 
measurements and, if inconsistencies between emissions and atmospheric 
measurements are found, to better understand the magnitudes and causes 
of those inconsistencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In the rule finalizing Part 98, the EPA cited the following 
benefits of process-specific reporting, among others: ``Process-
level reporting also provides information that will be useful in 
identifying processes that have reduced emissions over time and 
processes at specific plants that have the most potential for future 
reductions in emissions. In addition, the process-level reporting 
may provide information that can be used to improve methodologies 
for specific processes under future programs and to identify 
processes that may use a technology that could be the basis for an 
emission standard at a later time'' (74 FR 56311, October 30, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In their comments on the proposed confidentiality determinations 
and in subsequent communications, fluorinated gas producers have 
repeatedly stated that reporting, and subsequent disclosure, of 
chemical-specific emissions at the process level would provide insight 
into manufacturing methods that would enable competitors to gain a 
competitive advantage. After careful consideration of these comments, 
the EPA agrees with the fluorinated gas producers' assertion that 
chemical-specific, process-specific emissions may in some cases provide 
a detailed chemical ``fingerprint'' of a process that could enable 
competitors to deduce how that process works to produce a particular 
product. One producer (3M) explained that, for example, a competitor 
with expertise in fluorine chemistry may be able to analyze speciated 
emissions and identify reactants, by-products, intermediates, and 
products. By examining the ratios of these emissions, the competitor 
may be able to deduce process conditions (e.g., reaction temperatures 
or whether or not a catalyst was used) based on publicly available 
equilibrium constant data.
    To address this concern while continuing to meet the objectives of 
the GHG Reporting Rule, the EPA is proposing to replace the current 
reporting of chemical-specific emissions at the process level with a 
reporting requirement that combines two levels of reporting. The 
proposed two-level reporting, which is discussed in more detail below, 
would avoid the potential disclosure concerns discussed above while 
retaining reporting of important information on emissions at both the 
process and chemical levels.
    We believe that this proposal, by addressing the business-related 
concerns raised by commenters, would also address the concerns they 
raised regarding export control requirements. We request comment on 
whether or not this is the case.
a. Reporting by Generically Identified Process, Emission Type, and 
Fluorinated GHG Group
    The first level of proposed reporting is reporting of emissions by 
generically identified process (as discussed below), emission type 
(i.e., vents vs. leaks), and fluorinated GHG group. While such 
reporting would provide less detail than the 2010 Final Rule on the 
chemicals emitted, the product of each process, and emissions from 
individual process vents, it would preserve key data to inform the 
development of GHG policies and programs. First, such reporting would 
enable the EPA to identify processes and emission types with high or 
quickly changing emissions. As stated in the 2009 Final Rule (74 FR 
56311), identifying such processes is important because they may have 
the most potential for future reductions. Second, reporting by process, 
emission type, and fluorinated GHG group would help the EPA to identify 
and analyze reduction options. This is because reduction options are 
implemented at the process level and for specific emission types. 
Finally, process-level reporting is helpful for verifying emissions 
because it can allow comparison of emission rates among similar 
processes and because it can facilitate duplication of emissions 
calculations, which are performed at the process level.
    Because the EPA agrees with commenters' concern that reporting the 
product of each process could lead to the disclosure of the identity of 
intermediates, and that such disclosure could in turn reveal 
information on how certain products are made, the EPA is proposing to 
identify processes generically rather than by the product of the 
process.\4\ This identification would include three pieces of 
information for each process. First, the reporter would identify the 
process as a production process, a transformation process where no 
fluorinated GHG reactant is produced at another facility, or a 
transformation process where one or more fluorinated GHG reactants are 
produced at another facility. Second, within these categories, the 
reporter would further identify the process as a reaction, 
distillation, or packaging process, or as a combination of these. 
Third, the reporter would tag the process with an identifier chosen by 
the facility (e.g., a letter or number) that would remain constant from 
year to year to permit year-to-year comparisons of emissions from that 
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For example, if the product of the process were emitted, as 
is frequently the case, its identity might be considered emissions 
data. This could lead to disclosure of its identity where the 
product was an intermediate whose identity would otherwise remain 
unknown to competitors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This method for identifying each process would supply useful 
information on the nature of the process without actually identifying 
the product of the process. For example, reporting the process type 
would enable the EPA to ascertain whether and how emission levels may 
vary across process types and thereby enable us to identify particular 
process types as having more potential for reductions. It would also 
permit the tracking of emissions from the same process from year to 
year. Moreover, it is generally consistent with the definition of 
``process'' in subpart L.\5\ That definition includes ``any, all, or a 
combination of reaction, recovery, separation, purification, or other 
activity, operation, manufacture, or treatment which are used to 
produce a fluorinated gas product.'' Because the term ``distillation'' 
may encompass recovery, separation, and purification, the EPA's 
preference is not to create separate classifications for recovery, 
separation, and purification. However, the EPA requests comment on 
whether the proposed classifications are sufficiently clear and 
comprehensive, or whether they should be expanded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The definition of ``process'' in subpart L reads in part, 
``Process means all equipment that collectively functions to produce 
a fluorinated gas product, including an isolated intermediate (which 
is also a fluorinated gas product), or to transform a fluorinated 
gas product. A process may consist of one or more unit operations. 
For the purposes of this subpart, process includes any, all, or a 
combination of reaction, recovery, separation, purification, or 
other activity, operation, manufacture, or treatment which are used 
to produce a fluorinated gas product.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One drawback of generically identifying processes is that this 
approach would not allow the EPA to compare processes making the same 
product (including intermediates) across different facilities. While 
some products are produced at only one facility, several are produced 
at multiple facilities. The EPA believes that the proposed amendment is 
nevertheless appropriate despite this drawback, because the information 
that can be obtained by comparisons of types of processes across 
different facilities remains useful for the purposes of the GHGRP. 
Nevertheless, the EPA requests comment on alternative identification 
strategies that would avoid this drawback.
    The EPA is proposing to establish five chemical types or groups 
into which

[[Page 69343]]

facilities would sort emissions for reporting at the process level. 
These groups are based primarily on chemical structure, which is 
correlated with atmospheric lifetime and GWP. Each group possesses a 
significantly different set of GWPs. The EPA believes that using these 
groups for reporting would avoid the potential disclosure concerns 
discussed above while still providing useful data that could inform 
technical and policy analysis. The groups are the same as those that we 
are proposing as the basis for default GWPs and include the following:
    Fully fluorinated GHGs. This group would be defined as it currently 
is in the temporary subpart L reporting provisions. Fully fluorinated 
GHGs are fluorinated GHGs that contain only single bonds and in which 
all available valence locations are filled by fluorine atoms. This 
group includes but is not limited to saturated perfluorocarbons, 
SF6, NF3, SF5CF3, fully 
fluorinated linear, branched and cyclic alkanes, fully fluorinated 
ethers, fully fluorinated tertiary amines, fully fluorinated 
aminoethers, and perfluoropolyethers. Fully fluorinated GHGs have 
lifetimes of over 500 to several thousand years and GWPs of 6,290 to 
22,800.
    Saturated hydrofluorocarbons. This group would include 
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) that contain only single bonds (i.e., 
hydrofluoroalkanes such as HFC-134a). Saturated HFCs generally have 
atmospheric lifetimes from 1 to 55 years and GWPs from 100 to 5,000, 
though there are exceptions at both extremes. The average GWP of 
saturated HFCs is approximately 2,200, based on GWPs in AR4 and in the 
article ``Global Warming Potentials and Radiative Efficiencies of 
Halocarbons and Related Compounds: A Comprehensive Review (hereinafter 
referred to as the ``Comprehensive Review'' \6\). Because the range of 
lifetimes and GWPs spanned by the saturated HFCs is quite large, we are 
also considering the option of breaking saturated HFCs into two sets 
based on atmospheric lifetime. Saturated HFCs have lifetimes from 0.3 
years to 270 years and GWPs from 12 to 14,800. Breaking the saturated 
HFCs out into two sets would reduce these ranges considerably and would 
thereby provide more precise information regarding the atmospheric 
behavior of each group. For example, the average GWP of the saturated 
HFCs with atmospheric lifetimes above 20 years is approximately 5,700, 
while the average GWP of the saturated HFCs with atmospheric lifetimes 
below 20 years is approximately 600. Moreover, information on the 
atmospheric lifetimes of emissions helps to inform policies that 
distinguish among chemicals based on their atmospheric lifetimes and 
GWPs.\7\ However, one drawback of breaking out saturated HFCs by 
atmospheric lifetime is that it requires reporters to know the 
atmospheric lifetimes of the HFCs being reported as part of each 
saturated HFC group. While EPA could include this information in Table 
A-1 for the HFCs that are already on Table A-1, this information is not 
likely to be available for many HFCs that are not on Table A-1. Another 
drawback of breaking out saturated HFCs by atmospheric lifetime is that 
it would disaggregate reporting further than the proposed approach, 
potentially leading to disclosure concerns where process-specific 
reporting overlaps with facility-wide reporting. (This overlap is 
discussed in more detail in Section II.A.3.b. of this preamble.) To 
some extent, this concern could be mitigated by grouping saturated HFCs 
with lifetimes greater than or equal to 20 years with saturated HFEs 
with lifetimes greater than or equal to 20 years, and by creating a 
similar grouping for saturated HFCs and saturated HFEs with atmospheric 
lifetimes of less than 20 years. The EPA requests comment on the option 
of breaking out saturated HFCs by atmospheric lifetime for purposes of 
reporting emissions by fluorinated GHG group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Hodnebrog, [Oslash]., M. Etminan, J. S. Fuglestvedt, G. 
Marston, G. Myhre, C. J. Nielsen, K. P. Shine, and T. J. Wallington, 
``Global Warming Potentials and Radiative Efficiencies of 
Halocarbons and Related Compounds: A Comprehensive Review,'' Reviews 
of Geophysics, Accepted manuscript online: 24 APR 2013. This article 
is discussed in more detail in Section II.A.4 of this preamble.
    \7\ For example, the Climate and Clean Air coalition to Reduce 
Short-Lived Climate Pollutants Initiative primarily focuses on 
chemicals with atmospheric lifetimes of less than 50 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Saturated hydrofluoroethers. This group would include 
hydrofluoroethers (HFEs) that contain only single bonds (i.e., 
hydrofluoroethers such as HFE-134). Saturated HFCs generally have 
atmospheric lifetimes from several months to 30 years and GWPs from 100 
to 5,000, although, as for saturated HFCs, there are exceptions at both 
extremes. The average GWP of saturated HFCs is approximately 1,600 
(based on AR4 and Comprehensive Review GWPs). As is the case for HFCs, 
the range of atmospheric lifetimes and GWPs spanned by the saturated 
HFEs is quite large, and breaking these HFEs into two sets based on 
atmospheric lifetime would provide more precise information regarding 
the atmospheric behavior of each group. For example, the average GWP of 
the saturated HFEs with atmospheric lifetimes above 20 years is 
approximately 5,700, while the average GWP of the saturated HFCs with 
atmospheric lifetimes below 20 years is approximately 600. However, 
there are drawbacks associated with breaking the saturated HFEs into 
two groups that are similar to the drawbacks cited above for breaking 
the saturated HFCs into two groups. The EPA requests comment on the 
option of breaking the saturated HFEs into two groups based on 
atmospheric lifetime.
    Unsaturated PFCs, unsaturated HFCs, unsaturated HCFCs, unsaturated 
HFEs, and fluorinated ketones. This group would include very short-
lived compounds including unsaturated PFCs (e.g., hexafluoropropylene 
and tetrafluoroethylene), unsaturated HFCs (e.g., HFC-1234yf and 
perfluorobutyl ethene), unsaturated HCFCs, unsaturated HFEs (e.g., 
fluoroxene), and fluorinated ketones. According to the Comprehensive 
Review, these GHGs have lifetimes of a few days to weeks. The average 
GWPs of unsaturated PFCs, unsaturated HFCs, unsaturated HFEs, and 
fluorinated ketones are approximately 0.4, 0.3, 0.2, and 0.1 
respectively. Most individual chemicals of these types have GWPs of 
less than one.
    The EPA considered including fluorinated acetates and fluorinated 
formates in this group. However, the fluorinated acetates whose 
atmospheric lifetimes and GWPs have been studied often have lifetimes 
of months rather than days and GWPs in the 10s, significantly different 
from those of the compounds that would be included in this group. 
Fluorinated formates have still larger atmospheric lifetimes and GWPs. 
Thus, the EPA is proposing to include fluorinated acetates and 
fluorinated formates in the ``other fluorinated GHG'' group discussed 
below.
    While multiple studies have indicated that unsaturated HFCs have 
short atmospheric lifetimes and low GWPs, fewer studies have been 
performed on unsaturated HCFCs, unsaturated HFEs and fluorinated 
ketones. Thus, the lifetimes and GWPs of unsaturated HCFCs, unsaturated 
HFEs, and fluorinated ketones are less certain. The EPA requests 
comment on the likely variability of the lifetimes and GWPs of 
unsaturated HCFCs, unsaturated HFEs and fluorinated ketones and on 
whether or not these compounds should be included in the very-short-
lived group or in the ``Other fluorinated GHG'' group, discussed below.

