[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 206 (Friday, October 24, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63749-63799]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23780]

Vol. 79

Friday,

No. 206

October 24, 2014

Part III

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 98

 Revisions to Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, and
Confidentiality Determinations Under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting
Program; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 206 / Friday, October 24, 2014 /
Rules and Regulations

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 98

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929; FRL-9916-76-OAR]
RIN 2060-AQ81

Revisions to Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, and
Confidentiality Determinations Under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting
Program; Final Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is amending the
reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Program. These amendments include an alternative verification
approach in lieu of collecting certain data elements for which the EPA
has identified disclosure concerns and for which the reporting deadline
was deferred until March 31, 2015. The alternative verification
approach includes the addition of new verification, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements while maintaining the EPA's ability to verify
emissions and ensure compliance with the Greenhouse Gas Reporting
Program. In conjunction with the amendments, the EPA is establishing
final confidentiality determinations for the new data elements added in
this action.

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 24, 2014.

ADDRESSES: 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., confidential business
information (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, William
Jefferson Clinton Building West, Room B102, 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 GENERAL 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>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For technical information, contact the
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule Helpline at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrule_contactus.htm. Alternatively, contact
Carole Cook at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of this final rule, memoranda to the docket, and all
other related information will also be available through the WWW on the
EPA's greenhouse gas reporting rule Web site at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Regulated Entities. This final rule revision on reporting and
recordkeeping requirements and verification procedures affects entities
that must submit annual greenhouse gas (GHG) reports under the
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) (40 CFR part 98). The
Administrator has determined that 40 CFR part 98 is subject to the
provisions of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(d). See CAA section
307(d)(1)(V) (the provisions of CAA section 307(d) apply to ``such
other actions as the Administrator may determine''). Entities affected
by this final rule are owners and operators of facilities that are
direct emitters of GHGs, which include those listed in Table 1 of this
preamble:

                               Table 1--Examples of Affected Entities by Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Category                              NAICS                   Examples of affected facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Stationary Fuel Combustion      ..............................  Facilities operating boilers, process
 Sources.                                                                heaters, incinerators, turbines, and
                                                                         internal combustion engines.
                                        321...........................  Manufacturers of lumber and wood
                                                                         products.
                                        322...........................  Pulp and paper mills.
                                        325...........................  Chemical manufacturers.
                                        324...........................  Petroleum refineries and manufacturers
                                                                         of coal products.
                                        316, 326, 339.................  Manufacturers of rubber and
                                                                         miscellaneous plastic products.
                                        331...........................  Steel works, blast furnaces.
                                        332...........................  Electroplating, plating, polishing,
                                                                         anodizing, and coloring.
                                        336...........................  Manufacturers of motor vehicle parts and
                                                                         accessories.
                                        221...........................  Electric, gas, and sanitary services.
                                        622...........................  Health services.
                                        611...........................  Educational services.
                                        325193........................  Ethyl alcohol manufacturing facilities.
                                        311611........................  Meat processing facilities.
                                        311411........................  Frozen fruit, juice, and vegetable
                                                                         manufacturing facilities.
                                        311421........................  Fruit and vegetable canning facilities.
Adipic Acid Production................  325199........................  Adipic acid manufacturing facilities.
Aluminum Production...................  331312........................  Primary aluminum production facilities.
Ammonia Manufacturing.................  325311........................  Anhydrous and aqueous ammonia production
                                                                         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           325120........................  Chlorodifluoromethane manufacturing
 Destruction.                                                            facilities.
Hydrogen Production...................  325120........................  Hydrogen production facilities.
Iron and Steel Production.............  331111........................  Integrated iron and steel mills, steel
                                                                         companies, sinter plants, blast
                                                                         furnaces, basic oxygen process furnace
                                                                         shops.

Lead Production.......................  331419........................  Primary lead smelting and refining
                                                                         facilities.
                                        331492........................  Secondary lead smelting and refining
                                                                         facilities.
Lime Production.......................  327410........................  Calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide,
                                                                         dolomitic hydrates manufacturing
                                                                         facilities.
Nitric Acid Production................  325311........................  Nitric acid production facilities.
Petrochemical Production..............  32511.........................  Ethylene dichloride production
                                                                         facilities.
                                        325199........................  Acrylonitrile, ethylene oxide, methanol
                                                                         production facilities.
                                        325110........................  Ethylene production facilities.
                                        325182........................  Carbon black production facilities.
Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems.....  486210........................  Pipeline transportation of natural gas.
                                        221210........................  Natural gas distribution facilities.
                                        211...........................  Extractors of crude petroleum and
                                                                         natural gas.
                                        211112........................  Natural gas liquid extraction
                                                                         facilities.
Petroleum Refineries..................  324110........................  Petroleum refineries.
Phosphoric Acid Production............  325312........................  Phosphoric acid manufacturing
                                                                         facilities.
Pulp and Paper Manufacturing..........  322110........................  Pulp mills.
                                        322121........................  Paper mills.
                                        322130........................  Paperboard mills.
Silicon Carbide Production............  327910........................  Silicon carbide abrasives 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.
                                        311411........................  Frozen fruit, juice and vegetable
                                                                         manufacturing facilities.
                                        311421........................  Fruit and vegetable canning facilities.
Wastewater Treatment \a\..............  322110........................  Pulp mills.
                                        322121........................  Paper mills.
                                        322122........................  Newsprint mills.
                                        322130........................  Paperboard mills.
                                        311611........................  Meat processing facilities.
                                        311411........................  Frozen fruit, juice and vegetable
                                                                         manufacturing facilities.
                                        311421........................  Fruit and vegetable canning facilities.
                                        325193........................  Ethanol manufacturing facilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The inputs to emission equations (for which reporting was deferred to 2015) in these categories were
  evaluated following the four-step process set forth in the memorandum entitled ``Process for Evaluating and
  Potentially Amending Part 98 Inputs to Emission Equations'' (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929). Refer to
  Section 1.B of the proposal preamble (78 FR 55994, September 11, 2013) for further information regarding this
  evaluation. No amendment to the subpart affecting this industry category was proposed as a result of the
  evaluation. Accordingly, this final action does not include any amendment to this subpart. Refer to Section
  II.B of this preamble for further discussion of the EPA's decision.

    Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but
rather provides a guide for readers regarding facilities and suppliers
likely to be affected by this action. Types of facilities other than
those listed in this table might also be affected by this action. 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 subparts. If you have questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular facility or
supplier, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
GENERAL INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Many facilities that are affected by 40 CFR part 98 have GHG
emissions from multiple source categories listed in Table 1 of this
preamble.
    Judicial Review. Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of
this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the
Court) by December 23, 2014. Under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), only an
objection to this final rule that was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during
judicial review. Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA also provides a
mechanism for the EPA to convene a proceeding for reconsideration,
``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate to EPA that it
was impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for public
comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period
for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review)
and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the
rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration to us should
submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Room 3000, William
Jefferson Clinton Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460, with a copy to the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
GENERAL INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel
for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail
Code 2344A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20004. Note that under CAA section 307(b)(2), the
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to
enforce these requirements.
    Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and
abbreviations are used in this document.

CAA Clean Air Act
CaO Calcium oxide
CAR Climate Action Reserve
CBI Confidential business information
CEMS continuous emissions monitoring system
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CKD Cement kiln dust
CO2 Carbon dioxide

e-GGRT Electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FISMA Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002
FR Federal Register
FTC Federal Trade Commission
GHG Greenhouse gas
GHGRP Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program
HCFC-22 Chlorodifluoromethane
HFC Hydrofluorocarbons
HTML Hypertext markup language
ICR Information Collection Request
IVT Inputs Verification Tool
KA Ketone-alcohol oil (or cyclohexanol)
lb Pound
MMBtu Million British thermal units
N2O Nitrous oxide
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OMB Office of Management & Budget
PUC Public utility commission
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
SSM Startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TLS Transport Layer Security
TRI Toxics Release Inventory
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
U.S. United States
WWW Worldwide Web
XML Extensible markup language

    Organization of This Document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. Executive Summary, Background, and Overview
    A. How is this preamble organized?
    B. Executive Summary
    C. Background on the Action
    D. Subparts Covered in the Final Rule
    E. Legal Authority
II. Summary of Final Amendments to Part 98
    A. Addition of a Requirement for Certain Reporters To Use an
Inputs Verification Tool (IVT) to Enter Certain Data Elements
    B. Removal of the Requirement To Report Certain Data Elements
    C. Revision of Recordkeeping Requirements for Facilities
Required To Use IVT
    D. Addition of Reporting Requirements for Certain Facilities
Required To Use IVT
III. Summary of Final Confidentiality Determinations for New Data
Elements
    A. Summary of Final CBI Determinations
    B. Response to Public Comments
IV. Impacts of the Final Rule
    A. How were the costs of this final rule estimated?
    B. Do the final confidentiality determinations change the
impacts of the final amendments?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. Executive Summary, Background, and Overview

A. How is this preamble organized?

    Section I of this preamble provides background information
regarding the origin of the final amendments. Section I also discusses
the EPA's legal authority under the CAA to promulgate and amend the
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (40 CFR part 98, hereinafter referred to
as ``Part 98'') and the EPA's legal authority to make confidentiality
determinations for new data elements required by this amendment.
Section II of this preamble describes the final amendments to Part 98,
which includes the EPA's proposed alternative verification approach.
Section II of this preamble also describes the major changes made since
proposal to the alternative verification approach and provides brief
summaries of significant public comments and the EPA's responses
thereto. Section III of this preamble finalizes the confidentiality
determinations for the new data reporting elements being added to Part
98 in this action. Section IV of this preamble discusses the impacts of
the final amendments. Section V of this preamble describes the
statutory and executive order requirements applicable to this action.

