Home/Federal/Federal Register/2022-09660

Proposed Rule2022-09660

Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements Under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

June 21, 2022

Issuing agencies

Environmental Protection Agency

Abstract

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to amend specific provisions in the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule to improve the quality and consistency of the data collected under the rule, streamline and improve implementation, and clarify or propose minor updates to certain provisions that have been the subject of questions from reporting entities. These proposed changes include revisions to improve the existing calculation, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements by incorporating updates to existing emissions estimation methodologies and providing for collection of additional data to understand new source categories or new emission sources for specific sectors. The proposed changes would improve understanding of the sector-specific processes or other factors that influence greenhouse gas emissions rates, improve verification of collected data, and complement or inform other EPA programs. The EPA is also proposing revisions that would improve implementation of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule such as updates to applicability estimation methodologies, providing flexibility for or simplifying calculation and monitoring methodologies, streamlining recordkeeping and reporting, and other minor technical corrections or clarifications. This action also proposes to establish and amend confidentiality determinations for the reporting of certain data elements to be added or substantially revised in these proposed amendments. Further, this action includes a request for comment to solicit information that may aid in potential future revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 118 (Tuesday, June 21, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 21, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36920-37119]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09660]

[[Page 36919]]

Vol. 87

Tuesday,

No. 118

June 21, 2022

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Parts 9 and 98

Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements Under
the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 36920]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9 and 98

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0424; FRL-7230-02-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU35

Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements
Under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
amend specific provisions in the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule to
improve the quality and consistency of the data collected under the
rule, streamline and improve implementation, and clarify or propose
minor updates to certain provisions that have been the subject of
questions from reporting entities. These proposed changes include
revisions to improve the existing calculation, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements by incorporating updates to existing emissions
estimation methodologies and providing for collection of additional
data to understand new source categories or new emission sources for
specific sectors. The proposed changes would improve understanding of
the sector-specific processes or other factors that influence
greenhouse gas emissions rates, improve verification of collected data,
and complement or inform other EPA programs. The EPA is also proposing
revisions that would improve implementation of the Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Rule such as updates to applicability estimation
methodologies, providing flexibility for or simplifying calculation and
monitoring methodologies, streamlining recordkeeping and reporting, and
other minor technical corrections or clarifications. This action also
proposes to establish and amend confidentiality determinations for the
reporting of certain data elements to be added or substantially revised
in these proposed amendments. Further, this action includes a request
for comment to solicit information that may aid in potential future
revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule.

DATES:
Comments. Comments must be received on or before August 22, 2022.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information
collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or
before August 22, 2022.
Public hearing. The EPA does not plan to conduct a public hearing
unless requested. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing on
or before June 27, 2022, we will hold a virtual public hearing. See
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information on requesting and registering
for a public hearing.

ADDRESSES:
Comments. You may submit your comments, identified by Docket Id.
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0424, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> (our
preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, Air
and Radiation Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20460.
Hand Delivery or Courier (by scheduled appointment only): EPA
Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket Center's hours of operations are
8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-Friday (except federal holidays).
Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket Id.
No. for this proposed rulemaking. Comments received may be posted
without change to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>, including any personal
information provided. Out of an abundance of caution for members of the
public and our staff, the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room are closed
to the public, with limited exceptions, to reduce the risk of
transmitting Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19). Our Docket Center staff will
continue to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and
webform. We encourage the public to submit comments via <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a> or email, as there may be a delay in processing
mail and faxes. Hand deliveries and couriers may be received by
scheduled appointment only. For further information on EPA Docket
Center services and the current status, please visit us online at
<a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets</a>.
Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The EPA may
publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish
to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets</a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Bohman, Climate Change
Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC-6207A), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number: (202) 343-9548; email address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fcbbb4bbae998c938e8895929bbc998c9dd29b938a">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
For technical information, please go to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting
Program (GHGRP) website, <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting">https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting</a>. To submit a
question, select Help Center, followed by ``Contact Us.''
World wide web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of this proposal will also be available through the
WWW. Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of this proposed
rule will be posted on the EPA's GHGRP website at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting">https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Participation in virtual public hearing. Please note that the EPA
is deviating from its typical approach for public hearings because the
President has declared a national emergency. Due to the current Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations, as well as
state and local orders for social distancing to limit the spread of
COVID-19, the EPA cannot hold in-person public meetings at this time.
To request a hearing, please contact the person listed in the
following FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by June 27, 2022. If
requested, the virtual hearing will be held on July 6, 2022. The
hearing will convene at 9 a.m. Eastern Time (ET) and will conclude at 3
p.m. ET. The EPA may close the hearing 15 minutes after the last pre-
registered speaker has testified if there are no additional speakers.
The EPA will provide further information about the hearing on its
website (<a href="https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting">https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting</a>) if a hearing is requested.

[[Page 36921]]

Upon publication of this document in the Federal Register (FR), the
EPA will begin pre-registering speakers for the hearing, if a hearing
is requested. To register to speak at the virtual hearing, please use
the online registration form available at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting">https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting</a>. If you have questions regarding registration, consult the
person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
The last day to pre-register to speak at the hearing will be July 5,
2022. Prior to the hearing, the EPA will post a general agenda that
will list pre-registered speakers in approximate order at: <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting">https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting</a>.
The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as
possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the
hearings to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule.
Each commenter will have 5 minutes to provide oral testimony. The
EPA encourages commenters to provide the EPA with a copy of their oral
testimony electronically (via email) by emailing it to
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#93d4dbd4c1f6e3fce1e7fafdf4d3f6e3f2bdf4fce5">[email&#160;protected]</a>. The EPA also recommends submitting the text of
your oral testimony as written comments to the rulemaking docket.
The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations
but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written
statements and supporting information submitted during the comment
period will be considered with the same weight as oral testimony and
supporting information presented at the public hearing.
Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing will
be posted online at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting">https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting</a>. While the EPA
expects the hearing to go forward as set forth above, please monitor
our website or contact us by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#da9d929d88bfaab5a8aeb3b4bd9abfaabbf4bdb5ac">[email&#160;protected]</a> to determine
if there are any updates. The EPA does not intend to publish a document
in the Federal Register announcing updates.
If you require the services of a translator or a special
accommodation such as audio description, please pre-register for the
hearing with the public hearing team and describe your needs by June
28, 2022. The EPA may not be able to arrange accommodations without
advanced notice.
Regulated entities. These proposed revisions would affect certain
entities that must submit annual greenhouse gas (GHG) reports under the
GHGRP (40 CFR part 98). These are proposed amendments to existing
regulations. If finalized, these amended regulations would also affect
owners or operators of certain suppliers and direct emitters of GHGs.
Regulated categories and entities include, but are not limited to,
those listed in Table 1 of this preamble:

Table 1--Examples of Affected Entities by Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category NAICS Examples of affected facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Stationary Fuel Combustion ................. Facilities operating boilers, process heaters,
Sources. incinerators, turbines, and internal combustion
engines.
211 Extractors of crude petroleum and natural gas.
321 Manufacturers of lumber and wood products.
322 Pulp and paper mills.
325 Chemical manufacturers.
324 Petroleum refineries, and manufacturers of coal
products.
316, 326, 339 Manufacturers of rubber and miscellaneous plastic
products.
331 Steel works, blast furnaces.
332 Electroplating, plating, polishing, anodizing, and
coloring.
336 Manufacturers of motor vehicle parts and
accessories.
221 Electric, gas, and sanitary services.
622 Health services.
611 Educational services.
Electric Power Generation............... 2211 Generation facilities that produce electric energy.
Ammonia Manufacturing................... 325311 Anhydrous and aqueous ammonia manufacturing
facilities.
Cement Production....................... 327310 Portland cement manufacturing plants.
Electronics Manufacturing............... 334111 Microcomputers manufacturing facilities.
334413 Semiconductor, photovoltaic (PV) (solid-state)
device manufacturing facilities.
334419 Liquid crystal display (LCD) unit screens
manufacturing facilities; Microelectromechanical
(MEMS) manufacturing facilities.
Ferroalloy Production................... 331110 Ferroalloys manufacturing facilities.
Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Production... 325120 Industrial gases manufacturing facilities.
Glass Production........................ 327211 Flat glass manufacturing facilities.
327213 Glass container manufacturing facilities.
327212 Other pressed and blown glass and glassware
manufacturing facilities.
Hydrogen Production..................... 325120 Hydrogen manufacturing facilities.
Iron and Steel Production............... 333110 Integrated iron and steel mills, steel companies,
sinter plants, blast furnaces, basic oxygen
process furnace (BOPF) shops.
Lime Manufacturing...................... 327410 Calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide, dolomitic
hydrates manufacturing facilities.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Miscellaneous Uses of Carbonate......... Facilities included elsewhere.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems....... 486210 Pipeline transportation of natural gas.
221210 Natural gas distribution facilities.
211120 Crude petroleum extraction.
211130 Natural gas extraction.
Petrochemical Production................ 325110 Ethylene dichloride manufacturing facilities.
325199 Acrylonitrile, ethylene oxide, methanol
manufacturing facilities.
325110 Ethylene manufacturing facilities.
325180 Other basic inorganic chemical manufacturing.
Petroleum Refineries.................... 324110 Petroleum refineries.
Silicon Carbide Production.............. 327910 Silicon carbide abrasives manufacturing facilities.
Electrical Equipment Use................ 221121 Electric bulk power transmission and control
facilities.

[[Page 36922]]

Underground Coal Mines.................. 212113 Underground anthracite coal mining operations.
212112 Underground bituminous coal mining operations.
Zinc Production......................... 331419 Primary zinc refining facilities.
331492 Zinc dust recycling facilities, recovering from
scrap and/or alloying purchased metals.
311411 Frozen fruit, juice, and vegetable manufacturing
facilities.
311421 Fruit and vegetable canning facilities.
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills......... 562212 Solid waste landfills.
221320 Sewage treatment facilities.
Suppliers of Coal-based Liquid Fuels.... 211130 Coal liquefaction at mine sites.
Suppliers of Natural Gas and Natural Gas 221210 Natural gas distribution facilities.
Liquids.
211112 Natural gas liquid extraction facilities.
Suppliers of Petroleum Products......... 324110 Petroleum refineries.
Suppliers of Carbon Dioxide............. 325120 Industrial gas manufacturing facilities.
Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases 325120 Industrial greenhouse gas manufacturing facilities.
Electrical Equipment Manufacture or 33531 Power transmission and distribution switchgear and
Refurbishment. specialty transformers manufacturing facilities.
Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery 211 Oil and gas extraction projects using carbon
Projects. dioxide enhanced oil recovery.
Calcium Carbide Production.............. 325180 Other basic inorganic chemical manufacturing.
Coke Calcining.......................... 324199 All other petroleum and coal products
manufacturing.
Glyoxal, Glyoxylic Acid, and Caprolactam 325199 All other basic organic chemical manufacturing.
Production.
Ceramics Manufacturing.................. 327110 Pottery, ceramics, and plumbing fixture
manufacturing.
327120 Clay building material and refractories
manufacturing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but
rather provides a guide for readers regarding facilities likely to be
affected by this proposed action. Other types of facilities than those
listed in the table could also be subject to reporting requirements. To
determine whether you would be affected by this proposed action, you
should carefully examine the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR
part 98, subpart A (General Provisions) and each source category. Many
facilities that are affected by 40 CFR part 98 have greenhouse gas
emissions from multiple source categories listed in Table 1 of this
preamble.
Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and
abbreviations are used in this document.

AGA American Gas Association
AIM American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020
AMLD Advanced Mobile Leak Detection
ANOVA analysis of variance
ANSI American National Standards Institute
API American Petroleum Institute
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BAMM best available monitoring methods
BEF by-product emission factor
BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
BOPF basic oxygen process furnace
C&D construction and demolition
CAA Clean Air Act
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBI confidential business information
CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection
CCUS carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration
CDA clean dry air
CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CEMS continuous emission monitoring system
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CGA cylinder gas audit
CF<INF>4</INF> perfluoromethane
CH<INF>4</INF> methane
CKD cement kiln dust
CO<INF>2</INF> carbon dioxide
CO<INF>2</INF>e carbon dioxide equivalent
CO carbon monoxide
COF<INF>2</INF> carbonic difluoride
COVID-19 Coronavirus 2019
CSA CSA Group
CVD chemical vapor deposition
DAC direct air capture
DCU delayed coking unit
DOC degradable organic carbon
DOT Department of Transportation
DRE destruction or removal efficiency
e-GGRT electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool
EAF electric arc furnace
EDC ethylene dichloride
EF emission factor
EG emission guidelines
EIA Energy Information Administration
EOR enhanced oil recovery
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EREF Environmental Research and Education Foundation
ET Eastern time
FAQ frequently asked question
FR Federal Register
F-GHG fluorinated greenhouse gas
F-HTFs fluorinated heat transfer fluids
FTIR Fourier Transform Infrared
GCS gas collection system
GHG greenhouse gas
GHGRP Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program
GIE gas-insulated equipment
GIS geographic information systems
GOR gas-to-oil ratio
GRI Gas Research Institute
GWP global warming potential
HCFC hydrochlorofluorocarbons
HFC hydrofluorocarbons
HHV high heating value
HTS Harmonized Tariff System
HVAE high voltage anode effect
IAI International Aluminium Institute
ICR Information Collection Request
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IRC Internal Revenue Code
IRS Internal Revenue Service
ISBN International Standard Book Number
ISO International Standards Organization
IVT Inputs Verification Tool
k first order decay rate
kg kilograms
LCA life cycle analysis
LCD liquid crystal display
LDC local distribution company
LNG liquified natural gas
LVAE low voltage anode effect
MCF moisture correction factor
MDEA methyl diethanolamine
MEA monoethanolamine
MEMS microelectromechanical systems
mmBtu/hr million British thermal units per hour
MMscf million standard cubic feet
MRV monitoring, reporting, and verification plan
MSHA Mine Safety and Health Administration
MSW municipal solid waste
mtCO<INF>2</INF>e metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent

[[Page 36923]]

N<INF>2</INF>O nitrous oxide
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NGLs natural gas liquids
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
OAR Office of Air and Radiation
OEM original equipment manufacturer
OGI optical gas imaging
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OMP operations management plan
PCA Portland Cement Association
PFC perfluorocarbon
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
ppmv parts per million by volume
PV photovoltaic
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QMS Quadrupole Mass Spectroscopy
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RMA Rubber Manufacturers Association
RPC remote plasma cleaning
RY reporting year
scfh standard cubic feet per hour
SF<INF>6</INF> sulfur hexafluoride
SIA Semiconductor Industry Association
SIC Standard Industrial Classification System
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TBD to be determined
TFI The Fertilizer Institute
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
TSD technical support document
UIC underground injection control
U.S. United States
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
USTMA U.S. Tire Manufacturers Association
VCM vinyl chloride monomer
VOC volatile organic compound
WMO World Meteorological Organization
WWW World Wide Web

Table of Contents

I. Background
A. How is this preamble organized?
B. Executive Summary
C. Background on This Proposed Rule
D. Legal Authority
II. Overview and Rationale for Proposed Amendments to 40 CFR Part 98
and 40 CFR Part 9
A. Revisions To Improve the Quality of Data Collected Under 40
CFR Part 98 and Other Minor Revisions or Clarifications
B. Revisions To Streamline and Improve Implementation of 40 CFR
Part 98
C. Revisions to 40 CFR Part 9
III. Proposed Amendments to 40 CFR Part 98
A. Subpart A--General Provisions
B. Subpart C--General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources
C. Subpart G--Ammonia Manufacturing
D. Subpart H--Cement Production
E. Subpart I--Electronics Manufacturing
F. Subpart N--Glass Production
G. Subpart P--Hydrogen Production
H. Subpart Q--Iron and Steel Production
I. Subpart S--Lime Manufacturing
J. Subpart W--Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems
K. Subpart X--Petrochemical Production
L. Subpart Y--Petroleum Refineries
M. Subpart BB--Silicon Carbide Production
N. Subpart DD--Electrical Transmission and Distribution
Equipment Use
O. Subpart FF--Underground Coal Mines
P. Subpart GG--Zinc Production
Q. Subpart HH--Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
R. Subpart NN--Suppliers of Natural Gas and Natural Gas Liquids
S. Subpart OO--Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases
T. Subpart PP--Suppliers of Carbon Dioxide
U. Subpart SS--Electrical Equipment Manufacturers or
Refurbishment
V. Subpart UU--Injection of Carbon Dioxide
W. Subpart VV--Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide With
Enhanced Oil Recovery Using ISO 27916
IV. Additional Requests for Comment
A. Energy Consumption
B. Ceramics Production
C. Calcium Carbide Production
D. Glyoxal, Glyoxylic Acid, and Caprolactam Production
E. Coke Calcining
F. CO<INF>2</INF> Utilization
G. Aluminum Production
V. Schedule for the Proposed Amendments
VI. Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for Certain Data
Reporting Elements
A. Overview and Background
B. Proposed Confidentiality Determinations and Emissions Data
Designations
C. Proposed Reporting Determinations for Inputs to Emissions
Equations
D. Proposed Revisions to Confidentiality Determinations for
Existing 40 CFR part 98 Data Elements Affected by the AIM
Implementation Rule
E. Request for Comments on Proposed Category Assignments,
Confidentiality Determinations, or Determinations of Inputs To Be
Reported
VII. Impacts of the Proposed Amendments
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Determination Under CAA Section 307(d)

I. Background

A. How is this preamble organized?

The first section of this preamble contains background information
regarding the origin of the proposed amendments. This section also
discusses the EPA's legal authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to
promulgate (including subsequent amendments to) the Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Rule, codified at 40 CFR part 98 (hereinafter referred to as
``part 98''), and the EPA's legal authority to make confidentiality
determinations for new or revised data elements required by these
amendments or for existing data elements for which a confidentiality
determination has not previously been proposed. Section II of this
preamble describes the types of amendments included in this proposed
rulemaking and includes the rationale for each type of proposed change.
Section III of this preamble is organized by part 98 subpart and
contains detailed information on the proposed revisions to part 98 and
the rationale for the proposed amendments in each section. Section IV
of this preamble discusses additional requests for comments related to
potentially expanding or adding new source categories and other
potential future amendments to the GHG Reporting Rule. Section V of
this preamble discusses when the proposed revisions to part 98 would
apply to reporters. Section VI of this preamble discusses the proposed
confidentiality determinations for new or substantially revised (i.e.,
requiring additional or different data to be reported) data reporting
elements, as well as for certain existing data elements for which a
determination has not been previously established. Section VII of this
preamble discusses the impacts of the proposed amendments. Section VIII
of this preamble describes the statutory and executive order
requirements applicable to this action.

