[Federal Register: June 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 114)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 33949-33982]
[DOCID:fr15jn10-37]

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

Part III

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Parts 86 and 98

 Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases; Proposed Rule

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 86 and 98

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109; FRL-9158-6]
RIN 2060-A079

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to amend specific provisions in the 2009
Final Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting rule (2009 Final MRR) to
correct certain technical and editorial errors that have been
identified since promulgation and to clarify or propose minor updates
to certain provisions that have been the subject of questions from
reporting entities. These proposed changes include additional
information to better or more fully understand compliance obligations,
corrections to data reporting elements so they more closely conform to
the information used to perform emission calculations and other
corrections and amendments. EPA has received six petitions for
reconsideration on the 2009 Final MRR. EPA is still considering these
petitions, and the issues raised in the petitions are not discusssed or
addressed in today's action.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before July 30, 2010.
    Public Hearing. 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 June
22, 2010. If requested, the hearing will be conducted on June 30, 2010,
in the Washington, DC area. EPA will provide further information about
the hearing on its webpage if a hearing is requested.

ADDRESSES: You may submit your comments, identified by docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109 by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0109 [and/or RIN number] in the subject line of the
message.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center
(EPA/DC), Mailcode 2822T, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2010-0109, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004.
     Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading
Room, EPA 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-
2010-0109, Technical Corrections, Clarifying and Other Amendments to
Certain Provisions of the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule.
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. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-
mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous
access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://
www.regulations.gov your e-mail 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, 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 EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 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, EPA 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For technical information contact the
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule Hotline at telephone number: (877) 444-
1188; or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To obtain information about the public
hearings or to register to speak at the hearings, please go to http://
www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html. Alternatively,
contact Carole Cook at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of today's proposal will also be available through
the WWW. Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of this action
will be posted on EPA's greenhouse gas reporting rule Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Additional Information on Submitting Comments: To expedite review
of your comments by Agency staff, you are encouraged to send a separate
copy of your comments, in addition to the copy you submit to the
official docket, to Carole Cook, U.S. EPA, Office of Atmospheric
Programs, Climate Change Division, Mail Code 6207-J, Washington, DC
20460, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    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 owners or operators of certain fossil
fuel suppliers, direct emitters of GHGs, and manufacturers of highway
heavy-duty vehicles. Regulated categories and entities include those
listed in Table 1 of this preamble:

                               Table 1--Examples of Affected Entities by Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Category                          NAICS               Examples of affected facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adipic Acid Production........................          325199  Adipic acid manufacturing facilities.
Cement Production.............................          327310  Portland cement manufacturing plants.
Ferroalloy Production.........................          331112  Ferroalloys manufacturing facilities.
Glass Production..............................          327211  Flat glass manufacturing facilities.
                                                        327213  Glass container manufacturing facilities.
                                                        327212  Other pressed and blown glass and glassware
                                                                 manufacturing facilities.
HCFC-22 Production and HFC-23 Destruction.....          325120  Chlorodifluoromethane manufacturing facilities.
Hydrogen Production...........................          325120  Hydrogen manufacturing facilities.
Iron and Steel Production.....................          331111  Integrated iron and steel mills, steel
                                                                 companies, sinter plants, blast furnaces, basic
                                                                 oxygen process furnace shops.
Lime Production...............................          327410  Calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide, dolomitic
                                                                 hydrates manufacturing facilities.
Nitric Acid Production........................          325311  Nitric acid manufacturing facilities.
Phosphoric Acid Production....................          325312  Phosphoric acid manufacturing facilities.
Soda Ash Manufacturing........................          325181  Alkalies and chlorine manufacturing facilities.
                                                        212391  Soda ash, natural, mining and/or beneficiation.
Titanium Dioxide Production...................          325188  Titanium dioxide manufacturing facilities.
Zinc Production...............................          331419  Primary zinc refining facilities.
                                                        331492  Zinc dust reclaiming facilities, recovering from
                                                                 scrap and/or alloying purchased metals.
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills...............          562212  Solid Waste Landfills.
                                                        221320  Sewage Treatment Facilities.
Suppliers of Coal Based Liquids Fuels.........          211111  Coal liquefaction at mine sites.
Suppliers of Natural Gas and NGLs.............          221210  Natural gas distribution facilities.
                                                        211112  Natural gas liquid extraction facilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but
rather provides a guide for readers regarding facilities likely to be
affected by this action. Table 1 of this preamble lists the types of
facilities that EPA is now aware could be potentially affected by the
reporting requirements. Other types of facilities than those listed in
the table could also be subject to reporting requirements. To determine
whether you are affected by this action, you should carefully examine
the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR part 98, subpart A or the
relevant criteria in the sections related to fossil fuel suppliers,
direct emitters of GHGs, and manufacturers of highway heavy-duty
vehicles. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular facility, consult the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER GENERAL INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and
abbreviations are used in this document.

AFPC Association of Fertilizer and Phosphate Chemists
AOD argon-oxygen decarburization
API American Petroleum Institute
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
CAA Clean Air Act
CaO calcium oxide
CBI confidential business information
CEMS continuous emission monitoring system
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CH4 methane
CO2 carbon dioxide
DE destruction efficiency
EAF electric arc furnace
EF emission factor
EIA Energy Information Administration
EO Executive Order
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
GHG greenhouse gas
HHV higher heating value
ID identification
kg kilograms
LNG liquefied natural gas
MgO magnesium oxide
Mscf thousand standard cubic feet
MRR mandatory GHG reporting rule
N2O nitrous oxide
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NGLs natural gas liquids
NOX nitrogen oxides
OMB Office of Management and Budget
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
U.S. United States
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. How is this preamble organized?
    B. Background on Today's Action
    C. Legal Authority
    D. How would these amendments apply to 2011 reports?
II. Technical Corrections and Other Amendments
    A. Mobile Sources
    B. Subpart A--General Provisions
    C. Subpart E--Adipic Acid Production
    D. Subpart H--Cement Production
    E. Subpart K--Ferroalloy Production
    F. Subpart N--Glass Production
    G. Subpart O--HCFC-22 Production and HFC-23 Destruction
    H. Subpart P--Hydrogen Production
    I. Subpart Q--Iron and Steel Production
    J. Subpart S--Lime Manufacturing
    K. Subpart V--Nitric Acid Production
    L. Subpart Z--Phosphoric Acid Production
    M. Subpart CC--Soda Ash Manufacturing
    N. Subpart EE--Titanium Dioxide Production
    O. Subpart GG--Zinc Production
    P. Subpart HH--Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
    Q. Subpart LL--Suppliers of Coal-based Liquid Fuels
    R. Subpart MM--Suppliers of Petroleum Products
    S. Subpart NN--Suppliers of Natural Gas and Natural Gas Liquids
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and 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 the basic background
information about the origin of these proposed rule amendments and
request for public comment. This section also discusses EPA's use of
our legal authority under the Clean Air Act to collect data under the
mandatory GHG reporting rule.
    The second section of this preamble describes in detail the changes
that are being proposed to correct technical errors, to provide
clarification, or propose amendments to address implementation issues
identified by EPA and others. This section also presents EPA's
rationale for the proposed changes and identifies issues on which EPA
is particularly interested in receiving public comments.
    Finally, the last (third) section of the preamble discusses the
various statutory and executive order requirements applicable to this
proposed rulemaking.

B. Background on Today's Action

    The 2009 Final MRR was signed by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson on
September 22, 2009 and published in the Federal Register on October 30,
2009 (74 FR 56260-56519, October 30, 2009). The 2009 Final MRR, which
became effective on December 29, 2009, included reporting of GHGs from
various facilities and suppliers, consistent with the 2008 Consolidated
Appropriations Act.\1\ The source categories in the 2009 Final MRR
cover approximately 85 percent of U.S. GHG emissions through reporting
by direct emitters as well as suppliers of fossil fuels and industrial
gases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110-161,
121 Stat. 1844, 2128.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Legal Authority

    EPA is proposing these rule amendments under its existing CAA
authority, specifically authorities provided in section 114 and section
208 of the CAA.
    As stated in the preamble to the 2009 Final MRR (74 FR 56260,
October 30, 2009), CAA section 114 provides EPA broad authority to
require the information proposed to be gathered by this rule because
such data would inform and are relevant to EPA's carrying out a wide
variety of CAA provisions. As discussed in the preamble to the initial
proposed rule (74 FR 16448, April 10, 2009), section 114(a)(1) of the
CAA authorizes the Administrator to require emissions sources, persons
subject to the CAA, manufacturers of control or process equipment, or
persons whom the Administrator believes may have necessary information
to monitor and report emissions and provide such other information the
Administrator requests for the purposes of carrying out any provision
of the CAA. For further information about EPA's legal authority, see
the preambles to the proposed and 2009 Final MRR.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 74 FR 16448 (April 10, 2009) and 74 FR 56260 (October 30,
2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. How would these amendments apply to 2011 reports?

    EPA is planning to address the comments on these proposed
amendments and publish the final amendments before the end of 2010.
Therefore, reporters would be expected to calculate emissions and other
relevant data for the reports that are submitted in 2011 using the 2009
Final MRR as amended. We have determined that it is feasible for the
sources to implement these changes for the 2010 reporting year since
the revisions primarily provide additional clarifications regarding the
existing regulatory requirements, generally do not affect the type of
information that must be collected and do not substantially affect how
emissions are calculated.
    For example, many proposed revisions simply provide additional
information to provide additional clarity on existing requirements. For
example, in subpart E (Adipic Acid Production) we are proposing to
clarify that the location of the testing point for determining the
emission factor can occur before or after N2O abatement
technology as long as the destruction efficiency of the N2O
abatement technology is properly accounted for. This proposed
clarification is consistent with clarifications EPA has issued in
response to industry questions and would not change how facilities
collected data during 2010. In subpart K, clarifying text is proposed
in Sec.  98.112 to ensure that facilities calculate CH4
emissions for all ferroalloys included in Table K-1. Again, this
clarification does not change the rule requirements for facilities
collecting data in 2010 as the requirement was already clear in Sec.
98.113(d).
    Some proposed amendments are to the data reporting requirements to
provide additional clarity on the level of reporting for a specific
parameter (e.g., unit level or facility level). For example, in subpart
CC (Soda Ash Manufacturing) we are proposing to clarify that reporting
is by soda ash manufacturing line. While the data reporting
requirements in the 2009 Final MRR could have been misinterpreted, the
calculation methods in Sec.  98.293 are very clear that emissions
calculations are by manufacturing line. EPA has concluded that
amendments such as these can be implemented for the reports submitted
to EPA in 2011 because the proposed changes are consistent with the
calculation methodologies in the 2009 Final MRR and the owners or
operators are not required to actually report until March 2011, several
months after we expect this proposal to be finalized.
    For some subparts, we propose amendments to address issues
identified as a result of working with the affected sources during rule
implementation. These proposed revisions provide additional flexibility
to the sources. Thus, while they would be free to use the amended
regulations once final, facilities are not required to follow the
amendments for 2010 data collection. For example, in subpart H, cement
production, facilities are provided an additional approach for
calculating the weight fraction of total calcium oxide and total
magnesium oxide in clinker. Some facilities were already determining
their weight fraction following this method. In some cases, these
facilities may have been following both their current practice during
2010 data collection, as well as the method required by the 2009 Final
MRR. With these proposed amendments, these facilities would have the
option, but not be required, to use the newly proposed option for the
reports submitted to EPA in 2011.
    EPA is also proposing corrections to terms and definitions in
certain equations. For example, in subpart NN, Suppliers of Natural Gas
and Natural Gas Liquids, we are proposing to clarify in an equation
that the fuel-specific emission factor should be developed for NGL
product ``g''. It was clear from the rest of the equation that the mass
emissions should be developed for each NGL product ``g'', but this
phrase was omitted from the definition of EFg. Other
examples are found in similar clarifications made in subpart P
(Hydrogen Production) and subpart S (Lime Production). These
clarifications do not result in additional requirements therefore EPA
has concluded that reporters can follow the 2009 Final MRR, as amended,
in submitting their first reports in 2011.
    Finally, EPA is proposing other technical corrections (example
correcting cross references) that have no impact on facility's data
collection efforts in 2010.