[[Page 69344]]

    Other fluorinated GHGs. This group includes the fluorinated GHGs 
that do not fall into any of the four sets defined above. To ensure 
that the gas groups are both distinct (i.e., do not overlap) and 
comprehensive (i.e., cover all fluorinated GHGs), this gas group is a 
catch-all. Based on the list of compounds and GWPs included in the 
Comprehensive Review, the EPA's understanding is that this group would 
consist of fluorinated acetates, fluorinated formates, 
carbonofluoridates, and fluorinated alcohols with lifetimes ranging 
from a few weeks to a few years and GWPs ranging from less than five to 
the hundreds. The EPA requests comment on which chemicals would fall 
into this group and on their atmospheric lifetimes and GWPs. The EPA 
also requests comment on whether this group should be combined with the 
group of very short-lived compounds discussed above (Unsaturated PFCs, 
unsaturated HFCs, unsaturated HCFCs, unsaturated HFEs, and fluorinated 
ketones). Keeping the groups separate allows for a more precise 
assessment of each group's atmospheric impacts, particularly since the 
``other'' group, due to its necessarily open-ended definition, could 
eventually include fluorinated GHGs with relatively long lifetimes and 
high GWPs. Keeping the groups separate would also be consistent with 
the approach proposed for setting default GWPs, discussed further 
below. However, if the number of GHGs in both groups is small, 
combining the groups would both simplify reporting and reduce potential 
disclosure concerns.
    The advantage of requiring reporting by these fluorinated GHG 
groups is that it would address the disclosure concerns described above 
by avoiding the disclosure of the identities of the individual species 
that are emitted from production and transformation processes while 
still providing general information on the GWPs and atmospheric 
lifetimes of the emissions. General knowledge of the GWPs of the 
chemicals emitted is critical for distinguishing between processes 
emitting many tons of a low-GWP chemical and processes emitting a few 
tons (or kilograms) of a high-GWP chemical. While the CO2-
equivalent emissions of both processes may be the same, appropriate 
emission reduction strategies, and their cost effectiveness, may 
differ. As noted above, general information on the atmospheric 
lifetimes of emissions also helps to inform policies that focus on 
either short- or long-lived chemicals. Grouping by chemical structure 
is also consistent with current international conventions that address 
chemicals with impacts on the global atmosphere (e.g., UNFCCC, Montreal 
Protocol). Commenters supported the establishment of fluorinated GHG 
groups similar to those above.
    In comments on the Options Memorandum, 3M expressed concern that 
reporting of emissions by generically identified process, emission 
type, and fluorinated GHG group could still disclose ``trade secret 
information.'' 3M was specifically concerned that such reporting could 
reveal the number and types of process steps associated with a product 
when a facility made only one product or when a facility added a 
product between one year and the next. In the former case, the 
commenter stated that a competitor could determine production 
throughput based on the CO2e information that is reported 
under subpart OO. In the latter case, 3M argued that competitors could 
deduce the number of process steps associated with the new product or 
with manufacturing improvements by comparing reports between one year 
and the next. The commenter further stated that similar comparisons of 
data reported under subpart OO would yield information on the new 
product volume. Where manufacturing improvements changed the number of 
processes, 3M maintained that competitors could use this information to 
understand how the facility had changed its overall manufacturing 
process.
    While the EPA takes these concerns very seriously, some of the 
commenter's concerns appear to stem from competitors' potential use of 
the subpart L data in combination with production volumes reported 
under subpart OO. Production volumes reported under subpart OO have 
been determined to be CBI \8\ and therefore will not be publicly 
released by the EPA. In the absence of chemical-specific reporting or 
any identification of the product of each process, the EPA believes 
that the number of process steps, assuming this could be deduced from 
reporting, could not by itself reveal detailed information on 
manufacturing techniques. Moreover, where a facility produced multiple 
fluorinated gas products, changes in the number of processes reported 
from one year to the next could be caused either by the introduction of 
new products or by changes to the manufacturing techniques used to make 
current products, as pointed out by the commenter. The identity and 
number of products whose manufacturing techniques might have changed 
would remain unknown. Thus, the link between the changed number of 
process steps and any particular new product or improvement would be 
uncertain at best. The EPA requests comment on this issue, particularly 
on why or how the disclosure of the number of process steps would raise 
a concern (in the absence of data reported under subpart OO by product 
and facility, which will not be publicly released). Information that 
would be helpful to the Agency includes the specific information 
identified on page 81368 in the Call for Information: Information on 
Inputs to Emission Equations Under the Mandatory Reporting of 
Greenhouse Gases Rule (75 FR 81366, December 27, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 76 FR 30782; May 26, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the concern regarding the number of process steps relates to the 
characterization of each process as a reaction, distillation, or 
packaging process, one option would be to drop this characterization 
and to identify the process only as a production process, a 
transformation process where no fluorinated GHG reactant is produced at 
another facility, or a transformation process where one or more 
fluorinated GHG reactants are produced at another facility. The process 
would still be tagged with a letter or number that could be used to 
identify it from year to year. One disadvantage of this approach is 
that it would not show whether or how emission levels varied by process 
subtype. It would, however, still provide information on how emission 
levels varied by process type. Going further, the identification of the 
process as a production process or as one of the two types of 
transformation processes could also be dropped. However, if facilities 
did not identify emissions that come from transformation processes that 
transform fluorinated GHGs produced at other facilities, we would lose 
our ability to distinguish between these ``downstream'' emissions and 
the ``upstream'' emissions that result from the production and 
transformation of fluorinated gases produced on site. This would 
interfere with our ability to analyze the impacts of upstream vs. 
downstream policies. Nevertheless, we would retain critical information 
on the magnitudes and trends of emissions from each process. We request 
comment on these options.
    In the event that disclosing the number of process steps is 
demonstrated to be a concern even if processes are identified only by a 
letter or a number, the EPA is requesting comment on the option of 
requiring facilities to report total emissions, by fluorinated GHG

[[Page 69345]]

group, only for each emission type (i.e., reporting facility-level 
emissions by fluorinated GHG group, distinguishing between vented and 
leaked emissions). This approach would maintain information on 
emissions type, but would not allow the EPA to identify processes with 
high or quickly changing emissions or to analyze reduction options. The 
EPA requests comment on this approach, particularly on whether any 
reduction in the sensitivity of the data that would be reported under 
it would justify the loss of the process-specific data that would be 
reported under the first option.
b. Reporting by Chemical at the Facility Level for Fluorinated GHGs 
With Emissions Above a Threshold
    The second part of the proposed approach, reporting by chemical at 
the facility level, would supplement the process-specific reporting 
discussed above with chemical-specific reporting of fluorinated GHGs 
emitted from fluorinated gas production in quantities above a certain 
threshold. As explained in more detail below, the EPA is proposing a 
threshold of 1,000 mtCO2e but is seeking comment on other 
options. In general, reporting of emissions under the GHGRP is 
chemical-specific. For Part 98 generally, information on the identities 
and characteristics of GHGs is important for assessing their impacts on 
the atmosphere and informing policies that distinguish among chemicals 
based on their atmospheric lifetimes and GWPs.
    For subpart L, information on the identities and characteristics of 
GHGs is particularly important. First, the range of GWPs and 
atmospheric lifetimes spanned by the fluorinated GHGs is large. 
Lifetimes range from a few days (e.g., for several unsaturated 
fluorocarbons) to thousands of years (e.g., for saturated 
perfluorocarbons), while GWPs range from less than one (e.g., for 
several unsaturated fluorocarbons) to above 20,000 (e.g., for 
SF6). Often, the same fluorinated gas production facility 
may emit fluorinated GHGs at both ends of the GWP and lifetime ranges. 
Knowledge of the lifetimes of the chemicals is key to understanding how 
emissions from different processes would fit into policies that focus 
particularly on short-lived or long-lived GHGs.
    Second, chemical-specific reporting at the facility level would 
provide a useful check on the CO2e emissions reported at the 
process or process type level. Under today's proposed rule, facilities 
would report process-level emissions in CO2e only, 
introducing the possibility of errors in the assignment of GWPs (either 
arithmetic or in the choice of the GWP). Chemical-specific reporting at 
the facility level would allow the EPA to apply the appropriate GWP to 
each chemical and verify that the CO2e summed across 
chemicals matched the CO2e summed across processes.
    Third, fluorinated gas producers are a significant source for many 
fluorinated GHGs, and for some fluorinated GHGs, they are the only 
source. This makes them especially important in efforts to verify 
national and global emissions using atmospheric measurements. (Most 
fluorinated GHGs lack significant natural sources.)
    Finally, chemical-specific reporting is consistent with GHG 
Inventory reporting under the United Nations Framework Convention on 
Climate Change (UNFCCC), which encourages chemical-specific reporting. 
Under the UNFCCC, other countries report chemical-specific emissions 
from comparable fluorinated gas production facilities. For example, in 
2013 and previous years, Belgium's GHG inventory reported emissions 
from ``an electrochemical synthesis (electro-fluorination) plant, which 
emits, or has emitted SF6, CF4, 
C2F6, C3F8, 
C4F10, C5F12 and 
C6F14 as well as fluorinated greenhouse gases not 
covered by the Kyoto Protocol (among which 
CF3SF5, C7F16, 
C8F18 and C8F16O).'' \9\ 
From this plant, Belgium reported 2011 emissions of CF4, 
C4F10, C5F12, and 
C6F14 in tons of each gas. France and Italy have 
also reported chemical-specific emissions from their fluorinated gas 
production facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Belgium's Greenhouse Gas Inventory (1990-2011): National 
Inventory Report submitted under the United Nations Framework 
Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol, p. 122, and 
Table 2(II)s2, Common Reporting Format (CRF) Tables submitted by 
Belgium, April 2013. See http://unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_ghg_inventories/national_inventories_submissions/items/7383.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In comments on the Options Memorandum and in discussions with the 
EPA, fluorinated gas producers stated that even at the facility level, 
chemical-specific reporting could disclose ``trade secret . . . 
information.'' Several producers cited the (relatively rare) case in 
which a fluorinated gas production facility produces only one final 
product, in which case facility-level information may be the same as 
process-specific information. One producer, 3M, noted that even for 
facilities producing multiple products, chemical-specific reporting at 
the facility level could provide information to competitors on process 
inputs since some of the chemicals could be unique and obviously 
attributable to a specific product.
    On the other hand, 3M observed that for some facilities and under 
some reporting approaches, it was possible that chemical-specific 
reporting of certain chemicals would not be a concern. 3M pointed to 
Belgium's reporting of emissions from its electrochemical synthesis 
plant as an example. 3M observed that the plant reports chemical-
specific emissions for certain fluorinated GHGs, including those 
covered by the Kyoto Protocol and the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change (IPCC).\10\ However, the plant reports emissions of 
other fluorinated GHGs in aggregate as a separate group. (3M also 
stated that Belgium aggregates emissions from more than one fluorinated 
gas producer in its GHG inventory, although this is inconsistent with 
Belgium's description of the emissions in its National Inventory 
Report.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 3M may have meant the UNFCCC, which covers HFCs, PFCs, and 
SF6 but not other fluorocarbons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the EPA believes that reporting of chemical-specific 
emissions at the facility level would in most cases address the 
potential disclosure concerns described above associated with reporting 
of chemical-specific emissions at the process level, the EPA finds it 
plausible that in some cases, individual reporting of the full suite of 
emitted fluorinated GHGs at the facility level could disclose detailed 
process information. To address disclosure concerns associated with 
reporting all emissions by chemical while retaining information on 
fluorinated GHGs that are emitted in significant quantities, the EPA is 
proposing that facilities be required to report emissions of a 
fluorinated GHG by chemical when emissions of that fluorinated GHG 
exceed 1,000 mtCO2e for the facility as a whole. Emissions 
of fluorinated GHGs that do not exceed 1,000 mtCO2e would be 
reported by fluorinated GHG group at the facility level. This would 
reduce the number of speciated fluorinated GHGs that would be 
identified and would therefore reduce the chemical-specific information 
potentially available to competitors. During discussions between EPA 
and industry, one fluorinated gas producer indicated that chemicals 
emitted in quantities greater than one ton accounted for the vast 
majority of one facility's emissions, while accounting for a small 
fraction of the total number of chemicals emitted.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ This producer was nevertheless concerned that a quantity 
threshold could reveal detailed process information because 
chemicals that fell below the threshold one year and exceeded it the 
next would be identified in the second year, indicating that the 
scale or nature of one or more processes at the facility had 
changed. This concern is similar to the one expressed regarding the 
number of process steps being revealed by process-specific 
reporting, and EPA has similar questions regarding it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 69346]]