B. Executive Summary

The EPA is proposing amendments to part 98 to implement
improvements to the GHGRP. After more than 10 years of implementation
of the program, the EPA has assessed the data collected, emissions, and
trends established from annual reports in each industrial sector
required to report. In this review, the EPA has evaluated the
requirements of the GHGRP to identify areas of improvement, such as
where the rule may be modified to reflect the EPA's current
understanding of United States (U.S.) GHG emission trends, or to
improve data collection and reporting where additional data may be
necessary to better understand emissions from specific sectors or
inform future policy decisions. The EPA has subsequently identified
improvements to the calculation, monitoring, and reporting

[[Page 36924]]

requirements that would incorporate new data or updated scientific
knowledge; reflect new emissions sources; improve analysis and
verification of collected data; provide additional data to complement
or inform other EPA programs; or streamline calculation, monitoring, or
reporting to provide flexibility or increase the efficiency of data
collection.
The proposed amendments include improvements to requirements that
would enhance the quality of the data collected, clarify elements of
the rule, and streamlining changes. The types of proposed amendments
that would improve the quality of the data collected under the rule
include revisions to update emission factors to more accurately reflect
industry emissions; refinements to existing emissions calculation
methodologies to reflect an improved understanding of emissions sources
and end uses of GHGs; providing for collection of additional data to
understand new source categories or new emission sources for specific
sectors; additions or modifications to reporting requirements in order
to eliminate data gaps and improve verification of emissions estimates;
revisions that address prior commenter concerns or clarify
requirements, and editorial corrections that would improve the public's
understanding of the rule.
The types of streamlining changes that the EPA is proposing include
revisions to applicability for certain industry sectors to account for
changes in usage of certain GHGs or where the current applicability
estimation methodology may overestimate emissions; revisions that
provide flexibility for or simplify monitoring and calculation methods;
and revisions to streamline reported data elements or recordkeeping
where the current requirements are redundant, where reported data are
not currently useful for verification or analysis, or for which
continued collection of the data at the same frequency would not likely
provide new insights or knowledge of the industry sector, emissions, or
trends at this time.
This action also includes a request for comment related to
potentially expanding existing categories or including additional new
source categories to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. In these cases,
the EPA is seeking additional information to better inform our
consideration of proposing these new source categories to the GHGRP.
Therefore, the EPA is specifically requesting comment related to the
potential expanded or new source categories described in this section.
The EPA is also requesting comment on potential future amendments to
add new calculation, monitoring, and reporting requirements for the
aluminum production source category. If the Agency becomes comfortable
that the information available is sufficient to support a rule
revision, the EPA may consider undertaking a future action to revise or
add source categories or to incorporate updated calculation and
reporting requirements.
Further, this action includes a proposal to update 40 CFR part 9 in
accordance with the publication requirements of the PRA to include the
OMB control number issued under the PRA for the information collection
request (ICR) for the GHGRP.
Finally, this action proposes to establish and/or revise
confidentiality determinations for the reporting of certain data
elements added or revised in these proposed amendments, and for certain
existing data elements for which no confidentiality determination has
been previously proposed, or for which we are proposing to amend a
previously established confidentiality determination.
Most of the changes that are proposed are not anticipated to
significantly increase the recordkeeping and reporting burden
associated with the GHGRP. The proposed changes are anticipated to
improve the quality of the data reported under the program. Some of the
proposed revisions could potentially increase burden in cases where the
proposed amendments add or revise reporting requirements. The estimated
incremental costs include an average burden of $1,424,775 per year
beginning in reporting year (RY) 2023.
The EPA anticipates that the proposed changes may take effect on
January 1, 2023 and would apply beginning with reports submitted for
RY2023, which are required to be submitted to the EPA by April 1, 2024.

C. Background on This Proposed Rule

The GHG Reporting Rule was published in the Federal Register (FR)
on October 30, 2009 (74 FR 56260) (hereafter referred to as the 2009
Final Rule). The 2009 Final Rule became effective on December 29, 2009
and requires reporting of GHGs from various facilities and suppliers,
consistent with the 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act.\1\ The EPA
issued additional rules in 2010 finalizing the requirements for subpart
T (Magnesium Production), subpart FF (Underground Coal Mines), subpart
II (Industrial Wastewater Treatment), and subpart TT (Industrial Waste
Landfills) (75 FR 39736, July 12, 2010); subpart W (Petroleum and
Natural Gas Systems) (75 FR 74458, November 30, 2010); subpart I
(Electronics Manufacturing), subpart L (Fluorinated Gas Production),
subpart DD (Electrical Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use),
subpart QQ (Importers and Exporters of Fluorinated GHGs Contained in
Pre- Charged Equipment or Closed-Cell Foams), and subpart SS
(Electrical Equipment Manufacture or Refurbishment) (75 FR 74774,
December 1, 2010); and subpart RR (Geologic Sequestration of Carbon
Dioxide) and subpart UU (Injection of Carbon Dioxide) (75 FR 75060,
December 1, 2010). Following the promulgation of these subparts, the
EPA finalized several technical and clarifying amendments to these and
other subparts under the GHGRP (75 FR 79092, December 17, 2010; 76 FR
22825, April 25, 2011; 76 FR 36339, June 22, 2011; 76 FR 59533,
September 27, 2011; 76 FR 59542, September 27, 2011; 76 FR 73866,
November 29, 2011; 76 FR 80554, December 23, 2011; 77 FR 10373,
February 22, 2012; 77 FR 48072, August 13, 2012; 77 FR 51477, August
24, 2012; 78 FR 25392, May 1, 2013; 78 FR 68162, November 13, 2013; 78
FR 71904, November 29, 2013; 79 FR 63750, October 24, 2014; 79 FR
70352, November 25, 2014; 79 FR 73750, December 11, 2014; 80 FR 64262,
October 22, 2015; and 81 FR 86490, November 30, 2016). The amendments
generally added or revised requirements in the existing subparts of
part 98, including revisions that were intended to improve clarity and
consistency across the calculation, monitoring, and data reporting
requirements. The EPA finalized additional amendments (81 FR 89188,
December 6, 2016) to streamline implementation of the rule, to improve
the quality and consistency of the data collected under the rule, and
to clarify or provide updates to certain provisions that have been the
subject of questions from reporting entities. The EPA is proposing
additional amendments and requesting comment in a continuation of the
effort to improve the GHGRP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110-161,
121 Stat. 1844, 2128. See <a href="https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ161/PLAW-110publ161.pdf">https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ161/PLAW-110publ161.pdf</a> (accessed September 7, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Legal Authority

The EPA is proposing these rule amendments under its existing CAA
authority provided in CAA section 114. As stated in the preamble to the
2009 Final Rule (74 FR 56260), CAA section 114(a)(1) provides the EPA
broad authority to require the information

[[Page 36925]]

proposed to be gathered by this rule because such data would inform and
are relevant to the EPA's carrying out of a wide variety of CAA
provisions. See the preambles to the proposed GHG Reporting Rule (74 FR
16606, October 10, 2009) and the 2009 Final Rule for further
information.

II. Overview and Rationale for Proposed Amendments to 40 CFR Part 98
and 40 CFR Part 9

Since 2010, the GHGRP has been a reliable and high-quality source
of GHG data. The data collected under 40 CFR part 98 is used to inform
the EPA's understanding of the relative emissions and distribution of
emissions from specific industries, the factors that influence GHG
emission rates, and to inform policy options and potential regulations.
The data published under the GHGRP also serves to enable key
stakeholders to understand, track, and compare greenhouse gas emissions
and identify and take action on emission reduction opportunities.
Further, the data collected under the GHGRP has also been used to
inform other regulations, for example, proposed New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) and Emission Guidelines for the oil and gas industry
and for municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills under 40 CFR part 60.
Throughout the life of the GHGRP, the EPA has made several
improvements to the rule to address data gaps, reflect updates to
scientific information, or to incorporate improvements to calculation,
monitoring, or measurement methodologies. For example, in 2013, the EPA
finalized technical amendments including changes to applicability,
improvements to calculation methods, and updated reporting
requirements, as well as amendments to incorporate new data from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on estimated global
warming potentials (GWPs) (78 FR 71904, November 29, 2013). More
recently, the EPA finalized edits to the petroleum and natural gas
systems source category to address potential gaps in coverage, improve
methods, and ensure high quality data reporting (81 FR 86490, November
30, 2016). The EPA last updated the GHGRP in 2016, when it implemented
revisions to streamline and improve implementation of the rule and to
improve the quality of the data collected, including expanding
monitoring and reporting requirements that were necessary to improve
verification and served to improve the accuracy of the data used to
inform the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks
(hereafter referred to as the ``U.S. GHG Inventory'') (81 FR 89188,
December 9, 2016).
The EPA has also continuously conducted outreach to stakeholders
through various means, including responding to questions from
reporters, engaging through compliance assistance webinars, soliciting
feedback via a public testing process, interacting with reporters
during the verification of submitted data, and soliciting comments
during rulemakings. Thus, the EPA has subsequently identified,
proposed, and finalized several technical and clarifying amendments to
various subparts under the GHGRP to enhance the quality of the data
reported, improve our understanding of GHG emission sources and trends,
and improve implementation, particularly where we have identified
changes to industry processes, emissions trends, types of emissions
sources, or new data or scientific knowledge that would allow us to
better understand the quantity and distribution of U.S. GHG emissions.
The EPA recently evaluated the requirements of the GHGRP to
identify areas of improvement, such as where the rule may be modified
to reflect the EPA's current understanding of U.S. GHG emission trends,
or to improve data collection and reporting where additional data may
be necessary to better understand emissions from specific sectors or
inform future policy decisions. The proposed amendments include
improvements to the calculation, monitoring, and reporting requirements
that would incorporate updates to existing emissions estimation
methodologies; implement requirements to collect additional data to
understand new source categories or new emission sources for specific
sectors; improve the EPA's understanding of the sector-specific
processes or other factors that influence GHG emission rates and
improve verification of collected data; and provide additional data to
complement or inform other EPA programs. We are also proposing
revisions that clarify or update provisions that have been unclear. The
proposed amendments include:
<bullet> Amendments to update emission factors to incorporate new
measurement data that more accurately reflects industry emissions;
<bullet> Revisions to refine existing emissions calculation
methodologies to reflect an improved understanding of emissions sources
and end uses of GHGs, or to incorporate more recent research on GHG
emissions or formation;
<bullet> Revisions to specific sectors to expand reporting to
include new source categories or new emission sources, in order to
improve the accuracy and completeness of the data provided by the
GHGRP;
<bullet> Adding or modifying reporting requirements to eliminate
data gaps and improve verification of emissions estimates; and
<bullet> Revisions that address prior commenter concerns or provide
additional information for reporters to better or more fully understand
their compliance obligations, that clarify requirements that reporters
have previously found vague to ensure that accurate data are being
collected, and editorial corrections or harmonizing changes that would
improve the public's understanding of the rule.
The EPA is also soliciting additional comment on potentially
expanding existing subparts or adding other new subparts to collect
data for several new source categories, as well as requesting comment
on potential future amendments to add new calculation, monitoring, and
reporting requirements for the aluminum production source category, as
discussed in section IV of this preamble.
The EPA has also identified additional areas in the GHGRP where
revisions to part 98 could be streamlined. Through this document, the
EPA is proposing several amendments to revise specific provisions in
part 98 that would streamline calculation, monitoring, or reporting to
provide flexibility or increase the efficiency of data collection. The
types of revisions we are proposing would simplify requirements while
maintaining the quality of the data collected under part 98, where
continued collection of information assists in evaluation and support
of EPA programs and policies. The proposed revisions include:
<bullet> Revisions to applicability for certain industry sectors
without the 25,000 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent
(mtCO<INF>2</INF>e) per year reporting threshold to account for changes
in usage of certain GHGs, or where the current applicability estimation
methodology may overestimate emissions;
<bullet> Providing flexibility for and simplifying monitoring and
calculation methods where further monitoring and data collection would
not likely significantly improve our understanding of emission sources
at this time, or where we currently allow similar less burdensome
methodologies for other sources; and
<bullet> Revisions to streamline reported data elements or
recordkeeping where the current requirements are redundant

[[Page 36926]]

or where reported data are not currently useful for verification or
analysis, or for which continued collection of the data at the same
frequency would not likely provide new insights or knowledge of the
industry sector, emissions, or trends at this time.
Sections II.A and II.B of this preamble describe the above changes
in more detail and provide rationale for the changes included in each
category. Additional details for the specific amendments proposed for
each subpart are included in section III of this preamble. We are
seeking public comment only on the proposed revisions and issues
specifically identified in this document for the identified subparts.
We expect to deem any comments received addressing other aspects of 40
CFR part 98 to be outside of the scope of this proposed rulemaking.
Finally, we are also proposing a technical amendment to 40 CFR part
9 to update the table that lists the OMB control numbers issued under
the PRA to include the ICR for 40 CFR part 98. This amendment is
described in section II.C of this preamble.

A. Revisions To Improve the Quality of Data Collected Under 40 CFR Part
98 and Other Minor Revisions or Clarifications

The data collected under part 98 are used to inform the EPA's
understanding of the relative emissions and distribution of emissions
from specific industries, the factors that influence GHG emission
rates, and to inform policy options and potential regulations.
Following several years of implementation and outreach, the EPA has
identified certain areas of the rule where updates to emissions factors
or other default factors; improvements to calculation methodologies;
collection of additional data on GHG emissions, emissions sources, or
end uses; additions or revisions to data elements or other reporting
requirements; and other technical amendments, clarifications, and
corrections would enhance the quality and accuracy of the data
collected under the GHGRP. These proposed changes include consideration
of comments raised by stakeholders in prior rulemakings that would more
closely align rule requirements with the processes conducted at
specific facilities, consideration of data gaps identified in collected
data where additional data would improve verification of data reported
to the GHGRP, and consideration of additional data needed to help
better understand changing industry emission trends. Overall, these
proposed changes would provide a more comprehensive, nationwide GHG
emissions profile reflective of the origin and distribution of GHG
emissions in the United States and would more accurately inform EPA
policy options for potential regulatory or non-regulatory CAA programs.
The EPA additionally uses the data from the GHGRP, which would include
data from these proposed changes, to improve estimates used in the U.S.
GHG Inventory.
In some cases, we are proposing to redefine certain industry
sectors to include additional GHGs not previously reported, or to add
emissions estimations methodologies and include reporting of GHGs from
newly identified sources of emissions in certain industry sectors, to
better account for changes in industry emission trends. The proposed
amendments reflect adjustments to the rule where we have identified
changes in the type and scope of GHGs emitted or supplied, such as
certain sectors that have implemented alternative equipment technology,
switched to use of GHGs with a lower GWP, or that have implemented new
end uses for GHGs that are emitted or supplied. In other cases, we have
identified gaps in the current coverage of the GHGRP that leave out
potentially significant emission sources, for example, large, atypical
release events at oil and gas facilities such as wellhead leaks. The
proposed amendments would also add a new source category that would
provide additional data on amounts of CO<INF>2</INF> that are
geologically sequestered in association with enhanced oil recovery
(EOR) operations. Many of the revisions proposed in this action would
better capture the changing landscape of greenhouse gas emissions and
provide for more complete coverage of U.S. GHG emission sources. Such
changes are necessary for the EPA to continue to analyze the relative
emissions and distribution of emissions from specific industries and to
improve the overall quality of the data collected under the GHGRP.
These changes would also complement other EPA regulations, such as NSPS
and emission guidelines (EG) for the oil and gas industry and would
also be used to inform and improve future policy decisions.
The specific changes that we are proposing, as described in this
section, are described in detail for each subpart in sections III.A
through III.W of this preamble.
1. Updates to Emission Factors To Improve Accuracy of Reported Data
In order to improve the accuracy of the data collected under the
GHGRP, we are proposing to revise emission factors where we have
received improved measurement data or feedback from stakeholders. Some
of the calculation methodologies provided in the GHGRP rely on the use
of emission factors, and the use of emissions or default factors
decreases the need for additional monitoring or measurements from
individual facilities. The proposed rule includes revisions to emission
factors in a number of source categories, where we have received or
identified updated measurement data. For example, we are proposing
several updates to the emission factors and default destruction and
removal efficiency values in subpart I (Electronics Manufacturing). The
proposed emission factors are based on review of newly submitted data
from the 2017 and 2020 technology assessment reports submitted with
RY2016 and RY2019 annual reports, as well as consideration of new
emission factors available in the 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (hereafter ``2019
Refinement'').\2\ We are also proposing updates to the emission factor
calculation methods that are used to calculate utilization and by-
product emission rates submitted in the technology assessment report
under subpart I, in order to ensure that emission factors are developed
in a consistent manner across facilities and over time and to allow the
EPA to compare emission factors across the industry and track trends in
industry emission rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2019
Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories, Calvo Buendia, E., Tanabe, K., Kranjc, A., Baasansuren,
J., Fukuda, M., Ngarize, S., Osako, A., Pyrozhenko, Y., Shermanau,
P. and Federici, S. (eds). Published: IPCC, Switzerland. 2019.
<a href="https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2019rf/index.html">https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2019rf/index.html</a>.
Available in the docket for this rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0424.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In some cases, the proposed emission factors would improve reported
data by better reflecting recent industry trends. For example, based on
input from stakeholders, we are proposing updated emission factors for
the modeling of methane (CH<INF>4</INF>) generation from waste disposed
at landfills in subpart HH (Municipal Waste Landfills). The updated
emission factors reflect an industry trend of increased disposal of
inert materials that do not contribute to CH<INF>4</INF> generation.
The EPA received data from stakeholders in the waste industry following
comments received during the expert and public review period for the
U.S. GHG Inventory, which uses directly reported emissions values from
subpart HH to estimate national CH<INF>4</INF> emissions from MSW
landfills