    In summary, these amendments would not require any additional
monitoring or information collection above what was already included in
the 2009 Final MRR. Therefore, we expect that sources can use the same
information that they have been collecting under the 2009 Final MRR for
each subpart to calculate and report GHG emissions for 2010 and submit
reports in 2011 under the amended subparts.
    EPA generally seeks comment on the conclusion that it is
appropriate to implement these amendments and incorporate the
requirements in the data reported to EPA by March 31, 2011. Further, we
seek comment on whether there are specific subparts for example,
subpart MM, where this timeline may not be feasible or appropriate due
to the nature of the proposed changes or the way in which data have
been collected thus far in 2010. We request that commenters provide
specific examples of how the proposed implementation schedule would or
would not work.

II. Technical Corrections and Other Amendments

    Following promulgation of the 2009 Final MRR, EPA has identified
errors in the regulatory language that we are now proposing to correct.
These errors were identified as a result of working with affected
industries to implement the various subparts of the 2009 Final MRR. We
have also identified certain rule provisions that should be amended to
provide greater clarity.
    The amendments we are now proposing include the following types of
changes:
     Changes to correct cross references within and between
subparts.
     Additional information to better or more fully understand
compliance obligations in a specific provision, such as the reference
to a standardized method that must be followed.
     Amendments to certain equations to better reflect actual
operating conditions.
     Corrections to terms and definitions in certain equations.
     Corrections to data reporting requirements so that they
more closely conform to the information used to perform emission
calculations.
     Other amendments related to certain issues identified as a
result of working with the affected sources during rule implementation
and outreach.
    We are seeking public comment only on the issues specifically
identified in this notice for the identified subparts. We will not
respond to any comments addressing other aspects of the 2009 Final MRR
or any other related rulemakings.

A. Mobile Sources

    Manufacturers of highway heavy-duty vehicles, as well as
manufacturers of highway heavy-duty engines, are subject to GHG
reporting requirements as proposed (see Section V.QQ.3.d starting on
page 16589 of the proposed rule preamble), and as stated in the
preamble for the 2009 Final MRR (see Table IV-1 on page 56353 of the
final rule preamble). EPA inadvertently omitted the regulatory text
covering manufacturers of highway heavy-duty vehicles. We are proposing
to amend 40 CFR part 86 to correct that error by incorporating the
appropriate language into the regulations at 40 CFR 86.1844-01.

B. Subpart A--General Provisions

    We are proposing to add or change several definitions to subpart A,
to clarify terms used in other subparts of the 2009 Final MRR.
Similarly, we are proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.7 (incorporation by
reference) to accommodate changes in the standard methods that are
allowed by other subparts of the rule.
    We are proposing to amend the following definitions in 40 CFR 98.6:
     Carbonate-based mineral,
     Carbonate-based mineral mass fraction,
     Carbonate-based raw material,
     Crude oil, and
     Gas collection system or landfill gas collection system.
    We are proposing to amend the definitions of ``carbonate-based
mineral'', ``carbonate-based mineral mass fraction'' and ``carbonate-
based raw material'' in order to include barium carbonate and potassium
carbonate. These carbonates were not included in the 2009 Final MRR;
however, EPA has since learned that these are consumed in the glass
industry subject to subpart N. Therefore, we are proposing emission
factors for these carbonates in subpart N and, for consistency, we are
proposing to concurrently amend these definitions in 40 CFR 98.6.
    We are proposing to amend the definition of ``crude oil'' in 40 CFR
98.6 to be identical to the definition in the Energy Information
Administration's (EIA) Definitions of Petroleum Products and Other
Terms (Revised January 2010).\3\ As indicated by our definition of
crude oil in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (74 FR 16448), our
intention is to collect information under 40 CFR 98.396(a)(20) on
certain hydrocarbons from sources that are not liquid while underground
as well as those that are liquid underground. We changed the definition
of crude oil after proposal in response to a comment suggesting that
the proposed definition could be interpreted to include natural gas
(see comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0631.1, excerpt 36 in Volume 13:
Subpart A: Definitions, Incorporation by Reference, and Other Subpart A
Comments). In making this change after proposal, we inadvertently
limited the definition of crude oil in the 2009 Final MRR to
hydrocarbons that exist in a liquid phase underground. We are proposing
to correct this error in today's action. We also expect to increase
clarity and reduce administrative burden for reporters by proposing to
use EIA's definition of ``crude oil,'' which many reporters already use
to track crude oil for EIA's petroleum supply surveys.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/survey_forms/
psmdefs_2010.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We received several questions as to whether passive vents or flares
are considered part of a landfill gas collection system at a municipal
solid waste landfill. To clarify that the passive vents/flares are not
considered part of a landfill gas collection system for purposes of
subpart HH, we are proposing to amend the definition of ``gas
collection system or landfill gas collection system,'' in 40 CFR 98.6
to state that such a system collects gas by means of a fan or similar
mechanical, versus passive, draft equipment.
    We are also proposing to amend the definition of ``Mscf'' in 40 CFR
98.6 to indicate that ``Mscf'' means thousand standard cubic feet, and
not, as incorrectly stated in the 2009 Final MRR, a million standard
cubic feet.
    We also are proposing to amend the definition of ``non-crude
feedstocks'' in 40 CFR 98.6 to remove the phrase ``as a feedstock'' in
order to avoid confusion with the definition of ``feedstock.'' Under
subpart MM, refiners must calculate annual CO2 emissions
that would result from the complete combustion or oxidation of each
non-crude feedstock. Our intention in subpart MM is to capture all
petroleum products and natural gas liquids that enter a refinery to be
further refined or otherwise used on site, including supplemental fuel
burned to provide heat or thermal energy. The definition of
``feedstock'' in 40 CFR 98.6 excludes supplemental fuel burned to
provide heat or thermal energy. By removing the term ``as a feedstock''
from the definition of ``non-crude feedstock'' and adding ``including
supplemental fuel burned to provide heat or thermal energy,'' the
proposed amendments align the

definition to the original intent of the rule.
    Additional amendments to definitions are proposed in the relevant
subparts.
    Today's proposal would also correct an error in the title of a
method incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 98.7 for subpart Z, which
would be updated to reflect the correct title, ``Association of
Fertilizer and Phosphate Chemists Analytical Methods Manual, 10th
Edition.'' We are also proposing to incorporate by reference ASTM
D6349-09, ``Standard Test Method for Determination of Major and Minor
Elements in Coal, Coke, and Solid Residues from Combustion of Coal and
Coke by Inductively Coupled Plasma--Atomic Emission Spectrometry'' for
subpart N.

C. Subpart E--Adipic Acid Production

    We are proposing to amend Equations E-1, Equation E-2 and Equation
E-3 in 40 CFR 98.53. First, we are proposing to amend these equations
so that the calculation equations are internally consistent. Currently,
the equations do not correctly address situations in which a facility
has more than one production unit or process line with separate
N2O control or abatement technology on the separate
production units or process lines, and the technologies are not
operated 100 percent of the time. In these circumstances, the current
equations will not provide an accurate calculation of N2O
emissions. We are proposing to amend the equations so that emissions
would be calculated separately for each production unit or process line
(or groups of units or lines) that has a separate control or abatement
technology, and then sum the emissions for all such units or lines to
determine the overall N2O emissions for the facility. For
consistency with these amendments, we are also proposing amendments to
40 CFR 98.54(a), 98.56(j), and 98.57(c) for monitoring and QA/QC,
reporting, and recordkeeping, respectively.
    We are also proposing to amend equation E-3 to accommodate
N2O abatement technology located after the emission test
(sampling) point, and re-designate it as equation E-3a. We are also
proposing to add a new equation E-3b for facilities that do not have
any N2O abatement technology located after the test
(sampling) point.
    Second, we are proposing to amend the language in 40 CFR
98.54(a)(3) and 98.56(k) regarding the Administrator approved
alternative method to clarify that this alternative method is for
determining N2O emissions rather than N2O
concentration. Also, we are proposing to amend the language in 40 CFR
98.54(a)(1), (e), and (f) concerning the location of the test
(sampling) point used for the performance test and to clarify when the
performance test should be conducted. As promulgated, the language can
be misconstrued that EPA is requiring the facility to shut down any
N2O abatement technology during the performance testing.
This was not intended because many, if not all, of the N2O
abatement technologies in use are mandatory according to the facility
operating permit. The proposed amendments would clarify that testing
can occur before or after N2O abatement technology as long
as the destruction efficiency of the N2O abatement
technology is properly accounted for. Finally, we are proposing to
clarify under 98.57(f) that facilities should retain records of all
data collected during performance tests, not just the calculated
emission factor.

D. Subpart H--Cement Production

    We are proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.84(b) to correct the most
recent ASTM standard, to ASTM C114-09 rather than C114-07, for
determining the weight fraction of magnesium oxide (MgO) and calcium
oxide (CaO) in clinker. In addition we have learned through questions
from reporters, that for some facilities it is more efficient to sample
clinker for the weight fraction of total MgO and CaO as it exits the
kiln rather than from bulk storage. Some facilities do perform this
analysis on clinker on a daily basis. We are proposing to amend the
rule to allow facilities the option to determine a monthly value based
on the arithmetic average of the daily samples.
    Through reporters we have also learned that facilities use direct
measurement in conjunction with other factors (e.g. kiln feed) to
determine clinker production. These procedures are verified
periodically for accuracy. We are proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.84(d) to
allow facilities to use these procedures already used for measuring
clinker produced and verify those on a monthly basis. Facilities are
already required to measure clinker on a monthly basis. Concurrent with
this change, we are proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.86(b) so that
facilities that do not estimate combined process and combustion
emissions using continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) will be
required to report the kiln specific feed-to-kiln ratios used to
calculate clinker produced for EPA verification of emissions associated
with clinker production.
    Further, we understand from facilities' questions that an analysis
of the organic carbon contents of raw materials could be determined
from a composite sample of the kiln feed or from sampling each raw
material in the kiln feed depending on the existing sampling methods
and raw material storage procedures at the facility. We are proposing
to amend the calculation and monitoring procedures in 40 CFR
98.83(d)(3) and 98.84(c) to allow facilities the option to use either
sampling procedure for estimating carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions from raw materials.
    We are also proposing to correct and clarify the recordkeeping
requirements under 40 CFR 98.87(a) and (b) for facilities with CEMS and
for facilities without CEMS. In the 2009 Final MRR, the recordkeeping
requirements listed under 40 CFR 98.87(a)(1) and (a)(2) should have
been listed under 40 CFR 98.87(b). Facilities using CEMS to estimate
combined process and combustion CO2 emissions from kilns do
not need to calculate process emissions using the clinker based
emissions methodology provided in Subpart H and, therefore, would not
have the relevant records requested in 40 CFR 98.87(a)(1) and (a)(2).

