[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 69 (Monday, April 12, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18652-18723]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-6768]



[[Page 18651]]

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

Part IV





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 98



Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Additional Sources of 
Fluorinated GHGs; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 18652]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 98

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927; FRL-9130-7]
RIN 2060-AQ00


Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Additional Sources of 
Fluorinated GHGs

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is revising and supplementing its initial proposed actions 
to require reporting of fluorinated greenhouse gas (fluorinated GHG) 
emissions from certain source categories. Specifically, EPA is revising 
and supplementing its initial proposal to require reporting of 
fluorinated GHG emissions from electronics manufacturing, production of 
fluorinated gases, and use of electrical transmission and distribution 
equipment. EPA is also proposing to require such reporting from 
manufacture or refurbishment of electrical equipment and import and 
export of pre-charged equipment and closed cell foams. This proposed 
rule would not require control of greenhouse gases; rather it would 
require only that sources above certain threshold levels monitor and 
report emissions.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 11, 2010. There will 
be a public hearing from 9 a.m. to 12 noon on April 20, 2010 at 1310 L 
St., NW., Room 152, Washington, DC 20005.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0927 by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: [email protected].
     Fax: (202) 566-1741.
     Mail: EPA Docket Center, Attention Docket OAR-2009-0927, 
Mail code 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading 
Room, Room 3334, EPA West Building, Attention Docket OAR-2009-0927, 
1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries 
are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and 
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed 
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0927. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be CBI or 
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not 
submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected 
through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which 
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment 
directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov your 
e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of 
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on 
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that 
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA's Docket Center, 
Public Reading Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the 
telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carole Cook, Climate Change Division, 
Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC-6207J), Environmental Protection 
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone 
number: (202) 343-9263; fax number: (202) 343-2342; e-mail address: 
[email protected]. For technical information contact the 
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule e-mail: [email protected]. To obtain 
information about the public hearings or to register to speak at the 
hearings, please go to http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additional Information on Submitting 
Comments: To expedite review of your comments by Agency staff, you are 
encouraged to send a separate copy of your comments, in addition to the 
copy you submit to the official docket, to Carole Cook, U.S. EPA, 
Office of Atmospheric Programs, Climate Change Division, Mail Code 
6207-J, Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 343-9263, e-mail 
[email protected].
    As indicated above, although EPA previously proposed a version of 
some parts of this rule, that proposal has not become final. This 
proposal partly supplements and partly replaces that initial proposal. 
Comments on the initial proposal will be considered only to the extent 
they remain relevant. To ensure that their comments on newly proposed 
or re-proposed provisions are considered, parties should submit or re-
submit them at this time.
    Regulated Entities. The Administrator determined that this action 
is subject to the provisions of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(d). See 
CAA section 307(d)(1)(V) (the provisions of section 307(d) apply to 
``such other actions as the Administrator may determine.''). This is a 
proposed regulation. If finalized, these regulations would affect 
owners or operators of electronics manufacturing facilities, 
fluorinated gas production facilities, electric power systems, and 
electrical equipment manufacturing facilities, as well as importers and 
exporters of pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams. Regulated 
categories and entities would include those listed in Table 1 of this 
preamble:

[[Page 18653]]



           Table 1--Examples of Affected Entities by Category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Examples of affected
             Category                 NAICS            facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronics Manufacturing.........     334111  Microcomputers
                                                manufacturing
                                                facilities.
                                       334413  Semiconductor,
                                                photovoltaic (solid-
                                                state) device
                                                manufacturing
                                                facilities.
                                       334419  LCD unit screens
                                                manufacturing
                                                facilities.
                                       334419  MEMS manufacturing
                                                facilities.
Fluorinated GHG Production........     325120  Industrial gases
                                                manufacturing
                                                facilities.
Electrical Equipment Use..........     221121  Electric bulk power
                                                transmission and control
                                                facilities.
Electrical Equipment Manufacture        33531  Power transmission and
 or Refurbishment.                              distribution switchgear
                                                and specialty
                                                transformers
                                                manufacturing
                                                facilities.
Importers and Exporters of Pre-        423730  Air-conditioning
 charged Equipment and Closed-Cell              equipment (except room
 Foams.                                         units) merchant
                                                wholesalers.
                                       333415  Air-conditioning
                                                equipment (except motor
                                                vehicle) manufacturing.
                                       423620  Air-conditioners, room,
                                                merchant wholesalers.
                                       443111  Household Appliance
                                                Stores.
                                       326150  Polyurethane foam
                                                products manufacturing.
                                       335313  Circuit breakers, power,
                                                manufacturing.
                                       423610  Circuit breakers merchant
                                                wholesalers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but 
rather provides a guide for readers regarding facilities likely to be 
affected by this action. Table 1 lists the types of facilities that EPA 
is now aware could be potentially affected by the reporting 
requirements. Other types of facilities and companies not listed in the 
table could also be subject to reporting requirements. To determine 
whether you are affected by this action, you should carefully examine 
the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR part 98, subpart A and the 
relevant criteria in the proposed subparts related to electronics 
manufacturing facilities, fluorinated gas production facilities, 
electrical equipment use, electrical equipment manufacturing or 
refurbishment facilities, and importers and exporters of pre-charged 
equipment and closed-cell foams. If you have questions regarding the 
applicability of this action to a particular facility, consult the 
person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Many facilities that would be affected by the proposed rule have 
GHG emissions from multiple source categories listed in 40 CFR part 98 
or in this proposed rule. Table 2 of this preamble has been developed 
as a guide to help potential reporters in the source categories subject 
to the proposed rule identify the source categories (by subpart) that 
they may need to (1) consider in their facility applicability 
determination, and/or (2) include in their reporting. The table should 
only be seen as a guide. Additional subparts in 40 CFR part 98 may be 
relevant for a given reporter. Similarly, not all listed subparts are 
relevant for all reporters.

            Table 2--Source Categories and Relevant Subparts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Source category (and main applicable   Subparts recommended for review
                subpart)                   to determine  applicability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electricity Generation.................  Electrical Equipment Use.
Electronics Manufacturing..............  General Stationary Fuel
                                          Combustion.
Fluorinated GHG Production.............  General Stationary Fuel
                                          Combustion. Suppliers of
                                          Industrial Greenhouse Gases.
Electrical Equipment Use...............  General Stationary Fuel
                                          Combustion.
Imports and Exports of Fluorinated GHGs  Suppliers of Industrial
 Inside Pre-charged Equipment and         Greenhouse Gases.
 Closed-Cell Foams.
                                         Sulfur Hexafluoride and PFCs
                                          from Electrical Equipment
                                          Manufacture and Refurbishment.
Electrical Equipment Manufacture or      General Stationary Fuel
 Refurbishment.                           Combustion
                                         Imports and Exports of
                                          Fluorinated GHGs Inside Pre-
                                          charged Equipment and Closed-
                                          Cell Foams.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and 
abbreviations are used in this document.

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BAMM Best Available Monitoring Methods
CAA Clean Air Act
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBI confidential business information
CFC chlorofluorocarbon
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e CO2-equivalent
EIA Economic Impact Analysis
EO Executive Order
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
F-GHG fluorinated greenhouse gas
FTIR fourier transform infrared (spectroscopy)
FID flame ionization detector
GC gas chromatography
GHG greenhouse gas
GWP global warming potential
HCFC hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HFC hydrofluorocarbon
HFE hydrofluoroether
HTF heat transfer fluid
ICR information collection request
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
kg kilograms
LCD liquid crystal displays
MEMS microelectromechanical devices
MMTCO2e million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent
MRR mandatory greenhouse gas reporting rule
MS mass spectrometry
N2O nitrous oxide
NACAA National Association of Clean Air Agencies
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NERC North American Energy Reliability Corporation
NESHAP National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NF3 nitrogen trifluoride

[[Page 18654]]

NMR nuclear magnetic resonance
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PFC perfluorocarbon
PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration
PV photovoltaic cells
QA quality assurance
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
R&D research and development
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RGGI Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
TCR The Climate Registry
TSD technical support document
U.S. United States
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
VOC volatile organic compound(s)
WCI Western Climate Initiative

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Organization of This Preamble
    B. Background on the Proposed Rule
    C. Legal Authority
    D. Relationship to other Federal, State and Regional Programs
II. Summary of and Rationale for the Reporting, Recordkeeping and 
Verification Requirements for Specific Source Categories
    A. Electronics Manufacturing
    B. Fluorinated Gas Production
    C. Electric Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use
    D. Imports and Exports of Fluorinated GHGs inside pre-charged 
equipment and closed-cell foams
    E. Electrical Equipment Manufacture or Refurbishment
    F. Subpart A Revisions
III. Economic Impacts on the Rule
    A. How were compliance costs estimated?
    B. What are the costs of the rule?
    C. What are the economic impacts of the rule?
    D. What are the impacts of the rule on small businesses?
    E. What are the benefits of the rule for society?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. Background

A. Organization of This Preamble

    This preamble is broken into several large sections, as detailed 
above in the Table of Contents. The paragraphs below describe the 
layout of the preamble and provide a brief summary of each section.
    The first section of this preamble contains the basic background 
information about the origin of this proposed rule, including a brief 
discussion of the initial proposed requirements for electronics, 
fluorinated gas production, and use of electrical transmission and 
distribution equipment. This section also discusses EPA's use of our 
legal authority under the CAA to collect the proposed data, and the 
benefits of collecting the data.
    The second section of this preamble provides a brief summary of, 
and rationale for, the key design elements on which EPA is seeking 
comment today for each subpart. Depending on the subpart, this section 
may include EPA's rationale for (i) the definition of the source 
category, (ii) selection of reporting threshold, (iii) selection of 
proposed reporting and monitoring methods, (iv) selection of procedures 
for estimating missing data, (v) selection of data reporting 
requirements, and (vi) selection of records that must be retained. EPA 
describes the proposed options for each design element, as well as the 
other options considered. Throughout this discussion, EPA highlights 
specific issues on which we solicit comment. Please refer to the 
specific source category of interest for more details.
    The third section provides the summary of the cost impacts, 
economic impacts, and benefits of this proposed rule from the Economic 
Analysis. Finally, the last section discusses the various statutory and 
executive order requirements applicable to this proposed rulemaking.

B. Background on the Proposed Rule

    The Final Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule (Final MRR), (40 CFR part 
98) was signed by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson on September 22, 2009 
and published in the Federal Register on October 30, 2009 (74 FR 
56260). The Final MRR, which became effective on December 29, 2009, 
included reporting of GHGs from the facilities and suppliers that EPA 
determined should be included to appropriately respond to the direction 
in the 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act.\1\ These source categories 
capture approximately 85 percent of U.S. GHG emissions through 
reporting by direct emitters as well as suppliers of fossil fuels and 
industrial gases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In the April 2009 proposed mandatory GHG reporting rule, the 
electronics, fluorinated GHG production, and electrical equipment use 
source categories were included as subparts I, L, and DD. In addition, 
EPA requested comment on requiring reporting under subpart OO of the 
quantities of fluorinated GHGs imported and exported inside pre-charged 
equipment and foams. EPA received a number of lengthy, detailed 
comments regarding proposed subparts I and L, several comments 
regarding the definition of ``facility'' under subpart DD, and several 
comments regarding a reporting requirement for imports and exports of 
fluorinated GHGs contained inside pre-charged equipment and foams. 
These comments, which are described in more detail in the discussions 
of the individual source categories below, raised concerns about the 
costs and technical feasibility of implementing subparts I and L as 
initially proposed, requested clarification of how ``facility'' should 
be interpreted under subpart DD, and both favored and opposed a 
requirement to report imports of fluorinated GHGs contained in imported 
and exported pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams.
    EPA recognized the concerns raised by stakeholders, and decided not 
to finalize subparts I, L, and DD with the Final MRR, but instead to 
re-propose significant pieces of these subparts. For subparts I and L 
this proposal incorporates a number of changes including, but not 
limited to, the addition of different methodologies that provide 
improved emissions coverage at a lower cost burden to facilities as 
compared to the initial proposal. Where aspects of the initial 
proposals for subparts I and L are retained in this proposal, such as 
in the basic mass-balance methodology for subpart L (as an option for 
some facilities) and in many of the equations for subpart I, today's 
proposal adds more flexibility in how and how frequently the underlying 
data are gathered. In addition, EPA is proposing requirements to report 
emissions from manufacture or refurbishment of electrical equipment and 
to report the quantities of fluorinated GHGs imported and exported 
inside pre-charged equipment and foams.
    We believe the monitoring approaches proposed in this action, which 
combine direct measurement and facility-specific calculations, 
effectively balance

[[Page 18655]]

accuracy and costs, and that they are warranted even though the rule 
does not contain any emissions reduction requirements. As we stated in 
the Final MRR, the data collected by the rule are expected to be used 
in analyzing and developing a range of potential CAA GHG policies and 
programs. A consistent and accurate data set is crucial to serve this 
intended purpose.
    Under this proposed rule, facilities not already reporting but 
required to report under this rule would begin data collection in 2011 
following the methods outlined in the proposed rule and would submit 
data to EPA by March 31, 2012. As is the case under the Final MRR, 
facilities would have the option to use Best Available Monitoring 
Methods (BAMM) for the first quarter of the first reporting year for 
the source categories included in this proposed rule. Thus, for these 
source categories, facilities could use BAMM through March 31, 2011.

C. Legal Authority

    EPA is proposing this rule under its existing CAA authority, 
specifically authorities provided in CAA section 114. As discussed 
further below and in ``Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's 
Response to Public Comments, Legal Issues'' (available in EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0508), EPA is not citing the FY 2008 Consolidated Appropriations 
Act as the statutory basis for this action. While that law required 
that EPA spend no less than $3.5 million on a rule requiring the 
mandatory reporting of GHG emissions, it is the CAA, not the 
Appropriations Act, that EPA is citing as the authority to gather the 
information proposed by this rule.
    As stated in the Final MRR, CAA section 114 provides EPA broad 
authority to require the information proposed by this rule because such 
data would inform and are relevant to EPA's carrying out a wide variety 
of CAA provisions. As discussed in the initial proposed rule (74 FR 
16448, April 10, 2009), CAA section 114(a)(1) authorizes the 
Administrator to require emissions sources, persons subject to the CAA, 
or persons whom the Administrator believes may have necessary 
information to monitor and report emissions and provide such other 
information the Administrator requests for the purposes of carrying out 
any provision of the CAA. EPA notes that while climate change 
legislation approved by the U.S. House of Representatives, and pending 
in the U.S. Senate, would provide EPA additional authority for a GHG 
registry similar to this proposed rule, and would do so for purposes of 
that pending legislation, this proposed rule is authorized by, and the 
information being gathered by this proposed rule is relevant to 
implementing, the existing CAA. EPA expects, however, that the 
information collected by this proposed rule would also prove useful to 
legislative efforts to address GHG emissions.
    For further information about EPA's legal authority, see the 
proposed and Final MRR.

D. Relationship to Other Federal, State and Regional Programs

    In developing this proposed rule, EPA reviewed monitoring methods 
included in international guidance (e.g., Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change), as well as Federal voluntary programs (e.g., EPA PFC 
Reduction/Climate Partnership for the Semiconductor Industry and the 
U.S. Department of Energy Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases 
Program (1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act), corporate protocols (e.g., 
World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable 
Development GHG Protocol) and industry guidance (e.g., 2006 ISMI 
Guideline for Environmental Characterization of Semiconductor Process 
Equipment).
    EPA also reviewed State reporting programs (e.g., California and 
New Mexico) and Regional partnerships (e.g., Regional Greenhouse Gas 
Initiative, Western Climate Initiative, The Climate Registry). These 
are important programs that not only led the way in reporting of GHG 
emissions before the Federal government acted but also assist in 
quantifying the GHG reductions achieved by various policies. Many of 
these programs collect different or additional data as compared to this 
proposed rule. For example, State programs may establish lower 
thresholds for reporting, request information on areas not addressed in 
EPA's reporting rule, or include different data elements to support 
other programs (e.g., offsets). For further discussion on the 
relationship of this proposed rule to other programs, please refer to 
the preamble to the Final MRR.

II. Summary of and Rationale for the Reporting, Recordkeeping and 
Verification Requirements for Specific Source Categories

A. Electronics Manufacturing

1. Overview of Reporting Requirements
    Electronics manufacturing includes, but is not limited to, the 
manufacture of semiconductors, liquid crystal displays (LCDs), micro-
electro-mechanical systems (MEMS), and photovoltaic cells (PV). The 
electronics industry uses multiple long-lived fluorinated greenhouse 
gases (fluorinated GHGs) such as perfluorocarbons (PFCs), 
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and 
nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), as well as nitrous oxide 
(N2O). This proposed rule would apply to electronics 
manufacturing facilities where emissions from electronics manufacturing 
processes such as plasma etching, chemical vapor deposition, chamber 
cleaning, and heat transfer fluid use as well as stationary fuel 
combustion units equal or exceed 25,000 metric tons of CO2e 
per year.\2\ In this action, we are proposing methods to estimate 
emissions from cleaning and etching for semiconductor, LCD, MEMS, and 
PV manufacture and also methods for estimating N2O emissions 
from chemical vapor deposition and other manufacturing processes such 
as chamber cleaning. We are also clarifying methods for estimating 
emissions from heat transfer fluids. And lastly, we are proposing 
methods for reporting controlled emissions from abatement systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As discussed further below, EPA is proposing that 
uncontrolled emissions be used for purposes of determining whether a 
facility's emissions are equal to or greater than 25,000 
mtCO2e.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Major Changes Since Initial Rule Proposed
    In the initial proposal for electronics manufacturing, we included 
the following provisions for reporting emissions from electronics 
manufacture: (1) A capacity-based threshold for semiconductors, LCDs, 
and MEMS facilities and an emissions-based threshold for PV facilities; 
(2) methods for estimating fluorinated GHG emissions from etching and 
cleaning; (3) methods for estimating N2O emissions during 
etching and cleaning; (4) methods for verifying destruction or removal 
efficiency (DRE) of abatement systems; and (5) methods for estimating 
emissions from heat transfer fluids.
    As noted in the preamble to the Final MRR, we received a number of 
lengthy, detailed comments regarding the electronics manufacturing 
subpart. In total, we received comments from approximately 10 entities 
on the proposed rule regarding electronics manufacture. The commenters 
generally opposed the proposed reporting requirements for large 
semiconductor facilities and stated that excessive monitoring and 
reporting were required. For example, commenters asserted that they do 
not currently collect the data required to report using an IPCC Tier 3

[[Page 18656]]

approach, and that to collect such data would entail significant burden 
and capital costs. In most cases, commenters provided alternative 
approaches to each of the reporting requirements.
    We have carefully reviewed the comments, issues, and suggestions 
raised by stakeholders regarding electronics manufacturing. In 
response, we are revising our initial proposal and are proposing the 
following reporting provisions for electronics manufacture: (1) A 
single emissions-based reporting threshold for all semiconductor, LCD, 
MEMS, and PV facilities; (2) modified methods for estimating emissions 
from cleaning and etching activities for semiconductor facilities and 
other electronics facilities including those that manufacture LCDs, 
MEMS, and PVs; (3) modified methods for estimating facility 
N2O emissions; (4) clarified methods for estimating 
emissions from heat transfer fluids; and (5) revised methods for 
reporting controlled emissions from abatement systems.
    In the paragraphs below, we summarize the main provisions included 
in the initial proposal for reporting emissions from electronics 
manufacturing and we briefly summarize the major changes that are being 
proposed today. For more detailed information on the initial proposal, 
see the electronics manufacturing section of EPA's proposed MRR (74 FR 
16448, April 10, 2009).
    Reporting Threshold. In the initial proposal, we proposed a 
capacity-based threshold, requiring those facilities with emissions 
equal to or greater than the thresholds to report their GHG emissions. 
We proposed production capacity-based thresholds of 1,080 m \2\, 1,020 
m \2\, and 236,000 m \2\ of substrate for semiconductor, MEMS, and LCD 
manufacturing facilities, respectively. The capacity-based threshold 
proposed were equivalent to 25,000 mtCO2e using the IPCC 
2006 Tier 1 default factors and assumed no abatement. Where IPCC 2006 
Tier 1 default emission factors were unavailable (i.e., MEMS), the 
emission factor was estimated based on relevant IPCC Tier 1 emission 
factors for semiconductor production. Due to a lack of information on 
use and emissions of fluorinated GHGs for PV manufacture, we proposed 
an emissions-based threshold of 25,000 mtCO2e for those 
facilities. We proposed to use a capacity-based threshold based on the 
published capacities of facilities, as opposed to an emissions-based 
threshold, where possible, because we believed that it simplified the 
applicability determination.
    Several commenters stated that the proposed capacity-based 
threshold created ambiguity. For example, one commenter noted that it 
was unclear how production capacity was defined as actual manufacturing 
levels could fluctuate year by year. In response to these comments, we 
are now proposing a single emissions-based threshold equal to or 
greater than 25,000 metric tons of CO2e per year for 
electronics manufacturing facilities. We have concluded that a single 
emissions-based threshold will simplify the applicability determination 
and that by applying the method for determining whether the threshold 
is met, a facility will be able to quickly determine whether they must 
report under this rule.
    Estimating Emissions from Cleaning and Etching Processes. With 
respect to estimating emissions from chamber cleaning and etching, in 
our initial proposal, we outlined two different methods; one method for 
relatively large semiconductor facilities, and another method for all 
other semiconductor facilities and LCD, MEMS, and PV facilities 
required to report. We defined large semiconductor facilities as those 
facilities with annual capacities of greater than 10,500 m\2\ silicon 
(equivalent to 29 out of 175 total semiconductor manufacturing 
facilities). For large semiconductor facilities we proposed an approach 
based on the IPCC Tier 3 method that required the use of company-
specific data for (1) gas consumption, (2) gas utilization,\3\ (3) by-
product formation \4\, and (4) DRE for all emissions abatement 
processes at the facility. As we stated in the initial proposal, we had 
concluded that large semiconductor facilities were already using Tier 3 
methods and/or had the necessary data readily available either in-house 
or from suppliers to apply the highest Tier method. For smaller 
semiconductor facilities and LCD, MEMS, and PV facilities, we proposed 
an approach based on the IPCC Tier 2b method, which required using 
default emission factors for process utilization, by-product formation, 
and site-specific DRE measurements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For purposes of electronics manufacturing, we are using the 
term ``gas utilization'' to describe the fraction of input 
N2O or fluorinated GHG converted to other substances 
during the etching, deposition, and/or chamber/wafer cleaning 
processes. Gas utilization is expressed as a rate or factor for 
specific manufacturing processes. ``Utilization'' should not be 
confused with ``use;'' ``use'' refers to gas consumption or the 
quantity of gas fed into process at an electronics manufacturing 
facility.
    \4\ For purposes of electronics manufacturing, ``by-product 
formation'' is the quantity of fluorinated GHGs created during 
electronics manufacturing processes. Fluorinated GHG by-products may 
also be formed by abatement devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments received in response to our initial proposal stated that 
the 2006 IPCC Tier 3 method would be overly burdensome for 
semiconductor manufacturers and that process-specific emission factors 
do not exist for many tools and processes. The commenters noted that 
most semiconductor facilities do not track gas consumption by tool or 
process-type and that currently, only one large semiconductor company 
uses the Tier 3 method. Generally, commenters requested the use of the 
2006 IPCC Tier 2b method.
    In response to these comments, we are now proposing the use of a 
``Refined Method'' for estimating these emissions from semiconductor 
facilities. Our revised methodology includes a simpler approach to 
estimating emissions from cleaning and etching as compared to the Tier 
3 method that was initially proposed for larger semiconductor 
facilities. To this end, we estimate that our proposed methodology will 
result in a reduction in burden compared to the Tier 3 method for those 
facilities previously defined as large semiconductor facilities, and an 
improvement in accuracy of the emissions estimate as compared to the 
2006 IPCC Tier 2b method. Furthermore, since we anticipate that all 
semiconductor facilities already have, or have ready access to, the 
information required by this proposed methodology, we are also 
proposing to require all semiconductor facilities required to report to 
estimate emissions using the Refined Method. We have concluded the 
method we are proposing is the most appropriate method taking into 
account both the cost to the reporter as well as accuracy of emissions 
achieved.
    For LCD, MEMS, and PV facilities, in this action we are proposing 
to require an approach based on a slightly modified 2006 IPCC Tier 2b 
method which would include (1) gas-and facility-specific heel factors 
(consistent with the requirements we are proposing for semiconductor 
facilities), (2) gas consumption apportioned to 2006 IPCC Tier 2b 
process categories (i.e. clean and etch), (3) default factors 
consistent with the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b factors, and (4) methods for 
reporting controlled emissions from abatement systems (as proposed 
below). The main difference between the method proposed in this revised 
proposal and in the initial proposal is the addition of a gas-and 
facility-specific heel factor to determine overall gas consumption. We 
did not receive any comments on the Tier 2b method that we proposed for 
LCD, MEMS, and PV facilities in our initial proposal. We are proposing 
to add the requirement of gas-and-facility specific

[[Page 18657]]

heel factors based on comments received from semiconductor facilities 
in response to the initial proposal. It is our understanding that LCD, 
MEMS, and PV facilities have the data required to develop a gas-and-
facility specific heel factors and that it can be implemented with 
minimal burden.
    Estimating Facility N2O Emissions. In our initial proposal, our 
approach required that facilities estimate annual N2O 
emissions using a simple mass-balance method. This method assumed that 
all N2O consumed is emitted (i.e., not converted or 
destroyed). We also requested comment on utilization factors for 
N2O as well as on data on N2O by-product 
formation.
    In response to our initial proposal, we received comments that 
clarified that N2O is used primarily in the chemical vapor 
deposition process. Commenters opposed our proposed method for 
estimating N2O emissions, which assumed 100 percent 
N2O used is emitted, and asserted that semiconductor 
facilities should be permitted to use measured N2O emission 
factors where these factors were measured using methods consistent with 
the December 2006 International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative's 
Guideline for Environmental Characterization of Semiconductor Process 
Equipment (2006 ISMI Guidelines). Commenters also noted that facilities 
that have not developed N2O emission factors should be 
allowed to use a default emission factor of 60 percent, reflecting 
N2O utilization of 40 percent.\5\ Lastly, commenters 
asserted that those companies that have a measured DRE for 
N2O abatement be allowed to apply these DREs in the emission 
estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The 40% utilization rate (60% emission factor) was 
identified based on a survey of industry conducted by ISMI and 
provided in comments in response to the initial proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are now proposing two methods for estimating N2O 
emissions from electronics manufacturing: one for estimating 
N2O emissions from chemical vapor deposition and another for 
estimating N2O emissions from all other manufacturing 
processes such as chamber cleaning.
    Reporting Controlled Emissions From Abatement Systems. The 
emissions estimation method originally proposed accounted for 
destruction by abatement systems only if facilities verified the 
performance of their systems using one of two methods. In particular, 
we proposed to require that the DRE be verified by either (1) 
measurement by the facility using the methods described in EPA's 
Protocol for Measuring Destruction or Removal Efficiency of Fluorinated 
Greenhouse Gas Abatement Equipment in Electronics Manufacturing (EPA's 
DRE Protocol), or (2) purchase by the facility of abatement systems 
that were tested by a third party using a standard protocol such as 
EPA's DRE Protocol.
    We also proposed to require that facilities use the systems within 
the manufacturer's specified system lifetime, operate the system within 
the manufacturer specific limits for the gas mix and exhaust flow rate 
intended for the fluorinated GHG destruction, and maintain the 
equipment according to the manufacturer's guidelines.
    In response to the initial proposal, commenters were generally 
opposed to EPA's initial approach for measuring DRE, noting that 
according to the Results of the ISMI ESH Technology Center Greenhouse 
Gas Facility Survey, less than one percent of installed abatement 
systems have been properly tested using the draft EPA Protocol and that 
generally, facilities use the IPCC default factors or manufacturer-
supplied measurements. In addition, commenters were also opposed to 
EPA's proposed requirement that facilities rely on manufacturer-
specified system lifetime as properly maintained and serviced abatement 
systems can last beyond the manufactures' specified lifetime. For 
purposes of this reporting rule, we are now proposing that facilities 
that wish to document and report fluorinated GHG and N2O 
emissions reflecting the use of abatement systems adhere to a method 
that would require (1) documentation to certify that the abatement 
device is installed, operated, and maintained according to 
manufacturers' specifications, (2) accounting for the system's uptime, 
and (3) either certification that the abatement system is specifically 
designed for fluorinated GHG and N2O abatement and the use 
of EPA default DRE value, or directly and properly measured DRE (i.e., 
in accordance with EPA DRE Protocol) confirming abatement system's 
performance.
    Estimating Emissions from Heat Transfer Fluids. To estimate the 
emissions from heat transfer fluids we proposed to require that 
electronics manufacturers use the 2006 IPCC Tier 2 approach, which is 
based on a mass-balance method. As we stated in the initial proposal, 
the 2006 IPCC Tier 2 approach uses company-specific data and accounts 
for differences among facilities' heat transfer fluids, leak rates, and 
service practices.
    In comments we received on our initial proposal, it was noted that 
our proposed method for estimating emissions from heat transfer fluids 
would require companies to compile a detailed inventory of all 
fluorinated heat transfer equipment and its nameplate capacity. 
Comments stated that such a mass balance approach would be overly 
burdensome.
    In evaluating these comments, we believe that there was some 
confusion regarding our intended method. As a result, we are not 
changing the broad outlines of our initial proposal, but we are 
clarifying required data elements.
3. Definition of the Source Category
    The electronics industry uses multiple long-lived fluorinated GHGs 
such as PFCs, HFCs, SF6, and NF3, as well as 
N2O, during manufacturing of semiconductors, LCDs, MEMS, and 
PV. We understand that there are other electronics manufacturers such 
as those facilities that manufacture light-emitting diodes (LEDs) and 
disk readers that use fluorinated GHGs in similar manufacturing 
processes as semiconductors. As a result, we are seeking information on 
fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions associated with the 
manufacture of these products and also comment on whether to include 
them as part of the electronics manufacturing source category. It is 
our intent to include these other sources as part of the electronics 
manufacturing source category in the final rule where their emissions 
meet or exceed our proposed threshold of 25,000 mtCO2e.
    Fluorinated GHGs are used for plasma etching of silicon materials, 
cleaning deposition tool chambers, and wafer cleaning. N2O 
is also used in depositing certain films and chamber cleaning. 
Additionally, electronics manufacturing employs fluorinated GHGs 
(typically liquids at ambient temperature) as heat transfer fluids. The 
most common fluorinated GHGs in use for these purposes are 
CHF3 (HFC-23), CF4, C2F6, 
NF3, SF6 and FluorinertTM and 
Galden[reg] heat transfer fluids; other compounds such as 
perfluoropropane (C3F8) and perfluorocyclobutane 
(c-C4F8) are also used in smaller quantities 
(EPA, 2008a). Table 3 of this preamble presents fluorinated GHGs 
typically used during manufacture of electronics devices.