B. Executive Summary

    The EPA is finalizing the proposed alternative verification
approach for the GHGRP, with some changes made in response to public
comments. The alternative verification approach includes amendments to
reporting and recordkeeping requirements of Part 98, as follows:
     Adding a requirement for certain reporters under 23
subparts to use an EPA-provided inputs verification tool (IVT). For
these subparts, 324 inputs to emission equations for which reporting
was deferred to 2015 and for which disclosure concerns have been
identified must be entered into IVT.\1\ IVT will perform electronic
verification on the entered inputs to emission equations and use the
entered inputs to calculate the emission equation results. IVT will not
retain the entered inputs (i.e., the inputs are not reporting
requirements under Part 98); instead, IVT will conduct certain checks
(e.g., accuracy of the inputs and the calculated emissions values) at
the time of data entry and generate a verification summary. The EPA
will not have access to the entered inputs either during the time of
entry or any time thereafter. However, the verification summary, which
will be accessible to the EPA once the reporter has completed using IVT
and the annual report is submitted, will provide the EPA with
information to conduct further verification if necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under this final action, IVT would not be required to be
used by reporters for any reported GHG for which the reporter uses a
continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) or an EPA-approved
alternative method--as allowed under 40 CFR 98.33(a)(5),
98.53(a)(2), and 98.223(a)(2) to calculate the reported GHG value,
rather than using inputs to emission equations (for which reporting
was deferred to 2015) and the associated EPA-provided calculation
methodologies to calculate the reported GHG value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     For 23 subparts, removing the requirement to report 378
inputs to emission equations for which reporting was deferred to 2015
and for which disclosure concerns have been identified.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As mentioned above, there are 378 equation inputs for which
reporting was deferred to 2015 and for which the EPA determined
there are disclosure concerns, and 324 of these equation inputs must
be entered into IVT. Fifty-four of the 378 equation inputs do not
need to be entered into IVT because these equation inputs are
redundant to other equations inputs being entered into IVT or are
otherwise not needed for verification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     For reporters required to use IVT, specifying the format
for maintaining records of data entered into IVT so that all such
records are maintained in a consistent format; and for each facility
subject to the IVT requirement, lengthening the record retention period
from 3 to 5 years for all data entered into IVT and for other records
maintained by the reporting facility under Part 98 (including subparts
not required to use IVT).
     For certain reporters required to use IVT, adding new data
elements to be reported.
    The EPA is not amending the reporting requirements for 151 inputs
to emission equations for which reporting was deferred, but for which
disclosure concerns were not identified and the data remain useful. For
these inputs to emission equations, the deferral will

expire on March 31, 2015, by which date these inputs must be
reported.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In this action, the EPA is providing an option for Subpart W
reporters to delay reporting of six inputs to emission equations for
two reporting years in specific situations. Refer to section III.A.3
of this preamble for further discussion on this topic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This alternative verification approach builds on the EPA's
experience and success with electronic reporting and verification
during the first 4 years of the GHGRP. This alternative verification
approach, which includes additional verification checks that IVT will
conduct on data entered into IVT (during the data entry process),
provides the EPA with information necessary to identify facilities with
potential reporting errors and conduct further verification following
the submission of annual reports. This alternative verification
approach, including its associated revisions to recordkeeping and
reporting requirements, provides an alternative to collecting certain
data elements for which disclosure concerns have been identified, while
maintaining the EPA's ability to verify data and ensure compliance with
the GHGRP.
    Also, in conjunction with the amendments, the EPA is establishing
confidentiality determinations for the new data elements finalized in
this action.

C. Background on the Action

    On October 30, 2009, the EPA published the Greenhouse Gas Reporting
Rule, 40 CFR part 98, requiring annual reporting of GHG data from a
broad range of industry sectors (74 FR 56260). Under Part 98, the EPA
requires annual reporting of data from certain facilities and suppliers
above specified emission or quantity-supplied thresholds. On July 7,
2010 (75 FR 39094) and subsequent proposals (77 FR 1434, January 10,
2012; 77 FR 10434, February 22, 2012), we proposed confidentiality
determinations for the data elements required to be reported. The
confidentiality of each reported data element was determined using a
two-step approach: (1) Grouping data elements into 22 data categories
(e.g., inputs to emission equations, emissions, and unit/process
operating characteristics that are not inputs to emission equations for
direct emitter source categories) and (2) making confidentiality
determinations either categorically or on the basis of individual data
elements. Refer to both the July 7, 2010 proposal (75 FR 39097) and the
May 26, 2011 final rule (76 FR 30785-30786) for more detailed
descriptions of this process. Refer to the May 26, 2011 final rule also
for a discussion of individual data element confidentiality
determinations. The EPA has established final confidentiality
determinations for part 98 data elements except those in the ``inputs
to emission equations'' category (May 26, 2011, 76 FR 30782; August 13,
2012, 77 FR 48072; and August 24, 2012, 77 FR 51477).\4\ We proposed
that ``inputs to emission equations'' meet the definition of ``emission
data'' under 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i). Because, under section 114(c) of
the CAA, emission data are not entitled to confidential treatment, we
did not evaluate whether such data elements would qualify as CBI,
including whether disclosure would likely cause substantial competitive
harm to the reporting facilities (75 FR 39105 and 39108, July 7, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ There are a small number of data elements (besides data
elements categorized as ``inputs to emission equations'') for which
we have not made final confidentiality determinations because we
concluded that a determination of confidentiality for the data
element should be made on a case-by-case facility basis. For
example, annual ferroalloy product production capacity in subpart K
(ferroalloy production), was not assigned a confidentiality
determination; see 76 FR 30782, May 26, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following our proposal, we received numerous industry comments
expressing concerns regarding potential disclosure of many of these
data elements. In light of the comments, the EPA expressed that ``these
concerns warranted an in-depth evaluation of the potential impact from
the release of inputs to emission equations'' and that the EPA would
``complete this evaluation and take appropriate final actions regarding
inputs to equations before these data elements are reported to EPA and
potentially be subject to release.'' (76 FR 53060, August 25, 2011). In
a document published on December 27, 2010, we issued a call for
information (75 FR 81366) requesting additional information to assist
us in conducting our evaluation. To allow sufficient time to complete
this evaluation through notice and comment, we deferred the reporting
deadline for data elements assigned to the ``inputs to emission
equation'' category. Reporting of certain of these data elements was
deferred to March 31, 2013, as specified in Table A-6 to subpart A; and
reporting of the remainder of these data elements was deferred to March
31, 2015, as specified in Table A-7 to subpart A (see the August 25,
2011 final rule, 76 FR 53057).
    Our process for the abovementioned evaluation was documented in the
final deferral document (76 FR 53057, August 25, 2011) and the
accompanying memorandum entitled ``Process for Evaluating and
Potentially Amending Part 98 Inputs to Emission Equations'' (Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929). As discussed in the final deferral document
and memorandum, our evaluation involved a four-step process, as
follows:

     Step 1: Determine whether each data element assigned to
the ``inputs to emission equations'' category is already publicly
available.
     Step 2: For data elements assigned to the ``inputs to
emission equations'' category that are not publicly available,
evaluate whether disclosure of the information is likely to result
in substantial competitive harm.
     Step 3: For data elements assigned to the ``inputs to
emission equations'' category that are likely to cause substantial
competitive harm if disclosed, evaluate potential alternative
calculation methods.
     Step 4: For data elements assigned to the ``inputs to
emission equations'' category that are likely to cause substantial
competitive harm if disclosed, evaluate potential alternative
verification methods.

    Using each step of the four-step evaluation process, the EPA
evaluated data elements for which reporting was deferred to March 31,
2015.\5\ The results of the evaluation were documented in the four
following memoranda available in the EPA's Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0929:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Based on the same four-step process, we also evaluated all
data elements for which reporting was deferred to March 31, 2013
(Table A-6 to Part 98), which did not result in amendments to Part
98. Accordingly, affected facilities were required to report by
April 1, 2013 these data elements for reporting years 2010 through
2012 and must include them in annual reports for subsequent
reporting years, as required by Part 98. For a discussion of this
evaluation, refer to the EPA's memorandum ``Summary of Evaluation of
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) Part 98 ``Inputs to
Emission Equations'' Data Elements Deferred Until 2013'' (December
17, 2012), available at http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/documents/pdf/2012/documents/2013-inputs-memo.pdf. In addition, the reporting
of the inputs to emission equations in subpart I was addressed by
amendments published on November 13, 2013 (77 FR 68162).

     ``Evaluation of Public Availability of Inputs to
Emission Equations for which Reporting was Deferred to March 31,
2015,'' August 2013.
     ``Evaluation of Competitive Harm from Disclosure of
`Inputs to Equations' Data Elements Deferred to March 31, 2015,''
August 2013.
     ``Evaluation of Alternative Calculation Methods,''
August 2013.
     ``Evaluation of Alternative Verification Approaches For
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule Subparts for which Reporting of Inputs
to Emission Equations was Deferred to March 31, 2015,'' August 2013.

    Based on the results of this evaluation, the EPA proposed on
September 11, 2013 (78 FR 55994) amendments to the recordkeeping and
reporting provisions for 24 subparts of Part 98, including an
alternative

verification approach, to address the inputs to emission equations for
which disclosure concerns were identified in these subparts. The public
comment period for the proposed rule amendments was initially scheduled
to end on November 12, 2013. The EPA received requests to extend the
public comment period, and the EPA published a document in the Federal
Register on November 6, 2013 (78 FR 66674) extending the public comment
period to November 26, 2013.
    In this action, the EPA is finalizing the proposed alternative
verification approach for 23 subparts of the GHGRP with some changes
from the proposed rule. The EPA had proposed amendments but is not
taking final action on subpart L inputs to emission equations. Final
action on subpart L inputs to emission equations will be addressed in a
separate rulemaking.\6\ Responses to comments submitted on the proposed
amendments can be found in both Section II of this preamble and the
document ``Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule--Revisions to Reporting and
Recordkeeping Requirements, and Proposed Confidentiality Determinations
Under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program: EPA's Responses to Public
Comments'' (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Accordingly, comments received covering solely topics
related to subpart L will be addressed in a separate rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Subparts Covered in the Final Rule

    The final amendments remove certain reporting requirements and add
certain verification requirements for all subparts listed in Table 2 of
this preamble. Table 2 of this preamble includes most of the subparts
of Part 98 with inputs to emission equations for which the reporting
deadline was deferred until 2015. Subpart I is not included in Table 2
of this preamble because reporting of the inputs to emission equations
for subpart I was addressed by amendments published on November 13,
2013 (77 FR 68162). As mentioned above, subpart L is not included in
Table 2 of this preamble because the EPA's final decision on reporting
of the inputs to emission equations for subpart L will be addressed in
a separate rulemaking. Subpart II is not listed in Table 2 of this
preamble because no subpart II inputs to emission equations were
determined to have disclosure concerns, so no subpart II inputs are
removed from reporting under this amendment. Subpart W is excluded from
Table 2 of this preamble as well, because no inputs to emission
equations in subpart W are being removed from reporting. Refer to the
memorandum ``Final Evaluation of Competitive Harm from Disclosure of
`Inputs to Equations' Data Elements Deferred to March 31, 2015,''
September 2014 (refer to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929) for
discussions about the EPA's harm analysis results for subparts W and
II. Refer to Section II.B of this preamble for a discussion of
amendments to subpart W. Additionally, parts of these final rule
amendments affect subparts not listed in Table 2 of this preamble.
Specifically, for owners or operators of facilities subject to both a
subpart listed in Table 2 of this preamble and a subpart of Part 98 not
listed in Table 2 of this preamble, the amended recordkeeping duration
applies to the facility's records required for all Part 98 subparts (to
which the reporter is subject). Refer to Sections II.C and III.B of the
proposal preamble for further discussion of this recordkeeping
amendment (78 FR 55994, September 11, 2013). Additionally, owners or
operators of facilities reporting under subparts E, H, O, Q, W, Y, AA,
CC, and II, as well as certain owners and operators reporting under
subpart C, must report inputs to emission equations for which reporting
was deferred to 2015 and disclosure concerns were not identified for
reporting years 2010 through 2013 in the reporting year 2014 annual
report.\7\ Refer to Section III.A.3 of the proposal preamble for
further discussion of this reporting amendment (78 FR 55994, September
11, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For six data elements in subpart W, reporting of the data
for reporting year 2013 may be delayed until reporting year 2015 in
specific cases. Refer to section II.B.2 of this preamble for further
discussion of this optional reporting delay. Further, final action
on the inputs to emission equations whose reporting deadline was
deferred until 2015 in Subpart L will be addressed in a separate
rulemaking.