E. Subpart K--Ferroalloy Production

    We are proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.112(a) to be consistent with
the requirement described in 40 CFR 98.113(d) and in the preamble of
the 2009 Final MRR to calculate methane (CH4) emissions from
an electric arc furnace (EAF) used for the production of all
ferroalloys for which an applicable CH4 emission factor is
provided in the rule. These alloys and the associated CH4
emission factors are listed in Table K-1. The 2009 Final MRR contained
calculation and reporting procedures for quantifying process
CH4 emissions from all ferroalloys listed in Table K-1, but
CH4 was inadvertantly not included in the GHG's to Report
section.
    We are also proposing to amend the introductory language for 40 CFR
98.113 to clarify the applicability of the procedures for calculating
CO2 and CH4 emissions in that section. Finally,
we are proposing minor amendments to the language in 40 CFR 98.116 to
clarify that the data reporting requirements in 40 CFR 98.116(b) are
for each EAF and those in 40 CFR 98.116(d)(1) and (e)(1) are for any
ferroalloy product identified in 40 CFR 98.110. We are also proposing
to amend 40 CFR 98.116(d) to correct an incorrect cross-reference to 40
CFR 98.36.

F. Subpart N--Glass Production

    We are proposing to amend subpart N to add CO2 emission
factors to Table N-

1 for barium carbonate and potassium carbonate. These raw materials
were not included in the 2009 Final MRR, but EPA has since learned that
they are also used by the glass industry. EPA is requesting comment on
whether the proposed amendments to Table N-1 are sufficient or if other
raw materials or carbonaceous materials are used in glass manufacturing
that should be included in the rule in Table N-1 with their associated
emission factors. EPA has also learned from reporters that there is
another more commonly used method for determining the carbonate mineral
mass fraction of raw materials used in glass production. EPA proposes
to amend the rule in 40 CFR 98.144(b) to allow for another ASTM method.
Specifically, in addition to ASTM D3682-01, reporters could also use
ASTM D6349-09, ``Standard Test Method for Determination of Major and
Minor Elements in Coal, Coke, and Solid Residues from Combustion of
Coal and Coke by Inductively Coupled Plasma--Atomic Emission
Spectrometry.'' We are also proposing to amend the introductory
language to 40 CFR 98.146(a) to correct an incorrect cross-reference to
40 CFR 98.36 and to clarify in 40 CFR 98.146(a)(2) that reporting of
glass production is by furnace and from all furnaces combined,
consistent with the calculation methods. We are proposing to amend 40
CFR 98.146(b)(7) and (9) to correct typographical errors.

G. Subpart O--HCFC-22 Production and HFC-23 Destruction

    We are proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.154(k), the requirement to
monitor HFC-23 emitted from process vents, to refer to Equation O-7
rather than the incorrect Equation O-6. In 40 CFR 98.154(k), (l), and
(o) and in 40 CFR 98.156(b), we are proposing to amend the language so
that the term ``destruction device'' is used rather than the narrower
term ``thermal oxidizer.''
    We are proposing to amend the reporting requirements in 40 CFR
98.156(c) and (d) to clarify that only facilities that are required to
recalculate the destruction efficiency of their destruction device
under 40 CFR 98.154(l) must report the flow rate of HFC-23 being fed
into the destruction device, the flow rate at the outlet of the
destruction device, and the emission rate of the device. In addition,
such facilities would be required to report the newly calculated DE of
the device, the HFC-23 concentration measurement used in the DE
calculation, and whether 40 CFR 98.154(l)(1) or (l)(2) was used for the
calculation. Under these two paragraphs, other HFC-23 destruction
facilities would be required to report only the results of their annual
measurement of the HFC-23 concentration at the outlet of the
destruction device. Facilities that conduct the annual measurement of
the HFC-23 concentration only at the outlet of the destruction device
would be required to report the results of the annual measurement.
    We are proposing to amend the reporting requirements in 40 CFR
98.156(e) to clarify that the one-time report for HFC-23 destruction
facilities is due by March 31, 2011 or within 60 days of commencing
HFC-23 destruction. The proposed amendment will make the due date in 40
CFR 98.156(e) consistent with the due date for a similar report
required in Subpart OO.
    In general, these proposed amendments to the reporting requirements
for HFC-23 destruction facilities would make them consistent with the
monitoring requirements for these facilities. The proposed due dates
for the one-time report are consistent with those elsewhere in the 2009
Final MRR for the source categories that are required to begin
monitoring in 2010.

H. Subpart P--Hydrogen Production

    We are proposing amendments to clarify the definition of the source
category in 40 CFR 98.160(c). The original language in the 2009 Final
MRR indicated that the hydrogen production source category included
hydrogen production processes located within petroleum refineries. The
intent of the 2009 Final MRR was that hydrogen production facilities
located within facilities that are not petroleum refineries were also
included within the definition of the source category. We are proposing
to amend 40 CFR 98.160(c) to clarify that hydrogen production
facilities located within other facilities are also included in the
source category if they are not owned by, or under the direct control
of, the other facility's owner and operator. This clarification was
necessary to correct a misunderstanding that the original rule text
limited the source universe to hydrogen production facilities located
within petroleum refineries.
    Broadly, we are proposing to amend subpart P to remove several
references to ``process'' CO2 emissions. EPA received
information from industry indicating that the use of the term
``process'' in the context of calculating and reporting CO2
emissions resulted in confusion in differentiating between process and
combustion emissions. We are proposing to clarify the text in the rule
by removing references to the term ``process'' from the rule language.
    We are proposing to remove the requirements in 40 CFR 98.162(b) for
owners or operators to report CO2, CH4 and
N2O combustion emissions from each hydrogen production
process unit using the emissions calculation methods in subpart C. This
provision results in double counting of combustion-related emissions
from hydrogen production process units, as these combustion emissions
are already accounted for when following the calculation methods in 40
CFR 98.163(a) or (b). CO2 emissions would still be reported
under 98.162(a) using the procedures in 98.163(a) or 98.163(b).
    We are also proposing to amend language describing the calculation
of GHG emissions from gaseous, liquid and solid fuels and feedstocks in
40 CFR 98.163. The clarified language would specify that each gaseous,
liquid or solid fuel and feedstock would need to be calculated based on
its respective equations detailed in the rule language. This removes
the concern that the current language was unclear as to which fuel and
feedstock stream would be used to calculate CO2 emissions.
    Lastly, we are proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.166(c) to strike
``quarterly'' and ``kg'' (kilogram). Some facilities subject to subpart
P may also be subject to subpart PP--Suppliers of Carbon Dioxide.
Quarterly reporting of CO2 quantities (in kilograms) was not
consistent with subpart PP.

I. Subpart Q--Iron and Steel Production

    We are proposing to amend the subpart Q requirements regarding
emissions from flares to clarify the requirements and correct certain
deficiencies in the rule pertaining to flares burning off-gases from
argon-oxygen decarburization (AOD) and other decarburization processes.
Section 98.172(b) of the 2009 Final MRR required reporting of
CO2 emissions from flares using procedures from subpart Y
(Petroleum Refineries), without distinguishing flares burning off-gases
from AOD or other decarburization processes from other types of flares.
    The referenced equations in subpart Y and the further instructions
in 40 CFR 98.172(b) in the 2009 Final MRR are applicable to estimating
emissions from burning coke oven gas or blast furnace gas, but are not
applicable for estimating emissions from flares burning the off-gases
from AOD or other decarburization processes. We are, therefore,
proposing to amend the language in 40 CFR 98.172(b) to clarify that for
subpart Q facilities, flare

emissions must be estimated only for flares burning blast furnace gas
or coke oven gas. Similarly, we are proposing to amend the introductory
text in 40 CFR 98.175 to specify that the missing data procedures in
subpart Y (Petroleum Refineries) at 40 CFR 98.255(b) must be followed
for flares burning coke oven gas or blast furnace gas. We are also
proposing to amend the introductory text for the data reporting
requirements in 40 CFR 98.176 to include flares burning coke oven gas
or blast furnace gas.
    Subpart Q in the 2009 Final MRR also referenced incorrect equations
from subpart Y. We are proposing to amend and correct the references in
40 CFR 98.172(b) to the subpart Y flare equations. Equations Y-2 and Y-
3 are the correct equations; the promulgated subpart Q incorrectly
referenced Equation Y-1.
    We are proposing to amend the reporting requirements in 40 CFR
98.176(e)(3) to clarify that fuel consumption needs to be reported
separately for each type of fuel and other process input and output
material. We are also proposing to add paragraphs (g) and (h) to 40 CFR
98.176. Paragraph (g) would require facilities to report the annual
amount of coal charged to coke ovens because it is used to estimate
CO2 emissions from coke pushing. Paragraph (g) would
incorporate the same reporting requirements specified in 40 CFR
98.256(e) of subpart Y (Petroleum Refineries) for flares burning coke
oven gas or blast furnace gas.
    We are proposing to amend the recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR
98.177(d) to clarify the units and processes for which annual operating
hours need to be recorded.
    We are also proposing to amend the requirements in the promulgated
rule to estimate GHG emissions from argon-oxygen decarburization
vessels to clarify that they also apply to any other type of vessel
used to remove carbon from molten steel (decarburization) and result in
the venting of similar GHG. The promulgated rule would have required
reporting of these alternative vessel emissions as part of flare
emissions. Because of the proposed clarification noted above to limit
the flare emission calculations to only those flares burning coke oven
gas or blast furnace gas, we are proposing to replace the term ``argon-
oxygen decarburization vessels'' with the term ``decarburization
vessels'' throughout the rule and to replace the definition of ``argon-
oxygen decarburization vessels'' with a definition for
``decarburization vessels'' in order to maintain reporting of the
CO2 emissions from these vessels.

J. Subpart S--Lime Manufacturing

    We are proposing to amend the cross reference to 40 CFR
98.193(b)(1) in the introductory language to 40 CFR 98.195; it
incorrectly referenced 40 CFR 98.193(b)(2).
    We are also proposing to amend the terminology used throughout
subpart S to clarify whether the calculation and reporting requirements
are referring to calcined byproducts and waste materials by adding the
word ``calcined'' to the lime byproduct and waste terminology, as
needed. We are also proposing amendments to the terminology in the
subpart to clarify when the calculation and reporting requirements
apply to lime products that are produced at the facility.

K. Subpart V--Nitric Acid Production

    We are proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.223 and 98.224 to clarify how
N2O emissions are to be measured if a facility has an
N2O abatement device. The first amendment concerns the
language for the location of the test (sampling) point used for the
performance test in several paragraphs in 40 CFR 98.223. As
promulgated, the language could be misconstrued to require the nitric
acid facility to shut down any N2O abatement technology
during the performance testing. This was not the intention as many, if
not all, of the N2O abatement technologies are mandatory
according to the facility operating permit. The proposed amendments
would clarify that testing can occur before or after N2O
abatement technology as long as the destruction efficiency is properly
accounted for.
    We are also proposing to include a new Equation V-3b for facilities
that do not have N2O abatement technology located after the
test (sampling) point. Equation V-3 would be redesignated as Equation
V-3a, and would also be corrected so that the term on the left-hand
side of the equation would be changed from EFN2Ot
to EN2Ot.
    In addition we are proposing to clarify in 40 CFR 98.223 that the
annual performance test must be conducted for each nitric acid train,
consistent with the equations in 40 CFR 98.223. Additional changes are
being proposed for the monitoring requirements in 40 CFR 98.224 to
conform to the changes in the calculation methods being proposed in 40
CFR 98.223. We are proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.224(a)(1) to clarify
when during a nitric acid production campaign facilities must conduct
the performance test.
    We are also proposing to amend the language concerning the
Administrator-approved alternative method for determining
N2O emissions in 40 CFR 98.223(a)(2)(ii), 98.224(a)(3), and
98.226(n). The alternative method is for determining N2O
emissions rather than N2O concentration or an N2O
emission factor. The language has been changed to correct this point.
    We are proposing to amend the data reporting requirements in 40 CFR
98.226(g) and (m) to be consistent with the calculation methods which
are for each nitric acid train, not the facility.

