OAR-2012-0934-0029.
    \25\ R.A. Brown, et al., N2O Emissions from Fluidized
Bed Combustion, Proceedings of the 11th International Meeting on
Fluidized Bed Combustion, March 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The EPA appreciates the N2O emissions and
operating data from the Brown study provided by the commenters. We are
not finalizing the proposed FBC-specific emission factors to allow time
to study the additional data provided with the comments.
    Comment: Several commenters disagreed with the EPA's proposal to
reduce the default MSW biogenic CO2 fraction from 0.60 to
0.55 and requested that the EPA use the actual MSW fractions reported
by all municipal waste combustors (MWCs) for the first three years of
the GHGRP (2010-2012) to determine an appropriate default.
    Response: In response to these comments, the EPA performed an
analysis of all quarterly MSW biogenic CO2 fractions
(determined using ASTM D7459-08 and ASTM D6866-08) submitted through
the GHGRP in reporting years 2010 through 2012. Quarterly MSW biogenic
CO2 fractions were averaged for each MWC to determine each
unit's annual average MSW biogenic CO2 fraction. The
weighted average (based on the reported

unit level biogenic CO2 emissions) for all MWC annual
averages was determined to be 0.62. The result of this analysis
supports retaining the existing default MSW biogenic CO2
fraction of 0.60. (See ``Analysis of Default Biogenic CO2
Fraction for Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)'', June 24, 2013 in Docket Id.
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934).

C. Subpart H--Cement Production

    We are finalizing one revision to the reporting requirements of 40
CFR part 98, subpart H (Cement Production), as proposed. We are
amending 40 CFR 98.86(a)(2) to require reporting of facility-wide
cement production. This change will provide consistency in the
reporting requirements for facilities using continuous emissions
monitoring system (CEMS) and not using CEMS. The EPA received one
comment supporting the proposed change to subpart H.

D. Subpart K--Ferroalloy Production

    We are finalizing two corrections to subpart K of Part 98
(Ferroalloy Production) as proposed. First, we are correcting Equation
K-3 to revise the numerical term ``2000/2205'' to ``2/2205''. Next, we
are amending 40 CFR 98.116(e) to require the reporting of the annual
process CH4 emissions (in metric tons) from each electric
arc furnace (EAF) used for the production of any ferroalloy listed in
Table K-1 of subpart K of Part 98. These amendments are necessary for
consistent reporting of CH4 emissions from all ferroalloy
production facilities. The EPA received no comments on the proposed
changes to subpart K.

E. Subpart L--Fluorinated Gas Production

    The EPA is amending subpart L of Part 98 (Fluorinated Gas
Production) to extend temporary, less detailed reporting requirements
for fluorinated gas producers for an additional year, as proposed. The
extension requires the same less detailed reporting for reporting year
2013 as for reporting years 2011 and 2012. The extension allows the
EPA, as well as stakeholders, to consider the various options for
reporting emissions under subpart L. We are finalizing all of the minor
corrections to subpart L presented in the Table of 2013 Revisions as
proposed (see Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934). The EPA received no
comments objecting to the proposed changes to subpart L.

F. Subpart N--Glass Production

    We are finalizing several clarifying revisions to subpart N of Part
98 (Glass Production) as proposed. The more substantive corrections,
clarifying, and other amendments to subpart N are found here. We are
finalizing all of the minor corrections to subpart N presented in the
Table of 2013 Revisions as proposed. The EPA received no comments
objecting to the proposed changes to subpart N.
    We are revising 40 CFR 98.144(b) as proposed to specify that
reporters determining the carbonate-based mineral mass fraction must
use sampling methods that specify X-ray fluorescence.
    Additionally, we are removing ASTM D6349-09 and ASTM D3682-01 from
the requirements in 98.144(b) as proposed. These amendments allow
reporters flexibility in choosing a sampling method (because multiple
X-ray fluorescence methods are available). For measurements made in the
emission reporting year 2013 or prior years, reporters continue to have
the option to use ASTM D6349-09 and ASTM D3682-01. Reporters are not
required to revise previously submitted annual reports. Facilities have
the option, but are not required, to use the newly proposed option for
the reports submitted to EPA in 2013.

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

    The EPA is finalizing clarifying amendments and other corrections
to subpart O (HFC-22 Production and HFC-23 Destruction) as proposed.
The more substantive corrections, clarifying, and other amendments to
subpart O are found in this section. We are finalizing all of the minor
corrections to subpart O presented in the Table of 2013 Revisions as
proposed.
    We are adding a sentence to 40 CFR 98.156(c) to clarify how to
report the HFC-23 concentration at the outlet of the destruction device
in the event that the concentration falls below the detection limit of
the measuring device. The final rule clarifies that in this situation,
facilities are required to report the detection limit of the measuring
device and that the concentration was below that detection limit. The
EPA received no comments on the proposed changes to subpart O.

H. Subpart P--Hydrogen Production

1. Summary of Final Amendments
    The EPA is finalizing the corrections and clarifications to subpart
P as proposed. The more substantive corrections, clarifying, and other
amendments to subpart P are found here. Additional minor corrections,
including minor edits to the final rule, are presented in the Table of
2013 Revisions (see Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934). The EPA
received no comments objecting to the proposed changes to subpart P.
    We are finalizing 40 CFR 98.163(b), as proposed, to clarify that
when the fuel and feedstock material balance approach is followed, the
average carbon content and molecular weight for each month used in
Equations P-1, P-2, or P-3 may be based on analyses performed annually
or analyses performed more frequently than monthly (based on the
requirements of 40 CFR 98.164(b)). Additionally, we are revising the
term definitions in Equations P-1, P-2, and P-3 to remove references to
the frequency of analyses in equation terms ``CCn'' and
``MWn'' in Equation P-1 and equation term ``CCp''
in Equations P-2 and P-3, since the analysis frequencies are not
described in the introductory text at 40 CFR 98.163(b), as discussed
above.
    The final amendments to subpart P include revising the equation
term ``Fdstckn'' in Equations P-1 and P-2 and revising the
language in paragraphs 40 CFR 98.166(b)(2) and (b)(5). These changes
optionally allow the gaseous or liquid feedstock quantity to be
measured on a mass basis in addition to the already-specified
volumetric basis. The change to the equation term
``Fdstckn'' is consistent with changes made to subpart X,
and allows the results from flow meters that measure gas and liquid
materials on a mass basis to be used directly in Equation P-1 or P-2
without first having to perform unit conversions. All changes add
flexibility for reporters, and should lead to fewer reporting errors.
    We are modifying 40 CFR 98.164(b)(5) as proposed by allowing a
facility to analyze fuels and feedstocks using chromatographic
analysis, whether continuous or non-continuous. Additionally, we are
moving recordkeeping requirements 40 CFR 98.164(c) and (d) to new
paragraphs 40 CFR 98.167(c) and (d) in 40 CFR 98.167 (Records that must
be retained). Finally, we are revising 40 CFR 98.166(a)(2) and (a)(3)
to remove the requirement to report hydrogen and ammonia production for
all units combined. These amendments are finalized as proposed. The EPA
received no comments objecting to the proposed changes to subpart P.
2. Summary of Comments and Responses
    See the comment response document in Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2012-0934 for a complete listing of all comments and responses related
to

subpart P. The EPA received only supportive comments for subpart P,
therefore, there are no changes from proposal to the final rule based
on these comments.

I. Subpart Q--Iron and Steel Production

1. Summary of Final Amendments
    The EPA is finalizing clarifying amendments to subpart Q (Iron and
Steel Production) as proposed. The more substantive corrections,
clarifying, and other amendments to subpart Q are found here. We are
finalizing all of the minor corrections presented in the Table of 2013
Revisions as proposed (see Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934).
    We are amending the definition of the iron and steel production
source category in subpart Q, 40 CFR 98.170, as proposed, to include
direct reduction furnaces not co-located with an integrated iron and
steel manufacturing process. We are amending Equation Q-5 in subpart Q
to account for the use of gaseous fuels in EAFs. Specifically, we are
modifying Equation Q-5 by adding terms to account for the amount of
gaseous fuel combusted and the carbon content of the gaseous fuel. We
are also amending Equation Q-5 by correcting the term ``Cf''
to ``Cflux'' and the term ``Cc'' to
``Ccarbon'' to match those presented in the definitions, and
to add a closing bracket at the end of the equation. These amendments
are finalized as proposed.
    We are revising 40 CFR 98.173(d) as proposed to clarify when the
Tier 4 calculation methodology must be used to calculate and report
combined stack emissions. The amendment clarifies that the Tier 4
calculation methodology should be used (and emissions reported under
subpart C of Part 98) if the GHG emissions from a taconite indurating
furnace, basic oxygen furnace, non-recovery coke oven battery, sinter
process, EAF, decarburization vessel, or direct reduction furnace are
vented through a stack equipped with a CEMS that complies with the Tier
4 methodology in subpart C of this part, or through the same stack as
any combustion unit or process equipment that reports CO2
emissions using a CEMS that complies with the Tier 4 Calculation
Methodology in subpart C.
    We are amending 40 CFR 98.174(c)(2) as proposed by removing the
term ``furnace'' from the statement ``For the furnace exhaust,''
because decarburization vessels are not furnaces. We are also amending
40 CFR 98.174(c)(2) by dividing (c)(2) into two separate sub paragraphs
to separately specify the sampling time for continuously charged EAFs.
We are removing the term ``production cycles'' for continuous EAFs and
provide owners or operators with the option of sampling for a period
spanning at least three hours. These amendments are finalized as
proposed.
    We are amending 40 CFR 98.175(a) as proposed to clarify that 100
percent data availability is not required for process inputs and
outputs that contribute less than one percent of the total mass of
carbon into or out of the process. Similarly, we are finalizing the
amendment to 40 CFR 98.176(e) clarifying that the reporting
requirements of 40 CFR 98.176(e) do not apply to process inputs and
outputs that contribute less than one percent of the total mass of
carbon into or out of the process.
2. Summary of Comments and Responses
    See the comment response document in Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2012-0934 for a complete listing of all comments and responses related
to subpart Q. The EPA received only supportive comments for subpart Q,
therefore, there are no changes from proposal to the final rule based
on these comments.

J. Subpart W--Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems

    The EPA is amending subpart W to incorporate minor revisions to
three equations for consistency with the revisions to Table A-1 that we
are finalizing in this action. The subpart W calculations for annual
mass of GHG emissions for gas pneumatic device venting and natural gas
driven pneumatic pump venting in CO2e are calculated using a
conversion factor that was developed using the methane GWP from Table
A-1. The affected equations are Equation W-1, which calculates the mass
of CO2e using a conversion factor (Convi) that is
developed from the methane GWP; Equation W-2, which also calculates the
mass of CO2e using a conversion factor (Convi)
that is developed from the methane GWP; and Equation W-36 in 40 CFR
98.233(u)(2)(v), which incorporates numeric GWPs for CH4 and
N2O. Because the GWP values that inform the methane
calculations in these three equations reference the previous GWP value,
each equation needs to be amended separately to change the numeric GWP.
While the EPA proposed that the new GWP apply throughout all of Part
98, the EPA did not specifically propose amendments to the regulatory
text referencing the numeric GWP in these three discrete equations. In
addition to finalizing the GWP value for methane in Table A-1, we are
also amending the methane conversion factor and methane GWP used in
these three subpart W equations to ensure the correct GWP value for
methane in Table A-1 is used in these calculations.