[[Page 18658]]



 Table 3--Examples of Fluorinated GHGs Used by the Electronics Industry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fluorinated GHGs used during
              Product type                         manufacture
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronics (e.g., Semiconductor, MEMS,  CF4, C2F6, C3F8, c-C4F8, c-
 LCD, PV).                                C4F8O, C4F6, C5F8, CHF3,
                                          CH2F2, NF3, SF6, and Heat
                                          Transfer Fluids (CF3-(O-
                                          CF(CF3)-CF2)n-(O-CF2)m-O-CF3,
                                          CnF2n+2, CnF2n+1(O)CmF2m+1,
                                          CnF2nO, (CnF2n+1)3N) \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ IPCC Guidelines do not specify the fluorinated GHGs used for MEMS
  production. Literature reviews revealed that among others CF4, SF6,
  and the Bosch process (consisting of alternating steps of SF6 and c-
  C4F8) are used to manufacture MEMS. For further information, see the
  Electronics Manufacturing TSD in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-
  HQ-OAR-2009-0927).

    Description of Electronics Manufacturing Processes and Activities. 
Fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions result from the following 
electronics processes and activities:
    (1) Plasma etching;
    (2) Chemical vapor deposition;
    (3) Chamber cleaning;
    (4) Wafer cleaning; and
    (5) Heat transfer fluid use.
    Plasma etching, essential to fabricating intricate, nanometer size 
features in contemporary electronic devices, is the removal of solid 
material from a substrate surface with gaseous reactants, in plasma, to 
produce gaseous products, which are then pumped away and disposed. 
Unless abated, unreacted fluorinated reactants or fluorinated GHG by-
products from etching are emitted into the atmosphere.
    Typical fluorinated GHG etching reagents, used either individually 
or in combination, are CF4, CHF3, 
C2F6 and c-C4F8 for silicon 
dioxide and nitride films; CF4, NF3 and 
SF6 for polysilicon films; and CHF3 for aluminum 
and SF6 for tungsten films. A typical fluorinated GHG by-
product from etching processes is CF4; in some instances 
C2F6 may also be formed.
    Deposition is a fundamental step in the fabrication of a variety of 
electronic devices. During deposition, layers of dielectric, barrier, 
or electrically conductive films are deposited or grown on a wafer or 
other substrate. Chemical vapor deposition enables the deposition of 
dielectric or metal films. During the chemical vapor deposition 
process, gases that contain atoms of the material to be deposited react 
on the wafer surface to form a thin film of solid material. Films 
deposited by chemical vapor deposition may be silicon oxide, single-
layer crystal epitaxial silicon, amorphous silicon, silicon nitride, 
dielectric anti-reflective coatings, low k dielectric, aluminum, 
titanium, titanium nitride, polysilicon, tungsten, refractory metals or 
silicides. Nitrous oxide may be the oxidizer of choice during 
deposition of silicon oxide films.
    Chambers used for depositing polysilicon, dielectric and metal 
films are cleaned periodically using fluorinated GHGs, N2O, 
and other gases. During the cleaning cycle, the gas is converted to 
fluorine atoms in plasma, which etches away residual silicon-containing 
material from chamber walls, electrodes, and chamber hardware. 
Undissociated fluorinated gases and other fluorinated and non-
fluorinated products pass from the chamber to waste streams and, unless 
emissions control systems are employed, into the atmosphere.
    Typical fluorinated GHGs used for chamber cleaning are 
NF3, C2F6 and 
C3F8. N2O may also be used to reduce 
particle formation during chamber cleaning. As with etching films, 
fluorinated GHG by-products may be formed during chamber cleaning, 
typically CF4.
    During wafer processing, any residual photoresist material can be 
removed through an ashing process, which consists of placing partially 
processed wafers in an oxygen plasma to which CF4 may be 
added. The edges of wafers (the bevel) may require 
additional cleaning to remove yield-reducing residual material. Bevel 
cleaning may also use a plasma process with fluorinated gas chemistry. 
In both of these wafer cleaning processes, unused fluorinated GHGs are 
emitted unless abated.
    Fluorinated GHG liquids (at ambient temperature) such as fully 
fluorinated linear, branched or cyclic alkanes, ethers, tertiary amines 
and aminoethers, and mixtures thereof are used as heat transfer fluids 
at several semiconductor facilities to cool process equipment, control 
temperature during device testing, and solder semiconductor devices to 
circuit boards. The fluorinated heat transfer fluid's high vapor 
pressures can lead to evaporative losses during use.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Electronics Manufacturing TSD (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927); 2006 
IPCC Guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our understanding is that heat transfer fluids are widely used 
within semiconductor manufacturing. We are seeking comment on the 
extent of use and annual replacement quantities of heat transfer fluids 
in other electronics sectors, such as their use for cooling or cleaning 
during LCD manufacture.
    Total U.S. Emissions From Electronics Manufacturing. Emissions of 
fluorinated GHGs from 216 electronics facilities were estimated to be 
6.1 million metric tons CO2e in 2006. Below is a breakdown 
of emissions by electronics product type.
    Semiconductors. Emissions of fluorinated GHGs, including heat 
transfer fluids, from 175 semiconductor facilities were estimated to be 
5.9 million metric tons CO2e in 2006. Of the total estimated 
semiconductor emissions, 5.4 million metric tons CO2e are 
from etching/chamber cleaning and 0.5 million metric tons 
CO2e are from heat transfer fluid usage.
    MEMS. Emissions of fluorinated GHGs from 12 MEMS facilities were 
estimated to be 0.1 million metric tons CO2e in 2006.
    LCDs. Emissions of fluorinated GHGs from 9 LCD facilities were 
estimated to be 0.02 million metric tons CO2e in 2006.
    PV. Emissions of fluorinated GHGs from 20 PV facilities were 
estimated to be 0.07 million metric tons CO2e in 2006. We 
request comment on the number and capacity of PV facilities that employ 
thin film technologies (i.e., amorphous silicon) and other PV 
manufacturing facilities in the United States using fluorinated GHGs.
    For additional background information on the electronics industry, 
refer to the Electronics Manufacturing Technical Support Document (TSD) 
in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927).
4. Threshold for Reporting
    For facilities that manufacture semiconductors, LCD, MEMS, and PV, 
we are proposing an emissions-based threshold of 25,000 
mtCO2e. Consistent with other sections of the Final MRR, EPA 
is proposing that for the purposes of determining whether a facility 
emits amounts equal to or greater than 25,000 mtCO2e, a 
facility must include emissions from all source categories for which 
methods are provided in the rule. For purposes of the threshold 
determination under subpart I, we are proposing two different methods, 
depending on whether the facility

[[Page 18659]]

manufacturers semiconductors, MEMS, LCDs or PVs (see proposed section 
98.91). It is important to note that these methods are only for 
determining whether a facility exceeds the threshold; the proposed 
methods required for monitoring and reporting emissions data are 
presented in section 5 below.
    To determine whether a manufacturer falls above or below the 
proposed 25,000 mtCO2e threshold, we are proposing that 
semiconductor, MEMS, and LCD facilities use gas specific emission 
factors assuming 100 percent manufacturing capacity to calculate annual 
metric tons of emissions in CO2 equivalents. Because we 
understand that heat transfer fluids are widely used within 
semiconductor manufacturing, we are proposing that semiconductor 
manufacturers add 10 percent of total clean and etch emissions at a 
facility to their estimate. For applicability purposes, we propose that 
manufacturing capacity means the facility's full planned design 
capacity.
    The gas specific emission factors we are proposing to use for 
threshold applicability for semiconductors and LCD facilities are 
consistent with the 2006 IPCC Tier 1 emission factors. For MEMS, 
because there are no IPCC factors available, we are assuming that 
SF6 accounts for 100 percent of the sector's total 
emissions. The emission factor we are proposing for threshold 
applicability is based on the assumption that the MEMS SF6 
emission factor is equivalent to the IPCC Tier 1 SF6 
emission factor for semiconductors, scaled up by a factor of 5.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For a more detailed explanation of MEMS default factor, 
please refer to the Electronics Manufacturing TSD (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-
0927).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are proposing that PV facilities multiply annual fluorinated GHG 
purchases or consumption by the gas-appropriate 100-year GWPs, as 
defined in Table A-1 of subpart A of part 98, to calculate annual 
metric tons of emissions in CO2 equivalents. None of these 
calculations would account for emission abatement systems.
    We are proposing to require an emissions estimating method that 
does not account for destruction by abatement systems because actual 
emissions from facilities employing abatement systems may exceed 
estimates when based on the manufacturers' rated DREs of the equipment 
and may therefore exceed the 25,000 mtCO2e threshold without 
the knowledge of the facility operators. When abatement equipment is 
used, electronics manufacturers often estimate their emissions using 
the manufacturer-supplied DRE for the system. However, an abatement 
system may fail to achieve its rated DRE either because it was not 
installed properly, is not being properly operated and maintained, or 
because the DRE value itself was incorrectly measured due to a failure 
to properly account for the effects of dilution. For example, reported 
DREs for CF4 can be overstated by as much as a factor of 20 
to 50, and the corresponding figure for C2F6 can 
be overstated by a factor of up to 10 because of failure to properly 
account for dilution (Burton, 2007).
    In our analysis of the emissions thresholds, we considered 
thresholds of 1,000 mtCO2e, 10,000 mtCO2e, 25,000 
mtCO2e, and 100,000 mtCO2e per year. To estimate 
the number of semiconductor facilities that would have to report under 
each of the various thresholds, we estimated emissions for each 
facility in the U.S. by using IPCC Tier 1 emission factors. These 
emissions estimates were then evaluated to determine how many 
facilities would meet the various thresholds. To estimate the 
collective emissions from the facilities that would have to report 
under the various thresholds, we used information from EPA's PFC 
Reduction/Climate Partnership for Semiconductors and the EPA PFC 
Emissions Vintaging Model.
    To estimate the number of LCD and PV facilities that would have to 
report under the various thresholds, as well as the collective 
emissions from these facilities, we used IPCC Tier 1 emission factors. 
Because IPCC emission factors for MEMS are not available, the number of 
facilities that would have to report and the collective emissions from 
these facilities were determined using an emission factor based on a 
relevant IPCC Tier 1 emission factor for semiconductor production.\8\ 
All of our analyses assumed no abatement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For a more detailed explanation of MEMS default emission 
factor, please refer to the Electronics Manufacturing TSD (EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0927).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 4 of this preamble shows emissions and facilities that would 
be captured by the respective emissions thresholds.

                              Table 4--Threshold Analysis for Electronics Industry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Emissions covered       Facilities covered
Emission threshold level metric tons     Total     Total number ------------------------------------------------
               CO2e/yr                  national        of       metric tons
                                       emissions    facilities     CO2e/yr     Percent    Facilities    Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,000...............................    5,984,463           216    5,962,091       99.6           165         76
10,000..............................    5,984,463           216    5,813,200         97           114         53
25,000..............................    5,984,463           216    5,622,570         94            94         44
100,000.............................    5,984,463           216    4,737,622         79            55         26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We selected the 25,000 mtCO2e per year threshold because 
it maximizes emissions reporting, while excluding small facilities that 
do not contribute significantly to the overall GHG emissions.
    Table 5 of this preamble shows the estimated emissions and number 
of facilities that would report for each type of source under the 
proposed emissions-based thresholds.

                                          Table 5--Summary of Rule Applicability Under the Proposed Thresholds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Total        Emissions covered       Facilities covered
                                                                                  Total      emissions  ------------------------------------------------
              Emissions source                           Threshold              national     of source
                                                                               facilities     (metric    metric tons   Percent    Facilities    Percent
                                                                                             tons CO2e)    CO2e/yr
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Semi-conductors.............................  25,000 Mt CO2 Eq..............           175    5,741,676    5,492,066         96            91         52

[[Page 18660]]

 
MEMS........................................  25,000 Mt CO2 Eq..............            12      146,115       96,164         66             2         17
LCD.........................................  25,000 Mt CO2 Eq..............             9       23,632            0          0             0          0
PV..........................................  25,000 Mt CO2 Eq..............            20       73,039       34,340         47             1          5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed emissions-based thresholds are estimated to include 
approximately 50 percent of semiconductor facilities and between 
approximately 5 percent and 17 percent of the facilities manufacturing 
PV and MEMS, respectively. At the same time, the thresholds are 
expected to cover nearly 96 percent of fluorinated GHG emissions from 
semiconductor facilities, 66 percent of fluorinated GHG emissions from 
facilities manufacturing MEMS, and 47 percent of fluorinated GHG 
emissions from facilities manufacturing PV. Combined, these emissions 
are estimated to account for close to 94 percent of fluorinated GHG 
emissions from the electronics industry as a whole.
    Based on our current analysis, facilities manufacturing LCDs are 
not expected to meet the proposed threshold. In addition, only 2 MEMS 
facilities and 1 PV facility are expected to be covered. The data and 
information that we currently have on MEMS, LCD, and PV manufacturing, 
however, is limited and incomplete. We are including these sectors 
because they have similar fluorinated GHG and N2O use and 
manufacturing processes as those of semiconductor manufacturing and 
they are high growth sectors. We estimate that emissions from MEMS, 
LCD, and PV may be higher than our data show currently and we expect 
them to increase in the future.
    For additional background information on the threshold analysis, 
refer to the Electronics Manufacturing TSD. For specific information on 
costs, including unamortized first year capital expenditures, please 
refer to the EIA and the EIA cost appendix.
5. Selection of Proposed Monitoring Methods
    We are proposing methods to monitor and estimate fluorinated GHG 
and N2O emissions from semiconductor, LCD, MEMS, and PV 
manufacture. The proposed methods discussed below include the 
following: (a) Estimating emissions from cleaning and etching 
processes; (b) estimating facility N2O emissions; (c) 
estimating emissions from heat transfer fluids; and (d) reporting 
controlled emissions from abatement equipment. The methods described 
and proposed in this section are for estimating emissions that would be 
required to be reported under this subpart (see proposed sections 98.93 
and 98.94). It is important to note that these methods differ from 
those proposed in the section above which are for determining 
applicability of the subpart.
a. Methods for Estimating Emissions From Cleaning and Etching Processes
    We are proposing different methods for estimating fluorinated GHG 
emissions from etching and cleaning based on whether the facility is a 
semiconductor manufacturer or an LCD, MEMS, or PV manufacturer.
    Method for Semiconductor Facilities. Under this proposal, all 
semiconductor manufacturers that have emissions equal to or greater 
than 25,000 mtCO2e would be required to estimate and report 
emissions from etching and cleaning using one of two approaches. First, 
we are proposing an approach, hereinafter referred to as the ``Refined 
Method,'' that is based on:
    (1) Gas consumption as calculated using the facility's purchase 
records, inventory, and gas- and facility-specific heel factors,
    (2) Facility-specific methods for apportioning gas consumption by 
process category \9\ using indicators of GHG-using activity (e.g., 
wafer passes),
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For purposes of electronic manufacturing, ``process 
category'' is a set of similar manufacturing steps, performed for 
the same purpose, associated with substrate (e.g., wafer) processing 
during device manufacture for which fluorinated GHG and 
N2O emissions and fluorinated GHG and N2O 
usages are calculated and reported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Emission factors for utilization and by-product formation rates 
based on refined process categories (e.g., categories with more 
specificity than the simpler cleaning and etching categories listed in 
the 2006 IPCC Guidelines), and
    (4) Methods for reporting controlled emissions (as proposed below).
    Alternatively, we are proposing to permit those facilities that 
have monitoring infrastructure or the necessary data to estimate 
emissions obtained through recipe-specific measurements to report their 
emissions using their data by following an approach consistent with the 
2006 IPCC Tier 3 method. In addition, for those semiconductor 
manufacturers that fabricate electronic devices on wafers of measuring 
greater than 300 mm in diameter, we are proposing to require that they 
estimate and report their emissions using recipe-specific measurements 
and follow an approach consistent with the IPCC Tier 3 method. Each of 
these approaches is discussed below.
    Refined Method.
    The Refined Method would apply to all covered semiconductor 
facilities and would not make a distinction between relatively large 
and other facilities. In the paragraphs below, we discuss in detail 
each one of the components we are proposing to require under this 
approach.
    Gas consumption as calculated using the facility's purchase 
records, inventory, and gas- and facility-specific heel factors. 
Notwithstanding the definition of ``heel'' in subpart A of this 
rule,\10\ we are proposing that for purposes of electronics 
manufacturing that a heel means, ``the amount of gas that remains in a 
gas cylinder or container after it is discharged or off-loaded (this 
may vary by cylinder or container type and facility).'' We are not 
planning to use the subpart A definition because it contains a default 
value of 10 percent. In this action, we are proposing to require 
facilities to calculate gas- and facility-specific heel factors rather 
than using a default value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Pursuant to subpart A of the Final MRR, ``heel'' means the 
amount of gas that remains in a shipping container after it is 
discharged or off-loaded (that is no more than ten percent of the 
volume of the container).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of determining each facility's overall usage of each gas 
for a reporting period, we are proposing that a facility use their 
purchase records, inventory, and gas- and facility-specific heel 
factors. More specifically, for each cylinder/container type for each 
gas used, we are proposing that semiconductor facilities be required to 
base their heel factors on the residual

[[Page 18661]]

weight or pressure of the gas cylinder or container that a facility 
uses to change out that cylinder/container. This is common practice in 
the industry and is typically referred to as the ``trigger point for 
change out.'' These points, one for each gas and cylinder/container 
type, together with the initial container mass or pressure, are used to 
calculate the unused gas for each container, which when expressed as a 
fraction of the initial amount in the container is the ``heel'' (or 
unused fraction of the container). This gas- and facility-specific heel 
factor would then be applied to each container for that gas to 
determine the net amount of that gas used at a facility. In cases where 
the ``trigger point for change out'' used at a facility differs by more 
than one percentage point from that used to calculate the previous gas-
specific heel factor, we propose that the gas- and facility-specific 
heel factor must be recalculated.
    Currently most semiconductor facilities rely upon the IPCC default 
heel factor of 10 percent and apply that value to each cylinder/
container. Based on information provided in an industry study of 
facility-specific, gas-specific heel factors, the heel factor in a 
given facility for individual cylinders/containers can vary from 3 
percent to 25 percent. Given this variation, we conclude that gas- and 
facility-specific heel factors would provide improved accuracy in 
emissions estimates over the use of the IPCC default heel factor.
    We understand that there are exceptional circumstances when 
facilities do not always change cylinders/containers exactly when they 
reach the targeted residual weight or pressure. In those instances, 
which we expect are infrequent, we are proposing that the cylinder/
container must be weighed or the pressure measured using a pressure 
gauge; as opposed to using the facility-wide gas-specific heel factor 
as part of determining the net amount of gas used at a facility. We are 
proposing to define an exceptional circumstance as one which the 
cylinder/container is changed at a residual mass or pressure that 
differs by more than 20 percent from the ``trigger point for change 
out.'' We request comment on the frequency of these exceptional 
circumstances and also the percentage difference (i.e. 20 percent) for 
which we are proposing to require that the exceptional cylinder/
container be weighed or the pressure measured.
    When taking an annual inventory, we understand that multiple 
cylinders/containers are in service. We request comment on the 
significance of accounting for the quantity of fluorinated GHGs or 
N2O remaining in cylinders/containers in service at the end 
of the reporting period. We also request comment and detailed 
information on other methods and technologies (i.e. other than purchase 
records) that facilities may be using for determining annual gas 
consumption (e.g., recorded data from an automated gas inventory 
system).
    We are proposing that all flowmeters, weigh scales, pressure 
gauges, and thermometers used to measure quantities that are monitored 
or used in calculations in this proposal have an accuracy and precision 
of 1 percent of full scale or better. We request comment on this 
requirement including alternative accuracy and precision requirements 
and detailed information about why particular instruments can not meet 
the proposed 1 percent standard.
    Apportioning gas consumption to process categories. Estimating 
facility emissions requires apportioning annual facility-wide gas 
consumption across a facility's emitting process categories by way of 
applying facility-specific apportioning factors. A facility's 
uncontrolled emissions are the product of that apportioned gas 
consumption and the corresponding emission factor. To determine the 
share of each gas used by each process category, we are proposing to 
require that semiconductor facilities use a quantifiable indicator (or 
metric) of gas usage activity. More specifically, we are proposing 
facilities track wafer passes as an indicator of activity with which to 
apportion the facility's gas consumption. Wafer passes is a count of 
the number of times a silicon wafer is processed for a specific process 
category. The total number of wafer passes over a reporting year is the 
number of wafer passes per tool times the number of operational process 
tools during the reporting year.
    To illustrate a case where wafer passes is used as a facility-
specific engineering model, consider a facility that uses 
NF3 for chamber cleaning with remote plasma systems and for 
etching polysilicon and oxide films. With knowledge of the 
NF3-specfic heel and the number of NF3 containers 
used, the facility knows the amount of NF3 consumed. To 
estimate emissions, the facility must now apportion NF3 
usage between the chamber cleaning and oxide and polysilicon etching 
processes. To do this it might use the total number of wafer passes 
through each and every NF3-cleaning system together with the 
time and nominal (not measured actual) gas flow rate for each and every 
NF3-cleaning system and the corresponding figures for oxide 
and polysilicon etch processes to arrive at the proportion of 
NF3 used for cleaning chambers and etching oxide and 
polysilicon films. Once developed, these apportioning factors would be 
used to estimate NF3 gas usage for the cleaning and etching 
process categories proposed in our method. This example is illustrated 
further in Table 6 of this preamble.

                        Table 6--Illustrative Calculation for NF3 Example at One Facility
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Process
                                                                                                       category
       Gas type--annual usage, kg.              Process category            Apportioning factor       gas usage,
                                                                                                         kg.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NF3--56,286 kg..........................  RPS Chamber Cleaning.......  82%                                46,202
                                          Polysilicon Etch...........  17%                                 9,561
                                          Oxide Etch.................  1%                                    523
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual gas usage presented is the modeled usage not the nominal usage.