L. Subpart Z--Phosphoric Acid Production

    We are proposing to amend subpart Z to correct the title of the
reference to the standard bulk sampling and analysis method in 40 CFR
98.6, and 40 CFR 98.264(a) and (b). The reference in the 2009 Final MRR
currently reads, ``Phosphate Mining States Methods Used and Adopted by
the Association of Fertilizer and Phosphate Chemists AFPC Manual 10th
Edition 2009--Version 1.9.'' This reference would be revised to read
the ``Association of Fertilizer and Phosphate Chemists Analytical
Methods Manual 10th Edition,'' which reflects the correct title of the
document.
    We have learned from facilities that the AFPC manual does not
currently contain a procedure for obtaining a representative grab
sample of rock for testing, but that it will in the future. We are
proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.264(a) to allow facilities to use the
appropriate industry consensus standards currently available, in
addition to the AFPC manual. We are also proposing to amend 40 CFR
98.264(a) to clarify that the grab sample must be collected prior to
entering the mill for accurate analysis of inorganic carbon contents.
    We are proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.266 to correct a cross
reference in the introductory text of that section, and to revise
paragraph (c) to clarify that the annual arithmetic average percent
inorganic carbon in phosphate rock is to be reported as the percent by
weight, expressed as a decimal fraction. We are also proposing to add a
new paragraph (f)(9) to 40 CFR 98.266 to specify that facilities need
to report the total annual process CO2 emissions from the
phosphoric acid production facility, in metric tons. Facilities must
calculate these emissions already in 40 CFR 98.263(b)(2) using Equation
Z-2.

M. Subpart CC--Soda Ash Manufacturing

    We are proposing to amend the data reporting requirements in 40 CFR
98.296(b)(3) to clarify that the annual soda ash production is reported
for each

line, and to make the reporting requirements consistent with the
calculation requirements in 40 CFR 98.293(b)(1) through (b)(3). The
units in 40 CFR 98.296(a)(1) and 40 CFR 98.296(b)(6) would be corrected
from metric tons to short tons for consistency with other similar data
reporting requirements. This change is also consistent with how
facilities collect these data.
    We are also proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.296(b)(10) to clarify that
the information in that paragraph is reported for each manufacturing
line or stack, when using a site specific emission factor, and to
clarify that the elements required by 40 CFR 98.296(b)(10)(i), (ii),
and (iv) are for the periods during the performance test. We are also
proposing to delete 40 CFR 98.296(b)(11)(iv), (v), and (vi) because
those paragraphs describe missing data procedures for elements during
the site-specific emission factor performance test which are not
allowed to be missing per 40 CFR 98.296(c).

N. Subpart EE--Titanium Dioxide Production

    We are proposing to amend the monitoring and QA/QC reporting
requirements in 40 CFR 98.314(e) to clarify that the quantity of
carbon-containing waste generated from each titanium dioxide production
line is determined on a monthly basis, consistent with the calculation
procedures in 40 CFR 98.313(b)(3). In addition, we are proposing to
amend the data reporting requirements under 40 CFR 98.316(b)(9) to be
consistent with the calculation and monitoring alternative requirements
of 40 CFR 98.313(b)(2) and 40 CFR 98.314(c) by removing the restriction
that the carbon content factor for petroleum coke can only be from the
supplier. We are also proposing to amend the data reporting
requirements under 40 CFR 98.316(b)(11) to clarify that they apply to
each process line, consistent with the calculation and monitoring
alternative requirements of 40 CFR 98.313(b)(3) and 40 CFR 98.314(f).

O. Subpart GG--Zinc Production

    We are proposing to amend the definitions of the terms for
(Electrode)k and (CElectrode)k in
Equation GG-1 to remove the references to kilns because electrodes are
only used in electrothermic furnaces and are not used in Waelz kilns.
We are also proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.336(a) to correct a cross
reference to subpart C, and to amend 40 CFR 98.336(b)(1) to clarify
that identification numbers need to be reported for both Waelz kilns
and electrothermic furnaces.
    We are proposing to amend the data reporting requirements in 40 CFR
98.336(b)(7) and (10) to clarify that the carbon content of each input
to a kiln or furnace should be reported as a calculation parameter
regardless of whether the data are collected from the supplier or by
self measurement. In 40 CFR 98.336, paragraphs (b)(8) and (11) already
require facilities to report whether carbon contents were determined
through self measurement or based on reports from the supplier.

P. Subpart HH--Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

    We are proposing numerous clarifying amendments and technical
corrections to subpart HH to address questions EPA has received about
the rule's requirements and to correct known errors. Technical
amendments to the rule are also proposed to address some of the more
significant questions that were the result of insufficient detail being
provided in the rule.
    Source Category Definition. We are proposing to amend 40 CFR
98.340(b) to read, ``This source category does not include Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C or Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) hazardous waste landfills, dedicated construction
and demolition waste landfills, or industrial waste landfills.'' This
change would clarify the types of landfills that are not included in
the MSW landfill source category. We are further proposing to add
definitions within 40 CFR 98.348 for the terms ``dedicated construction
and demolition waste landfills'' and ``industrial waste landfills'' to
further clarify what is meant by these excluded landfill types. These
definitions are from 40 CFR 257.2 (Criteria for Classification of Solid
Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices).
    Equation HH-1. We are proposing the following technical amendments
to Equation HH-1 in 40 CFR 98.343:
     Replace the term L0 (CH4 generating
potential) with the terms, ``MCF x DOC x DOCF x F x 16/12,''
(where MCF is the CH4 correction factor; DOC is the
degradable organic content; DOCF is the fraction of DOC
dissimilated; and F is the fraction by volume of CH4 in
landfill gas) and remove the definition of the term L0 from
the definitions for Equation HH-1 as it no longer appears in the
equation. This change provide clarity of terms and does not affect the
way in which the methane generation rate is calculated by equation HH-1
since the new terms were already contained in the definition of
L0.
     Revise the definition of ``S'' to read, ``Start year of
calculation. Use the year 1960 or the opening year of the landfill,
whichever is more recent,'' for clarity.
     Revise the definition of Wx to include
``measurement data'' as follows: ``Quantity of waste disposed of in the
landfill in year x from measurement data, tipping fee receipts, or
other company records (metric tons, as received (wet weight))'' to
include the use of measurement data with the other methods specified.
     Revise the definition of ``MCF'' to read ``Methane
correction factor (fraction). Use the default value of 1,'' to clarify
that the default factor of 1 must be used.
     Revise the definition of ``DOCf'' to read, ``Fraction of
DOC dissimilated (fraction). Use the default value of 0.5,'' to clarify
that the default factor of 0.5 must be used.
     Revise the definition of ``F'' to clarify that F is
determined on a dry basis as follows: ``Fraction by volume of CH4 in
landfill gas from measurement data on a dry basis, if available
(fraction); default is 0.5,'' for clarification.
     Revise the definition of ``k'' to read, ``Rate constant
from Table HH-1 of this subpart (yr-1). Select the most applicable k
value for the majority of the past 10 years (or operating life,
whichever is shorter),'' to clarify that k is not a measured value and
that the selection of k should be based on precipitation and leachate
recirculation rates over the past 10 years.
    We are also proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.343(a)(2) to replace ``use
the bulk waste parameter values for k and L0 in Table HH-1'' with ``use
the bulk waste parameter values for k and DOC in Table HH-1,'' to be
consistent with the proposed changes to Equation HH-1.
    Measuring Waste Quantity. We are proposing to amend 40 CFR
98.343(a) by adding a new paragraph (a)(3) that serves to provide the
necessary detail and clarification on the requirements for measuring
the quantity of waste disposed in the landfill beginning with the first
monitoring year (2010 or later, hereafter referred to as ``monitoring
years''), and re-designating the existing 40 CFR 98.343(a)(3) as
(a)(4).
    The proposed waste measurement requirements for the monitoring
years would require the use of scales when scales are in-place for all
vehicles or containers delivering waste, except passenger vehicles and
light duty pick-up trucks. Passenger vehicles and light duty pick-up
trucks contribute only a small fraction of the total waste landfilled,
but they significantly

contribute to the total number of vehicles entering and exiting the
landfill. As such, most landfills do not weigh individual passenger
vehicles or light duty pick-up trucks. Instead, they commonly charge
these customers a flat tipping fee. Requiring each of these vehicles to
be weighed both in and out of the landfill would create a significant
time and recordkeeping burden on the landfill owner or operator which
was not included in the cost and economic impact analysis for subpart
HH. Furthermore, we find that such a requirement is not appropriate
because the significant increase in labor costs will not significantly
reduce the uncertainty in the mass of waste landfilled. This is, in
part, due to the small contribution these loads make on the total
quantity of waste landfilled and, in part, due to the fact that these
vehicles often have small loads relative to the vehicle weight so the
direct measurements have greater uncertainty for small loads than they
do for larger loads.
    When scales are present at the MSW landfill, they must be used,
(except for passenger vehicles and light duty pick-up trucks). Two
options for the use of scales are included in this proposal. One option
is to directly weigh each vehicle/container load as it enters the
landfill and weigh each vehicle/container after the waste has been off-
loaded, and calculate the mass of waste disposed as the difference in
the two measurements. The second option requires the landfill owner or
operator to determine tare weights (empty vehicle weights) for
representative vehicle types. In this option, the landfill owner or
operator must weigh the incoming vehicles and containers and calculate
the mass of waste disposed based on the difference of the incoming
vehicle weight and the tare weight of that vehicle type.
    When scales are not in place, the working capacity or the mass of
waste per type of vehicle or container must be determined. These
measurements may include determining the volumetric capacity of
representative containers and the average density of the waste as
received. Wheel-load scales or portable axle-load scales may be used
for these density determinations or measures of the mass of waste
received by type of load. The landfill owner or operator must record
the number and type of vehicles that haul waste to the landfill and use
the working capacity of the containers to calculate the quantity of
waste landfilled.
    While we originally assumed that scales would be present at all MSW
landfills, some reporters indicated that this is not the case. After
careful review of the 2009 Final MRR and its technical record, it
appears the intended requirement to use scales is not clearly defined
in the 2009 Final MRR and no details were provided as to how such
measurements using scales were to be made. Furthermore, the definition
of ``WX'' in Equation HH-1 stated that ``WX =
Quantity of waste disposed in the landfill in year x from tipping fee
receipts or other company records.'' This definition does not suggest a
need to perform direct mass measurements. This definition was intended
to allow use of tipping fee receipts or company records for the years
prior to the first reporting year, but can also be interpreted to allow
these same records to be used in the reporting year. While 40 CFR
98.343(a)(3) in the 2009 Final MRR provided methods for ``years prior
to reporting for which waste disposal quantities are not readily
available,'' there were no specific instructions for measurement
methods for waste disposal quantities in the reporting year.
    For the few landfills that do not have scales, the cost of
installing scales was evaluated. According to one of the commenters,
the capital cost of installing scales could be as much as $50,000 per
scale, with operating and driver time resulting in an estimated
annualized cost of over $23,000. We also considered the uncertainty
associated with different waste quantity measuring methods and their
resulting uncertainty in the overall modeled methane generation.
Relative to the uncertainty of the other model parameters, requiring
all landfills to have scales for mass measurements would not
significantly reduce the overall uncertainty in the modeled methane
generation. Given the significant additional costs for requiring the
installation of scales at a landfill and the limited improvement in the
uncertainty of the reported methane emissions, we are proposing to
allow the use of ``truck counts and capacities'' as an acceptable
method of determining waste quantity landfilled.
    In addition, we are proposing to redesignate paragraph (a)(3) of 40
CFR 98.343 to (a)(4) and to amend that paragraph and the sub-paragraphs
to clarify that measurement data can be used for historical years when
the data are available. We are proposing to clarify that the
``Historical waste disposal quantities should only be determined once,
as part of the first annual report, and the same values should be used
for all subsequent annual reports, supplemented by the next year's data
on new waste disposal.'' We are also proposing to amend 40 CFR
98.343(a)(4)(i) to read, ``Assume all prior year's waste disposal
quantities are the same as the waste quantity in the first year for
which waste quantities are available,'' to properly account for
situations when waste quantity data are available for some, but not
all, historic years. We are proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.343(a)(4)(iii)
by revising the phrase, ``i.e., from first accepting waste,'' with
``i.e., from the first year accepting waste,'' to enhance the meaning
of that sentence.
    In related amendments, we are also proposing to amend 40 CFR
98.344(a) to clarify the requirements for measurement equipment by
stating that ``Mass measurement equipment used to determine the
quantity of waste landfilled on or after January 1, 2010 must meet the
requirements for weighing equipment as described in `Specifications,
Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements For Weighing and Measuring
Devices,' NIST Handbook 44 (2009) (incorporated by reference, see 40
CFR 98.7).'' We are also proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.346(a) to require
reporting of ``* * * an indication of whether scales are present at the
landfill,'' and to amend 40 CFR 98.346(b) to require reporting of the
waste quantities that were determined using scales according to the
proposed requirements in 40 CFR 98.343(a)(3)(i) and the waste
quantities determined using vehicle counts and load capacities. We are
also proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.347 to specifically require that
records be maintained of all measurements used to determine vehicle
tare weights or working capacities.
    Equations HH-2, HH-3, and HH-4. We are proposing the following
technical amendments to Equation HH-2 in 40 CFR 98.343:
     Replace the term ``WGRX'' with
``WDRX'' and remove the term ``%SWDS'' to simplify the
equation since both terms were look-up values and the product can be
expressed as a single value.
     Replace the definition of the term ``WGRX''
with ``WDRX = Average per capita waste disposal rate for
year x from Table HH-2 of this subpart (metric tons per capita per
year, wet basis; tons/cap/yr),'' for consistency with the revisions of
Equation HH-2.
     Delete the definition of the term ``%SWDS'' for
consistency with the revisions of Equation HH-2.
     Delete the word ``of'' from the definition of
``POPX'' to correct a grammatical error.
    We are proposing the following technical amendments to Equation HH-
3 in 40 CFR 98.343:

     Replace the term ``WDRX'' with
``WX'' for consistency with the same term as expressed in
Equation HH-1.
     Replace the definition of the term ``WDRX''
with ``WX = quantity of waste place in the landfill in year
x (metric tons/wet basis),'' for consistency with the same term as
expressed in Equation HH-1.
     Replace the definition of LFC with ``Landfill capacity or,
for operating landfills, capacity of the landfill used (or the total
quantity of waste-in-place) at the end of the year prior to the year
when waste disposal data are available from design drawings or
engineering estimates (metric tons),'' for clarity.
    We are proposing the following technical amendments to Equation HH-
4 and the related 40 CFR 98.343(b):
     Amend Equation HH-4 and the terms in that equation to more
clearly allow for daily averages (365 or 366 per year) from a
continuous CH4 monitoring system, or from weekly sampling
(with 52 measurement periods).
     In 40 CFR 98.343(b)(2), delete ``* * * at least weekly * *
* '' because the measurement frequency is specified in subsequent
paragraphs.
     In 40 CFR 98.343(b)(2)(ii) and subparagraphs (A) and (B),
replace ``no less than weekly'' with ``once each calendar week, with at
least three days between measurements,'' to clarify what is meant by
weekly sampling.
     In 40 CFR 98.343(c), replace ``Calculate * * * '' with
``For all landfills, calculate * * * '' to clarify and provide parallel
sentence structure.
    Moisture Content Measurement. In addition to the other amendments
to Equation HH-4 discussed above, we are proposing to amend the
moisture content measurement requirements in Equation HH-4. We intended
that Equation HH-4 would be calculated on a daily or weekly average
basis, but it was not properly codified in the 2009 Final MRR to allow
for weekly measurements. Specifically, the instructions to use N=52 for
weekly sampling is incorrect given the fixed unit conversion factor for
minutes per day. To correct this error, we are proposing to revise the
definition of (V)n to be the cumulative volume for the
measurement period (rather than the volumetric flow rate), eliminate
the 1,440 conversion factor for minutes per day, and revise the
reference to ``day'' in the definition of equation terms with
``measurement period.''
    We also received numerous questions regarding the moisture
correction term in Equation HH-4, suggesting that the instructions to
replace this term with 1 within the definitions of (V)n and
(C)n were confusing and incomplete.
    We intended that moisture content would be determined, if
necessary, through measurement data. To address this issue, we are also
proposing to amend Equation HH-4 to replace the moisture correction
term, [1-(fH2O)n], with a moisture correction
factor, KMC. KMC would be defined as ``Moisture
correction term for the measurement period, volumetric basis,'' for
three different measurement scenarios:

KMC = 1 if (V)n and (C)n are both
measured on a dry basis or if both are measured on a wet basis.
KMC = 1-(fH2O)n if (V)n
is measured on a wet basis and (C)n is measured on a dry
basis.
KMC = 1/[1-(fH2O)n] if
(V)n is measured on a dry basis and (C)n is
measured on a wet basis.

    Equation HH-4 in the 2009 Final MRR did not consider the third
scenario for KMC. While we do not anticipate that this
scenario of measurements is likely, the proposed amendment is both
clearer and more technically correct. We similarly propose to amend 40
CFR 98.343(b)(2)(iii)(B) to clarify that moisture content is needed
``If the CH4 concentration is determined on a dry basis and
flow is determined on a wet basis or CH4 concentration is
determined on a wet basis and flow is determined on a dry basis, * *
*''.
    Additionally, we received numerous inquiries about how reporters
are to measure for moisture content, and asking whether measurements
were really necessary because no moisture content measurement
requirements are in 40 CFR 98.344. To clarfiy how and when reporters
are to measure for moisture content, we are proposing to amend 40 CFR
98.344(d) and (e) to include reference to moisture content monitors.
Specifically, we are proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.344(d) to read: ``All
temperature, pressure, and if necessary, moisture content monitors must
be calibrated using the procedures and frequencies specified by the
manufacturer.'' We are also proposing to amend the first sentence in 40
CFR 98.343(d) to read, ``The owner or operator shall document the
procedures used to ensure the accuracy of the estimates of disposal
quantities and, if applicable, gas flow rate, gas composition,
temperature, pressure, and moisture content measurements.'' These
proposed amendments clarify that the moisture content is to be based on
measurement values and not assumed moisture content values. We do note
that moisture content calculated from wet and dry bulb temperature
measurements are a suitable measure of moisture content, but that
measurement of dry bulb temperature alone, assuming the gas is
saturated with water (i.e., 100 percent relative humidity) is not a
direct measure of moisture content, and is not a suitable measurement
technique.
    In related amendments, we are proposing to amend 40 CFR
98.346(i)(3) and (4) to clarify the reporting requirements for
temperature, pressure, and moisture content measurements. Section
98.346(i)(4) in the 2009 Final MRR pertained to pressure measurements,
but inadvertently referenced ``* * * or indication that temperature is
incorporated into internal calculations * * *'' We are proposing to
amend 40 CFR 98.346(i)(3) to require reporting of both temperature and
pressure (not just temperature) and to amend 40 CFR 98.346(i)(4) to
require reporting of the moisture content measurements. Together, the
proposed amendments to Equation HH-4 and 40 CFR 98.344 and 98.346 would
clarify that moisture content need only be determined when the
concentration and flow measurements are made on different basis (one
wet and one dry) and that, if needed, the moisture content must be
measured.
    ``Active'' and ``Passive'' Gas Collection Systems. We are proposing
to clarify the difference between ``active'' gas collection systems and
``passive'' gas collection systems. Some landfills use ``passive'' vent
flares to control odor. In these ``passive'' systems, landfill gas
flows naturally to the surface of the landfill where an opening or pipe
(vent) is installed to allow for natural gas flow. Because of the low
and variable flow as well as the number of passive vents that are
present at a single landfill, requiring flow meters for these systems
is impractical. Furthermore, these systems do not meet the definition
of gas collection system in 40 CFR 98.6 because the gas is not
collected to a single location. However, to clarify our intent to only
require monitoring of ``active'' gas collection systems, we are
proposing to amend the definition of ``gas collection system'' in 40
CFR 98.6 as described in Section II.B. of this preamble. However, we
are interested in understanding the number of landfills with passive
vent controls, so we are also proposing to add a reporting requirement
in 40 CFR 98.346(h) and (i)(7) for reporters to provide ``* * * an
indication of whether passive vents and/or passive flares (vents or
flares that are not considered part of the gas collection system as
defined in 40 CFR 98.6) are present at this landfill.''
    Other Technical Corrections. We are proposing other technical
corrections for subpart HH to correct typographical errors, to correct
equations, and to provide minor clarifications.