[[Page 36927]]

throughout the entire United States. The proposed change will update
default factors and will result in more accurate estimates of landfill
emissions and pose no additional reporting burden.
We are also proposing to update the default biogenic fraction for
tire combustion in subpart C (General Stationary Fuel Combustion) and
the emission factors for natural gas pneumatic devices and for
equipment leaks from natural gas distribution sources (including
pipeline mains and services, below grade transmission-distribution
transfer stations, and below grade metering-regulating stations) and
equipment at onshore petroleum and natural gas production and onshore
petroleum and natural gas gathering and boosting facilities in subpart
W (Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems). The proposed emission factors
are more representative of GHG emissions sources and would improve the
overall accuracy of the data collected under the GHGRP and would
ultimately benefit stakeholders who rely on GHGRP data to understand
the sources and magnitude of GHGs from specific facilities, as well as
improve the quality of data used to inform future policy or regulation.
2. Improvements To Existing Emissions Estimation Methodologies
We are proposing several revisions to modify calculation equations
to incorporate refinements to methodologies based on an improved
understanding of emission sources. In some cases, we have become aware
of discrepancies between assumptions in the current emission estimation
methods and the processes or activities conducted at specific
facilities, where the proposed revisions would reduce reporter errors.
In other cases, we are proposing to revise the emissions estimation
methodologies to incorporate recent studies on GHG emissions or
formation that reflect updates to scientific understanding of GHG
emissions sources. The proposed changes will improve the quality and
accuracy of the data collected under the GHGRP, increase our
understanding of the relative distribution of GHGs that are emitted,
and better reflect GHG end uses or where GHGs are bound in products.
For example, for subpart I, we are proposing several edits to the
stack testing methodology, including adding new equations and a table
of default weighting factors to calculate the fraction of fluorinated
input gases and by-products exhausted from tools with abatement
systems; revising equations that calculate the weighted average DREs
for individual fluorinated greenhouse gases (F-GHGs) across process
types; requiring that all stacks be tested if the stack test method is
used; and updating a set of equations that will more accurately account
for emissions when pre-control emissions of a F-GHG approach or exceed
the consumption of that gas during the test period.
For other subparts, including subparts G (Ammonia Manufacturing), P
(Hydrogen Production), and S (Lime Manufacturing), we are proposing
revisions to the calculation methodology to allow for subtraction of
carbon dioxide (CO<INF>2</INF>) that is captured and bound in other
products (e.g., urea or methanol) from calculated and reported
emissions. The proposed changes, by removing the CO<INF>2</INF> that is
not directly emitted from these facilities from the calculation
methodology, would provide a more accurate estimate of the direct
sector emissions and would provide consistency in our approach across
the GHGRP.
For subpart Y (Petroleum Refineries), we are proposing to amend the
calculation methodology for delayed coking units (DCUs), which uses a
steam generation model to estimate emissions. The proposed changes are
targeted to address issues identified during verification of reported
data, where we have noticed that the activities conducted at certain
facilities do not comport with some of the underlying assumptions of
the steam generation model. The proposed changes will modify the
current equation to more accurately estimate emissions and to be more
universally applicable to these facilities.
Additional details of these types of proposed changes are discussed
in section III of this preamble.
3. Revisions To Address Potential Gaps in Reporting of Emissions Data
for Specific Sectors
We are proposing several amendments to include reporting of
additional emissions or emissions sources for specific sectors to
address potential gaps in reporting. We are also proposing to improve
the existing rule requirements by proposing new or revised calculation,
monitoring, or reporting requirements that would help us to better
understand and track emissions in specific sectors; establish
requirements for a new source category for quantifying geologic
sequestration of CO<INF>2</INF> in association with EOR operations; and
identify end uses of GHGs that are not currently accounted for in
existing reporting, for consideration in future policy development.
Such data would continue to inform, and are relevant to, the EPA's
carrying out a wide variety of CAA provisions. For example, identifying
new emissions or new emission sources from direct emitters could inform
decisions about whether and how to use section 111 of the CAA to
establish NSPS for various source categories emitting GHGs. The data
may also inform the EPA's implementation of section 103(g) of the CAA
regarding improvements in nonregulatory strategies and technologies for
preventing or reducing air pollutants. The data published under the
GHGRP serves to enable the Agency and stakeholders to understand,
track, and compare greenhouse gas emissions and identify emission
reduction opportunities. Over the last 10 years, the collection of
these data has allowed the Agency and relevant stakeholders to identify
changes in industry and emissions trends, such as transitions in
equipment technology or use of alternative lower-GWP greenhouses gases,
that may be beneficial for informing other EPA programs under the CAA.
The amendments we are proposing are intended to address data gaps that
have been identified in the implementation of the program or from
review of improved scientific assessments and would allow the EPA to
better characterize U.S. GHG emissions. The improved data would
subsequently better inform other agency policies and programs under the
CAA.
For example, we are proposing several revisions to subparts DD
(Electrical Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use) and SS
(Electrical Equipment Manufacture or Refurbishment) to improve the
quality of the data collected from these industrial sectors. Currently,
these subparts include ``all electric transmission and distribution
equipment and servicing inventory'' used within an electric power
system, and related manufacturing and refurbishing processes, that use
or include sulfur hexafluoride (SF<INF>6</INF>) and perfluorocarbons
(PFCs). When the final rule establishing subpart DD was published in
2010 (75 FR 74774, December 1, 2010, hereinafter referred to as the
2010 Final Rule for Additional Sources of Fluorinated GHGs),
SF<INF>6</INF> was the most commonly used insulating gas in the
electrical power industry, and PFCs were occasionally used as
dielectrics and heat transfer fluids in power transformers. During the
implementation of the reporting program, electrical power systems
equipment manufacturers and fluorinated greenhouse gas suppliers

[[Page 36928]]

have introduced alternative technologies and replacements for
SF<INF>6</INF> with lower GWPs, including fluorinated gas mixtures. We
are proposing to revise the existing calculation, monitoring, and
reporting requirements of these subparts to require reporting of
additional F-GHGs, in order to better track emissions from equipment
using alternative gases that are not currently accounted for.
Additionally, we have become aware of potentially significant
sources of emissions in specific industry sectors for which there are
no current emission estimation methods within part 98. For example,
under subpart I, we are proposing a calculation methodology to estimate
emissions of perfluoromethane (CF<INF>4</INF>) from hydrocarbon-based
emissions control systems. The proposed changes reflect recent studies
that have shown that direct reaction between molecular fluorine
(F<INF>2</INF>) and hydrocarbons to form CF<INF>4</INF> can occur in
hydrocarbon-fueled combustion emissions control systems, and we are
proposing to incorporate calculations from the 2019 Refinement to
account for the formation and emission of CF<INF>4</INF> from this
potentially significant emissions source.
For subpart W, we are proposing to add calculation methodologies
and requirements to report GHG emissions for several additional
sources. We are proposing to add a new emissions source, referred to as
``other large release events,'' to capture abnormal emission events
that are not accurately accounted for using existing methods in subpart
W. This additional source would cover events such as storage wellhead
leaks, well blowouts, and other large, atypical release events and
would apply to all types of facilities subject to subpart W. Reporters
would calculate GHG emissions using measurement data or engineering
estimates of the amount of gas released and measurement data, if
available, or process knowledge (best available data) to estimate the
composition of the released gas. We are also proposing to require
reporting of existing emission sources by additional industry segments.
For example, we are proposing to require liquified natural gas (LNG)
import/export facilities to begin calculating and reporting emissions
from acid gas removal vents.
In other cases, we are proposing changes to improve our
understanding of end-uses of GHGs and to better understand GHG supply.
For subpart OO (Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases), we are
proposing to require suppliers of nitrous oxide (N<INF>2</INF>O),
saturated PFCs, and SF<INF>6</INF> to identify the end uses for which
the N<INF>2</INF>O, SF<INF>6</INF>, or PFC is used, and the quantities
of N<INF>2</INF>O, SF<INF>6</INF>, or each PFC transferred to each end
use, if known. This requirement would help to inform the development of
GHG policies and programs by providing information on N<INF>2</INF>O,
SF<INF>6</INF>, and PFC uses and their relative importance, where the
GWP-weighted quantities of these compounds that are supplied annually
to the U.S. economy are relatively large, and where the identities and
magnitudes of the uses of these compounds are less well understood.
The EPA is also proposing revisions to incorporate a new source
category to add calculation and reporting requirements for quantifying
geologic sequestration of CO<INF>2</INF> in association with EOR
operations. The proposed requirements would be included under a new
subpart VV and would apply to reporters that choose to use the
International Standards Organization (ISO) standard designated as CSA
Group (CSA)/American National Standards Institute (ANSI) ISO
27916:2019, Carbon Dioxide Capture, Transportation and Geological
Storage--Carbon Dioxide Storage 3 Using Enhanced Oil
Recovery (CO2-EOR) (hereafter referred to as ``CSA/ANSI ISO
27916:2019'') as a means of quantifying geologic sequestration. Under
existing GHGRP requirements, facilities that sequester CO<INF>2</INF>
through EOR operations may opt into subpart RR. Proposed new subpart VV
provides an alternative method of reporting geologic sequestration in
association with CO<INF>2</INF>-EOR presenting another option for
reporters who are sequestering CO<INF>2</INF> through their EOR
operations but do not choose to report under subpart RR. We are
proposing to add this new source category because collecting additional
information from these sources would improve our knowledge on the
amounts of CO<INF>2</INF> that are geologically sequestered in
association with EOR operations and allow the Agency to more
comprehensively track and document the flow of CO<INF>2</INF> through
the economy to better inform EPA policy and programs under the CAA
related to the use of CO<INF>2</INF> capture and geologic
sequestration. Thus, the rationale for proposing subpart VV is
analogous to the rationale for originally proposing and finalizing
subpart RR, that is to enable the EPA to monitor the growth and
efficacy of geologic sequestration as a greenhouse gas mitigation
technology over time, to evaluate relevant policy options, and to
reconcile information obtained with data obtained from 40 CFR part 98,
subpart PP on CO<INF>2</INF> supplied to the economy. The proposed
requirements are discussed in section III.W of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ The terms ``geologic sequestration'' and ``geologic
storage'' are used synonymously for purposes of this subpart.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed changes would improve the overall quality and
completeness of the data collected by the GHGRP, and would be useful
for informing future policy decisions, such as opportunities to reduce
emissions. The EPA is also soliciting additional comment on potential
collection of data under other new source categories, as discussed in
section IV of this preamble.
4. Revisions to Reporting Requirements To Improve Verification and the
Accuracy of the Data Collected
The EPA is proposing several revisions to existing reporting
requirements to improve the quality of the data that are currently
reported, or to collect more useful data that would improve
verification of reported data. Such revisions would better characterize
U.S. GHG emissions and trends and would better enable the EPA to obtain
data that is of sufficient quality that it can be used to support a
range of future climate change policies and regulations, including but
not limited to information relevant to carrying out provisions
involving research, evaluating and setting standards, endangerment
determinations, or informing EPA non-regulatory programs.
For example, we are proposing revisions to the reporting of unit
level information under subpart C. Currently, individual unit
information (i.e., the unit type and the maximum rated heat input
capacity) is only required to be reported for specific individual unit
reporting configurations. The individual unit information allows the
EPA to aggregate emissions according to unit type and size and provides
a better understanding of the emissions from specific unit types. To
improve verification and analysis of reported data, the EPA is
proposing to require reporting of certain unit level information for
each unit in an aggregation of units or common pipe configuration,
excluding units less than 10 million British thermal units per hour
(mmBtu/hr).
Under subpart H (Cement Production) and subpart S, we are proposing
to collect additional data elements where the EPA has little data on
which to build verification checks. For these subparts, we are
proposing to collect annual averages of chemical composition input data
on a facility-basis. The proposed data elements would assist the EPA in
verification of continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) facility
emissions.

[[Page 36929]]

Because CEMS facilities typically include combustion and process
emissions that are vented through the same stack, process and
combustion emissions are usually mixed and indifferentiable. By
collecting average chemical composition data, the EPA would be able to
compare and differentiate process emissions from CEMS facilities. Such
additions to reporting would improve the accuracy of the emissions data
and render such information more valuable and useful.
For subpart W, we are proposing to add or revise reporting
requirements to better understand and characterize the emissions for
several emission sources. For example, we are proposing to collect
additional information from facilities with liquids unloadings to
differentiate between manual and automated unloadings.
Additionally, under subpart GG (Zinc Production), the EPA is
proposing that facilities report the total amount of electric arc
furnace (EAF) dust annually consumed by all Waelz kilns at the
facility. In this case, because the amount of EAF dust consumed in
Waelz kilns is strongly correlated with CO<INF>2</INF> emissions, the
proposed data element would serve as a useful data validation point and
could potentially be used for the future development of an emission
factor.
The proposed revisions to add new reporting requirements would also
extend the usefulness of GHGRP data to improve the EPA's ability to
carry out other CAA programs. For example, we are proposing under
subpart HH to require MSW landfills to report data on the landfill
CH<INF>4</INF> emissions that are destroyed versus sent to landfill gas
energy projects. This information would additionally help inform the
development of GHG policies and programs by providing information on
the amount of recovered CH<INF>4</INF> that is beneficially used in
energy recovery projects and would inform the EPA, as well as state and
local government officials, on progress towards renewable energy
targets, and would also be useful to other stakeholders. As discussed
in prior amendments, the GHGRP is also intended to supplement and
complement the U.S. GHG Inventory and other EPA programs by advancing
the understanding of emission processes and monitoring methodologies
for particular source categories or sectors. The GHGRP also provides
data from individual facilities and suppliers above certain thresholds,
which can additionally be used to improve the assumptions and emissions
values used in the U.S. GHG Inventory (see 81 FR 2546, January 15,
2016). The facility, unit, and process level GHG emissions data for
industrial sources collected under the GHGRP does not replace the
system in place to produce the top-down U.S. GHG Inventory, but can be
additionally used to improve the accuracy of the U.S. GHG Inventory by
confirming the national statistics and emission estimation
methodologies. Therefore, the EPA periodically reviews the data from
the GHGRP to consider whether there are data that are useful to the
GHGRP and that would also improve the accuracy of the data included in
the U.S. GHG Inventory or improve our ability to inform the development
of GHG policies and programs. We are proposing several amendments that
would improve the data collected by the GHGRP, and subsequently, would
provide data that would benefit and support the U.S. GHG Inventory. For
example, we are proposing to revise the current requirements for
subpart N (Glass Production) facilities to require reporting the annual
quantities of glass produced by glass type. In general, the emissions
profile of a specific glass type is relatively consistent with the
composition of the glass, based on the major raw materials (limestone,
dolomite, and soda ash). Collecting data on annual production by glass
type would improve verification for the GHGRP by allowing the EPA to
compare emissions by glass types produced and would also provide useful
information to improve analysis of this sector in the U.S. GHG
Inventory.
5. Technical Amendments, Clarifications, and Corrections
We are proposing other technical amendments, corrections, and
clarifications that would improve understanding of the rule. These
revisions primarily include revisions of requirements to better reflect
the EPA's intent or editorial changes. Some of these proposed changes
result from consideration of questions raised by reporters through the
GHGRP Help Desk or electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool (e-GGRT)
and are intended to resolve uncertainties in the regulatory text. For
example, we are proposing amendments in several subparts that would
clarify requirements that have led to reporter uncertainty, such as
reported data elements that may be unclear and misread by reporters. In
several cases, these provisions may have introduced uncertainty into
the rule and resulted in reporting that is inconsistent with the rule
requirements. The proposed clarifications would reduce the uncertainty
associated with certain reported data elements and increase the
likelihood that reporters will submit accurate reports the first time.
For example, we are proposing a revision to subpart Y to resolve the
potential discrepancy between the flare emission calculations at 40 CFR
98.253(b), which requires that all gas discharged through the flare
stack must be included in the calculations except for pilot gas, and
the requirements at 40 CFR 98.253(b)(1)(iii), which excludes startup,
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) events less than 500,000 standard cubic
feet per day (scf/day) from equation Y-3. As another example, under
subpart W, the EPA is proposing to clarify the calculation of emissions
from open thief hatches on atmospheric storage tanks that use vapor
recovery systems and flares, by revising 40 CFR 98.233(j)(4) and (5) to
specify how to account for those emissions. The EPA's intent is that
reporters should be including emissions from open thief hatches, but
the current rule does not provide explicit provisions for them. We are
also proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.236(j)(1) to clarify reporting of
emissions from atmospheric storage tanks with vapor recovery systems
and flares. These proposed clarifications and corrections would also
reduce the burden associated with reporting, data verification, and EPA
review. Additional details of these types of proposed changes are
discussed in section III of this preamble.
Other minor changes being proposed include correction edits to fix
typos, minor clarifications such as adding a missing word, harmonizing
changes to match other proposed revisions, reordering of paragraphs so
that a larger number of paragraphs need not be renumbered, and others
as reflected in the draft proposed redline regulatory text in the
docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0424).

B. Revisions To Streamline and Improve Implementation of 40 CFR Part 98

Since 2010, the EPA has collected data through the GHGRP to assess
industry emissions, and has, through review of annually submitted data,
gained substantial knowledge of the types, quantities, and distribution
of emissions across industry sectors. Through this process, the EPA has
engaged in stakeholder outreach, solicited feedback, responded to
questions from reporters, and identified site specific scenarios or
issues that could impact the quality of the data reported. In a recent
review of the requirements of the program, we have identified several
areas of part 98 that could be revised or simplified to reduce
technical challenges associated with implementation or improve the

[[Page 36930]]

efficiency of the requirements, while maintaining the quality of the
data collected. We are subsequently proposing several revisions that
would streamline the calculation, monitoring, and reporting burden
associated with the rule. These revisions would revise applicability
estimation methodologies, provide flexibility for or simplifying
calculation and monitoring methodologies, streamline recordkeeping and
reporting, and other minor technical corrections or clarifications.
The specific changes that we are proposing that are intended to
streamline part 98, as described in this section, are described in
detail for each subpart in sections III.A through III.W of this
preamble.
1. Revisions To Applicability for Certain Industry Sectors
We are proposing to change the applicability criteria for three
subparts to account for changes in usage of certain GHGs, or where the
current applicability estimation methodology may overestimate
emissions. The proposed changes would improve the estimation
methodologies used to determine applicability for specific subparts and
more accurately focus GHGRP and reporter resources on coverage of large
industrial emitters within these sectors; such changes are in keeping
with our goal to maximize coverage and collection of GHG emissions data
from each sector while excluding small emitters.
Currently, any facility that contains a source category listed in
Table A-3 of subpart A of part 98 (General Provisions) is subject to
reporting under part 98 (referred to as ``all-in'' source categories
because reporting applies regardless of other source category or
stationary fuel combustion emissions at the facility). Table A-3
defines a few of the ``all-in'' source categories using thresholds that
use metrics other than mtCO<INF>2</INF>e of emissions. A facility that
contains a source category listed in Table A-4 of subpart A of part 98
must report only if estimated annual emissions from all applicable
source categories in Tables A-3 and Table A-4 of part 98 are 25,000
mtCO<INF>2</INF>e or more (referred to as ``threshold'' source
categories). The EPA has used the ``threshold'' approach where a source
category contains emitters with a range in emissions quantity and the
EPA wants to capture those facilities within the source category with
larger total emissions from multiple process units or collocated source
categories that emit significant levels of GHGs collectively, and not
burden smaller emitters with a reporting obligation. The EPA has used
the ``all-in'' approach for industries for which all facilities are
emitters of a similar quantity or to gather data on certain industries
to identify the parameters that influence GHG emissions from the source
category.
The EPA used alternative metrics for some subparts in Table A-3 for
a variety of reasons. In some cases, the metric provides a more
straightforward way for facilities within that source category to
evaluate their applicability. For example, for subpart DD (Electrical
Transmission and Distribution Equipment), the metric is based on the
total nameplate capacity of SF<INF>6</INF> and PFC-containing equipment
and was approximated as equivalent to the 25,000 metric tons of
CO<INF>2</INF> threshold. To ensure that the GHGRP data collected
better reflects the current electrical power system industry, we are
proposing to remove the existing nameplate capacity threshold, and
instead provide a calculation method for facilities to estimate total
annual GHG emissions for comparison to the 25,000 metric tons of
CO<INF>2</INF> threshold. These changes align with proposed changes to
redefine the source category to include equipment containing
``fluorinated GHGs (F-GHGs), including but not limited to sulfur-
hexafluoride (SF<INF>6</INF>) or and perfluorocarbons (PFCs)'', and
reflect that some facilities within the industry sector have begun to
use lower GWP F-GHGs, which is not reflected when using only the
nameplate capacity of the equipment to determine applicability. The
proposed changes would establish an updated comparison to the threshold
and would account for additional fluorinated gases (including F-GHG
mixtures) used in industry. The proposed changes to the threshold would
decrease the number of facilities with annual emissions less than
25,000 metric tons CO<INF>2</INF>e that would be required to report.
The proposed changes would require tracking of additional fluorinated
gases and the equipment they are contained in; however, this additional
burden is expected to be small as these gases are not yet widely used.
Similarly, we are proposing to revise the threshold for subpart SS
(Electrical Equipment Manufacture or Refurbishment), which is based on
total annual purchases of SF<INF>6</INF> and PFCs. As with subpart DD,
we are proposing to revise the existing requirements of subpart SS to
require reporting of additional F-GHGs beyond SF<INF>6</INF> and PFCs,
and we are proposing to revise the subpart SS threshold to align with
these changes. The proposed changes would continue to be based on the
total annual purchases of F-GHGs but would establish a calculation
method for comparison to the 25,000 metric tons of CO<INF>2</INF>
threshold, and would better account for the additional fluorinated
gases (including F-GHG mixtures) reported by industry. The proposed
changes would require tracking of additional fluorinated gases and the
equipment they are contained in; however, this additional burden is
expected to be small as these gases are not yet widely used.
We are also proposing revisions to provide a second option for an
alternative calculation methodology, that is consumption-based, that
reporters subject to subpart I (Electronics Manufacturing) could use to
determine whether they meet the emissions threshold for reporting
applicability. For subpart I (Electronics Manufacturing), the current
provisions of 40 CFR 98.91 require facilities to estimate whether the
25,000 metric tons of CO<INF>2</INF>e threshold is met based on
emissions estimates assuming the facility operates at its annual
manufacturing capacity, which may result in significant over-estimation
of emissions. The capacity-based methodology has required reporting by
some electronics manufacturing facilities that use smaller amounts of
F-GHGs. For subpart I, the method for determining the applicability was
chosen to reduce the burden on low-emitting facilities by providing a
simplified method to estimate emissions for the purpose of assessing
applicability. However, for subpart I, the applicability threshold
provisions may currently require certain lower-emitting facilities to
report where the capacity-based estimation methodology overestimates
emissions. We are proposing to revise the applicability estimation
methodology in subpart I to provide a second option for an alternative
calculation method using a gas-consumption basis, and to use updated
emission factors, so that facilities may choose instead to use a
separate method that more accurately calculates potential facility
emissions. This may result in fewer facilities reporting under subpart
I, but these facilities are expected to have annual emissions that are
lower than 25,000 metric tons of CO<INF>2</INF>e. The gas consumption-
based approach to determining applicability would require tracking gas
consumption, which is not required by the production capacity-based
threshold when determining applicability; however, this option to
determine applicability is less burdensome than reporting to subpart I,