   Table 2--Subparts Affected by the Final Amendments Removing Certain
       Reporting and Adding Certain Verification Requirements \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Subpart
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
C--General Stationary Fuel Combustion--Stationary fuel combustion
 sources (e.g., individual units, aggregations of units, common pipes,
 or common stacks) excluding those that contain at least one combustion
 unit connected to a fuel-fired electric generator owned or operated by
 an entity that is subject to regulation of customer billing rates by
 the public utility commission (PUC) (excluding generators connected to
 combustion units subject to 40 CFR part 98, subpart D) and that are
 located at a facility for which the sum of the nameplate capacities for
 all such electric generators is greater than or equal to 1 megawatt
 electric output.b c
E--Adipic Acid Production.
F--Aluminum Production.
G--Ammonia Manufacturing.
H--Cement Production.
K--Ferroalloy Production.
N--Glass Production.
O--HCFC-22 Production and HFC-23 Destruction.
P--Hydrogen Production.
Q--Iron and Steel Production.
R--Lead Production.
S--Lime Manufacturing.
U--Miscellaneous Uses of Carbonate.
V--Nitric Acid Production.
X--Petrochemical Production.
Y--Petroleum Refineries.
Z--Phosphoric Acid Production.
AA--Pulp and Paper Manufacturing.
BB--Silicon Carbide Production.
CC--Soda Ash Manufacturing.
EE--Titanium Dioxide Production.

GG--Zinc Production.
TT--Industrial Waste Landfills.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This final action does not remove reporting requirements or require
  use of IVT for any reported GHG value for which the reporter uses a
  continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) or an EPA-approved
  alternative method--as allowed under 40 CFR 98.33(a)(5), 98.53(a)(2),
  and 98.223(a)(2)--to calculate the reported GHG value, rather than
  using inputs to emission equations for which reporting was deferred to
  March 31, 2015, and the associated EPA-provided calculation
  methodologies to calculate the reported GHG value.
\b\ Includes one deferred input to an emission equations, 40 CFR
  98.3(d)(3)(v), which is specified in subpart A of Part 98 and applies
  to only certain reporters under subpart C.
\c\ These subpart C sources may elect to report inputs to emission
  equations rather than use IVT.

E. Legal Authority

    The EPA is amending Part 98 under its existing CAA authority
provided in CAA section 114. As stated in the preamble to the 2009
final GHG reporting rule (74 FR 56260, October 30, 2009), CAA section
114(a)(1) provides the EPA broad authority to require the information
to be reported by this rule because such data would inform and are
relevant to the EPA's carrying out a wide variety of CAA provisions.
See the preambles to the proposed (74 FR 16448, April 10, 2009) and
final Part 98 (74 FR 56260, October 30, 2009) for further information.
    In addition, pursuant to sections 114, 301, and 307 of the CAA, the
EPA has established final confidentiality determinations for the new
data elements required by this amendment. Section 114(c) of the CAA
requires that the EPA make publicly available information obtained
under CAA section 114, except for information (excluding emission data)
that qualifies for confidential treatment. The Administrator has
determined that this action (Part 98 amendment and confidentiality
determinations) is subject to the provisions of CAA section 307(d).

II. Summary of Final Amendments to Part 98

    The EPA is finalizing the proposed alternative verification
approach for the GHGRP, with some changes made in response to public
comments. A detailed description of the alternative verification
approach is available in the preamble to the proposed rule (78 FR
55994, September 11, 2013). Additionally, the EPA is finalizing its CBI
determinations for the new reporting elements added to Part 98 in this
action, with changes made in response to public comments.
    This section of the preamble describes the final amendments to Part
98, organized according to the following four general areas:

     Addition of a requirement for facilities subject to the
subparts listed in Table 2 of this preamble to use IVT to enter 324
inputs to emission equations into IVT for which reporting was
deferred to 2015 and for which disclosure concerns were identified.
     Removal of the requirement to report 378 inputs to
emission equations for which reporting was deferred to 2015 and for
which disclosure concerns were identified.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ As mentioned above, there are 378 equation inputs for which
reporting was deferred to 2015 and for which the EPA determined
there are disclosure concerns, and 324 of these equation inputs must
be entered into IVT. Fifty-four of the 378 equation inputs do not
need to be entered into IVT because these equation inputs are
redundant to other equations inputs being entered into IVT or are
otherwise not needed for verification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Revision of recordkeeping requirements for facilities
required to use IVT.
     Addition of new reporting elements for certain
facilities required to use IVT.

    These four areas of final amendments are described in more detail
in Sections II.A through II.D of this preamble. Specifically, each of
these sections includes a summary of final amendments, a summary of
major changes since proposal, and a summary of the major comments and
the EPA's responses thereto. The comment response document (Docket ID.
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929) includes a complete listing of all comments
received on the proposed rule (78 FR 55994, September 11, 2013) and the
EPA's responses.
    Additional rationale for these amendments is available in the
preamble to the proposed rule (78 FR 55994, September 11, 2013).
    The final amendments also include minor changes from the proposed
rule that harmonize regulatory text to be consistent with other
provisions in 40 CFR part 98, clarify regulatory text, and correct
minor errors in the proposal. These changes are described in the
memorandum ``Summary and Explanation of Minor Changes Since the
Proposed Rule'' (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929).

A. Addition of a Requirement for Certain Reporters To Use an Inputs
Verification Tool (IVT) To Enter Certain Data Elements

1. Summary of Final Amendments to Part 98
    The EPA is finalizing the proposed requirement that IVT be used by
facilities subject to the subparts listed in Table 2 of this preamble,
with some exceptions for certain subpart C sources, as further
discussed in Section II.A.2 of this preamble. Most commenters generally
supported use of IVT as an effective method for verifying emissions.
Using entered inputs to emission equations, IVT calculates the equation
results, conducts electronic verification checks on the inputs, and
generates a verification summary, as follows. IVT will be deployed
within the Electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool (e-GGRT) and will
be integrated without interrupting the current electronic reporting
process. Reporters will enter data into e-GGRT that are required to be
reported in the annual report, and will also enter into e-GGRT (via
IVT) the inputs to emission equations for which reporting is no longer
required under the amendments. IVT will use these entered data to
calculate the equation results, conduct electronic verification checks
on the entered inputs to emission equations, and generate a
verification summary that informs the EPA about the verification
results without specifying the entered inputs to emission equations.
IVT will not retain the entered inputs to emission equations, which
will not be electronically accessible to the EPA during their entry or
anytime thereafter. Instead, the EPA will rely on the verification
summary, which will become accessible to the EPA after annual report
submittal, and other follow-up verification procedures described in the
proposed rule for conducting verification. Sources subject to multiple
subparts under Part 98 are required to use IVT for only those subparts
listed in Table 2 of this

preamble. Reporters must use IVT starting with reporting year 2014. A
detailed description of IVT and these requirements is provided in the
proposal preamble (78 FR 55994, September 11, 2013), the memorandum
``Technical Approach and Design for Inputs Verification Tool,'' August
2013 (refer to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929), and Section II.A.3
of this preamble.
    The inputs to emission equations required to be entered into IVT
are specified in the ``verification software records'' provisions in
the recordkeeping section of each subpart specified in Table 2 of this
preamble.
    Subpart C sources (e.g., individual units, aggregations of units,
common pipes, or common stacks) that do not meet the following criteria
have the option to use IVT or to report these deferred inputs to
emission equations for which reporting was deferred to 2015: Contain at
least one combustion unit connected to a fuel-fired electric generator
owned or operated by an entity that is subject to regulation of
customer billing rates by the public utility commission (PUC)
(excluding generators connected to combustion units subject to 40 CFR
part 98, subpart D) and are located at a facility for which the sum of
the nameplate capacities for all such electric generators is greater
than or equal to 1 megawatt electric output. For those sources who
choose to report their inputs to emission equations, e-GGRT will
require the reporters to waive the right to make confidentiality claims
before they can be reported via e-GGRT.
2. Summary of Changes Since Proposal
    This section provides a brief summary of changes to the requirement
to use IVT since proposal. The EPA's rationale for these changes is
provided in Section II.A.3 of this preamble as part of the EPA's
response to the related comment(s).
    The changes to the proposed requirement to use IVT are as follows:

     The EPA has revised one of the criteria in 40 CFR
98.36(f) that specifies which stationary fuel combustion sources
(e.g., individual units, aggregations of units, common pipes, or
common stacks) subject to subpart C of part 98 are required to
report inputs to emission equations for which reporting was deferred
to 2015. At proposal, 40 CFR 98.36(f)(1) stated that the stationary
combustion source contains at least one combustion unit connected to
a fuel-fired electric generator granted access by the Public
Utilities Commission to deliver power to the local or regional power
grid (excluding generators that are connected to combustion units
that are subject to subpart D of the part). In the final rule, this
criterion is revised to state that the stationary fuel combustion
source contains at least one combustion unit connected to a fuel-
fired electric generator that is owned or operated by an entity that
is subject to regulation of customer billing rates by the public
utility commission (excluding generators that are connected to
combustion units that are subject to subpart D of the part).
     For sources that do not meet the criteria specified in
40 CFR 98.36(f), the EPA has added an option in 40 CFR 98.3(d)(3)(v)
and 40 CFR 98.36(a) to either elect to use IVT or, if potential
disclosure is not a concern to the reporters, to report these inputs
to emission equations. For reporting year 2014, if a subpart C
source elects not to use IVT, the source is required to report their
subpart C inputs to emission equations for which reporting was
deferred to 2015 for reporting years 2010 through 2014 in the
reporting year 2014 annual report. If this source is not required to
use IVT for other subparts listed in Table 2 of this preamble, the
source would not be subject to the extended recordkeeping
requirements of 5 years.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ If the source is required to use IVT for other subparts, the
source must retain records for all subparts (including subpart C)
for a period of 5 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The EPA has revised the proposed amendments to 40 CFR
98.5(b) to add an option for reporters subject to using IVT to enter
an explanation into IVT in cases where IVT has produced a warning
message for an entered data value (e.g., the value is outside the
EPA's expected range), but the reporter believes that the data value
is accurate as entered.
     The EPA has revised its method for specifying which
inputs to emission equations must be entered into IVT. At proposal,
40 CFR 98.5(b) indicated which inputs to emission equations must be
entered into IVT by referring to equations specified in proposed
Table A-8 of Part 98. In the final rule, the EPA identifies the
inputs to emission equations that must be entered into IVT in a
``verification software records'' provision in the recordkeeping
section of each affected subpart. Therefore, proposed Table A-8 is
not included in the final rule. Refer to Section II.C of this
preamble for further discussion of these ``verification software
records'' provisions.