    We are proposing the following technical corrections to 40 CFR
98.344(b):
     Delete the word ``install'' to clarify that the gas
composition monitors do not need to be installed to meet this
requirement and to allow use of portable monitoring devices.
     In 40 CFR 98.344(b)(6)(ii), add ``at the routine sampling
location'' to clarify the sampling location.
     Revise 40 CFR 98.344(b)(6)(ii)(A) to read ``Take a minimum
of three grab samples of the landfill gas with a minimum of 20 minutes
between samples and determine the methane composition of the landfill
gas using one of the methods specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(b)(5) of this section'' because the sampling location is previously
specified and to correct spelling error.
     In 40 CFR 98.344(b)(6)(ii)(B), delete ``that is collected
and routed to a destruction device (before and teatment equipment)''
because the sampling location is previously specified.
     In 40 CFR 98.344(b)(6)(ii)(B), add ``for use in Equation
HH-4'' to the definition of the term CCH4 as follows ``Methane
concentration in the landfill gas (volume %) for use in Equation HH-
4,'' for clarity.
    In 40 CFR 98.344(c), we are proposing to revise the language to
read, ``Each gas flow meter shall be recalibrated either biennially
(every 2 years) or at the minimum frequency specified by the
manufacturer. Except as provided in 40 CFR 98.343(b)(2)(i), each gas
flow meter must be capable of correcting for the temperature and
pressure and, if necessary, moisture content.'' The amended language
would conform with the general provisions for calibration of gas flow
meters and with other amendments indicating when moisture corrections
are necessary.
    We are proposing the following technical corrections to 40 CFR
98.346:
     Revise the language in 40 CFR 98.346(a) regarding leachate
recirculation to read ``an indication of whether leachate recirculation
is used during the reporting year and its typical frequency of use over
the past 10 years (e.g., used several times a year for the past 10
years, used at least once a year for the past 10 years, used
occasionally but not every year over the past 10 years, not used),'' to
clarify the reporting requirement.
     In 40 CFR 98.346(d)(1), replace the term, ``Degradable
organic carbon (DOC) value used in the calculations,'' with
``Degradable organic carbon (DOC), methane correction factor (MCF), and
fraction of DOC dissimilated (DOCF) values used in the
calculations,'' to comport with revisions of Equation HH-1.
     Revise 40 CFR 98.346(f)(1) to read, ``The surface area of
the landfill containing waste (in square meters), identification of the
type of cover material used (as either organic cover, clay cover, sand
cover, or other soil mixtures). If multiple cover types are used, the
surface area associated with each cover type.'' This change would
clarify the reporting requirement and clarify that an average oxidation
fraction does not need to be calculated because the default oxidation
fraction must be used.
     Add ``for the reporting year'' to 40 CFR 98.346(i)(1) as
follows: ``Total volumetric flow of landfill gas collected for
destruction for the reporting year (cubic feet at 520 [deg]R or 60
[deg]F and 1 atm),'' to clarify the reporting requirement.
     Add ``Annual average'' to 40 CFR 98.346(i)(2)as follows:
``Annual average CH4 concentration of landfill gas collected for
destruction (percent by volume),'' to clarify the reporting
requirement.
     In 40 CFR 98.346(i)(7), replace the parenthetical
``(manufacture, capacity, number of wells, etc.)'' with
``(manufacturer, capacity, and number of wells)'' to correct the
typographical error and to eliminate the open-ended reporting
requirement implied by the etcetera.
    We are also proposing to include additional definitions of terms
used in the rule to help clarify the rule requirements. The following
terms are proposed to be defined within 40 CFR 98.348 of subpart HH:
``destruction device''; ``solid waste''; and ``working capacity.''
    We are proposing to amend Table HH-1 of subpart HH to provide a
more reasoned approach for determining the decay rate constant, k, when
only a small quantity of leachate is recirculated and/or when leachate
recirculation is used rarely (not every year). In these cases,
reporters would be required to use the highest decay rate values, even
though the small or infrequent use of recirculation would not
significantly alter the landfill's moisture content. Instead of an all
or nothing approach, the proposed amendments require that recirculation
be calculated in units of inches/year (effectively representing it as
an ``additional precipitation rate''). The leachate recirculation rate
would be calculated as the total volume of leachate recirculated during
the year divided by the area of the portion of the landfill containing
waste. This leachate recirculation rate (in inches/year) would be added
to the precipitation rate and the sum would be used to determine what
decay rate constant is appropriate.
    We are also proposing to amend Table HH-1 to delete the default
value for LO as the amended Equation HH-1 would no longer
use that term. Finally, we are proposing to amend Table HH-1 to include
default values for DOC and k (decay rate) for inert materials because
this category of waste is needed to properly account for non-degradable
wastes that are managed in MSW landfills.
    We are proposing to amend Table HH-2 of subpart HH to provide
directly the waste disposal factors rather than the waste generation
rates and percent disposed of in solid waste disposal sites (% to
SWDS). These revisions are commensurate with the proposed amendments to
Equation HH-2. Additionally, we identified an inadvertent error in the
waste generation rates included in Table HH-2 from 1989 to 2006, so we
are correcting this error with the values for waste disposal rates in
the proposed amendments to Table HH-2. Finally, we propose to add waste
disposal rates for 2007, 2008, and 2009 so that Equation HH-2 can be
used for projecting historical disposal quantities for these years.
    We are proposing to amend Table HH-3 of subpart HH to delete the
references to the average depth of waste within an area (H2, H3, H4,
and H5) as these terms are not used in the calculation for landfill gas
collection efficiency. We also propose to amend Table HH-3 to clarify
what is considered a ``final soil cover.'' The description for A5 is
proposed to read, ``Area with a final soil cover of 3 feet or thicker
of clay and/or geomembrane cover system and active gas collection.'' In
the 2009 Final MRR, A5 included areas with both a final soil AND a
geomembrane cover system. The amendment is needed so the definition of
area A5 matches the types of cover systems for which the efficiency
value was assessed. The description for A4 is proposed to read, ``Area
with an intermediate soil cover, or a final soil cover not meeting the
criteria for A5 below, and active gas collection.'' This revision is
needed to clarify what is considered an intermediate soil cover and to
better describe the types of cover systems for which the efficiency
value of 0.75 applies.

Q. Subpart LL--Suppliers of Coal-Based Liquid Fuels

    We are proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.386(a)(5) and (6) to clarify
that fossil-fuel products that enter the facility

would not be reported when exiting the facility if they are not further
refined or otherwise used on site (e.g. products stored in a tank). It
was not EPA's intent that such products be reported.

R. Subpart MM--Suppliers of Petroleum Products

    We are proposing to add a definition of ``batch'' in 40 CFR 98.398
to clarify the crude oil reporting requirements in 40 CFR 98.396(a)(20)
and to minimize administrative burden. We are proposing to define a
batch of crude oil as up to a calendar month of volume from a single
country of origin or, if refiners do not know the country of origin, up
to a total calendar month of volume. Our intention is to allow refiners
to use sample data on crude oil American Petroleum Institute (API)
gravity and sulfur content that they or a third party currently collect
as part of normal business practices, including sample data refiners
use to report monthly weighted average API gravity and sulfur content
to EIA.
    To better align the API gravity and sulfur content reporting
requirements with normal business practices, we are also proposing to
amend the recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 98.397 so that refiners
would no longer be required to maintain laboratory reports,
calculations and worksheets used in the measurement of API gravity and
sulfur content of crude oil as long as they maintain sufficient records
to support the information they report to EPA (as required by 40 CFR
98.397(a) and (b)).
    We are also proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.394(d) and 40 CFR
98.396(a)(20) to clarify that we are seeking the weighted average API
gravity and sulfur content from representative samples of each batch.
We seek comment on our proposed definition of batch in 40 CFR 98.398
and the associated amendments in subpart MM.
    We also seek comment on any additional changes to the monitoring
and QA/QC requirements in 40 CFR 98.394, procedures for estimating
missing data in 40 CFR 98.395, description of reporting requirements in
40 CFR 98.396(a)(20), or records that must be retained in 40 CFR 98.397
related to measuring API gravity and sulfur content of crude oil that
would better align these provisions with normal business practices.
    We also seek comment on defining a batch of crude oil,
alternatively, as an annual volume of a specific type of crude oil
where types of crude oil are characterized by EIA crude stream code
categories \4\ or other parameters (e.g., ranges of API gravity and
sulfur content, commonly-used industry names) that refiners use to
differentiate between types of crude oil as part of normal business
practices. We seek comment on whether this alternative definition would
decrease burden for reporters compared to our proposed definition or
provide better data for purposes of understanding upstream emissions
associated with the production of crude oil and petroleum products. We
also seek comment on the relative benefits of using EIA's crude stream
categories, as opposed to other parameters that refiners use in the
ordinary course of business, to distinguish between different types of
crude.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EIA's foreign stream code categories are listed in Appendix
A of Form EIA-856 available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/
petroleum/survey_forms/eia856appa.pdf. EIA's domestic stream code
categories are listed in Form EIA-182 available at http://
www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/survey_forms/eia182f.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also seek comment on limiting the crude oil data reporting
requirements under 40 CFR 98.396(a)(20) to just the annual volume of
each EIA crude stream code category (i.e., remove requirements to
report API gravity, sulfur content, and country of origin of each
batch), given that each category already reflects country of origin and
the range of API gravity and sulfur content for each category may be
sufficiently narrow.
    We are proposing to amend the definition of Producti
(annual volume of product ``i'' produced, imported, or exported) in
equation MM-1 in 40 CFR 98.393(a)(1) and (2) to make it clear that GHG
emissions should not be calculated for products leaving the refinery if
those products had entered the refinery but were not further refined or
otherwise used on site (e.g. products stored in a tank). As a
harmonizing change, we are proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.396(a)(5) and
(6) to clarify that these products are not reported.
    We are proposing to amend the procedure in 40 CFR 98.393(f)(1) for
calculating emission factors for solid products when using Calculation
Method 1. The amendments would clarify that reporters should multiply
the default carbon share factor in column B of Table MM-1 by 44/12 (the
ratio of the molecular weight of CO2 to the atomic weight of
carbon) to convert the amount of carbon in the product to
CO2. Due to an oversight, 44/12 was not included in the
original formula. This proposed amendment is necessary because
otherwise reporters would calculate the emissions of carbon instead of
carbon dioxide.
    We are proposing to amend Equation MM-9 in 40 CFR 98.393(h)(2) to
correct a typographical error. The correct emission factor (EF) term in
the equation is EFj not EFi.
    We are proposing to add an optional method for reporters in 40 CFR
98.393(i) to calculate CO2 emissions that would result from
the complete oxidation or combustion of a blended product or blended
non-crude feedstock. The procedures in the existing rule require
reporters to calculate CO2 emissions for blended products
either by selecting the default emission factor for the product listed
in Table MM-1 that resembles most closely the blended product
(Calculation Method 1) or by sampling and testing the blended product
(Calculation Method 2). If a reporter applies the former method, the
CO2 emissions calculation for the blended product will
reflect the CO2 content of only one blend component. In such
a case, the CO2 from the blended product will not be as
accurately accounted for in equation MM-4. The optional method we are
proposing today would allow reporters to account for the CO2
emissions of a blended product or blended non-crude feedstock in the
summary calculation of total facility CO2 by calculating the
emissions of the blend's individual components using appropriate
default factors listed in Table MM-1. This amendment is being proposed
in an attempt to increase flexibility for facilities that receive and
supply blends, especially at refineries with co-located terminals. This
amendment would also improve accuracy of the summary calculation of
total refinery CO2 because it would ensure that the same
quantities and emission factors are used for blend components coming in
to the refinery as for blended products going out. We are seeking
comment on the value of adding this new optional method and on whether
it would be worthwhile to finalize these proposed rule amendments with
this method included. We are seeking comment on the occasions in which
reporters would use this method so that we can ensure that we have
fully accounted for such occasions in the text. Please be specific in
your comments. We also seek comment on whether the list of products in
Table MM-1 is comprehensive of all products contained in blends that
petroleum product suppliers receive or supply. We seek comment on any
other alternative methods that would allow reporters to calculate
CO2 emissions for product blends using information already
collected by industry in the course of