[[Page 36931]]

which a facility would be required to do under the current rule if
their capacity were above the capacity-based threshold. Under the
current rule, facilities reporting under subpart I must collect gas
consumption data to complete their subpart I report. Thus, overall, the
burden for potential new entrants to the program would decrease.
We are proposing to revise the applicability of these subparts to
more accurately estimate facility emissions and to more accurately
focus GHGRP and reporter resources on the collection of data for the
larger industrial emitters within these sectors. These changes would
continue to maximize coverage of GHG emissions data from the sector
while excluding small emitters. The proposed revisions would also
adjust the applicability provisions for each of these subparts for
consistency across part 98. The proposed changes to subparts I, DD, and
SS are described in sections III.E, III.N, and III.U of this preamble.
2. Revisions To Streamline Monitoring and Calculation Methodologies
We are proposing revisions to provide flexibility for or simplify
some calculation methods or monitoring requirements. We are proposing
options to revise monitoring requirements in instances where we
currently allow a less burdensome methodology for similar emissions
sources; or where continuing to collect the data on the same frequency
would be unlikely to provide significantly different values.
In some cases, we are proposing amendments that would add
flexibility to the calculation methods to add less burdensome options
that would correspond with a decrease in actual data collection. These
types of proposed changes would simplify monitoring for reporters
without impacting the quality of the data reported. For example, for
subpart Y (Petroleum Refineries), we are proposing to allow the use of
mass spectrometer analyzers to determine gas composition and molecular
weight without the use of a gas chromatograph. The proposed revisions
would allow reporters to use the same analyzers used for process
control or for compliance with continuous sampling required under the
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Petroleum Refineries (40 CFR part 63, subpart CC) to comply with the
GHGRP requirements in subpart Y. Currently, these reporters must
conduct separate periodic sampling of these gas streams for analysis
using gas chromatography to comply with GHGRP requirements in subpart
Y, and the proposed revisions would provide flexibility for and reduce
burden for these reporters.
We are also proposing to clarify applicability provisions to reduce
uncertainty regarding which calculation method should be used. For
example, for subpart W (Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems), we are
proposing to revise the definition of the Onshore Natural Gas
Processing industry segment so that reporters have more certainty
regarding the industry segment and calculation methods that are
applicable from the beginning of the year. The current definition of
the Onshore Natural Gas Processing industry segment includes processing
plants that fractionate gas liquids and processing plants that do not
fractionate gas liquids but have an annual average throughput of 25
million standard cubic feet (MMscf) per day or greater. Processing
plants that do not fractionate gas liquids and have an annual average
throughput of less than 25 MMscf per day may be part of a facility in
the Onshore Petroleum and Natural Gas Gathering and Boosting industry
segment. Processing plants that do not fractionate gas liquids and
generally operate close to the 25 MMscf per day threshold do not know
until the end of the year whether they will be above or below the
threshold, so they must be prepared to report under whichever industry
segment is ultimately applicable. The two potentially applicable
segments report emissions from different sources and with different
calculation methods. For example, facilities in the Onshore Natural Gas
Processing industry segment are not required to report emissions from
atmospheric storage tanks and are required to measure leaks from
individual compressors, while facilities in the Onshore Petroleum and
Natural Gas Gathering and Boosting industry segment are required to
report emissions from atmospheric storage tanks but may use emission
factors to calculate emissions from compressors rather than conducting
measurements. Therefore, we are proposing to revise the Onshore Natural
Gas Processing industry segment definition in 40 CFR 98.230(a)(3) to
remove the 25 MMscf per day threshold and more closely align subpart W
with the definitions of natural gas processing in other rules (e.g., 40
CFR part 60, subpart OOOOa). This proposed revision to the Onshore
Natural Gas Processing industry segment definition would make it clear
to reporters whether a processing plant would be classified as an
Onshore Natural Gas Processing facility or as part of an Onshore
Petroleum and Natural Gas Gathering and Boosting facility, and the
applicable segment would not have the potential to change from one year
to the next simply based on the facility throughput. As discussed in
greater detail in section III.J.2.h of this preamble, we are also
proposing several other changes to the Onshore Natural Gas Processing
industry segment definition. Collectively, these proposed amendments
are not expected to significantly affect the overall coverage of the
GHGRP for the petroleum and natural gas systems industry, although we
anticipate that some facilities would report under a different industry
segment going forward.
Additional details of these types of proposed changes may be found
in section III of this preamble.
3. Revisions To Streamline or Revise Recordkeeping and Reporting
Requirements
Other proposed revisions to the rule include changes that would
streamline the rule, such as revising certain reporting and
recordkeeping requirements that are redundant or no longer being used,
or that would remove duplicative reporting across EPA programs. For
example, for subpart C (General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources), we
are proposing to amend certain provisions in 40 CFR 98.36 that require
facilities with the aggregation of units or common pipe configuration
types to report the total annual CO<INF>2</INF> mass emissions from the
combustion of all fossil fuels combined. In this case, the reported
configuration-level annual CO<INF>2</INF> emissions from all fossil
fuels does not factor into any subpart- or facility-level total
CO<INF>2</INF> emission calculations and is not integrated into e-
GGRT's programmed ``roll up'' of emissions. Because we can adequately
verify reports and interpret and analyze the reported data without
these data elements, they are currently redundant and would not likely
provide new insights or knowledge of the industry sector, emissions, or
trends at this time.
In some cases, we are proposing to correct inconsistencies in the
current rule. Under subpart Y, we are proposing a change to correct an
inconsistency introduced by the amendments to the DCU calculations
published on December 9, 2016 (81 FR 89188). Although the prior
amendments removed the option to calculate CH<INF>4</INF> emissions
from DCUs using the process vent method, the associated recordkeeping
requirements for the process vent method were inadvertently not removed
from the rule. Therefore, we are therefore proposing to remove the
associated recordkeeping requirements.

[[Page 36932]]

For subpart W, we are proposing to revise reporting requirements
related to atmospheric pressure fixed roof storage tanks receiving
hydrocarbon liquids that follow the methodology specified in 40 CFR
98.233(j)(3) and equation W-15. The calculation methodology uses
population emission factors and the count of applicable separators,
wells, or non-separator equipment to determine the annual total
volumetric GHG emissions at standard conditions. The associated
reporting requirements in 40 CFR 98.236(j)(2)(i)(E) through (F) require
reporters to delineate the counts used in equation W-15. Based on
feedback from reporters, the EPA has determined that the reporting
requirements are inconsistent with the language used in the calculation
methodology and are not inclusive of all equipment to be included.
Therefore, we are proposing to revise the reporting requirements to
better align the requirement with the calculation methodology and
streamline the requirements for all facilities reporting atmospheric
storage tanks emissions using the methodology in 40 CFR 98.233(j)(3).
In some cases, we are streamlining reporting by removing
duplicative reporting elements within or across GHGRP subparts. For
example, we are proposing to eliminate duplicative reporting between
subpart NN (Suppliers of Natural Gas and Natural Gas Liquids) and
subpart W where both subparts require similar data elements to be
reported to e-GGRT. For instance, for fractionators of natural gas
liquids (NGLs), both subpart W (under the Onshore Natural Gas
Processing segment) and subpart NN require reporting of the volume of
natural gas received and the volume of NGLs received. The proposed
amendments would limit the reporting of these data elements to
facilities that do not report under subpart NN, thus removing the
duplicative requirements from subpart W for facilities that report to
both subparts. This will streamline reporting and reduce the burden on
reporters.
We are also proposing to reduce the frequency of reporting
information that we anticipate will not change on a frequent basis,
such as the data collected for technology assessment reports under
subpart I (Electronics Manufacturing). Based on the data collected in
the initial technology assessment reports (currently required by 40 CFR
98.96(y)), we do not anticipate significant variations in these data
elements within a three-year period going forward, as discussed in
section III.E.2 of this preamble. Further, we are proposing several
significant improvements to the technology assessment reports that will
improve the usefulness and quality of the data provided in the reports.
The proposed improvements would allow the EPA to collect these data
less frequently while continuing to provide the EPA with updates to the
gases and technologies used in semiconductor manufacturing.
Additional details of these types of proposed changes may be found
in section III of this preamble.

C. Revisions to 40 CFR Part 9

The EPA is proposing a related change to update 40 CFR part 9 to
include the OMB control number issued under the PRA for the ICR for the
GHGRP. The OMB control numbers for EPA regulations in Title 40 of the
CFR (after appearing in the Federal Register) are listed in 40 CFR part
9 and are included on the related collection instrument or form, if
applicable. The EPA is proposing to amend the table in 40 CFR part 9 to
list the OMB approval number under which the ICR for activities in the
existing part 98 regulations that were previously approved by OMB have
been consolidated. The prior approvals are included in OMB No. 2060-
0629; OMB No. 2060-0629 has not previously been added to 40 CFR part 9
due to an oversight. This listing of the OMB control number and the
subsequent codification in the CFR would correct this oversight and
satisfy the display requirements of the PRA and OMB's implementing
regulations at 5 CFR part 1320.

III. Proposed Amendments to 40 CFR Part 98

This section summarizes the specific substantive amendments
proposed for each subpart, as generally described in section II of this
preamble. The impacts of the proposed revisions are summarized in
section VII of this preamble. A full discussion of the cost impacts for
the proposed revisions may be found in the memorandum, Assessment of
Burden Impacts for Proposed Revisions for the Greenhouse Gas Reporting
Rule available in the docket for this rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0424.

A. Subpart A--General Provisions

1. Proposed Revisions To Improve the Quality of Data Collected for
Subpart A
In this action, we are proposing several clarifying revisions to
subpart A of part 98 (General Provisions). For the reasons described in
section II.A.5 of this preamble, we are proposing to clarify in 40 CFR
98.2(i)(1) and (2) that the provision to allow cessation of reporting
or ``off-ramping,'' due to meeting either the 15,000 mtCO<INF>2</INF>e
level or the 25,000 mtCO<INF>2</INF>e level for the number of years
specified in 40 CFR 98.2(i), is based on the CO<INF>2</INF>e reported,
calculated in accordance with 40 CFR 98.3(c)(4)(i) (i.e., the annual
emissions report value as specified in that provision). The proposed
changes clarify that reporters must rely on the emissions estimation
methodologies used to report emissions and their annual emissions
report totals to determine their ability to off-ramp. We are also
proposing to clarify the off-ramp provisions at 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1) and
(2) to specify that after an owner or operator off-ramps, the owner or
operator must use equation A-1 and follow the requirements of 40 CFR
98.2(b)(4) in subsequent years to determine if emissions exceed the
25,000 mtCO<INF>2</INF>e applicability threshold and whether the
facility or supplier must resume reporting. The requirements of 40 CFR
98.2(b) are different from the requirements of 40 CFR 98.3(c) in that
the applicability determination requires more flexible calculation
methods (e.g., facilities may use any subpart C tier to estimate
combustion emissions on 40 CFR 98.2(b), whereas they must follow the
applicable subpart C tier to calculate combustion emissions under 40
CFR 98.3(c)). The proposed revisions make clear that reporters who have
previously off-ramped would continue to follow the emission estimation
methods used for determination of applicability to determine if they
must resume reporting.
We are also proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.2(f)(1) to clarify how to
calculate GHG quantities for comparison to the 25,000 mtCO<INF>2</INF>e
threshold for importers and exporters of industrial greenhouse gases;
the proposed changes specify that the calculation must include the
fluorinated heat transfer fluids (F-HTFs) that are imported or exported
during the year. In the December 9, 2016 final rule, 2015 Revisions and
Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements Under the Greenhouse
Gas Reporting Rule (81 FR 89234), the EPA expanded the definition of
the source category for importers and exporters of industrial
greenhouse gases to include facilities that destroy 25,000
mtCO<INF>2</INF>e or more of industrial F-GHGs or F-HTFs annually, and
entities that produce, import, or export F-HTFs that are not also F-
GHGs. It was our intent that suppliers of F-HTFs be subject to the same

[[Page 36933]]

thresholds.\4\ However, we inadvertently neglected to update 40 CFR
98.2(f) to include F-HTFs in the calculation requirements. Similarly,
we are proposing to add a new paragraph (k) to 40 CFR 98.2, specifying
how to calculate the quantities of F-GHGs and F-HTFs destroyed for
purposes of comparing them to the 25,000 mtCO<INF>2</INF>e threshold
for stand-alone industrial F-GHG or F-HTF destruction facilities. This
paragraph was inadvertently omitted when the rule was revised to cover
stand-alone destruction facilities in 2016. The proposed changes would
clarify that imported, exported, and destroyed F-HTFs and F-GHGs must
be calculated and included when determining applicability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ In the 2016 proposed rule, we specified ``Suppliers of
fluorinated HTFs would be subject to the same thresholds as
suppliers of fluorinated GHGs. That is, there would be no threshold
for producers of fluorinated HTFs, but the threshold for importers,
exporters, and destroyers of fluorinated HTFs would be 25,000
mtCO<INF>2</INF>e of fluorinated HTFs or GHGs.'' (81 FR 2572,
January 15, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are also proposing new paragraph 40 CFR 98.4(n) that would apply
in lieu of 40 CFR 98.4(h) for changes in the owner or operator of a
facility in the four industry segments in subpart W (Petroleum and
Natural Gas Systems) that have unique definitions of facility: Onshore
Petroleum and Natural Gas Production; Onshore Petroleum and Natural Gas
Gathering and Boosting; Natural Gas Distribution; and Onshore Natural
Gas Transmission Pipeline. For these industry segments, particularly
Onshore Petroleum and Natural Gas Production and Onshore Petroleum and
Natural Gas Gathering and Boosting, asset transactions between owners
and operators can involve only some emission sources at the facility
rather than the entire facility. In those cases, reporters have
submitted numerous questions to the e-GGRT Help Desk requesting
guidance regarding which owner or operator should report for the year
in which the transaction occurred as well as which owner or operator is
responsible for submitting revisions and responding to questions from
the EPA regarding previous annual GHG reports. To address some of these
questions, the EPA previously developed Frequently Asked Questions
(FAQ) Q749.\5\ However, neither the FAQ nor the existing requirements
in subpart A explicitly explain the responsibilities for the situations
for which reporters have requested guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ U.S. EPA. Q749: ``What are the notification requirements
when an Onshore Petroleum and Natural Gas Production facility,
reporting under subpart W, sells wells and associated equipment in a
basin?'' September 26, 2019. <a href="https://ccdsupport.com/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=198705183">https://ccdsupport.com/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=198705183</a>. Note that although FAQ Q749
specifically describes facilities in the Onshore Petroleum and
Natural Gas Production segment, the EPA does consider the scenarios
described to be relevant to the Onshore Petroleum and Natural Gas
Gathering and Boosting industry segment as well, because facilities
in both segments are defined at the basin level rather than at the
level of the subpart A definition of facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Therefore, the EPA is proposing to add specific provisions to
subpart A that would define which owner or operator is responsible for
current and future reporting years' reports and clarify how to
determine responsibility for revisions to annual reports for reporting
years prior to owner or operator changes for specific industry segments
in subpart W, beginning with RY2023 reports. The provisions would also
specify when an owner or operator should submit an annual report using
an e-GGRT identifier assigned to an existing facility and when an owner
or operator should register a new facility in e-GGRT. As described in
more detail in this section, the provisions would vary based upon
whether the selling owner or operator will retain any emission sources,
the number of purchasing owners or operators, and whether the
purchasing owners or operators already report to the GHGRP in the same
industry segment and basin or state (as applicable). The proposed
provisions would apply in lieu of 40 CFR 98.4(h) for these industry
segments. These proposed revisions are expected to improve data quality
as described in section II.A.4 of this preamble by ensuring that the
EPA receives a more complete data set, and they are also expected to
improve understanding of the rule, as described in section II.A.5 of
this preamble.
We expect all the transactions will fall into one of four general
categories, and we are proposing provisions that would define the
responsibilities for reporting for each of those general categories.
First, if the entire facility is sold to a single purchaser and the
purchasing owner or operator does not already report to the GHGRP in
that industry segment (and basin or state, as applicable), then we are
proposing that the facility's certificate of representation must be
updated within 90 days of the transaction to reflect the new owner or
operator. In other words, the e-GGRT identifier and associated facility
within e-GGRT would be transferred from the seller to the purchaser.
The purchasing owner or operator would be responsible for submitting
the facility's annual report for the entire reporting year in which the
acquisition occurred (i.e., the owner or operator as of December 31
would be responsible for the report for that entire reporting year) and
each reporting year thereafter. In addition, because the definitions of
facility for each of these segments encompass all of the emission
sources in a particular geographic area (i.e., basin, state, or
nation), the purchasing owner or operator would include any previously
owned applicable emission sources in the same geographic area as part
of the purchased facility beginning with the reporting year in which
the acquisition occurred.
Second, if the entire facility is sold to a single purchaser and
the purchasing owner or operator already reports to the GHGRP in that
industry segment (and basin or state, as applicable), then we are
proposing that the purchasing owner or operator would merge the
acquired facility with their existing facility for purposes of
reporting under the GHGRP. In other words, the acquired facility would
become part of the purchaser's existing facility under the GHGRP and
emissions for the combined facility would be reported under the e-GGRT
identifier for the purchaser's existing facility. The purchaser would
update the acquired facility's certificate of representation within 90
days of the transaction to reflect the new owner or operator. The
purchaser would then follow the provisions of 40 CFR 98.2(i)(6) to
notify the EPA that the purchased facility has merged with their
existing facility and would provide the e-GGRT identifier for the
merged, or reconstituted, facility. Finally, the purchaser would be
responsible for submitting the merged facility's annual report for the
entire reporting year in which the acquisition occurred (i.e., the
owner or operator as of December 31 would be responsible for the report
for that entire reporting year) and each reporting year thereafter.
Third, if the selling owner or operator retains some of the
emission sources and sells the other emission sources of the seller's
facility to one or more purchasing owners or operators, we are
proposing that the selling owner or operator would continue to report
under subpart W for the retained emission sources unless and until that
facility meets one of the criteria in 40 CFR 98.2(i) and complies with
those provisions. Each purchasing owner or operator that does not
already report to the GHGRP in that industry segment (and basin or
state, as applicable) would begin reporting as a new facility for the
entire reporting year beginning with the reporting year in which the
acquisition occurred. The new facility would include the acquired
applicable emission sources as well as any previously owned applicable
emission