    We request comment on using wafer passes as an appropriate 
quantifiable indicator of activity, and on our description and example 
of how it would be used.
    We recognize that facilities may use other types of quantifiable 
indicators of gas-usage activity data to develop facility-specific 
engineering models to estimate gas consumption. We may include 
additional indicators as options in the final rule if they are 
quantifiable and if we receive adequate information regarding how they 
were developed and how they are used, including descriptions, examples, 
and any additional information that may be necessary to understand how 
such indicators of activity would be developed and used in a facility-
specific engineering model to apportion annual

[[Page 18662]]

facility-wide gas usage across a facility's emitting process 
categories. The use of engineering judgment, for example, is not based 
on a quantitative metric and would not be considered an acceptable 
quantifiable indicator of gas usage. We also request comment on the use 
of a representative sampling method for tracking activity indicators 
such as wafer passes that may be used in the engineering model.
    In many cases, EPA anticipates that the development of apportioning 
factors will result in a facility-wide consumption estimates that are 
independent of the estimates calculated using purchase records, 
inventory, and facility-specific heel factors. In such cases, we 
propose that facilities report these consumption estimates.
    Emission factors for refined process categories. We are proposing 
that semiconductor facilities estimate their emissions using a specific 
set of process categories. Our proposed method would simplify the 
reporting requirements as compared to the 2006 IPCC Tier 3 method by 
lowering the number of emitting process categories from up to 455 per 
facility down to a fixed figure of approximately nine. Our goal in 
establishing the process categories is to account for most of the 
variability in emission factors across processes while limiting the 
total number of process categories whose gas usage must be tracked by 
semiconductor facilities.
    Under this approach, we are proposing to require reporting of 
fluorinated GHG emissions for the following nine emitting process 
categories: four subcategories for wafer patterning (etching), three 
subcategories for chamber cleaning, and two subcategories for wafer 
cleaning. The nine process categories we are proposing account for 
distinct and widely-used manufacturing activities during production of 
discrete, logic and memory devices. We anticipate that these nine 
categories effectively capture current and projected processes and the 
differences in emission factors across various semiconductor 
manufacturing technologies.
    Our proposed definitions of these nine emitting categories are:
    Wafer patterning subcategories:
    Oxide etch means any process using fluorinated GHG reagents to 
selectively remove SiO2, SiOx-based or fully 
organic-based thin-film material that has been deposited on a wafer 
during semiconductor device manufacturing.
    Nitride etch means any process using fluorinated GHG reagents to 
selectively remove SiN, SiON, Si3N4, SiC, SiCO, 
SiCN, etc. (represented by the general chemical formula, 
SiwOxNyXz where w,x,y and z 
are zero or integers and X can be some other element such as carbon) 
that has been deposited on a wafer during semiconductor manufacturing.
    Silicon etch also often called polysilicon etch means any process 
using fluorinated GHG reagents to selectively remove silicon during 
semiconductor manufacturing.
    Metal etch means any process using fluorinated GHG reagents 
associated with removing metal films (such as aluminum or tungsten) 
that have been deposited on a wafer during semiconductor manufacturing.
    Chamber cleaning subcategories:
    In situ plasma means cleaning thin-film production chambers, after 
processing one or more wafers, with a fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent 
that is dissociated into its cleaning constituents by a plasma 
generated inside the chamber where the film was produced.
    Remote plasma system means cleaning thin-film production chambers, 
after processing one or more wafers, with a fluorinated GHG cleaning 
reagent dissociated by a remotely located (e.g., upstream) plasma 
source.
    In situ thermal means cleaning thin-film production chambers, after 
processing one or more wafers, with a fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent 
that is thermally dissociated into its cleaning constituents inside the 
chamber where the thin-film (or thin films) was (were) produced.
    Wafer cleaning subcategories:
    Bevel cleaning means any process using fluorinated GHG reagents 
with plasma to clean the edges of wafers during semiconductor 
manufacture.
    Ashing means any process using fluorinated GHG reagents with plasma 
to remove photoresist materials during wafer manufacture.
    We request comment on the nine process categories we are proposing, 
their definitions as specified above, and whether they clearly define a 
specific process without ambiguity. In addition we request comment on 
whether the categories should be further refined to better capture the 
variability in emission rates among fluorinated GHG using manufacturing 
activities (e.g., whether any additional categories should be added or 
whether the proposed categories should be combined, and the definition 
of those categories).
    Under this approach of defining a specific set of process 
categories, we are also considering additional patterning and chamber 
cleaning subcategories. The alternative patterning subcategories, which 
may replace or complement the four thin-film based subcategories 
defined previously, are: contact etch, self-alignment contact etch, 
gate etch, deep trench etch, isolation trench etch, through silicon 
vias and regular vias. Each of these subcategories represents a 
specific feature achieved through etching (instead of subcategories 
based on the type of thin film etched).
    Alternative chamber cleaning categories may distinguish between the 
types of films being removed from the chamber during cleaning. These 
might include distinguishing between chambers coated with tungsten and 
silicon-based films, or distinguishing between thin-film deposition 
equipment manufacturers. We request comment on these additional process 
categories and whether or not we should include alternative process 
categories in addition to the nine process categories that we are 
proposing. We also request comment on other methods of categorizing 
processes and detailed information on those categories.
    We are proposing nine process categories differentiated by 
production technology generation (i.e., wafer size). For each of the 
proposed nine process categories, we are proposing to establish a 
default emission factor within a range of values presented in Tables I-
6, I-7, I-8 of subpart I. Within each process category, factors account 
for (1) the mass fraction of the input gas that is utilized during 
(i.e., not emitted from) the process and (2) the mass of each 
fluorinated GHG by-product formed as a fraction of the mass of the 
dominant fluorinated GHG input gas used.\11\ EPA is proposing a range 
of values for each default emission factor because the Agency has not 
yet received sufficient data to select a specific value within each 
range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In the case of mixtures of fluorinated GHGs, the 
``dominant'' fluorinated GHG constitutes the largest mass of gas 
used for that process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To develop the proposed ranges for each emission factor, EPA 
requested from semiconductor device manufacturers and equipment 
suppliers, information on utilization and by-product formation rates 
and details on the associated measurement approach (e.g., measured in 
accordance with the 2006 ISMI Guidelines). EPA evaluated the data 
received as well as the standard deviations provided in Table 6.9 from 
Chapter 3 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. For additional information on 
how the ranges were developed, please refer to the Electronics 
Manufacturing TSD (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927).
    In a final rule, EPA intends to publish default emission factors 
for gas utilization and by-product formation rates for each process 
category,

[[Page 18663]]

differentiating amongst 150 mm, 200 mm and 300 mm wafer technology to 
the extent feasible. To this end, EPA requests additional utilization 
and by-product formation rates and supporting information on how they 
were developed. More specifically, EPA requests emission factors and 
by-product formation rates and information including but not limited to 
the specific measurement method used (e.g., measurement using the 2006 
ISMI Guidelines), the date of measurement, achievement of fluorine mass 
balance, associated standard deviations of measured factors, the 
relevant emissions process types and categories (for the patterning/
etching process type noting both film type and etched feature where 
applicable), substrate size (i.e., 150 mm, 200 mm, or 300 mm), the 
number of wafers used in the measurement study, and the equipment 
manufacturer name and model number where not considered confidential.
    Using additional data received, EPA intends to develop default 
emission factors for each process category using a method of 
aggregation similar to the 2006 IPCC factor development 
methodology.\12\ Where available emission factor data are very limited 
or produce highly uncertain average factors, EPA may develop emissions 
factors that are conservative and less likely to underestimate actual 
emissions. If additional data are received in a timely fashion, EPA may 
develop draft emission factors prior to issuance of the final rule and 
will determine an appropriate way to promptly and clearly inform the 
regulated community. We welcome comments on such draft emission 
factors, recognizing that depending on when the emission factors are 
made available, such comments could be submitted after the close of the 
formal comment period. We will make every effort to consider such 
comments, including late comments, to the extent practicable in the 
development of the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For additional information on the 2006 IPCC factor 
development methodology, see Emission Factors for Semiconductor 
Manufacturing: Sources, Methods, and Results (February 2006) 
available in the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In developing emission factors for the final rule, EPA is also 
considering developing weighted average emission factors, for each 
wafer technology, with the weights based on the market penetration 
rates of process recipes used in current device manufacturing 
practices.\13\ Such weighted emission factors, if possible, may better 
represent actual emissions from installed manufacturing equipment and 
operating processes. We request comment on using a weighting scheme and 
detailed information on how it would be developed and implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Note, in the creation of the IPCC factors, sufficient 
information was not available to weigh each general process type 
(i.e., etch and clean categories for the IPCC Tier 2b method).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The uncertainties associated with the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b method are 
associated with aggregating, for each gas, all usage into just two 
process categories (i.e., etching and chamber cleaning) and all wafer 
technologies (i.e., 150 mm, 200 mm, and 300 mm wafer sizes) into one, 
and giving equal weights to all process recipes. A method based on 
refined processes categories keeps those processes separate, which 
reflects actual device manufacturing practices and as a result, 
produces a more representative and accurate emissions estimate.
    As an alternative, we are also considering an approach where each 
facility would develop for themselves or acquire from process equipment 
manufacturers emission factors (i.e., gas utilization and by-product 
formation rates) for the nine process categories. Under this approach, 
we would require the gas utilization and by-product formation rates to 
be developed using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines. Facilities would be 
required to construct and apply averages for each process category. One 
advantage of this approach is that these facility-specific emission 
factors would be expected to be more representative of the particular 
processes at that facility than the default emission factors. On the 
other hand, we estimate the burden associated with each facility 
developing its own emission factors would be greater compared to using 
the factors published by EPA. We request comment on this approach.
    We recognize that given the dynamic manufacturing processes by the 
industry, updates to the process categories and emission factors may be 
necessary. We request comment on the frequency with which those should 
be updated.
    We estimate that our Refined Method will result in a reduction in 
burden for the large semiconductor facilities (annual capacities 
greater than 10,000 m \2\ silicon) and an increase in accuracy as 
compared to the IPCC Tier 2b method. We estimate the uncertainty from 
using a set of refined process categories to be roughly one-half the 
uncertainty of the Tier 2b method, assuming similar methods for 
apportioning gas usage for each method. For the Tier 2b method the 
fluorinated GHG consuming processes used during semiconductor 
production are collapsed into just two categories, resulting in 
considerable variability for each category. For the Refined Method 
there are nine fluorinated GHG-using categories, resulting in less 
variability, on average, per category. Please refer to the Electronics 
Manufacturing TSD for a more detailed discussion of our uncertainty 
analysis.
    For the relatively smaller semiconductor facilities (annual 
production of less than 10,500 m \2\ of silicon) we estimate an 
increase in burden as compared to our initial proposal where we 
required the use of the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b method; however, we 
anticipate that these facilities have the necessary data available to 
comply. The increase in burden for estimating emissions using the 
Refined Method, as opposed to the IPCC Tier 2b method, can be 
attributed to the increased level of effort to distinguish between nine 
refined process categories in comparison to two broad clean and etch 
categories, respectively.
    Recipe-specific measurements. As an alternative to the Refined 
Method where EPA default factors would be used, we are also proposing 
to permit those facilities that have monitoring infrastructure or the 
necessary data to estimate emissions obtained through recipe-specific 
measurements to report their emissions using their data (see proposed 
sections in 98.93 98.94(d)). This approach, consistent with the 2006 
IPCC Tier 3 method, is based on (1) gas consumption as calculated using 
the facility's purchase records, inventory, and gas-and facility-
specific heel factors (as described above), (2) facility-specific 
methods for apportioning gas consumption by individual process using 
indicators of GHG-using activity, (3) recipe-specific gas utilization 
and by-product formation factors, and also (4) methods for reporting 
controlled emissions from abatement devices (as proposed below). Under 
this approach, gas utilization and by-product formation rates would be 
required to be developed using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines for all 
fluorinated GHG-using process types at that facility.
    According to information provided by one of the commenters in 
response to our initial proposal, only one company currently estimates 
their emissions using an approach consistent with the Tier 3 method. 
Nevertheless, if a facility is using a method that provides more 
accurate data, then we believe that they should be permitted to use 
such method. We request comment on the number of companies that are 
currently

[[Page 18664]]

or expecting to in the near future, report their emissions using this 
method.
    We are also proposing to require semiconductor manufacturers that 
fabricate devices on wafers measuring larger than 300 mm in diameter to 
estimate their emissions based on an approach consistent with the IPCC 
Tier 3 method and gas- and facility-specific heel factors for 
estimating and reporting GHG emissions. Under this approach, gas 
utilization and by-product formation rates would be required to be 
developed using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines for all fluorinated GHG using 
process types at that facility. We understand the industry's conversion 
to 450 mm is expected to begin in 2011 or shortly thereafter. We are 
proposing this requirement because we estimate that this method that 
uses recipe-specific gas utilization and by-product formation factors 
results in the most accurate facility-specific emission estimate. By 
including this requirement for only the 450 mm or larger wafers in this 
proposal, we anticipate a reduction in burden as compared to requiring 
existing large semiconductor facilities to estimate their emissions 
using an approach consistent with the IPCC Tier 3 method for the 
smaller sized wafers as well (i.e. 300 mm and smaller). We anticipate a 
reduction in burden because emission factors (i.e. gas utilization and 
by-product formation rates) can be developed over a number of years as 
semiconductor manufacturers begin to transition to 450 mm tools and 
develop the estimating and reporting infrastructure. The commissioning 
process for new tools is an ideal opportunity for emission factor 
development and/or verification. We request comment on requiring 
semiconductor manufacturers that fabricate electronic devices on wafers 
of diameter 450 mm or larger to estimate their emissions based on an 
approach consistent with the IPCC Tier 3 method.
    During the development of this proposal, the 2006 International 
SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative's Guideline for Environmental 
Characterization of Semiconductor Process Equipment was revised and 
republished (December 2009). We request comment on requiring the use of 
the revised version of the ISMI Guidelines to measure emission factors 
as opposed to the 2006 version of the ISMI Guidelines, and also 
information on emission factors (including utilization by-product 
formation rates) measured using the revised ISMI Guidelines.
    Method for LCD, MEMS, and PV Facilities. In this action for LCD, 
MEMS, and PV facilities, we are proposing an approach based on a 
slightly modified 2006 IPCC Tier 2b method which would include (1) gas 
consumption calculated using the facility's purchase records, 
inventory, and gas- and facility-specific heel factors (as described 
above for semiconductor manufacturing facilities), (2) gas consumption 
apportioned to 2006 IPCC Tier 2b broad process categories, clean and 
etch, (3) default emission factors consistent with the 2006 IPCC Tier 
2b factors, and (4) methods for reporting controlled emissions from 
abatement equipment (as proposed below).
    The method proposed to develop the gas- and facility-specific heel 
factors for LCD, MEMS, and PV facilities is the same as proposed for 
semiconductor facilities including the provisions for exceptional 
circumstances. Although we don't have complete information on how LCD, 
MEMS, and PV facilities are currently estimating their emissions from 
manufacture and how they are currently accounting for heels, their gas 
use and manufacturing processes are similar to that of semiconductor 
manufacturing. As a result, we have concluded these facilities have the 
data required to develop a gas- and facility-specific heel factors and 
this method can be implemented with minimal burden. Similar to the 
semiconductor manufacturing case, the use of a gas- and facility-
specific heel factor is expected to result in improved accuracy when 
compared to the IPCC's 10 percent default factor. We request comment on 
our proposal to require LCD, MEMS, and PV facilities to use gas- and 
facility-specific heel factors and our understanding that these 
facilities have the data to develop such a factor with minimal burden.
    Under this approach consistent with the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b method, 
we propose that LCD, MEMS, and PV manufacturing facilities use the 
calculated mass of gas consumed and apportion this amount to the 
simplified process categories (i.e. etch and chemical vapor deposition 
chamber cleaning.) The associated emission factors including 
utilization and by-product formation rates, would then be used to 
calculate uncontrolled fluorinated GHG emissions. The emission factors 
being proposed are consistent with the 2006 IPCC default values. For 
MEMS manufacturing, where an IPCC default value does not exist, we 
propose the use of factors consistent with the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b 
factors for semiconductor manufacturing. We selected these factors 
because we understand MEMS manufacturing is silicon wafer-based and 
uses processes similar to those found in semiconductor manufacturing.
    Additionally, we are proposing that LCD, MEMS, and PV manufacturing 
facilities abide by the requirements proposed for reporting controlled 
emissions from abatement systems as proposed below.
    We are requesting information on emissions and emission factors 
from LCD, MEMS, and PV manufacturing. We are requesting such 
information as a means to verify that the Tier 2b emission factors for 
each of the manufacturing types are reflective of current fluorinated 
GHG emitting processes. Based on new information we receive, we may 
consider updating the emission factors in the final rule.
    We expect that LCD, MEMS, and PV manufacturers may also use 
engineering models and quantifiable indicators (e.g., substrate-area 
based) of manufacturing activity for apportioning gas consumption by 
process category similar to the approach described for semiconductors 
above (e.g., wafer passes). We request detailed information on those 
indicators, how they were developed, and how they are used in a 
facility-specific engineering model to apportion annual facility-wide 
gas usage across a facility's emitting process categories.
    We request comment on permitting those LCD, MEMS, and PV 
manufacturing facilities that have monitoring infrastructure or the 
necessary data to estimate emissions obtained through recipe-specific 
measurements to report their emissions using their data by following an 
approach consistent with the 2006 IPCC Tier 3 method.
    Review of Existing Reporting Programs and Methodologies and 
Consideration of Alternative Methods. EPA considered various methods 
for estimating emissions from etching and cleaning processes for 
electronics manufacturing facilities including the 2006 IPCC Tier 1, 
2a, 2b, and Tier 3 method as well as a Tier 2b/3 hybrid which would 
apply Tier 3 to the most heavily used fluorinated GHGs in all 
facilities. For a detailed description of our evaluation of these 
options, please see the Electronics Manufacturing section of the 
initial Mandatory Reporting Rule (74 FR 16499).
    For this proposal, to estimate emissions from all semiconductor 
manufacturing facilities, we are also considering the alternative of a 
modified Tier 2b method (our preferred option for other electronics 
manufacturers) which would require the use of the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b 
default factors and gas- and facility-specific data on heels and gas

[[Page 18665]]

use by process category. This approach would be based on a modified 
version of the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b method for estimating emissions and 
would require semiconductor facilities to report emissions using (1) 
gas consumption as calculated using the facility's purchase records, 
inventory, and gas- and facility-specific heel factors (as described 
above), (2) facility-specific methods for apportioning gas usage by 
process category using indicators of activity (as described above, 
e.g., wafer pass), (3) IPCC Tier 2b emission factors, and (4) methods 
for reporting controlled emissions using our proposed approach 
discussed below. We request comment on this approach.
    As an alternative to the Refined Method, we are also considering 
requiring all semiconductor manufacturing facilities to estimate their 
emissions using an approach consistent with the IPCC Tier 3 method 
based on (1) gas consumption as calculated using the facility's 
purchase records, inventory, and gas- and facility-specific heel 
factors, (2) facility-specific methods for apportioning gas consumption 
by individual process using indicators of GHG-using activity, (3) 
recipe-specific gas utilization and by-product formation factors, and 
also (4) methods for reporting controlled emissions from abatement 
devices (as proposed below). Under this approach, facilities would be 
required to develop gas utilization and by-product formation rates 
using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines for all fluorinated GHG-using process 
types at that facility. We request comment on this approach.
    Another option we are considering is to evaluate emissions from 
electronics manufacturing using continuous emission monitoring 
system(s) (CEMS). Under this approach, facilities would be required to 
install and operate CEMS to measure process emissions. A typical 
electronics manufacturing facility may have many individual process 
tools that influence emissions. Process tool exhaust is managed within 
the facility using stainless steel plumbing and ductwork. Due to the 
complexity of the manufacturing layout, CEMS would be attached either 
to every tool or to one or more final exhaust points (e.g., scrubber 
stacks). One possible option is to use Fourier Transform Infrared 
Spectrometers (FTIRs) in scrubber stacks to measure facility emissions. 
FTIR spectroscopy is presently used to conduct short-term fluorinated 
GHG emission measurements from single tools. EPA requests comment on 
the use of CEMS at electronics manufacturing facilities. We also 
request data and other information evaluating the use of CEMS in 
electronics facilities to determine fluorinated GHG and N2O 
emissions.
(b) Method for Estimating N2O Emissions
    We are proposing that electronics manufacturers estimate 
N2O emissions from chemical vapor deposition processes and 
all other electronics manufacturing processes such as chamber cleaning, 
and that they estimate those emissions using the following proposed 
methods.
    To estimate N2O emissions from chemical vapor deposition 
we are proposing the use of a facility-specific emission factor based 
on facility measurements of N2O utilization for chemical 
vapor deposition, using 2006 ISMI Guidelines. Under this approach, we 
propose to permit the facility to apply the average N2O 
utilization emission factor to all N2O using chemical vapor 
deposition recipes. In cases where a facility has not developed a 
facility-specific N2O utilization factor for chemical vapor 
deposition processes, we are proposing a default value in the range of 
0 to 40 percent. We are taking comment on this range due to a lack of 
information for N2O utilization for chemical vapor 
deposition processes.
    In comments received in response to our initial proposal, industry 
provided information to support a N2O utilization factor of 
40 percent, primarily in 300 mm chemical vapor deposition processes. 
Taking the industry-provided 40 percent utilization into account, we 
propose to select a N2O utilization factor in the range from 
0 to 40 percent. In the industry's survey, the measured utilization 
factors are largely from newer 300 mm manufacturing equipment. We do 
not expect these data fairly represent the entire population of all 
N2O processes and installed equipment, many of which are 
older tools. In addition, the industry comments did not fully identify 
the specific processes from which the average N2O 
utilization factor was calculated. For these reasons, and because we 
understand that N2O is most commonly used for chemical vapor 
deposition as opposed to other processes, we are proposing to establish 
a default value within a range of values with 40 percent as the upper 
bound and 0 percent as the lower bound to be conservative, reducing 
potential for underestimating emissions.
    To estimate N2O emissions from all other manufacturing 
processes (e.g., chamber cleaning), we are proposing either a facility-
specific utilization factor based on measurements using 2006 ISMI 
Guidelines, or applying a default utilization factor of 0 percent which 
assumes N2O is not converted or destroyed during the 
manufacturing process. We are proposing this method due to a lack of 
information regarding other processes for which N2O is used 
and N2O utilization data in those processes.
    We request comment on values within the range that we are proposing 
to estimate N2O emissions from chemical vapor deposition 
processes and our approach for estimating N2O emissions from 
all other manufacturing processes. We also request additional 
information on N2O uses and N2O utilization in 
electronics manufacturing processes. More specifically, we request 
N2O emission factors and detailed supporting information 
including but not limited to the specific measurement method used, date 
of measurement, standard deviation of measured factors, identification 
of manufacturing process or process category, substrate size, and 
equipment manufacturer name and model number where not considered 
confidential.
    In addition, we request comment on using wafer passes or other 
appropriate quantifiable indictors of activity for apportioning 
N2O consumption to chemical vapor deposition and other 
manufacturing processes.
    We are proposing that as part of determining annual facility 
N2O emissions, if a facility employs abatement systems and 
it wishes to report N2O emission reductions due to these 
systems it must adhere to the methods for reporting controlled 
emissions included in this proposal.
(c) Method for Estimating Emissions of Heat Transfer Fluids
    To estimate the emissions of heat transfer fluids, we propose that 
electronics manufacturers use the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b approach, which is 
a mass-balance approach. We are not changing the broad outlines of our 
initial proposal; however, we are clarifying required data elements.
    In evaluating the comments we received, we understand that there 
was some confusion regarding our intended method. The proposed method 
required data on the total nameplate capacity \14\ of equipment that 
``is installed during the reporting year.'' We intended ``installed 
during the reporting year'' to mean newly installed during the period,

[[Page 18666]]

not in place from the beginning of that period. To eliminate confusion, 
we are clarifying that facilities are required to provide the total 
nameplate capacity (charge) of equipment that is ``newly installed'' 
during the reporting year. We anticipate that facilities will find it 
straightforward to track the nameplate capacities of equipment that is 
newly installed or retired during the reporting year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Nameplate capacity means the full and proper charge of gas 
specified by the equipment manufacturer to achieve the equipment's 
specified performance. The nameplate capacity is typically indicated 
on the equipment's nameplate; it is not necessarily the actual 
charge, which may be influenced by leakage and other emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, we are also clarifying that a facility may only 
subtract the amount of fluorinated heat transfer fluids sent off site 
if the heat transfer fluids are properly recovered, stored, and sent 
off site for verifiable recycling or destruction during the reporting 
year. We are adding this clarification because we understand that 
facilities may be recovering, storing, and removing from their 
facility, fluorinated heat transfer fluids in a manner that does not 
effectively prevent the substance(s) from evaporating to the 
atmosphere. In such cases, the users of the chemicals would be required 
to account for these emissions using the mass-balance calculation 
provided.
    As we stated in our initial proposal, in developing our proposal 
for estimating heat transfer fluid emissions, we reviewed both the IPCC 
Tier 1 and IPCC Tier 2 approaches. The Tier 1 approach for heat 
transfer fluid emissions is based on the utilization capacity of the 
semiconductor facility multiplied by a default emission factor. 
Although the Tier 1 approach has the advantages of simplicity, it is 
less accurate than the Tier 2 approach according to the 2006 IPCC 
Guidelines. The IPCC Tier 2 approach uses company-specific data and 
accounts for differences among facilities' heat transfer fluids (which 
vary in their GWPs), leak rates, and service practices. It has an 
uncertainty on the order of 20 percent at the 95 percent 
confidence interval according to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
(d) Method for Reporting Controlled Emissions From Abatement Systems
    For this proposed rule, we are defining DRE as the efficiency of a 
control system designed to destroy or remove fluorinated GHGs, 
N2O, or both. The DRE is equal to one minus the ratio of the 
mass of all relevant GHGs exiting the emission abatement system to the 
mass of GHGs entering the emission abatement system. When fluorinated 
GHGs are formed in an abatement system, DRE is expressed as one minus 
the ratio of amounts of exiting GHGs to the amounts entering the system 
in units of CO2-equivalents. In addition, we are clarifying 
facilities may account for all abatement systems (e.g., multi-chamber 
POU, central devices) provided that they abide by the requirements 
below.
    We are proposing to use the term destruction or removal efficiency 
(DRE) as opposed to ``destruction efficiency'' or ``destruction,'' 
terms that are already defined in subpart A of the Final MRR. We are 
proposing to use DRE because it is the term generally used by the 
electronics manufacturing industry. Furthermore, in addition to 
capturing the destruction of materials in the exhaust, the term also 
captures materials in the exhaust that are recycled or captured for 
reuse.
    For purposes of this reporting rule, we propose that facilities 
that wish to document and report fluorinated GHG and N2O 
emissions reflecting the use of abatement systems adhere to a method 
that would require: (1) Documentation to certify that the abatement 
system is installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with 
manufacturers' specifications, (2) accounting for the system's 
uptime,\15\ and (3) either certification that the abatement system is 
specifically designed for fluorinated GHG and N2O abatement 
and the use of an EPA default DRE value, or direct, proper DRE 
measurement to confirm the performance of the abatement system. Proper 
DRE measurement means measured in accordance with EPA's Protocol for 
Measuring Destruction or Removal Efficiency of Fluorinated Greenhouse 
Gas Abatement Equipment in Electronics Manufacturing (EPA's DRE 
Protocol). EPA's DRE Protocol is available for review in the docket 
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927). Our proposed approach is depicted as a decision 
tree in Figure 1 of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Uptime means the total time during the reporting year when 
the abatement system for which controlled emissions will be reported 
was properly installed, operated, and maintained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed approach requires annual certification to ensure that 
abatement systems for which controlled emissions are reported are 
installed, operating, and maintained according to manufacturers' 
specifications. Our approach would also require that any DRE used in 
reporting emissions be based on an EPA default DRE value or on recent 
on-site measurements and actual uptime of the system, accounting for 
system redundancy. When process tools are equipped with multiple 
abatement systems designed for fluorinated GHGs and N2O, the 
facility may account for the combined uptime for the specific 
calculation of controlled emissions. Each one of these components is 
discussed in detail in the paragraphs below. We anticipate this method 
for reporting controlled emissions will ensure that abatement systems 
have been properly installed, operated and maintained during each 
reporting period and that best available measured DRE values are used 
to estimate and report emissions.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 18667]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.037

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
    Proper Installation, Operation, and Maintenance. We are proposing 
that all facilities that use abatement systems and would like to 
reflect these emissions reductions in their annual emissions 
estimations be required to document and certify the abatement 
equipment's proper installation, operation, and maintenance. There are 
many manufacturers, and for each manufacturer multiple models, that are 
marketed as fluorinated GHG-destruction capable (Beu, 2005). While some 
abatement systems may be capable of destroying some fluorinated GHGs, 
they may not be effective in abating CF4 (Beu, 2005), which 
in some processes can constitute 10 percent--20 percent (by volume) of 
fluorinated GHG exhaust composition (EPA, 2006). It appears that this 
variability may be partially attributable to installation as well as 
operating and maintenance practices although variations in how 
destruction is measured may also contribute to this variability (Beu, 
2005). Evidence indicates abatement devices must be properly installed 
to ensure achievement of the manufacturer's design goals. For this 
reason, we propose devices be installed in