normal business or as part of compliance with the mandatory reporting
rule.
    We are proposing that the optional method would not be available
for a product that is biomass-based because such biomass-based products
are subject to paragraph (h) of 40 CFR 98.393. We seek comment on
whether there would be value in expanding the proposed method to
include biomass-based blends, and if so how the proposed method could
be amended to allow for biomass-based blends without contradicting or
jeopardizing the procedures in paragraph (h) of 40 CFR 98.393. Please
be specific in your comments.
    To align the existing regulatory text with the proposed optional
method for blends, we are proposing to amend paragraphs (a)(1) and
(b)(1) of 40 CFR 98.393 and to add paragraph (d) of 40 CFR 98.396 to
create new data reporting requirements for blends.
    For additional discussion of the current approach to blends in
subpart MM, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0712.1, excerpt 94 in Volume 38 of U.S. EPA's Response to Public
Comments on the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: Subpart MM--
Suppliers of Petroleum Products (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-2254).
    We are proposing to amend the calculation procedures in 40 CFR
98.393(h) for blended biomass-based fuels. The 2009 Final MRR directed
refineries that supply a petroleum product that was produced by
blending a petroleum-based product with denatured ethanol to report
emissions from the denaturant leaving the refinery but not the
denaturant in the ethanol that enters the refinery as a feedstock. To
address this fact for refineries using Calculation Method 1 for
petroleum products or non-crude petroleum feedstocks that contain
denatured ethanol, we are proposing to amend the definition of the term
``%vol'' to exclude denaturant in equations MM-8 and MM-9,
respectively.
    To address this fact for refineries using Calculation Method 2 for
petroleum products that were produced by blending a petroleum-based
product with denatured ethanol on site, we are proposing a new equation
MM-10a. Proposed equation MM-10a would require refineries to sample the
petroleum-based products prior to blending them with denatured ethanol
and use the resulting emissions factor and the volume of the petroleum-
based product to calculate emissions for the ultimate petroleum
products that leave the refinery. Equation MM-10 requires reporters to
subtract the CO2 emissions that would result from the
biomass portion of the blended product by multiplying the volume of the
blended product by both the percent volume of the biomass portion
(which for ethanol would now include the denaturant) and the default
emission factor. This new equation is necessary because the default
factor for ethanol does not account for denaturant. Using equation MM-
10 for a blended product containing denatured ethanol would therefore
result in inaccurate CO2 emissions because the emission
factors for 100% ethanol and for denaturant are different. We are
proposing to split 40 CFR 98.393(h)(3) into paragraphs (i) and (ii) so
that equation MM-10 remains in (i) for petroleum products blended with
biomass other than denatured ethanol while the proposed equation MM-10a
appears in (ii) for petroleum products blended with denatured ethanol.
We are proposing to amend equation MM-10 so that the definition of the
term ``%vol'' excludes denaturant.
    Together, these proposed amendments would ensure that the
denaturant present in ethanol is not accounted for in the calculation
of CO2 that would result from the complete combustion or
oxidation of the biomass-blended product or feedstock. We have
concluded that these amendments simplify reporting for reporters while
maintaining the level of data quality and accuracy required by EPA for
subpart MM because denatured ethanol that enters the refinery as a
feedstock always leaves the refinery as a product and is never used on
site. We are seeking comment on this conclusion.
    We cannot identify a situation in which a refinery would want to
use Calculation Method 2 for a non-crude feedstock that contains
denatured ethanol or an importer or exporter would want to use
Calculation Method 2 for products containing denatured ethanol.
Therefore, we are proposing to split 40 CFR 98.393(h)(4) into
paragraphs (i) and (ii) so that equation MM-11 remains in (i) for non-
crude feedstocks blended with biomass other than denatured ethanol
while directions to use Calculation Method 1 appear in (ii) for non-
crude feedstocks blended with denatured ethanol by refineries. We are
also proposing directions in 40 CFR 98.393(h)(3)(ii) for importers and
exporters of petroleum products blended with denatured ethanol to use
Calculation Method 1. We are proposing to amend equation MM-11 so that
the definition of the term ``%vol'' excludes denaturant. We seek
comment on our proposal to have refineries, importers, and exporters
use Calculation Method 1 in these situations and on the assumption that
no reporter would be adversely impacted by using Calculation Method 1
in these situations.
    If a refinery, importer, or exporter would be adversely impacted by
only using Calculation Method 1 in these situations, we seek comment on
an alternative approach to correcting the issue of accounting for
denaturant in products but not in denatured ethanol feedstock, that
would allow all reporters to use Calculation Method 2 for products and
non-crude feedstocks containing denatured ethanol. One alternative
approach, which is not included in the proposed regulatory text, would
be to amend the emission factor for ethanol to reflect a 2.5 percent
volume of denaturant and directing reporters to use Equations MM-10 and
MM-11, respectively. We seek comment on this alternative approach.
    We are proposing amendments to 40 CFR 98.396(a)(3), (a)(7), (b)(3),
and (c)(3) to align the reporting requirements with the proposed
amendments to account for denaturant in ethanol.
    We are also seeking comment on the value of editing Table MM-1 so
that refiners must report on quantities of ``fuel gas'' rather than
``still gas.'' We seek comment on whether this would increase clarity
or decrease complexity for reporters as they determine how to
categorize and report gas products received as non-crude feedstock or
supplied to the economy.

S. Subpart NN--Suppliers of Natural Gas and Natural Gas Liquids

    We are proposing to amend the definition of the term
``Fuelh'' in Equation NN-1 to clarify that the abbreviation
``Mscf'' refers to ``thousand standard cubic feet'' in order to avoid
confusion on whether this abbreviation means ``million standard cubic
feet''. We are also proposing to add the subscript ``h'' to the terms
for Fuel and HHV in Equation NN-1.
    We are proposing to amend the definition of the term ``EF'' in
Equation NN-7 to clarify that the emission factor is for each natural
gas liquid (NGL) product ``g'' and to add the subscript ``g'' to the
term ``EF.''
    We are proposing to amend Equation NN-8 to correct the term for
``Annual CO2 mass emissions that would result from the
combustion or oxidation of fractionated NGLs received from other
fractionators'' from ``CO2j'' to ``CO2m''. We are
also proposing to amend Equation NN-8 to remove the summation signs
that were unnecessary from this equation for clarification purposes. We
are also proposing to amend the definition of the term CO2i
to clarify that

this term includes NGLs delivered to customers or on behalf of
customers, recognizing that some customers may not receive the NGLs
directly.
    We are proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.406(a)(6) to correct two cross
references. The incorrect references referred the reader to 40 CFR
98.406(b)(1) and (b)(2), when they were supposed to refer to 40 CFR
98.406(a)(1) and (a)(2). Similarly, we are proposing to amend an
incorrect reference in 40 CFR 98.407(d) to refer the reader to 40 CFR
98.406(b)(7) instead of 40 CFR 98.406(b)(6).
    We are proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.406(a)(9) to correct the
abbreviation of NGL (from LNG) and to specify that reporting under that
paragraph is for each product type.
    We are proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.407(a) to remove the word
``daily'' because daily meter readings are not specifically required
under this subpart.
    Finally, we are proposing to update the high heat values (HHVs) and
default CO2 emission factors in Tables NN-1 and NN-2 to be
consistent with the emission factors in Tables C-1 and MM-1.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order (EO)12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
is therefore not subject to review under the EO.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
These proposed amendments do not make any substantive changes to the
reporting requirements in any of the subparts for which amendments are
being proposed. In many cases, the proposed amendments to the reporting
requirements could potentially reduce the reporting burden by making
the reporting requirements conform more closely to current industry
practices. However, the OMB has previously approved the information
collection requirements contained in the regulations promulgated on
October 30, 2009, 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. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Further information on EPA's assessment on the impact on burden can
be found in the Technical Corrections and Amendments Cost Memo (EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0109).

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
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. The proposed rule amendments will not impose any new
requirement on small entities that are not currently required by the
rules promulgated on October 30, 2009 (i.e., calculating and reporting
annual GHG emissions).
    EPA took several steps to reduce the impact of the 2009 Final MRR
on small entities. For example, EPA determined appropriate thresholds
that reduced the number of small businesses reporting. In addition, EPA
did not require facilities to install CEMS if they did not already have
them. Facilities without CEMS can calculate emissions using readily
available data or data that are less expensive to collect such as
process data or material consumption data. For some source categories,
EPA developed tiered methods that are simpler and less burdensome.
Also, EPA required annual instead of more frequent reporting. Finally,
EPA continues to conduct significant outreach on the mandatory GHG
reporting rule and maintains an ``open door'' policy for stakeholders
to help inform EPA's understanding of key issues for the industries.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the
proposed rule amendments on small entities and welcome comments on
issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    The UMRA seeks to protect State, local, and Tribal governments from
the imposition of unfunded Federal mandates. In addition, the Act seeks
to strengthen the partnership between the Federal government and State,
local, and Tribal governments and ensure that the Federal government
covers the costs incurred during compliance with Federal mandates.
    Title II of the UMRA of 1995, Public Law 104-4, establishes
requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their
regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the
private sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a
written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and
final rules with Federal mandates that may result in expenditures to
State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the
private segment, of $100 million or more in any one year.
    Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is
needed, section 205 of UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted.
    Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including Tribal
governments, it must have developed under section 203 of UMRA a small
government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small
governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of
EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental
mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on
compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    EPA has determined that these 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. In
addition, EPA determined that the proposed rule amendments contain no
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments because the amendments will not impose any new
requirements that are not currently required by the rules promulgated
on October 30, 2009 (i.e., calculating and reporting annual GHG
emissions), and the rule amendments would not unfairly apply to small
governments. 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. However, for a more detailed
discussion about how these proposed rule amendments would relate to
existing State programs, please see Section II of the proposal preamble
for the Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule (74 FR 16457 to 16461, April 10,
2009).
    These amendments apply directly to facilities that supply fuel that
when used emit greenhouse gases or facilities that directly emit
greenhouses gases. They do not apply to governmental entities unless
the government entity owns a facility that directly emits greenhouse
gases above threshold levels (such as a landfill), so relatively few
government facilities 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, EO 13132 does not apply to this action.
    Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
action, EPA did consult with State and local officials or
representatives of State and local governments in developing the 2009
Final MRR. A summary of EPA's consultations with State and local
governments is provided in Section VIII.E of the preamble to the 2009
Final MRR (74 FR 56260, October 30, 2009).
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, 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
rule amendments would not result in any changes to the requirements of
the 2009 Final MRR. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.
    Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action, EPA
sought opportunities to provide information to Tribal governments and
representatives during the development of the rules promulgated on
October 30, 2009. A summary of the EPA's consultations with Tribal
officials is provided in Sections VIII.E and VIII.F of the preamble to
the 2009 Final Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule (74 FR 56260, October 30,
2009).

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

    EPA interprets EO 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 EO has the
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO
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 No. 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs 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 EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rulemaking involves the use of one new voluntary
consensus standard from ASTM. Specifically, EPA proposes to allow
facilities in the glass industry to use ASTM D6349-09 Standard Test
Method for Determination of Major and Minor Elements in Coal, Coke, and
Solid Residues from Combustion of Coal and Coke by Inductively Coupled
Plasma--Atomic Emission Spectrometry in addition to the methods
incorporated by reference in the 2009 Final MRR. This additional
voluntary concensus standard will provide an alternative method that
owners or operators in the glass industry can use to monitor GHG
emissions. No new test methods were developed for this proposed rule.

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

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 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.
    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

40 CFR Part 86

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Motor
vehicle pollution.

40 CFR Part 98

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Suppliers, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 27, 2010.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, Chapter I, of
the Code

of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 86--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 86 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    2. Section 86.1844-01 is amended by adding paragraph (j) to read as
follows:

Sec.  86.1844-01  Information requirements: Application for
certification and submittal of information upon request.

* * * * *
    (j) For complete heavy-duty vehicles only, measure CO2,
N2O, and CH4 as described in this paragraph (j)
with each certification test on an emission data vehicle. Do not apply
deterioration factors to the results. Use the analytical equipment and
procedures specified in 40 CFR part 1065 as needed to measure
N2O and CH4. Report these values in your
application for certification. The requirements of this paragraph (j)
apply starting with model year 2011 for CO2 and 2012 for
CH4. The requirements of this paragraph (j) related to
N2O emissions apply for test groups that depend on
NOX aftertreatment to meet emission standards starting with
model year 2013. Businesses that are defined as a small business by the
Small Business Administration size standards in 13 CFR 121.201 may omit
measurement of N2O and CH4; other manufacturers
may provide appropriate data and/or information and omit measurement of
N2O and CH4 as described in 40 CFR 1065.5. Use
the same measurement methods as for your other results to report a
single value for CO2, N2O, and CH4.
Round the final values as follows:
    (1) Round CO2 to the nearest 1 g/mi.
    (2) Round N2O to the nearest 0.001 g/mi.
    (3) Round CH4 to the nearest 0.001 g/mi.

PART 98--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart A--[Amended]

    4. Section 98.6 is amended by:
    a. Removing the definition of ``Argon-oxygen decarburization (AOD)
vessel.''
    b. Adding a definition for ``Decarburization vessel.''
    c. Revising the definitions of ``Carbonate-based mineral,''
``Carbonate-based mineral mass fraction,'' ``Carbonate-based raw
material,'' ``Crude oil,'' ``Gas collection system or landfill gas
collection system,'' ``Mscf,'' and ``Non-crude feedstocks.''