[[Page 36934]]

sources. Each purchasing owner or operator that already reports to the
GHGRP in that industry segment (and basin or state, as applicable)
would add the acquired applicable emission sources to their existing
facility for purposes of reporting under subpart W and would be
responsible for submitting the annual report for their entire facility,
including the acquired emission sources, for the entire reporting year
beginning with the reporting year in which the acquisition occurred.
Fourth, if the selling owner or operator does not retain any of the
emission sources and sells all of the facility's emission sources to
more than one purchasing owner or operator, we are proposing that the
selling owner or operator for the existing facility would notify the
EPA within 90 days of the transaction that all of the facility's
emission sources were acquired by multiple purchasers. The purchasing
owners or operators would begin submitting annual reports for the
acquired emission sources for the reporting year in which the
acquisition occurred following the same provisions as in the third
scenario. In other words, each owner or operator would either begin
reporting their acquired applicable emission sources as a new facility
or add the acquired applicable emission sources to their existing
facility.
Finally, for all of these types of transactions, we are proposing
one set of provisions to clarify responsibility for annual GHG reports
for reporting years prior to the reporting year in which the
acquisition occurred. This set of proposed provisions would apply to
annual GHG reports for facilities where these types of transactions
occur after the effective date of the final amendments, if adopted. In
other words, if the effective date of the final amendments is January
1, 2023, as described in section V of this preamble, then for ownership
transactions that occur on or after January 1, 2023, we are proposing
that the proposed requirements for the current and future reporting
years described in the previous paragraphs would apply. In addition,
the proposed provisions for annual GHG reports for reporting years
prior to the transaction would also apply. For example, if an ownership
transaction occurs on June 30, 2025, then the selling owner or operator
and purchasing owner or operator would follow the applicable provisions
previously described in this section for the RY2025 report and for
future reporting years. We are also proposing that the provisions
described in the next paragraph would apply for RY2024 and prior years'
reports.
Specifically, we are proposing that as part of each ownership
transaction described previously in this section, the selling owner or
operator and purchasing owner or operator would agree upon the entity
that would be responsible for revisions to annual GHG reports for
previous reporting years. That entity would then select a
representative for each facility that would respond to any EPA
questions regarding GHG reports for previous reporting years and would
submit corrected versions of GHG reports for previous reporting years
as needed. If that individual is not the designated representative for
the facility, the individual would need to be appointed as the
alternate designated representative or an agent for the facility. In
many situations, particularly for the first two categories of
transactions described in this section, the EPA expects that the
purchaser would agree to select a representative to address revisions
to previous years' annual GHG reports. In addition, there may be cases
in which the selling owner or operator's company will no longer be
operating after the transaction, so it may be appropriate for one of
the purchasing owners or operators to select that representative. In
other situations, the parties may determine that it is appropriate for
the seller to select the representative to address revisions to annual
GHG reports for reporting years prior to the reporting year in which
the acquisition occurred. Alternatively, parties to the transaction may
agree on another independent party that would act as the representative
regarding annual GHG reports for previous reporting years, such as a
consultant. The EPA expects that the decision regarding the responsible
entity would be made as part of the acquisition agreement or ownership
transfer contract between the selling owner or operator and purchasing
owner or operator and that if the entity responsible for revisions to
annual GHG reports is not the selling owner or operator, copies of the
records required to be retained per 40 CFR 98.3(g) and (h) would be
transferred to the responsible entity at that time.
We are also proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.1(c) to clarify that the
terms ``owner'' and ``operator'' used in subpart A have the same
meaning as the terms ``gathering and boosting system owner or
operator'' and ``onshore natural gas transmission pipeline owner or
operator'' for the Onshore Petroleum and Natural Gas Gathering and
Boosting and Onshore Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline industry
segments of subpart W, respectively. This paragraph was inadvertently
not amended when those two industry segments and the industry segment-
specific definitions of owner or operator were added to subpart W (80
FR 64275, October 22, 2015), and this proposed amendment would correct
that oversight.
In addition, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.3(h)(4) to limit
the total number of days a reporter can request to extend the time
period for resolving a substantive error either by submitting a revised
report or providing information demonstrating that the previously
submitted report does not contain the substantive error. According to
40 CFR 98.3(h) a substantive error may either be identified by the EPA
or discovered by the facility itself. If discovered by the facility, a
revised report correcting the error must be submitted within 45 days.
If identified by the EPA, once the facility is notified of the error,
the facility must either resubmit the corrected report or provide
information demonstrating that the previously submitted report does not
contain the identified substantive error within 45 days. The rule also
states that if requested in either case, the EPA may provide reasonable
extensions to the 45-day period, including an automatically granted
extension of 30 days. Additional extensions may be granted if the
facility submits a request that is received prior to the expiration of
the automatic 30-day extension. The current rule states that the
Administrator will approve the additional extension request if the
request demonstrates that it is not practicable to collect and process
the data needed to resolve potential reporting errors within 75 days.
However, since the GHGRP was implemented, we have encountered instances
where a facility has repeatedly requested an extension of the time
period by which they must either submit a revised report or provide
information that the previously submitted report does not contain a
substantive error. As such, the EPA cannot verify the facility's report
in a timely manner. To avoid such instances in the future, we are
proposing to add to 40 CFR 98.3(h)(4) that the Administrator will only
approve extension requests for a total of 180 days from the initial
notification of a substantive error. We expect that 180 days is a
reasonable amount of time for a facility to examine company records,
gather additional data, and/or perform recalculations to submit a
revised report or provide the necessary information such that the
report may be verified.

[[Page 36935]]

The EPA is also proposing revisions to two terms consistent with
the proposed amendments for reporting for glycol dehydrators with an
annual average daily natural gas throughput greater than or equal to
0.4 MMscf per day described in section III.J of this preamble. The EPA
is proposing to amend the definition of ``dehydrator vent emissions''
in 40 CFR 98.6 to confirm that dehydrator emissions reporting should
include emissions from both the dehydrator still vent, and if
applicable, the dehydrator flash vent. Additionally, the EPA is
proposing to amend the definition of ``vapor recovery system'' in 40
CFR 98.6 to clarify that routing emissions from a dehydrator vent to
the regenerator firebox/fire tubes does not qualify as vapor recovery.
The EPA has noted significant variability in the dehydrator emissions
values reported over the past several years, with values ranging from
extremely high to almost negligible emissions, which indicates that
there are likely inconsistencies in how these terms are being
interpreted among subpart W reporters. In making these clarifying
edits, the EPA expects to improve the quality of the emissions data
reported and alleviate any confusion surrounding the applicability of
these terms.
As a corollary to proposed amendments to subpart W to remove
desiccant dehydrators as an emissions source, we are proposing to
remove the definition of ``desiccant'' and to revise the definition of
``dehydrator'' in 40 CFR 98.6. The definition of ``desiccant'' would no
longer be needed if the emission calculation and reporting requirements
for desiccant dehydrators are removed from subpart W, as discussed in
section III.J of this preamble. Similarly, the definition of
``dehydrator'' would no longer need to include a reference to
desiccant. Thus, we are proposing to revise the definition of
``dehydrator'' to indicate that a dehydrator is ``a device in which a
liquid absorbent (e.g., ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, or
triethylene glycol) directly contacts a natural gas stream to absorb
water vapor.''
We are proposing revisions to 40 CFR 98.6 to add a definition for
``Direct air capture'' and amend the definition of ``Carbon dioxide
stream''. These proposed changes are being made in conjunction with
other proposed revisions to subpart PP of part 98 (Suppliers of Carbon
Dioxide) and are discussed in section III.T of this preamble.
In addition, we are proposing two harmonizing changes to 40 CFR
98.7 to incorporate by reference ASTM International (ASTM) E415-17,
Standard Test Method for Analysis of Carbon and Low-Alloy Steel by
Spark Atomic Emission Spectrometry (2017) for subpart Q (Iron and Steel
Production) and CSA/ANSI ISO 27916:2019, Carbon Dioxide Capture,
Transportation and Geological Storage--Carbon Dioxide Storage Using
Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR) for proposed subpart VV (Geologic
Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide with Enhanced Oil Recovery Using ISO
27916). These proposed changes are further described in sections III.H
and III.W of this preamble.
Lastly, we are proposing two updates to Table A-1, the list of GWPs
used in the GHGRP, to revise GWPs that, based on recent information,
overestimate the atmospheric impacts of certain compounds by a large
margin (i.e., by factor of 2,000). We are not proposing any other
updates to the Table A-1 GWPs. First, we are proposing to adopt a
chemical-specific GWP for carbonic difluoride (COF<INF>2</INF>).
Emissions of COF<INF>2</INF> of 1-2 metric tons per year have been
reported under the GHGRP from fluorinated gas production. (Carbonic
difluoride is also used in the electronics industry as an etching agent
and surface treatment, although emissions of COF<INF>2</INF> from
electronics manufacturing have not been reported under the GHGRP). No
peer-reviewed, chemical-specific GWP was available for COF<INF>2</INF>
in 2014, when we last updated the set of GWPs in Table A-1 (79 FR
73750, December 11, 2014). It is therefore currently classified as an
``Other fluorinated GHG'' and is assigned a default GWP of 2,000 under
the GHGRP. However, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
recently published an atmospheric lifetime, radiative efficiency, and
GWP for COF<INF>2</INF> in its Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion
6 (2018). Like the IPCC Assessment Reports upon which the
GWPs in Table A-1 are based, the WMO Scientific Assessments include
regularly updated international reviews of the scientific findings on
the impacts of trace gases in the atmosphere, including their
atmospheric lifetimes and radiative efficiencies. According to the 2018
WMO Scientific Assessment, COF<INF>2</INF> has a lifetime of
approximately seven days, and 20-year and 100-year GWPs of less than
one. The 2018 WMO Scientific Assessment listed the 100-year GWP of
COF<INF>2</INF> as ``<1,'' so we calculated and are proposing a precise
GWP for COF<INF>2</INF> of 0.14 using the atmospheric lifetime and
radiative efficiency provided in the 2018 WMO Scientific Assessment.
(The method we used to calculate the GWP of COF<INF>2</INF> was the
method we used to calculate precise GWPs for low-GWP compounds in the
most recent update to GHGRP GWPs (79 FR 73750, December 11, 2014)).
This recent information supports that including a chemical-specific GWP
for COF<INF>2</INF> of 0.14 would reflect its atmospheric impacts far
more accurately than the currently applied GHGRP default GWP of 2,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ WMO. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2018, Global
Ozone Research and Monitoring Project-Report No. 58, 588 pp.,
Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. <a href="https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2018/downloads/2018OzoneAssessment.pdf">https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2018/downloads/2018OzoneAssessment.pdf</a>. Retrieved
July 29, 2019. Available in the docket for this rulemaking, Docket
Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0424.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second, we are proposing to expand one of the F-GHG groups to which
a default GWP of 1 is applied to include additional unsaturated
fluorocarbons. The ninth F-GHG group in Table A-1 to subpart A
currently includes unsaturated PFCs, unsaturated HFCs, unsaturated
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), unsaturated halogenated ethers,
unsaturated halogenated esters, fluorinated aldehydes, and fluorinated
ketones. We are proposing to add unsaturated bromofluorocarbons,
unsaturated chlorofluorocarbons, unsaturated bromochlorofluorocarbons,
unsaturated hydrobromofluorocarbons, and unsaturated
hydrobromochlorofluorocarbons to this set. These F-GHGs do not have
chemical-specific GWPs in Table A-1, and facilities and suppliers that
currently report these F-GHGs generally classify them as ``Other
fluorinated GHGs,'' which are assigned a default GWP of 2,000. However,
two lines of evidence indicate that unsaturated bromofluorocarbons,
unsaturated chlorofluorocarbons, unsaturated bromochlorofluorocarbons,
unsaturated hydrobromofluorocarbons, and unsaturated
hydrobromochlorofluorocarbons are likely to have GWPs near 1. First,
like many of the types of compounds currently included in the ninth F-
GHG group, they are unsaturated (i.e., they include double and triple
bonds between carbon atoms), and unsaturated GHGs in general tend to
have very short atmospheric lifetimes and GWPs near or below 1. Second,
evaluations of individual unsaturated chlorofluorocarbons and
unsaturated bromofluorocarbons have all found very short atmospheric
lifetimes and (where assessed) low GWPs for these compounds. The 2018
WMO Scientific Assessment provides atmospheric lifetimes for three
unsaturated chlorofluorocarbons and four unsaturated
bromofluorocarbons, and it provides an atmospheric lifetime and a 100-
year GWP for one unsaturated

[[Page 36936]]

bromochlorofluorocarbon (4-bromo-3-chloro-3,4,4-trifluoro-1-butene).
All of the atmospheric lifetimes are under 8 days,\7\ and the 100-year
GWP is listed as ``<1.'' Therefore, the EPA's assessment is that, due
to their short atmospheric lifetimes, unsaturated bromofluorocarbons,
unsaturated chlorofluorocarbons, unsaturated bromochlorofluorocarbons,
unsaturated hydrobromofluorocarbons, and unsaturated
hydrobromochlorofluorocarbons are likely to have a GWP near 1 (the
default GWP for the ninth F-GHG group) rather than 2,000 (the default
GWP for ``Other Fluorinated GHGs''). The EPA is proposing to add these
additional unsaturated fluorocarbons to the ninth F-GHG group to result
in more accurate estimation of the reported mtCO<INF>2</INF>e.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report lists 100-year GWPs of less
than one for all the compounds for which the report lists an
atmospheric lifetime of less than 8 days. The IPCC Fifth Assessment
Report is the source of the chemical-specific GWPs for the compounds
in the ninth F-GHG group in Table A-1. See 2013: Anthropogenic and
Natural Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical
Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
<a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf">https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are proposing to incorporate a harmonizing change based on the
addition of a new source category for quantifying geologic
sequestration in association with EOR operations. Specifically, we are
proposing to add the new subpart, subpart VV (Geologic Sequestration of
Carbon Dioxide with Enhanced Oil Recovery Using ISO 27916), in Table A-
3 to subpart A.
As discussed in section III.W of this preamble, facilities that
conduct EOR currently have the option to either report basic
information on CO<INF>2</INF> received under subpart UU (Injection of
Carbon Dioxide), or report CO<INF>2</INF> sequestered under subpart RR
(Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide). Facilities that conduct EOR
are not required to report under subpart RR unless the owner or
operator chooses to opt-in to subpart RR, or the well is permitted as
an Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class VI well. We are proposing
that facilities that use the standard Carbon Dioxide Capture,
Transportation and Geological Storage--Carbon Dioxide Storage Using
Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR) (CSA/ANSI ISO 27916:2019) for
quantifying geologic sequestration of CO<INF>2</INF> in association
with EOR operations would similarly have the option to report under the
proposed subpart VV instead of subpart UU. Facilities that conduct EOR
would therefore have two options to report amounts of CO<INF>2</INF>
that are geologically sequestered: subpart RR or subpart VV.
We are proposing to include the new subpart VV in Table A-3 to
subpart A. In addition, we are proposing that this new subpart would
not include a reporting threshold for applicability. The EPA previously
promulgated subparts RR and UU with no threshold (i.e., as ``all-in''
source categories in Table A-3 to subpart A) due to variability in
CO<INF>2</INF> injection amounts from year to year and based on limited
knowledge of which EOR reporters that are not required to report under
subpart RR would choose to report geologic sequestration (see 75 FR
18454, April 10, 2010 and 75 FR 75070, December 1, 2010). The
facilities affected by the proposed subpart include facilities that are
currently reporting under subpart UU and that do not currently report
amounts of CO<INF>2</INF> sequestered. The EPA is proposing no
threshold for the proposed subpart VV so that all EOR facilities that
quantify CO<INF>2</INF> sequestration using the CSA/ANSI ISO 27916:2019
standard and that do not report under subpart RR would have the option
to either report under the proposed subpart VV, or would otherwise
continue to report under subpart UU. For these reasons, we do not
anticipate that the new subpart would increase the number of facilities
subject to the GHGRP. Further, it is difficult to predict how many
injection facilities would choose to report using the ISO standard in
lieu of continuing to report under subpart UU. Therefore, we are
proposing that subpart VV would be an ``all-in'' reporting subpart in
order to allow the Agency to continue to comprehensively track all
CO<INF>2</INF> that is injected underground, and to remain consistent
with the ``all-in'' requirements for EOR or injection facilities that
currently report under subparts RR or UU. Reporters who choose to
report under this subpart would be required to meet the requirements of
40 CFR 98.2(a)(1). However, as proposed in new 40 CFR 98.480(c),
facilities subject only to new subpart VV would not be required to
report emissions under subpart C or any other subpart listed in 40 CFR
98.2(a)(1) or (2), consistent with the requirements for the existing
facilities under subpart UU.
Additionally, we are proposing that facilities subject to proposed
subpart VV would not be required to meet the off-ramp requirements of
40 CFR 98.2(i). Instead, once a facility opts-in to proposed subpart
VV, the owner or operator must continue for each year thereafter to
comply with all requirements of the subpart, including the requirement
to submit annual reports, until the facility demonstrates termination
of the CO<INF>2</INF>-EOR project following the requirements of CSA/
ANSI ISO 27916:2019. The EPA is proposing that the operator notify the
Administrator of its intent to cease reporting and provide a copy of
the CO<INF>2</INF>-EOR project termination documentation prepared for
CSA/ANSI ISO 27916:2019. See section III.W of this preamble for
additional details on the proposed revisions.
2. Proposed Amendments To Streamline and Improve Implementation for
Subpart A
For the reasons described in sections II.B.1, III.N, and III.U of
this preamble, we are proposing harmonizing edits in subpart A of part
98 to revise the rule applicability for subparts DD (Electrical
Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use) and subpart SS (Electrical
Equipment Manufacture or Refurbishment). The proposed applicability
threshold for subparts DD and SS would be based on total emissions
equivalent to the 25,000 mtCO<INF>2</INF>e or more per year, rather
than the current threshold levels that are based on the total nameplate
capacity of the equipment or the annual consumption, respectively. For
subpart DD, we are proposing to revise Table A-3 such that the
threshold is based on total estimated emissions from F-GHGs, as
determined under 40 CFR 98.301 (subpart DD), that are equivalent to
25,000 mtCO<INF>2</INF>e or more per year. For subpart SS, we are
proposing to revise Tables A-3 and Tables A-4 such that: (1) subpart SS
would be removed from Table A-3; and (2) Table A-4 would be revised to
specify that subpart SS facilities would be included in 40 CFR
98.2(a)(2) and Table A-4, as determined under the requirements of 40
CFR 98.451 (subpart SS), which provide estimation methods for total
estimated emissions from F-GHGs for comparison to a threshold
equivalent to 25,000 mtCO<INF>2</INF>e or more per year. Refer to
sections III.N and III.U of this preamble for a detailed discussion of
these proposed changes and how the proposed new thresholds would be
implemented. The proposed revisions are intended to harmonize Tables A-
3 and A-4 with the proposed changes described in sections II.B.1,
III.N, and III.U of this preamble, which would update the threshold to
be consistent with the threshold set for the majority of subparts and
would account for additional fluorinated gases (including F-GHG
mixtures) reported by industry, and for subpart DD, would also
streamline the reporting requirements to

[[Page 36937]]

focus Agency resources on the substantial emission sources within the
sector by excluding facilities or operations that may report emissions
that are consistently and substantially below 25,000 mtCO<INF>2</INF>e
per year (see section IV.C (``Rationale for Selection of Thresholds'')
of the preamble to the 2009 Proposed Rule (74 FR 16467, April 10,
2009)).