K. Subpart X--Petrochemical Production

1. Summary of Final Amendments
    The EPA is finalizing corrections and clarifications to subpart X.
The more substantive corrections, clarifying, and other amendments to
subpart X are found here. Additional minor corrections to subpart X,
including changes to the final rule, are discussed in the Table of 2013
Revisions (see Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934).
    We are finalizing several amendments to subpart X as proposed. We
are revising the calculation methodology in 40 CFR 98.243(b) for
CH4 and N2O emissions from burning process off-
gas for reporters using the CEMS method to determine CO2
emissions; the revision requires reporters to use Equation C-10 of
subpart C of Part 98. Reporters must use the cumulative annual heat
input from combustion of the off-gas (mmBtu) and fuel gas emission
factors from Table C-2 to calculate emissions of CH4 and
N2O. We are revising 40 CFR 98.243(c)(3) and 40 CFR
98.244(b)(4) to allow subpart X reporters that use the mass balance
calculation method to obtain carbon content measurements from a
customer of the product. Additionally, we are revising 40 CFR
98.243(c)(4) to allow the alternative sampling requirements to be used
during all times that the average monthly concentration is above 99.5
percent of a single compound for reporters using the mass balance
calculation method. We are also replacing the Equation X-1 parameters
``(MWf)i'' and ``(MWp)i''
with parameters ``(MWf)i,n'' and
``(MWp)i,n'', respectively, and adding the
associated equation term definitions, and revising the definitions for
the terms ``Cg'', ``(Fgf)i,n'' and
``(Pgp)i,n'' in Equation X-1 as proposed.
    We are revising the test method description for chromatographic
analysis in 40 CFR 98.244(b)(4)(xiii) to remove the word ``gas''. We
are also modifying 40 CFR 98.244(b)(4)(xv) to allow additional methods
for the analysis of carbon black feedstock oils and carbon black
products. We are revising the missing data procedures in 40 CFR 98.245
to clarify that the procedures for missing fuel carbon contents in 40
CFR 98.35(b)(1) are to be used only for missing feedstock and

product carbon contents, and the procedures for missing fuel usage in
40 CFR 98.35(b)(2) are to be used to develop substitute values for
missing feedstock and product flow rates. We are also adding missing
data requirements for missing flare data and for missing molecular
weights for gaseous feedstocks and products. These amendments are
finalized as proposed.
    We are finalizing two amendments to clarify the reporting
requirements of 40 CFR 98.246(a)(6) for reporters using the mass
balance method. Specifically, we are amending 40 CFR 98.246(a)(6) to
require reporters to report the name of each method that is used to
determine carbon content or molecular weight in accordance with 40 CFR
98.244(b)(4). We are also requiring reporters to describe each type of
device used to determine flow or mass (e.g., flow meter or weighing
device) and identify the method used to determine flow or mass for each
device in accordance with 40 CFR 98.244(b)(1) through (b)(3). We are
revising 40 CFR 98.246(a)(8) to specify that reporters using the mass
balance calculation method must identify combustion units outside of
the petrochemical process unit that burned process off-gas. These
amendments are finalized as proposed.
    As proposed, we are removing the requirements in 40 CFR
98.246(b)(4) and (b)(5) to report CO2, CH4, and
N2O emissions from each CEMS location and the requirement to
report the aggregated total emissions from all CEMS locations. In 40
CFR 98.246(b)(5) we are removing the requirements to report inputs to
Equation C-8. Instead of the Equation C-8 inputs, reporters will report
the total annual heat input for Equation C-10, as required in 40 CFR
98.35(c)(2). Finally, we are removing the requirement to identify each
stationary combustion unit that burns petrochemical process off-gas.
These amendments are finalized as proposed.
    The final amendments include several changes to proposed language
to better reflect our intent but that do not change the underlying
requirement. For example, a proposed change in 40 CFR 98.242(b)(2)
specified that emissions from burning petrochemical process off-gas in
any combustion unit are not to be reported under subpart C. The final
amendments clarify that ``any combustion unit'' includes combustion
units that are not part of the petrochemical process unit.
    The final amendments to subpart X include changes to the proposed
quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) requirements for flare gas
monitoring instruments. After consideration of a public comment, we are
specifying in the final amendments (40 CFR 98.244(c)) that reporters
using the methodology in 40 CFR 98.243(b) or (d) must be complying with
all applicable QA/QC requirements in 40 CFR 98.254(b) through (e) for
flare gas monitoring instruments beginning no later than January 1,
2015. The proposed amendments did not specify when reporters would be
required to comply with these requirements. The final amendments also
clarify that QA/QC requirements for flare gas monitoring instruments
apply in the same manner as under other subparts such as subpart Y.
Specifically, if a facility has installed a flare gas monitor, then
specified QA/QC requirements apply to that monitor. However, if the
reporter estimates a flare gas characteristic based on engineering
records or other information, as allowed under 40 CFR 98.253(b)(1)
through (b)(3), then the QA/QC requirements in 40 CFR 98.254(b) through
(e) do not apply.
    The final amendments include changes to clarify the reporting
requirements in 40 CFR 98.246(a)(9) for reporters using the alternative
to sampling and analysis in 40 CFR 98.243(c)(4). The proposed changes
to this section addressed various reporting requirements related to
off-spec production of a product. The final amendments clarify that the
off-spec production reporting requirements apply only if the
alternative methodology is being used for the product in question. The
purpose of the off-spec reporting is to ensure that appropriate carbon
content values are being used. Carbon content of a feedstock is not
affected by process upsets that result in off-spec product. Thus, there
is no need to report off-spec product when the alternative methodology
is being used only for a feedstock. This section of subpart X also
requires reporting of the dates of any process changes that reduce the
composition of the primary component in the subject stream to less than
99.5 percent. According to 40 CFR 98.243(c)(4), the alternative
methodology is not allowed if the ``average monthly'' concentration
falls below 99.5 percent. Thus, to make the two sections consistent,
the final amendments to 40 CFR 98.246(a)(9) require reporting of dates
of process changes that cause the ``monthly average'' composition to
fall below 99.5 percent.
    The final amendments also include changes to 40 CFR 98.246(b)(4).
The proposed amendments to this section required reporting of an
estimate of the fraction of total CO2 emissions measured by
the CEMS that is ``attributable to the petrochemical process unit.''
After further consideration, we determined that the term ``attributable
to'' may be ambiguous. Therefore, the final amendments clarify that the
emissions to use in estimating the fraction include both CO2
directly emitted by the process plus CO2 generated by
combustion of off-gas from the petrochemical process unit.\26\ The
final amendments also include several additional changes throughout
subpart X to replace incorrect paragraph references as well as to fix
formatting, typographical, and grammatical errors. All of these
changes, as well as the changes that are described in more detail
above, are presented in the Table of Revisions to this rulemaking (see
Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ We are finalizing confidentiality determinations for the
revised data element in 40 CFR 98.246(b)(4). See Section V of this
preamble for additional information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA received two suggested revisions for subpart X that are
beyond the scope of this rulemaking. These included a request to report
vinyl chloride monomer production in lieu of ethylene dichloride
production, and a request for alternative options for determining and
reporting carbon content of small feedstock streams (streams that
constitute less than 0.5% of the total feedstock flow on an annual
basis). Although we are not including the suggested revisions in this
final rule, the EPA is considering these comments for inclusion in a
future rulemaking. See the comment response document for subpart X in
Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934 for additional information.
2. Summary of Comments and Responses
    This section summarizes the significant comments and responses
related to the proposed amendments to subpart X. See the comment
response document for subpart X in Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934
for a complete listing of all comments and responses related to subpart
X.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA should provide
additional time for reporters to add any existing flare gas monitoring
instrumentation to the GHG Monitoring Plan and into existing
maintenance database systems to ensure that they are calibrated in
accordance with the new QA/QC requirements in 40 CFR 98.244(c). The
commenter stated that the compliance date should be no earlier than
July 1, 2014.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that some time is needed for

reporters to modify their monitoring plans and maintenance systems if
they are not already implementing procedures consistent with the new
requirements. Although compliance could be achieved any time during a
year, for reporting purposes we have set the compliance date at the
beginning of a reporting year. While we considered setting the
compliance date on January 1, 2014, we determined that that date would
not provide sufficient time for all facilities to come into compliance
with these requirements. We determined that January 1, 2015 would
provide sufficient time for all facilities to come into compliance
regardless of the number of flares they use or the number of monitoring
instruments that they use.

L. Subpart Y--Petroleum Refineries

1. Summary of Final Amendments
    The EPA is finalizing changes, technical corrections, and
clarifying amendments to subpart Y (Petroleum Refineries) as proposed.
The more substantive corrections, clarifying, and other amendments to
subpart Y are found here. Additional minor corrections, including
changes to the final rule, are presented in the Table of 2013 Revisions
(see Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934).
    As proposed, we are revising in 40 CFR 98.252(a) the reference to
the default emission factors for ``Petroleum (All fuel types in Table
C-1)'' to ``Fuel Gas'' and in 40 CFR 98.253(b)(2) and (b)(3) from
``Petroleum Products'' to ``Fuel Gas'' for calculation of
CH4 and N2O from combustion of fuel gas.
    We are revising 40 CFR 98.253(f)(2), (f)(3), and (f)(4) and the
terms ``FSG'' and ``MFc'' in Equation Y-12 as
proposed to clarify the calculation methods for sulfur recovery plants
to address both on-site and off-site sulfur recovery plants. We are
also revising the reporting requirements in 40 CFR 98.256(h) as
proposed in order to clarify the reporting requirements for on-site and
off-site units.
    As proposed, we are clarifying 40 CFR 98.253(j) regarding when
Equation Y-19 must be used for calculation of CH4 and
CO2 emissions. The change clarifies that Equation Y-19 must
be used to calculate CH4 emissions if the reporter elected
to use the method in 40 CFR 98.253(i)(1), and may be used to calculate
CO2 and/or CH4 emissions, as applicable, if the
reporter elects this method as an alternative to the methods in
paragraphs (f), (h), or (k) of 40 CFR 98.253. We are also clarifying
reporting requirements to 40 CFR 98.256(j) and (k) as proposed to
specify that when Equation Y-19 is used for asphalt blowing operations
or delayed coking units, the facility must report the relevant
information required under 40 CFR 98.256(l)(5) rather than all of the
reporting elements in 40 CFR 98.256(l).
2. Summary of Comments and Responses
    See the comment response document in Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2012-0934 for a complete listing of all comments and responses related
to subpart Y. The EPA did not receive any significant comments on this
subpart and there are no changes from proposal to the final rule based
on these comments.

M. Subpart Z--Phosphoric Acid Production

1. Summary of Final Amendments
    The EPA is finalizing the amendments to subpart Z (Phosphoric Acid
Production) as proposed. The more substantive corrections, clarifying,
and other amendments to subpart Z of Part 98 are discussed in this
section. Additional minor corrections are discussed in the Table of
2013 Revisions (see Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934). We are
finalizing all of the minor corrections presented in the Table of 2013
Revisions as proposed. The EPA received one comment requesting
clarification on the proposed changes to subpart Z. See the comment
response document in Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934 for a complete
listing of all comments and responses related to subpart Z.
    We are amending 40 CFR 98.263(b)(1)(ii) and the description of
``CO2n,i'' as proposed to indicate that the sampling method
provides CO2 content, and not emissions. We are also
revising 40 CFR 98.266(b) as proposed to require that the annual report
must include the annual phosphoric acid production capacity (tons),
rather than the annual permitted phosphoric acid production capacity.
Finally, we are amending 40 CFR 98.266 as proposed to add a requirement
to report the number of times missing data procedures were used to
estimate the CO2 content of the phosphate rock.
2. Summary of Comments and Responses
    See the comment response document in Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2012-0934 for a complete listing of all comments and responses related
to subpart Z. The EPA did not receive any significant comments for this
subpart, therefore, there are no changes from proposal to the final
rule based on these comments.

N. Subpart AA--Pulp and Paper Manufacturing

1. Summary of Final Amendments
    The EPA is finalizing the corrections and clarifications to subpart
AA as proposed and is removing the subpart AA requirement to report
paper production in response to public comments. The more substantive
corrections, clarifying, and other amendments to subpart AA of Part 98
are discussed in this section. We are finalizing all of the minor
corrections presented in the Table of 2013 Revisions.
    As proposed, we are amending 40 CFR 98.276(k) to clarify the EPA's
intent regarding the annual pulp and/or paper production information
that must be reported. In the final amendments, we are eliminating the
requirement to report paper production and further clarifying that the
pulp production total to be reported under subpart AA includes only
virgin chemical pulp produced onsite.
    We are revising Tables AA-1 and AA-2 as proposed to include the
CH4 and N2O emission factors for each individual
fuel and adding kraft lime kiln N2O factors.
    We are also revising Table AA-2 to (1) Amend the title to remove
the reference to fossil fuel since the table also includes a biomass
fuel (i.e., biogas); (2) specify that the emission factors for residual
and distillate oil apply for any type of residual (no. 5 or 6) or
distillate (no. 1, 2 or 4) fuel oil; and (3) add a row to specify that
the Table C-2 emission factor for CH4 and the Table C-2
emission factors for CH4 and N2O may be used,
respectively, for lime kilns and calciners combusting fuels (e.g.,
propane, used oil, and lubricants) that are not listed in Table AA-2.
    The EPA received one comment suggesting a revision to subpart AA
that is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Specifically, the
commenter requested revisions to the missing data reporting
requirements for spent liquor solids in 40 CFR 98.275. Although we are
not including the suggested revisions in this final rule, the EPA is
considering these comments for inclusion in a future rulemaking. See
the comment response document for subpart AA in Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2012-0934 for additional information.
2. Summary of Comments and Responses
    This section summarizes the significant comments and responses
related to the proposed amendments to subpart AA. See the comment
response document for subpart AA in Docket Id.