    A cutoff of 1,000 mtCO2e correlates to a cutoff of 0.1 
tons of fully fluorinated GHG (assuming a GWP of 10,000), 0.5 tons of 
saturated HFCs (assuming a GWP of 2,200), and 1,000 tons of unsaturated 
HFCs (assuming a GWP of 1). A GWP-weighted cutoff has the advantage of 
accounting for the potential atmospheric impact of each fluorinated 
GHG's emissions, but the EPA could also set the cutoff in terms of tons 
of chemical, e.g., at half a ton or one ton. The latter approach would 
be slightly simpler. Our goal would be to set any such cutoff at a 
level that would ensure we have chemical-specific information for the 
chemicals that are responsible for the bulk of CO2-
equivalent emissions from the facility. The EPA requests comment on the 
proposed magnitude of the cutoff.
    Where a facility produces only one fluorinated gas, the EPA is 
proposing that it be required to report emissions only by fluorinated 
GHG group unless the emissions consist of a major fluorinated GHG 
constituent of the fluorinated GHG product and that product is sold or 
transferred to another person. In this case, the facility would be 
required to report emissions of the major fluorinated GHG constituents 
of the product, which the EPA proposes to define as constituents of the 
product that individually account for more than 1 percent of the 
product by mass. The EPA is proposing this exception because where 
products are sold or otherwise transferred to other persons, those 
persons, who could presumably include competitors, could identify the 
major constituents of the product simply by chemically analyzing it. 
Thus, identifying the chemical species of the major constituents of the 
product when they are emitted would not provide any additional 
information to competitors on the product or the methods used to 
produce it. The EPA is proposing to limit this reporting to major 
constituents because information on constituents that comprise less 
than 1 percent of the product is (1) more difficult to obtain through 
chemical analysis, and (2) more likely to disclose detailed information 
regarding reactants, intermediates, and by-products of the processes 
used to make the product. This is because such reactants, 
intermediates, and by-products may occur as low-concentration 
impurities in the product. The EPA requests comment on this proposal 
and on whether and how it might disclose detailed information about the 
process.
    The EPA also requests comment on whether this exception from 
chemical-specific reporting should be expressed in terms of the number 
of processes at a facility rather than the number of products, since a 
facility that produced one fluorinated gas product but also transformed 
one or more fluorinated gases would be reporting emissions from 
multiple processes.
    Possible interaction between reporting by chemical type at the 
process level and reporting by chemical at the facility level. If there 
is only one process at a facility that emits a particular chemical 
type, and if emissions of one or more of the chemicals in that chemical 
type exceed the 1,000 mtCO2e threshold, then reporting by 
chemical at the facility level would allow competitors to deduce at 
least a subset of the chemicals that are being emitted by that process. 
We request comment on whether this situation actually arises in 
practice. Various ways of reducing the probability of this situation 
include increasing the threshold for chemical-specific reporting (e.g., 
up to 10,000 mtCO2e) and/or reducing the number of separate 
fluorinated GHG groups (e.g., to ``fully fluorinated GHGs, saturated 
HFCs and saturated HFEs, and other''). If the situation would still 
occur even with these changes, another way to address it would be to 
allow facilities that encounter it to report process-level emissions 
only as CO2e, without any designation of the chemical type. 
Affected facilities would continue to report facility emissions by 
chemical. As discussed above, process-level information on chemical 
type is important because it provides insight into potential reduction 
options; thus, we would prefer not to pursue this last approach. 
However, reporting in CO2e only would still permit us to 
understand the magnitudes and trends of emissions from each process. We 
request comment on the extent to which increasing the threshold for 
chemical-specific reporting and/or reducing the number of chemical 
types would address any revealing overlap between the chemicals 
reported at the facility level and chemical types reported at the 
process level. We also request comment on the option of allowing 
facilities affected by this overlap to report process-level emissions 
without identifying the chemical type emitted.
4. Proposal To Revise the Set of Default GWPs Used To Convert 
Fluorinated GHG Emissions Into CO2e
    The 2010 Final Rule and the temporary subpart L reporting 
provisions both include default GWPs that enable fluorinated gas 
production facilities to calculate and report emissions in 
CO2e for fluorinated GHGs that are not on Table A-1. Such 
fluorinated GHGs account for approximately 20 percent of the 
CO2e emissions reported under subpart L. The 2010 Final Rule 
includes one default GWP (2,000), while the temporary reporting 
provisions include two (10,000 for fully fluorinated GHGs; 2,000 for 
all other fluorinated GHGs).
    We are proposing to replace these default GWPs with five default 
GWPs that would significantly increase the precision and accuracy of 
the CO2e emissions calculated and reported under subpart L. 
The new default GWPs would also replace best-estimate GWPs that some 
facilities have used to report their CO2e emissions under 
the subpart L temporary reporting provisions. The default GWPs would be 
calculated and assigned based on fluorinated GHG group, and would be 
included in a new Table L-1. The default GWPs would be based on the AR4 
values for the compounds currently listed in Table A-1,\12\ and, for 
fluorinated GHGs that are not included in Table A-1, on additional GWPs 
in the recent peer-reviewed literature, specifically the Comprehensive 
Review. As indicated by its name, the Comprehensive Review consolidates 
and updates the GWPs found in the peer-reviewed literature for numerous 
halogenated compounds, including approximately 100 fluorinated GHGs 
that are not included in Table A-1. The Comprehensive Review GWPs are 
likely to be the basis of updated GWPs in the IPCC Fifth Assessment 
Report (AR5), which is expected to be completed this year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For sevoflurane, which is not included in AR4, they would 
be based on the Table A-1 value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The default GWPs would be assigned to the fluorinated GHG groups 
the EPA is proposing for process-specific reporting: (1) Fully 
fluorinated GHGs, (2) saturated HFCs, (3) saturated HFEs and saturated 
HCFEs, (4) unsaturated PFCs, unsaturated HFCs, unsaturated HCFCs, 
unsaturated HFEs, and fluorinated ketones, and (5) other GHGs. The 
proposed default GWPs for these fluorinated GHG groups are listed in 
Table 2 of this preamble.

[[Page 69347]]



  Table 2--Default GWPs Proposed for Inclusion in Table L-1 as Default
                      GWPs by Fluorinated GHG Group
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Proposed global
                Fluorinated GHG group                  warming potential
                                                           (100 yr.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fully fluorinated GHGs...............................             10,000
Saturated hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)..................              2,200
Saturated hydrofluoroethers (HFEs) and saturated                   1,600
 hydrochlorofluoroethers (HCFEs).....................
Unsaturated PFCs, unsaturated HFCs, unsaturated                        1
 HCFCs, unsaturated HFEs, and fluorinated ketones....
Other fluorinated compounds..........................                100
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in Section II.A.3.a of this preamble, the compounds 
within each group exhibit similar atmospheric lifetimes and radiative 
behavior, meaning that their GWPs fall into a relatively limited range. 
This permits default GWPs to be established with more precision than is 
possible with larger or more diverse sets of fluorinated GHGs.
    For each group, we have taken the average GWP of the group, 
rounding it to one or two significant figures. For example, to 
determine the default GWP for fully fluorinated GHGs, we determined the 
average GWP of all fully fluorinated fluorocarbons in either the 
revised Table A-1, or, for compounds not included in the revised Table 
A-1, in the Comprehensive Review. The average GWP for the fully 
fluorinated fluorocarbons is equal to 9,857. This provided the default 
GWP of 10,000 for fully fluorinated compounds.
    This approach is expected to result in an unbiased estimate of the 
GWP of each fluorinated GHG group because, at the present time, the 
GWPs of the fluorinated GHGs on Table A-1 are not expected to be any 
lower or higher, on average, than the GWPs of the fluorinated GHGs that 
are not on Table A-1. However, for the ``Other fluorinated GHG'' group, 
which is a ``catch-all'' category for fluorinated GHGs that do not fit 
into any other group, it is possible that newly synthesized types of 
compounds could have GWPs significantly different from the GWPs of the 
types of compounds that are currently in the group. Given this 
uncertainty, we are requesting comment on two alternatives. One option 
would be to establish a default GWP for this group that is equal to the 
average of the known GWPs of the current members of this group plus one 
standard deviation. This would result in a default GWP of 300 rather 
than 100 for the ``Other fluorinated GHG'' group. Another option would 
be to adopt a default GWP for this group based on the average of the 
GWPs of all fluorinated GHGs, i.e., 2000. This would recognize that the 
uncertainty associated with the GWPs of newly synthesized compound 
types may exceed that associated with the GWPs of the compound types 
currently identified as belonging to the ``other fluorinated GHG'' 
group. However, while adopting a GWP of 2000 would decrease the 
likelihood of underestimating the GWPs of new types of compounds, it 
would significantly overestimate the GWPs of the compound types that 
have been identified as belonging to this group to date.
    For the group including very short-lived, unsaturated compounds, we 
are proposing to establish a default GWP of one to simplify 
calculations, although the average GWP for the group is actually 
0.4.\13\ Using a default GWP of one would lead to an overestimate of 
CO2e emissions, but this overestimate would be extremely 
small in most cases. We request comment on this approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Comprehensive Review rounded the GWPs of many short-
lived compounds to ``1'' or ``0.'' In these cases, EPA calculated 
the exact GWP based on the radiative efficiency and atmospheric 
lifetime provided for the compound in the Comprehensive Review. The 
exact GWPs are included in ``Analysis of Potential Default GWPs for 
Fluorinated GHGs and HTFs Reported under the GHGRP.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA also requests comment on the sets of chemicals selected as 
the bases for the default GWPs. First, we are requesting comment on the 
fluorinated GHG groups proposed here. Do they capture most of the 
variability in GWPs exhibited by fluorinated GHGs? If not, what 
alternative fluorinated GHG groups would capture this variability? 
Could facilities easily determine to which fluorinated GHG group a 
particular fluorinated compound belonged?
    Second, we are requesting comment on the individual chemicals whose 
GWPs are used to establish GWPs for each fluorinated GHG group. We are 
specifically interested in comments on how to treat compounds with 
relatively high or low GWPs for their groups (i.e., outliers). Within 
the group of fully fluorinated GHGs, relatively high GWPs are generally 
a consequence of a compound's radiative efficiency (or, more precisely, 
the ratio of the compound's radiative efficiency to its molecular 
weight), which is in turn influenced by the compound's inclusion of 
bonds other than C-F bonds (e.g., S-F or N-F bonds in SF6, 
SF5CF3, and NF3) or by a cyclic 
structure (as for c-C3F6). Within the other 
fluorinated GHG groups, relatively high-GWP compounds are those that 
are relatively long-lived, such as HFC-23 among the saturated HFCs and 
HFE-125 and HFE-134 among the saturated HFEs, while relatively low-GWP 
compounds are those that are short-lived, such as HFC-152a among the 
saturated HFCs.
    To develop the proposed defaults, we have included outliers where 
we could not rule out the possibility that such outliers may also occur 
among the fluorinated GHGs whose GWPs we wish to estimate through the 
use of defaults. Thus, to estimate the default GWP for fully 
fluorinated GHGs, the EPA did not include SF6 or 
NF3, because the definition of ``fluorinated GHG'' does not 
include any other compounds whose radiatively important bonds consist 
exclusively of S-F or N-F bonds. However, we did include 
SF5CF3, because the definition of ``fluorinated 
GHG'' does include fluorocarbons, which may include S-F and N-F bonds 
in addition to C-F bonds. We also included cyclic fluorinated GHGs for 
the same reason. An analysis of how the default GWPs change based on 
the inclusion or exclusion of outliers (Analysis of Potential Default 
GWPs for Fluorinated GHGs Reported Under the GHGRP) is included in the 
docket for this rulemaking. For fully-fluorinated GHGs, the inclusion 
of SF6 and NF3 would increase the default from 
10,000 to 11,000, while the exclusion of c-C3F6 would decrease the 
default to 9,000.
    We are also requesting comment on whether fluorinated GHGs that 
contain chlorine should be included in the ``other fluorinated GHG'' 
group or in the fluorinated GHG groups in which chemically similar 
fluorinated GHGs that do not contain chlorine are included. While most 
chlorine-containing GHGs are regulated under the EPA's Stratospheric 
Ozone Protection Regulations and are therefore excluded from the 
definition of

[[Page 69348]]