B. Subpart C--General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources

1. Proposed Revisions To Improve the Quality of Data Collected for
Subpart C
We are proposing several amendments to improve the quality of the
data collected under subpart C of part 98 (General Stationary Fuel
Combustion Sources). This section describes the specific changes
proposed.
First, for the reasons provided in section II.A.2 of this preamble,
we are proposing to modify the Tier 3 calculation methodology in
subpart C. Reporters to subpart C may use the Tier 3 methodology
provided in 40 CFR 98.33(a)(3) for determining annual CO<INF>2</INF>
emissions from combustion units. The Tier 3 methodology requires a
calculation based on annual fuel use, measured carbon content, and for
gaseous fuels, measured molecular weight. For gaseous fuels, equation
C-5 at 40 CFR 98.33(a)(3)(iii) requires that the carbon content and
molecular weight be in units of kilogram (kg) C/kg fuel and kg/kg-mole,
respectively, and be determined using the same procedures as specified
for high heating value (HHV) at 40 CFR 98.33(a)(2)(ii). However, when
using equation C-2b at 40 CFR 98.33(a)(2)(ii)(A) in this manner, the
fuel carbon content is on a mass basis (i.e., kg C/kg fuel) while the
fuel flow is on a volumetric basis (i.e., scf), resulting in a
weighting factor that is potentially problematic because the units of
measure are not in equivalent terms, i.e., the average annual carbon
content should be in mass terms (i.e., kg C/kg fuel). When using
equation C-2b for calculating an annual flow-weighted molecular weight,
a similar situation occurs. This has been the case since the 2009 Final
Rule (74 FR 56397).
To address this matter, the EPA is proposing to modify the Tier 3
calculation methodology in 40 CFR 98.33(a)(3)(iii) to provide new
equations C-5a and C-5b for calculating a weighted annual average
carbon content and a weighted annual average molecular weight.
respectively. These new proposed equations incorporate the molar volume
conversion factor at standard conditions (as defined at 40 CFR 98.6)
and for annual average carbon content, the measured molecular weight of
the fuel, in order to convert the fuel flow to the appropriate units of
measure. This proposed change will correct the calculation method for
Tier 3 gaseous fuels. The EPA does not expect a significant change in
reported emissions because the change to the values for carbon content
and molecular weight is expected to be minimal under the proposed
calculation methods. Additionally, some reporters have previously
exercised the option to manually override the calculated emission
values with their own calculated values to address this issue when it
has been identified.
We are also proposing several revisions to rule provisions
pertaining to the calculation of biogenic emissions from tire
combustion to improve the existing calculation methodology. First, for
the reasons described in section II.A.2 of this preamble, the EPA is
proposing to revise the calculation methods that must be used to
determine the total annual CO<INF>2</INF> emissions under 40 CFR
98.33(e)(3)(iv)(A) when determining the biogenic CO<INF>2</INF>
emissions of MSW or tires under 40 CFR 98.33(e)(3)(iv). Currently, 40
CFR 98.33(e)(3)(iv) provides procedures in certain circumstances to
estimate the annual biogenic CO<INF>2</INF> emissions in the combustion
of MSW or tires, which start with requiring that the Tier 1 calculation
method be used to determine the total annual CO<INF>2</INF> emissions
from MSW or tires under 40 CFR 98.33(e)(3)(iv)(A). The value determined
under 40 CFR 98.33(e)(3)(iv)(A) is then multiplied by the applicable
default biogenic fraction specified at 40 CFR 98.33(e)(3)(iv)(B) to
determine the total biogenic CO<INF>2</INF> emissions. At the same
time, 40 CFR 98.33(a) provides four calculation methodologies, Tier 1
through 4, and an alternative methodology for certain units subject to
40 CFR part 75, for calculating CO<INF>2</INF> emission for fuel
combustion. In certain circumstances, a reporter may be required under
40 CFR 98.33(a) to calculate CO<INF>2</INF> emissions from combustion
of MSW or tires using Tiers 2 or 3 for the purposes of annual
reporting, but then must also calculate the total CO<INF>2</INF>
emissions using Tier 1 under 40 CFR 98.33(e)(3)(iv)(A) for the purpose
of determining and reporting the biogenic CO<INF>2</INF> emissions from
combustion of MSW or tires under 40 CFR 98.33(e)(3)(iv). This has
previously resulted in some confusion for reporters where total
CO<INF>2</INF> emissions are calculated twice using different tiers,
one tier for one aspect of annual reporting and another tier for
biogenic calculation and reporting, and a redundancy in calculation of
total CO<INF>2</INF> emissions by reporters. This has also resulted in
some confusion when comparing the calculated total CO<INF>2</INF>
emissions under 40 CFR 98.33(a) to the estimated total biogenic
CO<INF>2</INF> emissions under 40 CFR 98.33(e)(3)(iv), since they are
based on different calculation methodologies. The EPA is proposing to
revise 40 CFR 98.33(e)(3)(iv)(A) so that total annual CO<INF>2</INF>
emissions will be calculated using the applicable methodology in
paragraphs 40 CFR 98.33(a)(1) through (3) for units using Tier 1
through 3 for purposes of 40 CFR 98.33(a), and using the Tier 1
calculation methodology in paragraph 40 CFR 98.33(a)(1) for units using
the Tier 4 or part 75 for purposes of 40 CFR 98.33(a), when determining
the biogenic component of MSW or tires under 40 CFR 98.33(e)(3)(iv).
The EPA is proposing two additional substantive revisions to the
procedures for calculating and reporting emissions of biogenic
CO<INF>2</INF> from the combustion of tires. First, for the reasons
discussed in section II.A.1 of this preamble, we are proposing to
update a default factor that is used to determine biogenic
CO<INF>2</INF> emissions from the combustion of tires. Separately
reporting the biogenic CO<INF>2</INF> emissions (i.e., specifying which
emissions are biogenic) from the combustion of tires is currently
optional, but if a reporter elects to do so, then 40 CFR 98.33(e)(3)
specifies the calculation procedure. Under 40 CFR 98.33(e)(3), if tires
provide more than 10 percent of the annual heat input to a unit and the
owner or operator elects to separately report the biogenic
CO<INF>2</INF> emissions from the combustion of tires, then the owner
or operator must conduct testing using ASTM method D6866-16, Standard
Test Methods for Determining the Biobased Content of Solid, Liquid, and
Gaseous Samples Using Radiocarbon Analysis (2016) and ASTM method
D7459-08, Standard Practice for Collection of Integrated Samples for
the Speciation of Biomass (Biogenic) and Fossil-Derived Carbon Dioxide
Emitted from Stationary Emissions Sources (2016) to determine the
biogenic fraction of CO<INF>2</INF>.\8\ But if tires provide 10 percent
or less of the annual heat input, then reporters have the option to
separately report the biogenic CO<INF>2</INF> emissions by multiplying
the total CO<INF>2</INF> emissions by a default factor of 0.20. The
0.20 factor is based on

[[Page 36938]]

information from the Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) that was
based on most current data available at the time of the publication of
the GHG Reporting Rule revisions in the Federal Register on December
17, 2010 (75 FR 79092) (hereafter referred to as the 2010 Final
Revisions Rule) and represented an arithmetic average of the natural
rubber content (i.e., composition) of passenger and commercial tires
sold and thus available for combustion.\9\ Since publication of the
2010 Final Revisions Rule, we have received a memorandum from the U.S.
Tire Manufacturers Association (USTMA, formerly RMA) that based on
updated data, the weighted average composition of natural rubber in
tires is now 24 percent.10 11 The proposed default value was
calculated by weighting the average rubber content, average weight, and
shipment percentage of both light duty vehicle and commercial vehicle
scrap tires, which is more accurate than would result from using the
arithmetic average. In addition to the comments and information
provided by the USTMA, the Portland Cement Association (PCA) provided
supporting information from one of its member companies, Mitsubishi
Cement. Operational data (total count and weight of tires combusted)
and analytical data (percent of biogenic carbon based on ASTM D6866-20)
from 2020 was provided.\12\ The EPA reviewed these data and determined
that they support the USTMA's recommended 0.24 default biogenic
fraction for tires.\13\ We are therefore proposing to revise 40 CFR
98.33(e)(3)(iv)(B) to update the default biogenic fraction to 0.24.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ ASTM D7459-08 was approved for use in the October 30, 2009
final rule (74 FR 56291), see Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508.
ASTM D6866-16 was approved for use in the December 9, 2016 final
rule (81 FR 89196), see Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526.
\9\ Please refer to the memorandum, Natural Rubber Fraction in
Tire Derived Fuel by Matt Hakos and Cassy Becker, RTI International
to Michael Hannan, EPA (August 2021), available in the docket for
this rulemaking, Docket Id. No EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0424, for more
detail.
\10\ See the memorandum, Methodology for Determining the Natural
Rubber Fraction in Tire Derived Fuel, by Sarah Amick and Jesse
Levine, USTMA to U.S. EPA (April 11, 2019), available in Docket Id.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0424.
\11\ Supra note 9.
\12\ See ``Tire Biogenic Content Data Provided by the Portland
Cement Association'' (August 2021), available in Docket Id. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0434.
\13\ Supra note 9.
\14\ Supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second, for the reasons described in section II.A.3 of this
preamble, we are proposing that all units that combust tires must
separately report biogenic CO<INF>2</INF> emissions. The separate
reporting of biogenic CO<INF>2</INF> from tires was made optional in a
2010 final rule (75 FR 79100, December 17, 2010). For that rulemaking,
we received no public comments on the proposal to make separate
biogenic CO<INF>2</INF> emissions reporting optional for the combustion
of tires, and the proposal was finalized without modification. In the
final rule preamble, however, we stated: ``No comments were received on
the proposal to make biogenic CO<INF>2</INF> emissions reporting
optional for the combustion of tires, and the proposal has been
finalized without modification. However, tire-derived fuel has a
biomass component, and perhaps it should be treated in the same manner
as MSW, which is also partly biogenic. A number of units that are
subject to part 98 combust tires as the primary fuel or as a secondary
fuel. Therefore, we are considering whether these units should be
required to separately account for their biogenic CO<INF>2</INF>
emissions. However, before making this mandatory we intend to open it
to notice and comment in a future rulemaking'' (75 FR 79109). In
conjunction with this change, we are proposing to remove the
restriction in 40 CFR 98.33(e)(3)(iv) that the default factor may only
be used to estimate the annual biogenic CO<INF>2</INF> emissions from
the combustion of tires if the combustion of tires represents ``no more
than 10 percent annual heat input to a unit.'' Following the 2010 Final
Revisions Rule, reporters that chose to optionally report biogenic
CO<INF>2</INF> emissions from tire combustion were required to use
quarterly flue-gas testing using ASTM methods, except that small units
(i.e., units in which tires provide no more than 10 percent of the
annual heat input to a unit) could alternatively use the default
factor. The proposal to remove the current restriction allowing only
small units to use the default factor (i.e., allowing the use of the
default factor for all units that combust tires), when combined with
the proposed requirement to report biogenic CO<INF>2</INF> emissions
from tire combustion, would result in a more accurate characterization
of emissions from larger units since no units that combust tires alone
or in conjunction with fossil fuels have reported, for RY2015 through
RY2018, biogenic CO<INF>2</INF> emissions that were calculated using
the quarterly flue-gas testing results. Therefore, the proposed
addition of reporting of biogenic CO<INF>2</INF> emissions for tire
combustion should require no additional monitoring or data collection
and could be reported with minimal additional reporting burden. The EPA
is proposing that this change would only be finalized if the proposed
requirement to report biogenic CO<INF>2</INF> emissions from tire
combustion is also finalized. Additionally, we are proposing another
change that would only be finalized if the proposed requirement to
report biogenic CO<INF>2</INF> emissions from tire combustion is also
finalized. Specifically, 40 CFR 98.33(b)(1)(vii) currently allows units
that combust MSW and/or tires to use Tier 1 if the combined heat input
from both fuels is not greater than 10 percent of the heat input to the
unit but also provides that, if a reporter choose the option to not
report biogenic CO<INF>2</INF> from tire combustion, the 10 percent
threshold applies only to the MSW fuel. If the proposed mandatory
reporting of biogenic CO<INF>2</INF> from tire combustion is finalized,
we are proposing that the additional provision in 40 CFR
98.33(b)(1)(vii) on how to apply the threshold to only MSW fuel would
be deleted, since it would no longer be applicable. This may result in
fewer facilities being able to use Tier 1 to calculate MSW and/or tire
CO<INF>2</INF> emissions since the tire heat input would now always be
included in conjunction with the MSW heat input to compare to the 10
percent threshold.
In conjunction with these proposed revisions, we are also proposing
to remove the language in 40 CFR 98.33(e) and 40 CFR 98.36(e)(2)(xi)
referring to optional biogenic CO<INF>2</INF> emissions reporting from
tire combustion, and to revise 40 CFR 98.34(d) to reference 40 CFR
98.33(e)(3)(iv) instead of 40 CFR 98.33(b)(1)(vi) and (vii). We are
proposing the latter change because 40 CFR 98.34(d) incorrectly
references 40 CFR 98.33(b)(1)(vi) and (vii), which specify certain
provisions when Tier 1 can be used, whereas 40 CFR 98.33(e)(3)(iv)
specifies when the default biogenic factor for MSW can be used (i.e.,
in cases where combustion of MSW provides no more than 10 percent of
the annual heat input to the unit or if a small, batch incinerator
combusts no more than 1,000 tons per year of MSW) and is the correct
reference for 40 CFR 98.34(d). This revision is being proposed to
correct this reference in accordance with other proposed changes.
Additionally, we are proposing a clarifying correction to 40 CFR
98.33(e), Biogenic CO2 emissions from combustion of biomass with other
fuels. Section 98.33(e)(1) specifies that equation C-1 of subpart C can
be used to calculate the annual CO<INF>2</INF> mass emissions from the
combustion of the biomass fuels listed in Table C-1 of this subpart
(except MSW and tires). We are proposing to delete the parenthetical
clause ``(except MSW and tires)'' in 40 CFR 98.33(e)(1) because,
although MSW and tires are partially biogenic, they were never
categorized as biomass fuels