Sec.  98.6  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Carbonate-based mineral means any of the following minerals used in
the manufacture of glass: calcium carbonate (CaCO3), calcium
magnesium carbonate (CaMg(CO3)2), sodium
carbonate (Na2CO3), barium carbonate
(BaCO3), and potassium carbonate
(K2CO3).
    Carbonate-based mineral mass fraction means the following: for
limestone, the mass fraction of CaCO3 in the limestone; for
dolomite, the mass fraction of CaMg(CO3)2 in the
dolomite; for soda ash, the mass fraction of
Na2CO3 in the soda ash; for barium carbonate, the
mass fraction of BaCO3 in the barium carbonate; and for
potassium carbonate, the mass fraction of K2CO3
in the potassium carbonate.
    Carbonate-based raw material means any of the following materials
used in the manufacture of glass: limestone, dolomite, soda ash, barium
carbonate, and potassium carbonate.
* * * * *
    Crude oil means a mixture of hydrocarbons that exists in liquid
phase in natural underground reservoirs and remains liquid at
atmospheric pressure after passing through surface separating
facilities. Depending upon the characteristics of the crude stream, it
may also include any of the following:
    (1) Small amounts of hydrocarbons that exist in gaseous phase in
natural underground reservoirs but are liquid at atmospheric pressure
after being recovered from oil well (casinghead) gas in lease
separators and are subsequently commingled with the crude stream
without being separately measured. Lease condensate recovered as a
liquid from natural gas wells in lease or field separation facilities
and later mixed into the crude stream is also included.
    (2) Small amounts of nonhydrocarbons produced from oil, such as
sulfur and various metals.
    (3) Drip gases, and liquid hydrocarbons produced from tar sands,
oil sands, gilsonite, and oil shale. Liquids produced at natural gas
processing plants are excluded. Crude oil is refined to produce a wide
array of petroleum products, including heating oils; gasoline, diesel
and jet fuels; lubricants; asphalt; ethane, propane, and butane; and
many other products used for their energy or chemical content.
* * * * *
    Decarburization vessel means any vessel used to further refine
molten steel to reduce the carbon content of the steel. This definition
includes vessels used for argon-oxygen decarburization, vacuum
degassers, vacuum oxygen degassers, Rheinstahl-Heraus systems, and
other decarburization vessels.
* * * * *
    Gas collection system or landfill gas collection system means a
system of pipes used to collect landfill gas from different locations
in the landfill by means of a fan or similar mechanical draft equipment
to a single location for treatment (thermal destruction) or use.
Landfill gas collection systems may also include knock-out or separator
drums and/or a compressor. Landfill gas collection systems do not
include ``passive'' systems, whereby landfill gas flows naturally to
the surface of the landfill where an opening or pipe (vent) is
installed to allow for natural gas flow.
* * * * *
    Mscf means thousand standard cubic feet.
* * * * *
    Non-crude feedstocks means any petroleum product or natural gas
liquid that enters the refinery to be further refined or otherwise used
on site, including supplemental fuel burned to provide heat or thermal
energy.
* * * * *
    5. Section 98.7 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) and by
adding paragraph (e)(43) to read as follows:

Sec.  98.7   What standardized methods are incorporated by reference
into this part?

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) Association of Fertilizer and Phosphate Chemists Analytical
Methods Manual 10th Edition, incorporation by reference (IBR) approved
for Sec.  98.264(a) and Sec.  98.264(b).
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (43) ASTM D6349-09 Standard Test Method for Determination of Major
and Minor Elements in Coal, Coke, and Solid Residues from Combustion of
Coal and Coke by Inductively Coupled Plasma--Atomic Emission
Spectrometry.

Subpart E--[Amended]

    6. Section 98.53 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  98.53  Calculating GHG emissions.

    (a) You must determine annual N2O emissions from adipic
acid production according to paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this
section.
    (1) Use a site-specific emission factor and production data
according to paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section.

    (2) Request Administrator approval for an alternative method of
determining N2O emissions according to paragraphs (a)(2)(i)
and (a)(2)(ii) of this section.
    (i) You must submit the request within 45 days following
promulgation of this subpart or within the first 30 days of each
subsequent reporting year.
    (ii) If the Administrator does not approve your requested
alternative method within 150 days of the end of the reporting year,
you must determine the N2O emissions for the current
reporting period using the procedures specified in paragraphs (b)
through (h) of this section.
    (b) You must conduct an annual performance test according to
paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section.
    (1) You must conduct the test on the waste gas stream from the
nitric acid oxidation step of the process, referred to as the test
point, according to the methods specified in Sec.  98.54(b) through
(f).
    (2) You must conduct the performance test under normal process
operating conditions.
    (3) You must measure the adipic acid production rate during the
test and calculate the production rate for the test period in metric
tons per hour.
    (c) Using the results of the performance test in paragraph (b) of
this section, you must calculate an emission factor for each adipic
acid unit according to Equation E-1 of this section:

 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JN10.001

Where:

EFN2O,N = Average facility-specific N2O
emission factor for each adipic acid production unit (lb
N2O generated/ton adipic acid produced).
CN2O = N2O concentration per test run during
the performance test (ppm N2O).
1.14 x 10-7 = Conversion factor (lb/dscf-ppm
N2O).
Q = Volumetric flow rate of effluent gas per test run during the
performance test (dscf/hr).
P = Production rate per test run during the performance test (tons
adipic acid produced/hr).
n = Number of test runs.

    (d) If any N2O abatement technology ``N'' is located
after your test point, you must determine the destruction efficiency
according to paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(2), or (d)(3) of this section.
    (1) Use the manufacturer's specified destruction efficiency.
    (2) Estimate the destruction efficiency through process knowledge.
Examples of information that could constitute process knowledge include
calculations based on material balances, process stoichiometry, or
previous test results provided the results are still relevant to the
current vent stream conditions. You must document how process knowledge
was used to determine the destruction efficiency.
    (3) Calculate the destruction efficiency by conducting an
additional performance test on the emissions stream following the
N2O abatement technology.
    (e) If any N2O abatement technology ``N'' is located
after your test point, you must determine the annual amount of adipic
acid produced while N2O abatement technology ``N'' is
operating according to Sec.  98.54(f). Then you must calculate the
abatement factor for N2O abatement technology ``N''
according to Equation E-2 of this section.

 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JN10.002

Where:

AFN = Abatement utilization factor of N2O
abatement technology ``N'' (fraction of annual production that
abatement technology is operating).
Pa,N = Annual adipic acid production during which
N2O abatement technology ``N'' was used (ton adipic acid
produced).

Pa = Total annual adipic acid production (ton acid
produced).
    (f) You must determine the annual amount of adipic acid produced
according to Sec.  98.54(f).
    (g) You must calculate N2O emissions according to
paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this section for each adipic acid
production unit and sum the unit level emissions to determine the
emissions for the facility.
    (1) If any N2O abatement technology ``N'' is located
after your test point, you must use the emissions factor (determined in
Equation E-1 of this section), the destruction efficiency (determined
in paragraph (d) of this section), the annual adipic acid production
(determined in paragraph (f) of this section), and the abatement
utilization factor (determined in paragraph (e) of this section),
according to Equation E-3a of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JN10.003

Where:

N2O = Annual N2O mass emissions from adipic
acid production (metric tons).
EFN2ON = N2O emissions factor for
unit(s) on which N2O abatement technology ``N'' is
operating (lb N2O generated/ton adipic acid produced).
PaN = Annual adipic acid produced by unit(s) for which
N2O abatement technology ``N'' is operating (tons).
DFN = Destruction efficiency of N2O abatement
technology ``N'' (percent of N2O removed from air
stream).
AFN = Abatement utilization factor of N2O
abatement technology ``N'' (fraction of annual production for which
N2O abatement technology ``N'' is operating).
2205 = Conversion factor (lb/metric ton).
N = Number of different N2O abatement technologies.

    (2) If no N2O abatement technologies are located after
your test point, you must use the emissions factor (determined using
Equation E-1 of this section) and the annual adipic acid production
(determined in paragraph (f) of this section) according to Equation E-
3b of this section for each adipic acid production unit.

 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JN10.004

Where:

N2O = Annual N2O mass emissions from adipic
acid production (metric tons).

EFN2O = N2O emissions factor (lb
N2O generated/ton adipic acid produced).
Pa = Annual adipic acid produced (tons).
2205 = Conversion factor (lb/metric ton).

    (h) You must determine the amount of process N2O
emissions that is sold or transferred off site (if applicable). You can
determine the amount using existing process flow meters and
N2O analyzers.
    7. Section 98.54 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text.
    b. Adding second and third sentences to paragraph (a)(1).
    c. Revising paragraph (a)(3).
    d. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text.
    e. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (d) introductory text.
    f. Revising paragraphs (e) and (f).

Sec.  98.54  Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.

    (a) You must conduct a new performance test and calculate a new
emissions factor for each adipic acid production unit according to the
frequency specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this
section.
    (1) * * * The test must be conducted at a point during production
that is representative of the average emissions from your process. You
must document the methods used to determine the representative point.
* * * * *
    (3) If you requested Administrator approval for an alternative
method of determining N2O emissions under Sec.  98.53(a)(2),
you must conduct the performance test if your request has not been
approved by the Administrator within 150 days of the end of the
reporting year in which it was submitted.
* * * * *
    (c) You must determine the adipic acid production rate during the
performance test according to paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this
section.
* * * * *
    (d) You must determine the volumetric flow rate during the
performance test in conjunction with the applicable EPA methods in 40
CFR part 60, appendices A-1 through A-4. * * *
* * * * *
    (e) You must determine the monthly amount of adipic acid produced
and the monthly amount of adipic acid produced during which
N2O abatement technology, located after the test point, is
operating according to the methods in paragraphs (c)(1) or (c)(2) of
this section.
    (f) You must determine the annual amount of adipic acid produced
and the annual amount of adipic produced during which N2O
abatement technology located after the test point is operating by
summing the respective monthly adipic acid production quantities
determined in paragraph (e) of this section.
    8. Section 98.56 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (c).
    b. Revising paragraph (j) introductory text.
    c. Revising paragraph (j)(1).
    d. Revising paragraph (k) introductory text.

Sec.  98.56  Data reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) Annual adipic acid production during which N2O
abatement technology (located after the test point) is operating
(tons).
* * * * *
    (j) If you conducted a performance test and calculated a site-
specific emissions factor according to Sec.  98.53(a)(1), each annual
report must also contain the information specified in paragraphs (j)(1)
through (j)(7) of this section for each adipic acid production unit.
    (1) Emission factor (lb N2O/ton adipic acid).
* * * * *
    (k) If you requested Administrator approval for an alternative
method of determining N2O emissions under Sec.  98.53(a)(2),
each annual report must also contain the information specified in
paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(4) of this section for each adipic acid
production facility.
* * * * *
    9. Section 98.57 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (c).
    b. Revising paragraph (f).

Sec.  98.57  Records that must be retained.

* * * * *
    (c) Number of facility and unit operating hours in calendar year.
* * * * *
    (f) Performance test reports.
* * * * *

Subpart H--[Amended]

    10. Section 98.83 is amended by revising the introductory text of
paragraph (d)(3); and by revising the definitions of ``rm'', ``TOCrm'',
and ``M'' in Equation H-5 of paragraph (d)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  98.83  Calculating GHG emissions.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (3) CO2 emissions from raw materials. Calculate
CO2 emissions from raw materials using Equation H-5 of this
section:
* * * * *
rm = The amount of raw material i consumed annually, tons/yr (dry
basis) or the amount of raw kiln feed consumed annually, tons/yr