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934 for a complete listing of all comments and
responses related to subpart AA.
    Comment: A commenter requested clarification regarding inclusion of
non-chemical pulp (e.g., mechanical pulp) in the pulp production total
to be reported. The commenter also requested that paper production be
eliminated from the subpart AA reporting requirements because paper
production does not relate to GHG emissions generated in the pulp mill
and reported under subpart AA.
    Response: In the final amendments we are clarifying that the pulp
production total to be reported is the total air-dried, unbleached
virgin chemical pulp produced onsite during the reporting year and that
mechanical pulp does not need to be included in the total. Greenhouse
gas emissions reported under subpart AA depend on the amount of pulp
produced using chemical (e.g., kraft, soda, sulfite, and semichemical)
pulping processes. Emissions associated with onsite energy generation
for mechanical pulping are reported under subpart C of Part 98
(Stationary Combustion). Reporting the total annual production of air-
dried unbleached virgin chemical pulp provides a common pulp reporting
basis regardless of production processes (e.g., bleaching, secondary
fiber pulping, and paper making) that happen downstream of the virgin
chemical pulping process where the subpart AA GHG emissions are
generated.
    Mills with positive subpart AA emissions should always report a
positive virgin chemical pulp production value. In the final amendments
we removed the proposed requirement to report a positive (non-zero)
value for pulp production because some mills may wish to report zero
pulp production in conjunction with zero subpart AA emissions in years
when they do not produce any virgin chemical pulp.
    We also examined the correlation between paper production and
subpart AA emissions and agree that additional information would need
to be collected for GHG emissions to be meaningfully normalized based
on paper production. The tonnage of paper produced does not necessarily
relate to the subpart AA GHG emissions generated in the chemical pulp
mill. Paper is often produced using combinations of chemical pulp, non-
chemical pulp, and secondary (recycled) fiber that may be either
purchased or produced onsite, along with clay fillers, on-machine
coatings, and other additives that contribute to the metric tons of
paper produced. Bleaching processes that occur between the pulp and
paper production areas of integrated pulp mills result in a slight loss
of virgin pulp tonnage, further reducing the correlation between
chemical pulp mill emissions reported under subpart AA and paper
production. Furthermore, the paper production data reported under
subpart AA provides an incomplete picture of GHG emissions normalized
per metric ton of paper produced because reporting of paper production
is not required under Part 98 for mills that do not report under
subpart AA, such as mechanical pulp mills and mills that manufacture
paper from purchased pulp (e.g., paper-only mills that report under
subpart C). For these reasons, we have eliminated reporting of paper
production from subpart AA in the final amendments. The EPA may
consider at a later date whether it is necessary to propose new
reporting requirements under Part 98 that would allow for a refined
normalization of GHG emissions per ton of paper produced for all types
of pulp and paper mills.

O. Subpart BB--Silicon Carbide Production

    We are finalizing several revisions to subpart BB of Part 98
(Silicon Carbide Production) as proposed. The more substantive
corrections, clarifying, and other amendments to subpart BB of Part 98
are discussed in this section. We are finalizing all of the minor
corrections presented in the Table of 2013 Revisions as proposed.
    We are revising 40 CFR 98.282(a) to remove the requirement for
silicon carbide production facilities to report CH4
emissions from silicon carbide process units or furnaces. We are
removing 40 CFR 98.283(d) to remove the CH4 calculation
methodology. As discussed in the preamble to the proposed amendments
(78 FR 19802, April 2, 2013), the EPA has determined that the
requirement to report CH4 emissions is not necessary to
understand the emissions profile of the industry.
    Reporters must continue to monitor and report CO2
emissions from silicon carbide process units and production furnaces.
We are revising 40 CFR 98.283 so that CO2 emissions are to
be calculated and reported for all process units and furnaces combined.
The final rule revises 40 CFR 98.283 for consistency with the reporting
requirements of 40 CFR 98.286. These amendments are finalized as
proposed. The EPA received no comments on the proposed changes.

P. Subpart DD--Electrical Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use

    We are finalizing two substantive corrections to subpart DD
(Electrical Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use) as proposed.
We are revising 40 CFR 98.304(c)(1) and (c)(2) to correct the accuracy
and precision requirements for weighing cylinders from ``2 pounds of
the scale's capacity'' to ``2 pounds of true weight''. The EPA received
no comments objecting to the proposed changes.

Q. Subpart FF--Underground Coal Mines

    We are finalizing multiple amendments to subpart FF of Part 98
(Underground Coal Mines) as proposed. The final amendments clarify
certain provisions and equation terms, harmonize reporting
requirements, and improve verification of annual GHG reports. The more
substantive corrections, clarifying, and other amendments to subpart FF
of Part 98 are discussed in this section. We are finalizing all of the
minor corrections presented in the Table of 2013 Revisions as proposed.
    We are revising the terminology in subpart FF provisions in 40 CFR
98.320(b), 40 CFR 98.322(b) and (d), 40 CFR 98.323(c), 40 CFR 98.324(b)
and (c), and 40 CFR 98.326(r) as proposed to adopt terminology that
more accurately reflects industry operation. Specifically, for
ventilation systems, we have replaced the terminology ``wells'' with
``ventilation system shafts'' or ``vent holes'', and for degasification
systems, we have replaced the terminology ``shafts'' with ``gob gas
vent holes''. We have also revised the term ``flaring'' to clarify that
mine ventilation air is destroyed using a ventilation air methane (VAM)
oxidizer.
    We are revising the reporting requirements of subpart FF as
proposed to include additional data elements that will allow the EPA to
verify the data submitted, perform a year to year comparison of the
data, and assess the reasonableness of the data reported. The
additional data elements are included in revised 40 CFR 98.326(h), (i),
(j), (o), (r), and new requirement (t) include: The moisture correction
factor used in the emissions equations, units of measure for the
volumetric flow rates reported, method of determining the gas
composition, the start date and close date of each well, shaft, or vent
hole, and the number of days the well, shaft, or vent hole was in
operation during the reporting year. We are also adding a requirement
(40 CFR 98.326(t)) for a reporting mine to provide the

identification number assigned to it by the Mine Safety and Health
Administration (MSHA). The reporting requirements have also been
updated to harmonize with changes to the calculation methods as
itemized in the Table of 2013 Revisions (see Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-
2012-0934). These amendments are finalized as proposed.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ We are finalizing confidentiality determinations for the
new and significantly revised data elements in 40 CFR 98.326. See
Section V of this preamble for additional information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA received no comments to the proposed changes. However, one
reporting requirement that was proposed to be added as 40 CFR
98.326(t), the amount of CH4 routed to each destruction
device, was subsequently discovered to be redundant with information
already collected under the rule, namely, 40 CFR 98.326(c) quarterly
CH4 destruction at each ventilation and degasification
system destruction device or point of offsite transport. Therefore, the
proposed requirement is no longer being added. Additionally, the new
reporting requirement to provide the identification number assigned by
MSHA is now numbered as 40 CFR 98.326(t), instead of 40 CFR 98.326(u)
as it was proposed.

R. Subpart HH--Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

1. Summary of Final Amendments
    We are finalizing several amendments to 40 CFR Part 98, subpart HH
(Municipal Solid Waste Landfills) to clarify equations and amend
monitoring requirements to reduce burden for reporters, where
appropriate. We are finalizing all of the minor corrections presented
in the Table of 2013 Revisions as proposed (see Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2012-0934). We are finalizing amendments to the definition of the
DOC term (degradable organic carbon) for Equation HH-1, as proposed, to
indicate that the DOC values for a waste type must be selected from
Table HH-1. We are also finalizing amendments, as proposed, to the
definition of the term ``F'' in Equation HH-1 (fraction by volume of
CH4 in the landfill gas) to specify that this term must be
corrected to zero percent (0%) oxygen and finalizing amendments to the
monitoring requirements at 40 CFR 98.344(e) to specify how to correct
this term to zero percent (0%) oxygen.
    We are finalizing amendments, as proposed, to change the minimum
CH4 concentration monitoring frequency in recovered landfill
gas from weekly to monthly. We are retaining the requirement, as
proposed, to have 14 days between monthly sampling events if only one
sample is collected per calendar month.
    We are finalizing revisions to the definition of oxidation fraction
in Equations HH-5, HH-6, HH-7, and HH-8 of subpart HH to refer to the
oxidation fractions in Table HH-4 (although, as discussed below, we are
revising Table HH-4 based on comments received). We are finalizing
revisions to Equations HH-6, HH-7, and HH-8 to generalize these
equations in the event that the landfill contains multiple landfill gas
collection system measurement locations and/or multiple destruction
devices. While we are finalizing amendments to nearly all of the terms
for Equations HH-6, HH-7, and HH-8 as proposed, we are further revising
the proposed definition fDest,n in Equations HH-6 and HH-8
to delete the phrase ``. . . is destroyed in a back-up flare (or
similar device) or if the gas . . .'' Since the revised equations
explicitly consider on-site back-up control devices, it is no longer
necessary to assume fDest = 1 when a back-up flare is used.
We are also finalizing proposed revisions to the reporting requirements
associated with fDest,n in 40 CFR 98.346(i)(5). As proposed,
we are finalizing amendments to generalize the reporting requirements
for each measurement location. Additionally, based on the revisions to
fDest,n outlined above, we are replacing requirements to
report operating hours for the ``primary'' and ``back-up'' destruction
device and a single value of destruction efficiency with requirements
to report the number of destruction devices and the operating hours and
destruction efficiency for each device associated with a given
measurement location. We are also finalizing amendments to 40 CFR
98.346(i)(6) and 40 CFR 98.346(i)(7) to clarify that methane recovery
calculated using Equation HH-4 is to be reported separately for each
measurement location.\28\ We are finalizing amendments as proposed to
revise ``in reporting years'' to ``in the reporting year'' in the first
sentence in 40 CFR 98.345(c). We are also finalizing, as proposed,
amendments to move the reporting elements pertaining to the methane
correction factor (MCF) from paragraph (d)(1) to paragraph (e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ We are finalizing confidentiality determinations for the
revised data elements in 40 CFR 98.346(i)(5), (i)(6), and (i)(7).
See Section IV.A of this preamble for additional information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are finalizing numerous revisions to the proposed oxidation
fractions in Table HH-4. First, we are specifying that the oxidation
fractions based on methane flux are only applicable for the 2013
reporting year and subsequent reporting years and that an oxidation
fraction of 0.10 must be used for reporting years prior to 2013. We are
also specifying that, for the 2013 reporting year and subsequent
reporting years, owners or operators of landfills that do not have a
soil cover of at least twenty-four inches in depth for a majority of
the landfill area containing waste must use an oxidation fraction of
0.10 and owners or operators of landfills that have a geomembrane cover
with less than 12 inches of soil must use an oxidation fraction of 0.0.
We are allowing owners or operators of landfills to use the default
oxidation fraction of 0.10 (except for geomembane covers with less than
12 inches of soil) without determining their methane flux rate in lieu
of the new oxidation fractions based on methane flux rates. This limits
any additional burden associated with determining the methane flux
rates to only those owners or operators of landfills that elect to use
the new methane flux-dependent oxidation fractions.
    While we are finalizing the methane flux-dependent oxidation
fraction values as proposed, we are limiting to some extent,
considering the public comments received, the landfills that can use
these new methane flux-dependent oxidation fractions to those that have
cover soils of 24 inches or more over a majority of the landfill area
containing waste. Nearly all of the data upon which the new methane
flux-dependent oxidation fractions were based were for landfills with
soil covers over 30 inches in depth, so it is reasonable to limit the
use of the new methane flux-dependent oxidation fractions to landfills
with similar soil cover systems.
    We are revising the definition of the term GCH4 (modeled
methane generation rate) in the footnote to Table HH-4 to indicate that
the modeled methane generation rate is determined from Equation HH-1 of
subpart HH or Equation TT-1 of subpart TT, as applicable, because Table
HH-4 is referenced in subpart TT and owners or operators of industrial
waste landfills must use Equation TT-1 rather than Equation HH-1 to
determine the modeled methane generation rate.
    We are making one revision to subpart HH based on comments received
on the expansion of applicability that will occur in the MSW Landfill
sector due to the revision of the GWP for methane to the IPCC AR4
value. Specifically, we are providing a very limited exclusion within
40 CFR 98.340 for certain closed landfills that have not previously had
to

