[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 19, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69337-69360]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27288]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 98

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

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before January 21,
2014.
    Public Hearing. The EPA does not plan to conduct a public hearing
unless requested. To request a hearing, please contact the person
listed in the following FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by
November 26, 2013. Upon such request, the EPA will hold the hearing on
December 4, 2013, in the Washington, DC area. The EPA will provide
further information about the hearing on the GHGRP Web site, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html if a hearing is
requested.

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carole Cook, Climate Change Division,
Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC-6207J), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For technical information, please go to the
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule Program Web site at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html. To submit a question,
select Rule Help Center, followed by Contact Us. To obtain information
about the public hearing or to register to speak at the hearing, please
go to http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html.
Alternatively, contact Carole Cook at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of this proposal will also be available through the
WWW. Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of this action
will be posted on the EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program Web site
at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html.

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

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

    Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but
rather lists the types of facilities that the EPA is now aware could be
potentially affected by the reporting requirements. Other types of
facilities not listed in the table could also be subject to reporting
requirements. To determine whether you are affected by this action, you
should carefully examine the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR
part 98, subpart A or the relevant criteria in subpart L. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
facility, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and
abbreviations are used in this document.

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

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

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. How is this preamble organized?
    B. Background on the GHG Reporting Rule
    C. Legal Authority
    D. Summary of Proposed Amendments
    E. When would these amendments apply?
    F. How would these amendments affect confidentiality
determinations?
    G. How does this proposed rule relate to the proposed rule
titled, ``Revisions to Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, and
Proposed Confidentiality Determinations under the Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Program?''
II. Proposed Amendments
    A. Proposed Amendments to the Subpart L Reporting Requirements
    1. Background of Proposed Amendments to Subpart L Reporting
Requirements
    2. Summary of Proposed Amendments to Subpart L Reporting
Requirements
    3. Rationale
    4. Proposal to Revise the Set of Default GWPs Used To Convert
Fluorinated GHG Emissions Into CO2e
    5. Other Changes to Reporting Requirements
    6. Reporting Emissions From Destruction of Previously Produced
Fluorinated GHGs and From Venting of Residual Fluorinated GHGs From
Containers
    7. Submission of Full GHG Reports for Reporting Year 2011, 2012,
and 2013
    B. Proposal To Remove the Mass-Balance Approach From Subpart L
    C. Clarifications to the Emission Factor Approach of Subpart L
    D. Overview and Approach to Proposed CBI Determinations
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

I. Background

A. How is this preamble organized?

    The first section of this preamble contains background information
regarding the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP), an overview of
the proposed amendments, and information on when the amendments would
become effective, how this rule affects confidentiality determinations,
and how this proposed rule relates to other GHG reporting notices. This
section also discusses the EPA's use of our legal authority under the
Clean Air Act to collect data under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule,
hereinafter referred to as the ``GHG Reporting Rule'' or ``Part 98.''
    The second section of this preamble describes in detail the changes
that are being proposed, presents the EPA's rationale for the proposed
changes, and identifies issues on which the EPA is particularly
interested in receiving public comments.
    Finally, the third section of the preamble discusses the various
statutory and executive order requirements applicable to this proposed
rulemaking.

B. Background on the GHG Reporting Rule

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

C. Legal Authority

    The EPA is proposing these rule amendments under its existing CAA
authority provided in CAA section 114. As stated in the preamble to the
2009 final rule (74 FR 56260, October 30, 2009), CAA section 114
provides the EPA broad authority to require the information proposed to
be gathered by this rule because such data would inform and are
relevant to the EPA's carrying out a wide variety of CAA provisions.
    In addition, the EPA is proposing confidentiality determinations
under its authorities provided in sections 114, 301, and 307 of the CAA
for the proposed new or substantially revised data elements that would
be reported under this proposed rule. As mentioned above, CAA section
114 provides the EPA authority to obtain the information in Part 98.
Section 114(c) requires that EPA make publicly available information
obtained under section 114 except for information which is not emission
data and which qualifies for confidential treatment. The Administrator
has determined that this action (proposed amendments and
confidentiality determinations) is subject to the provisions of section
307(d) of the CAA.

D. Summary of Proposed Amendments.

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

E. When would these amendments apply?

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

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

F. How would these amendments affect confidentiality determinations?

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

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

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

II. Proposed Amendments

A. Proposed Amendments to the Subpart L Reporting Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C. Clarifications to the Emission Factor Approach of Subpart L

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

D. Overview and Approach to Proposed CBI Determinations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Table 4B--Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for Proposed New Data Elements Assigned to the ``Unit/Process
      `Static' Characteristics That Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations'' and the ``Unit/Process Operating
                   Characteristics That Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations'' Data Categories
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Proposed rationale
                Citation                      Data element            Confidentiality        for confidentiality
                                                                       determination            determination
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Unit/Process `Static' Characteristics That Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 98.126(a)(2)(ii)................  For each generically-  Not CBI...................  This data element
                                          identified                                         would reveal only
                                          production and                                     general information
                                          transformation                                     about the type of
                                          process at the                                     operation, which
                                          facility: Indication                               would not reveal
                                          of whether the                                     any information
                                          process is a                                       about the
                                          fluorinated gas                                    production process
                                          production process,                                (e.g., number of
                                          a fluorinated gas                                  process steps,
                                          transformation                                     manufacturing
                                          process where no                                   efficiencies, novel
                                          fluorinated GHG                                    productions
                                          reactant is produced                               methods) that would
                                          at another facility,                               allow competitors
                                          or a fluorinated gas                               to gain a
                                          transformation                                     competitive
                                          process where one or                               advantage.
                                          more fluorinated GHG
                                          reactants are
                                          produced at another
                                          facility.
40 CFR 98.126(a)(2)(iii)...............  For each generically-  Not CBI...................  This data element
                                          identified                                         would reveal only a
                                          production and                                     general description
                                          transformation                                     of the type of
                                          process at the                                     production process,
                                          facility: Indication                               which would not
                                          of whether the                                     reveal any
                                          process could be                                   information about
                                          characterized as                                   the process (e.g.,
                                          reaction,                                          number of process
                                          distillation, or                                   steps,
                                          packaging.                                         manufacturing
                                                                                efficiencies, novel
                                                                                productions
                                                                                methods) that would
                                                                                allow competitors
                                                                                to gain a
                                                                                competitive
                                                                                advantage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Unit/Process Operating Characteristics That Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 98.126(a)(7)....................  For each generically   Not CBI...................  This data element
                                          identified process,                                would place the
                                          the range in Table L-                              effective
                                          1 that encompasses                                 destruction
                                          the effective                                      efficiency for the
                                          destruction                                        process in a range.