``fluorinated GHG'' (and the requirements of Subpart L), some chlorine-
containing GHGs are included in the definition of ``fluorinated GHG.'' 
These include, for example, a few hydrochlorofluoroethers (HCFEs) and 
unsaturated hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). In the future, other 
chlorine-containing fluorinated GHGs may be emitted (e.g., unsaturated 
chlorofluorocarbons and unsaturated hydrobromofluorocarbons). In 
developing the proposed default GWPs, we have included current 
chlorine-containing compounds in the same groups as similar compounds 
without chlorine (grouping HCFEs with HFEs and unsaturated HCFCs with 
unsaturated HFCs), because the atmospheric lifetimes and GWPs of the 
chlorine-containing compounds are similar to those of the similar 
compounds without chlorine. The alternative would be to include the 
chlorine-containing compounds in the ``Other fluorinated GHG group,'' 
but this approach would lead to the use of less accurate default GWPs 
for the chlorine-containing compounds.
    As discussed above, the Comprehensive Review GWPs are likely to be 
the basis of the GWPs in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), which 
is expected to be completed this year. To the extent that AR5 updates 
or corrects the GWPs for some GHGs that are included in the 
Comprehensive Review (but are not included in Table A-1), we are 
proposing to use those updated values in our calculations of default 
GWPs for the final rule. (If AR5 includes GWPs rounded to zero, one, or 
two, we would use the corresponding updated radiative efficiencies and/
or atmospheric lifetimes to calculate more precise updated GWPs and use 
those more precise GWPs to calculate the relevant default(s).) We 
request comment on this approach.
    Differences between proposed default GWPs and the default GWPs in 
the subpart L temporary reporting provisions. The approach proposed in 
today's action differs from the approach taken under the temporary 
subpart L reporting provisions in two respects. First, the temporary 
subpart L reporting provisions give facilities the option to use their 
best estimate of a GWP for a compound lacking a GWP on Table A-1, as 
long as that estimate is based on the information described in 40 CFR 
98.123(c)(1)(vi)(A)(3) and is documented. Under the approach proposed 
in this action, facilities and suppliers would not have this option, 
but would use the appropriate default GWP. Second, the temporary 
subpart L reporting provisions include default GWPs for just two 
fluorinated GHG groups, ``fully fluorinated GHGs'' and ``other,'' while 
this proposed rule includes five default GWPs for five fluorinated GHG 
groups.
    There are several reasons why we are not proposing to allow 
facilities to use best-estimate GWPs in today's action. When we 
promulgated the temporary provisions, we had not collected as much 
information on the GWPs of fluorinated GHGs as we now have. Since we 
have collected this additional information and issued a NODA seeking 
public comment on potential chemical-specific GWPs, we now have a 
stronger basis for making generalizations regarding the atmospheric 
impacts of fluorinated GHG groups, particularly the five for which we 
are proposing default GWPs in this action. Dividing the set of 
fluorinated compounds into five rather than two sets also allows us to 
set default GWPs with more precision. Thus, the key reason for allowing 
facilities to develop and apply their own GWPs, which is that such 
estimates could be significantly more accurate and precise than default 
GWPs, no longer applies to the extent that it once did. Furthermore, 
the use of best-estimate GWPs has significant drawbacks.
    These drawbacks include the lack of transparency of best-estimate 
GWPs to EPA and the public and the lack of consistency of best-estimate 
GWPs across facilities emitting the same chemical. These drawbacks were 
acceptable in the context of the temporary reporting provisions, which 
were intended only to provide interim emissions estimates while the EPA 
addressed the disclosure issues raised by commenters, but they pose 
significant concerns for long-term reporting. Under the temporary 
provisions, neither best-estimate GWPs nor the data and analysis used 
to support them are reported to the EPA; thus, the reliability of this 
data and analysis, and the accuracy of the resulting GWPs, are 
difficult to ascertain. This could lead to the use of poorly supported, 
incorrect GWPs. In addition, allowing facilities to use their own best 
estimates of GWPs could result in different facilities using different 
GWPs for the same compound, reducing the comparability of emissions 
estimates across facilities. In contrast, establishing consistent 
default GWPs for compounds for use by multiple facilities would allow 
the EPA to compare emissions across facilities and to better 
characterize emission trends.
    Future Changes to Default GWPs. While the EPA would reserve the 
right to update the default GWPs as chemical-specific GWPs were 
evaluated or reevaluated for new or existing fluorinated GHGs in each 
fluorinated GHG group, we do not expect that such updates would be 
frequent. This is because the sets of fluorinated GHGs whose GWPs we 
are using as the basis for each default are relatively large, meaning 
that the addition or change of a few GWPs is not likely to have a large 
impact on the average.
5. Other Changes to Reporting Requirements
    Categorization of Effective Destruction Efficiencies: In addition 
to the changes above, we are proposing to replace the requirements to 
report process-specific activity data (including the mass of product 
produced \14\), emission factors, and destruction efficiencies with a 
requirement to identify, as a range, the level by which the emissions 
of each process are reduced or controlled, e.g., by a destruction 
device. In the proposed Inputs rule, we proposed to remove the 
requirements to report process-specific activity data, emission 
factors, and destruction efficiencies; in this action we are proposing 
to remove the requirement to report the mass of product produced. As 
discussed in an analysis supporting the proposed Inputs rule 
(``Evaluation of Competitive Harm from Disclosure of ``Inputs to 
Equations'' Data Elements Deferred to March 31, 2015,'' available in 
Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929), we have identified potential disclosure 
concerns associated with reporting of exact activity data, emission 
factors, and destruction efficiencies at the process level under 
subpart L.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Even if the mass of product produced is not used by a 
facility to estimate its emissions, it may be used in analyses of 
that facility's emission data to develop an ``implied emission 
factor'' that can be used to compare emission rates per mass of 
product produced across processes and facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to subpart L, the proposed Inputs rule addresses the 
use of activity data, emission factors, and destruction efficiencies as 
inputs to emissions calculations. In addition to being used as inputs, 
these data elements provide information that is useful for policy 
analysis for the fluorinated gas production source category. 
Specifically, they help EPA to identify processes with a large 
potential for future reductions and reduction technologies that are 
highly effective. On the one hand, processes that are relatively 
uncontrolled are likely to have a larger potential for future 
reductions than those that are already highly controlled. On the other 
hand, high levels of control imply the use of highly effective 
reduction technologies. Destruction efficiencies indicate the

[[Page 69349]]

level of control directly, while emission factors (and the activity 
data from which such factors can be deduced) can do so indirectly 
(because very low emission factors often result from high levels of 
control). While the magnitude of emissions from a process may provide 
some indication of whether or not that process is controlled, this is 
not always the case. For example, large (i.e., high-production) 
processes that emit gases with very high GWPs may be controlled but 
still have higher CO2e emissions than smaller, uncontrolled 
processes that emit gases with lower GWPs. The wide range of GWPs of 
the gases that are emitted from fluorinated gas production facilities 
introduce a source of uncertainty into data from these facilities that 
is generally absent from the data from other types of facilities.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Note that reporting process emissions by chemical type 
would reduce but not eliminate this uncertainty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed requirement for facilities to report, as a range, the 
level of control of each process would directly address this issue. We 
are proposing four ranges into which facilities would bin the level of 
control of processes. These ranges are shown in Table 3 of this 
preamble.

         Table 3--Proposed Ranges for Reporting Reduction Levels
                                [mtCO2e]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Range of uncontrolled
            Range of reductions               emissions associated with
                                              emissions of 1,000 mtCO2e
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>99%......................................  100,000 to >10,000,000 *.
95% to 99%................................  20,000 to 100,000.
75% to 95%................................  4,000 to 20,000.
0% to 75%.................................  1,000 to 4,000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The 10 million figure assumes a reduction of 99.99 percent (e.g.,
  destruction to ``four nines''); higher reduction percentages would
  lead to higher upper bounds.

    The ranges are designed to provide useful information on the level 
of control for each process while also protecting detailed information 
regarding the mass of material removed from the process (e.g., as one 
or more by-products) and vented to the destruction device or 
atmosphere. Each range of reductions corresponds to a range of 
uncontrolled emissions that spans a factor of four or more, resulting 
in a large zone of uncertainty around the masses of vented process 
streams. At the same time, however, the ranges are small enough to 
distinguish between highly controlled processes, processes with 
intermediate levels of control, and processes that are relatively 
uncontrolled.
    The uncertainty created by the ranges of reduction levels would be 
in addition to the uncertainty around the masses of vented process 
streams that would result from reporting emissions by fluorinated GHG 
group rather than by individual chemical. The GWPs for each fluorinated 
GHG group have relative standard deviations ranging from 40 percent 
(for fully fluorinated GHGs) to over 100 percent (for all the other 
fluorinated GHG groups), resulting in similar uncertainty ranges for 
chemical-specific emissions (both controlled and uncontrolled). Given 
the uncertainty associated with reporting by fluorinated GHG group, we 
are considering requiring facilities to report their precise level of 
reduction for each process rather than the range of that reduction. 
This would provide more detailed information regarding the reduction 
and may actually be simpler than placing the level of reduction in a 
range. One potential issue regarding this approach is that the level of 
uncertainty (around the masses of vented process streams) that results 
from reporting emissions by fluorinated GHG group is relatively low 
(i.e., a relative standard deviation of less than 50%) for some groups 
(e.g., fully fluorinated GHGs), which could result in disclosure 
concerns for facilities that make one product. We request comment on 
this alternative.
    The EPA also considered requiring facilities to indicate simply 
whether or not each process is controlled. However, for processes that 
are completely uncontrolled, this approach raises issues similar to 
those raised by reporting the precise level of reduction. This is 
because, for uncontrolled processes, the level of reduction would be 
precisely specified as zero. In the approach we are proposing, a 
facility with uncontrolled emissions from a process would bin that 
process in the zero- to 75-percent controlled category, whose 
corresponding uncontrolled emissions span a factor of four. However, we 
request comment on requiring facilities to indicate only whether or not 
each process is controlled.
    To calculate the level of reductions, we are proposing that 
facilities consider both the destruction efficiency (DE) and the 
downtime (or uptime) of the destruction device. Downtime can have a 
large impact on the effective destruction efficiency of destruction 
devices; for example, a device with a nominal DE of 99.99 percent that 
experiences 5 percent downtime will have an effective destruction 
efficiency of 95 percent. The level of reductions or effective 
destruction efficiency would be equated to one minus the ratio between 
the actual emissions from the process (i.e., accounting for any 
controls) and the uncontrolled emissions from the process (i.e., the 
emissions that would have occurred in the absence of controls), 
expressed in CO2e. This calculation would not require 
facilities to gather any additional data, and we anticipate that it 
would be automated through the inputs verification tool, meaning that 
there would be essentially no additional burden associated with it for 
reporters. However, to the extent that some burden may exist, we 
request comment on the option of requiring reporting of effective 
destruction efficiencies only for processes with emissions over a 
certain threshold, e.g., 10,000 mtCO2e.
    Because we are proposing to remove the option to use the mass-
balance approach, and because very few facilities have used this 
approach to date, our preference is not to require reporting of the 
effective destruction efficiency for processes whose emissions were 
estimated using the mass-balance approach. However, we request comment 
on this.
    Reporting for scoping speciation. We are also proposing to remove 
the requirements that facilities report the contents, location, and 
function of the streams analyzed under the scoping speciation (40 CFR 
98.124(a)). Facilities would simply keep records of this information as 
currently required under 40 CFR 98.127(b). We agree with the comments 
on the proposed CBI determinations that the contents of emitted 
streams, which we had proposed to be emission data, would reveal the 
same types of process information as would be revealed by chemical-
specific reporting of process level emissions under 40 CFR 98.126. In 
view of this concern, we reviewed the role of this data element in the 
GHGRP. The contents, location, and function of tested streams provide 
background on emission estimates that is analogous to the background 
provided by emissions test data. (Facilities are currently required to 
keep records of, but not report, emissions test data under 40 CFR 
98.127(d)(4).) This background information is important for ensuring 
that facilities have correctly complied with subpart L's monitoring 
requirements, but it is not essential to verify emission calculations 
or to inform policy. Thus, we are proposing to require recordkeeping as 
opposed to reporting of the contents, location, and function of tested 
streams, consistent with the approach we have taken with