[[Page 36939]]

in Table C-1 of subpart C and thus no aspect of Table C-1 was excepted
by this parenthetical clause. This deletion would correct the drafting
oversight and will not result in any change to the reporting
requirements.
Next, for the reasons discussed in section II.A.5 of this preamble,
we are proposing to correct the equation C-11 term definition for the
variable ``R''. Equation C-11 is used to calculate the CO<INF>2</INF>
emissions from sorbent use when the chemical reaction between the acid
gas and sorbent produces CO<INF>2</INF> emissions and when these
emissions are not monitored with a CEMS. The term ``R'' is currently
defined as the number of moles of CO<INF>2</INF> released upon capture
of one mole of the acid gas species being removed (R = 1.00 when the
sorbent is CaCO<INF>3</INF> and the targeted acid gas species is
SO<INF>2</INF>). However, the units of measure for the equation as
presented do not currently result in metric tons CO<INF>2</INF>
emitted. We are proposing to revise the definition of the term ``R'' as
``the number of moles of CO<INF>2</INF> released per mole of sorbent
used (R = 1.00 when the sorbent is CaCO<INF>3</INF> and the targeted
acid gas species is SO<INF>2</INF>)'' so that the equation is
dimensionally correct (i.e., results in metric tons CO<INF>2</INF>
emitted).
We are also proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.33(c)(6)(i), (ii),
(ii)(A), and (iii)(C), and delete (ii)(B) to clarify the methods used
to calculate CH<INF>4</INF> and N<INF>2</INF>O emissions for blended
fuels when heat input is determined after the fuels are mixed and
combusted. There would be no new reporting requirements because of this
proposed clarification.
For the reasons described in section II.A.4 of this preamble, we
are proposing a substantive revision to rule provisions pertaining to
the reporting of unit level information for the aggregation of units
and common pipe configurations. Currently, subpart C allows facilities
to report data using six different configurations. These configurations
are:
<bullet> Individual unit using Tiers 1, 2, or 3 to calculate
emissions.
<bullet> Individual unit using Tier 4 to calculate emissions.
<bullet> Group of units using the aggregation of units reporting
alternative with Tiers 1, 2 or 3.
<bullet> Group of units using the common pipe configuration
reporting alternative with Tiers 1, 2, or 3.
<bullet> Group of units using Tier 4 to calculate emissions and
reporting under the monitored common stack or duct configuration
reporting alternative.
<bullet> Part 75 units using the alternative CO<INF>2</INF> mass
emissions calculation methods.
<bullet> For RY2019, the approximate use of reporting
configurations and the percent of emissions for each is summarized:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Percent of
Number of total Subpart total Subpart
Configuration type Subpart C C C CO2
configurations configurations emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual Unit (Tiers 1-3)..................................... 9,185 58 36
Individual Unit (Tier 4)........................................ 208 1 9
Aggregation of Units (Tiers 1-3)................................ 4,362 27 24
Common Pipe (Tiers 1-3)......................................... 1,905 12 26
Common Stack (Tier 4)........................................... 21 0.1 2
Alternative Part 75............................................. 192 1 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Individual unit information (i.e., the unit type and the maximum
rated heat input capacity) is currently only required to be reported
for the individual unit (Tiers 1-3 and Tier 4) reporting
configurations. The individual unit information allows the EPA to
aggregate emissions according to unit type and size and provides a
better understanding of the emissions from specific unit types.
Individual unit information is not reported for the aggregation of
units, common pipe, common stack, or alternative part 75 reporting
configurations. As such, the EPA is currently unable to aggregate
emissions by unit type and size for these reporting configurations,
which represent 40 percent of the configurations used and 54 percent of
the emissions reported in subpart C.
The aggregation of units and common pipe configurations are the
second and third most used configurations and together, they represent
approximately 39 percent of the configurations and 50 percent of the
emissions reported to subpart C. Both of these reporting alternatives
allow multiple units to be reported under one configuration group.
Because the unit type and maximum rated heat input capacity are
currently not reported for the individual units within these two
configurations, there is a significant gap in the EPA's ability to
aggregate subpart C emissions data by unit type and size.
To better analyze reported data by unit type and size, the EPA is
proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.36(c)(1) and (3) (by adding 40 CFR
98.36(c)(1)(ii) and (c)(3)(xi)) to require reporting for each unit in
either an aggregation of units or common pipe configuration, excluding
units less than 10 mmBtu/hr from both, of the unit type, maximum rated
heat input capacity, and an estimate of the fraction of the total
annual heat input. Under the proposed amendments, unit level
information would be reported for four of the six configuration types.
This would allow the EPA to aggregate data according to unit type and
size for approximately 98 percent of the configurations and 95 percent
of the emissions in subpart C (the actual percent of emissions that
could be aggregated by unit type would be somewhat lower than 95
percent because units less than 10 would be excluded from the
additional reporting requirements) to provide unit level information
for the aggregated unit and common pipe configurations. We expect the
percent of emissions to be only somewhat lower than 95 percent because
units less than 10 mmBtu/hr are estimated to have minor emissions
contributions in aggregated unit and common pipe configurations, as
previously described in the 2016 final rulemaking (81 FR 89203,
December 9, 2016). Given the relatively low emissions from the common
stack (Tier 4) and part 75 configurations, the EPA is not proposing to
require reporting of individual unit information for these
configurations at this time. The EPA seeks comment on whether to
propose these requirements for the common stack (Tier 4) and part 75
configurations.
The proposed reporting requirements are not expected to
significantly increase burden for reporters. The requirement to report
the cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity for the aggregation of
units or common pipe configurations began with the 2017 reporting year
(81 FR 89188). Accordingly, facilities have been reporting cumulative
maximum rated heat input capacity for four years. To determine this
value, facilities must know the maximum rated heat input capacity of
all units in each aggregation

[[Page 36940]]

of units or common pipe configuration (greater than or equal to 10
mmBtu/hr), because these values are summed to determine the cumulative
value. The EPA expects that the other requirements (i.e., unit type and
estimate of the fraction of annual heat input) can be determined from
existing company records. The total fraction of annual heat input for
each unit in the group will be determined by dividing the estimated
actual heat input for that unit by the sum of the estimated actual heat
input for all units in the group. Accordingly, any new burden incurred
from this proposed requirement is expected to be minimal and associated
with calculating the fraction of the total annual heat input and
entering data into the e-GGRT software. To minimize the burden of
reporting these data in e-GGRT, the EPA intends to evaluate developing
a bulk unit details reporting form similar to the existing bulk
equation input reporting forms for Tiers 2 and 3.
For the reasons described, the EPA has proposed these new reporting
requirements under 40 CFR 98.36(c)(1)(ii) (aggregation of units) and 40
CFR 98.36(c)(3)(xi) (common pipe). These proposed amendments will
better inform future policy and programs by addressing a data gap in
unit information that currently exists for these two reporting
configurations. We are proposing related confidentiality determinations
for the additional data elements, as discussed in section VI of this
preamble.
As a corollary to proposed amendments to subpart W (Petroleum and
Natural Gas Systems) to address uncombusted methane emissions from
compressor drivers (see section III.J.1.n of this preamble), we are
proposing that natural gas-fired compressor drivers located at
facilities that are subject to subpart W would be required to use the
CH<INF>4</INF> emission factors in Table W-9 to subpart W rather than
the default CH<INF>4</INF> emission factor for natural gas in Table C-2
to subpart C. Specifically, we are proposing to revise the ``EF'' term
in each of the equations in 40 CFR 98.33(c) (i.e., equations C-8, C-8a,
C-8b, C-9a, C-9b, and C-10) to reference the CH<INF>4</INF> emission
factors in Table W-9 to subpart W for natural gas compressor drivers.
We are also proposing to add a footnote to Table C-2 that specifies
that for reporters subject to subpart W, the default CH<INF>4</INF>
emission factor for natural gas may only be used for natural gas-fired
combustion units that are not compressor drivers. Finally, we are
proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.36(c)(1) and (c)(3). Under the proposed
amendments, reporters may not report a combination of one design class
of compressor driver (using one Table W-9 CH<INF>4</INF> emission
factor) and other combustion units (e.g., using a Table C-2
CH<INF>4</INF> emission factor or another Table W-9 CH<INF>4</INF>
emission factor) in the same aggregation of units or common pipe
configuration. This change would ensure that all units in an
aggregation of units or common pipe configuration are using the same
CH<INF>4</INF> emission factor for each fuel combusted in the unit.
We are proposing two additional clarifications to existing
reporting and record keeping requirements, for the reasons described in
section II.A.5 of this preamble. First, we are proposing to revise the
first sentence of 40 CFR 98.36(e)(2)(ii)(C) to clarify that both the
annual average, and, where applicable, monthly high heat values are
required to be reported. The monthly HHV reporting requirement was
always clear based on the language in this provision and the proposed
clarification plainly states that the annual average high heat value is
also a reporting requirement (for reporters who do not use the
electronic inputs verification tool (IVT) within e-GGRT). There are no
new reporting requirements because of this proposed clarification.
Second, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.37(b)(9), (10), (11),
(14), (18), (20), (22), and (23) to specify recordkeeping data that is
currently contained in the file generated by the verification software
that is already required to be retained by reporters under 40 CFR
98.37(b) but was inadvertently omitted from being specified in those
subparagraphs. These proposed revisions correct omissions that
currently exist in the verification software recordkeeping requirements
specific to equations C-2a, C-2b, C-3, C-4, and C-5. They also align
the verification software recordkeeping requirements with the proposed
revisions to equation C-5 at 40 CFR 98.33(a)(3)(iii), as noted above.
These proposed revisions do not require any new action from affected
reporters, as all new recordkeeping data proposed is already contained
in the file generated by the verification software.
2. Proposed Revisions To Streamline Implementation and Reduce Burden
for Subpart C
We are proposing several revisions to subpart C to streamline
requirements and to adopt minor revisions to improve implementation of
the rule.
For the reasons described in section II.B.2 of this preamble, the
EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.34(c)(6). In the 2010 Final
Revisions Rule (75 FR 79092), the EPA added 40 CFR 98.34(c)(6), which
allowed cylinder gas audits (CGAs) of the CO<INF>2</INF> monitor to be
performed using calibration gas concentrations of 40-60 percent and 80-
100 percent of CO<INF>2</INF> span, when the CO<INF>2</INF> span value
is set higher than 20 percent CO<INF>2</INF>. Under appendix F of 40
CFR part 60, CGAs of the CO<INF>2</INF> analyzer are required at two
calibration gas concentrations (i.e., 5-8 percent and 10-14 percent
CO<INF>2</INF> by volume). These CO<INF>2</INF> concentration levels
are appropriate for certain stationary combustion applications (e.g., a
typical span value for a CO<INF>2</INF> monitor installed on a coal-
fired boiler is 20 percent CO<INF>2</INF>). These CGA concentrations
represent 25-40 percent and 50-70 percent of the CO<INF>2</INF> span
value, when the CO<INF>2</INF> span is at 20 percent CO<INF>2</INF>.
When the CO<INF>2</INF> span exceeds the typical span value of the fuel
being evaluated (e.g., 20 percent CO<INF>2</INF> on a coal-fired
boiler), the CGA concentrations specified in part 60 are no longer
representative, as they only evaluate the lower portion of the
measurement scale. Since the EPA had information indicating that there
were cases when the CO<INF>2</INF> span was set greater than 20 percent
CO<INF>2</INF> (e.g., process and combustion emissions from cement
manufacturing may require 30 percent CO<INF>2</INF> span), 40 CFR
98.34(c)(6) was added so that CGAs could be conducted at two separate
portions of the measurement scale, as opposed to just the lower portion
(see 75 FR 79111, December 17, 2010).
Since 2010, the EPA has received questions through GHGRP Help Desk
indicating that industrial flue gases also occur where the measured
CO<INF>2</INF> concentration is very low (e.g., natural gas turbines
typically have about 5 percent CO<INF>2</INF> in flue gas). In this
case, the required calibration gas concentrations (i.e., 5-8 percent
and 10-14 percent CO<INF>2</INF> by volume) under appendix F of 40 CFR
part 60 would not be appropriate because they may be above the
CO<INF>2</INF> span value and so would not provide information
regarding accuracy of the monitor at actual representative stack gas
concentrations. Accordingly, the EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR
98.34(c)(6) to allow CGAs to be performed using calibration gas
concentrations of 40-60 percent and 80-100 percent of CO<INF>2</INF>
span, whenever the required CO<INF>2</INF> span value for a flue gas
does is not appropriate for the prescribed audit ranges in appendix F
of 40 CFR part 60. This will allow CGAs to check the response of the
CO<INF>2</INF> analyzer at two calibration gas concentrations,
representing separate portions of the measurement scale,

[[Page 36941]]

when the CO<INF>2</INF> span is significantly lower or higher than 20
percent CO<INF>2</INF>.
For the reasons described in section II.B.3 of this preamble, the
EPA is proposing to amend certain provisions in 40 CFR 98.36 that
require facilities with the aggregation of units or common pipe
configuration types to report the annual CO<INF>2</INF> mass emissions
from the combustion of all fossil fuels, per the requirements in 40 CFR
98.36(c)(1)(vi) and 40 CFR 98.36(c)(3)(vi). The EPA has reviewed the
data provided under these reporting requirements and has tentatively
concluded that they are no longer required for the verification or
analysis of subpart C annual reports. In addition, the reporting of
this data for the aggregation of units or common pipe configuration
types has caused confusion for reporters because they mistakenly
believe that the value is used in subpart C total CO<INF>2</INF>
emission calculations. Therefore, we are proposing to revise the
provisions in 40 CFR 98.36(c)(1)(vi) and 40 CFR 98.36(c)(3)(vi) to
remove the language requiring reporting of the total annual
CO<INF>2</INF> mass emissions from all fossil fuels combined.
For these two configuration types (aggregation of units and common
pipe), the reported configuration-level annual CO<INF>2</INF> emissions
from all fossil fuels does not factor into any subpart- or facility-
level total CO<INF>2</INF> emission calculations. The e-GGRT calculates
the subpart-level non-biogenic CO<INF>2</INF> emissions for these two
configuration types by summing the reported fuel-level CO<INF>2</INF>
emissions values from each fuel, regardless of whether it is biogenic
or not, then subtracting the reported configuration-level biogenic
CO<INF>2</INF> emissions values. For the aggregation of units
configuration type, the reported configuration-level sorbent
CO<INF>2</INF> emissions value, which is typically zero, is also added
into this ``rolled-up'' non-biogenic CO<INF>2</INF> emissions total.
The calculation was specifically designed in this manner because the
reported fuel-level information for Table C-1 partially biogenic fuels
(i.e., tires, MSW) and some ``other'' or ``blend'' fuels that contain
biogenic material is not sufficient to allow the calculation of
biogenic CO<INF>2</INF> emissions for each fuel such that it could be
accurately subtracted from the fuel-level CO<INF>2</INF> emissions
values. Thus, the reported configuration-level biogenic CO<INF>2</INF>
emissions must be used in the subpart total calculations. Many
reporters then assume that the configuration-level annual
CO<INF>2</INF> emissions from all fossil fuels is also used in the
subpart total calculations, which creates confusion for reporters and
has resulted in GHGRP Help Desk submissions stating that these
requirements are redundant and confusing. By proposing to revise the
provisions in 40 CFR 98.36(c)(1)(vi) and 40 CFR 98.36(c)(3)(vi) to
remove the language requiring reporting of the total annual
CO<INF>2</INF> mass emissions from all fossil fuels combined, we would
remove this unnecessary confusion for reporters with aggregation of
units and common pipe configuration types.

C. Subpart G--Ammonia Manufacturing

For the reasons discussed in section II.A.2 of this preamble, we
are proposing several revisions to subpart G of part 98 (Ammonia
Manufacturing) to improve the quality of the data collected from this
subpart. Subpart G estimates CO<INF>2</INF> emissions from ammonia
manufacturing based on a carbon mass balance, which assumes that all
carbon contained in feedstocks is transformed to CO<INF>2</INF> and all
CO<INF>2</INF> is emitted from the ammonia manufacturing process. The
EPA has received numerous comments from The Fertilizer Institute (TFI)
related to the calculation of CO<INF>2</INF> emissions from the
production of ammonia in subpart G. Most comments from TFI were related
to the carbon mass balance methodology, especially with regard to other
products that could be produced using the CO<INF>2</INF> emissions from
ammonia production. TFI has asserted that most ammonia manufacturing
facilities capture and use the CO<INF>2</INF> resulting from the
ammonia manufacturing process to produce urea. Subpart G does not
currently allow the subtraction of the CO<INF>2</INF> that is bound in
urea from calculated and reported emissions or otherwise allow separate
reporting of that CO<INF>2</INF>.
In response to the 2009 Proposed Rule, TFI submitted a comment
letter dated June 9, 2009, and provided comments via a public hearing
on April 6, 2009, stating that the CO<INF>2</INF> produced through
ammonia manufacturing is often utilized in the manufacturing of urea
and that the EPA mistakenly assumed that all CO<INF>2</INF> in urea
will be released into the atmosphere.\15\ \16\ In response, in the 2009
Final Rule, the EPA changed the rule requirements to collect
information on urea production and uses of the urea if known, stating
``Collecting information on urea production and its uses will help
[the] EPA to improve methodologies for estimating emissions from
ammonia manufacturing, urea production and urea consumption in the
future.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ TFI's Comments on the ``Proposed Mandatory Reporting of
Greenhouse Gases Rule'' Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-2376,
June 9, 2009. Also available in the docket for this rulemaking,
Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0424.
\16\ USEPA Public Hearing for Proposed Rulemaking for Mandatory
Reporting of Greenhouse Gases. Transcript Day One of Two. April 6,
2009. Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0212. Also available in
the docket for this rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0424.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA next revised 40 CFR 98.72(a) and 40 CFR 98.73(b)(5) in
subpart G (75 FR 79092, December 17, 2010) to explain that the
``CO<INF>2</INF> process emissions reported under this subpart may
include CO<INF>2</INF> that is later consumed on site for urea
production, and therefore is not released to the ambient air from the
ammonia manufacturing process unit.'' This revision was proposed
pursuant to a settlement agreement with TFI, after TFI challenged the
2009 rulemaking.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ The Fertilizer Institute v. EPA, Docket Id. No. 09-1329
(D.C. Circuit), 2010. Also available in the docket for this
rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0424.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to an April 2, 2013 EPA-proposed rule (78 FR 19802),
TFI submitted a comment letter dated May 2, 2013, requesting that the
EPA revise subpart G to require only the reporting of CO<INF>2</INF>
emitted directly to the atmosphere from the synthetic ammonia
production process instead of continuing to include the CO<INF>2</INF>
captured during ammonia production and used to produce urea, noting its
view that the captured CO<INF>2</INF> ``does not contribute to the
CO<INF>2</INF> emission estimates for ammonia production.'' \18\ TFI
further argued the existing methodology is inconsistent with other
source categories covered by the rule (namely subpart P (Hydrogen
Production) and subpart X (Petrochemical Production)) and is contrary
to the EPA's methodology used in the U.S. GHG Inventory. TFI pointed to
similarities between the structure of subpart G and subpart P, and
argued that the structure of subpart G be revised to be more consistent
with subpart X, which allows sources to account for carbon (i.e.,
subtract from direct facility emissions) that is being shipped off-site
in products. In response, the EPA responded that TFI had raised a
consistency issue within part 98 that ``merits evaluation and requires
further analysis by the EPA.'' However, the EPA explained that no
changes were made at that time because TFI's comment was outside of the
scope of the rulemaking.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ TFI's Comments on the Proposed ``2013 Revisions to the
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and Proposed Confidentiality
Determinations for New or Substantially Revised Data Elements,''
Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0036, May 2, 2013. Also
available in the docket for this rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0424.
\19\ Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Rule: 2013 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule
and Confidentiality Determinations for New or Substantially Revised
Data Elements. Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0127, November
2013. Also available in the docket for this rulemaking, Docket Id.
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0424.