    Additionally, in response to public comments, the EPA is making
changes related to implementation of the alternative verification
approach. These changes do not involve regulatory amendments to Part
98, but do improve the design and use of the IVT and address questions
and concerns raised by commenters. A summary of these changes follows.
    IVT Testing. The EPA will provide an opportunity well in advance of
the March 2015 reporting deadline for stakeholders to test and provide
feedback to the EPA on IVT for the 23 subparts addressed in this final
action via a compliance assistance open testing period, or ``sandbox.''
Refer to Section II.A.3 of this preamble for a description of
``sandbox'' testing and further discussion of this opportunity. The EPA
encourages all stakeholders to participate in the sandbox testing
because this testing will provide a valuable opportunity for reporters
to preview and familiarize themselves with the new application for all
applicable subparts before the open reporting period begins, typically
in mid-February. The EPA intends to offer sandbox testing from October
through December 2014, providing testing by subpart on a rolling basis.
Participants who identify an error in IVT will have the opportunity to
provide feedback to the EPA regarding their IVT testing experience.
Such feedback will ensure a higher quality IVT for reporting in early
2015 and subsequent years. For details on the sandbox testing,
including a schedule of when testing will occur for each of the 23
subparts, please see http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/reporters/training/inputs-verifier.html.
    IVT Design. In response to commenter input, the EPA has revised the
IVT design to improve the ease of use and the efficiency of the data
entry process, instructions, help screens, warnings, and error
messages. Refer to Section II.A.3 of this preamble for further
discussion of these revisions. See the EPA's comment response document
in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929 for a list of all public comments
regarding additional improvements to IVT and the EPA's responses,
including revisions to address errors identified by commenters.
3. Summary of Comments and Responses
    This section provides a brief summary of the significant comments
received in response to the proposed requirement to use IVT, and the
EPA's responses. The EPA's comment response document in Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929 provides a complete listing of all related
comments and the EPA's responses.
    Comment: One commenter asserted that the verification approach that
the EPA has used during the deferral period has been successful, is
efficient, and should be adopted as EPA's permanent approach for
verification, rather than requiring facilities to use IVT. The
commenter asserted that, during this deferral period, verification
checks have been conducted through e-GGRT on data that have been
reported to the EPA. The commenter believes that while the EPA has
identified reporting errors during these years, such concerns will
become increasingly rare as reporters become more familiar with and are
able

to streamline the reporting process. The commenter asserted that in
situations where the EPA is not able to verify the data, the EPA can
continue to follow-up with facilities. The commenter also asserted that
the interim verification approach used by the EPA has strong parallels
to other ``certification'' requirements that the EPA has long deemed
sufficient to ensure compliance in similar circumstances. Finally, the
commenter asserted that because the interim verification approach has
been successful, the risk of entering CBI into an unproven system that
has the potential to be insecure is not justified.
    Response: As the commenter notes, the EPA has been conducting
verification checks using data other than inputs to emission equations.
Although the checks to date gave us some confidence in the submitted
data, the verification approach being finalized in this action allows
for more precise checks to be conducted and therefore a more robust
verification approach. Specifically, requiring that the inputs to
emission equations (for which disclosure concerns were identified) be
entered into IVT allows the tool to verify reported emissions by
calculating the emission equation results as well as conducting
verification checks on the entered inputs to emission equations. These
checks are designed to ensure that calculations are performed correctly
by the reporter and that appropriate data were used to calculate
emissions. While the EPA agrees that over time, commenters will become
more familiar with e-GGRT and IVT and the increased familiarity may
help to reduce reporting errors, it is important that the Agency's
verification process is as robust as it can be to ensure the accuracy
of the submitted data. The verification approach finalized in this
action will accomplish that goal while at the same time addressing the
concerns regarding potential disclosure of sensitive information.
    Regarding the comment that the verification approach used during
the deferral period is similar to ``other certification requirements
that the EPA has long deemed sufficient to ensure compliance in similar
circumstances,'' it is not clear which programs to which the commenter
is referring. As the EPA stated in the memorandum ``Evaluation of
Alternative Verification Approaches For Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule
Subparts for which Reporting of Inputs to Emission Equations was
Deferred to March 31, 2015'' (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0048), the EPA
considered the verification approach used by the EPA's Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI) program, which requires self-certification that the
information reported is accurate, and includes electronic data checks
and follow-up conducted by the EPA. However, the TRI is a different
type of program than the GHGRP in that it does not require specific
monitoring and calculation approaches, but rather requires that
estimates be based on the best available information. In contrast, the
GHGRP prescribes a set of specific calculation methods, or equations,
for individual source categories, processes, and emission units, so
that data collected from multiple facilities are consistent and
comparable. Given the additional specification required by the GHGRP,
the EPA concluded that the more precise checks that will be conducted
by IVT are warranted.
    The EPA addresses the comment about IVT's security and the
assertion that the system is unproven later in this section of the
preamble.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern regarding the language
used in 40 CFR 98.36(f)(1), indicating that the language is vague and
confusing. The commenter stated that the phrase ``granted access by the
Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to deliver power to the local or
regional electric power grid'' could result in confusion or overly-
broad reporting of CBI. The commenter explained that some jurisdictions
impose only registration and other ministerial requirements on units
granted access; whereas some jurisdictions ``engage in direct price and
other regulation of vertically integrated and other utility operations
that grant or restrict franchise rights.'' The commenter cautioned that
it is not clear what level of regulation constitutes a ``grant of
access'' under the rule, explaining that all units, regardless of type
or regulatory regime, require ``access'' to a local or regional grid in
some form to make off-site sales of power.
    The commenter recommended that the EPA avoid misinterpretation of
40 CFR 98.36(f) by clarifying in the final rule that only units subject
to regulation as ``public utilities under the laws and regulations of a
given state'' (as opposed to those under other Federal regulations or
not otherwise subject to State utility commission oversight of
operations and rates as ``public utilities'') should be considered as
having been ``granted access by the Public Utilities Commission to
deliver power to the local or regional electric power grid.'' The
commenter also stated that it is incorrect to assume that information
provided to PUCs or similar institutions is also disclosed publicly,
and that the EPA should clarify how it will address such information if
the PUC treats that information as CBI or it is otherwise not available
to the public.
    Response: For the reasons stated below, the EPA agrees that the
proposed 40 CFR 98.36(f)(1) does not clearly define the combustion
units that must report subpart C inputs to emission equations for which
reporting was deferred to 2015. Proposed 40 CFR 98.36(f) specified
that: (1) The stationary combustion source contains at least one
combustion unit connected to a fuel-fired electric generator that has
been granted access by the Public Utilities Commission to deliver power
to the local or regional electric power grid (excluding generators that
are connected to combustion units that are subject to subpart D of the
part); and (2) The stationary fuel combustion source is located at a
facility for which the sum of the nameplate capacities for all electric
generators specified in paragraph (f)(1) of the section is greater than
or equal to 1 megawatt electric output.\10\ As indicated in the
memorandum, ``Evaluation of Competitive Harm from Disclosure of `Inputs
to Equations' Data Elements Deferred to March 31, 2015,'' August 2013
(refer to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929), the EPA had found no
disclosure concerns for any combustion source meeting the proposed
criteria in 40 CFR 98.36(f)(1), including combustion sources owned or
operated both by power producers whose primary purpose is selling
electricity and by power producers whose primary purpose is not selling
electricity. It was the EPA's understanding at the time that both types
of power producers are granted access to the grid by the PUC, that such
grant requires that the associated consumer billing rates be regulated
by PUCs and that, therefore, the power producers experience a high
level of transparency due to the practice of the owner or operator
disclosing fuel costs to the PUC through ratemaking procedures. Based
on the above understanding, the EPA had concluded that releasing these
data would not reveal any proprietary information about facility or
process performance, design, and operation; cost to do business; raw
material usage; or production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ We received no comment on the proposed criterion (2), and
we are therefore finalizing that criterion as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the comment above, the EPA further investigated the
reporting obligations of the owner or operators of power producers to
PUCs. Based on these investigations, the EPA established that the PUC
does not

typically grant access to the grid, but sometimes requires utilities to
grant other power producers access to the grid. The EPA recognized that
not all power producers that are granted access to the grid are subject
to regulation of rates by PUCs, and therefore some of these power
producers do not experience the high level of transparency that would
be associated with the disclosure of fuel costs to the PUC through
ratemaking procedures. As a result, the EPA cannot conclude that there
would be no disclosure concerns associated with the release of these
data for power producers based on their connectivity to the grid, given
that some power producers connected to the grid are not subject to
regulation of rates by the PUC. The new understanding and resulting
harm analysis described above are also reflected in the memorandum
``Final Evaluation of Competitive Harm from Disclosure of `Inputs to
Equations' Data Elements Deferred to March 31, 2015,'' September 2014
(refer to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929). Given that the EPA found
no disclosure concerns with respect to those power producers subject to
regulatory oversight of consumer billing rates by a PUC, the EPA has
changed proposed 40 CFR 98.36(f)(1) in the final rule to more clearly
and accurately describe the combustion units that must report as those
units owned or operated by an entity that is subject to regulation of
customer billing rates by the public utility commission. Power
producers subject to regulatory oversight of consumer billing rates by
a PUC include investor-owned utilities (IOUs) (i.e., the most common
type of utility regulated by PUCs), non-utility generators, and
consumer-owned utilities (COUs) that are subject to regulation of
customer billing rates by a PUC. Because industrial plants that
generate electricity are not subject to regulation of customer billing
rates by a PUC, power producers owned or operated by industrial plants
would not meet this revised reporting criterion in 40 CFR 98.36(f)(1).
    The commenter recommended replacing the proposed language ``granted
access by the PUC to deliver power to the grid'' with ``subject to
regulation as a public utility under the laws and regulations of a
given state.'' The terminology ``public utility'' could be interpreted
to refer only to COUs, which are sometimes called ``public power,'' but
excluding IOUs, which would not be appropriate because IOUs are subject
to regulatory oversight of consumer billing rates by a PUC and
therefore experience a high level of transparency. Also, the
commenter's suggested phrase ``under the laws and regulations of a
given state'' could be interpreted as meaning any state law or
regulation, regardless of whether they are associated with PUCs. Given
that virtually all facilities generating electricity are governed to
some degree by other state laws and regulations, and those regulated by
the PUC might not be regulated for ratemaking purposes, this suggested
text would expand the reporting requirement beyond those facilities
subject to regulation of rates by the PUC, which is the basis for our
finding of transparency. Accordingly, the EPA has determined that the
rule text suggested by the commenter was overly broad. The EPA has
determined that the text ``owned by an entity subject to regulation of
customer billing rates by a public utility commission'' more accurately
describes the power producers for which we found no disclosure concerns
and therefore must report the subpart C inputs to emission equations
for which reporting was deferred until 2015.
    The EPA agrees with the comment that not all information that is
provided to PUCs may necessarily be made available to the public;
however, the EPA believes that power producers subject to regulation of
rates by PUCs generally experience a high level of transparency. The
EPA has received no comment refuting the high level of transparency or
stating that there are disclosure concerns associated with these
subpart C inputs to emission equations. The final criterion (``subject
to regulation of customer billing rates by PUCs'') was formulated to
capture power producers that are utilities in states with so-called
``regulated'' electricity markets. In these states, power producers are
generally owned by vertically integrated utilities, which operate as
monopolies and sell power to customers at rates that are established
through PUC proceedings. Given this monopolistic market for power
producers subject to regulation of rates by PUCs, the EPA does not
identify any disclosure concerns with reporting the inputs to emission
equations in subpart C for reporters that meet the final criterion. In
contrast, in ``deregulated'' or ``restructured'' states that have
unbundled generation and delivery, independent power producers may
compete to sell electricity, which is then delivered through a
regulated distribution utility. These independent producers are not
subject to PUC ratemaking procedures, and they will therefore not be
required to report subpart C inputs to emission equation data for their
combustion units. For the reasons stated above, the EPA concludes that
clarifying the scope of the criteria to be those power producers that
are subject to regulation of customer billing rates by PUCs accurately
specifies facilities identified as having no disclosure concerns with
the release of these data.
    Specifically, the final 40 CFR 98.36(f) provides the following
criteria to indicate which stationary fuel combustion sources (e.g.,
individual unit, aggregation of units, common pipe, or common stack)
must report their inputs to emission equations for which reporting was
deferred to 2015: (1) The stationary fuel combustion source contains at
least one combustion unit connected to a fuel-fired electric generator
owned or operated by an entity that is subject to regulation of
customer billing rates by the public utility commission (excluding
generators that are connected to combustion units that are subject to
subpart D of the part); and (2) The stationary fuel combustion source
is located at a facility for which the sum of the nameplate capacities
for all electric generators specified in paragraph (f)(1) of the
section is greater than or equal to 1 megawatt electric output. For any
stationary fuel combustion source subject to subpart C that does not
meet these criteria, the final rule provides an option for the source
either to use IVT starting in reporting year 2014 or to report these
data to the EPA, including reporting the data specified in revised
Table A-7 for reporting years 2010 through 2013.\11\ Refer to the
comment summary and the EPA's response immediately following this
response for further discussion about this new option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ As discussed above, the e-GGRT will require that such
reporter waive any confidentiality claim for its facility's inputs
to emission equations before such data can be entered into e-GGRT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Three commenters asserted that the EPA not require them to
use IVT. They asserted that reporters under subpart HH (municipal solid
waste landfills) have not expressed disclosure concerns regarding
inputs to equations during comment periods for previous rulemakings,
and that the proposal did not take this into consideration as it did
not include an option to allow reporters to submit data to the EPA
rather than use IVT. They further asserted that under the proposal,
they would be required to use IVT for only a single equation input
(quantity of fuel combusted under subpart C, Tier 1), and that the
burden to their industry associated with use of IVT is not warranted,
given that the single