[[Page 69350]]

emissions test data under 40 CFR 98.127(d)(4).
6. Reporting Emissions From Destruction of Previously Produced 
Fluorinated GHGs and From Venting of Residual Fluorinated GHGs From 
Containers
    In addition to emissions from fluorinated gas production and 
transformation processes, facilities covered by subpart L are required 
to report emissions of each fluorinated GHG from destruction of 
previously produced fluorinated GHGs and from venting of residual 
fluorinated GHGs from containers (40 CFR 98.126(g) and (h)). The 
commenters did not include these data elements among those that they 
identified as posing a risk of revealing trade secrets or violating 
export control laws regulations. Therefore, the EPA is not proposing to 
amend the reporting of these emissions. The EPA notes that these data 
elements would include the identification of the fluorinated GHG 
products being destroyed or vented. As discussed above, competitors can 
assess the contents of a fluorinated gas producer's final products 
(unlike intermediates) simply by purchasing the products and analyzing 
their contents.
7. Submission of Full GHG Reports for Reporting Year 2011, 2012, and 
2013
    In the final rule published on August 24, 2012, the EPA deferred 
detailed reporting of reporting year (RY) 2011 and 2012 emissions under 
subpart L until March 31, 2014 (or, if the data element was deferred 
under the Inputs rule, until the date set forth for that data element 
at 40 CFR 98.3(c)(4)(vii) and Table A-7 of subpart A). In the Proposed 
2013 Revisions Rule, we proposed to further defer detailed reporting of 
RY 2011, 2012, and 2013 emissions until March 31, 2015. Instead of 
requiring facilities to report their RY 2011, 2012, and 2013 emissions 
at the level of detail specified in the 2010 Final Rule, we are today 
proposing to require facilities to report those emissions at the level 
of detail specified in this rule.
    When subpart L reporters submit their full annual reports for RY 
2011, 2012, and 2013, we are also proposing to require them to report 
emissions using the Table A-1 GWPs in effect on the reporting deadline 
as specified in 40 CFR 98.3(b), and the default GWPs established 
through this rulemaking. This would ensure that the emissions reported 
under subpart L for RY 2011, 2012, and 2013 are based on the same GWPs 
as emissions reported for subsequent reporting years, avoiding the 
appearance of trends that are caused solely by inconsistent GWPs. In 
the Proposed 2013 Revisions Rule, the EPA proposed to apply the GWPs 
proposed in that rule to emissions reported for Reporting Years 2010, 
2011, and 2012. However, as noted in the Proposed 2013 Revisions Rule, 
we cannot apply revised GWPs with any precision to the less detailed 
subpart L reports received under the August 24, 2012 rule that deferred 
full subpart L reporting, because those reports do not include 
chemical-specific emissions data (78 FR 19834).\16\ Moreover, we are 
proposing that facilities submit RY 2011, 2012, and 2013 reports with 
the level of detail specified in this action. Since the subpart L 
facilities would be submitting their reports with the level of detail 
specified in this action, the incremental burden associated with 
applying the GWPs established in the 2013 Revisions Rule and in this 
rulemaking to the previously deferred RY 2011, 2012, and 2013 reports 
would be negligible, while the benefit, a consistent time series, would 
be considerable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Applying revised GWPs to the emissions reported under this 
proposed rule would also involve uncertainty, as many emitted 
chemicals are likely to fall under the proposed threshold for 
chemical-specific reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Proposal To Remove the Mass-Balance Approach From Subpart L

    The 2010 Final Rule included three methods for calculating 
emissions of fluorinated GHGs from fluorinated gas production:
    (1) The process-vent specific emission factor method, which 
requires facilities to conduct emissions testing to determine an 
emission factor for the vent;
    (2) The process-vent specific emission calculation factor method, 
which requires facilities to use certain engineering calculation or 
assessment methods to calculate an emission factor for the vent and 
which may be applied to batch processes and to continuous process vents 
with emissions of less than 10,000 mtCO2e, and
    (3) The mass-balance method, which requires facilities to track and 
measure the fluorine-containing compounds that are added to or removed 
from the process, including reactants, by-products and products, to 
determine emissions from the process.
    We are proposing to remove the mass-balance method. As observed in 
the preamble to the 2009 proposed rule and 2010 Final Rule, the mass-
balance method requires very precise and accurate concentration and 
flow measurements in order to provide a reasonably precise and accurate 
estimate of emissions. For this reason, facilities that wish to use the 
mass-balance method are required to review the accuracy and precision 
of their measurement systems and to calculate the absolute and relative 
errors of the estimates that they would develop using the mass-balance 
method. If these calculations show that the absolute and relative 
errors would fall above certain limits for a process, facilities are 
not allowed to use the mass-balance method for that process. However, 
at least one facility that believed it was eligible to use the mass-
balance method calculated an impossible result (negative emissions) 
when it attempted to use this method. This indicates that the error 
limits (which should have prohibited such a result) may be difficult to 
calculate and apply. Without the error limits, the mass-balance method 
is not viable. Finally, only two facilities reporting emissions in 2012 
or 2013 indicated that they had used the mass-balance method to 
estimate emissions from any process, and both facilities indicated that 
they were no longer using this method when contacted by the EPA. Thus, 
we do not expect that the removal of this method will result in a 
significant burden for subpart L reporters. However, we request comment 
on this issue, on the proposed removal of the mass-balance method, and 
on the rationale presented here.
    Our intent is that facilities submitting reports in 2015 of RY 
2011, 2012, 2013, or 2014 emissions estimated using the mass-balance 
method would be able to refer to its provisions even after it is 
removed from subpart L. We are proposing to revise subpart L to inform 
interested parties that the full text of the mass-balance method is 
available as part of the 2010 final rule (75 FR 74774, 74832-74837, 
74843-74845). Another option would be to include the full text of the 
mass-balance method as an appendix to part 98. We are seeking comment 
on whether that option would have any advantages over referring 
interested parties to the 2010 final rule.
    Because two facilities have used the mass-balance method to 
estimate their emissions during previous reporting years, we are 
proposing to retain certain reporting requirements associated with that 
approach (i.e., for purposes of reporting RY 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 
emissions in 2015) as well as the corresponding recordkeeping 
requirements. However, we are proposing to remove several other 
reporting elements for the mass-balance method. In some cases, we are 
proposing to remove these elements because they involve reporting 
emissions by chemical and by process,

[[Page 69351]]

and, as discussed above, we are proposing to replace such reporting 
with less detailed reporting under subpart L. The data elements that 
fall into this category include the masses and chemical formulas for 
the fluorinated GHG reactants, products, and by-products emitted. In 
other cases, we are proposing to remove these elements because they 
would no longer be useful given the proposed removal of the requirement 
to report associated data elements under the proposed Inputs rule. The 
data elements that fall into this category include the chemical 
formulas for the fluorine-containing reactant fed or removed, for the 
product produced or removed, and for the by-product removed; and the 
fractions of the mass emitted that consist of fluorine-containing 
reactants, products, and by-products.

C. Clarifications to the Emission Factor Approach of Subpart L

    The EPA is proposing to amend subpart L to clarify that facilities 
using the emission factor approach to estimate their emissions are 
required, in future testing, to test for any fluorinated GHG identified 
in the scoping speciation, and to report emissions of all fluorinated 
GHGs that are identified in the scoping speciation. Emissions that fall 
below the detection limit of the measurement technology would be 
required to be reported at one half of that limit. (Note that if the 
emissions of a particular fluorinated GHG fell below 1,000 
mtCO2e for the facility as a whole, those emissions would be 
reported in CO2e only.) This change would be implemented by 
removing references to fluorinated GHGs that ``occur in more than trace 
concentrations'' and replacing them with references to fluorinated GHGs 
``identified under the initial scoping speciation.''
    As noted in the April 12, 2010 proposed rule, one of the purposes 
of the scoping speciation is ``to identify by-products to measure in 
subsequent emissions testing to develop emission factors'' (75 FR 
18674). However, the regulatory text in the 2010 Subpart L Final Rule 
did not explicitly require facilities to include the fluorinated GHGs 
identified under the scoping speciation in the testing. This amendment 
would address that oversight. Due to the high GWPs of many fluorinated 
GHGs, even fluorinated GHGs that are emitted only at trace 
concentrations (i.e., in concentrations of less than 0.1 percent of the 
emissions stream) can account for significant CO2e emissions 
from the facility. Thus, it is important to include them in emissions 
testing and emissions estimates.
    Other proposed amendments to subpart L and proposed harmonizing 
amendments to subpart A. As discussed in Section II.A.4 of this 
preamble, the EPA is proposing to revise the set of default GWPs 
applied to fluorinated GHGs that do not have GWPs in Table A-1. To 
implement those changes, we are proposing additional revisions to 
subpart L. We are proposing a revision to 40 CFR 98.123(a) regarding 
the default GWPs that should be used when Table A-1 GWPs are not 
available for fluorinated GHGs emitted from a process. We are proposing 
to delete the use of a default GWP of 2,000 and proposing to add use of 
the appropriate default from Table L-1 for the fluorinated GHG group to 
which the compound would belong. We are proposing similar changes to 40 
CFR 98.123(c)(1)(v) and 98.124(c)(2). We are also proposing to delete 
the last sentence in 40 CFR 98.123(a), which states that fluorinated 
GHGs should not be reported under 40 CFR 98.3(c)(4) of subpart A when 
the GWP is not listed in Table A-1.
    In addition, we are proposing to remove and reserve 40 CFR 
98.123(c)(1)(vi), which establishes a process under which facilities 
may request, for fluorinated GHGs whose GWPs are not included in Table 
A-1, to use provisional GWPs for their preliminary calculation of 
emissions under 40 CFR 98.123(c)(1). We established this process in 
recognition of the fact that the default GWP value that is currently 
provided for these calculations, 2000, would overestimate emissions 
from process vents in some cases, inappropriately requiring facilities 
to perform stack tests for these vents. With the establishment of five 
default GWPs, which would allow considerably more precise estimates of 
CO2e emissions than the previous single default value of 
2000, we have concluded that this provision would no longer be 
necessary. However, we request comment on this. If we were to retain 
the provision, we would amend it to replace the February 2011 due date 
for requests to use a provisional GWP with a more general due date that 
allows facilities to request provisional GWPs in the future. 
Specifically, facilities would be required to submit their requests by 
February 28 of the reporting year for those emissions they wish to 
estimate using the emission calculation factor approach.
    We are also proposing a technical correction to Equation L-33 of 
subpart L. Equation L-33 is used to determine the mass of fluorinated 
GHG emitted from venting of residual fluorinated GHGs in containers, 
when pressure is the monitored parameter. Although the current Equation 
L-33 includes the appropriate basis for the estimate, i.e., a form of 
the ideal gas law, the equation is not solved for the desired variable, 
the mass of residual gas in the container, in kilograms. The EPA is 
proposing a new Equation L-33 that directly calculates this variable. 
Because the amended equation is based on the same input parameters as 
the current equation, the correction does not result in additional 
requirements.
    In addition, the EPA is proposing a technical clarification to 40 
CFR 98.124(c)(2) of subpart L. Paragraph (c)(2) includes a term or 
acronym, ``RSD,'' that is not defined within the rule. The EPA has 
added the term ``relative standard deviation (RSD)'' in the second 
sentence in 40 CFR 98.124(c)(2) to clarify the meaning of the term in 
the regulatory text.
    We are also proposing changes to subpart A to harmonize subpart A 
reporting with subpart L reporting for fluorinated gas production 
facilities. These include changes to 40 CFR 98.2(b)(1), which 
establishes the set of gases to include in the threshold calculation, 
40 CFR 98.2(b)(4), which includes Equation A-1 for calculating 
CO2e, 40 CFR 98.3(c)(4)(iii)(E), which establishes the set 
of gases to include in annual reporting of emissions in tons of 
chemical, and 40 CFR 98.3(c)(4)(vi), which establishes the set of gases 
to include in annual reporting of emissions in CO2e.

D. Overview and Approach to Proposed CBI Determinations

    In this action, the EPA is proposing confidentiality determinations 
for each of the 15 reporting data elements proposed to be added or 
substantially revised, as previously discussed in Section II.A of this 
preamble. To make these determinations, the EPA is using the same 
approach that the EPA previously used for the 2011 final CBI rule (76 
FR 30782, May 26, 2011). Specifically, the EPA is assigning each of 
these 15 data elements to one of 11 direct emitter data categories,\17\ 
based on the type and characteristics of the data elements. For a 
description of each data category and the type and characteristics of 
data elements assigned to each category, see Sections II.C and II.D of 
the July 7, 2010 CBI proposal preamble (75 FR 39106-39130).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Since subpart L is a direct emitter source category, the 
data elements are assigned to the direct emitter data categories.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 69352]]

    Based on its evaluation of these 15 data elements, the EPA is 
proposing that each data element be assigned to one of the following 
direct emitter data categories:
     Emissions.
     Calculation Methodology and Methodological Tier.
     Facility and Unit Identifier Information.
     Unit/Process ``Static'' Characteristics that are Not 
Inputs to Emission Equations.
     Unit/Process Operating Characteristics That are Not Inputs 
to Emission Equations
    In the 2011 final CBI rule (76 FR 30782, May 26, 2011), the EPA 
made categorical determinations that all data elements assigned to the 
``Emissions,'' ``Calculation Methodology and Methodological Tier,'' and 
``Facility and Unit Identifier Information'' data categories meet the 
definition of ``emission data'' in 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i) and, thus, are 
not entitled to confidential treatment. Among the 15 proposed new or 
substantially revised reporting data elements, the EPA is proposing, as 
shown in Table 4A of this preamble, that seven data elements be 
assigned to the ``Emissions'' data category, four data elements be 
assigned to the ``Calculation Methodology and Methodological Tier'' 
category, and 1 data element be assigned to the ``Facility and Unit 
Identifier Information'' data category, thereby applying the 
categorical confidentiality determinations made for these categories in 
the 2011 final CBI rule to each of these reporting data elements. This 
proposal is not changing, nor soliciting comment on, the determination 
that these three data categories are ``emission data,'' as finalized in 
the 2011 CBI rule. Should the EPA finalize the category assignment for 
these data elements, they will be considered ``emission data'' and, as 
such, not entitled to confidential treatment.