[[Page 18668]]

accordance with manufacturers' specifications.
    In terms of operation and maintenance, we also propose to require 
that abatement systems be operated and maintained in accordance with 
the manufacturers' specifications. It is well known across the industry 
that abatement system performance varies greatly depending on a variety 
of abatement device and process parameters such as temperature, flow 
and exhaust composition (Beu, 2005, EPA 2006, 2007)). Our proposed 
requirement that abatement systems be operated and maintained in 
accordance with manufacturers' specifications is intended to ensure 
best performance.
    We understand that many times a facility may have an independent 
quality assurance expert certify the installation, operation, and 
maintenance of abatement equipment. We are considering the inclusion in 
the final rule, a requirement for annual, on-site independent 
inspections of abatement system installation, operation, and 
maintenance, which could include a review of records and physical 
inspection of installed equipment. We request comment on whether to 
require an independent quality assurance audit/inspection for abatement 
system installation, operation, and maintenance.
    Accounting for Abatement System Uptime. We are proposing that 
facilities account for abatement systems' uptime to report controlled 
emissions. Uptime is the total time during the reporting year when the 
abatement systems for which controlled emissions are being reporting 
was properly installed, operated, and maintained. Uptime is calculated 
as the sum of time during the reporting period that an abatement system 
is in a standby, productive, and engineering state as described in SEMI 
Standard E10-0304, Specification for Definition and Measurement of 
Equipment Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability (2004). 
Abatement system uptime is expressed as the sum of an abatement 
system's operational productive, standby, and engineering times divided 
by the total operations time of its associated manufacturing tool. For 
example, the time during which a system is in by-pass mode, undergoing 
maintenance, or not operating with O2-flow (in the case of a 
CF4 combustion system) is not included in uptime. An 
exception to this is time during which exhaust flows are passed through 
a redundant abatement system that is in the same abatement system class 
(discussed below) as the primary abatement system. Such time may be 
included in the uptime of the primary system.
    We are proposing this requirement because we anticipate accounting 
for uptime (i.e., tracking incidents when abatement systems may be 
``bypassed'' or otherwise not in service) will produce a more accurate 
emissions estimate. We request comment on our proposal to account for 
and report the uptime of abatement systems. We also request detailed 
information on how uptime may be monitored and calculated.
    EPA Default DRE Value. In addition to certifying that an abatement 
system is installed, operated, and maintained according to 
manufacturers' specifications, and accounting for the system's uptime, 
the first approach we are proposing includes the following two key 
elements: (1) Certification that the abatement system is specifically 
designed for fluorinated GHG and N2O abatement, and (2) an 
EPA default DRE value. By applying the EPA default DRE value, the 
facility is not required to measure the DRE of their abatement 
system(s). We are proposing the use of a default DRE value of 60 
percent if the facility certifies that the abatement systems for which 
this value is applied are specifically designed for fluorinated GHG and 
N2O abatement.
    To develop the default DRE of 60 percent, we reviewed the 
individual DREs measured under our in-fab DRE measurement program and 
selected those that constituted discrete values \16\ for systems that 
had been properly installed, operated and maintained. Of the data from 
the DRE measurement program, those that met the stated criteria were 
values for CF4. We calculated the mean and the lower one 
sided tolerance interval of the (CF4) DRE data set. This 
yielded an understated, default DRE, reducing the likelihood that the 
DRE of any particular system will be either overestimated or greatly 
underestimated. For additional information on how the EPA default DRE 
was developed, please refer to the Electronics Manufacturing TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Using data available from the in-fab DRE measurement 
program, we selected discrete numbers rather than the lower bound 
(e.g., >= 99%).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While we are now proposing the use of an EPA default DRE value, 
consistent with our initial proposal we are not planning to permit use 
of the 2006 IPCC default factors or the manufacturer's DRE values. We 
are not permitting their use because once installed, abatement 
equipment may fail to achieve the default or a supplier's claimed DRE. 
DRE performance claimed by equipment suppliers and upon which the 2006 
IPCC default factors were based may have been incorrectly measured due 
to a failure to account for the effects of dilution (e.g., 
CF4 can be off by as much as a factor of 20 to 50 and 
C2F6 can be off by a factor of up to 10 [Burton, 
2007].) This understanding is supported by industry assessments as 
presented in Beu, 2005.
    We are permitting the use of our default DRE value because we 
estimate that it strikes an appropriate balance between being 
conservative and being representative where equipment is properly 
operated and maintained. Our default DRE value was calculated using 
data from measurements assured to properly account for the effects of 
dilution. In addition, the tested systems were properly installed, 
operated, and maintained.
    We request comment on our proposed default DRE value, and 
additional data and supporting documentation on DREs from studies that 
have been conducted on properly installed, operated, and maintained 
abatement systems and consistent with EPA's DRE Protocol.
    Proper Measurement of the Abatement DRE. The second proposed 
approach for quantifying, documenting, and reporting controlled 
emissions from abatement systems, described below, would require proper 
measurement of the abatement system DRE in addition to documentation to 
certify that the abatement system is installed, operated, and 
maintained in accordance with manufacturers' specifications, and 
accounting for uptime.
    Consistent with our initial proposal, this second proposed method 
permits facilities to account for destruction if the abatement system 
performance is measured and verified using EPA's DRE Protocol. To 
measure DRE, we propose requiring facilities to conduct annual sampling 
through a random sampling abatement system testing program (RSASTP), 
spanning all abatement classes using the methods outlined in EPA's DRE 
Protocol. ``Class'' refers to a category of abatement systems grouped 
by manufacturer model number(s) and by gas for which the system is used 
to abate, including N2O and CF4 direct and by-
product formation, and all other fluorinated GHG gas direct and by-
product formation.\17\ ``Classes'' may also include any other abatement 
systems for which the reporting facility wishes to report controlled 
emissions provided that class is identified. For each class, the 
representative or average DRE

[[Page 18669]]

factors would then be applied to the yet unmeasured abatement devices 
of that class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ CF4 is a very stable chemical and especially 
difficult to effectively destroy. It may be used as an input gas and 
generated as a byproduct of other fluorinated GHG process reactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An annual representative sample as part of the RSASTP would consist 
of three or 20 percent of installed abatement systems, whichever is 
greater, for each class each year, measuring the DRE for a different 
three or 20 percent set of systems each year. Where 20 percent of total 
abatement systems do not equal a whole number, the number of systems to 
be tested would be rounded up to the nearest integer (e.g., 16 
abatement devices, 20 percent of which equals 3.2; therefore, four 
abatement systems would be measured each year). Using the RSASTP and 
our rounding convention, all systems in each class would be tested 
within a five-year period. EPA is seeking comment on the required 
frequency of abatement system performance measurement.
    When reporting controlled emissions from manufacturing, we propose 
that the facility either use the measured DRE or, in those instances 
where an individual abatement system has not yet undergone proper DRE 
testing, a simple average of the measured DREs for systems of that 
class would be used. If redundant abatement systems were used during 
periods of maintenance or repair, then we propose that the measured or 
average DRE for that system's class would be used. In any of these 
cases, the DRE used to report emissions would be adjusted to account 
for the actual uptime of the system. For example, if the uptime for a 
device is 98 percent over the reporting period, then the measured DRE 
(or class average of measured DREs when a system has not yet been 
measured) would be multiplied by 0.98.
    Under the RSASTP, all systems in each class would be tested within 
a five-year period, after which the process would be repeated as long 
as controlled emissions were reported. There are two reasons for 
requiring the DRE to be measured for each abatement device over a time 
period and by specific class. Some fluorinated GHGs, particularly 
CF4, are harder to destroy than others; thus, the 
performance of abatement systems with one fluorinated GHG cannot 
necessarily be assumed to apply to other fluorinated GHGs.\18\ Second, 
even if abatement systems rely on the same operating principle (e.g., 
thermal oxidation) and are used on the same gases, their performance 
can vary depending on their operation and maintenance.\19\ Moreover, 
maintenance that is adequate for abatement systems in some applications 
may not be adequate for abatement systems in others (e.g., those that 
handle high volumes of etched or cleaned material, which can be 
deposited inside abatement equipment and clog lines). This argues for 
gradually testing all of the abatement systems within a class, and for 
retesting individual abatement systems over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ There are many manufacturers, and for each manufacturer 
many models, that are marketed as fluorinated GHGs-destruction 
capable (Beu, 2005). While some abatement devices may be capable of 
destroying some fluorinated GHGs, they may not be effective in 
abating CF4 (Beu, 2005), which in some processes can constitute 10%-
20% (by volume) of fluorinated GHGs exhaust composition (EPA, 2006).
    \19\ Some variability in performance may be partially 
attributable to installation as well as operating and maintenance 
practices although variations in how destruction is measured may 
also contribute to this variability (Beu, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We request comment on the method proposed for proper measurement of 
DRE at a facility and the proposed RSASTP for abatement systems by 
class.
6. Selection of Procedures for Estimating Missing Data
    In general, it is not expected that data to estimate emissions from 
electronics manufacturing would be missing; gas consumption data and 
indicators of activity data (e.g., wafer passes) is collected as 
business as usual. For this reason, we are not proposing procedures for 
estimating missing data from emissions from cleaning, etching or 
deposition processes. Because our proposal includes an EPA default DRE 
value for estimating and reporting controlled emissions, we propose 
that no missing data procedures would apply.
    When estimating heat transfer fluid emissions during electronics 
manufacture, the use of the mass-balance approach requires facilities 
to correct records for all inputs. Should the facility be missing 
records for a given input, heat transfer fluid emissions may be 
estimated using the arithmetic average of the emission rates for the 
year immediately preceding the period of missing data and the months 
immediately following the period of missing data. Alternatively it may 
be possible that the heat transfer fluid supplier has information in 
their records for the facility.
7. Selection of Data Reporting Requirements
    We are proposing that owners and operators be required to report 
fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions for the facility for each 
electronics manufacturing process as well as all heat transfer fluid 
use. In addition, facilities would be required to report the following: 
method used to calculate emissions; factors used for gas utilization 
and by-product formation rates and the source for each factor for each 
fluorinated GHG and N2O; production in terms of substrate 
surface area (e.g., silicon, PV-cell, LCD); for each fluorinated GHG 
and N2O, annual gas consumed during the reporting year and 
gas- and facility-specific heel factors used; the apportioning factors 
used, a description of the engineering model used for apportioning gas 
usage, and facility-wide consumption estimates based upon development 
of the apportioning factors, independent of the consumption value 
calculated using purchase records; fraction of each gas fed into each 
process type that is fed into tools with abatement systems; 
descriptions and information about abatement systems through which 
fluorinated GHGs and N2O flow; inputs in the mass-balance 
equation (for heat transfer fluid emissions); and example calculations. 
Where process categories defined in the Refined Method and/or default 
gas utilization and by-product formation rates are not used, we propose 
that facilities provide descriptions of individual processes or 
processes categories used to estimate emissions consistent with the 
IPCC Tier 3 method.
    For each abatement system for which a facility is reporting 
controlled emissions, we propose that facilities be required to report 
the following: certification that the abatement device is installed, 
operated, and maintained according to manufacturers' specifications; 
the uptime and the calculations to determine uptime for that reporting 
year; the DRE used (i.e. either the EPA default DRE value or a properly 
measured DRE); and documentation for the EPA default DRE value or a 
properly measured DRE.
    These data form the basis of the calculations and are needed for us 
to understand the reported emissions and verify their reasonableness.
8. Selection of Records That Must Be Retained
    We propose that facilities keep records of data used to estimate 
emissions, records supporting values used to estimate emissions, 
purchase records, and invoices for gas purchases and sales. For those 
facilities that use facility-specific, recipe-specific gas utilization 
and by-production formation rates, we are proposing that the following 
records be maintained: documentation that the rates were measured using 
the 2006 ISMI Guidelines, documentation that the measurements made are 
representative of fluorinated GHG and N2O emitting

[[Page 18670]]

processes at the facility, and the date and results of the initial and 
any subsequent tests to determine process tool gas utilization and by-
product formation rates.
    For those facilities that are reporting controlled emissions, we 
propose that the following records be kept: documentation to certify 
that each abatement device used at the facility is installed, 
maintained, and operated in accordance with manufacturers' 
specifications; records of the uptime and the calculations to determine 
uptime; abatement system calibration and maintenance records; 
documentation for the EPA default DRE value or a properly measured DRE.
    These records consist of values that are directly used to calculate 
the emissions that are reported and are necessary to enable 
verification that the GHG emissions monitoring and calculations are 
done correctly.

B. Fluorinated Gas Production

1. Overview of Reporting Requirements
    Under this proposal, subpart L would require facilities that 
produce fluorinated gases to report their fluorinated GHG emissions 
from fluorinated gas production and transformation and from fluorinated 
GHG destruction. Fluorinated gases include fluorinated GHGs (HFCs, 
PFCs, SF6, NF3, HFEs, etc.), CFCs, and HCFCs. 
Certain emissions subject to other subparts or authorities are excluded 
from this subpart. Specifically, emissions of HFC-23 from HCFC-22 
production are addressed under subpart O and are therefore excluded 
from this subpart. Similarly, as discussed in the Final MRR, emissions 
of ozone depleting substances (e.g., CFCs and HCFCs) are subject to 
Title VI of the CAA and are therefore excluded from this subpart.
    Under this proposed rule, facilities would be required to estimate 
their emissions from fluorinated GHG production processes using either 
a mass-balance approach or an approach based on measured (or in some 
cases, calculated) emission factors. Facilities would be required to 
estimate their emissions from CFC and HCFC production processes and 
from fluorinated gas transformation processes using an emission-factor-
based approach. Consistent with the Final MRR, this proposal would 
establish an annual frequency for reporting and would include 
provisions to ensure the accuracy of emissions data through monitoring, 
reporting, and recordkeeping requirements. Reporting would be at the 
facility level.
2. Summary of Major Changes Since Initial Proposal
    In the April 2009 proposed mandatory GHG reporting rule (74 FR 
16448; April 10, 2009), the fluorinated GHG production source category 
was included as proposed subpart L. That initial proposal would have 
required reporting from facilities emitting more than 25,000 
mtCO2e from fluorinated GHG production and other source 
categories (e.g., stationary combustion). We proposed monitoring based 
on a daily mass-balance or yield approach that included measurements of 
the reactants and the fluorinated GHG product and byproducts. Under 
that approach, facilities would have had to calculate the difference 
between the expected production of each fluorinated GHG based on the 
consumption of reactants and the measured production of that 
fluorinated GHG, accounting for yield losses related to byproducts and 
wastes and accounting for streams that were recaptured and destroyed. 
Facilities would have been required to measure the various inputs and 
outputs daily using scales and flow meters with an accuracy and 
precision of 0.2 percent of full scale, and to measure concentrations 
in streams using methods with an accuracy and precision of 5 percent. 
(For more detailed information on the initial proposal, see the 
fluorinated gas production section of the April 10, 2009 proposed 
rule.)
    We received numerous comments on the proposed approach. Commenters 
stated that there may be significant uncertainty associated with the 
mass-balance approach, that EPA's stated accuracy and precision 
requirement of 0.2 percent for flow meters and weigh equipment was 
costly and not technically achievable for many streams, that daily 
calculations were excessive and likely to introduce errors, that it was 
sometimes impracticable to perform a mass-balance for more than one 
reactant, and that the mass-balance approach was not appropriate for 
batch processes.
    Commenters also suggested alternatives to the mass-balance 
approach. Several commenters focused on the use of site-specific or 
process-specific emission factors. These commenters noted that many 
facilities in this source category already measure emissions during 
performance testing to verify compliance with their emission limits 
under other EPA regulations. Commenters also noted that some 
fluorinated GHG producers currently estimate their emissions of 
fluorinated GHG using the emission factor approach and that this 
approach is both more cost effective and more accurate than the mass-
balance approach. One commenter using the emission factor approach 
stated that the estimated uncertainty of its overall fluorinated GHG 
emissions estimate was 13 percent (expressed as one standard deviation) 
and that the uncertainty associated with the estimates that it would 
develop using the proposed mass-balance approach would be significantly 
higher. Commenters suggested both emissions testing and chemical 
engineering calculations as appropriate techniques to develop site-
specific emissions factors.
    Partly in response to the comments received on the April 2009 
proposed MRR (74 FR 16448; April 10, 2009), today's proposed subpart L 
rule incorporates a number of changes compared to the original 
proposal, including but not limited to:
     Inclusion of additional emission estimation methodologies, 
including process-specific, site-specific emission factors, which allow 
facilities to estimate emissions using methods that may already be in 
place;
     Revisions to the mass-balance approach, including 
provisions to allow monthly rather than daily monitoring; greater 
flexibility in the accuracy and precision of flowmeters, weigh scales, 
and concentration measurements (as long as the final estimate meets an 
overall accuracy and precision requirement); and the use of one rather 
than two reactants in the mass-balance equation;
     Inclusion of fluorinated GHGs emitted as a by-product of 
the production of CFCs and HCFCs; and
     Inclusion of fluorinated GHGs emitted as a feedstock or 
by-product of transformation processes that are not intended to produce 
any fluorinated gases (when those transformation processes are co-
located with fluorinated gas production processes).
3. Definition of Source Category
    This source category covers emissions of fluorinated GHGs that 
occur during the production of fluorinated gases, where fluorinated 
gases include fluorinated GHGs (HFCs, PFCs, SF6, 
NF3, and fluorinated ethers, among others), CFCs, and HCFCs 
(except HCFC-22).\20\ It also covers emissions of

[[Page 18671]]

fluorinated GHGs from transformation and destruction processes that 
occur at fluorinated gas production facilities. EPA estimates that 
total emissions from this source category were 10.6 million metric tons 
of CO2e in 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ In the April 2009 proposal, EPA requested comment on 
whether emissions of fluorinated GHGs from CFC and HCFC production 
processes should be subject to the subpart L reporting requirements. 
While no public comments were received on this topic, EPA has 
determined that HFCs and PFCs are likely to be generated during the 
production of several CFCs and HCFCs, and that the quantities 
generated may be significant. According to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines 
and fluorinated gas producers, production of CFCs and HCFCs can 
generate and emit fluorinated GHGs such as various HFCs and some 
PFCs. (These HFCs exclude HFC-23 generated during HCFC-22 
production, which is already covered under Subpart O). These 
emissions are by-product emissions that occur due to the chemical 
similarities between HFCs, PFCs, HCFCs, and CFCs and the common use 
of halogen replacement chemistry to produce them. HFC-23 generated 
during HCFC-22 production is already covered under Subpart O.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Emissions from fluorinated gas production facilities can occur from 
vents, from leaks at flanges and connections in the production line, 
and from control devices (e.g., thermal oxidizers). Undesired by-
products may be deliberately vented, and some product (or reactant) may 
be vented at the same time due to imperfect separation of by-products, 
products, and reactants. Emissions can also occur during occasional 
service work on the production equipment, during blending and recycling 
of fluorinated GHGs, and during the evacuation and filling of tanks or 
other containers that are distributed by the producer (e.g., on trucks 
and railcars).
    Fluorinated GHG Emissions from Fluorinated GHG Production. 
Emissions that occur during fluorinated GHG production include 
fluorinated GHG products that are emitted before the production 
measurement and fluorinated GHG byproducts that are generated and 
emitted either without or despite recapture or destruction.\21\ These 
emissions are not counted as ``mass produced'' under the final 
requirements for suppliers of industrial GHGs in 40 CFR part 98, 
subpart OO (74 FR 56260; October 30, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Byproducts that are emitted or destroyed at the production 
facility are excluded from the Subpart OO definition of ``produce a 
fluorinated GHG.'' Any HFC-23 generated during the production of 
HCFC-22 is also excluded from this definition, even if the HFC-23 is 
recaptured. However, other fluorinated GHG byproducts that are 
recaptured for any reason are considered to be ``produced.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fluorinated GHG emissions from U.S. facilities producing 
fluorinated GHGs are estimated to range from 0.8 percent to 2 percent 
of the amount of fluorinated GHG produced, depending on the facility. 
In 2006, 12 U.S. facilities produced over 350 million metric tons 
CO2e of HFCs, PFCs, SF6, and NF3, and 
an additional 6 facilities produced approximately 1 million metric tons 
CO2e of fluorinated anesthetics. Based on an emission rate 
of 1.5 percent, facilities are estimated to have emitted approximately 
5.3 million metric tons CO2e of HFCs, PFCs, SF6, 
and NF3, and approximately 15,000 metric tons 
CO2e of fluorinated anesthetics.
    Fluorinated GHG Emissions from CFC and HCFC Production. Our 
proposal to include fluorinated GHG emissions that occur during CFC and 
HCFC production processes is based on two important considerations. 
First, while the quantity of by-product emissions is uncertain, we 
believe that it is significant and could be similar to total estimated 
emissions from fluorinated GHG production. Second, many CFC and HCFC 
production processes are co-located with fluorinated GHG production 
facilities, allowing for efficiencies in the application of estimation 
methods and monitoring and reporting infrastructures. These issues are 
discussed in more detail in the Fluorinated Gas Production Technical 
Support Document in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-
0927).
    Although we do not have precise estimates of the magnitude of 
fluorinated GHG emissions from production of CFCs and HCFCs, we 
estimate that if CFC and HCFC production processes emitted fluorinated 
GHGs equivalent to one percent of their CFC and HCFC production 
(excepting HCFC-22 production), U.S. emissions from this source would 
be 5.3 mtCO2e, the same as from fluorinated GHG production. 
EPA requests comment on the extent to which fluorinated GHGs are 
generated and emitted during CFC and HCFC production. EPA also requests 
comment on the extent to which fluorinated GHGs may be generated and 
emitted during production of other ozone-depleting substances such as 
methyl chloroform and carbon tetrachloride and on whether such 
emissions should be reported under this rule.
    CFCs and HCFCs are often produced at the same facilities that 
produce fluorinated GHGs. In these cases, these facilities would need 
to quantify their fluorinated GHG emissions from a few processes in 
addition to those producing fluorinated GHGs. In other cases, CFCs or 
HCFCs are produced at facilities that do not produce fluorinated GHGs. 
In these cases, which EPA estimates include 2 facilities, the 
facilities would not have been covered by the initially proposed 
subpart L, but would be covered by today's proposal. This coverage is 
reflected in the threshold analysis discussed below.
    Fluorinated GHG Emissions from Other Processes. Facilities 
producing fluorinated gases would also be required to report emissions 
of fluorinated GHG feedstocks that occur during the transformation of 
these feedstocks into other fluorinated substances such as 
fluoropolymers, as well as emissions of fluorinated GHGs that occur 
during destruction of fluorinated GHGs that are removed from the supply 
of industrial gases.
    The reasons for requiring reporting of fluorinated GHG emissions 
from transformation processes that are co-located with fluorinated gas 
production processes are similar to those for requiring reporting of 
fluorinated GHG emissions from CFC and HCFC production. First, although 
EPA does not have precise estimates of the magnitude of fluorinated GHG 
emissions from transformation processes, discussions with fluoropolymer 
producers indicate that these emissions do occur. Second, facilities 
could apply similar methods and monitoring approaches to estimate 
emissions from both fluorinated gas production and fluorinated gas 
transformation. The rationale for requiring reporting of emissions from 
the destruction of fluorinated GHGs that are removed from the supply of 
industrial gases is discussed below under Relationship between 
emissions covered under subpart L and those covered under subpart OO.
    EPA is also considering requiring reporting of fluorinated GHG 
emissions from two other types of processes. The first type includes 
processes (other than CFC and HCFC production processes) in which 
fluorinated GHGs are neither reactants nor products of the process but 
are nevertheless generated as by-products or intermediates. To the 
extent that such processes may generate or emit significant amounts of 
fluorinated GHGs, it may be appropriate to require reporting of those 
emissions. This would be particularly true if the processes were co-
located with fluorinated GHG production processes, permitting 
effiencies in the application of estimation methods and reporting 
infrastructures. EPA requests comment on whether, how often, and where 
such processes occur (i.e., at fluorinated gas production facilities or 
elsewhere). The second type of process includes fluorinated gas 
transformation processes that are not co-located with fluorinated gas 
production facilities. Again, it may be appropriate to require 
reporting of fluorinated GHG emissions from such processes if these 
emissions are significant. EPA requests comment on both of these 
options.
    Relationship between emissions covered under subpart L and those 
covered under subpart OO. Subpart L would require reporting from many 
of

[[Page 18672]]

the same facilities (fluorinated GHG producers) that are required to 
report under subpart OO, which contains the industrial gas supply 
reporting provisions of the final MRR. In general, subpart OO is 
intended to capture the quantities of fluorinated GHGs that are 
entering and leaving the U.S. supply of industrial gases,\22\ while 
subpart L is intended to capture the quantities of fluorinated GHGs 
emitted at fluorinated gas production facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Specifically, subpart OO tracks the quantities of 
fluorinated GHGs that are (1) produced, (2) transformed, (3) 
destroyed, (4) imported, and (5) exported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are several areas of possible overlap between the emissions 
that could be reported under this subpart and those reported under 
subpart OO. The areas of overlap all concern emissions that occur at 
the fluorinated GHG production facility after (downstream of) the 
fluorinated GHG production measurement. These include emissions from:
     Fluorinated GHG transformation processes (including 
polymerization),
     Destruction of fluorinated GHGs that are removed from the 
supply of industrial gases,
     Cylinder filling (if this occurs after the production 
measurement),
     Blending of fluorinated GHGs,
     Recycling or reclamation of fluorinated GHGs, and
     Evacuation of fluorinated GHG heels from returned 
cylinders.
    The MRR is intended to inform a range of possible policies for 
reducing emissions of GHGs, including both upstream and downstream 
approaches. Under a policy that focused primarily on supply, the 
fluorinated GHGs added to and subtracted from the gas supply would be 
tracked, and only the on-site emissions that occurred before (upstream 
of) the fluorinated GHG production measurement would need to be covered 
for completeness. On-site emissions that occurred after the production 
measurement would be assumed to be captured by the production 
measurement. Under a policy that focused on actual emissions (i.e., 
``downstream coverage'') rather than supply, on-site emissions that 
occurred both before and after the production measurement would need to 
be tracked.
    Maintaining flexibility to adopt either upstream or downstream 
approaches argues for some counting under L of emissions that are 
counted upstream (as supply) under OO.\23\ (See the October 30, 2009 
Final MRR, 74 FR 56260, for more discussion of the rationale for 
including both upstream and downstream emissions under the rule.) As 
noted above, EPA is proposing to require reporting of fluorinated GHG 
emissions from transformation and destruction processes that are 
located at fluorinated gas production facilities. However, EPA is also 
considering requiring reporting of fluorinated GHG emissions from the 
other activities that occur at fluorinated GHG production facilities 
downstream of the production measurement. EPA requests comment on the 
magnitude of these other on-site emissions and on whether or not they 
should be required to be reported under subpart L.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ In theory, it might be possible to track emissions from 
transformation and destruction simply using quantities reported 
under OO. However, this would require that (1) fluorinated GHGs that 
are produced only to be transformed or destroyed be tracked 
separately, (2) production, transformation, and destruction be 
measured to very good precision and accuracy (e.g., 0.2 percent), 
and (3) that no by-products be formed or emitted during these 
processes. If all of these conditions were met, emissions could be 
equated to the differences between production and transformation and 
production and destruction. In practice, however, it would be 
difficult to meet all of these conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Selection of Reporting Threshold
    Under today's proposed rule, owners and operators of fluorinated 
gas production facilities would be required to estimate and report GHG 
emissions if those emissions, including both combustion and fluorinated 
GHG emissions, would exceed 25,000 mtCO2e in the absence of 
control technology (e.g., thermal oxidation).\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Following the precedents set by other Clean Air Act 
regulations, EPA is using the term ``uncontrolled'' to describe such 
emissions. Specifically, EPA is proposing to define ``uncontrolled 
fluorinated GHG emissions'' as a gas stream containing fluorinated 
GHG which has exited the process (or process condenser, where 
applicable), but which has not yet been introduced into an air 
pollution control device to reduce the mass of fluorinated GHGs in 
the stream. The term does not imply that the emissions are never 
controlled, but is synonymous with ``pre-control emissions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In developing the threshold, we considered multiple controlled and 
uncontrolled emissions thresholds, including 1,000, 10,000, 25,000, and 
100,000 metric tons CO2e. For fluorinated GHG production 
processes (including fluorinated anesthetics production processes), 
uncontrolled (pre-control) emissions were estimated by multiplying a 
factor of 3 percent by the estimated production at each facility. For 
CFC and HCFC production processes (except for HCFC-22 production 
processes), uncontrolled emissions were estimated by multiplying a 
factor of 2 percent by the estimated production at each facility. 
Uncontrolled emissions are strongly influenced by by-product generation 
rates, which are known to vary between zero and several percent for 
fluorinated gas production processes; thus, these estimates are 
uncertain. Controlled emissions were assumed to be half of uncontrolled 
emissions at each facility. Because EPA has little information on 
combustion-related emissions at fluorinated gas production facilities, 
these emissions were not included in the analysis. The results of the 
analysis for production of HFCs, PFCs, SF6, NF3, 
CFCs, and HCFCs are shown in Tables 7 and 8 of this preamble.