equation input is associated with less than 1 percent of reported GHG
emissions from the industry. The commenters expressed concern that
imposing the proposed requirements associated with IVT on landfills
would be burdensome, and indicated that they would be willing to report
the single data element to the EPA. They recommended that the EPA
exclude Tier 1 reporters from being required to use IVT.
    Response: The IVT requirements in the final amendments for subpart
C, which covers a wide range of industries, address disclosure concerns
identified for certain ``inputs to emission equations'' data elements.
However, these commenters expressed that they do not have disclosure
concerns with their fuel use data, the single input required for Tier 1
reporting under subpart C. For these commenters who are not concerned
with reporting their fuel use quantity under subpart C, the EPA sees no
reason to insist that they use IVT instead of reporting such data. In
addition, the fact that these commenters have not identified disclosure
concerns with any inputs to equations suggests that it is likely that
landfills using other subpart C calculation methods besides Tier 1 may
similarly prefer to report inputs to emission equations data elements
under subpart C instead of using the IVT. Further, given the wide range
of industries reporting under subpart C, it is possible that there are
other industries that do not have disclosure concerns with fuel
quantity and other equation inputs for subpart C calculation methods.
For any such subpart C reporter, the EPA similarly sees no reason to
insist that it use IVT instead of reporting such data. Accordingly, the
EPA is revising 40 CFR 98.36 to make it optional for subpart C sources
that do not meet the criteria for electric generators in 40 CFR
98.36(f) \12\ to use IVT. As such, under the final rule, a subpart C
reporter, except for those meeting the criteria of 40 CFR 98.36(f), who
does not have disclosure concerns for the subpart C inputs to emission
equation data elements may waive confidentiality claims and report such
data instead of using IVT. Before e-GGRT will accept entry of these
inputs to emission equations data, it will require that the reporter
waive confidentiality claims of such data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Sources meeting the criteria in 40 CFR 98.36(f) must report
their subpart C inputs to emission equations that were deferred from
reporting until 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a subpart C source elects to report these data for reporting
year 2014, the source is required to report these data for reporting
years 2010 through 2013 as part of the reporting year 2014 annual
report. If a source elects to use IVT in reporting year 2014, and then
the source elects in a future year to report these data, the reporter
will not be obligated to report these data for any prior year.
    Comment: Six commenters recommended that the EPA allow reporters
time to test IVT prior to the start of reporting for reporting year
2014, using a fully functional ``sandbox'' testing environment similar
to that used previously for e-GGRT testing. These commenters urged the
EPA to allow sandbox testing for each affected subpart, arguing that
the subpart X prototype developed for commenter review at proposal
allowed them to review only the design and functionality of the
prototype for subpart X. They stressed that additional testing is
necessary to ensure IVT works for all affected subparts. Two commenters
noted that sandbox testing would allow errors in the software to be
found and corrected prior to implementation. Commenters also noted that
sandbox testing of each subpart would enable them to determine whether
IVT calculates emission equation results correctly and stated that
sandbox testing would provide an opportunity for reporters to compare
results of the calculations in IVT against the values calculated using
the optional calculation spreadsheets. Other commenters requested
sandbox testing because it would allow them to review and comment on
the verification ranges incorporated in IVT. One commenter stated that
testing could provide important information that may result in
improvements to IVT that obviate the need for reporters to over-ride
error messages. Other commenters expressed concern about protection of
CBI and concluded that rigorous testing of each affected subpart is
critical to ensuring confidential data are protected.
    Four commenters recommended that the EPA allow sandbox testing of
the XML version of IVT. These commenters noted that the pilot IVT
provided very limited testing for reporters using the XML option. They
noted that the testing was limited to only one subpart, that only one
sample XML file was provided for testing, and that the EPA did not
provide the XML schema. Two commenters requested that the EPA provide
additional time for reporters to review and test the XML IVT for each
subpart. The complexity of the XML option, they argue, makes thorough
testing of any XML schema essential.
    Eight commenters asserted that the pilot tool available during the
comment period for the subpart X mass balance methodology was too
limited, and as a result provided limited value in assessing the burden
of the tool for the other methodologies and subparts that would be
required to use the tool. Two of these commenters noted that because
subpart X has different inputs to equation data elements and equations
than other subparts, they were unable to provide adequate feedback on
the tool during the comment period. Two of these commenters suggested
that the EPA develop a pilot reporting tool for their subpart of
interest, and re-propose the verification tool for that subpart to
provide ample opportunity to provide public comment on the burden
associated with the use of the tool. Three of these commenters asserted
that because the pilot testing for subpart X was limited to the mass
balance methodology, it provided limited value to assess the ease of
use and burden of the tool for the other methodologies within subpart
X.
    Two commenters indicated that reporters need more time in 2015 to
complete their annual reports than in previous years. One commenter
stated that in the past, the EPA has provided industry just a handful
of weeks before the reporting deadline to update all of its data
systems, input all of its data into e-GGRT, correct any errors,
complete internal reviews of the reports, and to submit the reports.
The commenter noted that the short timeframe was extremely challenging
in past years. Both commenters indicated that it would be unacceptable
for the EPA to provide another short timeframe in 2015, considering the
new requirements to back-report 2010 through 2013 data and use the new
IVT. One commenter requested that the inputs verification tool be fully
functional by January 1, 2015 to allow reporters to undergo the
required software development so that their systems accurately ``sync''
with the new version of e-GGRT. The commenter suggested that the EPA
include language in Subpart A to indicate that for each day past
January 1, 2015 that the upgraded e-GGRT is not available, the
reporting deadline will be extended by one day.
    Response: During the public comment period, the EPA provided a
subpart X prototype for testing and comment. This prototype allowed
reporters to review the overall design, structure, and functionality of
IVT, which applies to all subparts that are to use the tool. It was not
necessary to have a prototype for every subpart during the open comment
period because the overall design of IVT is the same irrespective of
the specific methodologies, or