  Table 4A--Data Elements Proposed To Be Assigned to the ``Emissions,''
 ``Calculation Methodology and Methodological Tier,'' and ``Facility and
              Unit Identifier Information'' Data Categories
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Proposed new or
             Proposed citation               substantially revised data
                                                       element
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       ``Emissions'' Data Category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 98.126(a)(3).......................  For facilities with multiple
                                             fluorinated gas products:
                                             For each generically-
                                             identified process and each
                                             fluorinated GHG group,
                                             total GWP-weighted
                                             emissions of all
                                             fluorinated GHGs in that
                                             group emitted from the
                                             process, in metric tons
                                             CO2e.
40 CFR 98.126(a)(4)(i)....................  For facilities with multiple
                                             fluorinated gas products:
                                             For each fluorinated GHG
                                             with emissions of 1,000
                                             metric tons of CO2e or more
                                             from the facility as a
                                             whole, the total mass in
                                             metric tons of the
                                             fluorinated GHG emitted
                                             from the facility as a
                                             whole.
40 CFR 98.126(a)(4)(ii)...................  For facilities with multiple
                                             fluorinated gas products:
                                             Aggregated total GWP-
                                             weighted emissions of all
                                             other fluorinated GHGs by
                                             fluorinated GHG group for
                                             the facility as a whole, in
                                             metric tons of CO2e.
40 CFR 98.126(a)(5).......................  For facilities that produce
                                             only one fluorinated gas
                                             product: Aggregated total
                                             GWP-weighted emissions of
                                             fluorinated GHGs by
                                             fluorinated GHG group for
                                             the facility as a whole, in
                                             metric tons of CO2e.
40 CFR 98.126(a)(5).......................  Where facilities produce
                                             only one fluorinated gas
                                             product but emissions
                                             consist of a major
                                             fluorinated GHG constituent
                                             of that fluorinated gas
                                             product, and the product is
                                             sold or transferred to
                                             another person: Total mass
                                             in metric tons of each
                                             fluorinated GHG emitted
                                             that is a major fluorinated
                                             GHG constituent of the
                                             product.
40 CFR 98.126(c)(3).......................  For the emission factor and
                                             emission factor calculation
                                             method: For each
                                             fluorinated GHG group, the
                                             total GWP-weighted mass of
                                             all fluorinated GHGs in
                                             that group emitted from all
                                             process vents combined, in
                                             metric tons of CO2e.
40 CFR 98.126(c)(4).......................  For the emission factor and
                                             emission factor calculation
                                             method: For each
                                             fluorinated GHG group, the
                                             total GWP-weighted mass of
                                             all fluorinated GHGs in
                                             that group emitted from
                                             equipment leaks, in metric
                                             tons of CO2e.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ``Calculation Methodology and Methodological Tier'' Data Category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 98.126(a)(2)(iv)...................  For each generically-
                                             identified fluorinated gas
                                             production and
                                             transformation process and
                                             each fluorinated GHG group
                                             at the facility: The
                                             methods used to determine
                                             the mass emissions of that
                                             fluorinated GHG group from
                                             that process from process
                                             vents.
40 CFR 98.126(a)(2)(v)....................  For each generically-
                                             identified fluorinated gas
                                             production and
                                             transformation process and
                                             each fluorinated GHG group
                                             at the facility: The
                                             methods used to determine
                                             the mass emissions of that
                                             fluorinated GHG group from
                                             that process from equipment
                                             leaks.
40 CFR 98.126(b)(1).......................  For the mass-balance
                                             approach: The overall
                                             absolute and relative
                                             errors calculated for the
                                             process under paragraph
                                             Sec.   98.123(b)(1), in
                                             tons and decimal fraction,
                                             respectively.
40 CFR 98.126(b)(2).......................  For the mass-balance
                                             approach: The method used
                                             to estimate the total mass
                                             of fluorine in destroyed or
                                             recaptured streams (specify
                                             Sec.   98.123(b)(4) or
                                             (15)).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       ``Facility and Unit Identifier Information'' Data Category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 98.126(a)(2)(i)....................  For each generically-
                                             identified production and
                                             transformation process at
                                             the facility: A number,
                                             letter, or other identifier
                                             for the process.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is proposing to assign two proposed new data elements to 
the ``Unit/Process `Static' Characteristics that are Not Inputs to 
Emission Equations'' category and one proposed new data element to the 
``Unit/Process Operating Characteristics That are Not Inputs to 
Emission Equations'' category. In the 2011 final CBI rule, the EPA 
determined that the data elements in these categories are not 
``emission data'' (as defined at 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i)). However, 
instead of categorical determinations, the EPA made confidentiality 
determinations for individual data elements assigned to these 
categories. In proposing these determinations, the EPA considered the 
confidentiality criteria at 40 CFR 2.208, in particular whether release 
of the data is likely to cause substantial harm to the business's 
competitive position. See 40 CFR 2.208(e)(1). The EPA is therefore 
following the same approach in this

[[Page 69353]]

action for the proposed new reporting elements assigned to these 
categories.
    Table 4B of this preamble lists the proposed new data elements that 
the EPA proposes to assign to these data categories and presents the 
EPA's rationale for proposing to determine that none of these data 
elements qualifies as CBI.

 Table 4B--Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for Proposed New Data 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'' Data Categories
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             Proposed rationale
                Citation                      Data element            Confidentiality        for confidentiality
                                                                       determination            determination
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Unit/Process `Static' Characteristics That Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 98.126(a)(2)(ii)................  For each generically-  Not CBI...................  This data element
                                          identified                                         would reveal only
                                          production and                                     general information
                                          transformation                                     about the type of
                                          process at the                                     operation, which
                                          facility: Indication                               would not reveal
                                          of whether the                                     any information
                                          process is a                                       about the
                                          fluorinated gas                                    production process
                                          production process,                                (e.g., number of
                                          a fluorinated gas                                  process steps,
                                          transformation                                     manufacturing
                                          process where no                                   efficiencies, novel
                                          fluorinated GHG                                    productions
                                          reactant is produced                               methods) that would
                                          at another facility,                               allow competitors
                                          or a fluorinated gas                               to gain a
                                          transformation                                     competitive
                                          process where one or                               advantage.
                                          more fluorinated GHG
                                          reactants are
                                          produced at another
                                          facility.
40 CFR 98.126(a)(2)(iii)...............  For each generically-  Not CBI...................  This data element
                                          identified                                         would reveal only a
                                          production and                                     general description
                                          transformation                                     of the type of
                                          process at the                                     production process,
                                          facility: Indication                               which would not
                                          of whether the                                     reveal any
                                          process could be                                   information about
                                          characterized as                                   the process (e.g.,
                                          reaction,                                          number of process
                                          distillation, or                                   steps,
                                          packaging.                                         manufacturing
                                                                                             efficiencies, novel
                                                                                             productions
                                                                                             methods) that would
                                                                                             allow competitors
                                                                                             to gain a
                                                                                             competitive
                                                                                             advantage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Unit/Process Operating Characteristics That Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 98.126(a)(7)....................  For each generically   Not CBI...................  This data element
                                          identified process,                                would place the
                                          the range in Table L-                              effective
                                          1 that encompasses                                 destruction
                                          the effective                                      efficiency for the
                                          destruction                                        process in a range.
                                          efficiency,                                        For any given level
                                          DEeffective,                                       of emissions, this
                                          calculated for that                                range would
                                          process using                                      correspond to a
                                          Equation L-35, based                               range of masses
                                          on CO2e.                                           vented to the
                                                                                             destruction device
                                                                                             that spanned a
                                                                                             factor of four or
                                                                                             more. Thus, even if
                                                                                             competitors had a
                                                                                             rough estimate of
                                                                                             the quantity of the
                                                                                             product produced
                                                                                             (e.g., from sources
                                                                                             other than the
                                                                                             GHGRP), this
                                                                                             information would
                                                                                             not reveal any
                                                                                             information about
                                                                                             the process (e.g.,
                                                                                             manufacturing
                                                                                             efficiencies) that
                                                                                             would allow
                                                                                             competitors to gain
                                                                                             a competitive
                                                                                             advantage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is requesting comment on two aspects of these 
confidentiality determinations. First, the EPA seeks comment on the 
proposed data category assignment for each of these data elements in 
Tables 4A and 4B. We specifically seek comments identifying which 
proposed new data elements may be incorrectly assigned, a detailed 
explanation of why they may be incorrectly assigned, and a 
recommendation regarding the data category to which they should be 
assigned.
    Second, for those data elements assigned to the direct emitter data 
category without categorical confidentiality determinations (i.e., the 
data elements in Table 4B), the EPA seeks comment on the individual 
confidentiality determinations we are proposing for these data 
elements. We specifically request comment, including detailed rationale 
and supporting information, on whether the data element does or does 
not qualify for confidential treatment.

III. 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 not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is 
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not increase information collection burden. These 
proposed amendments to subpart L reduce the level of detail with which 
emissions are reported and therefore could potentially reduce the 
reporting burden. The OMB has previously approved the information 
collection requirements for subpart L under 40 CFR part 98 under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and 
has assigned OMB control number 2060-0629.
    Further information on the EPA's assessment on the impact on burden 
can be found in the 2013 Amendments to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting 
Rule for the Fluorinated Gas Production Source Category Cost Memo in 
docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a

[[Page 69354]]

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as 
defined by the Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR 
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of 
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of these proposed rule 
amendments on small entities, I certify that this action will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. This rule affects fluorinated gas producers, none of which 
are small entities.
    Further, the EPA took several steps to reduce the impact of 40 CFR 
part 98 on small entities when developing the final GHG Reporting Rules 
in 2009 and 2010. 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. Finally, the EPA continues to 
conduct significant outreach on the GHG reporting program and maintains 
an ``open door'' policy for stakeholders to help inform the EPA's 
understanding of key issues for the industries.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    The proposed rule amendments do not contain a Federal mandate that 
may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, 
and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 
one year. Thus, the proposed rule amendments are not subject to the 
requirements of section 202 and 205 of the UMRA. This rule is also not 
subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains 
no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments. Facilities subject to the rule include fluorinated 
gas producers. None of the facilities currently known to undertake 
these activities is owned by a small government. Therefore, this action 
is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

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, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132. For a more detailed discussion 
about how Part 98 relates to existing state programs, please see 
Section II of the preamble to the final Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule 
(74 FR 56266, October 30, 2009).
    The proposed amendments apply to facilities that produce 
fluorinated gases. They would not apply to governmental entities unless 
the governmental entity owns a facility that produces fluorinated 
gases. We are not aware of any governmental entities that would be 
affected. This regulation also does not limit the power of States or 
localities to collect GHG data and/or regulate GHG emissions. Thus, 
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
    Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this 
action, the EPA did consult with State and local officials or 
representatives of State and local governments in developing subpart L, 
promulgated on December 1, 2010. A summary of the EPA's consultations 
with State and local governments is provided in Section VIII.E of the 
preamble to the 2009 final rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between the EPA and State and local 
governments, the EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed 
action from State and local officials.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The proposed 
amendments apply to facilities that produce fluorinated gases. They 
would not have tribal implications unless the tribal entity owns a 
facility that produces fluorinated gases. We are not aware of any 
tribal facilities that would be affected. Thus, Executive Order 13175 
does not apply to this action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health 
or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of 
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This 
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not 
establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or 
safety risks.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 
May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 
the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory 
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA to provide 
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the EPA decides not to use 
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. 
Therefore, the EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary 
consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.