  Table 7--Threshold Analysis for Fluorinated GHG Emissions From Production of HFCs, PFCs, SF6, NF3, CFCs, and
                                                      HCFCs
                                            [Uncontrolled Emissions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Total national                  Emissions covered       Facilities covered
Threshold level  (metric tons CO2e/     emissions     Number of ------------------------------------------------
                 r)                   (metric tons   facilities    Metric tons
                                         CO2e )                       CO2e        Percent     Number    Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,000..............................      10,600,000          14      10,600,000        100         14        100
10,000.............................      10,600,000          14      10,600,000        100         14        100
25,000.............................      10,600,000          14      10,600,000        100         14        100
100,000............................      10,600,000          14      10,600,000        100         13         93
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 18673]]


  Table 8--Threshold Analysis for Fluorinated GHG Emissions From Production of HFCs, PFCs, SF6, NF3, CFCs, and
                                                      HCFCs
                                             [Controlled Emissions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Total national                  Emissions covered       Facilities covered
 Threshold level (metric tons CO2e/     emissions     Number of ------------------------------------------------
                 r)                   (metric tons   facilities    Metric tons
                                         CO2e )                       CO2e        Percent     Number    Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,000..............................      10,600,000          14      10,600,000        100         14        100
10,000.............................      10,600,000          14      10,600,000        100         14        100
25,000.............................      10,600,000          14      10,600,000        100         14        100
100,000............................      10,600,000          14      10,300,000         97         10         71
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As can be seen from the tables, most HFC, PFC, SF2e , 
NF3, CFC, and HCFC production facilities would be covered by 
all the thresholds considered. Although we do not have facility-
specific production information for producers of fluorinated 
anesthetics, we believe that few or none of these facilities are likely 
to have uncontrolled emissions above the proposed threshold.
    EPA is proposing to use a threshold based on uncontrolled (pre-
control) rather than controlled (post-control) emissions to ensure that 
facilities that generate significant quantities fluorinated GHGs fully 
characterize and quantify their emissions, even if they initially 
believe those emissions to be small. Discussions with fluorinated gas 
manufacturers indicate that occasionally, fluorinated GHG by-products 
may be generated and emitted from production processes unexpectedly. If 
these by-products are relatively difficult to destroy (e.g., 
CF4), facilities' post-control emissions may be 
significantly higher than expected.\25\ The initial scoping test 
described in the next section is intended to identify the full range of 
fluorinated GHGs in potentially emitted streams. Applying the full 
methodologies on the basis of the initial scoping study will provide 
EPA and the facilities with critical information on the extent to which 
control technologies are actually reducing emissions and therefore on 
the actual emissions from the facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ It is important to note that even if a threshold based on 
controlled emissions were adopted, failure to report as required 
when a source's actual emissions were above that threshold would be 
a violation of these regulations and the Clean Air Act. Lack of test 
data or other errors of omission do not excuse such violations as 
the Clean Air Act is a strict liability statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is requesting comment on an alternative approach in which all 
fluorinated gas production facilities, regardless of their estimated 
pre-control emissions, would analyze their emissions using the initial 
scoping test discussed in the next section. This approach would ensure 
that facilities understood the identities, and therefore the GWPs, of 
the fluorinated GHGs potentially emitted. EPA requests comment on this 
option, as well as on the option of simply eliminating the threshold 
for fluorinated gas production facilities and making this an ``all-in'' 
category.
    As is true for the source categories covered by the Final MRR, 
fluorinated GHG production facilities could cease reporting if their 
controlled (post-control) emissions were less than 25,000 
mtCO2e per year for five consecutive years or less than 
15,000 mtCO2e per year for three consecutive years. This 
approach may be appropriate if control technologies are effective and 
there is no evidence of unexpected uncontrolled emissions. However, EPA 
requests comment on an alternative ``off-ramp'' for this source 
category. Under this alternative approach, the 25,000 and 15,000 
mtCO2e triggers would be based on the level of emissions 
that is estimated before accounting for the use of any control 
technology (e.g., thermal oxidation). EPA is requesting comment on this 
approach because emissions can become quite large if the destruction 
device malfunctions, is not operated properly, or is not used for some 
other reason.
    As noted above, EPA estimates that under this proposal, all HFC, 
PFC, SF6, and NF3 production facilities would be 
covered, and few or no anesthetics producing facilities would be 
covered. However, it is possible that EPA has underestimated total pre-
control emissions from anesthetics. In its threshold analysis for 
fluorinated GHG production, EPA has assumed that emissions have GWPs 
similar to those of the product produced. However, fluorinated 
anesthetics are hydrofluoroethers, and other HFE production processes 
of which EPA is aware generate by-products with higher GWPs than the 
product. EPA requests comment on this issue.
    A full discussion of the threshold selection analysis is available 
in the revised Fluorinated Gas Production TSD. For specific information 
on costs, including unamortized first year capital expenditures, please 
refer to the Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) for this rulemaking.
5. Selection of Proposed Monitoring Methods
a. Summary of Proposed Monitoring Methods
    We are proposing to allow facilities to use either a mass-balance 
approach or a site-specific, process-vent-specific emission factor 
(PSEF) approach to estimate their fluorinated GHG emissions from 
fluorinated GHG production. Facilities would be required to use the 
PSEF approach to estimate their fluorinated GHG emissions from CFC and 
HCFC production or from fluorinated gas transformation. The mass-
balance approach is similar to that proposed in April, 2009, but has 
been modified in some details in response to comments. Facilities using 
either approach would be required to perform a one-time scoping test to 
identify the fluorinated GHGs in certain emitted streams and to verify 
the destruction efficiency (DE) of any destruction devices every five 
years. These approaches are discussed in more detail below.
b. Initial Scoping Test of Potentially Emitted Fluorinated GHGs
    In today's action, we are proposing that facilities that produce 
fluorinated gases perform an initial scoping test (proposed 40 CFR part 
98.124(a)). The purpose of the scoping test is to ensure that all of 
the fluorinated GHGs that occur in emitted streams are properly 
identified. EPA is concerned that without the test, facilities could 
mischaracterize the set of fluorinated GHGs that was emitted, leading 
to inaccurate emissions estimates. We are aware that in general, 
facilities will have already identified most if not all of the 
fluorinated GHGs occurring in emitted streams during process design and 
bench and pilot scale testing. However, as noted above, we are also 
aware of

[[Page 18674]]

situations in which producers have analyzed process or emissions 
streams and found fluorinated GHGs that they were not expecting. Such 
by-product fluorinated GHGs can have high GWPs, making their 
CO2-equivalent emissions significant.
    Under this requirement, which would be one-time for any given 
process, facilities would be required to sample the vent(s) or 
stream(s) that, alone or together, would be expected to contain all the 
fluorinated GHG by-products of the process. Facilities would be 
required to use EPA Method 18 (GC/ECD, GC/MS), EPA Method 320 (FTIR), 
or ASTM D6348-03 (FTIR) to identify fluorinated GHGs that occur in 
concentrations above 0.1 percent in emitted streams.
    For facilities using the mass-balance approach, the scoping test 
could be used to determine whether some emissions that are assumed to 
occur in the form of the product are actually occurring as by-products. 
For facilities using the process-vent-specific emission factor approach 
(PSEF), the test would identify by-products to measure in subsequent 
emissions testing to develop emission factors.
    To avoid the need to survey a large number of processes with 
relatively small fluorinated GHG emissions, EPA is proposing to limit 
the scoping test requirement to processes that would emit more than one 
metric ton per year of fluorinated GHGs before the imposition of 
control technologies. We are proposing a limit in tons of fluorinated 
GHGs rather than in tons of CO2e because the identities, and 
therefore the GWPs, of some fluorinated GHG constituents of the stream 
may not be known. Acquiring this information is the purpose of the 
test. We developed the one-ton limit by starting with a limit of 10,000 
mtCO2e for each process and making the reasonably 
conservative assumption that the unknown fluorinated GHG could have a 
GWP of 10,000. For purposes of estimating the mass of fluorinated GHG 
emitted from the process, facilities could use the same types of 
engineering calculations that they would use to determine whether 
process vent testing was required under the PSEF approach (described in 
more detail below). They could assume that the mass of carbon, 
fluorine, or another relevant element is emitted in the form of 
fluorinated GHGs that were previously identified in bench- or pilot-
scale testing.
    We are proposing that the one-metric-ton trigger be applied to 
emissions before rather than after control because some byproducts, 
particularly CF4, are very difficult to destroy. If these 
by-products occurred unexpectedly in a stream and if the trigger were 
applied to emissions after control, the facility would underestimate 
controlled emissions. Consequently, the facility could fail to 
undertake the scoping test when it was actually appropriate and could 
overlook the occurrence and emissions of the by-products.\26\ We are 
proposing that facilities test the streams before the control device 
because emissions streams are often diluted during destruction 
processes (e.g., due to fuel and air feeds), which would make it more 
difficult to detect and identify fluorinated GHGs that survived the 
destruction process. However, we request comment on this requirement as 
well as on the scoping test requirement as a whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ For example, suppose that a facility believed that all of 
the fluorinated GHG by-products from a certain process consisted of 
HFCs, which its destruction device destroyed with a destruction 
efficiency of 99.9 percent, but that one of these by-products was 
actually CF4, which the destruction device destroyed with 
an efficiency of only 50 percent. In this case, the facility could 
underestimate its fluorinated GHG emissions by more than an order of 
magnitude, neither seeking nor finding the CF4 that it 
was actually emitting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Mass-Balance Approach
    We are proposing that facilities producing fluorinated GHGs have 
the option of monitoring emissions using the mass-balance approach. In 
this approach, facilities would calculate the difference between the 
expected production of each fluorinated GHG based on the consumption of 
reactants and the measured production of that fluorinated GHG, 
accounting for yield losses related to byproducts (including 
intermediates permanently removed from the process) and wastes. Yield 
losses that could not be accounted for would be attributed to emissions 
of the fluorinated GHG product. This calculation could be performed for 
any fluorine- or carbon-containing reactant (e.g., HF or hydrocarbon) 
to estimate emissions of the fluorinated GHG product for that reactant 
(i.e., the mass balance may be based on a carbon balance or a fluorine 
balance). If fluorinated GHG byproducts were produced and were not 
completely recaptured or completely destroyed, facilities would also 
estimate emissions of each fluorinated GHG by-product.
    Because the mass-balance approach assumes that losses from the 
process are emissions of the product, EPA believes that the mass-
balance approach would only be appropriate for estimating emissions 
from fluorinated GHG production, not production of CFCs, HCFCs, or 
polymers. (In the last three situations, the product is not a 
fluorinated GHG.) However, EPA requests comment on this issue.
    To be eligible to use the mass-balance approach, facilities would 
have to demonstrate that their planned measurements could meet a 
statistical error limit required in the rule (described below). If the 
facility could not demonstrate that it could meet the error limit, it 
would have to improve the accuracy and/or precision of its monitoring 
and measurement devices or opt to use another monitoring approach 
offered in the rule.
    To carry out the mass-balance approach, the facility would choose a 
reactant for yield calculation purposes. The facility would then weigh 
or meter the mass of that reactant fed into the process, any primary 
fluorinated GHG produced by the process, the mass of the reactant 
permanently removed from the process (i.e., sent to the thermal 
oxidizer or other equipment, not immediately recycled back into the 
process), any fluorinated GHG byproducts generated, and any streams 
that contain the product or fluorinated GHG byproducts and that are 
recaptured or destroyed. These measurements would be tracked monthly or 
more frequently and consolidated and recorded on a monthly basis. If 
monitored streams (including relevant process streams, emissions 
streams, and destroyed streams) included more than one component 
(product, byproducts, or other materials) in more than trace 
concentrations,\27\ the facility would be required to monitor 
concentrations of products and byproducts in these streams. Finally, 
the facility would be required to perform monthly mass-balance 
calculations for each product produced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ EPA is proposing to define ``trace concentration'' as any 
concentration less than 0.1 percent by mass of the stream.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Statistical Error Estimate. To estimate the statistical error 
associated with use of the mass-balance approach, facilities would be 
required to use error propagation, considering the accuracy and 
precision of their measurements and the calculation methods of the 
mass-balance approach. This approach is described in more detail in the 
TSD for this proposal. Under this approach, EPA would not specify 
precision and accuracy requirements for individual mass or 
concentration measurements. Instead, EPA would require that the error 
associated with the overall estimate of fluorinated GHG emissions fall 
under 30 percent (relative error) or under 3,000 mtCO2e 
(absolute error). (Both errors are expressed as halves of 95 percent 
confidence intervals; for normal distributions, this is quite close

[[Page 18675]]

to two standard deviations). Facilities could achieve this level of 
precision however they chose.
    We are proposing to require the error estimate to ensure that the 
use of the mass-balance approach yields accurate emission estimates. As 
observed by several groups that commented on the initial proposal, the 
mass-balance approach can result in large errors if measurements of the 
flow of fluorinated GHGs in one or more streams have significant 
errors.\28\ We recognize that the proposed approach requires facilities 
to calculate the overall error of their own estimates, which adds 
complication and introduces opportunities for mistakes. We therefore 
plan to develop a calculation tool that would permit reporters to 
develop an error estimate, reducing both their burden and the 
likelihood of errors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ The mass-balance approach works by subtracting the masses 
of process outputs from those of process inputs. As a result, errors 
that are a relatively small share of these masses become a large 
share of the difference between them. Errors are particularly a 
concern for streams where the fluorinated GHG is only one component 
of the total flow, and where, therefore, fluorinated GHG 
concentrations must be measured. In general, the accuracy and 
precision of concentration measurements is expected to be 
approximately +/-10 percent, although this can be as low as five 
percent and as high as 20 percent, depending on the circumstances. 
If this 10 percent error applies to a stream that constitutes a 
significant input or (more likely) output of the process, it can 
lead to an emissions estimate with a high relative error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are proposing a maximum relative error of 30 percent because 
this error is comparable to that cited by the facility that has used an 
emission factor approach to estimate its fluorinated GHG emissions.\29\ 
It is also comparable to the error that EPA calculates for a facility 
with an emission rate of two percent and with good precisions and 
accuracies for its mass flow measurements (+/-0.2 percent) and for its 
concentration measurement (+/-10 percent) of a waste stream 
constituting five percent of the process's fluorinated GHG output flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ A 13 percent error expressed as a standard deviation 
translates into a 26 percent error expressed as one half of a 95 
percent confidence interval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For facilities whose emissions constitute a very small share of 
their inputs and outputs (e.g., one percent or less), a relative error 
of 30 percent will be very difficult to achieve using a mass-balance 
approach. At the same time, the absolute error of such a facility's 
estimate may be smaller than the absolute error of a facility that 
meets the relative error test but that has a higher emission rate. EPA 
is therefore proposing a maximum permissible absolute error of 3,000 
mtCO2e for facilities whose estimates have relative errors 
greater than 30 percent. This absolute error is equivalent to 30 
percent of the 10,000 mtCO2e threshold that is used 
elsewhere in the subpart to establish requirements for different 
sources (e.g., process vents). Under this approach, processes whose 
emissions were lower than 10,000 mtCO2e could have relative 
errors higher than 30 percent so long as they met the limit on absolute 
error. This approach avoids penalizing processes and facilities with 
low emissions. EPA requests comment on the absolute error limit of 
3,000 mtCO2e. EPA is also considering a higher limit, e.g., 
5,000 mtCO2e.
    Another approach that would avoid penalizing facilities with low 
emission rates would be to express the maximum relative error as a 
fraction of the total mass of reactants fed into (or consumed by) the 
process. For a given process, this mass would remain relatively 
constant regardless of the emission rate. For the model facility 
described above, with errors of 0.2 percent in its mass flow 
measurements and of 10 percent in its concentration measurements, the 
error of the emissions estimate relative to the total mass of reactants 
is about 0.3 percent. One advantage of this approach compared to the 
absolute limit is that this approach limits the relative errors for 
processes with small throughputs, while the absolute limit could permit 
very large relative errors for processes with small throughputs. EPA 
requests comment on this approach.
    In developing the approach to specifying maximum absolute and/or 
relative errors for the overall emissions estimate, we considered the 
alternative of specifying the maximum allowable errors (precisions and 
accuracies) of the individual measurements that feed into the mass-
balance equation. This is the approach that EPA took in the initial 
proposal. This approach limits error, but it also limits flexibility, a 
concern raised by several commenters. Even a facility with a relatively 
large error in one stream may be able to bring the total error of its 
emissions estimate to a tolerable level by improving the accuracy and 
precision of other measurements that are used in the mass-balance 
equation, such as the mass flows of reactants and products. 
Nevertheless, EPA requests comment on the option of reverting to 
specific tolerances for individual measurements that feed into the 
mass-balance equation, as originally proposed.
    Choice of Reactant Whose Yield Is Measured. EPA is today proposing 
to allow facilities to estimate emissions under the mass-balance 
approach using one of the reactants rather than both as originally 
proposed.\30\ Some fluorinated GHG producers noted that, for various 
reasons, it is sometimes considerably more difficult to track the 
yields of some reactants than others (e.g., HF vs. an organic 
feedstock). EPA notes that facilities estimating their emissions based 
on the yield of one reactant would still need to be able to demonstrate 
that their estimate passed the statistical error test discussed above. 
EPA requests comment on this approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Under the initial proposed rule, facilities would have been 
required to perform the mass-balance calculations for each reactant 
(e.g., both HF and the chlorocarbon or hydrocarbon) and to take the 
average of the two results as the emissions estimate. This would be 
expected to lead to the most robust estimate (i.e., the estimate 
with the lowest uncertainty) if the uncertainties in both yield 
calculations were similar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Frequency of Measurement and Calculation. In today's proposed rule, 
EPA is proposing to require that facilities using the mass-balance 
approach measure and calculate their emissions monthly. A number of 
fluorocarbon producers who commented on the initial proposal noted that 
daily measurements were burdensome and led to large errors in the 
estimates of daily emissions. They observed that many streams contain 
acidic and reactive constituents such as HF, and that sampling from 
these streams can create safety hazards. They also noted that daily 
yield measurements can vary significantly (sometimes exceeding 100 
percent) for three reasons. First, when continuous processes are first 
started, there is a lag time between the time the reactants are fed 
into the process and the time products emerge. Second, even after the 
process has been running for a while, the quantity of material in the 
process can vary based on weather, changes in production rates, and 
other conditions. Third, the relatively large errors in measurements of 
in-process product holding tanks (e.g., based on sight-glass readings) 
have a significant impact on daily mass balances. Over time, all of 
these effects smooth out, making longer term mass balances far more 
reliable than daily mass balances.
    EPA has carefully considered these comments. The goal of the rule 
is to gather information on annual, not daily, emissions. The advantage 
of more frequent measurements and calculations is that, where mass 
flows and concentrations are variable, more frequent measurements and 
calculations will lead to more accurate and precise estimates than less 
frequent measurements and calculations. However, in this case the 
disadvantages of daily measurement and calculation

[[Page 18676]]

appear to outweigh the advantages. EPA believes that monthly mass-
balance calculations will lead to acceptably accurate estimates at 
reasonable cost. Nevertheless, EPA requests comment on whether the 
variability of the mass flows or concentrations in some production 
processes may be sufficiently large to justify more frequent 
measurement and calculation, e.g., weekly.
    EPA also requests comment on whether annual or less frequent 
characterizations of fluorinated GHG concentrations in some streams 
should be permitted under the mass-balance approach. Some fluorinated 
GHG producers have stated that it is difficult to measure fluorinated 
GHG concentrations in some streams. In some cases, this is because 
waste streams contain hydrofluoric acid (HF), which, due to its acidity 
and reactivity, can damage sampling and analytical equipment. As 
discussed in the TSD, there may be technical solutions to this problem. 
To the extent that these approaches could be relatively difficult or 
expensive to implement, however, it might be appropriate to permit very 
infrequent measurements. The disadvantage of this approach is that it 
might lead to large errors, particularly for processes that vary over 
time. A series of measurements might be required to (1) reduce the 
error and (2) quantify the error for purposes of the statistical error 
test. Such measurements would be analogous to those used to develop 
emission factors.
    Reactant and Byproduct Emissions. EPA recognizes that the proposed 
mass-balance approach would assume that all yield losses that are not 
accounted for are attributable to emissions of the fluorinated GHG 
product. In some cases, the losses may be untracked emissions (or other 
losses) of reactants or fluorinated by-products. In general, EPA 
understands that reactant flows are measured at the inlet to the 
reactor; thus, any losses of reactant that occur between the point of 
measurement and the reactor are likely to be small. However, reactants 
that are recovered from the process, whether they are recycled back 
into it or removed permanently, may experience some losses that the 
proposed method does not account for.
    Fluorocarbon by-products, according to the IPCC Guidelines, 
generally have ``radiative forcing properties similar to those of the 
desired fluorochemical.'' However, EPA is aware of at least one 
facility where byproducts often have much larger GWPs than the 
products. In this case, assuming by-product emissions are product 
emissions would lead to large errors in estimating overall fluorinated 
GHG emissions. EPA believes that the initial scoping test of emitted 
streams that is discussed above would help to determine whether this 
was an issue for a given process.\31\ If it was, then the facility 
could elect to pursue the PSEF approach rather than the mass-balance 
approach for that process, or, if the facility was still interested in 
pursuing the mass-balance approach, it could perform more emissions 
testing to develop a robust break-out among the fluorinated GHGs 
assumed to be emitted under the mass-balance approach. Such emissions 
testing would be similar to that performed for the PSEF approach below, 
except it would focus on the partitioning of emissions among the 
various fluorinated GHGs. This approach is discussed in more detail in 
the TSD. EPA requests comment on this and other possible approaches for 
distinguishing between emissions of fluorinated GHG products and 
emissions of fluorinated by-products under the mass-balance approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ For example, if the survey indicated that attributing all 
unaccounted-for losses to product emissions would lead to more than 
a ten percent error in the CO2e emitted, the facility 
could be required to adjust its emissions estimate to account for 
by-product losses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alternative approach based on measurements of balanced element 
(e.g., total fluorine). EPA is considering an alternative to the mass-
balance approach described above in which facilities would not be 
required to speciate their streams (including relevant process streams, 
destroyed streams, and emitted streams) monthly. Instead, they could 
make monthly measurements of the total fluorine (or other element of 
interest other than carbon) in the streams, e.g., by burning them. This 
approach, which is described in more detail in the TSD, could be 
particularly useful for processes with multiple by-products. Facilities 
would still be required to perform an initial survey of the fluorinated 
GHGs in the stream(s) to identify the fluorinated GHG constituents. In 
addition, as discussed above, it may be appropriate to require 
facilities to perform emissions testing to ensure that emissions are 
properly allocated among the product and various by-products. However, 
facilities would perform this testing relatively infrequently (e.g., 
every five years) rather than monthly. One potential concern regarding 
this variant of the mass-balance approach is the potential difficulty 
of performing analysis of combustion products that are likely to 
include HF and HCl. It may be appropriate to require facilities to 
validate this approach against the mass-balance method described above. 
EPA requests comment on this approach.
d. Process-Specific Emission Factor Approach
    EPA is proposing an additional monitoring approach based on site-
specific, process-specific emissions factors. This approach includes 
either calculation or measurement of process vent emission factors 
depending on the size and fate of the emissions from the vent. Under 
this approach, facilities would develop preliminary emissions estimates 
to determine the level of annual uncontrolled emissions from each 
process vent in processes subject to this subpart. For process vents 
with uncontrolled emissions of less than 10,000 mtCO2e (or 
less than 1 metric ton for emissions that include a fluorinated GHG 
whose GWP does not appear in Table A-1 of subpart A), facilities could 
conduct either engineering calculations or emissions testing to develop 
emission factors. Facilities could also conduct either engineering 
calculations or emissions testing to develop emission factors for 
emissions that were vented to a destruction device demonstrated to 
achieve a destruction efficiency of 99.9 percent (for fluorinated 
GHGs), as long as equipment or procedures \32\ were in place to ensure 
that uncontrolled emissions did not occur. For other vented emissions, 
facilities would be required to conduct emissions testing to determine 
the process vent emission factor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Such equipment or procedures could include, for example, 
holding tank capacity, monitoring of by-pass streams, or compulsory 
process shutdowns in the event the destruction device remains off 
line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To estimate annual fluorinated GHG emissions from each vent, 
facilities would multiply each emission factor by the appropriate 
activity data and account for the use (and uptime) of destruction 
devices. The fluorinated GHG emissions for all vents at the facility 
would be summed to obtain the total emissions from process vents for 
the facility as a whole.
    To ensure that the emissions estimate encompassed all sources of 
emissions within the processes that would be subject to this subpart, 
facilities using the emission factor approach would also be required to 
estimate emissions from equipment leaks.\33\ Leaks would be