report under subpart HH, but would newly be required to report starting
in reporting year 2014 because the amended methane GWP causes them to
exceed the 25,000 metric tons CO2e emissions threshold for
the first time. We have added this exclusion to reduce the burden for
these closed landfills, who would otherwise be required to estimate
historical waste quantities and develop their first annual report. See
Section II.R.2 of this preamble for additional information.
    Finally, the EPA received one comment on subpart HH on the need to
revisit the k-value decay rates used in the first order decay model for
wet landfills, although we did not propose to revise these values.
Although we are not including the suggested revisions in this final
rule, the EPA may consider these comments for inclusion in a future
rulemaking. See the comment response document for subpart HH in Docket
Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934 for additional information.
2. Summary of Comments and Responses
    This section summarizes the significant comments and responses
related to the proposed amendments to subpart HH. See the comment
response document for subpart HH in Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934
for a complete listing of all comments and responses related to subpart
HH.
    Comment: Several commenters noted that the proposed revised
definition of fDest,n for Equations HH-6 and HH-8 includes a
special provision when gas is destroyed in a ``back-up flare (or
similar device).'' The commenters stated that this distinction is an
artifact of the original rule and is no longer necessary because the
proposed revisions to HH-6 and HH-8 properly account for multiple
control devices regardless of the amount of time any given control
device operates during the year, or whether it is considered a primary
or backup device. Therefore, the commenters recommended deleting the
phase ``is destroyed in a back-up flare (or similar device) or if the
gas'' from the definition of fDest,n.
    Response: We agree with the commenters. Because Equations HH-6 and
HH-8 have been generalized to directly account for on-site back-up
destruction devices, the default of 1 is no longer necessary in the
definition of fDest,n for these devices. The phrase
requested to be deleted has been removed from the definition of
fDest,n in today's final rule. In addition, we found that
the reporting requirements in 40 CFR 98.346(i)(5) still had reporting
requirements for ``back-up'' destruction devices. We proposed to revise
this paragraph to require reporting for each measurement location, but
considering the public comments and the revised definition for
fDest,n in these final amendments, we also find that the
reporting requirements in 40 CFR 98.346(i)(5) for ``back-up destruction
devices'' is confusing and obsolete. Therefore, based on our proposed
revisions to Equations HH-6 and HH-8 and our proposed revisions to 40
CFR 98.346(i)(5), considering these public comments, we are finalizing
the reporting requirements related to fDest,n in the today's
final rule as follows: ``If destruction occurs at the landfill
facility, also report for each measurement location the number of
destruction devices associated with that measurement location and the
annual operating hours and the destruction efficiency (percent) for
each destruction device associated with that measurement location.''
    In our review of the reporting requirements corresponding to the
revisions to Equations HH-6 and HH-8 in response to these comments, we
also found that, when there are multiple methane recovery measurement
locations, the methane recovery should be reported for each measurement
location. We consider that 40 CFR 98.343(b)(1) and (2) require use of
Equation HH-4 separately for each monitoring location (e.g., 40 CFR
98.343(b)(1) requires owners or operators of MSW landfills that have
continuous monitoring systems to ``. . . use this monitoring system and
calculate the quantity of CH4 recovered for destruction
using Equation HH-4 of this section.''). It is also clear that the
methane recovery and the fraction of hours the recovery system operated
needs to be determined separately for each measurement location as
these are separate inputs for Equations HH-6 and HH-8, as amended, when
multiple measurement locations are used. For e-GGRT to perform the
necessary calculations and to support verification of reported methane
generation and emissions, the measurement location-specific recovery
values need to be reported. Therefore, based on our review of the
reporting requirements corresponding to the revisions to Equations HH-6
and HH8 in response to these comments, we are also finalizing
amendments to 40 CFR 98.346(i)(6) to specify that the annual quantity
of recovered CH4 calculated using Equation HH-4 must be
reported for each measurement location and to 40 CFR 98.346(i)(7) to
specify that the annual operating hours of the gas collection system
must be reported for each measurement location.
    Comment: Several commenters expressed support of the revisions to
allow methane concentration measurements to be performed monthly rather
than weekly; however, these commenters objected to the inclusion of the
14 day interval between monthly samples (if only one sample is
collected per calendar month). The commenters stated that the EPA's
analysis of three years of data provided for 395 landfills showed that
there is very little variability in methane concentration across either
weekly or monthly measurements. Some of the commenters also stated that
qualified personnel properly trained in instrument calibration, sample
measurement, and documentation procedures must be used to collect the
readings for QA purposes and the 14 day limitation significantly and
unnecessarily complicates scheduling of required personnel. Finally, a
commenter argued that, for destruction devices that operate only
intermittently (a common occurrence), it may not be possible to take a
monthly reading at least fourteen days apart due to the operating
schedule of the device. For example, if a device only operates for
several days at the end of one month and the beginning of the next
month, it would be impossible to acquire a reading for each month at
least 14 days apart. For these reasons, the commenters suggested that
the proposed 14 day interval between monthly samples be deleted from
the rule.
    Response: As described in the memo ``Review of Weekly Landfill Gas
Volumetric Flow and Methane Concentration'' (dated October 18, 2012 in
Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934), our analysis concluded there was
an increase in the uncertainty of the annual methane recovery estimate
if the sampling frequency was reduced from weekly to monthly, but that
the increase in the uncertainty was acceptable given the significant
reduction in sampling and analysis costs. In our analysis, we used
monthly data readings that were a minimum of four weeks apart. That is,
the monthly analysis assumed the measurement readings were taken at
discrete monthly intervals. If no intervening interval is included, one
could collect one sample near midnight on the last day of the month and
a second sample just after midnight (i.e., the morning on the first day
of the month), which would effectively be equivalent to monitoring bi-
monthly. Further analysis of the same set of landfill data suggests the
deletion of a minimum interval between monthly samples further
increases the

uncertainty of the resulting recovery estimates without reducing costs
for the landfill owner or operator (See ``Uncertainty of Monthly
Landfill Gas Methane Concentration Measurements,'' June 7, 2013 in
Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934). Thus, while the variability in
the methane composition may be limited, it is still somewhat variable
and reducing the sampling frequency will increase the uncertainty of
the methane recovery values. Without a significant corresponding
reduction in burden, this increase in uncertainty cannot be justified.
    It is not clear how reducing the monitoring frequency to monthly
with a minimum of a 14 day interval would be onerous for scheduling
purposes given that the previous requirement was weekly monitoring with
a minimum of 3 days between samples (note: the existing rule has a
similar minimum 3 day interval between weekly samples). Based on the
weekly data provided by the landfill representatives, it appears that
most landfills were able to collect weekly measurement data and most
recovery systems operated continuously. The weekly data also suggest
that there are very few instances (one landfill, for two month
interval) where calendar month sampling could be accomplished only
during the last week of one month and the first week of this month.
Based on the weekly monitoring data, there does not appear to be any
issue with collecting monthly samples at least 14 days apart.
    We note that, like the previous weekly monitoring requirement,
there are missing data procedures for assessing the composition of the
landfill gas if no sample could be collected during the calendar month.
We do note that there were some landfills that did not operate their
collection system for an entire month. In this case, the methane
concentration is not a critical parameter since any concentration times
zero flow equals zero methane recovery.
    Because the fourteen day period between monthly measurements limits
the uncertainty of the methane recovery value and with no real increase
in the cost of compliance, we are finalizing this requirement as
proposed.
    Comment: Several commenters supported the proposed provisions to
determine oxidation fractions on a site-specific basis based on the
methane flux rate. However, a few commenters indicated that the
proposed higher oxidation fractions would result in erroneously low
methane emissions. While many of the arguments regarding under-
predicting methane emissions focused on factors other than the
oxidation fraction (i.e., the methane recovery factors and the decay
rate constants, which were not issues opened in the proposed
amendments), two commenters noted that oxidation only occurs in
landfill covers that are comprised of soil with the necessary depth,
porosity, temperature and microbial population to effect oxidation.
These commenters noted that landfills with composite or geomembrane
covers that do not have a soil cover or a sufficient soil cover will
not have any surface oxidation. One commenter indicated that the tests
upon which the revised factors are based were conducted primarily on
systems with landfill gas collection systems and well-engineered cover
systems so the data were not representative of typical landfills.
    One commenter noted that, in order to streamline the calculations
and to use a consistent basis from year to year, the EPA should allow
the reporter an option to continue to use an oxidation factor of 0.1.
    Response: We appreciate the support of commenters that agreed with
the proposed provisions to determine oxidation fractions on a site-
specific basis based on the methane flux rate. We agree that the site-
specific oxidation fraction should improve the methane emission
estimates for facilities with low methane flux rates and sufficient
soil cover to effect oxidation. However, we also agree with the
commenters who noted that oxidation must be predicated on the presence
of sufficient soil cover. We reviewed the available data upon which the
proposed oxidation fractions were based. Nearly all of the recent tests
were conducted using distinct location measurement techniques (surface
air, chamber or soil probe measurements) and all measurements were made
in areas that had a soil cover system of 30 inches or more. While we
would have preferred to have more ``full-plume'' tests, which would
better characterize the oxidation fraction over the entire landfill
area, the surface and flux chamber measurements are not biased provided
the surface locations are randomly selected and a sufficient number of
measurements are made. We expect that most landfills will have
intermediate or final soil covers over most of the areas of the
landfill that contain waste, so these tests are generally applicable to
most landfills. However, Table HH-4, as proposed, contained no
restrictions on the use of the new methane flux-dependent oxidation
fractions so it is conceivable that landfills that predominately have a
daily soil cover could use these oxidation fractions that were
developed for landfills with a much deeper cover soil layer. Therefore,
we have revised Table HH-4 to limit the applicability of the new
methane flux-dependent oxidation fractions to owners or operators of
landfills that have a soil cover of at least 24 inches in depth for a
majority of the landfill containing waste. We are also adding a new
oxidation fraction for landfills that have a geomembrane cover and less
than 12 inches of cover soil. Starting with the 2013 reporting year,
these landfills must use an oxidation fraction of zero.
    We agree that the oxidation study data are heavily weighted to
landfills with gas collection systems, which is why we do not support
the average oxidation fractions by soil type presented in the summary
table of the SWICS addendum. We note that all but one of the average
oxidation fractions by soil type presented in the summary table of the
SWICS addendum are greater than the 0.35 oxidation fraction proposed
for landfills with ``low flux rates'' and all of them are higher than
the 0.25 oxidation fraction proposed for landfills with ``medium flux
rates.'' By grouping the oxidation data into bins based on the methane
flux rate (prior to any oxidation), we avoid the obvious bias in the
average oxidation fractions as recommended in the SWICS addendum caused
by the preponderance of studies conducted at landfills with gas
collection systems. Although there are fewer measurements in the high
methane flux range (i.e., greater the 70 grams methane per square meter
per day) as compared to number of measurements in the other methane
flux bins, there are a sufficient number of test runs in each bin to
adequately characterize the average oxidation fraction for each bin.
Therefore, we maintain that the oxidation fractions grouped into bins
by methane flux rates provides the most accurate and unbiased means of
estimating oxidation fractions for landfills based on the available
data.
    Finally, we agree that for many landfills that do not have gas
collection systems, the new oxidation fractions based on methane flux
rates is not likely to significantly alter their predicted methane
emissions compared to using the general oxidation fraction default of
0.10. Therefore, we also include in Table HH-4 the option for any
landfill owner of operator, except those of landfills with geomembrane
covers with little cover soil, to simply use the default oxidation
fraction of 0.10 without the need to calculate methane flux rates.
    Comment: One commenter requested that the EPA clarify in the final
rule that the proposed revised oxidation factor