[[Page 69355]]

    The EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not 
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the 
environment because it is a rule addressing information collection and 
reporting procedures.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 98

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Greenhouse gases, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 7, 2013.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 98 of title 40, 
chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended 
as follows:

PART 98--MANDATORY GREENHOUSE GAS REPORTING

0
1. The authority citation for part 98 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

Subpart A--General Provision

0
2. Section 98.2 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(4).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  98.2  Who must report?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Calculate the annual emissions of CO2, 
CH4, N2O, and each fluorinated GHG in metric tons 
from all applicable source categories listed in paragraph (a)(2) of 
this section. The GHG emissions shall be calculated using the 
calculation methodologies specified in each applicable subpart and 
available company records. Include emissions of only those gases listed 
in Table A-1 of this subpart, except fluorinated gas production 
facilities must calculate and report CO2e for all 
fluorinated GHGs whose emissions they are required to report under 
subpart L of this part. For fluorinated GHGs that are not included on 
Table A-1, fluorinated gas production facilities must use the default 
GWP provided in Table L-1 to subpart L of this part for the fluorinated 
GHG group of which the GHG is a member.
* * * * *
    (4) Sum the emissions estimates from paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and 
(b)(3) of this section for each GHG and calculate metric tons of 
CO2e using Equation A-1 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO13.004


Where:

CO2e = Carbon dioxide equivalent, metric tons/year.
GHGi = Mass emissions of each greenhouse gas, metric 
tons/year.
GWPi = Global warming potential for each greenhouse gas 
from Table A-1 of this subpart. For each fluorinated GHG not listed 
in Table A-1, fluorinated gas production facilities reporting under 
subpart L of this part must use the default GWP provided in Table L-
1 to subpart L of this part for the fluorinated GHG group of which 
the GHG is a member.
n = The number of greenhouse gases emitted.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 98.3 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(E); and 
(c)(4)(vi).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  98.3  What are the general monitoring, reporting, recordkeeping, 
and verification requirements of this part?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (E) Each fluorinated GHG (as defined in Sec.  98.6), including 
those not listed in Table A-1 of this subpart, except fluorinated gas 
production facilities must comply with Sec.  98.126(a) rather than this 
paragraph (c)(4)(iii)(E).
* * * * *
    (vi) When applying paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section to 
fluorinated GHGs and fluorinated heat transfer fluids, calculate and 
report CO2e for only those fluorinated GHGs listed in Table 
A-1 of this subpart, except fluorinated gas production facilities must 
calculate and report CO2e for all fluorinated GHGs whose 
emissions they are required to report under subpart L of this part. For 
fluorinated GHGs that are not included on Table A-1 of this subpart, 
fluorinated gas production facilities must use the default GWP provided 
in Table L-1 to subpart L of this part for the fluorinated GHG group of 
which the GHG is a member.
* * * * *

Subpart L--Fluorinated Gas Production

0
4. Section 98.122 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (c); and
0
b. Adding paragraphs (d), (e) and (f).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  98.122  GHGs to report.

* * * * *
    (c) Process level. You must report, for each fluorinated GHG group, 
the total GWP-weighted mass of all fluorinated GHGs in that group (in 
metric tons CO2e) emitted from:
    (1) Each fluorinated gas production process.
    (2) Each fluorinated gas transformation process that is not part of 
a fluorinated gas production process and where no fluorinated GHG 
reactant is produced at another facility.
    (3) Each fluorinated gas transformation process that is not part of 
a fluorinated gas production process and where one or more fluorinated 
GHG reactants are produced at another facility.
    (d) Facility level, multiple products. If your facility produces 
more than one fluorinated gas product, you must report the emissions 
(in metric tons) for the facility as a whole of each fluorinated GHG 
that is emitted from the facility as a whole in quantities of 1,000 
metric tons of CO2e or more. Aggregate and report emissions 
of all other fluorinated GHGs by fluorinated GHG group for the facility 
as a whole, in metric tons of CO2e.
    (e) Facility level, one product only. If your facility produces 
only one fluorinated gas product, aggregate and report the GWP-weighted 
emissions of fluorinated GHGs by fluorinated GHG group for the facility 
as a whole, in metric tons CO2e, with the following 
exception: Where emissions consist of a major fluorinated GHG 
constituent of a fluorinated gas product, and the product is sold or 
transferred to another person, report the total mass of each 
fluorinated GHG emitted that is a major fluorinated GHG constituent of 
the product (in metric tons).
    (f) You must report the total mass of each fluorinated GHG emitted 
(in metric tons) from:
    (1) Each fluorinated gas destruction process that is not part of a 
fluorinated gas production process or a fluorinated gas transformation 
process and all such fluorinated gas destruction processes combined.

[[Page 69356]]

    (2) Venting of residual fluorinated GHGs from containers returned 
from the field.
0
5. Section 98.123 is amended by:
0
a. Revising introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraph (a);
0
c. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
0
d. Removing paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(16);
0
e. Revising paragraph (c)(1)(v);
0
f. Removing and reserving paragraph (c)(1)(vi);
0
g. Redesignating paragraphs (e)(i) and (e)(ii) as paragraphs (e)(1) and 
(e)(2), respectively;
0
h. Revising paragraph (g)(1);
0
i. Revising paragraph (g)(2)(ii);
0
j. Revising paragraph (g)(2)(iv); and
0
k. Adding paragraph (h).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  98.123  Calculating GHG emissions.

    For fluorinated gas production and transformation processes, you 
must calculate the fluorinated GHG emissions from each process using 
the emission factor or emission calculation factor method specified in 
paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this section, as appropriate. For 
destruction processes that destroy fluorinated GHGs that were 
previously ``produced'' as defined at Sec.  98.410(b), you must 
calculate emissions using the procedures in paragraph (f) of this 
section. For venting of residual gas from containers (e.g., cylinder 
heels), you must calculate emissions using the procedures in paragraph 
(g) of this section.
    (a) Default GWP value. For fluorinated GHGs that do not have GWPs 
listed in Table A-1 to subpart A of this part, use the default GWP 
provided for the fluorinated GHG group of which the GHG is a member in 
Table L-1 of this subpart in your calculations under paragraph (c)(1) 
of this section, in Sec.  98.124(c)(2), and if you used the mass 
balance method to calculate emissions from the process for reporting 
years 2011, 2012, 2013, or 2014.
    (b) Mass balance method. The mass balance method was available for 
reporting years 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 only. It may be found at 75 
FR 74774, 74832-74837 (December 1, 2010).
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (v) GWPs. To convert the fluorinated GHG emissions to 
CO2e, use Equation A-1 of Sec.  98.2.
    (vi) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) Measuring contents of each container. If you weigh or otherwise 
measure the contents of each container before venting the residual 
fluorinated GHGs, use Equation L-32 of this section to calculate annual 
emissions of each fluorinated GHG from venting of residual fluorinated 
GHG from containers. Convert pressures to masses as directed in 
paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO13.005

Where:

ECf = Total mass of each fluorinated GHG f emitted from 
the facility through venting of residual fluorinated GHG from 
containers, annual basis (metric tons/year).
HBfj = Mass of residual fluorinated GHG f in container j 
when received by facility (metric tons).
HEfj = Mass of residual fluorinated GHG f in container j 
after evacuation by facility (metric tons). (Facility may equate to 
zero.)
n = Number of vented containers for each fluorinated GHG f.

    (2) * * *
    (ii) Measurement of residual gas. The residual weight or pressure 
you use for paragraph (g)(1) of this section must be determined by 
monitoring the mass or the pressure of your cylinders/containers 
according to Sec.  98.124(k). If you monitor the pressure, convert the 
pressure to mass using a form of the ideal gas law, as displayed in 
Equation L-33 of this section, with an appropriately selected Z value.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO13.006

Where:

mR = Mass of residual gas in the container (metric ton)
p = Absolute pressure of the gas (Pa)
V = Volume of the gas (m\3\)
MW = Molecular weight of the fluorinated GHG f (g/gmole)
Z = Compressibility factor
R = Gas constant (8.314 Pa m3/Kelvin mole)
T = Absolute temperature (K)
106 = Conversion factor (106 g/metric ton)
* * * * *
    (iv) Calculate annual emissions of each fluorinated GHG from 
venting of residual fluorinated GHG from containers using Equation L-34 
of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO13.007

Where:

ECf = Total mass of each fluorinated GHG f emitted from 
the facility through venting of residual fluorinated GHG from 
containers, annual basis (metric tons/year).
hfj = Facility-wide gas-specific heel factor for 
fluorinated GHG f (fraction) and container size and type j, as 
determined in paragraph (g)(2)(iii) of this section.
Nfj = Number of containers of size and type j returned to 
the fluorinated gas production facility.
Ffj = Full capacity of containers of size and type j 
containing fluorinated GHG f (metric tons).
n = Number of combinations of container sizes and types for 
fluorinated GHG f.

    (h) Effective destruction efficiency for each process. If you used 
the emission factor or emission calculation factor method to calculate 
emissions from the process, use Equation L-35 to calculate

[[Page 69357]]

the effective destruction efficiency for the process, including each 
process vent:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO13.008

Where:

DEEffective = Effective destruction efficiency for 
process i (fraction).
EPVf = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from process 
vent v from process i, operating scenario j, for the year, 
calculated in Equation L-21, L-22, L-26, or L-27 of this section 
(kg).
GWPf = Global warming potential for each greenhouse gas 
from Table A-1 to subpart A of this part or Table L-1 of this 
subpart. If the GHG has a GWP listed in Table A-1, use that GWP. 
Otherwise, use the default GWP provided in Table L-1 for the 
fluorinated GHG group of which the GHG is a member.
ECFPV--Uf = Emission calculation factor for fluorinated 
GHG f emitted from process vent v during process i, operating 
scenario j during periods when the process vent is not vented to the 
properly functioning destruction device, as used in Equation L-21; 
or Emission calculation factor for fluorinated GHG f emitted from 
process vent v during process i, operating scenario j, as used in 
Equation L-26 or L-27 (kg emitted/activity) (e.g., kg emitted/kg 
product), denoted as ``ECFPV'' in those equations.
EFPV--Uf = Emission factor (uncontrolled) for fluorinated 
GHG f emitted from process vent v during process i, operating 
scenario j, as used in in Equation L-22 (kg emitted/activity) (e.g., 
kg emitted/kg product).
ActivityU = Total process feed, process production, or 
other process activity during the year for which the process vent is 
not vented to the properly functioning destruction device (e.g., kg 
product).
ActivityC = Total process feed, process production, or 
other process activity for process i, operating scenario j, during 
the year for which emissions are vented to the properly functioning 
destruction device (i.e., controlled).
o = Number of operating scenarios for process i.
v = Number of process vents in process i, operating scenario j.
w = Number of fluorinated GHGs emitted from the process.

0
6. Section 98.124 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
0
b. Removing paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(8);
0
c. Revising paragraph (c)(1);
0
d. Revising paragraph (c)(2);
0
e. Revising paragraph (c)(5);
0
f. Redesignating paragraph (c)(7) as paragraph (c)(6);
0
g. Redesignating paragraph (c)(8) as paragraph (c)(7); and
0
h. Redesignating paragraph (c)(9) as paragraph (c)(8);
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  98.124  Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) Mass balance monitoring. Mass balance monitoring was available 
for reporting years 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 only. The mass balance 
monitoring provisions may be found at 75 FR 74774, 74843-74845 
(December 1, 2010).
    (c) * * *
    (1) Process vent testing. Conduct an emissions test that is based 
on representative performance of the process or operating scenario(s) 
of the process, as applicable. Include in the emission test any 
fluorinated GHG that was identified in the initial scoping speciation 
or is otherwise known to occur in the vent stream. You may include 
startup and shutdown events if the testing is sufficiently long or 
comprehensive to ensure that such events are not overrepresented in the 
emission factor. Malfunction events must not be included in the 
testing. If you do not detect a fluorinated GHG that was identified in 
the scoping speciation or is otherwise known to occur in the vent 
stream, assume that fluorinated GHG was emitted at one half of the 
detection limit.
    (2) Number of runs. For continuous processes, sample the process 
vent for a minimum of 3 runs of 1 hour each. If the relative standard 
deviation (RSD) of the emission factor calculated based on the first 3 
runs is greater than or equal to 0.15 for the emission factor, continue 
to sample the process vent for an additional 3 runs of 1 hour each. If 
more than one fluorinated GHG is measured, the RSD must be expressed in 
terms of total CO2e. For fluorinated GHGs whose GWPs are not 
listed in Table A-1 to subpart A of this part, use the default GWP 
provided for the fluorinated GHG group of which the GHG is a member in 
Table L-1 of this subpart in the RSD calculation.
* * * * *
    (5) Emission test results. The results of an emission test must 
include the analysis of samples, number of test runs, the results of 
the RSD analysis, the analytical method used, determination of 
emissions, the process activity, and raw data and must identify the 
process, the operating scenario, the process vents tested, and the 
fluorinated GHGs that were included in the test. The emissions test 
report must contain all information and data used to derive the 
process-vent-specific emission factor, as well as key process 
conditions during the test. Key process conditions include those that 
are normally monitored for process control purposes and may include but 
are not limited to yields, pressures, temperatures, etc. (e.g., of 
reactor vessels, distillation columns).
* * * * *
0
7. Section 98.126 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a);
0
b. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
0
c. Revising paragraph (b)(1);
0
d. Removing paragraphs (b)(2)-(b)(12);
0
e. Revising paragraph (b)(13);
0
f. Redesignating paragraph (b)(13) as paragraph (b)(2);
0
g. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text;
0
h. Removing and reserving paragraph (c)(1);
0
i. Revising paragraph (c)(3);
0
j. Revising paragraph (c)(4);
0
k. Revising paragraph (e);
0
l. Revising paragraph (h)(1); and
0
m. Adding paragraph (k).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  98.126  Data reporting requirements.