equations, in each subpart. Specifically, the tool demonstrated the
following functions that apply to all subparts that are to use the
tool: How IVT functions within e-GGRT, how to navigate from e-GGRT to
IVT and vice versa, how inputs are entered into IVT, how IVT calculates
equation results based on the inputs to emission equations entered, how
an emission equation result calculated in IVT is transferred to the
annual reporting form in e-GGRT, how the reporter may override an
emission value calculated by IVT, how the results of the verification
checks conducted in IVT appear in the verification summary, how a
reporter may enter inputs to emission equations into IVT over multiple
e-GGRT sessions without having to start over each time the reporter
logs out of e-GGRT (by saving them on their local computer), and how to
use the XML bulk upload feature rather than using webforms. Reporters
were also able to generate the list of inputs entered into IVT that
must be kept as a record, view the format of the records file created,
and test the downloading of the records file for recordkeeping
purposes. These features that were available for testing represent all
of the key functions of IVT. Comments on any of the above features
received during the public comment period would apply to all subparts
that are required to use IVT and not just the subpart X prototype. The
feedback assisted the EPA in determining improvements to the design and
functionality of IVT for all subparts with the IVT requirement.
    Although providing IVT for all subparts during the comment period
was not necessary, the EPA agrees with the commenters that both the EPA
and reporters would benefit from the opportunity to test IVT for all
applicable subparts prior to the beginning of reporting for reporting
year 2014. Accordingly, the EPA will offer reporters an opportunity
prior to the beginning of the reporting year 2014 open reporting period
(which is typically in mid-February) to view and provide feedback on
the IVT modules for all 23 subparts listed in Table 2 of this preamble.
The EPA will use a sandbox testing environment similar to that used
previously for e-GGRT testing. The EPA intends to offer sandbox testing
from October through December 2014, providing testing by subpart on a
rolling basis. For details on the sandbox testing, including a schedule
of when testing will occur for each of the 23 subparts, please see
http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/reporters/training/inputs-verifier.html. We are confident that this sandbox testing period will
provide reporters the time needed to sync their systems with IVT prior
to the open reporting period for reporting year 2014, and submit their
reports by March 31, 2015.
    As previously provided for in the 2010 sandbox for testing of e-
GGRT, the sandbox environment for IVT will provide participants an
opportunity to try IVT functions for all 23 subparts, including
navigating between IVT screens, entering data, testing the XML
uploading option (saving XML files to local drives, and uploading XML
files to IVT), checking the built-in calculation algorithms, and
accessing Help content. Participants will be assigned a test facility
for which they will be able to enter mock data for any IVT subpart
module they wish to test.
    Sandbox participants may notify the EPA should they identify an
error, bug, or technical glitch in IVT. The EPA plans to conduct
extensive testing to ensure that IVT calculates the emissions correctly
for all subparts; however, should any calculation or other subpart-
specific errors remain, these can be detected during the sandbox period
and addressed prior to the open reporting period. Because extensive
internal testing will have been conducted prior to the compliance
assistance ``sandbox'' being made available, the EPA does not
anticipate major issues during the sandbox period that cannot be
addressed prior to the open reporting period.
    Regarding the comment that additional time is needed due to the
back-reporting of a significant amount of information, the EPA notes
that, with the exception of subpart W, only a handful of inputs to
equations in each subpart must be back-reported for years 2010 through
2013 (i.e., reporters typically will have no more than 10 inputs to
equations in each of these subparts to report for these years.)
Further, as discussed above, because the system will have gone through
extensive testing followed by an IVT sandbox period for reporters to
sync their systems with IVT before it is opened for reporting, we are
confident that the reporters will have sufficient time to submit their
reports, including back reporting a small number of inputs for
reporting years 2010 through 2013. For subpart W, which has a
substantial number of inputs to be back-reported to the EPA for these
years, the EPA plans to use a spreadsheet to collect this data, and
anticipates publishing the spreadsheet in October 2014. This will allow
facilities to begin data entry into the spreadsheet prior to the open
reporting period. The spreadsheet can then be uploaded to e-GGRT during
the open reporting season. Refer to Section II.B.1 of this preamble for
a discussion of the timing of entering inputs to emission equations for
reporting years 2011 through 2013 for subpart W. In light of the
extensive testing and the sandbox period, which will allow reporters to
sync their systems with IVT prior to the open reporting period, and the
EPA's plans to make the subpart W spreadsheet for 2010 through 2013
available in October, we have determined that the typical reporting
period of approximately six weeks is sufficient.
    As requested by commenters, sandbox participants may provide input
on the ranges that the EPA has identified for the reasonable range
verification checks on the inputs entered into IVT. As is the case for
all expected range checks used as part of the electronic verification
process, the EPA will set initial ranges and will continually refine
ranges as additional information is obtained. Should the EPA receive
feedback on expected range checks during the sandbox period, the EPA
will review the feedback and adjust the ranges prior to the open
reporting period as appropriate. Also, as is the case for all expected
range checks conducted in e-GGRT, the reporter may enter any value into
IVT regardless of the reasonable range. The expected ranges are not
used by the EPA as a final determination regarding data quality or
compliance; rather, they are used as a first step of the verification
process and are further investigated. Finally, as is discussed in more
detail later in this section of this preamble, during the reporting
process, the reporter will have the opportunity to add a comment to the
EPA associated with individual verification warnings in IVT. As a
result, if reporters feel that an explanation is needed as to why a
particular range was exceeded or that the range within IVT needs to be
adjusted, they may do so as part of the annual reporting process.
    Regarding the comments on the XML upload reporting option, the EPA
notes that during the public comment period, we published an XML schema
for the IVT prototype, as well as two sample files to be used with the
prototype, an XML Inputs Verifier file and an XML Annual Report File.
The sandbox that will be available for IVT will also include this XML
upload reporting option. For subparts with XML reporters, the EPA will
provide the XML schema for the inputs to equations data entered into
IVT and example XML files to use for testing the XML upload approach.
The EPA agrees that changes to the XML schema need to be

thoroughly tested, and the EPA plans to do so prior to releasing the
XML schema for e-GGRT and IVT.
    The EPA disagrees with the comments that the pilot verification
tool provided at proposal for the mass balance methodology in subpart X
was of limited value for assessing the burden of use for other
methodologies and subparts required to use IVT. As discussed in detail
above, the overall design of the IVT is the same irrespective of the
differences in methodologies and subparts. Accordingly, the subpart X
prototype allowed reporters to review the overall design, structure,
and functionality of IVT for all subparts that are to use the tool.
Based on their experience with the subpart X prototype, reporters may
assess the burden associated with other subparts by comparing the
number and complexity of equations in other subparts to the equations
in subpart X. Further, in the proposed Impacts Analysis, ``Assessment
of Cost Impacts of 2015 Inputs Proposal--Revisions to Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Verification Requirements Under the Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Program,'' August 2013 (available in the EPA's Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929), the EPA stated that the burden for entering
inputs to equations into IVT is no different than it would be to enter
them into e-GGRT for reporting to the EPA. The EPA did not receive
comments on the proposed Impacts analysis. For the reasons stated
above, we do not believe that it is necessary to re-propose the tool
with all subparts to provide an opportunity to comment on the burden of
using the tool for all subparts, as suggested by several commenters.
Refer to the next comment and response for additional detail on the
specific comments provided to the EPA on IVT design and functionality
and how the EPA is addressing those comments.
    Regarding the comment that rigorous testing of each affected
subpart is critical to ensuring that data are adequately protected,
refer to comments and responses later in this section on how the EPA is
ensuring that inputs entered into IVT are not retained by the EPA.
    Comment: Many commenters provided useful suggestions for
improvements to IVT. For example, some commenters recommended IVT
include functions that allow reporters to automatically populate web
form fields in situations where the data are reported on a recurring
basis (e.g., weekly, monthly, etc.) and are likely to remain constant
over time. Other commenters recommended IVT allow data to be copied
from external spreadsheets or other data files instead of being entered
individually into IVT. These commenters noted that this approach would
save time and avoid unnecessary transcription errors. Three commenters
recommended that IVT flag any data entry errors related to the data
being outside an acceptable range directly following data entry, rather
than on a separate screen. One of these commenters requested that IVT
should provide more information regarding the error triggered (e.g.,
whether the entered data are above or below the expected range). These
commenters stressed that alerting reporters to errors at the moment of
data entry would help reporters identify errors more quickly. Three
commenters recommended an additional comment field be added to IVT that
allows reporters to respond to IVT error messages. They maintained that
this approach would streamline the verification process and save time
for both the EPA and reporters by potentially avoiding follow-up after
the report has been submitted to the EPA.
    Response: The EPA has reviewed the commenters' suggested
improvements to IVT and, with the exception of one suggestion described
below, has incorporated these improvements in IVT. The EPA agrees with
the suggestion that reporters should have the ability to automatically
populate web form fields in situations where the data required to be
entered were collected on a recurring basis (e.g., weekly, monthly,
etc.). For example, in subpart X, for the gas stream entry fields,
reporters will be able to automatically populate the monthly carbon
content and molecular weight of the feedstock with the first month's
values since those values may remain constant in many cases. The EPA
anticipates that this change in IVT will improve the efficiency of the
data entry process and reduce chances for errors associated with manual
entry. Regarding the recommendation to allow data to be copied from
external spreadsheets or other data files instead of being entered
individually into IVT, the EPA agrees with commenters that this
capability would reduce burden and errors associated with manual data
entry. For each data element for which the reporter is required to
enter values collected at a frequency greater than monthly, the EPA is
providing an off-line tool to convert spreadsheets to the XML input
format, for use with IVT.
    The EPA has evaluated commenters' concerns regarding the flagging
of data errors when they are entered into IVT. As discussed in the
proposed rule, IVT provides ``real-time'' checks as data are entered
into IVT, similar to checks in e-GGRT. The results of these checks,
called validation messages in IVT, will be easily accessible within e-
GGRT at the time of entry. Although such warnings will be on a separate
screen, there are direct links to such screens to ensure that it is
easy to navigate to IVT to revise data as needed. This is the same for
all validation checks that are currently conducted and displayed within
e-GGRT for all reporters. Although we recognize the potential
usefulness of this suggestion, this type of design change would require
a significant amount of resources, and cannot be done prior to the
reporting period for reporting year 2014. The EPA is always open to
making changes to e-GGRT and IVT over time, and may consider whether it
is feasible to show validation messages on the same screen on which the
data are being entered and, if so, whether to make such adjustment in
IVT.
    The EPA agrees with commenters that IVT should provide more
information regarding the error triggered (e.g., whether entered data
are above or below the expected range). Accordingly, in response to
these comments, IVT will include an ``out of range'' message in the
verification summary that indicates the range being used for each data
element entered as well as whether the value entered was above or below
the range. We anticipate that this additional information will make the
verification process more efficient by reducing the amount of follow-up
required for verification.
    Finally, the EPA has considered commenter recommendations for
addition of a comment field allowing reporters to respond to IVT error
messages, explaining why a potential error may not be an error, such as
when an entered equation input is found to be out of range or has
otherwise triggered a message on the verification summary. The EPA
recognizes that, in some cases, reporters may have inputs to emission
equations that are legitimately outside of identified ranges due to
unique circumstances. In cases such as these, we agree with commenters
that this option will reduce the amount of follow-up required of the
EPA and reporters. As such, we have implemented this change in IVT.
    Comment: Eight commenters raised security concerns regarding data
entered into IVT. These commenters wanted additional information on how
IVT would protect sensitive data and assurances that the data would not
be inadvertently disclosed. One commenter stated that the security of
IVT was particularly important to facilities that are required to
comply with certain U.S.