approach for calculating CH4 emissions be used for reporting
years 2013 and forward, and not require facilities to revise emissions
data from reporting years 2010-2012. Such retroactive revisions would
be time-consuming and expensive while resulting in minimal changes to
reported emissions.
    Response: As indicated in our response to similar comments on the
general reporting requirements in Section III.B of this preamble, these
final amendments do not require facility owners or operators to
resubmit previous annual reports. In the case of the oxidation factor,
this value only impacts the emissions for the current reporting year
and subsequent reporting years. Landfill owners or operators will not
be required to determine methane fluxes for previous annual reports and
revise those reports if a different oxidation factor applies. We have
revised Table HH-4 to clarify that an oxidation factor of 0.1 must be
used for reports prior to the 2013 reporting year and that the new
oxidation factors can only be used starting with the 2013 and later
reporting years.
    Comment: One commenter noted that an expansion of applicability
that will occur in the MSW Landfill sector due to the revision of the
GWP for methane that would not occur in certain other sectors (e.g.,
subpart FF: Underground Coal Mines, subpart NN: Natural Gas) because
those sectors' applicability threshold is not based on CO2e
emissions. The commenter described requiring reporting from more very
small landfills and requiring other very small closed landfills to
continue reporting as costly and of limited policy relevance. The
commenter further noted that the applicability determination for MSW
Landfills is already based on the methane generation level, which was
converted to tons CO2e so that emissions of CO2
from stationary combustion sources are not considered in determining
applicability under the rule.
    Given the increased cost and limited utility of these ``side
effects'' of revising the GWPs, the commenter recommended that the EPA
establish both a methane-based reporting threshold for subpart HH to
replace the CO2e based reporting threshold and a methane-
based requirement for exiting the program. The commenter stated that
changes are easily implemented by simply establishing a methane
reporting threshold of 1190 metric tons/year or more and by adding new
language to clarify off-ramp provisions for both the five-year exit
threshold (1190 metric tons CH4) and the three-year exit
threshold (714 tons metric tons CH4).
    The commenter noted that subpart HH facilities would still
calculate and report methane as well as CO2e emissions for
EPA inventory purposes but rule applicability and program exit
provisions would be based upon methane emissions, not CO2e.
According to the commenter, the proposed exit provisions do not
consider ancillary subpart C anthropogenic emissions because MSW
Landfills that meet the exit provisions are very small and primarily
closed landfills, and they do not operate subpart C devices. The
commenter described subpart C emissions as either non-existent or at
such negligible amount that including these emissions would not prevent
a subpart HH facility from exiting the program. Therefore, according to
the commenter, subpart HH reporters would not exit the program
prematurely due to exclusion of subpart C anthropogenic emissions.
    According to the commenter, a methane based reporting threshold
would allow the Agency to avoid increasing the reporting program burden
for the MSW landfill sector and the EPA staff. It would also prevent
subjecting additional small and primarily closed landfills with
negligible emissions to reporting requirements and new compliance
costs. Existing reporters would not be delayed five additional years or
more from exiting the reporting program. It also, according to the
commenter, would allow the EPA to meet national and global inventory
program commitments without needlessly affecting GHG MRR applicability.
    Response: As a programmatic issue, we have determined that the
25,000 tons CO2e reporting threshold is a reasonable
reporting threshold. Because MSW landfills are primarily a methane
emissions source and the size of the landfill is expected to be
correlated with its methane generation, we did establish applicability
based on methane generation as calculated using the methods specified
in subpart HH. However, the threshold value for reporting has always
been the CO2e of that methane generation at a value of
25,000 metric tons CO2e, which is consistent with most other
subparts in Part 98.
    As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule, the revised GWP for
methane more accurately reflects the estimated radiative forcing
effects of methane emissions. We also noted in the preamble to the
proposed rule that revisions to the GWP values would cause a number of
facilities to have to newly report under subpart W: Petroleum and
Natural Gas Systems, subpart II: Industrial Wastewater Treatment, and
subpart TT: Industrial Waste Landfills, in addition to subpart HH. We
specifically estimated the number of new reporters by subpart, the
additional costs incurred for all new reporters in each subpart, and
the additional emissions reported under the GHGRP for each subpart.
Based on the cost estimates provided in the preamble to the proposed
rule, the costs per ton of newly reported CO2e for MSW
landfills were among the lowest of any of the subparts projected to
have an increase in the number of reporters due to the revisions to GWP
values in Table A-1. Therefore, we do not agree that the revision to
the GWP for methane unduly burdens owner or operators of MSW landfills
in general.
    We project most of the new reporters to be open landfills that
reach the reporting threshold a year or two earlier than they would
otherwise (without the revision in GWP values). We see no need to alter
the reporting threshold for these open landfills. Emissions from open
landfills generally increase every year, so the change in the GWP of
methane may cause them to report one year earlier, but that is a small
incremental burden over the facility's expected annual reports over the
following years. We see advantages to open landfills reporting into the
program earlier based on the revised GWP for both nationwide inventory
purposes and policy matters. Therefore, we are not providing a blanket
applicability change in terms of methane generation.
    We also do not find merit in the argument that the terms of the
off-ramp provisions should be changed to methane emissions. Besides
neglecting the stationary combustion source CO2 emissions,
which may, as the commenter noted, be small, we find that the
``additional years of reporting'' do not constitute a significant
increase in burden. Landfills on the off-ramp provisions are expected
to have no real monitoring requirements under subpart HH since waste is
no longer received at the landfill and the gas collection system (if
once present) will generally not be operated given the declining
methane generation. Consequently, all of the data they would need to
determine their subpart HH emissions will already be in the e-GGRT
system. The e-GGRT system will automatically carry forward the
historical waste disposal records and perform the necessary
calculations. The landfill owner or operator will only need to review,
verify, and submit the report. While the landfill may have to submit

a few additional annual reports, the additional burden incurred is
minimal.
    On the other hand, there may be a limited number of small, older,
closed landfills that have not previously had to report under subpart
HH that would be required to newly report in 2014 by exceeding the
25,000 metric tons CO2e emissions threshold for the first
time solely due to the increase in the GWP of methane. We expect very
few small, older, closed landfills would have the specific
characteristics to have to newly report solely due to the increase in
the GWP of methane; however, for these closed landfills, it would be a
substantial additional burden to estimate historical waste quantities
and develop their first annual report. As these landfills are closed,
they no longer have a source of revenue from waste disposal fees, and
the burden of reporting would be greater for them than for reporters
with active revenue. Furthermore, these closed landfills will have
declining emissions in all future years since they are no longer
receiving waste and additional methane is not being produced. The first
consequence of these declining emissions is that these reporters would
provide data for only a few years until they can exit the program
because their emissions are below threshold levels for the required
period of time. The second consequence is that it is extremely unlikely
that the information collected from these closed landfills would be
useful when considering future policy options. The minor incremental
improvement to overall emission totals for this sector does not warrant
the disproportionate burden that would imposed on these older, small,
closed facilities for information that is not useful for policy
purposes. Consequently, we consider it reasonable to provide a very
limited exclusion within subpart HH to reduce the burden for these
specific older, small, closed landfills. Specifically, we are
finalizing an amendment to 40 CFR 98.340 to modify paragraph (a) to
specify that the source category does not include MSW landfills that
have not received waste on or after January 1, 2013, and that had
CH4 generation, as determined using both Equation HH-5 and
Equation HH-7 of this subpart, of less than 1,190 metric tons of
CH4 in the 2013 reporting year, and that were not required
to submit an annual report under any requirement of Part 98 in the
reporting years prior to 2013.
    In conclusion, we maintain that the revised GWP values in Table A-1
of Subpart A more accurately reflect the climate impacts of methane
emissions and that the existing applicability threshold for MSW
landfills in subpart A in terms of CO2e emissions is
reasonable. We have adequately considered the impacts of the revisions
of the GWP of methane on MSW landfills (as well as other subparts in
Part 98) and have concluded that these impacts are reasonable. However,
we are providing a specific exclusion for certain small, older, closed
MSW landfills that did not previously have to report to eliminate the
impacts of the revisions to the GWP of methane for these landfills.
Finally, we are not making any revisions to off-ramp provisions for
subpart HH as requested by the commenter.

S. Subpart LL--Suppliers of Coal-based Liquid Fuels

    We are finalizing multiple revisions to 40 CFR part 98, subpart LL
(Suppliers of Coal-based Liquid Fuels). This section includes the more
substantive corrections, clarifying, and other amendments to subpart
LL. We are finalizing all of the minor corrections presented in the
Table of 2013 Revisions as proposed (see Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2012-0934).
    As proposed, we are removing the requirements at 40 CFR
98.386(a)(1), (a)(5), (a)(13), (b)(1), and (c)(1) for each facility,
importer, and exporter to report the annual quantity of each product or
natural gas liquid on the basis of the measurement method used. The EPA
received no comments to the proposed changes.

T. Subpart MM--Suppliers of Petroleum Products

1. Summary of Final Amendments
    We are finalizing revisions to 40 CFR part 98, subpart MM
(Suppliers of Petroleum Products) as proposed to clarify requirements
and amend data reporting requirements to reduce burden for reporters.
Based on a comment received, we are also removing the requirement to
report a complete list of methods used to measure the annual quantities
reported for each product or natural gas liquid. The more substantive
corrections, clarifications, and other amendments to subpart MM are
found here. Additional minor corrections, including changes to the
final rule, are presented in the Table of 2013 Revisions (see Docket
Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934).
    We are finalizing the amendments to clarify the equation term for
``Producti'' at 40 CFR 98.393(a)(1) and (a)(2) to exclude
those products that entered the refinery but are not reported under 40
CFR 98.396(a)(2) as proposed.
    We are finalizing as proposed the harmonizing changes to 40 CFR
98.394(b)(3) to make the equipment calibration requirements for
petroleum products suppliers consistent with other Part 98 calibration
requirements.
    We are removing as proposed the requirements of 40 CFR
98.396(a)(1), (a)(5), (a)(13), (b)(1), and (c)(1) for each facility,
importer, and exporter to report the annual quantity of each petroleum
product or natural gas liquid on the basis of the measurement method
used. We are also removing the requirements of 40 CFR 98.396(a)(4),
(a)(8), (a)(15), (b)(4), and (c)(4) for each facility, importer, and
exporter to report a complete list of methods used to measure the
annual quantities reported for each product or natural gas liquid.
    We are eliminating as proposed the reporting requirement for
individual batches of crude oil feedstocks. The reporting requirements
for crude oil at 40 CFR 98.396(a)(20) are changed, as proposed, to
require only the annual quantity of crude oil.
    We are eliminating the requirement to measure the API gravity and
the sulfur content of each batch of crude oil at 40 CFR 98.394(d) as
proposed. We are also removing, as proposed, the requirement at 40 CFR
98.394(a)(1) that a standard method by a consensus-based standards
organization be used to measure crude oil on site at a refinery, if
such a method exists. Other associated changes to the rule to harmonize
with this change include removing the definition of ``batch'' from 40
CFR 98.398, removing the procedures for estimating missing data for
determination of API gravity and sulfur content at 40 CFR 98.395(c),
and the recordkeeping requirement for crude oil quantities at 40 CFR
98.397(b).
    We are including, as proposed, the definitions of natural gas
liquids (NGL) and bulk NGLs in the subpart MM definitions at 40 CFR
98.398 to clarify the distinction between NGL and bulk NGL for
reporting purposes under subpart MM. We are also clarifying, as
proposed, the reporting requirements for bulk NGLs and NGLs. We are
modifying, as proposed, the requirement at 40 CFR 98.396(a)(22) to
specify that NGLs reported in 40 CFR 98.396(a)(2) should not be
reported again in 40 CFR 98.396(a)(22).
    We are revising, as proposed, the default density and emission
factors in Table MM-1 for propane, propylene, ethane, ethylene,
isobutane, isobutylene, butane, and butylene. Please refer to the
preamble to the proposed rule (78 FR 19802, April 2, 2013) for
additional information regarding the amendments to subpart MM.

2. Summary of Comments and Responses
    This section summarizes the significant comments and responses
related to the proposed amendments to subpart MM. See the comment
response document for subpart MM in Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934
for a complete listing of all comments and responses related to subpart
MM. The majority of comments received on subpart MM supported the
proposed revisions. A small number of comments were received requesting
additional revisions to the reporting requirements that were not
proposed. No comments were received opposing the proposed revisions.
    Comment: We received several comments supporting the EPA's proposed
revision to eliminate reporting of product volumes by measurement
method, but one commenter suggested that the requirement to report a
list of methods used to measure the annual product quantities reported
should also be eliminated as it is tangential to the GHG emissions
data.
    Response: While the list of measurement methods would help the EPA
assess the appropriateness of the standard methods and industry
practices that individual reporters select, to further reduce the
burden on reporters, the EPA incorporated the commenter's proposed
changes because the EPA agrees that the list is tangential to the GHG
emissions data when considered along with the other revisions to
subpart MM that are being finalized. The EPA will not require that
petroleum product suppliers report the standard method or industry
standard practice used to measure product quantities that are reported
to the EPA.