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

[[Page 36942]]

In response to a January 15, 2016 EPA-proposed rule (81 FR 2536),
TFI submitted a comment letter dated March 30, 2016, again requesting
that part 98 be made consistent with the methodology used in the U.S.
GHG Inventory, such that CO<INF>2</INF> bound in urea would not be
considered an emission from the ammonia manufacturing process.\20\
Also, TFI asked for clarification regarding a new requirement in
subpart G to report the amount of methanol produced at the ammonia
manufacturing facility. In response, the EPA noted the potential of
using a future rulemaking to address TFI's suggested revisions ``to
require reporting only CO<INF>2</INF> that is emitted directly to the
atmosphere from ammonia manufacturing, rather than reporting
CO<INF>2</INF> that is bound in the urea that is produced from ammonia
at some facilities,'' but explained that the comment was outside the
scope of that rulemaking. The EPA clarified in the preamble and in the
final rule (81 FR 89188, December 9, 2016) that the quantity of
methanol being reported only includes methanol that is ``intentionally
produced as a desired product'' and does not include the quantity of
methanol that is vented or destroyed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ TFI's Comments on the Proposed ``2015 Revisions and
Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements under the
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule,'' Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-
0526-0064, March 30, 2016. Also available in the docket for this
rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0424.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

TFI submitted two other comment letters in 2017. The letter dated
March 31, 2017 was submitted to the Department of Commerce as part of a
request for information ``Impact of Federal Regulations on Domestic
Manufacturing'' (82 FR 12786, March 7, 2017).\21\ The letter dated May
15, 2017 was submitted to the EPA's request for comment on ``Evaluation
of Existing Regulations'' (82 FR 17793, April 13, 2017).\22\ Both
letters contained similar language asking that the GHGRP be amended to
``report the quantity of GHG that is actually emitted to the atmosphere
as part of the manufacturing processes'' instead of ``GHG emissions
that are captured and either sold or used in other industrial
processes.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ TFI, Impact of Federal Regulations on Domestic
Manufacturing, Docket Id. No. DOC-2017-0001-0064, March 31, 2017,
available in Compilation of Comments Related to the Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Program submitted to the Department of Commerce under
Docket ID No. DOC-2017-0001 and the Environmental Protection Agency
under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190 and in the docket for this
rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0424.
\22\ TFI, Comments on ``Evaluation of Existing Regulations,''
Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190-40791, May 15, 2017, available in
Compilation of Comments Related to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting
Program submitted to the Department of Commerce under Docket ID No.
DOC-2017-0001 and the Environmental Protection Agency under Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190 and in the docket for this rulemaking,
Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0424.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

After consideration of the comments from TFI summarized above, the
EPA has tentatively concluded that requiring reporters subject to
subpart G to report the GHG emissions that occur directly from the
ammonia manufacturing process (i.e., net CO<INF>2</INF> process
emissions) after subtracting out carbon or CO<INF>2</INF> captured and
used in other products would provide a more accurate estimate of the
emissions and would provide consistency in our approach across the
GHGRP. Therefore, for the reasons described in this section and in
section II.A.2 of this preamble, we are proposing multiple amendments
to subpart G. Under the proposed rule, equation G-4 and equation G-5
would be combined into a new equation G-4 and paragraph 98.73(b)(5)
would be deleted. The reporting requirement in paragraph 98.76(b)(1)
specifies emissions for each individual ammonia manufacturing
processing unit, so determining the combined CO<INF>2</INF> emissions
from all ammonia manufacturing processing units using equation G-5 is
not necessary for reporting. The new equation G-4 would allow reporters
to subtract CO<INF>2</INF> used in the production of urea and carbon
bound in methanol that is intentionally produced as a desired product
instead of assuming that the CO<INF>2</INF> bound in urea is emitted or
that the carbon contained in methanol is converted to CO<INF>2</INF>
and emitted, resulting in the calculation of net CO<INF>2</INF>
emissions that occur directly from ammonia manufacturing. We are also
proposing a harmonizing revision to the introductory paragraph of 40
CFR 98.73. These proposed changes are not expected to result in an
increase in burden because the monthly equation inputs for the new
equation G-4 would already be available to calculate the annual values
of CO<INF>2</INF> collected from ammonia production and consumed on-
site for urea production and the quantity of intentionally produced
methanol, both of which are already reported. Similarly, for reporters
that do not produce urea or methanol, the burden under the new equation
to calculate CO<INF>2</INF> emissions remains unchanged. Further,
because we are retaining the requirement to report the CO<INF>2</INF>
collected from ammonia for urea production and methanol production, the
proposed amendments would not result in any negative impacts to the
quality of the data collected under the GHGRP and such data would
remain available for potential policy evaluation.
As a result of the new proposed equation G-4, two new monthly
recordkeeping data elements are being proposed as part of the
verification software records required in 40 CFR 98.77(c), including:
(1) quantity of CO<INF>2</INF> collected from ammonia production and
consumed on site for urea production each month; and (2) quantity of
methanol intentionally produced as a desired product each month. These
recordkeeping changes are not expected to result in a significant
increase in burden because both elements are already being reported on
an annual basis (40 CFR 98.76(b)(13) and (15)). For reporters that do
not produce urea or methanol, the requirements for recordkeeping remain
unchanged. We are proposing harmonizing revisions to the introductory
paragraph of 40 CFR 98.76 and to the reported data elements at 40 CFR
98.76(b)(1) to clarify that reporters must provide the ``annual net
CO<INF>2</INF> process emissions'' for each ammonia manufacturing unit,
and at 40 CFR 98.76(b)(13) to clarify that reports must provide the
``annual amount of CO<INF>2</INF> collected from ammonia production
(metric tons) and consumed on site for urea production and the method
used to determine the CO<INF>2</INF> consumed in urea production.'' The
proposed revision to the reported emissions value excludes any
CO<INF>2</INF> used in the production of urea and carbon bound in
methanol that is intentionally produced as a desired product. We are
proposing related confidentiality determinations for the revised data
elements, as discussed in section VI of this preamble.
Finally, corresponding amendments are being proposed to remove the
language specified above that was added in the 2010 Final Revisions
Rule (75 FR 79092), described above. Paragraph 98.72(a) will be amended
to read, ``CO<INF>2</INF> process emissions from steam reforming of a
hydrocarbon or the gasification of solid and liquid raw material,
reported for each ammonia manufacturing unit following the requirements
of this subpart.''
In addition, minor amendments to equation G-1, equation G-2, and
equation G-3 are being proposed to simplify the equations by removing
the process unit ``k'' designation in the terms ``CO<INF>2,G,k</INF>,''
``CO<INF>2,L,k</INF>,'' and ``CO<INF>2,S,k</INF>.'' The introductory
paragraph to each of these equations already specifies that emissions
must be calculated for each ammonia manufacturing unit. Removing the
extra subscript will

[[Page 36943]]

clarify the equations. No changes to burden are expected from these
changes.

D. Subpart H--Cement Production

For the reasons described in section II.A.4 of this preamble, we
are proposing to add new data elements to the data reporting
requirements for subpart H of part 98 (Cement Production) to enhance
the quality and accuracy of the data collected. Specifically, we are
proposing to collect new data elements under 40 CFR 98.86(a) and 40 CFR
98.86(b). Subpart H currently requires calculation of CO<INF>2</INF>
emissions using one of two methodologies, either direct measurement
using CEMS, or a mass balance (non-CEMS) methodology based on mass,
carbonate content, and fraction of calcination for each carbonate-based
material. For the mass balance method, facilities enter input data that
is used to calculate emissions factors for produced materials. These
inputs include, for example, monthly measurements of calcium oxide
content and magnesium oxide content. Subpart H emission equations
inputs are not collected under the GHGRP, and so the EPA has little
data on which to build verification checks for these inputs in the
reporting system. In order to improve the data verification process, we
are proposing to collect annual averages for these chemical composition
input data on a facility-basis. The proposed data elements (for both
facilities that report CEMS data and those that report using a mass-
balance method) include the annual arithmetic average weight fraction
of: total CaO content, non-calcined CaO content, total MgO content, and
non-calcined MgO content of clinker at the facility; and total CaO
content of cement kiln dust (CKD) not recycled to the kiln(s), non-
calcined CaO content of CKD not recycled to the kiln(s), total MgO
content of CKD not recycled to the kiln(s), and non-calcined MgO
content of CKD not recycled to the kiln(s) at the facility. The
proposed data elements would rely on an arithmetic average of the
measurements rather than requiring reporters to weigh by quantity
produced in each month. CEMS facility emissions calculations are
importantly different from non-CEMS emissions calculations because
combustion and process emissions are typically vented through the same
stack, causing process and combustion emissions to be mixed and
indifferentiable. Therefore, in addition to improving the input
verification process, collecting average chemical composition data for
CEMS facilities will provide the EPA the ability to check the reported
CEMS emission data for accuracy by creating the ability to back-
estimate process emissions. In order to be able to estimate and check
the accuracy of process emissions, we are also proposing to collect
other data elements for both facilities using CEMS and those that
report using the mass-balance method, including annual facility CKD not
recycled to the kiln(s) in tons and raw kiln feed consumed annually at
the facility in tons (dry basis). Facilities are already required to
report or maintain records of other production data that would be
needed to perform these estimates. Facilities using the mass-balance
method currently collect CKD not recycled to the kiln(s) on a quarterly
basis to estimate CO<INF>2</INF> emissions from clinker production.
Similarly, facilities also record the annual raw kiln feed for each
kiln, which is used to determine the CO<INF>2</INF> emissions from raw
materials for each kiln in equation H-5. The proposed data elements
would instead sum the CKD not recycled and raw kiln feed quantity
across all kilns at a facility. The proposed data elements will allow
us to estimate process emissions for comparison to facility reported
emissions estimates as a verification check. In addition to improving
verification and data quality for cement emissions, the proposed data
elements will also improve the U.S. GHG Inventory. The U.S. GHG
Inventory can use the proposed data elements to internally disaggregate
process and combustion emissions that are reported by facilities using
CEMS, and create more accurate national-level cement emissions profile.
In general, we do not anticipate that the proposed data elements
would require any additional monitoring or data collection by
reporters, as these data are likely already available in existing
company records. These additions would result in especially minimal
reporting changes for non-CEMS facilities, as the chemical composition
averages can be calculated using the input data that is already
required to be entered in the reporting system. However, we are
requesting comment on whether any of the above listed data elements
would not be readily available to reporters. We are proposing related
confidentiality determinations for the additional data elements, as
discussed in section VI of this preamble.
Finally, for the reasons described in section II.A.5 of this
preamble, we are proposing to clarify equations H-1 and H-5. We are
proposing to clarify that equation H-5 calculates the CO<INF>2</INF>
emissions from raw materials on a per kiln basis. Facilities currently
maintain records of the amount and organic carbon content of raw
materials and raw kiln feed consumed annually per kiln, and enter this
data into the e-GGRT verification software during submission of their
annual reports. The verification software collects the kiln-level data
to verify the inputs and generates a file containing the records, which
are specified in 40 CFR 98.87(c)(14) through (17). The CO<INF>2</INF>
emissions for the facility are then summed for all kilns at the
facility-level using equation H-1, which sums the annual CO<INF>2</INF>
emissions from clinker production (from equation H-2) and the annual
emissions from raw materials for each kiln (from equation H-5). We are
proposing revisions to the inputs ``rm,'' ``CO<INF>2 rm,</INF>'' and
``TOC<INF>rm</INF>'' in equation H-5 to clarify that the data elements
are input on a per-kiln basis, and to add brackets to clarify that
emissions are calculated as the sum of emissions from all raw materials
or raw kiln feed used in the kiln. Similarly, we are proposing to
revise equation H-1 to add brackets to clarify the summation of clinker
and raw material emissions for each kiln, and updating the definition
of ``CO<INF>2 rm</INF>'' to clarify the raw material input is on a per-
kiln basis. The proposed revisions are corrections that would harmonize
equations H-1 and H-5 with the existing recordkeeping requirements and
align the calculation methodology in the rule and e-GGRT. We are also
proposing minor corrections to the parameters of equation H-4 for
quarterly non-calcined CaO content of CKD not recycled to the kiln and
quarterly non-calcined MgO content of CKD not recycled to the kiln. The
2009 final rule inadvertently defined the equation parameters for both
quarterly non-calcined CaO content and quarterly non-calcined MgO
content as ``CKD<INF>CaO</INF>'' and ``CKD<INF>MgO</INF>'',
respectively, while equation H-4 defines these parameters as
``CKD<INF>ncCaO</INF>'' and ``CKD<INF>ncMgO</INF>''. To remove any
confusion for reporters, we are proposing to correct the defined
parameters for quarterly non-calcined CaO content and quarterly non-
calcined MgO content of CKD not recycled to ``CKD<INF>ncCaO</INF>'' and
``CKD<INF>ncMgO</INF>'', respectively. These clarifications would not
require any changes to the monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting
provisions, or impact how reporters currently collect or enter data for
their annual reports.

E. Subpart I--Electronics Manufacturing

Under subpart I of part 98 (Electronics Manufacturing), electronics
manufacturing facilities must report F-GHG and F-HTF emissions from
electronic manufacturing production processes and N<INF>2</INF>O
emissions from chemical vapor deposition (CVD) and

[[Page 36944]]

other electronics manufacturing processes. Facilities must also report
CO<INF>2</INF>, CH<INF>4</INF>, and N<INF>2</INF>O emissions from each
stationary combustion unit by following the requirements of subpart C
(General Stationary Combustion Sources).
We are proposing several amendments and clarifications to the
calculation methodologies requirements in subpart I. In addition, the
EPA is proposing conforming changes to the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements of subpart I. Changes include updating existing default
emission factors and destruction or removal efficiencies (DREs) based
on new data, revising certain calculation methods, adding a calculation
method for calculating by-products produced in abatement systems,
amending data reporting requirements, and providing clarification on
reporting requirements. We are proposing revisions that will better
reflect new industry data and current practice, improve the quality of
the data collected, and streamline the reporting requirements. We are
also proposing related confidentiality determinations for the proposed
new or revised data elements, as discussed in section VI of this
preamble.
1. Proposed Revisions To Improve the Quality of Data Collected for
Subpart I
a. Revisions To Improve the Calculation Methodology for Stack Testing
We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.93(i), which specifies how to
calculate GHG emissions based on stack testing, in order to improve,
simplify, and correct the calculation method. As discussed in section
II.A.2 of this preamble, the proposed edits would improve the quality
of the data collection and calculation requirements associated with
stack testing. First, we are proposing to add new equations I-24C and
I-24D and a table of default weighting factors (new Table I-18) to
calculate the fraction of fluorinated input gases exhausted from tools
with abatement systems, a<INF>i,f</INF>, for use in equations I-19A
through I-19C and I-21, and the fraction of by-products exhausted from
tools with abatement systems, a<INF>k,i,f</INF>, for use in equations
I-20 and I-22. Second, we are proposing to revise equations I-24A and
I-24B, which calculate the weighted average DREs for individual F-GHGs
across process types in each fab.\23\ Third, we are proposing at 40 CFR
98.93(i)(3) to require that all stacks be tested if the stack test
method is used. Finally, we are proposing to replace equation I-19 with
a set of equations (i.e., equations I-19A, I-19B, and I-19C) that will
more accurately account for emissions when pre-control emissions of an
F-GHG come close to or exceed the consumption of that F-GHG during the
stack testing period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ Fab is defined in 40 CFR 98.98 as ``the portion of an
electronics manufacturing facility located in a separate physical
structure that began manufacturing on a certain date.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first three changes to the stack test method would remove the
requirements to apportion gas consumption to different process types,
to manufacturing tools equipped versus not equipped with abatement
systems, and to tested versus untested stacks. Currently, the fractions
of fluorinated input gases and by-product gases exhausted from
manufacturing tools with abatement systems, used in equations 1-19a
through I-22, must be estimated by apportioning gas consumption to
these tools. The proposed equations I-24C and I-24D would add the
option to calculate the fraction of each input gas ``i'' and by-product
gas ``k'' exhausted from tools with abatement systems based on the
number of tools that are equipped versus not equipped with abatement
systems, along with weighting factors that account for the different
per-tool emission rates that apply to different process types.
Facilities would continue to have the option to apportion gas
consumption to tools with and without abatement systems by using
paragraph 98.93(e). They would also have the option to apportion gas
consumption to the different process types and sub-types, calculating
a<INF>i,f</INF> and a<INF>k,i,f</INF> based on the numbers of tools
with and without abatement systems within each process type or sub-
type.
Weighting factors are necessary when: (1) per-tool pre-control
emission rates differ between different process types; (2) an input gas
is consumed by more than one process type; (3) the use of the input gas
is not apportioned between the process types; and (4) the fractions of
tools equipped with emissions control technologies differ between
process types. The weighting factors ([gamma]<INF>i,p</INF> for input
gases and [gamma]<INF>k,i,p</INF> for by-product gases, provided in
Table I-18) are based on data submitted by semiconductor manufacturers
during the process of developing the 2019 Refinement.\24\ This data
source was used in lieu of subpart I data, as the EPA does not collect
data on gas consumption or gas consumption per tool. The calculated
weighting factors were within the expected range, considering the
differences between the emission factors used and the expected per-tool
gas consumption for the different process types. For
microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) or PV manufacturing that uses
semiconductor tools and processes, the weighting factors in Table I-18
can be used. For processes without a weighting factor in Table I-18, a
default of 10 must be used. More information on the data used to
develop the weighting factors in Table I-18 can be found in the
document, Technical Support for Proposed Revisions to Subpart I (2021)
(hereafter referred to as ``subpart I TSD''), available in the docket
for this rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0424.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ The data used to develop the gamma weighting factors are
also available in the IPCC workbook, ``Gamma Data Submitted by
Industry.xlsx,'' (2019), available in the docket for this
rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0424.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Equations I-24A and I-24B, which calculate the weighted average
DREs for individual F-GHGs across process types, would rarely be used
if the EPA adopts the same default DREs for all process types as
discussed in section III.E.1.b of this preamble, because there will
rarely be any need to calculate weighted average DREs across process
types in that case. The sole exception may occur when a facility uses
one or more abatement systems with a certified DRE value that is
different from the default to calculate and report controlled
emissions. To accommodate this situation and to simplify equations I-
24A and I-24B, we are proposing to modify equations I-24A and I-24B to
calculate the average DRE for each input gas ``i'' and by-product gas
``k'' based on tool counts and the same weighting factors that would be
used in equations I-24C and I-24D. This would eliminate the requirement
to apportion gas consumption by process type when using the stack test
method, even for those facilities that use abatement systems with
different DREs for the same input gas ``i'' or by-product gas ``k''.
Requiring that all stacks be tested (if the stack test method is
used) would remove not only the need to apportion gas usage to tested
versus untested stacks, but also the requirement to perform a
preliminary calculation of the emissions from each stack system (we are
proposing to remove the requirements at 40 CFR 98.93(i)(1)). The EPA
expects that the data received would be more accurate due to requiring
testing of all stacks. The EPA also expects that the revision to
measure all stacks instead of apportioning gas usage between process
type and subtype and between tested and untested stacks would
streamline the implementation of the stack testing method at facilities
and increase the likelihood of this method being used instead of the
emission factor approach. Currently, to account

[[Page 36945]]

for emissions from untested stacks, facilities must calculate gas
consumption of each F-GHG used in tools that are vented from untested
stacks by apportioning gas between untested and tested stacks. When
abatement is used, facilities also currently need to apportion by
process type. Apportioning gas requires using a fab-specific
engineering model that must be based on a quantifiable metric, such as
wafer passes or wafer starts, or direct measurement of input gas
consumption and must be verified by demonstrating its precision and
accuracy as described in 40 CFR 98.94(c)(1). As the number of stacks at
each fab is expected to be small (e.g., one to two), the EPA expects
that measuring all stacks would be more accurate and less burdensome
than developing and verifying an apportioning model.
We also seek comment on whether stack testing should also be used
to estimate N<INF>2</INF>O emissions if stack testing is the
calculation method elected. Currently, the stack testing option in
subpart I is limited to estimating emissions from F-GHGs;
N<INF>2</INF>O emissions must be estimated using the default emission
factors in Table I-8. The use of the stack testing method for
N<INF>2</INF>O was not previously recommended by industry due to: (1)
the high monthly and yearly variability in measured N<INF>2</INF>O
emission factors estimated from stack testing for some fabs; and (2)
the observation that estimated N<INF>2</INF>O emission factors from
stack testing also often exceeded 1, indicating a second, unidentified,
source of N<INF>2</INF>O.\25\ No source for the additional
N<INF>2</INF>O formation or the high variability was identified. The
EPA requests comment on the extent to which the sources of
N<INF>2</INF>O formation from electronics manufacturing have been
identified. We are also requesting comment on the expected variability
of the estimated N<INF>2</INF>O emission factor from stack testing if
using the current or revised methods for estimating emissions using
stack testing and whether ne

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on June 21, 2022.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.