[[Page 18677]]

monitored annually using EPA Method 21 and the Protocol for Equipment 
Leak Estimates U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Publication 
No. EPA-453/R-95-017, November 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ As noted above, process vents are only one of the sources 
of emissions from production, transformation, and destruction 
processes. Another source is equipment leaks, specifically, leaks 
from piping and connections. The mass-balance approach does not need 
to be supplemented with equipment leak assessment because it 
accounts for all emissions between the measurements of inputs and 
outputs, whether these emissions occur from vents or leaks. (This 
assumes that the production measurement used to estimate and report 
emissions under the mass-balance approach is the same as that used 
to report additions to the industrial gas supply. EPA is proposing 
that these two measurements be identical.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing less demanding measurement requirements for small 
and destroyed emission streams to ensure that the effort and resources 
expended to measure emissions are commensurate with the size of those 
emissions. This principle has been adopted both for other source 
categories in the MRR and for numerous other EPA programs. However, EPA 
is requesting comment on some aspects of its proposed approaches.
    First, we request comment on the appropriateness of the 
CO2e cutoff below which calculations are permitted. One 
potential concern associated with this approach is that 10,000 
mtCO2e equates to relatively low mass emissions of 
fluorinated GHGs with high GWPs. For example, 10,000 mtCO2e 
equates to 923 pounds of SF6 and 1,282 pounds of 
NF3. Our understanding is that SF6 can be 
detected at extremely low emission rates and concentrations, but we 
request comment on whether emissions of other high-GWP compounds at 
this level may be difficult to detect. An option on which we are 
requesting comment is to relax the CO2e emissions cutoff and 
to include an unweighted emissions cutoff (i.e., in tons of fluorinated 
GHG) along with it. For example, for process vents with less than 
25,000 mtCO2e uncontrolled and less than 10,000 pounds of 
fluorinated GHG uncontrolled, facilities would have the option to 
conduct emissions testing or engineering calculations or assessments.
    Second, EPA requests comment on its criteria for allowing use of 
engineering calculations to characterize the emissions of process vents 
that vent to destruction devices. EPA understands that many and perhaps 
most destruction devices used at fluorinated GHG production facilities 
can achieve DEs of 99.9 percent or better. EPA also understands that 
many facilities have equipment or procedures in place to prevent 
uncontrolled emissions, though some do not. It is important to note 
that uncontrolled emissions during device downtime can reduce the 
effective (time-weighted average) DE to 90 percent or less, increasing 
emissions by a factor of 100 or more. However, one alternative to the 
proposed approach would be to allow the use of engineering calculations 
for any vent whose emissions, considering both the DE and the 
historical uptime of the destruction device, fell below the 10,000 
mtCO2e cutoff. For purposes of this calculation, the annual 
time of uncontrolled emissions could be equated to the longest annual 
time of uncontrolled emissions observed over the previous five years. 
EPA requests comment on this alternative approach.
    Preliminary estimates. To develop preliminary emissions estimates 
for each vent, facilities would be permitted to use the same types of 
previous measurements, engineering calculations, and engineering 
assessments that they would be permitted to use to develop emission 
calculation factors. These are described below under ``Process-specific 
Emission Calculation Factor Approach.''
    Process vent emissions testing. For process vent emissions testing, 
facilities would be required to use EPA reference methods, including 
EPA Method 18 and EPA Method 320, or ASTM D6348-03.\34\ Alternative 
testing methods could be used if validated using EPA Method 301. EPA 
reference methods are included in the rule requirements for determining 
sample and velocity traverses, velocity and volumetric flow rates, gas 
analysis, and stack gas moisture, along with several alternative flow 
rate determination methods, such as OTM-24 and ALT-012. Commenters who 
have previously estimated their emissions of fluorinated GHGs stated 
that they used these approaches to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ EPA Method 320 and the ASTM method are Fourier Transform 
Infrared (FTIR) methods. For such methods, compounds are identified 
by characteristic spectra, and libraries providing spectra for the 
range of compounds likely to be found in emissions streams can 
greatly facilitate analysis. EPA requests comment on whether such 
spectral libraries are available for fluorinated GHGs, and if not, 
on whether EPA might play a role in assembling a spectral library 
for fluorinated GHGs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The testing periods would be required to include representative 
process operation and to exclude atypical events (such as process 
upsets or malfunctions).\35\ Within any given operating scenario 
(discussed further below), the full range of process operation would be 
required to be represented, i.e. the emissions data must be 
representative of typical process operation while also including 
process variability. Facilities would be required to consider process 
parameters that may potentially cause variability of the emissions, 
such as catalyst degradation, seasonal variability, raw material 
suppliers, etc. For example, where a facility uses a catalyst, test 
runs would have to be conducted at various points over the life of the 
catalyst. The production level during the testing periods would be 
required to be representative of normal operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ EPA is proposing an exception if monitoring is sufficiently 
long to ensure that such events are not overrepresented in the 
emission factor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To develop process-specific emissions factors, facilities would be 
required to conduct at least three test runs and to analyze the 
relative standard deviation (RSD) of the emission factors corresponding 
to each run to determine whether additional runs were necessary. The 
emission factors and their RSD would be calculated across all 
fluorinated GHGs emitted from the vent in CO2e terms. If the 
RSD exceeded twenty percent, the facility would be required to conduct 
an additional three tests. The rationale for the RSD test is that if 
the variability of a population or parameter is large, then more 
samples are required to obtain a robust estimate of the mean (average) 
of that parameter. EPA estimates that at a relative standard deviation 
of 20 percent, an emission factor calculated as the mean of three test 
runs has a 95 percent chance of being within 50 percent of the actual 
mean emission rate of the process. The reasoning and calculations 
behind this conclusion are discussed in more detail in the TSD.
    An alternative approach would be to conduct additional runs until 
the change in the running average emission factor fell under 10 
percent. This approach is similar to requirements for measuring 
emission factors (slope coefficients) in subpart F (Primary Aluminum) 
and could provide representative emissions from the process and address 
variability. However, it has two potential drawbacks in the context of 
fluorinated gas production. First, for processes whose variability is 
predictable (e.g., due to catalyst age) rather than random, the fourth 
sample could satisfy the running average requirement but lead to a 
biased emission factor, for example if two of the four samples were 
taken when the catalyst was new. Second, facilities could find it 
inconvenient to analyze samples and calculate emission factors between 
each test run after the first three. EPA requests comment on this 
alternative approach.
    For continuous process vents, facilities would conduct 1-hour test 
runs, and for batch process vents, facilities would test during 
emissions episodes of the batch. We request comment on the appropriate 
number of test runs to conduct for continuous and batch process vents 
and the appropriate RSD that facilities should meet. We also request 
comment of the appropriateness

[[Page 18678]]

of testing batch process vents during emissions episodes only. Another 
option is to require testing of vents for the full duration of the 
batch process, but this could significantly increase the expense of the 
emissions test without necessarily improving its accuracy.
    Where multiple processes vent into a common vent or control device, 
EPA is proposing that facilities do one of the following: sample each 
process in the ducts before the emissions are combined, sample when 
only one process is operating, or sample the combined emissions at 
representative combinations of capacity utilizations for all the 
processes. If the last option were selected, facilities would be 
required to perform 3 times n test runs, where n is the number of 
processes feeding into the common vent or add-on control device. The 
emission factor would be calculated by dividing the total emissions by 
the summed activity across the processes venting to the common vent, 
and the PSEF would be applied whenever one or more of the processes was 
operating.
    Process activity data would have to be collected simultaneously 
with the emissions data during the emissions test. The process activity 
data would be used to develop the emissions factor. Process activity 
data that could be used in development of the emissions factor includes 
raw material feed, amount of product produced, or other process 
activity known to have a direct effect on emissions.
    Facilities would be required to define the operating scenario that 
encompasses the range of operating conditions that represent typical 
operation for the process and to develop representative emissions 
factors for each operating scenario. To define the process operating 
scenario, a facility would include information including the process 
description and the specific process equipment used; the process vents, 
emission episodes and durations, and the quantity of uncontrolled 
fluorinated GHG emissions; the control device or destruction device 
used to control emissions; and the manifolding of process vents within 
the process and from other processes. Alternative operating scenarios 
would also be defined for differences in operating conditions that 
affect emissions. Examples of situations where process differences may 
warrant separate operating scenarios include the following: Making 
small volumes of a product in one set of batch process equipment part 
of the year and making larger volumes in larger batch process equipment 
part of the year; use of two different types of catalyst in the same 
process; deliberate alterations in process conditions such as 
temperature or pressure to shift the reaction to a particular product; 
and making small volumes of a product in a batch process part of the 
year and making large volumes in a continuous process part of the year. 
A facility is required to develop a representative emissions factor for 
each process operating scenario because each operating scenario for a 
process will result in different emissions levels.
    In general, emissions testing during process startups and shutdowns 
would not be expected to lead to representative emission factors, 
because emission rates tend to fluctuate during such events. Exceptions 
to this could include long-term monitoring that would not over-
represent startup or shutdown conditions in the resulting emission 
factor, and monitoring specifically to obtain emission factors for 
startups and shutdowns conditions. Several companies indicated that 
they have analyzed the emissions profile during startup events and 
during shutdown events. They found that the emission rates during these 
events departed from those at steady state conditions, but that 
emissions profiles were consistent between one startup event and 
another.
    The uncertainty of the process-vent-specific emission factor 
approach is anticipated to be roughly 10 percent; the uncertainty of 
the emissions testing is estimated to be approximately 10 percent (as 
calibration requirements for most test methods require 10 
percent accuracy and precision), and the uncertainty of the process 
activity measurement is 1 percent. While emissions testing 
must continue if the first three test runs exhibit an RSD or 0.2 or 
greater, the RSD is expected to be a measure of the variability of the 
process rather than the error of the measurement.
    EPA is proposing that emission factors would need to be developed 
before December 31, 2011, the end of the first year of reporting under 
this subpart. Throughout 2011, facilities would be responsible for 
gathering monthly activity data to which the emission factors, once 
developed, would be applied to estimate monthly and annual emissions 
from each process.
    Updates to Emission Factors. After developing their initial 
process-vent-specific emission factors, facilities would be required to 
update them every 5 years or when there was a process or equipment 
change that would alter the process operating scenario. Process or 
equipment changes would include changes in raw materials, equipment, 
production levels, or operating conditions that would be expected to 
affect the level of emissions. EPA is proposing periodic updates of the 
emission factors because facilities that have measured and re-measured 
their emission factors over a period of several years have found that 
gradual, incremental changes to the process (e.g., to improve yields) 
have significantly changed emission factors over time. The proposed 
five-year frequency is consistent with that required for some source 
categories covered in the MRR (e.g., for process vents used in HCFC-22 
production processes under subpart O) but is higher than that required 
for others (e.g., the 10-year frequency for measurement of slope 
factors for aluminum processes). EPA requests comment on the proposed 
frequency of measurement.
    An alternative to regular updates to emission factors would be 
updates triggered by changes to other indicators of emission rates, 
such as process yields. Under such an approach, facilities could 
calculate how their emission factor would change if the change in yield 
were attributable solely to a change in the emission rate. If this 
change exceeded 15 percent (as a fraction of the current emission 
factor), the emission factor would need to be re-measured. EPA requests 
comment on this alternative.
    Measurements performed before the effective date of this rule. We 
are proposing that emission factor measurements performed before the 
effective date of this rule could be used to estimate GHG emissions if 
the measurements were performed in accordance with the requirements of 
the rule less than five years before the effective date. We believe 
that it may also be appropriate to permit use of previously measured 
emission factors whose measurement departed in some particulars from 
the requirements of the rule but still substantially met most of the 
requirements, making it likely that the emission factors were 
representative. In this case, facilities could submit information to 
EPA on areas where measurements departed from the requirements from the 
rule, and EPA could review the measurements to verify that they still 
substantially met most of the requirements. We request comment on this 
option.
    Process-Specific Emission Calculation Factor Approach. As noted 
above, facilities could use engineering calculations to estimate 
emissions from vents that either (1) had annual emissions below 1,000 
mtCO2e or (2) vented to a control device with a destruction 
efficiency of 99.9 percent

[[Page 18679]]

and had equipment and procedures in place to prevent uncontrolled 
emissions. We are proposing an emission factor approach that includes 
both emissions testing and engineering calculations, with the required 
approach depending on the magnitude of uncontrolled emissions from the 
process vent.
    Engineering calculations use basic chemical engineering principles 
and component property data to calculate emissions (and develop 
emission factors) rather than actually measuring emissions. 
Calculations for various emissions episodes could be conducted using 
standard equations presented in EPA's Emissions Inventory Improvement 
Process guidance documents, Pharmaceutical NESHAP, and Miscellaneous 
Organic NESHAP. Calculations highlighted in these documents and in 
codified rule text include vapor displacement, purging, heating, 
depressurization, vacuum systems, gas evolution, air drying, and empty 
vessel purging.
    Engineering assessments may be conducted using previous test data 
or other information available on the process. Engineering assessments 
include use of previous test reports where the emissions are 
representative of current operating practices; bench-scale or pilot-
scale test data that are representative of full-scale process operating 
conditions; design analysis based on chemical engineering principles, 
measurable process parameters, or physical or chemical laws or 
properties. The data used in engineering assessments must be 
documented.
    Process activity data must be measured in conjunction with the 
emissions estimate based on calculations and assessments. This process 
activity data is needed to develop the emissions calculation factor.
    Just as for emission factor development, facilities are required to 
define the operating scenario for the emission calculation factor 
development. Alternative operating scenarios would also be defined for 
differences in operating conditions that affect emissions. As discussed 
previously for the emission factor approach, a facility would be 
required to develop a representative emission calculation factor for 
each process operating scenario because each operating scenario for a 
process will result in different emission levels (see discussion 
above).
    Facilities would update the process-vent-specific emission 
calculation factors every five years or when there is a process or 
equipment change that would alter the process operating scenario.
    Potential use of continuous emissions monitors to measure emissions 
from vents. Another option we are considering is to require that 
facilities measure emissions from fluorinated gas production facilities 
using continuous emissions monitors (CEMS). Under this approach, 
facilities would be required to install and operate CEMS capable of 
measuring fluorinated GHGs to measure process emissions. The 
requirements for the CEMs would be similar to those in subpart C, 
adjusted, as appropriate, to accommodate CEMS for fluorinated gases. 
One possible option is to use Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometers 
(FTIRs) in scrubber stacks to measure emissions. FTIR spectroscopy is 
presently used to conduct short-term fluorinated GHG emission 
measurements from processes.
    If properly selected and maintained, CEMS would be expected to 
provide estimates of emissions more accurate than either the mass-
balance or the process-vent approach. However, potential drawbacks to 
requiring CEMS are that they would be relatively expensive to install 
and they may not tolerate the acidic and reactive environments found in 
vents at many fluorinated gas production facilities. (The latter 
concern might be mitigated by installing CEMS after a scrubber, if this 
is practicable.) Given these potential concerns, it may be appropriate 
to require CEMS for particularly large emission streams, e.g., those 
resulting in emissions of more than 50,000 mtCO2e annually. 
EPA requests comment on the use and implementation of CEMS at 
fluorinated gas production facilities. We also request data or other 
information evaluating the use of CEMS in fluorinated gas production 
facilities to determine fluorinated GHG emissions.
    Equipment Leak Emissions Estimates. For completeness, EPA is 
proposing that monitoring of process vents be supplemented by 
monitoring of equipment leaks, whose emissions do not occur through 
process vents. To estimate emissions from equipment leaks, we would 
require use of EPA Method 21 and the Protocol for Equipment Leak 
Estimates (EPA-453/R-95-017). Leak monitoring would be performed 
annually. The Protocol includes four methods for estimating equipment 
leaks. These are, from least to most accurate, the Average Emission 
Factor Approach, the Screening Ranges Approach, EPA Correlation 
Approach, and the Unit-Specific Correlation Approach. We are proposing 
that the facility use one of the last three methods. To use these 
methods, the facility would need to have (or develop) Response Factors 
relating concentrations of the target fluorinated GHG (or surrogate gas 
co-occurring in the stream) to concentrations of the gas with which the 
leak detector is calibrated. Our understanding is that flame ionization 
detectors (FIDs) are generally insensitive to fluorinated GHGs, and 
that they are therefore not likely to be effective for detecting and 
quantifying fluorinated GHG leaks. An exception to this would be a 
situation in which the fluorinated GHG occurred in a stream along with 
a substance (e.g., a hydrocarbon) to which the FID was sensitive; in 
this case, the other substance could be used as a surrogate to quantify 
leaks from the stream. We understand that at least two fluorocarbon 
producers currently use methods in the Protocol to quantify their 
emissions of fluorinated GHGs with different levels of accuracy and 
precision.\36\ Other analytical techniques that are sensitive to 
fluorinated compounds may be available to monitor concentrations of 
equipment leaks, including photoionization, ultraviolet, infrared, and 
others. EPA requests comment on the availability and use of portable 
monitoring instruments for equipment leak monitoring of fluorinated 
GHG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ One producer estimates HFC and other fluorocarbon emissions 
by using the Average Emission Factor Approach. This approach simply 
assigns an average emission factor to each component without any 
evaluation of whether or how much that component is actually 
leaking. The second producer estimates emissions using the Screening 
Ranges Approach, which assigns different emission factors to 
components based on whether the concentrations of the target 
chemical are above or below 10,000 ppmv. This producer has developed 
a Response Factor for HCFC-22, which is present in the same streams 
as the HFC-23 whose leaks are being estimated. (HFC-23 emissions are 
discussed in Section O of the October 30, 2009 MRR.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another approach for monitoring leaks from pieces of equipment 
includes use of the Alternative Work Practice (AWP) for EPA Method 21 
(similar to monitoring requirements under 40 CFR part 60, subpart A, 40 
CFR part 60.18; 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, 40 CFR part 63.11; or 40 CFR 
part 65, subpart A, 40 CFR part 65.7). This approach would include 
monitoring leaking equipment with an optical gas imaging instrument. 
Emissions from those pieces of equipment found to be leaking could be 
estimated based on emission factors. Under this approach, facilities 
would be required to image each piece of equipment associated with 
processes covered under subpart L and in fluorinated GHG service, and 
all

[[Page 18680]]

emissions imaged by the optical gas imaging instrument would be 
considered leaks and would be subject to emissions estimation. EPA 
requests comment on the technical feasibility and accuracy of this 
approach for fluorinated GHG emissions.
    Other Potentially Significant Emission Points. We are requesting 
comment on the inclusion of fluorinated GHG emissions from storage 
tanks, wastewater, and container filling, particularly where these 
emissions occur before the production measurement at fluorinated GHG 
production facilities. We anticipate that emissions from wastewater and 
storage tanks would be small to insignificant due to the low solubility 
of most fluorinated GHGs in water and the use of pressurized tanks for 
storage. However, we request comment on the emission levels expected 
from these emission points.
    Our current understanding is that most fluorinated GHG production 
facilities measure their production before container filling, e.g., by 
using flowmeters just upstream of the container connection to measure 
the mass flowing into the containers. If this is the case, emissions 
that occur during or after filling (e.g., from hoses and connections) 
would have been included in the production (supply) measurement. 
However, if production is measured by weighing containers before and 
after filling, then emissions during container filling would not have 
been included in the production measurement. In these cases, facilities 
using the emission factor approach would need to quantify container 
filling emissions for completeness. Possible methods for tracking these 
emissions include engineering estimates, default or site-specific 
emission factors, and mass balances. These methods are discussed in 
more detail in the TSD.
    Destruction Device Performance Testing. EPA is proposing to require 
fluorinated gas producers that destroy fluorinated GHGs to conduct an 
emissions test every five years to determine the destruction efficiency 
(DE) of the destruction device. As discussed further in the TSD, the 
testing for determining the DE would be similar to the emissions 
testing required to develop process-specific emission factors, 
described above. Facilities would be required to conduct their testing 
when operating at high loads reasonably expected to occur and when 
destroying the most-difficult-to-destroy fluorinated GHG fed into the 
device (or when destroying a surrogate that was more difficult to 
destroy than that fluorinated GHG). The last point is particularly 
important because some fluorinated GHGs (e.g., CF4 and 
SF6) are extremely difficult to destroy; DEs determined for 
other fluorinated GHGs would overestimate the destruction of these 
fluorinated GHGs.
    Facilities that have conducted an emissions test on their 
destruction device within the five years prior to the effective date of 
the rule would be allowed to use the DE determined during that test if 
the test was conducted in accordance with the proposed test 
requirements. Facilities could also use the DREs determined during 
principal organic hazardous constituent testing and hazardous waste 
combustor testing, provided those tests determined the DRE based on the 
most-difficult-to-destroy fluorinated GHG fed into the device (or based 
on a surrogate that was more difficult to destroy than the most-
difficult-to-destroy fluorinated GHG).
    EPA is proposing to require reporting of fluorinated GHG emissions 
from destruction of fluorinated GHGs; we request comment on whether we 
should also require reporting of by-product fluorinated GHG emissions 
from destruction of CFCs and HCFCs. Specifically, we request comment on 
the extent to which fluorinated GHGs may be generated and emitted 
during destruction of CFCs and HCFCs at facilities producing these 
chemicals. Testing of destruction devices used in the electronics 
sector has shown that destruction of one fluorinated compound can lead 
to the emission of others under some circumstances.
6. Selection of Procedures for Estimating Missing Data
    In the event that a scale or flowmeter normally used to measure 
reactants, products, by-products, or wastes fails to meet a test to 
verify its accuracy or precision, malfunctions, or is rendered 
inoperable, we are proposing that facilities be required to estimate 
these quantities using other measurements where these data are 
available. For example, facilities that ordinarily measure production 
by metering the flow into the day tank could use the weight of product 
charged into shipping containers for sale and distribution as a 
substitute. It is our understanding that the types of flowmeters and 
scales used to measure fluorocarbon production (e.g., Coriolis meters) 
are generally quite reliable, and therefore that it should rarely be 
necessary to rely solely on secondary production measurements. In 
general, production facilities rely on accurate monitoring and 
reporting of the inputs and outputs of the production process. 
Nevertheless, EPA is also proposing that if a secondary mass 
measurement for the stream is not available, producers can use a 
related parameter and the historical relationship between the related 
parameter and the missing parameter to estimate the flow.
    If concentration measurements are unavailable for some period, we 
are proposing that the facility use the average of the concentration 
measurements from just before and just after the period of missing 
data.
    We request comment on these proposed methods for estimating missing 
data.
7. Selection of Data Reporting Requirements
    Under the proposed rule, owners and operators of facilities 
producing fluorinated gases would be required to report both their 
fluorinated GHG emissions and the quantities used to estimate them on a 
process-specific basis. They would also be required to report the 
results of each scoping study, specifically, the chemical identities of 
the contents of potentially emitted streams. Facilities using the mass-
balance approach would report the masses of the reactants, products, 
by-products, and wastes, and, if applicable, the quantities of any 
product in the by-products and/or wastes (if that product is emitted at 
the facility). The chemical identities of reactants, products, and by-
products would also be reported, along with the chemical equations used 
to estimate emissions. Facilities using the emission factor approach 
would report the activity data used to calculate emissions (e.g., the 
quantity produced, transformed, or destroyed) and the emission factors 
used to estimate them. We are proposing that owners and operators 
report annual totals of these quantities by process and facility.
    Where fluorinated GHG production facilities have estimated missing 
data, the facility would be required to report the reason the data were 
missing, the length of time the data were missing, the method used to 
estimate the missing data, and the estimates of those data.
    We propose that facilities report these data because the data are 
necessary to verify facilities' calculations of fluorinated GHG 
emissions. We request comment on these proposed reporting requirements.
8. Selection of Records That Must Be Retained
    Maintaining records of the information used to determine the 
reported GHG emissions is necessary to enable us to verify that the GHG 
emissions monitoring and calculations

[[Page 18681]]

were done correctly. Under the proposed rule, owners and operators of 
facilities producing fluorinated GHGs would be required to retain 
records documenting the data reported, including records of monthly 
emission estimation calculations, all data that went in to the 
calculations, calibration records for flowmeters, scales, and gas 
chromatographs, and documentation of emission factor development 
activities. These records are necessary to verify that the GHG 
emissions monitoring and calculations were performed correctly.

C. Electric Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use

    In the April 2009 proposed MRR (74 FR 16448; April 10, 2009), EPA 
proposed mandatory reporting of SF6 and PFC emissions from 
electric power transmission and distribution system equipment in 
subpart DD. As initially proposed, this source category would comprise 
electric power transmission and distribution systems that operate using 
gas-insulated substations, circuit breakers and other switchgear, or 
power transformers containing sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) or 
perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and emissions would represent the annual 
facility-wide emissions of SF6 and PFCs for the reporting 
facility.
    EPA received comment from approximately 22 entities, many of whom 
requested elaboration on what is included in an electric power system 
for purposes of this source category as well as the relationship of an 
electric power system to a facility. The requirements of 40 CFR part 98 
apply to owners and operators of any ``facility''.\37\ EPA is issuing 
this supplemental proposal to provide additional detail on this source 
category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Unless otherwise specified in an individual subpart, 
facility means any physical property, plant, building, structure, 
source, or stationary equipment located on one or more contiguous or 
adjacent properties in actual physical contact or separated solely 
by a public roadway or other public right-of-way and under common 
ownership or common control, that emits or may emit any greenhouse 
gas. Operators of military installations may classify such 
installations as more than a single facility based on distinct and 
independent functional groupings within contiguous military 
properties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In doing so, our objective is to clarify and solicit further 
comment on the scope of an ``electric power system'' and what 
constitutes a facility for this subpart. We also provide further detail 
on options we considered. We are proposing to integrate the Energy 
Information Administration of the Department of Energy (EIA) list of 
examples of electric power entities into the definition of a facility 
for this subpart. The EIA lists the following as electric power 
entities: ``a company; an electric cooperative; a public electric 
supply corporation as the Tennessee Valley authority; a similar Federal 
department or agency such as the Bonneville Power Administration; the 
Bureau of Reclamation or the Corps of Engineers; a municipally owned 
electric department offering service to the public; or an electric 
public utility district (a ``PUD''); also a jointly owned electric 
supply project such as the Keystone.'' \38\ We are proposing to 
incorporate the EIA list of electric power entities because it is 
widely used in the industry and includes the spectrum of energy supply 
participants with relevant operations, i.e., vertically integrated, 
generate and transmit only, transmit and distribute only, transmit only 
and distribute only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of 
Energy, Energy Glossary: Energy terms and definitions; http://www.eia.gov/glossary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are also seeking comment on whether it would be appropriate to 
use the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) definition of a 
transmission and/or distribution entity in our definition of electric 
power system.\39\ RGGI defines an entity as ``the assets and equipment 
used to transmit and distribute electricity from an electric generator 
to the electrical load of a customer.'' It includes all related assets 
and equipment located within the service territory of the entity, 
defined as the service territory of a load-serving entity specified by 
the applicable State regulatory agency. In particular, EPA seeks 
comment on whether the RGGI definition includes the spectrum of 
entities identified in the EIA list and captures the full universe of 
SF6-emitting entities in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative Model Rule, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is requesting comments on only 40 CFR 98.300 Definition of the 
Source Category in proposed subpart DD. EPA is not seeking further 
comment on other elements of the initial proposal such as the selection 
of the threshold and the proposed monitoring methods.
1. Definition of the Source Category
    EPA proposes to define the source category as follows: ``The 
electric equipment use source category includes electric power systems 
as described in this paragraph. Notwithstanding the definition of 
facility in subpart A, for purposes of this subpart, ``facility'' means 
an electric power system. Electric power system means the collection of 
SF6- and PFC-insulated equipment linked through electric 
power transmission or distribution lines and operated as an integrated 
unit by one electric power entity or several entities that have a 
single owner. SF6- and PFC-insulated equipment includes gas-
insulated substations, circuit breakers, other switchgear, gas-
insulated lines, and power transformers containing SF6 or 
PFCs. Equipment also includes gas containers such as pressurized 
cylinders, gas carts, new equipment owned but not yet installed, or 
other containers.''
    The largest use of SF6 is as an electrical insulator and 
interrupter in equipment intended for use in connection with 
generation, transmission, distribution, and conversion of electric 
energy. The gas has been employed by the electric power industry in the 
United States since the 1950s because of its dielectric strength and 
arc-quenching characteristics. SF6 has replaced flammable 
insulating oils in many applications and allows for more compact 
substations in dense urban areas. It has also facilitated expansion of 
the electric power grid through long-distance transmission at high and 
extra-high voltages. SF6 is used in gas-insulated 
substations, circuit breakers and other switchgear, transformers, and 
gas-insulated lines. The types and location of gas-insulated equipment 
used varies depending on a number of technical, system design, 
geographic and historic factors. Currently, there are no available 
substitutes for SF6 in high-voltage applications. For 
further information, see the SF6 from Electrical Equipment 
TSD in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927).
    Since SF6 is used in pressurized equipment, unintended 
emissions of SF6 occur over the life cycle of the equipment. 
SF6 can escape from gas-insulated substations and switchgear 
through seals, especially from older equipment. The gas can also be 
released during installation, servicing, and equipment disposal. 
Emissions of SF6 from electric power systems were estimated 
to be 12.4 million metric tons of CO2e in 2006. Emissions 
from electrical equipment manufacture and refurbishing are being 
covered in subpart SS.
    PFCs are sometimes used as dielectric and as heat transfer fluids 
in power transformers. PFCs are also used for retrofitting CFC-113 
cooled transformers. The common PFC used in this application is 
perfluorohexane (C6F14). In terms of both 
absolute and carbon-weighted emissions, PFC emissions from electrical 
equipment are generally believed to be much smaller than SF6 
emissions. EPA does not currently have an estimate of PFC emissions 
from this source category.