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

1. Summary of Final Amendments
    We are finalizing several amendments to 40 CFR part 98, subpart NN
(Suppliers of Natural Gas and Natural Gas Liquids) to clarify reporting
requirements and improve data quality, where appropriate. Additional
minor corrections, including changes to the final rule, are presented
in the Table of 2013 Revisions (see Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-
0934). We are finalizing, as proposed, the amendments to the definition
of Local Distribution Companies (LDCs) in 40 CFR 98.400(b) to coincide
with the definition of LDCs in 40 CFR 98.230(a)(8) (40 CFR part 98,
subpart W) to clarify that for LDCs operating in multiple states,
operations in each state are considered a separate LDC. We are also
finalizing, as proposed, the revision to clarify that interstate and
intrastate pipelines delivering natural gas directly to major
industrial users or to farm taps upstream of the LDC inlet are not
included in the definition of an LDC.
    We are finalizing, with revisions, the proposal to change the way
LDCs report the annual volume of natural gas delivered to each large
end-user registering supply equal to or greater than 460,000 thousand
standard cubic feet (Mscf) during the calendar year. The EPA had
previously proposed changing this requirement so that if an LDC knows
that a group of meters serves one particular facility receiving a total
of greater than 460,000 Mscf during the year, the LDC would be required
to report those deliveries per facility rather than per meter. The EPA
received two comments that the proposed amendments did not make it
clear how LDCs could ensure compliance, specifically, commenters stated
it was unclear how much research an LDC should do in order to back up
an assertion that the LDC does not ``know'' whether a series of meters
serves one large facility. The commenters suggested that the EPA modify
the proposed text to state that the reporting be done at the facility
level only if the LDC ``knows based on readily available information
that multiple meters serve one end user facility.'' As a result of this
comment, the EPA has finalized language to state that an LDC must
report the large end-user in this manner if the LDC ``knows based on
readily available information in the LDCs possession'' that multiple
meters serve an individual end-user facility to clarify our intention
that new research is not required on the behalf of the LDC to determine
which meters serve which facilities. Further, the commenters expressed
concern that the terms ``customer'' and ``end user facility'' were used
inconsistently in the rule and preamble and suggested the term ``end
user facility'' be used throughout to improve clarity. As a result of
this comment, the EPA has modified the final rule to consistently refer
to such end-users as ``large end-users.'' In 98.404(b)(2)(i), the EPA
has defined a large end-user as any facility receiving greater than or
equal to 460,000 Mscf of natural gas per year, or, if the LDC does not
know the total quantity of gas delivered to the end-user facility based
on readily available information in the LDC's possession, any single
meter at an end-user facility to which the LDC delivers equal to or
greater than 460,000 Mscf per year. The term ``large end-user'' was
added throughout the regulatory text to replace ``end-user'', as
appropriate, and references to this definition were inserted as
appropriate to reduce confusion and increase consistency and clarity.
    We are finalizing, as proposed, the revision to replace Equation
NN-5 with two Equations, NN-5a and NN-5b, to allow LDCs to more
accurately calculate the amount of carbon dioxide associated with the
net change in natural gas stored on system and natural gas received by
the LDC that bypassed the city gate. The EPA is also finalizing the
harmonizing revisions to Equation NN-6 that incorporates the two
proposed NN-5 equations.
    Additionally, we are finalizing, as proposed, the revision to
require natural gas liquids fractionators to report the quantity of o-
grade, y-grade, and other types of bulk NGLs received and the quantity
of these NGLs not fractionated, but supplied downstream.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ We are finalizing confidentiality determinations for
significantly revised data element in 40 CFR 98.406. See Section V
of this preamble for additional information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, we are finalizing, as proposed, the changes to the default
HHV and emission factors in Table NN-1 and NN-2 for LPGs including
propane, ethane, isobutane and butane, as well as the factors for
natural gas.
2. Summary of Comments and Responses
    This section summarizes the significant comments and responses
related to the proposed amendments to subpart NN. See the comment
response document for subpart NN in Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934
for a complete listing of all comments and responses related to subpart
NN.
    Comment: The EPA received four comment letters regarding the
proposed amendments to subpart NN. While most of the comments supported
the EPA's amendments, we received two comment letters expressing
concern that the proposed amendments to the LDC reporting requirements
for natural gas supplied to large end-users (i.e., those meters or
facilities receiving more than 460,000 Mscf per year) are confusing and
lacked clarity. The commenters noted the phrases ``customer meter'' and
``end-user facility'' were used inconsistently throughout the rule.
They believe this inconsistency could be confusing to reporters. To
improve clarity, the commenters recommended the term ``end-user
facility'' be used throughout the rule. The commenters are also
concerned the proposed phrase ``if known'' in 40 CFR 98.406(b)(7) does
not provide sufficient clarity regarding

the level of research required by LDCs to determine which meters supply
natural gas to each large end-user facility. They noted that LDCs often
send one bill to a company's main office reflecting gas usage for all
facilities across a state and in such cases gas usage from one
individual facility may not be readily known. The commenter suggested
the phrase ``if known'' be replaced with ``if known based on readily
available information.'' One commenter suggested the ``end-user'' be
defined as ``a single service address'' to avoid confusion with the EIA
Form 176 reporting of natural gas supply by end-user categories.
Finally, one commenter was concerned about the reporting burden
associated with determining total fuel deliveries to facilities with
many meters, especially those facilities with many meters that receive
only a small quantity of gas (less than 50,000 Mscf). The commenter
suggested that only meters which record an annual total of 50,000 Mscf
or greater per year be included in the total reported deliveries to a
large end-user facility.
    Response: In the existing rule, LDCs are required to report natural
gas delivered to individual meters that received equal to or more than
460,000 Mscf per calendar year. Under Part 98, the CO2
quantity reported by LDCs associated with deliveries to large end-use
meters (i.e., the value calculated using Equation NN-4) has been
collected because the large end-user facilities that receive gas
through these meters report GHG emissions from natural gas combustion
to the EPA in other subparts of Part 98. With the information collected
in Equation NN-4, the EPA has been able to quantify a significant
portion of the total CO2 that is double reported by LDCs and
large end-user facilities. This has helped the EPA to estimate the
total national CO2 emissions from natural gas combustion
reported under the GHGRP.
    As we noted in the preamble to the proposed amendments, this
approach did not always address the overlap in CO2 reported
by LDCs in subpart NN and large end-user facilities subject to other
subparts of Part 98 (for example subpart C or D). For example, in
situations where 460,000 Mscf or more of natural gas is supplied to a
single large end-user facility in a calendar year by a series or group
of meters, where each individual meter receives less than 460,000 Mscf,
the CO2 associated with this gas was not reported under
subpart NN, and the quantity of overlap could not be determined. To
improve the quality of the national CO2 emissions estimate
for natural gas combustion, we are finalizing the proposed amendments
requiring LDCs to report the quantity of natural gas delivered to each
facility known by the LDC to receive equal to or greater than the
460,000 Mscf per year, with some clarifications. The EPA is not
requiring LDCs undertake any new research to determine which meters
supply gas to each large end-user facility. Rather LDCs should use the
information already available to them in their existing records (e.g.,
meter addresses or billing records). If an LDC has insufficient
information to make the determination, they may continue to report data
for each gas meter that receives equal to or greater than 460,000 Mscf
per year. To clarify our intention, we agreed with the commenter and
have amended 40 CFR 98.403(b)(2)(i) to define the term ``large end-
user'' as either any large end-user facility receiving greater than or
equal to 460,000 Mscf of natural gas per year or a single meter
receiving equal to or greater than 460,000 Mscf per year when the LDC
does not know the total quantity of gas delivered to the facility,
based on readily available information in the LDC's possession. We
revised 40 CFR 98.404 and 40 CFR 98.406 to make those sections
consistent with the changes made in 40 CFR 98.403(b)(2).
    The EPA considered using the term ``single service address'' to
refer to facilities that receive equal to or greater than 460,000 Mscf
per year as suggested by one commenter as a means of reducing potential
confusion between natural gas supply data reported under 40 CFR
98.406(b)(7) for individual large end-users (either a facility or
meter) and natural gas reported under 40 CFR 98.403(b)(13) for the EIA
end-use categories. However, we decided not to make this change since
the new definition added to 40 CFR 98.403(b)(2)(i) should reduce the
likelihood that reporters will confuse the two reporting requirements.
Also, the term ``facility'' is already defined in Part 98 and used
consistently throughout the rule. We were concerned that introducing a
new term to refer to a facility could result in greater confusion as
the suggested change would make subpart NN inconsistent with other
subparts of the rule.
    The EPA disagrees with the commenter's recommendation that LDCs be
required to report only meters with fuel usage of 50,000 Mscf or
greater for large end-user facilities that exceed the reporting
threshold in aggregate and have multiple meters. We disagree with this
recommendation for several reasons. First, the approach suggested by
the commenter would compromise the quality and usefulness of the data
collected. The EPA's intention in collecting these data is to quantify
the overlap in reported CO2 between subpart NN and other
subparts in estimating total U.S. CO2 emissions from natural
gas combustion. Under the subparts applicable to large end-user
facilities, direct emitters report emissions for all combustion units
and processes located at their facility, regardless of the quantity of
emissions from the unit or process. Therefore, if LDCs did not report
the CO2 quantity associated with gas delivered through small
meters, the overlap could not be properly determined. While the impact
on the CO2 quantity for an individual facility would be
small, the impact on the quality of national CO2 estimates
would be more significant and would be difficult to quantify. Since
Part 98 requires direct emitters to report all emissions from
combustion sources, allowing LDCs to report natural gas supplied to
some but not all meters located at large end-user facilities would
result in an overestimate of national CO2 emissions from
natural gas combustion. It is EPA's intention to quantify national
CO2 emissions from natural gas combustion as accurately as
possible.
    Second, under the suggested approach, the reporter would be
required to determine the quantity of natural gas flowing through each
of these meters to assess whether it exceeds the 50,000 Mscf threshold,
which means the quantity of gas flowing through each meter would still
need to be determined under the commenter's proposed approach as it is
under the final rule. The methodology used to calculate the
CO2 quantity associated with this gas is simple, once the
quantity of fuel has been determined (fuel quantity times an emission
factor and heating rate, which may be default factors). Therefore, the
EPA has determined that there is not a significant burden associated
with calculating and reporting this CO2 quantity.
    Finally, the suggested approach to require that only gas delivered
through a meter with a fuel usage of 50,000 Mscf per year or greater be
reported would result in additional reporting burden for many LDCs.
This is the case, for example, when the total quantity of gas delivered
to a customer is known based on billing records or other information.
Requiring LDCs to evaluate, and subtract out, the usage for each
individual meter that supplies a single large end-user facility with
less than 50,000 Mscf per year could be time consuming. This evaluation
would need to be completed for each reporting year, since the gas
delivered through a particular meter may be above the threshold one
year and below the

threshold the next year. We anticipate that the process of evaluating
and subtracting out the gas supplied to smaller meters, as recommended
by the commenter, would require considerable additional work for LDCs.

V. Subpart PP--Suppliers of Carbon Dioxide

    We are finalizing three substantive amendments to subpart PP of
Part 98 (Suppliers of Carbon Dioxide) as proposed. One additional minor
correction, discussed in the Table of Revisions (see Docket Id. No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934), is finalized as proposed.
    We are amending 40 CFR 98.423(a)(3)(i) as proposed to clarify that
facilities with CO2 production wells that extract or produce
a CO2 stream may use Equation PP-3a to aggregate the total
annual mass of CO2 from multiple extracted streams. This
clarifying change increases the reporting flexibility for facilities
with CO2 production wells by allowing them to aggregate
CO2 emissions from multiple CO2 streams.
    We are also amending the reporting requirements of 40 CFR
98.426(f)(10) and (f)(11) as proposed, which require reporting the
aggregated annual CO2 quantities transferred to enhanced oil
and natural gas recovery or geologic sequestration. The final rule
amendments clarify that these end use application options reflect
injection of CO2 to geologic sequestration or enhanced oil
recovery as covered by 40 CFR part 98, subparts RR and UU,
respectively. The EPA received no comments on the proposed changes.

W. Subpart QQ--Importers and Exporters of Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases
Contained in Pre-Charged Equipment or Closed-Cell Foams

1. Summary of Final Amendments
    The EPA is finalizing multiple revisions to subpart QQ (Importers
and Exporters of Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases Contained in Pre-Charged
Equipment or Closed-Cell Foams) as proposed. The more substantive
corrections, clarifying, and other amendments to subpart QQ are
discussed in this section. We are finalizing all of the minor
corrections presented in the Table of 2013 Revisions as proposed (see
Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934).
    We are correcting the equation term ``St'' in Equations
QQ-1 and QQ-2 as proposed to clarify that the input may be mass (charge
per piece of equipment) or density (charge per cubic foot of foam, kg
per cubic foot). We are amending an example within the definition of
``closed-cell foam'' at 40 CFR 98.438 as proposed. We are replacing the
term ``appliance'' with the term ``equipment'' at 40 CFR 98.436(a)(3),
(a)(4), (a)(6)(ii), (a)(6)(iii), (b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(6)(ii), and
(b)(6)(iii). We are revising the reporting requirements for 40 CFR
98.436(a)(6)(iii) and (b)(6)(iii) as proposed to match the reported
data element to the units required to be reported. The revision is a
change from ``mass in CO2e'' to ``density in
CO2e.'' We are amending the definition of ``pre-charged
electrical equipment component'' at 40 CFR 98.438 as proposed.
    Finally, we are removing the following reporting requirements to
alleviate burden on reporters as proposed: 40 CFR 98.436(a)(5),
(a)(6)(iv), (b)(5), and (b)(6)(iv). Please refer to the preamble to the
proposed rule (78 FR 19802, April 2, 2013) for additional information
regarding the amendments. The EPA received no comments opposing the
proposed changes to subpart QQ.
2. Summary of Comments and Responses
    See the comment response document in Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2012-0934 for a complete listing of all comments and responses related
to subpart QQ. The EPA did not receive any significant comments on the
proposed changes and there are no changes to the rule based on these
comments.