    (a) All facilities. In addition to the information required by 
Sec.  98.3(c), you must report the information in paragraphs (a)(2) 
through (a)(7) of this section according to the schedule in paragraph 
(a)(1) of this section, except

[[Page 69358]]

as otherwise provided in paragraph (j) of this section or in Sec.  
98.3(c)(4)(vii) and Table A-7 of subpart A of this part.
    (1) Frequency of reporting under paragraph (a) of this section. The 
information in paragraphs (a)(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), and (7) of this 
section must be reported annually.
    (2) Generically-identified process. For each production and 
transformation process at the facility, you must:
    (i) Provide a number, letter, or other identifier for the process.
    (ii) Indicate whether the process is a fluorinated gas production 
process, a fluorinated gas transformation process where no fluorinated 
GHG reactant is produced at another facility, or a fluorinated gas 
transformation process where one or more fluorinated GHG reactants are 
produced at another facility; and
    (iii) Indicate whether the process could be characterized as 
reaction, distillation, or packaging (include all that apply).
    (iv) For each generically-identified process and each fluorinated 
GHG group, report the methods used to determine the mass emissions of 
that fluorinated GHG group from that process from vents, i.e., mass-
balance, process-vent-specific emission factor, or process-vent-
specific emission calculation factor.
    (v) For each generically-identified process and each fluorinated 
GHG group, report the method(s) used to determine the mass emissions of 
that fluorinated GHG group from that process from equipment leaks, 
unless you used the mass balance method for that process.
    (3) Process level, multiple products. If your facility produces 
multiple fluorinated gas products, for each generically identified 
process and each fluorinated GHG group, report the total GWP-weighted 
emissions of all fluorinated GHGs in that group emitted from the 
process, in metric tons CO2e.
    (4) Facility level, multiple products. If your facility produces 
multiple fluorinated gas products, you must report the information in 
paragraphs (a)(4)(i) and (a)(4)(ii) of this section, as applicable.
    (i) For each fluorinated GHG with emissions of 1,000 metric tons of 
CO2e or more from the facility as a whole, you must report 
the total mass in metric tons of the fluorinated GHG emitted from the 
facility as a whole.
    (ii) Aggregate and report the total GWP-weighted emissions of all 
other fluorinated GHGs by fluorinated GHG group for the facility as a 
whole, in metric tons of CO2e.
    (5) Facility level, one product only. If your facility produces 
only one fluorinated gas product, aggregate and report the total GWP-
weighted emissions of fluorinated GHGs by fluorinated GHG group for the 
facility as a whole, in metric tons of CO2e, with the 
following exception: Where emissions consist of a major fluorinated GHG 
constituent of a fluorinated gas product, and the product is sold or 
transferred to another person, report the total mass in metric tons of 
each fluorinated GHG emitted that is a major fluorinated GHG 
constituent of the product.
    (6) Destruction processes and container heel venting. You must 
report the total mass in metric tons of each fluorinated GHG emitted 
from:
    (i) Each fluorinated gas destruction process that is not part of a 
fluorinated gas production process or a fluorinated gas transformation 
process and all such fluorinated gas destruction processes combined.
    (ii) Venting of residual fluorinated GHGs from containers returned 
from the field.
    (7) Effective destruction efficiency. For each generically 
identified process, use Table L-2 of this subpart to report the range 
that encompasses the effective destruction efficiency, 
DEeffective, calculated for that process using Equation L-35 
of this subpart. The effective destruction efficiency must be reported 
on a CO2e basis.
    (b) Reporting for mass balance method for reporting years 2011, 
2012, 2013, and 2014. If you used the mass-balance method to calculate 
emissions for any of the reporting years 2011, 2012, 2013, or 2014, you 
must conduct mass balance reporting for that reporting year. For 
processes whose emissions were determined using the mass-balance method 
under the former Sec.  98.123(b), you must report the information 
listed in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section for each process 
on an annual basis.
    (1) If you calculated the relative and absolute errors under the 
former Sec.  98.123(b)(1), the overall absolute and relative errors 
calculated for the process under the former Sec.  98.123(b)(1), in tons 
and decimal fraction, respectively.
    (2) The method used to estimate the total mass of fluorine in 
destroyed or recaptured streams (specify the former Sec.  98.123(b)(4) 
or (15)).
    (c) Reporting for emission factor and emission calculation factor 
approach. For processes whose emissions are determined using the 
emission factor approach under Sec.  98.123(c)(3) or the emission 
calculation factor under Sec.  98.123(c)(4), you must report the 
following for each generically-identified process.
    (1) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (3) For each fluorinated GHG group, the total GWP-weighted mass of 
all fluorinated GHGs in that group emitted from all process vents 
combined, in metric tons of CO2e.
    (4) For each fluorinated GHG group, the total GWP-weighted mass of 
all fluorinated GHGs in that group emitted from equipment leaks in 
metric tons CO2e.
* * * * *
    (e) Reporting of destruction device excess emissions data. Each 
fluorinated gas production facility that destroys fluorinated GHGs must 
report the excess emissions that result from malfunctions of the 
destruction device, and these excess emissions must be reflected in the 
fluorinated GHG estimates in the former Sec.  98.123(b) and in Sec.  
98.123(c). Such excess emissions would occur if the destruction 
efficiency was reduced due to the malfunction.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (1) The mass of the residual fluorinated GHG vented from each 
container size and type annually (metric tons).
* * * * *
    (k) Submission of complete reporting year 2011, 2012, and 2013 GHG 
reports. By March 31, 2015, you must submit annual GHG reports for 
reporting years 2011, 2012, and 2013 that contain the information 
specified in paragraphs (a) through (h) of this section. The reports 
must calculate CO2e using the GWPs in Table A-1 to subpart A 
of this part (as in effect on January 1, 2015) and Table L-1 of this 
subpart (as applicable). Prior submission of partial reports for these 
reporting years under paragraph (j) of this section does not affect 
your obligation to submit complete reports under this paragraph.
0
8. Section 98.127 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1);
0
b. Revising paragraph (a)(2);
0
c. Adding paragraph (a)(3);
0
d. Adding paragraph (a)(4);
0
e. Revising paragraph (b);
0
f. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text; and
0
g. Revising paragraph (c)(3).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  98.127  Records that must be retained.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) Identify all products and processes subject to this subpart. 
Include the unit identification as appropriate, along with

[[Page 69359]]

the generic process identification reported for the process under Sec.  
98.126(a)(2)(i)through (iii); which product the process is associated 
with; whether the process is a reaction, distillation, or packaging 
process (include all that apply); and whether the process is a 
production process, a transformation process where no fluorinated GHG 
reactant is produced at another facility, or a transformation process 
where one or more fluorinated GHG reactants are produced at another 
facility.
    (2) Monthly and annual records, as applicable, of all analyses and 
calculations conducted as required under Sec.  98.123, including the 
data monitored under Sec.  98.124, and all information reported as 
required under Sec.  98.126.
    (3) Identify all fluorinated GHGs with emissions of 1,000 metric 
tons CO2e or more from the facility as a whole, and identify 
all fluorinated GHGs with total emissions less than 1,000 metric tons 
CO2e from the facility as a whole.
    (4) Calculations used to determine the total GWP-weighted emissions 
of fluorinated GHGs by fluorinated GHG group for each process, in 
metric tons CO2e.
    (b) Scoping speciation. Retain records documenting the information 
collected under Sec.  98.124(a).
    (c) Mass-balance method. Retain the following records for each 
process for which the mass-balance method was used to estimate 
emissions in reporting years 2011, 2012, 2013, or 2014. If you used an 
element other than fluorine in the mass-balance equation pursuant to 
the former Sec.  98.123(b)(3), substitute that element for fluorine in 
the recordkeeping requirements of this paragraph.
* * * * *
    (3) The data and calculations used to determine the fractions of 
the mass emitted consisting of each reactant (FERd), product 
(FEP), and by-product (FEBk), including the preliminary 
calculations in the former Sec.  98.123(b)(8)(i).
* * * * *
0
9. Section 98.128 is amended by:
0
a. Adding, in alphabetical order, the definition for Fluorinated GHG 
group;
0
b. Adding, in alphabetical order, the definition for Fluorinated GHG 
product;
0
c. Adding, in alphabetical order, the definition for Generically-
identified process;
0
d. Adding, in alphabetical order, the definition for Major fluorinated 
GHG constituent;
0
e. Adding, in alphabetical order, the definition for Other fluorinated 
GHGs;
0
f. Adding, in alphabetical order, the definition for Saturated 
hydrochlorofluoroethers (HCFEs);
0
g. Adding, in alphabetical order, the definition for Saturated 
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs);
0
h. Adding, in alphabetical order, the definition for Saturated 
hydrofluoroethers (HFEs);
0
i. Adding, in alphabetical order, the definition for Unsaturated 
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs);
0
j. Adding, in alphabetical order, the definition for Unsaturated 
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs);
0
k. Adding, in alphabetical order, the definition for Unsaturated 
hydrofluoroethers (HFEs); and
0
l. Adding, in alphabetical order, the definition for Unsaturated 
perfluorocarbons (PFCs).
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  98.128  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Fluorinated GHG group means one of the following sets of 
fluorinated GHGs: Fully fluorinated GHGs; Saturated hydrofluorocarbons; 
Saturated hydrofluoroethers and saturated hydrochlorofluoroethers; 
Unsaturated PFCs, unsaturated HFCs, unsaturated HCFCs, unsaturated 
HFEs, and fluorinated ketones; or Other fluorinated GHGs.
    Fluorinated GHG product means the product of the process, including 
isolated intermediates.
* * * * *
    Generically-identified process means a process that is (1) 
identified as a production process, a transformation process where no 
fluorinated GHG reactant is produced at another facility, or a 
transformation process where one or more fluorinated GHG reactants are 
produced at another facility; (2) further identified as a reaction, 
distillation, or packaging process, or a combination thereof; and (3) 
tagged with a discrete identifier, such as a letter or number, that 
remains constant from year to year.
* * * * *
    Major fluorinated GHG constituent means a fluorinated GHG 
constituent of a fluorinated GHG product that occurs in concentrations 
greater than 1 percent by mass.
* * * * *
    Other fluorinated GHGs means fluorinated GHGs that are none of the 
following: fully fluorinated GHGs, saturated hydrofluorocarbons, 
saturated hydrofluoroethers, saturated hydrochlorofluoroethers, 
unsaturated perfluorocarbons, unsaturated hydrofluorocarbons, 
unsaturated hydrochlorofluorocarbons, unsaturated hydrofluoroethers, or 
fluorinated ketones.
* * * * *
    Saturated hydrochlorofluoroethers (HCFEs) means fluorinated GHGs in 
which two hydrocarbon groups are linked by an oxygen atom; in which two 
or more, but not all, of the hydrogen atoms in the hydrocarbon groups 
have been replaced by fluorine atoms and chlorine atoms; and which 
contain only single bonds.
    Saturated hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) means fluorinated GHGs that are 
hydrofluorocarbons and that contain only single bonds.
    Saturated hydrofluoroethers (HFEs) means fluorinated GHGs in which 
two hydrocarbon groups are linked by an oxygen atom; in which one or 
more, but not all, of the hydrogen atoms in the hydrocarbon groups have 
been replaced by fluorine atoms; and which contain only single bonds.
* * * * *
    Unsaturated hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) means fluorinated GHGs 
that contain only carbon, chlorine, fluorine, and hydrogen and that 
contain one or more bonds that are not single bonds.
    Unsaturated hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) means fluorinated GHGs that 
are hydrofluorocarbons and that contain one or more bonds that are not 
single bonds.
    Unsaturated hydrofluoroethers (HFEs) means fluorinated GHGs in 
which two hydrocarbon groups are linked by an oxygen atom; in which one 
or more, but not all, of the hydrogen atoms in the hydrocarbon groups 
have been replaced by fluorine atoms; and which contain one or more 
bonds that are not single bonds.
    Unsaturated perfluorocarbons (PFCs) means fluorinated GHGs that are 
perfluorocarbons and that contain one or more bonds that are not single 
bonds.
* * * * *
0
10. Adding Tables L-1 and L-2 to subpart L to read as follows:

[[Page 69360]]



 Table L-1 to Subpart L--Default Global Warming Potentials for Compounds
         That Do Not Appear on Table A-1 to Subpart A of Part 98
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Proposed global
                Fluorinated GHG group                  warming potential
                                                            (100 yr.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fully fluorinated GHGs...............................             10,000
Saturated hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)..................              2,200
Saturated hydrofluoroethers (HFEs) and saturated                   1,600
 hydrochlorofluoroethers (HCFEs).....................
Unsaturated PFCs, unsaturated HFCs, unsaturated                        1
 HCFCs, unsaturated HFEs, and fluorinated ketones....
Other fluorinated GHGs...............................                100
------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Table L-2 to Subpart L--Ranges of Effective Destruction Efficiency
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Range of Reductions
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=99%
>=95% to <99%
>=75% to <95%
>=0% to <75%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2013-27288 Filed 11-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P