[[Page 18682]]

PFCs, however, are very potent and persistent greenhouse gases and an 
accurate inventory of use and emissions from all sources is important. 
Consequently, as stated in our initial proposal, we are proposing to 
include emissions of PFCs in this subpart. Reference to gas-insulated 
equipment implies SF6 and PFCs.
    The electric transmission and distribution equipment use source 
category includes all gas-insulated electrical equipment such as gas-
insulated substations, circuit breakers, other switchgear, gas-
insulated lines, and power transformers. This equipment is used as part 
of an interconnected group of electric transmission lines and 
associated equipment for the movement or transfer of electric energy in 
bulk between points of supply and points at which it is transformed for 
delivery to the ultimate customer. This equipment, along with lines and 
other associated equipment used for the movement or transfer of 
electric energy, operates as part of a contemporaneous network in real-
time and in a synchronous manner to provide stable and reliable 
electricity to customers.
    A clear definition of a facility for this source category is 
important in order to determine whether a collection of electrical 
equipment meets the reporting threshold and to ensure that double or 
under reporting of emissions is minimized. In defining a facility, we 
reviewed current definitions used in the CAA and by the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission (FERC), North American Energy Reliability 
Corporation (NERC), California Air Resources Board (CARB), RGGI and 
EIA; consulted with industry; and reviewed current regulations relevant 
to the industry. Typically, the various regulations under the CAA 
define a facility as a group of emissions sources all located in a 
contiguous area and under the control of the same person (or persons 
under common control). The subpart A definition of facility would 
require all SF6 equipment included in the facility be 
located on contiguous or adjacent properties. We are proposing not to 
use the exact definition of ``facility'' found in subpart A because the 
completeness and accuracy of emissions data for this source category 
are dependent on reporting on all equipment regardless of location. For 
completeness, reporting needs to account for and report on all sources 
and activities within the facility. The purpose of transmission is to 
move energy over long distances. Similarly, distribution can occur over 
large geographical areas. Therefore, it is neither practical nor 
appropriate to exclude certain types of equipment solely based on its 
lack of physical proximity. Emissions from gas-insulated equipment 
occur during installation, operation, servicing and decommissioning. 
Accuracy of reporting requires that emissions are systematically 
neither over nor under actual emissions; consequently including all 
equipment at all periods of the life cycle is necessary. Thus, EPA has 
concluded that strict adherence to the subpart A definition is not 
appropriate for this source category.
    In deciding where to draw the boundary between one facility and the 
next, we considered the following levels of reporting: Per piece of 
equipment, by substation or switchyard, corporate-level, and 
aggregation of total equipment by system. Reporting per piece of 
equipment was deemed costly and highly impractical for reporters. 
Reporting by substation or switchyard, where multiple pieces of 
equipment is often located, would also be burdensome, given that a 
specific reporting protocol using the proposed mass-balance reporting 
method would have to be set up for each substation, requiring cylinder 
inventory and other data collection to be done on a per substation 
basis. Although this may be practical for some system owners, others 
have responsibility for dozens or hundreds of substations. Finally, EPA 
considered corporate-level reporting based on comments submitted on our 
initial proposal. We concluded, however, that given the complex and 
varied corporate structures within the electric power industry that 
approach would not be practical and appropriate for this source. The 
full results of our assessment can be found in the SF6 from 
Electrical Equipment TSD.
    For this source category, EPA is proposing to define the facility 
as an ``electric power system,'' which would mean that reporting would 
occur at a ``system-wide'' level. The electric power system would be 
defined as all electric power equipment insulated with SF6 
or PFCs regardless of location linked through electric power 
transmission or distribution lines and operated as an integrated unit 
by one electric power entity or several entities that have a single 
owner. Reporting by the electric power system would comprise all gas-
insulated equipment located between the point of generation and the 
point at which the ultimate customer receives the electricity. Such 
equipment includes gas-insulated substations, circuit breakers, other 
switchgear, gas-insulated lines, or power transformers containing 
SF6 or PFCs. EPA proposes to define an electric power entity 
as a company; an electric cooperative; a public electric supply 
corporation as the Tennessee Valley Authority; a similar Federal 
department or agency such as the Bonneville Power Administration; the 
Bureau of Reclamation or the Corps of Engineers; a municipally owned 
electric department offering service to the public; or an electric 
public utility district (a ``PUD''); also a jointly owned electric 
supply project such as the Keystone. Although the size of these 
facilities will vary, and some are expected to cross State lines, a 
facility is likely to encompass more than a thousand miles of lines and 
hundreds of pieces of equipment located at multiple substations or 
switchyards. Equipment also includes gas containers such as pressurized 
cylinders, gas carts, new equipment owned but not yet installed, or 
other containers.
    EPA believes the proposed definition of ``facility'' for this 
source category is appropriate and analogous to the 40 CFR part 98 
subpart A definition of a ``facility'' used for other source categories 
due to the physical interconnection and operational dependence of the 
components of the system. It is also consistent with the concept of a 
``transmission and distribution system,'' which is a standard term used 
by the industry. The transfer of energy is dependent on the collective 
functioning of all components of the system which must operate as a 
contemporaneous network in real-time and in a synchronous manner. 
Without system-wide use of gas-insulated equipment, operation and 
system reliability is not possible. Furthermore, system-wide reporting 
is consistent with the reported servicing and maintenance practices of 
many SF6-insulated equipment owners making this approach 
less burdensome and more efficient than using a substation or per piece 
of equipment source definition. This is also consistent with the 
approach used by over 80 systems from across the United States that are 
participating in the ``EPA SF6 Emission Reduction 
Partnership for Electric Power Systems'', and has proven to be a 
practical and reasonable approach for the collection of emissions data. 
In addition, the burden of using the mass-balance method proposed for 
monitoring is lowest at a system-wide level.
    EPA is requesting comment on whether one electric power system 
should be distinguished from the next on the basis of operation, 
ownership, or some combination of the two. EPA is proposing that the 
electric power system be the collection of equipment operated

[[Page 18683]]

as an integrated unit by one electric power entity or several entities 
that have a single owner because it best reflects the functional aspect 
of the system (transmitting and distributing power) and emphasizes the 
physical interconnection and operational dependence of the system 
components. It also reflects current voluntary best practices for GHG 
reporting from this source category. This proposed definition would not 
relieve entities that own but do not operate equipment of the 
obligation to report under 40 CFR 98.3. Regardless of the role that 
operation or ownership plays in the final source category definition, 
the obligation to report will apply to both owners and operators.
    Under the proposed definition of facility, total emissions would be 
derived from the entire collection of servicing inventory (cylinders 
stored) and gas-insulated equipment. Reporting would be based on the 
aggregation of emissions of all servicing inventory and equipment.
    Installation of Electrical Equipment at Electric Power Systems. In 
section E below, EPA is requesting comment on two issues related to 
equipment installation and commissioning that is performed by equipment 
manufacturers at electric power systems. These issues affect both users 
and manufacturers of electrical equipment and could affect the 
calculation methods required under both subpart DD and subpart SS. 
Please see section E for a discussion of these issues.

D. Imports and Exports of Fluorinated GHGs Inside Pre-Charged Equipment 
and Closed-Cell Foams

1. Overview of Reporting Requirements
    Under today's proposed rule, importers and exporters of pre-charged 
equipment and closed-cell foams would be required to report their 
imports and exports to EPA if either their imports or their exports 
contained a total of more than 25,000 mtCO2e of fluorinated 
GHGs. The reports would be similar to those required of importers and 
exporters of bulk GHGs under subpart OO of the final MRR published on 
October 28, 2009. In addition, equipment importers would be required to 
report the types and charge sizes of equipment and the number of pieces 
of each type of equipment that they imported or exported, while foam 
importers would be required to report the volume of foam and 
fluorinated GHG density of the foam that they imported. Importers and 
exporters would report at the corporate level.
2. Summary of Initial Proposed Rule and Comments Received
    In the proposed MRR published on April 10, 2009, we did not propose 
to require reporting of the quantities of GHGs imported and exported 
inside products. We were concerned that it would be difficult for 
importers and exporters to identify and quantify the quantities of GHGs 
inside some products and that the number of importers and exporters 
would be high. However, we requested comment on the option of requiring 
reporting of imports and exports of HFCs and SF6 contained 
in pre-charged air-conditioning, refrigeration, and electrical 
equipment and in closed cell foams. We noted that for these products, 
information on the size and chemical identity of the charge or blowing 
agent is likely to be readily available to importers and exporters 
(e.g., from nameplates affixed to equipment, servicing manuals, and 
product information for foams). Moreover, as noted above, the total 
quantities of imported and exported fluorinated GHGs in pre-charged 
equipment and foams are significant.
    We received a range of comments on whether or not we should require 
reporting of fluorinated GHGs imported or exported inside of pre-
charged equipment and closed-cell foams. Several manufacturers and 
importers of fluorinated GHGs supported such a requirement, noting that 
the identities and quantities of fluorinated GHGs inside equipment and 
foams are well-known, that imported and exported quantities are 
significant in aggregate, that the number of importers and exporters is 
small, and that information on fluorinated GHGs imported or exported 
inside of equipment could help to inform legislation being considered 
by Congress, which would include fluorinated GHGs imported in pre-
charged equipment under emissions caps. Some of these commenters stated 
that failure to require reporting of imported equipment and foams would 
be unfair to domestic manufacturers, who would be subject to reporting 
from which foreign manufacturers would be exempted. They observed that 
this inequity could drive production offshore, harming the U.S. economy 
and possibly increasing global GHG emissions if less efficient 
manufacturers in developing countries took over the lost U.S. 
production.
    Equipment importers and a fluorocarbon producer opposed a 
requirement to report imports and exports of fluorinated GHGs in pre-
charged equipment and foams, stating that such a requirement would be 
unnecessary and costly. These commenters stated that the quantities of 
fluorinated GHGs inside individual pieces of equipment are small, 
ranging from ounces to pounds, and that emissions from such equipment 
are extremely small because the systems are hermetically sealed.
    After carefully considering the comments and available information 
on imports and exports of fluorinated GHGs inside pre-charged equipment 
and closed-cell foams, we are proposing to require reporting of these 
imports and exports.
3. Definition of the Source Category
    This source category includes importers and exporters of pre-
charged equipment and closed-cell foams that contain fluorinated GHGs. 
Pre-charged equipment includes air-conditioning equipment or equipment 
components that contain HFCs and electrical equipment or equipment 
components that contain SF6 or PFCs. Closed-cell foams 
include closed-cell foams blown with HFC blowing agents.
    Air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment generally uses HFC 
refrigerants. In this application, HFCs serve as substitutes for ozone-
depleting substances (ODSs), which are being phased out under the 
Montreal Protocol and Title VI of the CAA. Because some ODSs (i.e., 
HCFCs) are only beginning to be phased out, the use of HFCs in 
equipment such as window and residential air-conditioners is expected 
to grow very quickly over the next decade. Imports and exports of HFC 
pre-charged equipment may grow as well. Although the quantities of 
chemical contained in each unit are small in absolute terms (i.e., a 
few pounds or less), they are more significant in CO2-
equivalent terms, ranging up to eleven mtCO2e per unit for 
pre-charged commercial air-conditioners. This significance is due to 
the high GWPs of the HFCs.
    HFCs are also used as blowing agents during the manufacture of 
foams. Open-cell foams are assumed to emit 100 percent of the blowing 
agent in the year they are manufactured, whereas closed-cell foams emit 
only a fraction of their total HFC content upon manufacture. Foam 
products that are closed-cell and imported or exported as a finished 
foam product therefore have potential to emit the blowing agent 
remaining in the foam after manufacture. Closed cell foams that are 
imported or exported include: polyurethane (PU) rigid foam used as 
insulation in domestic refrigerators and freezers; commercial 
refrigeration foam; PU rigid sandwich panel continuous and 
discontinuous foam; extruded

[[Page 18684]]

polystyrene (XPS) sheet foam; and XPS boardstock foam.
    SF6 is used as an electrical insulator and arc-quenching 
gas in electrical transmission equipment, including circuit breakers 
and gas-insulated substations. Again, the quantities of SF6 
in each unit are often small in absolute terms (around 14 pounds per 
circuit breaker), but are larger in CO2-equivalent terms 
(around 150 mtCO2e per circuit breaker).\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Emissions from use and manufacture of electrical equipment 
are addressed under subparts DD and SS of this rule; subpart QQ 
addresses only the import and export of such equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our analysis indicates that the quantities of fluorinated GHGs 
imported and exported inside of pre-charged equipment and foams are 
significant. Imports are estimated to total about 21 million 
mtCO2e, while exports are estimated to total about 8 million 
mtCO2e. For further information, please see the TSD for 
Imports and Exports of Pre-Charged Equipment and Foams (Revised) in the 
docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927).
    We are proposing to require reporting for a number of reasons. 
First, we have determined that exports and particularly imports of pre-
charged equipment and foam have a substantial impact on the total U.S. 
supply of fluorinated GHGs and of industrial GHGs generally. Based on 
the estimates above, imports constitute between seven and ten percent 
of the net U.S. supply of fluorinated GHGs, while exports are 
equivalent to between three and four percent of that total. (The range 
is based on slightly different estimates of the net U.S. supply based 
on bottom-up and top-down approaches.) We estimate that 22 million 
pieces of equipment and 66 million board-feet of foam are imported 
annually. Although the quantities of HFCs and SF6 in 
individual pieces of equipment may be small in terms of the mass of 
chemical, the high GWPs of these chemicals can make them significant in 
CO2-equivalent terms. For example, a pre-charged residential 
air conditioner (unitary) contains about 7 tons of CO2e, 
while an average size circuit breaker with a shipping charge of 
SF6 (20 percent of a full, operational charge) contains over 
150 tons of CO2e.
    Imported and exported fluorinated GHGs are added to or subtracted 
from the U.S. supply of fluorinated GHGs regardless of whether they are 
imported in bulk or in equipment. Every year, a part of the U.S. 
fluorinated GHG supply is used to charge new equipment or to blow 
closed-cell foams. If equipment is imported already containing a 
charge, that charge offsets demand that would otherwise have occurred 
for fluorinated GHGs that are produced domestically or imported in 
bulk. Accounting for the quantities of fluorinated GHGs in equipment 
therefore significantly improves our understanding of the U.S. supply 
of fluorinated GHGs. Although commenters who opposed reporting noted 
that leak rates from some types of imported equipment are low, this 
does not distinguish fluorinated GHGs imported inside of equipment from 
fluorinated GHGs that are charged into the same type of equipment after 
its import or domestic manufacture. Any imported or domestically 
produced fluorinated GHG may be stored for many years inside equipment 
before being emitted or destroyed.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Even if the fluorinated GHG is recovered from the equipment 
at the end of the equipment's life, it will ultimately be either 
emitted or destroyed. Recycling delays emission or destruction (and 
reduces demand for new fluorinated GHG), but it does not avoid it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second reason that we are proposing to require reporting of 
imports and exports of fluorinated GHGs inside pre-charged equipment 
and foams is that discussions with industry experts indicate that the 
numbers of importers and exporters are relatively small, limiting the 
administrative burden of the rule and increasing the cost-effectiveness 
of the data gathering. Experts from the air-conditioning and 
refrigeration industry estimate that there are approximately 50 
importers and 25 exporters of pre-charged air-conditioning and 
refrigeration equipment, and experts from the electrical equipment 
industry estimate that there are approximately 8 importers and 10 
exporters of pre-charged electrical equipment. Based on the membership 
of various trade organizations including foam manufacturers and 
distributors, EPA estimates that there are approximately 50 entities 
that import and 25 entities that export foams. These numbers are 
considerably smaller than the number of importers and exporters of bulk 
fluorinated GHGs that are covered by the final rule published October 
30, 2009.
    Third, we estimate that the costs associated with identifying, 
quantifying, and reporting the quantities of fluorinated GHGs imported 
and exported inside pre-charged products and foams are reasonably 
modest. As noted above, information on the chemical identities and 
sizes of equipment charges should be readily available to importers and 
exporters, and the same is true for the identities and densities of the 
HFCs in foams, which strongly influence the insulating capacities of 
the foams.
    Inclusion of other products that contain fluorinated GHGs. EPA's 
understanding is that pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams 
account for the great majority of fluorinated GHGs that are imported in 
or exported from the United States inside of products. However, a 
variety of products containing fluorinated greenhouse gases 
(fluorinated GHGs), nitrous oxide (N2O), and carbon dioxide 
(CO2) are imported into and exported from the United States, 
including, for example, aerosols containing HFCs. EPA requests comment 
on the magnitude of imports and exports of these other products and on 
whether such imports and exports should be reported under this subpart.
4. Selection of Reporting Threshold
    We are proposing to require that importers and exporters of 
fluorinated GHGs contained in pre-charged equipment and closed cell 
foams report their imports and exports if either their total imports or 
their total exports, in equipment, foams, and in bulk, exceed 25,000 
mtCO2e per year. This threshold is the same as that for bulk 
imports and exports.
    Tables 9 and 10 of this preamble show the estimated imports and 
exports (in mtCO2e) and facilities (corporations) that would 
be covered under the various thresholds for imports and exports of 
equipment and foam.

[[Page 18685]]



  Table 9--Threshold Analysis for Fluorinated GHGs Imported Inside Pre-Charged Equipment and Closed-Cell Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    HFC refrigeration/AC     SF6 electrical equipment      Closed-cell foams
                                         equipment         -----------------------------------------------------
        Threshold level         ---------------------------
                                     Imports     Importers      Imports     Importers      Imports     Importers
                                     covered       covered      covered       covered      covered       covered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,000..........................      15,733,523         50       1,888,932          8       3,025,285         50
10,000.........................      15,733,523         50       1,888,932          8       3,025,285         50
25,000.........................      15,733,523         50       1,888,932          8       3,025,285         50
100,000........................      15,733,523         50       1,888,932          8               0          0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table 10--Threshold Analysis for Fluorinated GHGs Exported Inside Pre-Charged Equipment and Closed-Cell Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Exports     Exporters      Exports     Exporters      Exports     Exporters
        Threshold level              covered       covered      covered       covered      covered       covered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,000..........................       5,247,905         25         153,323         10       3,025,285         25
10,000.........................       5,247,905         25         107,326          5       3,025,285         25
25,000.........................       5,247,905         25               0  .........       3,025,285         25
100,000........................       5,247,905         25               0  .........       3,025,285         25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the absence of importer- and exporter-specific information, we 
assumed that within the three general categories of products, each 
importer and exporter imported or exported the same quantity of 
fluorinated GHGs. (Exports of SF6 in electrical equipment 
were the sole exception to this.) This assumption led to the conclusion 
that 100 percent of imported and exported pre-charged equipment and 
foams (except exported electrical equipment) would be reported at the 
25,000 mtCO2e threshold. In fact, imports and exports are 
likely to be concentrated among a subset of importers and exporters, 
and fewer entities are therefore likely to report at the 25,000 
mtCO2e threshold. We request comment on the distribution of 
imports and exports among importers and exporters and on the likely 
coverage (in percentage terms) of imported and exported equipment and 
foams at the 25,000 mtCO2e threshold. An alternative 
approach would be to lower the threshold or to require reporting by all 
importers and exporters of pre-charged equipment and closed cell foams, 
but EPA is concerned that this approach could burden many small 
importers and exporters with reporting while gaining little additional 
coverage of imports and exports in equipment and foams.
5. Selection of Proposed Monitoring Methods
    We are proposing to require importers and exporters of equipment 
and foams to estimate their imports and exports of each fluorinated GHG 
by multiplying the mass of the fluorinated GHG contained in each type 
of equipment or foam by the number of pieces of equipment or by the 
volume of foam, as appropriate. As noted above, we believe that 
information on fluorinated GHG identity and charge size (or density, 
for foams) should be readily available to importers and exporters.
    Under the current MRR, bulk importers and exporters of fluorinated 
GHGs are not required to report individual shipments totaling less than 
250 mtCO2e of fluorinated GHGs. This exemption was intended 
to exclude small shipments, e.g., of chemical samples being shipped for 
analysis, from reporting. We established the exemption after an 
analysis of import and export shipments showed that it would decrease 
reporting by less than 0.1 percent. We are not proposing a similar 
exemption for small shipments of equipment and foams because we do not 
believe it would be necessary and because we are concerned that it 
might lead to the exclusion of a significant share of imports and 
exports of these products. We do not believe the small-shipment 
exemption would be necessary because the definition of import in 
subpart A already excludes the bringing into the United States of 
household effects such as refrigerators and window air conditioners. We 
are concerned that the exemption may result in excluding a significant 
share of imports and exports because 250 mtCO2e equates to a 
large number of pieces of some types of equipment (e.g., over 1,300 
household refrigerators).
6. Selection of Data To Be Reported
    EPA is proposing to require importers and exporters of pre-charged 
equipment and closed cell foams to report the following:
    (1) The total mass in metric tons of each fluorinated GHG imported 
or exported in pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams.
    (2) For each type of pre-charged equipment, the identity of the 
fluorinated GHG used as a refrigerant or electrical insulator, charge 
size (holding charge,\42\ if applicable), and number imported or 
exported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ This refers to any holding charge consisting of a 
fluorinated GHG. Holding charges consisting of other gases, such as 
nitrogen, are not included.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) For closed-cell foams that are imported or exported inside of 
appliances, the identity of the fluorinated GHG contained in the foam, 
the quantity of fluorinated GHG contained in the foam in each 
appliance, and the number of appliances imported for each type of 
appliance.
    (4) For closed cell-foams that are not inside of appliances, the 
identity of the fluorinated GHG, the density of the fluorinated GHG in 
the foam (kg fluorinated GHG/cubic foot), and the quantity of foam 
imported or exported (cubic feet) for each type of closed-cell foam.
    (5) Dates on which the pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams 
were imported or exported.
    (6) Ports of entry through which the pre-charged equipment or 
closed-cell foams passed.
    (7) Countries from or to which the pre-charged equipment or closed-
cell foams were imported or exported.
    We are proposing to collect this information because it is 
necessary either to understand the total volume of fluorinated GHGs 
imported or exported

[[Page 18686]]

inside of pre-charged equipment and foams (and thereby contributing to 
the U.S. supply of fluorinated GHGs) or to verify submitted 
information.
7. Selection of Recordkeeping Requirements
    EPA is proposing to require importers and exporters of equipment 
and closed cell foams to retain the following records:
    (1) A copy of the bill of lading for the import or export,
    (2) The invoice for the import or export, and
    (3) For imports, the U.S. Customs entry form.
    This information is necessary to verify submitted information.

E. Electrical Equipment Manufacture or Refurbishment

1. Definition of the Source Category
    This source category comprises electrical equipment manufacturers 
and refurbishers of SF6 or PFC-insulated closed-pressure 
equipment and sealed-pressure equipment including gas-insulated 
substations, circuit breakers and other switchgear, gas-insulated 
lines, or power transformers containing sulfur-hexafluoride 
(SF6) or perfluorocarbons (PFCs).
    Electrical equipment employed to transmit and distribute 
electricity constitutes the largest use of SF6 in the world. 
The dielectric strength and arc-quenching characteristics of 
SF6 make it an extremely effective electrical insulator and 
interrupter. For this reason, the electric power industry in the United 
States has used this gas since the 1950s in both closed-pressure and 
sealed-pressure equipment including gas-insulated substations, circuit 
breakers and other switchgear, and gas-insulated lines. Closed-pressure 
equipment requires periodic refilling (topping up) with gas during its 
lifetime, whereas sealed-pressure equipment generally does not. 
SF6 has replaced flammable insulating oils in many 
applications and allows for more compact substations in dense urban 
areas. SF6 insulated equipment has also made expansion of 
the grid through transmission over significantly longer distances 
economically practical. Currently, there are no available substitutes 
for SF6 in this application. For further information, see 
the SF6 from Electrical Equipment Manufacturers TSD in the 
docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927).
    Manufacturers of gas insulated electrical equipment purchase bulk 
SF6 gas to: (1) Install a holding or shipping charge in 
high-voltage closed-pressure equipment, (2) ship alongside closed-
pressure equipment for topping off at installation site, (3) fill 
sealed-pressure equipment with its intended lifetime supply of 
SF6, and (4) develop and test equipment.
    Emissions of SF6 from equipment manufacturers can occur 
during the development and testing of equipment and during equipment 
filling, but emissions can also occur during the other uses of 
SF6 at manufacturing facilities. Refurbishment of equipment 
generally occurs at facilities used to manufacture new equipment and 
emissions typically occur during the leak test operations for gas-
containing components as well as the disassembly and reassembly of 
equipment.
    PFCs are sometimes used as dielectrics and heat transfer fluids in 
power transformers. PFCs are also used for retrofitting CFC-113 cooled 
transformers. The most common PFC used in this application is 
perfluorohexane (C6F14). In terms of both 
absolute and carbon-weighted emissions, PFC emissions from electrical 
equipment are generally believed to be much smaller than SF6 
emissions from electrical equipment.
    According to the U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and 
Sinks: 1990-2007 (EPA 2009), total U.S. estimated emissions of 
SF6 from electrical equipment manufacturers were 0.81 
million metric tons CO2e in 2006. EPA is proposing to 
require reporting from electrical equipment manufacture and 
refurbishment facilities because these operations represent a 
significant source, approximately 5 percent of U.S. SF6 
emissions. It is estimated that ten equipment manufacturers were 
responsible for these emissions.
    EPA is seeking comment on whether transformers using PFCs are 
currently manufactured in the United States EPA is also seeking comment 
on whether PFC emissions associated with the production of this 
equipment occur at the same rate as SF6 emissions from 
equipment manufacture and whether emissions occur during the same 
processes. EPA is proposing to include emissions of PFCs emitted during 
the manufacture or refurbishment of PFC-containing power transformers 
because while PFCs are known to be used in this application, the 
National Inventory has no information on the magnitude of this source. 
PFCs are very potent and persistent greenhouse gases and an accurate 
inventory of use and emissions from all sources is important.
2. Selection of Reporting Threshold
    We propose to require electrical equipment manufacturers to report 
their SF6 and PFC emissions if their total annual purchases 
of SF6 and PFCs exceed 23,000 lbs. This consumption-based 
threshold is equivalent to an emissions-based threshold of 25,000 
metric tons CO2 Eq., assuming an average manufacturer 
emission rate of 10 percent.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ The 10 percent emission rate is the average of the 
``ideal'' and ``realistic'' manufacturing emission rates (4 percent 
and 17 percent, respectively) identified in a paper prepared under 
the auspices of the International Council on Large Electric Systems 
(CIGRE) in February 2002 (O'Connell et al. 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In developing this proposed threshold, we considered several 
emission-based threshold options including 1,000 metric tons 
CO2e; 10,000 metric tons CO2e; 25,000 metric tons 
CO2e: and 100,000 metric tons CO2e. 
SF6 and PFC consumption thresholds of 922; 9,220; and 92,200 
lbs of SF6 and PFC were also considered, corresponding to 
the emission threshold options of 1,000; 10,000; and 100,000 metric 
tons CO2e, respectively. Summaries of the threshold options 
(consumption-based and emissions-based) and the number of equipment 
manufacturers and emissions covered under each threshold are presented 
in Table 11 of this preamble.