X. Subpart RR--Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide

    We are finalizing corrections to subpart RR of Part 98 (Geologic
Sequestration of Carbon dioxide). The more substantive corrections,
clarifying, and other amendments to subpart RR are discussed in this
section. We are finalizing all of the minor corrections presented in
the Table of 2013 Revisions as proposed (see Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2012-0934).
    As proposed, we are adding a requirement for facilities to report
the standard or method used to calculate the mass or volume of contents
in containers that is redelivered to another facility without being
injected into the well.\30\ The EPA received no comments on the
proposed changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The EPA is also finalizing a data category and
confidentiality determination for this data element. See the
Confidentiality Determinations Memorandum, ``Final data category
assignments and confidentiality determinations for (Docket Id. No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Y. Subpart SS--Electrical Equipment Manufacture or Refurbishment

    We are finalizing clarifying amendments and other corrections to
subpart SS of Part 98 (Electrical Equipment Manufacture or
Refurbishment). The more substantive corrections, clarifying, and other
amendments to subpart SS are discussed in this section. We are
finalizing all of the minor corrections presented in the Table of 2013
Revisions as proposed (see Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934).
    We are harmonizing 40 CFR 98.453(d) and 40 CFR 98.453(h) as
proposed to clarify the options available to estimate the mass of
SF6 and PFCs disbursed to customers in new equipment. The
final rule corrects inconsistencies between paragraphs so that all
options are clearly identified as available.
    We are adding text to 40 CFR 98.453(d) to include the options to
use the nameplate capacity of the equipment by itself and to use the
nameplate capacity along with a calculation of the partial shipping
charge. We are also revising 40 CFR 98.453(h) to clarify that these
calculation requirements only apply where reporters choose to estimate
the mass of SF6 or PFCs disbursed to customers in new
equipment using the nameplate capacity of the equipment, either by
itself or together with a calculation of the partial shipping charge.
These amendments are finalized as proposed. The EPA received no
comments on the proposed changes.

Z. Subpart TT--Industrial Waste Landfills

1. Summary of Final Amendments
    We are finalizing several amendments to 40 CFR part 98, subpart TT
to clarify and correct calculation methods, provide additional
flexibility for certain monitoring requirements, and clarify reporting
requirements. We are finalizing, as proposed, the minor corrections
discussed in the Table of 2013 Revisions (see Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2012-0934). We are finalizing amendments, as proposed, to revise
the definition of the term ``DOCF'' in Equation TT-1 when a
60-day anaerobic biodegradation test is used as well as revisions to
Equation TT-7, which is used to determine a waste stream-specific DOC
value when a facility performs a 60-day anaerobic biodegradation test.
    We are finalizing revisions to 40 CFR 98.464(b) and (c) to broaden
the provisions to determine volatile solids concentration for
historically managed waste streams. The revisions to 40 CFR

98.464(b) are being finalized as proposed. The revisions to 40 CFR
98.464(c) are being finalized as proposed except that we are deleting
the proposed phrase ``but was not received during the first reporting
year'' to broaden the applicability of these provisions in
consideration of the public comments received.
    We are finalizing amendments to 40 CFR 98.466(b)(1), as proposed,
to clarify that waste quantities for inert waste steams must be
reported. We are also finalizing amendments to the reporting
requirements specific to Equations TT-4a and TT-4b in 40 CFR
98.466(c)(4), as proposed.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ We are finalizing confidentiality determinations for the
significantly revised data elements in 40 CFR 98.466. See Section V
of this preamble for additional information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are finalizing amendments, as proposed, to revise the oxidation
fraction default value (``OX'') in Equation TT-6 to reference the
default values in Table HH-4; however, there are a number of revisions
to Table HH-4 from the proposed table upon consideration of the public
comments received. These revisions include limiting the new oxidation
factors to landfills with soil covers of at least 24 inches for a
majority of the landfill area containing waste, allowing the continued
use of the 0.10 default oxidation factor, and clarifying that the
modeled methane generation term for facilities subject to subpart TT is
the result from Equation TT-1, not Equation HH-1. Please see Section
II.R of this preamble for more details regarding these revisions.
    We are finalizing amendments, as proposed to Table TT-1 of subpart
TT of Part 98 to include an ``industrial sludge category'' and to
clarify certain industry default DOC values were applicable to wastes
``other than industrial sludge.'' Based on public comments received, we
are adding a definition of ``industrial sludge'' to 40 CFR 98.468 to
clarify what waste streams are included in this waste category.
2. Summary of Comments and Responses
    Several comments were received from industrial waste landfill
owners or operators regarding the proposed oxidation fractions assigned
by methane flux rates in Table HH-3. These comments and responses are
included in Section II.R. of this preamble. The significant comments
and responses related to other proposed amendments to subpart TT are
summarized in this section. See the comment response document in Docket
Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934 for a complete listing of all comments and
responses related to subpart TT.
    Comment: A commenter noted that the original subpart TT regulations
allowed facilities to develop a DOC for use when estimating emissions
from historic waste deposits. According to the commenter, it appeared
that once such a DOC was developed, the same DOC was required to be
used for these historic deposits in all future reports under the
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, even if better information became
available. The commenter pointed to 40 CFR 98.463(a)(3), particularly
the passage: ``The historical values for DOC or DOCx must be developed
only for the first annual report required for the industrial waste
landfill; and used for all subsequent annual reports (e.g., if DOC for
year x = 1990 was determined to be 0.15 in the first reporting year,
you must use 0.15 for the 1990 DOC value for all subsequent annual
reports).'' The commenter stated that this was not reasonable since
facilities had relatively little time to develop such historical DOCs,
following the EPA's protocol, for the first required reporting of
landfill methane emissions under a new reporting scheme and procedures.
Making those initial determinations unchangeable, the commenter noted,
would not make sense when the EPA is revising DOCs applicable to
various wastes landfilled in the forest products industry.
    The commenter further asserted that this interpretation that the
historical DOC that the facility first chose is fixed for all time
appears to be at odds with 40 CFR98.3(h), which requires a facility to
submit a revised report if the facility becomes aware of a substantive
error in the prior report--which presumably could include an error in
the DOC applied to historical deposits in the landfill. The commenter
pointed to a response to a question from the EPA e-GGRT Help Desk,
which indicated that a facility could recalculate and resubmit an
annual GHG report if it determined that there is a more accurate method
for estimating emissions, which could include a more accurate DOC than
what was used in the past.
    Response: The requirements in 40 CFR 98.463(a) to determine the
historical waste quantities and DOC values for the first annual report
and to use those values for all subsequent annual reports is based on
the need to have a single, consistent waste disposal timeline across
annual reports. The requirement was also intended to make it clear that
owners or operators of landfills did not have to recalculate an average
DOC value determined according to the provisions in 40 CFR
98.463(a)(3)(iv) if additional measurements are made for subsequent
reporting years. The EPA did not intend, however, to prevent landfill
owners and operators from correcting known errors or inaccuracies in
the historical waste disposal quantities or DOC values. For example, if
DOC values are determined using the anaerobic degradation method for
the first time in the 2013 reporting year and that determination
indicates that the historical DOC values used are in error, we do not
interpret the language in 40 CFR 98.463(a)(3) to prevent correction of
these historical DOC values. We note that the language in 40 CFR
98.463(a)(2) and (3) specifically uses the phrase ``for the first
annual report'' and does not require that the measurements be made in
the ``first reporting year.'' That is, we interpret the language used
in 40 CFR 98.463(a)(2) and (3) to require a consistent historical time
series for waste quantities and DOC values be used in all annual
reports. Revisions to the historical waste quantities and DOC values
are permissible, but the entire time series of annual reports must be
revised and resubmitted so that they are consistent with the revised
``first annual report.''
    However, we do not agree that the proposed language in 40 CFR
98.464(c) effectively limits the applicability of the methods to
determine historical DOC values to waste streams that were not received
``during the first reporting year.'' Although this provision was
specifically added to address comments that some waste streams that
were historically managed in the landfill were not generated during the
first reporting year, it is unnecessary to limit the use of these
methods to only waste streams that were not received in the first
reporting year. Specifically, we acknowledge that the anaerobic test
method was not included in subpart TT until late 2011, so that this
method could not be used to establish waste stream-specific DOC values
for the first annual report. We did not intend to limit the use of the
anaerobic test method to only those streams that were not received
during the first reporting year. Therefore, we are revising the
proposed language at 40 CFR 98.464(c) to delete the phrase ``but was
not received during the first reporting year'' to remove this
restriction. Therefore, facilities can use test data from more recent
years to revise the historical waste records provided that all annual
reports are revised to use the same historical waste records. However,
we also clarify, per our original intent, that

it is not necessary to revise these historical DOC values (and all
historical annual reports) each year new DOC measurements are made.
Thus, the owner or operator can choose to use ``current reporting
year'' DOC measurement values only for the current reporting year.
Alternatively, the owner or operator can use the new information to
revise the historical waste values, but then they must revise and
resubmit all previous annual reports so that the historical waste
records for all annual reports are consistent with the records used in
the ``first annual report.''
    Comment: A commenter noted that they have several waste streams
that have DOC values more similar to the new default for industrial
sludge than the defaults for waste streams ``(other than sludge).'' The
commenter stated that the approach to DOCs that EPA has proposed would
therefore continue to overstate substantially the GHG emissions from
industrial waste landfills. The commenter suggested that the EPA either
add more detailed DOC waste stream defaults to Table TT-1 or clarify
that the term ``industrial sludge'' (which is undefined in the proposed
rule) is intended to encompass materials that meet the common,
dictionary meaning of ``sludge'' (e.g., ``thick, soft, wet mud or a
similar viscous mixture of liquid and solid components, especially the
product of an industrial or refining process''), as well as the meaning
the EPA often gives to ``sludge,'' i.e. residue removed from wastewater
treatment or air pollution control equipment. This would then allow
industrial waste landfill owners or operators to apply the ``industrial
sludge'' DOC to a wider array of waste streams.
    Response: With respect to adding more detailed waste stream-
specific DOC defaults to Table TT-1, we note that industrial waste
landfill owners and operators may elect to determine a waste stream
specific DOC value specific for their operations. We included in
subpart TT a series of simple and inexpensive tests by which landfill
owners and operators may elect to develop more accurate DOC values, as
well as a more detailed anaerobic degradation tests if even more
accurate values are desired. Landfill owners or operators that have a
significant quantity of waste that is not well-characterized by the
Table TT-1 defaults may elect to determine their own waste stream-
specific DOC value to use in their emission calculations. As noted in
our previous response, if these site-specific values are determined for
the first time in the 2013 reporting year, the landfill owner or
operator can elect to (but is not required to) revise their historical
DOC values and resubmit all previous annual reports based on the
revised historical DOC values.
    The EPA is willing to consider expanding the list of default DOC
values in Table TT-1 to include additional waste streams that are
commonly found at industrial landfills. We are willing to work with the
commenter and other stakeholders to gather further information to
support the change requested and examine whether it should be included
in a future rulemaking. However, the information provided by the
commenter is new, contains only limited data, and was not part of the
original proposal. Additional DOC test data for these waste streams
from a larger and more representative sample of facilities would
greatly inform such a decision.
    With respect to the lack of a definition of ``industrial sludge,''
we agree that clarity is needed. This category was specifically added
to address concerns regarding inconsistencies with the DOC values for
industrial waste in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. The 2006 IPCC Guidelines
appears to refer to ``sludge'' in reference to wastewater treatment
sludges. As the ``industrial sludge'' waste category was specifically
added to provide consistency with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, we are
adding a definition of ``industrial sludge'' to clarify that this term
specifically refers to sludges collected in wastewater treatment
systems or sludges from ``wet'' air control systems (e.g., wet
scrubbers). Specifically, ``Industrial sludge means the residual, semi-
solid material left from industrial wastewater treatment processes or
wet air pollution control devices (e.g., wet scrubbers). Industrial
sludge includes underflow material collected in primary or secondary
clarifiers, settling basins, or precipitation tanks as well as dredged
materials from wastewater tanks or impoundments. Industrial sludge also
includes the semi-solid material remaining after these materials are
dewatered via a belt press, centrifuge, or similar dewatering
process.'' The EPA believes that the definition suggested by the
commenter is overly broad and could encompass materials not intended to
be covered. As stated above, the EPA is willing to work with
stakeholders to gather and analyze information needed to further refine
the list of default DOC values in Table TT-1.