export control requirements. Four commenters were concerned about
security during the period of transient storage while the user is
logged into IVT of data. Some commenters asked for clarification on
where the data will reside during this period, while other commenters
wanted the EPA to demonstrate that data would only be stored
temporarily and that no data would be retained during a system crash.
Some commenters wanted additional information about who would have
access to the data during this transient storage of the data. One
commenter wanted the EPA to confirm that data with disclosure concerns
entered into IVT would not be accessible to EPA personnel. Two
commenters were concerned that outside vendors would have access to
data in the transient storage area. Three commenters were concerned
about the security of data transmitted over the Internet. Two
commenters were concerned that data could be intercepted during
transmission by proxy servers and that data may still be stored in
these proxy servers after the session ends. One commenter expressed
concern that use of XML files to input data into IVT raises security
concerns because the format is easily readable, containing the
definitions needed to decipher the data values. This commenter was also
concerned that malicious or inadvertent HTML codes can be inserted into
XML files thereby causing other security vulnerabilities. Other
commenters wanted the EPA to confirm that IVT will not submit
confidential information over the Internet.
    Response: IVT is designed to operate securely within e-GGRT, as a
transient process, such that data entered into IVT would be temporarily
housed in the IVT system while the reporter is actively using IVT. The
IVT system is designed so that entered inputs data are placed only in
session (server memory). The entered inputs will not be saved to the
underlying EPA database, nor will they be saved to the server's file
system. The EPA has taken the following steps to ensure that inputs
data are not mistakenly appended to data that are saved (e.g., when
saving validation and verification summary records to the database) and
to ensure that information saved to the server logs does not contain
user-entered inputs data. IVT has not been configured to use the
server's file system to temporarily save files. Instead, IVT is
configured only to use memory for transient housing of inputs data
while the reporter is actively using IVT. This configuration applies to
inputs data entered into IVT webforms or data uploaded from a local
`inputs' file through the IVT webforms, as well as inputs data uploaded
through the XML upload process. As with data entered through the
webform, IVT will not save uploaded XML files to the underlying EPA
database or to the server's file system, but will only retain the data
in server memory for the duration of the session. Uploaded XML files
will be validated against a published schema definition (i.e.,
published document prescribing the required format of the file), so in
many cases XML files containing ``malicious or inadvertent HTML codes''
would be rejected by the system as not being well-formed. If
``malicious or inadvertent HTML codes'' were inserted into an XML in a
manner that did not render it invalid, the file would be rejected by a
process that inspects uploaded files for script tags. Therefore, the
system is not vulnerable to any potential HTML code appended to these
files. The entered inputs to emission equations are then erased when
the user's session with e-GGRT ends.
    Regarding the comments that unauthorized persons may be able to
access data that are temporarily in session while the reporter is
actively using IVT and the concerns with transmission of data over the
Internet and potential data interception, the EPA complies with the
strict security procedures and guidance governing access to federal
data servers established by the National Institutes of Standards and
Technology (NIST) and in accordance with the Federal Information
Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA). All EPA information systems
must meet the security requirements defined in the NIST Special
Publication 800-53.\13\ Adherence to the NIST Federal Information
Systems requirements are intended to protect EPA information systems,
including e-GGRT, from a diverse set of threats including hostile
cyber-attacks, natural disasters, structural failures, and human
errors. As such, the program keeps a security plan up to date and
conducts annual reviews of the security controls. Furthermore, in order
to address the security concerns noted by the commenter regarding
unauthorized access to data while it is in session on the server, the
EPA has identified an additional security layer beyond the NIST
requirements to encrypt the transient session data used by the server
while the reporter is actively using IVT. The session data will be
encrypted with a key unique to that user's session. As a result, the
EPA has concluded that this suite of protections is sufficient to
address concerns raised regarding the possibility of unauthorized
persons accessing data in the transient housing area while the reporter
is actively using IVT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/PubsSPs.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the comments expressing concern over transmission of data
over the Internet and potential data interception, the inputs data
entered by a reporter in the web form are encrypted via Transport Layer
Security (TLS) security protocol. TLS is a standard security protocol
providing an encrypted link between the client (the user's browser) and
the EPA's servers. TLS encryption ensures that entered data are secure
from the browser to the EPA server. Normal Internet HTTP communication
sends data between the client and the server in plain text. Application
of the TLS protocol to HTTP communication (HTTPS) will ensure that the
inputs data are encrypted rather than in plain text while in transit.
TLS encryption ensures that data are completely secure from the user's
browser to the e-GGRT servers. Although data are transferred over the
Internet through proxy servers, due to TLS encryption, the inputs data
would never be in plain text and could not be deciphered by
intermediate or proxy servers. TLS is the standard security protocol
used to protect the transfer of many types of sensitive data, including
credit card numbers, banking data, and similar information requiring
maximum protection. The EPA does not use proxy servers for its e-GGRT
database, but relies completely on dedicated server space at the
National Computer Center. Therefore, TLS termination takes place only
on secured e-GGRT servers. The EPA will always use these secure servers
(identified with the ``https'' prefix), which identify that the TLS
security protocol is applied, and IVT will not incorporate inputs to
emission equations data into URLs. This also applies to data
transferred through XML upload. XML data uploaded by a user will also
be encrypted via TLS security protocol and will not be in plain text
while in transit. If intercepted while in transit, the XML data would
be encrypted and therefore indecipherable. These encrytion procedures
will protect data as they are transferred between the client's browser
and the EPA's servers.
    IVT is also designed to protect data in the instance of a system
malfunction. In the event of a system crash, all session data are lost,
including the session key that would be capable of decrypting that
data. There are no processes in place to save any information during a
system crash. Therefore, if a reporter enters data

into IVT and the IVT system malfunctions, the reporter's data are not
stored in any way and cannot be recovered.
    Regarding an earlier comment that IVT is an unproven system, the
EPA disagrees with this comment. The EPA designed a prototype to
demonstrate the functionality of the tool. As stated earlier in this
preamble, this prototype allowed reporters to review the overall
design, structure, and functionality of IVT, which applies to all
subparts required to use the tool. For additional information on this
topic, please see the discussion earlier in this preamble on the
prototype and ``sandbox'' testing.
    In summary, the EPA has taken several steps to add safeguards and
to build multiple security ``layers'' into the system to prevent
release of the data as they are transmitted to the EPA's servers and
temporarily housed while the user is actively using IVT, but are not
retained in the server memory after the user's e-GGRT session ends. The
EPA is confident that the described security procedures will adequately
protect the data entered into IVT.
    Comment: Six commenters stated that they consider equation input
data required to be entered into IVT to be CBI and expressed concern
that the EPA has not gone far enough to legally protect these data from
public disclosure. Four commenters described how these data meet the
five-part criteria specified in 40 CFR 2.208 for confidential
treatment. The commenters asserted that the EPA recognized in its
proposed rule that these data are entitled to protection from public
disclosure. The commenters questioned why, given this recognition, the
EPA has not afforded these data CBI protection under the CAA. Two
commenters questioned why the EPA was silent in its proposal as to
whether these data are to be afforded CBI protection, instead focusing
on revising reporting and recordkeeping requirements for these data.
    Five of the commenters referred to a continued risk associated with
the proposed verification approach that equation inputs entered into
IVT will be available to the public or subject to disclosure under the
CAA. Four commenters noted that section 114(c) requires that the EPA
must provide ``emission data'' to the public, if requested. One of
these commenters described the continued risk as related to the EPA's
inspection of facility records, indicating that the EPA did not include
provisions in the proposal explaining whether or how records of
equation input data entered into IVT are to be afforded CBI protection
or otherwise protected from public disclosure as a result of Agency
review of records. The commenter further stated that the proposed rule
does not set forth a requirement that the EPA can access these data
only through an official enforcement-related action that might afford
the information privileged status and provide some security from public
release, nor, according to the commenter, are there provisions to
ensure that non-enforcement staff or EPA contractors cannot access the
data and inadvertently release these data or otherwise render the
information unprotected.
    Three commenters further expressed concern that by retaining any
residual risk of disclosure of equation input data entered into IVT, 40
CFR part 98 could potentially subject reporters to antitrust liability.
The commenters explained that equation input data required to be
entered into IVT include cost- and output-related information that is a
significant determinant of prices, including information regarding fuel
production and distribution, which provides details about plant
operations and inputs, nature, and location of sources.
    The six commenters contended that the EPA must take further steps
to address the remaining ``residual risk'' of disclosure under the CAA
of equation input data required to be entered into IVT. Five of the
commenters urged the EPA to provide CBI protection to equation inputs
entered into IVT. Four of the commenters urged the EPA to address their
concerns about disclosure by explicitly stating in the final rule that
data entered into IVT qualify for confidential treatment under the
EPA's regulations and should not be deemed ``emission data.'' One
commenter requested that the EPA address their concerns about
disclosure by including in the final rule language expressly
recognizing the CBI status of these data. One commenter urged the EPA
to further address concerns about the residual risk of disclosure by
clarifying, in the preamble to the final rule, that equation input data
entered into IVT remain at all times in the possession of the company
entering the data and thus are not subject to disclosure under any
other Federal law as a result of entry into IVT.
    Response: As explained below, the EPA has not determined either in
this rulemaking or any other final action that the equation input data
entered into IVT are entitled to CBI protection. The EPA previously
amended Part 98 to defer the reporting of inputs to emission equations
data elements to allow the Agency time to evaluate concerns raised by
some reporters regarding potential public disclosure of some of these
data elements and to take appropriate action (76 FR 53057, August 25,
2011). The four-step evaluation, which was designed to inform the
Agency whether and what further action may be appropriate, includes
discussions of potential disclosure scenarios as well as consideration
of alternative emission calculation and verification methods.\14\ The
evaluation does not include establishing confidentiality status for any
data that the EPA assigns to the inputs to emission equations category.
Any such determination must be made in accordance with the CAA and the
EPA's implementing regulations under 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. Based on
the evaluation,\15\ we had proposed, and are now taking final action,
to replace the requirement to report certain inputs to emission
equations by 2015 with a requirement to enter these data into IVT.
Although the final rule addresses potential disclosure concerns with
respect to certain inputs by providing an alternative verification tool
(i.e., IVT) instead of requiring reporting of these inputs, it does not
include final confidentiality determinations for any equation input
data required to be entered into IVT, nor has the EPA stated anywhere
in the rulemaking record that such data are entitled to CBI protection.
The EPA therefore has not concluded that any such data (inputs to
emission equations) are entitled to CBI protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For a description of the evaluation process, please see the
memorandum titled ``Process for Evaluating and Potentially Amending
Part 98 Inputs to Emission Equations'' (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0929).
    \15\ The results of the evaluation were documented in the four
following memoranda available in the EPA's Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0929: ``Evaluation of Public Availability of Inputs to Emission
Equations for which Reporting was Deferred to March 31, 2015,''
August 2013; ``Evaluation of Competitive Harm from Disclosure of
`Inputs to Equations' Data Elements Deferred to March 31, 2015,''
August 2013; ``Evaluation of Alternative Calculation Methods,''
August 2013; ``Evaluation of Alternative Verification Approaches For
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule Subparts for which Reporting of Inputs
to Emission Equations was Deferred to March 31, 2015,'' August 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the comments that expressed concern about the EPA's
ability to protect equation input data entered into IVT, the concern
may have stemmed from a mistaken belief that the EPA will have
possession of such data. That is not the case as explained in detail
here, as well as in the response to comment immediately above, Section
II.A of the preamble to the proposed rule (78 FR 55994, September 11,
2013), and the memorandum ``Technical Approach and Design for Inputs
Verification Tool,'' August 2013 (refer to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-

0929). During the time period that a reporter is entering data (i.e.,
inputs to emissions equations) into IVT, the EPA will have no access to
the data being entered. Further, when a reporter logs out of IVT, none
of the data entered into IVT are retained in the EPA's electronic
systems. To address concerns about potential release of these data via
the Internet, the EPA provides further clarifications regarding the
security of IVT elsewhere in this section of the preamble. Given that
the EPA will have no access to, nor possession of, data entered into
IVT, such data will not be considered to be agency records as defined
by the Freedom of Information Act or the Federal Records Act, and the
EPA cannot conceive, and the commenters did not explain, which federal
law would require the EPA to release information that it does not have.
For the same reason, the EPA also rejects any suggestion that the
Agency is legally required to protect or make confidentiality
determinations for equation input data entered into IVT. The commenters
have not identified any law or regulation that requires the EPA to
protect data not in the EPA's possession, nor do we believe that any
such duty exists. For the reasons stated above, we disagree with the
comments that the EPA must provide CBI protection to equation input
data entered into IVT.
    With respect to the commenter's inquiry on how records of equation
input data entered into IVT, which are required to be kept on-site, are
protected from public disclosure as a result of Agency review of
records, we describe below the verification process, including follow-
up on-site visits. As described below, we do not envision that an
onsite review of records for purposes of verifying emissions reported
using inputs that are entered into IVT would necessitate or typically
involve collection of those records. Rather, visual inspections would
likely suffice to determine whether or not a facility is in compliance.
    As described below, the EPA has developed a robust electronic
verification and communication system in order to ensure high quality
data are reported under the GHGRP, and the verification summaries from
IVT will be integrated into that process. This electronic verification
approach helps to minimize the need for on-site review which helps to
reduce the burden and costs to the EPA and reporters. Likely scenarios
under which a GHGRP inspection could occur due to information received
from the IVT verification summaries are described below. As described
below, none of these activities typically involve the EPA's collection
of the inputs entered into the IVT.
    As explained in the proposed rule, the first step of the
verification process will include review of the verification summary
generated by the IVT in conjunction with the results of the
verification checks that are currently used on the annual report data.
In the event that the EPA's review results in remaining questions
regarding data quality, the EPA plans to follow-up with the facility
initially via email or phone to determine whether a reporting error has
occurred. For example, if the EPA learns from the facility that the
facility's production doubled in a given year due to unusually high
demand, the EPA may then understand the increase in emissions, certain
out of range warnings, and determine that there is not a data quality
issue. If the EPA is unable to resolve the issue via phone and email,
an on-site visit may be needed. The EPA anticipates that these visits
would likely include a review of the records required to be kept which,
as mentioned above, include the record of the inputs to emission
equations that were entered into IVT as well as an examination of the
monitoring equipment. Depending on the results of the verification
summary for a particular facility, the EPA envisions two general
scenarios for these on-site visits. One scenario would be that the
verification summary produced by IVT for a particular facility
indicates that the reported emissions values matched the values
calculated by IVT but other verification checks show that certain
inputs are outside the EPA's expected range(s). In that scenario, the
EPA anticipates that if a site visit is needed, the site visit would
focus on the accuracy of the inputs entered into IVT. To verify the
accuracy of the inputs entered into IVT, the EPA would likely check
whether data entered into IVT are consistent with other records
required to be kept by the facility. For example, if an input to an
equation is a monthly average of a value that is measured daily by a
particular on-site monitor and the daily measured values are also
required records, the EPA may confirm that the input entered into IVT
is in fact the average of the daily values. In addition, the EPA may
confirm that the on-site monitor meets the specifications prescribed in
Part 98, such as calibration and accuracy specifications. If
calibration and accuracy specifications do not comply with Part 98
requirements, then a substantive error \16\ would likely be identified,
and the facility would need to resubmit their report. If the inputs at
issue comport with the on-site records, then there would be no further
action necessary by either the EPA or the reporter. As described above,
because we envision that verification would be completed while on-site,
we do not expect that there would be a need to collect inputs records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 40 CFR 98.3(h)(3) defines substantive error as an error
that impacts the quantity of GHG emissions reported or otherwise
prevents the reported data from being validated or verified. 40 CFR
98.3(h) states that once a substantive error is identified, an owner
or operator shall, within 45 days of receipt of the notification,
either resubmit the report that, for each identified substantive
error, corrects the identified substantive error (in accordance with
the applicable requirements of this part) or provide information
demonstrating that the previously submitted report does not contain
the identified substantive error or that the identified error is not
a substantive error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the second scenario, an on-site visit that is conducted in a
situation when the verification summary produced by IVT indicates a
discrepancy between the reported emissions and the emission equation
results calculated by IVT, the EPA anticipates that the visit would
focus on determining the root cause of the discrepancy. The EPA would
ask the facility to demonstrate how their emissions calculations
yielded a result different from the one calculated through the use of
IVT. The EPA expects that such discrepancy is likely a result of
mathematical error(s), which would likely constitute a substantive
error, and the facility would need to resubmit their report.
    In both of these scenarios, the EPA envisions that the
discrepancies would be resolved on-site and that collecting the on-site
records of inputs would not be necessary. Despite the above, we do not
rule out the possibility that collection of certain records could be
necessary under unique circumstances not contemplated above. However,
the EPA does not know at this point what records would be removed, the
specific circumstances under which they would be collected and the
reasons for such collection, and therefore we cannot address at this
time how such records would be treated. Should that occur, the EPA will
treat the collected information according to applicable laws and
regulations.
    Regarding the comments asserting that 40 CFR part 98 could
potentially subject reporters to antitrust liability, the EPA
reiterates that information entered into IVT is not reported to or
collected by the EPA. As a result, it does not become an agency record
and, therefore, it is not subject to Freedom of

Information Act or other required disclosures related to agency
records.

B. Removal of the Requirement To Report Certain Data Elements

1. Summary of Final Amendments to Part 98
    The EPA is removing the requirement to report 396 data elements in
the 23 subparts listed in Table 2 of this preamble. Of these 396 data
elements removed from reporting, 378 data elements are removed due to
disclosure concerns and 18 data elements are removed because these data
elements are redundant to other inputs being reported or are no longer
useful to be reported to the EPA in the absence of other inputs to
emission equations that will no longer be reported (refer to the
discussion below for further explanation). Of the 378 data elements
removed from reporting due to disclosure concerns, 324 data elements
will be entered into IVT.\17\ We are finalizing the proposed amendments
to remove reporting requirements and require entry of these data
elements into IVT, with changes specified in Section II.B.2 of this
preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ As mentioned above, there are 378 equation inputs for which
reporting was deferred to 2015 and for which the EPA determined
there are disclosure concerns, and 324 of these equation inputs must
be entered into IVT. Fifty-four of the 378 equation inputs do not
need to be entered into IVT because these equation inputs are
redundant to other equations inputs being entered into IVT or are
otherwise not needed for verification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 3 of this preamble provides a summary of the number of data
elements removed from reporting for each subpart. Refer to Table 1 in
the memorandum ``Data Elements Deferred to March 31, 2015: Final List
of `Inputs to Equations' Data Elements Not To Be Reported,'' September
2014, (refer to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929) for a list of these
396 data elements removed from reporting.

     Table 3--Subparts for Which Reporting Requirements Are Removed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Number of inputs
                                       to emission         Number of
                                      equations for     deferred inputs
              Subpart                which  reporting      for which
                                     was  deferred to     reporting is
                                     2015 (``deferred       removed
                                        inputs'')
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C--General Stationary Fuel                     \b\ 26             \b\ 26
 Combustion--Stationary fuel
 combustion sources excluding
 sources that contain at least one
 combustion unit connected to a
 fuel-fired electric generator
 owned or operated by an entity
 that is subject to regulation of
 customer billing rates by the
 public utility commission
 (excluding generators connected
 to combustion units subject to 40
 CFR part 98, subpart D) and that
 are located at a facility for
 which the sum of the nameplate
 capacities for all such electric
 generators is greater than or
 equal to 1 megawatt electric
 output \a\.......................
E--Adipic Acid Production.........                 21                 11
F--Aluminum Production............                 29                 29
G--Ammonia Manufacturing..........                  8                  8
H--Cement Production..............                 16                 14
K--Ferroalloy Production..........                 13                 13
N--Glass Production...............                  3                  3
O--HCFC-22 Production and HFC-23                   15                 12
 Destruction......................
P--Hydrogen Production............                  7                  7
Q--Iron and Steel Production......                 86                 85
R--Lead Production................                 10                 10
S--Lime Manufacturing.............                  9                  9
U--Miscellaneous Uses of Carbonate                  6                  6
V--Nitric Acid Production.........                 21                 21
X--Petrochemical Production.......             \c\ 19             \c\ 19
Y--Petroleum Refineries...........                 75                 70
Z--Phosphoric Acid Production.....                  4                  4
AA--Pulp and Paper Manufacturing..                 31                 28
BB--Silicon Carbide Production....                  3                  3
CC--Soda Ash Manufacturing........                 10                  4
EE--Titanium Dioxide Production...                  2                  2
GG--Zinc Production...............                  8                  8
TT--Industrial Waste Landfills....                  4                  4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ These subpart C sources may elect to report inputs to emission
  equations rather than use IVT. Additionally, the reporting
  requirements are not amended for stationary fuel combustion sources
  that contain at least one combustion unit connected to a fuel-fired
  electric generator owned or operated by an entity that is subject to
  regulation of customer billing rates by the PUC (excluding generators
  connected to combustion units subject to 40 CFR part 98, subpart D)
  and that are located at a facility for which the sum of the nameplate
  capacities for all such electric generators is greater than or equal
  to 1 megawatt electric output.
\b\ Includes one deferred input to an emission equations, 40 CFR
  98.3(d)(3)(v), which is specified in subpart A of part 98 and applies
  to only certain reporters under 40 CFR part 98, subpart C.
\c\ There were 2 additional inputs to emission equations for which
  reporting was deferred to 2015; however, these two inputs are not
  reflected in this table because the inputs were removed from Part 98
  by a previous rulemaking (78 FR 71904, November 29, 2013).

    The EPA is finalizing the proposed amendments to exclude from
reporting 18 deferred inputs to emission equations for which no
disclosure concerns have been identified. As explained in the preamble
to the proposed rule (78 FR 56005, September 11, 2013), while posing no
disclosure concerns, these data elements are redundant to other inputs
being reported or are no longer useful to be reported in the absence of
other inputs to emission equations that will no longer be reported;
they are not needed to be reported to the EPA for data verification and
they are also not helpful in informing future GHG policy development.
For further information

on these 18 data elements, please see the memorandum ``Data Elements
Deferred to March 31, 2015: Final List of Data Elements Not To Be
Reported,'' September 2014 (refer to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
0929).
    For the remaining inputs to emission equations for which reporting
was deferred to 2015 for the 23 subparts listed in Table 2 of this
preamble, the EPA is not amending the reporting requirements because
the EPA has not identified disclosure concerns associated with their
public release, and reporting of these data elements remains useful to
the EPA for data verification as well as for informing future GHG
policy development. Deferral of reporting of these inputs to emission
equations expires on March 31, 2015. As a result, by March 31, 2015,
151 inputs to emission equations must be reported for reporting year
2014 and all prior reporting years, except as described below for six
inputs to emission equations in subpart W of part 98. These 151 data
inputs must also be reported in the annual report for all future
reporting years, except as specified below for the six inputs to
emission equations in subpart W. Refer to Section III.A.3 of the
preamble to the proposed rule (78 FR 56005, September 11, 2013) for
further discussion about how 2010 through 2014 data will be included in
the 2014 annual report. For a list of these 151 deferred inputs to
emission equations that will be reported, refer to Table 2 of the
memorandum cited above. Additionally, to clarify which data elements
must be reported for previous reporting years 2010 through 2013, the
EPA is finalizing its proposed revision of Table A-7 of Part 98, ``Data
Elements That Are Inputs To Emission Equations And For Which The
Reporting Deadline Is March 31, 2015'', which includes these 151 inputs
to emission equations that must be reported.
    For the purposes of reporting the subpart W inputs for reporting
years 2011 through 2014, the EPA plans to use a spreadsheet format that
will be uploaded to e-GGRT. Recognizing the substantial amount of
information that facilities will be entering into the spreadsheet, the
EPA anticipates publishing the spreadsheet in October 2014. This will
allow facilities to begin data entry into the spreadsheet prior to the
open reporting period. The spreadsheet can then be uploaded to e-GGRT
during the open reporting season.
    For subpart W, the EPA is finalizing the proposed decision to
require subpart W facilities to report all inputs to emission equations
for which reporting was deferred to 2015; however, in the final rule,