AA. Subpart UU--Injection of Carbon Dioxide

    We are finalizing amendments to 40 CFR part 98, subpart UU
(Injection of Carbon Dioxide). The more substantive corrections,
clarifying, and other amendments to subpart UU are discussed in this
section. We are finalizing all of the minor corrections presented in
the Table of 2013 Revisions as proposed (see Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2012-0934).
    The EPA is adding a requirement to subpart UU for a facility to
report the purpose of CO2 injection (i.e., Research and
Development (R&D) project exemption from subpart RR, enhanced oil or
gas recovery, acid gas disposal, or some other reason).\32\ We are
adding a requirement for facilities to report the standard or method
used to calculate the parameters for CO2 received in
containers.\33\ These amendments are finalized as proposed. The EPA
received no comments on the proposed changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The EPA is also finalizing category assignments and
confidentiality determinations for new and revised data elements in
the Confidentiality Determinations Memorandum(Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2012-0934).
    \33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BB. Other Technical Corrections

1. Summary of Final Amendments
    The EPA is finalizing minor corrections to subparts E, G, S, V, and
II of Part 98 as proposed. The changes to these subparts are provided
in the Table of Revisions for this rulemaking, available in Docket Id.
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934, and include clarifying requirements to better
reflect the EPA's intent, corrections to calculation terms or cross-
references that do not revise the output of calculations, harmonizing
changes within a subpart (such as changes to terminology), simple typo
or error corrections, and removal of redundant text.
2. Summary of Comments and Responses
    This section summarizes the significant comments and responses
related to minor corrections to subparts E, G, S, V, and II. The EPA
received one comment related to subpart G. See the comment response
document in Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934.
    Comment: One commenter asked that the EPA revise subpart G to
require the reporting of CO2 emitted directly to the
atmosphere from the synthetic ammonia production process.
    The commenter noted that the CO2 captured during ammonia
production and used to produce urea ``does not contribute to the
CO2 emission estimates for ammonia production.'' The
commenter reasoned that reporting the CO2 which is bound in
urea, as required under subpart G, is inconsistent with other source
categories covered by the rule, and is contrary to EPA's

methodology used in the Inventory. The commenter also noted that the
structure of subpart G is similar to the structure of subpart P, but
should be revised to be similar to the structure of subpart X. The
commenter argued that sources in subpart G should be allowed to
``reduce their CO2 reporting for CO2 in urea'' in
the same way that sources in subpart X are allowed to ``reduce their
carbon reporting for carbon in products.''
    Response: The EPA acknowledges the commenter's suggested revisions
to the language in subpart G to require reporting only CO2
that is emitted directly to the atmosphere from ammonia manufacturing
rather than reporting CO2 that is bound in the urea that is
produced from ammonia at some facilities. However, the comment falls
outside of the scope of this rulemaking. The EPA had proposed
clarifications to 40 CFR 98.76(b)(13) of subpart G but had not proposed
any revisions to the calculation and monitoring methods described in
the rule. Therefore, the EPA is not proposing any revisions in response
to this comment at this time.
    However, the commenter has raised a consistency issue within Part
98, that subpart G facilities currently are required to report
CO2 that is bound in urea rather than emitted directly to
the atmosphere, that merits evaluation and requires further analysis by
the EPA. Prior to any modification of the rule language, the EPA will
comprehensively assess the implications of such a change to the rule
and propose any such revisions for public comment. This will ensure
that the EPA is not introducing new or additional issues for facilities
reporting under subpart G and other similar subparts, especially in the
treatment of emissions that are collected onsite for other uses.

CC. Subpart I Correction

    Following signature of the final rule titled, ``Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Program: Final Amendments and Confidentiality Determinations
for Electronics Manufacturing'' [78 FR 68162] (``final subpart I
rule''), the EPA identified an inconsistency between the preamble and
final rule text. In the preamble, we stated that we were finalizing the
requirements for the triennial technology report in section 98.96(y) as
proposed, which was our intention. However, a sentence was
inadvertently added to 98.96(y)(3)(i) in the final subpart I rule. In
today's final rule, we are correcting this error to finalize
98.96(y)(3)(i) as proposed in ``Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program:
Proposed Amendments and Confidentiality Determinations for Subpart I''
[77 FR 63538].

III. Schedule for the Final Amendments and Republication of Emission
Estimates for Prior Year Reports

A. Schedule for Final Amendments and Significant Comments

1. Summary of Final Amendments
    This section describes when the final amendments become effective
for existing reporters and new facilities that are required to report
as a result of the amendments to Table A-1. This section also discusses
final amendments to subpart A for the use of best available monitoring
methods (BAMM) by new reporters and the EPA's intentions for
republishing emissions estimates for the 2010, 2011, and 2012 reporting
years that reflect the changes in GWPs, based on the annual reports
previously submitted by existing reporters.
    Existing Reporters. The final rule requires that existing GHGRP
reporters begin using the updated GWPs in Table A-1 for their reporting
year 2013 annual reports, which must be submitted by March 31, 2014, as
proposed. We have determined that it is feasible for existing reporters
to implement the final rule changes for the 2013 reporting year because
these revisions do not require changes to the data collection and
calculation methodologies in the existing rule. The EPA does not
anticipate that the revised GWPs in Table A-1 will require any existing
reporters to report under new subparts. The EPA received no comments
identifying such a reporter. Such a reporter, if one exists, is not
required to report for any past years under any subparts for which the
reporter's emissions newly exceed a reporting threshold, and may use
the BAMM provisions described below.
    Reporters subject to any subpart of Part 98 for the first time. We
are finalizing the schedule for reporters that become newly subject to
any subpart as proposed. The final rule requires reporters who are
newly required to report under any subpart of Part 98 as a result of
the changes to Table A-1 to begin collecting data on January 1, 2014
for the 2014 reporting year. These reporters are required to submit
their first reports, covering the 2014 reporting year, by March 31,
2015. This schedule allows time for reporters to acquire, install, and
calibrate any necessary monitoring equipment for the subparts to which
they are subject in the 2014 reporting year.
    As proposed, we are adding provision 40 CFR 98.3(l) to subpart A to
allow reporters who are required to newly report under any subpart
solely as a result of the revised GWPs in Table A-1 to have the option
of using BAMM from January 1, 2014 to March 31, 2014 for any parameter
that cannot reasonably be measured according to the monitoring and QA/
QC requirements of a relevant subpart. We are allowing reporters to use
BAMM during the January 1, 2014 to March 31, 2014 time period without
submitting a formal request to the EPA. Reporters will also have the
opportunity to request an extension for the use of BAMM beyond March
31, 2014; those owners or operators must submit a request to the
Administrator by January 31, 2014. The EPA does not anticipate allowing
the use of BAMM for reporters subject to any subpart of Part 98 for the
first time as a result of Table A-1 changes beyond December 31, 2014.
The final schedule will allow five to six months after publication of
this final rule to prepare for data collection while automatically
being able to use BAMM, which is consistent with prior BAMM schedules.
These provisions provide additional flexibility for new reporters and
do not supersede existing subpart-specific BAMM requirements (e.g., the
ability to request BAMM beyond 2011 for subpart W reporters (see 40 CFR
98.1(b)). This additional time for new reporters to comply with the
monitoring methods in Part 98 will allow many facilities to install the
necessary monitoring equipment during other planned (or unplanned)
process unit downtime, thus avoiding process interruptions.
2. Summary of Comments and Responses--Schedule
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the effective date for the
revised and new GWPs be 12 months after the new values are finalized.
The commenter stated that a one-year transition would allow reporters
to address compliance issues related to GHG reporting, GHG permitting,
and related projects that may arise due to the revised GWPs. The
commenter stated that delaying implementation of GWPs for one year is
reasonable because the changes will create compliance problems. The
commenter asserted that it is not appropriate to apply the revised GWPs
to 2013 emissions, given that the rulemaking affects who must report
and the gases that must be reported. The commenter suggested that the
new GWPs be used starting in reporting year 2014.
    Some commenters stated that companies and facilities will have to
reprogram their data acquisition, analysis, and reporting systems to
incorporate revised emission factors, revised emission estimation
methods,

and revised reporting requirements. Commenters suggested that the final
rule should defer the reporting deadline for 2013 emissions, suggesting
increments of at least three or six months after the final revisions
are published in the Federal Register. Commenters expressed concern
about the time required to implement the final rule changes into
existing reporting systems, particularly with respect to making changes
to internal reporting systems to align with EPA's final extensible
markup language (XML) schema or reporting forms.
    Response: Because the revised GWPs finalized in this rule are only
for compounds that are already listed in Table A-1, reporters do not
have to provide additional information for their reporting year 2013
reports and there is no additional burden associated with calculating
CO2e using the revised GWPs. In this final rule, we are not
incorporating GWPs from the additional 26 compounds that we proposed to
add to Table A-1 in the proposed 2013 Revisions Rule (see Section I.D.
of this preamble). As discussed in the preamble to the 2013 Revisions
proposal, the EPA intends to use data from the reporting year 2013
GHGRP reports to supplement the top-down national estimate and develop
the 2015 Inventory. Therefore, and because the final GWP changes add no
burden to existing reporters, we are requiring existing GHGRP reporters
to calculate GHG emissions and supply using the revised GWPs from AR4
beginning with RY 2013 reports, which must be submitted by March 31,
2014. New reporters who are required to report under Part 98 as a
result of the changes to Table A-1 are required to begin collecting
data on January 1, 2014 and must submit their first annual reports by
March 31, 2015. We have included provisions in 40 CFR 98.3(l) to allow
new reporters to have the option of using BAMM from January 1, 2014 to
March 31, 2014, and to request extended BAMM beyond March 31, 2014,
which will allow additional time for facilities to prepare for data
collection. For concerns regarding the schedule and how this final rule
impacts the Tailoring Rule and permitting programs, see Section
II.A.2.b of this preamble.
    The EPA disagrees with the commenters' recommendations to extend
the reporting deadline to accommodate changes to revised emission
factors, revised emission estimation methods, and revised reporting
requirements. We expect that the final rule changes for the 2013
reporting year are feasible to implement prior to the March 31, 2014
reporting deadline. These changes are consistent with the data
collection and calculation methodologies in the existing rule, and
primarily provide additional clarifications or flexibility regarding
existing regulatory requirements and do not add new monitoring
requirements. Therefore, they do not substantially affect the
information that must be collected. Where calculation equations are
modified, the changes clarify equation terms or simplify the
calculations and do not require any additional data monitoring. Because
reporters are not required to actually submit reporting year 2013
reports until March 31, 2014, reporters will have adequate time to
adjust their internal reporting programs to the finalized amendments
before the reporting deadline.
    We note that many reporters use the e-GGRT Web-forms or
spreadsheets developed by the EPA for preparing submitting their annual
reports. The changes to the GWP values finalized in this rule will have
minimal impact on these reporters since the CO2e values are
automatically calculated for reporters using these reporting forms.
While we agree that reporters using the XML format to report emissions
will need to make revisions, we anticipate that there is sufficient
time to make these changes and submit annual reports by the March 31,
2014 deadline for reporting year 2013 data. The EPA will ensure that
the e-GGRT reporting system is modified in a timely manner so as to not
shorten the window for data reporting. The EPA acknowledges commenters'
concerns regarding the XML reporting schema. The EPA will work to
finalize the XML schema as early as possible to allow reporters
adequate time to complete and upload their XML reports.
    Comment: One commenter recommends that the criteria in proposed 40
CFR 93.3(l)(2)(ii) associated with BAMM requests be revised to take
into consideration other considerations, such as safety, that may
warrant the use of BAMM. The commenter requests that the EPA provide
additional flexibility for use of BAMM under 40 CFR 98.3(l); ensure
that BAMM is accessible beyond 2014; ensure that 40 CFR 93.3(l)
criteria do not conflict with or supersede other subpart-specific BAMM
provisions; and, if BAMM provisions in both subpart A and subpart W
apply, clarify and harmonize requirements and schedules under the two
subparts, especially for the first and second reporting years for new
reporters. The commenter further requested that reporters who must
comply with subpart W should have the option to use BAMM from January
1, 2014 to June 30, 2014 without having to request EPA approval.
    Response: The BAMM provisions in 40 CFR 98.3(l) of subpart A allow
new reporters subject to any subpart under Part 98 who would be
required to report as a result of the proposed new or revised GWPs to
have the option to use BAMM from January 1, 2014 to March 31, 2014 for
any parameter that cannot reasonably be measured according to the
monitoring and QA/QC requirements of the relevant subpart. These new
reporters are allowed to use BAMM during the January 1, 2014 to March
31, 2014 time period without making a formal request to the EPA.
Reporters may also request an extension for the use of BAMM beyond
March 31, 2014 by submitting a request to and receiving approval from
the Administrator in accordance with the provisions in 40 CFR
98.3(l)(2). We do not anticipate permitting the use of BAMM under the
provisions of 40 CFR 98.3(l)(2) beyond December 31, 2014. Under the
provisions of 40 CFR 98.3(l)(2), new reporters have more than a year to
comply with the monitoring and QA/QC requirements of the applicable
subparts. We consider this time period sufficient for facilities
subject to the rule for the first time in 2014 to acquire, install, and
calibrate monitoring equipment to meet the monitoring and QA/QC