                        Table 11--Threshold Analysis for Electrical Equipment Manufacture
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Emissions covered        Facilities covered
 Emission threshold level  (metric  Total national     Total   -------------------------------------------------
           tons CO2e/yr)               emissions     number of    Metric tons
                                                    facilities      CO2e/yr      Percent   Facilities   Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,000.............................         814,128          10         814,128        100          10        100
10,000............................         814,128          10         814,128        100          10        100
25,000............................         814,128          10         814,128        100          10        100

[[Page 18687]]

 
100,000...........................         814,128           5         569,890         70           5         50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed consumption threshold and the corresponding emissions 
threshold level is consistent with general requirements of the Final 
MRR (74 FR 56260) and provides comprehensive coverage of emissions for 
this sector. A consumption-based threshold was selected because it 
permits equipment manufacturers to quickly determine whether they are 
covered by referring to SF6 and PFC purchase records.
3. Selection of Proposed Monitoring Methods
    We are proposing that all electrical equipment manufacturing 
facilities where SF6 and PFC purchases exceed 23,000 lbs per 
year report all SF6 and PFC emissions using a mass-balance 
approach. This would include all emissions from equipment testing, 
manufacturing (including filling), decommissioning and disposal, 
refurbishing, and from storage cylinders. We are proposing this 
approach because it is the most accurate and because all equipment 
manufacturers should be able to conduct the mass-balance analysis using 
readily available information.
    The proposed monitoring methods are similar to the methodologies 
described in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines Tier 3 methods for emissions from 
electrical equipment manufacturing. These methodologies outline a mass-
balance approach that is comparable to the proposed approach for 
subpart DD Electric Power System Equipment.
    The mass-balance approach we are proposing for electrical equipment 
manufacturers works by tracking and systematically accounting for all 
facility uses of SF6 and PFCs during the reporting year. The 
quantities of SF6 and PFCs that cannot be accounted for are 
assumed to have been emitted to the atmosphere. The emissions of 
SF6 and PFCs would be estimated and reported separately.
    The following equation describes the proposed facility-level mass-
balance approach. (For brevity, the equation refers only to 
SF6; however, the method would also apply to PFCs in power 
transformers.)

Equipment Manufacturing Emissions = Decrease in SF6 
Inventory + Acquisitions of SF6-Disbursements of 
SF6
Where:

    Decrease in SF6 Inventory = SF6 stored in 
containers at the beginning of the year-SF6 stored in 
containers at the end of the year
    Acquisitions of SF6 = SF6 purchased from 
chemical producers or distributors in bulk + SF6 returned 
by equipment users or distributors with or inside equipment + 
SF6 returned to site after off-site recycling
    Disbursements of SF6 = SF6 contained in 
new equipment delivered to customers + SF6 delivered to 
equipment users in containers + SF6 returned to suppliers 
+ SF6 sent off-site for recycling + SF6 sent 
to destruction facilities.

    EPA is seeking comment on the proposed methods for determining 
disbursements of SF6 or PFCs, specifically, with respect to 
SF6 or PFCs contained in new equipment delivered to 
customers and SF6 or PFCs delivered to equipment users in 
cylinders. Two methods are being proposed. Disbursement of 
SF6 or PFCs to customers in new equipment or cylinders could 
be estimated by weighing containers before and after gas from the 
containers was used to fill equipment or cylinders, or by using flow 
meters to measure the amount of gas used to fill equipment or 
cylinders. EPA requests comment on these two options.
    Alone, both of these options would inappropriately count as 
``disbursements'' emissions that occurred between the flow meter or 
weighed container and the equipment being filled. These emissions could 
include losses from coupling and decoupling of fill valves and leaks 
from hoses or other flow lines that connect the container to the 
equipment that being filled. EPA is therefore proposing to require that 
these emissions be quantified and subtracted from the disbursement 
total.
    Specifically, EPA is proposing to require that these emissions be 
estimated using measurements and/or engineering assessments or 
calculations based on chemical engineering principles or physical or 
chemical laws or properties. Such assessments or calculations could be 
based on, as applicable, the internal volume of the hose or line that 
was open to the atmosphere during coupling and decoupling activities, 
the internal pressure of the hose or line, the time the hose or line 
was open to the atmosphere during coupling and decoupling activities, 
the frequency with which the hose or line was purged and the flow rate 
during purges. Such methods could also include the use of leak 
detection methods (e.g., EPA Method 21 and the Protocol for Equipment 
Leak Emission Estimates) to determine a loss factor appropriate to 
calculate emissions. Unexpected or accidental emissions from the 
filling lines or hoses would be required to be included in the total.
    EPA is seeking comment on the specific methods that should be 
employed to estimate emission losses from hoses or flow lines and on 
whether a particular method or set of methods should be required for 
this estimate. In addition, EPA requests comment on whether emissions 
downstream of the containers dispensing the SF6 or PFCs 
consist solely of emissions from lines or hoses. EPA's understanding is 
that electrical equipment is at a vacuum and is sealed prior to being 
filled with SF6 or PFCs; however, if it contains air or 
nitrogen and this gas is purged during the filling process, then the 
method should also account for SF6 and PFC emissions that 
occur during such purging.
    EPA is also considering other options for accurately measuring the 
quantities of SF6 or PFCs disbursed to equipment users in 
equipment. (These options are described in more detail in the TSD.) One 
option being considered is to assume that the mass of SF6 or 
PFCs disbursed to customers in equipment is equal to the nameplate 
capacity of the equipment (or, where the equipment is shipped with a 
partial charge, equal to the nameplate capacity of the equipment times 
the ratio of the densities of the partial charge and the full charge.) 
Although the nominal nameplate capacity could be used for this 
calculation, EPA is concerned that the actual mass of SF6 or 
PFCs charged into each piece of equipment may vary by a few percent 
from the nominal capacity (e.g., because there is some variability in 
the internal volume of the

[[Page 18688]]

equipment or in the density to which the equipment is charged). Because 
the mass-balance approach requires precise inputs, inaccuracies of even 
two or three percent could lead to very large inaccuracies in the 
facility's emissions estimate.
    One way of developing a more precise estimate of the nameplate 
capacity of equipment would be to fill the equipment with a fluid and 
then to carefully recover the fluid, measuring what was recovered. This 
fluid could be SF6, another gas, or a liquid. If 
SF6 was used, the equipment would be charged to its 
operational or shipping SF6 density using the facility's 
usual methods and then emptied. The mass of the SF6 
recovered, adjusted slightly for the residual pressure of the 
SF6 that would remain in the equipment even at a deep 
vacuum, could be equated to the full or shipping charge, as applicable. 
One advantage of this approach is that it would reflect the actual 
SF6 charging practices of the facility; one disadvantage is 
that it could result in small SF6 emissions during the 
charging and recovery steps.
    If a liquid was used, the equipment would be filled carefully, 
ensuring that the full volume was filled, and then emptied. The volume 
of the liquid recovered would be equated to the internal volume of the 
equipment.\44\ This volume times the SF6 density at the full 
charge would yield the nameplate capacity of the equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ The temperature of the liquid would need to be kept 
constant throughout this exercise to obtain an accurate measurement 
of the volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To account for variability, a certain number of these measurements 
would need to be performed to develop a robust and representative 
average nameplate capacity (or shipping charge) for each make and 
model. The specific number of measurements would depend on the 
variability of the nameplate capacity within each make and model, as 
discussed in the TSD. It may be appropriate to select equipment samples 
filled at different times to reflect day-to-day variability in the 
facility's filling practices and conditions. EPA seeks comment on these 
other options for accurately measuring the quantities of SF6 
and PFCs disbursed to customers in equipment and/or cylinders.
    Another option is to require that the equipment filled with 
SF6 or the PFC from the container be weighed before and 
after filling. The tare weight of the equipment would then be 
subtracted from the weight of the filled equipment to determine the 
weight of the gas in the equipment, and therefore, the weight of the 
actual disbursement. One potential concern regarding this option is 
that the mass of the SF6 or PFC charged into the equipment 
is likely to be low relative to the mass of the equipment; thus, it may 
be difficult to obtain a precise measurement of the mass of the 
SF6 or PFC using this method (i.e., within 1 percent) even 
if the scale is precise and accurate to within 1 percent of full scale. 
EPA requests comment on this approach.
    Installation of Electrical Equipment at Electric Power Systems. EPA 
also requests comment on two issues related to equipment installation 
and commissioning that is performed by equipment manufacturers at 
electric power systems. The first issue is whether an equipment 
installation mass-balance equation is required to measure emissions 
from equipment installation and commissioning that is performed by 
equipment manufacturers at utility locations. Where the manufacturer 
filled the equipment before transferring custody to the equipment user, 
EPA is assuming that the manufacturer would be responsible for the 
associated emissions. This would also apply to equipment that was 
filled at the factory but whose charge leaked out before being 
delivered to the customer. Quantitative methods for addressing these 
issues are discussed in more detail in the TSD.
    The second issue is whether manufacturers should be required to 
certify to equipment users the actual quantity (mass) of SF6 
or PFCs charged into the equipment at installation. EPA understands 
that in some cases, manufacturers may deliberately exceed the nameplate 
capacity of equipment when charging it, e.g., to postpone the re-fill 
of the equipment in the event that the equipment develops a leak. If 
this is the case, then the actual initial charge of the equipment 
should be conveyed clearly to the equipment user, and the mass-balance 
approach used by the equipment user should be adjusted to reflect the 
over-charge. If it is not, the user will underestimate emissions. 
(These issues are discussed in more detail in the TSD.) EPA requests 
comment on how frequently equipment is over-charged at installation, 
and on quantitative methods for compensating for this overcharge in 
user emissions estimates (i.e., under proposed subpart DD).
    Other Options Considered. In developing the proposed approach, we 
reviewed the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, the United States GHG Inventory, DOE 
1605(b), EPA's Climate Leaders Program, and The Climate Registry. In 
our review of the IPCC Guidelines, we also considered the IPCC Tier 1 
and the IPCC Tier 2 methods for calculating and reporting 
SF6 and PFC emissions. Although the IPCC Tier 1 and IPCC 
Tier 2 methods are simple, IPCC does not provide default emission 
factors for the United States due to lack of data. Furthermore, 
SF6 use in electrical equipment manufacturing is largely 
dependent on the type of equipment being produced and the specific 
handling practices at facilities. Applying an emission factor to all 
equipment manufacturers would not take into account the different types 
of equipment being produced at each facility or the variation in 
handling practices among facilities. Nor would it provide data of 
sufficient accuracy for the source or on a per facility basis. As a 
result, we are not proposing the IPCC Tier 1 or Tier 2 method.
    We are not proposing to require continuous emissions monitoring 
(CEMs) because of insufficient information on which to base a decision 
and because CEMs is not expected to be practical for this source 
category at this time due to the intermittent and widespread nature of 
the emissions. EPA seeks comment on whether continuous emissions 
monitoring is technically feasible for this source category.
4. Selection of Procedures for Estimating Missing Data
    It is expected that equipment manufacturers should be able to 
obtain 100 percent of the data needed to perform the mass-balance 
calculations for both SF6 and PFCs. The use of the mass-
balance approach requires correct records for all inputs. However, if 
needed, missing data can be replaced using data from similar 
manufacturing operations, and from similar equipment testing and 
decommissioning activities for which data are available.
5. QA/QC Requirements
    We propose that electrical equipment manufacturers be required to 
use flowmeters or scales that are accurate and precise to within one 
percent of full scale. In addition, we are proposing to require 
manufacturers to establish procedures for and document their 
measurements and calculations under this subpart, including check-out 
sheets and weigh-in procedures for cylinders, residual gas amounts in 
cylinders sent back to suppliers, invoices for gas and equipment 
purchases or sales, and documentation of recycling and destruction. The 
records that are being proposed are the minimum needed to reproduce and 
confirm emission calculations.

[[Page 18689]]

6. Selection of Data Reporting Requirements
    We propose annual reporting for the electrical equipment 
manufacturing and refurbishing industry. Equipment manufacturers would 
report all SF6 and PFC emissions, including those from 
equipment testing, equipment manufacturing, and bulk SF6 and 
PFC handling. However, the emissions would not need to be broken down 
and reported separately for testing, manufacturing, or bulk 
SF6 and PFC handling. Along with their emissions, electrical 
equipment manufacturers would be required to submit the following 
supplemental data: SF6 and PFCs with or inside equipment 
delivered to customers, the nameplate capacity of the equipment 
delivered to customers, SF6 and PFCs returned by customers 
with or inside equipment, bulk SF6 and PFC purchases, 
SF6 and PFCs sent off-site for destruction or to be 
recycled, SF6 and PFCs returned from offsite after 
recycling, SF6 and PFCs stored in containers at the 
beginning and end of the year, SF6 and PFCs returned to 
suppliers. For any missing data, manufacturers would be required to 
report the reason the data were missing, the length of time the data 
were missing, the method used to estimate emissions in their absence, 
and the quantity of emissions thereby estimated.
    These data would be submitted because they are the minimum data 
that are needed to understand and reproduce the emission calculations 
that are the basis of the reported emissions.
7. Selection of Records That Must Be Retained
    We propose that electrical equipment manufacturers be required to 
keep records documenting (1) their adherence to the QA/QC requirements 
specified in the proposed rule, and (2) the data that would be included 
in their emission reports, as specified above.

F. Subpart A Revisions

    Amendments to the General Provisions. In a separate rulemaking 
package that was recently published (March 16, 2010), EPA issued minor 
harmonizing changes to the general provisions for the GHG reporting 
rule (40 CFR part 98, subpart A) to accommodate the addition of source 
categories not included in the 2009 final rule (e.g., subparts proposed 
in April 2009 but not finalized in 2009, any new subparts that may be 
proposed in the future). The changes update 98.2(a) on rule 
applicability and 98.3 regarding the reporting schedule to accommodate 
any additional subparts and the schedule for their reporting 
obligations (e.g., source categories finalized in 2010 would not begin 
data collection until 2011 and reporting in 2012).
    In particular, we restructured 40 CFR 98.2(a) to move the lists of 
source categories from the text into tables. A table format improves 
clarity and facilitates the addition of source categories that were not 
included in calendar year 2010 reporting and would begin reporting in 
future years. A table, versus list, approach allows other sections of 
the rule to be updated automatically when the table is updated; a list 
approach requires separate updates to the various list references each 
time the list is changed. In addition to reformatting the 98.2(a)(1)-
(2) lists into tables, other sections of subpart A were reworded to 
refer to the source category tables because the tables make it clear 
which source categories are to be considered for determining the 
applicability threshold and reporting requirements for calendar years 
2010, 2011, and future years.
    The source categories proposed in this notice would be added within 
40 CFR 98.2 as follows. The following source categories would be added 
to the list of ``all-in'' source categories referenced in 40 CFR 
98.2(a)(1), because they have a production capacity or gas consumption 
threshold rather than a CO2e emission threshold:
     Electric power systems that include electrical equipment 
with a total nameplate capacity that exceeds 17,820 lbs (7,838 kg) of 
SF6 or perfluorocarbons (PFCs) (subpart DD).
     Electric power equipment manufacturing with total annual 
SF6 and PFC purchases (combined) that exceed 23,000 lbs per 
year (subpart SS).
    The following source categories would be subject to the rule if 
facility emissions exceed 25,000 metric tons CO2e per year. 
Therefore, these source categories would be added to the list of 
emission threshold source categories referenced in 40 CFR 98.2(a)(2).
     Fluorinated gas production facilities whose emissions 
would exceed 25,000 mtCO2e in the absence of control 
technologies (subpart L).
     Facilities with electronics manufacturing processes (as 
defined in proposed 40 CFR part 98, subpart I).
    In addition, importers and exporters of pre-charged equipment or 
closed-cell foam products containing fluorinated GHGs, N2O, 
or CO2 would be added to the list of suppliers referenced in 
40 CFR 98.2(a)(4). For all of these source categories, facilities would 
be required to begin collecting data in 2011 for reporting in 2012.
    Today's proposed rule includes a number of definitions applicable 
to specific source categories. The agency is not planning to add these 
definitions to the definitions section in Subpart A because these 
definitions relate to these specific subparts and do not have broader 
applicability to EPA's mandatory reporting regulations. Instead, EPA 
intends to include these definitions in the applicable subparts. EPA 
has sought to avoid any conflict between these subpart-specific 
definitions and the definitions in Subpart A. In one instance, the 
supplemental proposal for electric power systems, EPA is proposing to 
use a category-specific definition of facility rather than the general 
definition of facility in the General Provisions. The reasons for this 
category-specific definition of facility are set forth in section II.C 
of this preamble. The remaining definitions are intended as supplements 
to the definitions section in the General Provisions. EPA does not 
believe these definitions create conflicts with the General Provisions, 
although it welcomes comments on this issue. To the extent regulated 
entities are in doubt as to which definition applies, they should 
assume that the category-specific definitions are controlling.
    We propose to amend 40 CFR 98.7 (incorporation by reference) to 
include standard methods used in the proposed subparts. In particular, 
we would add the 2006 International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative's 
Guidelines for Environmental Characterization of Semiconductor Process 
Equipment and SEMI E10-0304 Specification for Definition and 
Measurement of Equipment Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability 
(2006), which are referenced in proposed 40 CFR 98.94 (Monitoring and 
QA/QC Requirements for 40 CFR part 98, subpart I, electronics 
manufacturing) and 40 CFR 98.97 (Records that must be retained). In 
addition, we propose to revise the paragraphs listing several ASME 
standards that are already contained in 40 CFR 98.7 to indicate that 
these standards are also referenced by proposed 40 CFR 98.124 
(Monitoring and QA/QC requirements in proposed 40 CFR part 98, subpart 
L, fluorinated gas production).

III. Economic Impacts of the Rule

    This section of the preamble examines the costs and economic 
impacts of the proposed rulemaking and the estimated economic impacts 
of the rule on affected entities, including estimated impacts on small 
entities. Complete detail of the economic impacts of the proposed rule 
can be found in the text of the economic

[[Page 18690]]

impact analysis (EIA) in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0927).

A. How were compliance costs estimated?

1. Summary of Method Used To Estimate Compliance Costs
    EPA used available industry and EPA data to characterize conditions 
at affected sources. Incremental monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting activities were then identified for each type of facility and 
the associated costs were estimated. The annual costs reported in 
2006$. EPA's estimated costs of compliance are discussed below and in 
greater detail in section 4 of the economic impact analysis (EIA).
    Labor Costs. The vast majority of the reporting costs include the 
time of managers, technical, and administrative staff in both the 
private sector and the public sector. Staff hours are estimated for 
activities, including:
     Monitoring (private): Staff hours to operate and maintain 
emissions monitoring systems.
     Recordkeeping and Reporting (private): Staff hours to 
gather and process available data and reporting it to EPA through 
electronic systems.
     Assuring and releasing data (public): Staff hours to 
quality assure, analyze, and release reports.
    Staff activities and associated labor costs will potentially vary 
over time. Thus, cost estimates are developed for start-up and first-
time reporting, and subsequent reporting. Wage rates to monetize staff 
time are obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
    Equipment Costs. Equipment costs include both the initial purchase 
price and any facility modification that may be required. Based on 
expert judgment, the engineering costs analyses annualized capital 
equipment costs with appropriate lifetime and interest rate 
assumptions. One-time capital costs are amortized over a 10-year cost 
recovery period at a rate of 7 percent.

B. What are the costs of the rule?

1. Summary of Costs
    The total annualized costs incurred under the fluorinated GHG 
reporting rule would be approximately $6.1 million in the first year 
and $3.9 million in subsequent years ($2006). This includes a public 
sector burden estimate of $384,000 for program implementation and 
verification activities. EPA also considered an alternative national 
cost scenario in order to assess national cost estimates if selected 
subpart I facilities validate the DRE of abatement devices. Under this 
scenario, the total annualized costs incurred under the fluorinated GHG 
reporting rule would be approximately $1.7 million higher (or $7.8 
million first year; $5.6 million subsequent years). Table 12 shows the 
first year and subsequent year costs by subpart. In addition, it 
presents the cost per ton reported, and the relative share of the total 
cost represented by each subpart.

       Table 12--National Annualized Mandatory Reporting Costs Estimates (2008$): Subparts I, L, OO and SS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                First year                           Subsequent years
                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Subpart                Millions                                 Millions
                                     2006$        $/ton       Share (%)       2006$        $/ton      Share (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart I--Electronics Industry         $2.9         $0.51          42           $2.6         $0.45           67
Subpart L--Fluorinated Gas               2.1          0.20          47            0.3          0.08            7
 Production....................
Subpart OO--Imports and Exports          0.7          0.02          10            0.6          0.02           16
 of Fluorinated GHGs...........
Subpart SS--Electrical                   0.02         0.01           0.3          0.02         0.01            1
 Equipment Manufacture and
 Refurbishment and
 Manufacturing of Electrical
 Components....................
                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Private Sector, Total......          5.7   ...........          94            3.5   ...........           90
                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Public Sector, Total.......          0.4   ...........           6            0.4   ...........           10
                                ================================================================================
        Total..................          6.1   ...........         100            3.9   ...........          100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What are the economic impacts of the rule?

1. Summary of Economic Impacts
    EPA prepared an economic analysis to evaluate the impacts of the 
proposed rule on affected industries. To estimate the economic impacts, 
EPA first conducted a screening assessment, comparing the estimated 
total annualized compliance costs by industry, where industry is 
defined in terms of North American Industry Classification System 
(NAICS) code, with industry average revenues. Average cost-to-sales 
ratios for establishments in affected NAICS codes are typically less 
than 1 percent.
    These low average cost-to-sales ratios indicate that the rule is 
unlikely to result in significant changes in firms' production 
decisions or other behavioral changes, and thus unlikely to result in 
significant changes in prices or quantities in affected markets. Thus, 
EPA followed its Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses (EPA, 2002, 
p. 124-125) and used the engineering cost estimates to measure the 
social cost of the rule, rather than modeling market responses and 
using the resulting measures of social cost. Table 13 of this preamble 
summarizes cost-to-sales ratios for affected industries.

                         Table 13--Estimated Cost-to-Sales Ratios for Affected Entities
                                               [First Year, 2006$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Average cost
                 NAICS                        NAICS description         Subpart   per entity  ($/   All  enter-
                                                                                      entity)         prises
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
334413................................  Semiconductor and Related              I         $31,748           0.05%
                                         Device Manufacturing
                                         (Semiconductors).

[[Page 18691]]

 
334413................................  Semiconductor and Related              I           5,239            0.01
                                         Device Manufacturing (MEMS).
334413................................  Semiconductor and Related              I           7,598            0.01
                                         Device Manufacturing (LCD).
334119................................  Other Computer Peripheral              I           8,777            0.04
                                         Equipment Manufacturing
                                         (Photovoltaics).
325120................................  Industrial Gas Manufacturing.          L         151,045            1.44
326140................................  Polystyrene Foam Product              OO           3,364            0.03
                                         Manufacturing.
326150................................  Urethane and Other Foam               OO           3,364            0.03
                                         Product (except Polystyrene)
                                         Manufacturing.
333415................................  Air-Conditioning and Warm Air         OO           3,364            0.01
                                         Heating Equipment and
                                         Commercial and Industrial
                                         Refrigeration Equipment
                                         Manufacturing.
335313................................  Switchgear and Switchboard            OO           3,364            0.02
                                         Apparatus Manufacturing.
336391................................  Motor Vehicle Air-                    OO           3,364            0.01
                                         Conditioning Manufacturing.
423610................................  Electrical Apparatus and              OO           3,364            0.05
                                         Equipment, Wiring Supplies,
                                         and Related Equipment
                                         Merchant Wholesalers.
423620................................  Electrical and Electronic             OO           3,364            0.02
                                         Appliance, Television, and
                                         Radio Set Merchant
                                         Wholesalers.
423720................................  Plumbing and Heating                  OO           3,364            0.05
                                         Equipment and Supplies
                                         (Hydronics) Merchant
                                         Wholesalers.
423730................................  Warm Air Heating and Air-             OO           3,364            0.07
                                         Conditioning Equipment and
                                         Supplies Merchant
                                         Wholesalers.
423740................................  Refrigeration Equipment and           OO           3,364            0.10
                                         Supplies Merchant
                                         Wholesalers.
443111................................  Household Appliance Stores...         OO           3,364            0.27
443112................................  Radio, Television and Other           OO           3,364            0.15
                                         Electronics Stores.
424610 \b\............................  Plastics Materials and Basic          OO           3,364            0.04
                                         Forms and Shapes Merchant
                                         Wholesalers.
33361.................................  Engine, Turbine, and Power            SS           2,213            0.01
                                         Transmission Equipment
                                         Manufacturing.
33531.................................  Electrical Equipment                  SS           2,213            0.02
                                         Manufacturing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\b\ The 2002 SUSB data uses 1997 NAICS codes. For this industry, the relevant code is NAICS 422610.

D. What are the impacts of the rule on small businesses?

1. Summary of Impacts on Small Businesses
    As required by the RFA and SBREFA, EPA assessed the potential 
impacts of the rule on small entities (small businesses, governments, 
and non-profit organizations). (See Section IV.C of this preamble for 
definitions of small entities.)
    EPA conducted a screening assessment comparing compliance costs for 
affected industry sectors to industry-specific receipts data for 
establishments owned by small businesses. This ratio constitutes a 
``sales'' test that computes the annualized compliance costs of this 
rule as a percentage of sales and determines whether the ratio exceeds 
some level (e.g., 1 percent or 3 percent).
    The cost-to-sales ratios were constructed at the establishment 
level (average reporting program costs per establishment/average 
establishment receipts) for several business size ranges. This allowed 
EPA to account for receipt differences between establishments owned by 
large and small businesses and differences in small business 
definitions across affected industries. The results of the screening 
assessment are shown in Table 14 of this preamble.
    As shown, the cost-to-sales ratios are typically less than 1 
percent for establishments owned by small businesses that EPA considers 
most likely to be covered by the reporting program (e.g., 
establishments owned by businesses with 20 or more employees).

                                                            Table 14--Estimated Cost-to-Sales Ratios by Industry and Enterprise Size
                                                                                     [First Year, 2006$] \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  SBA size                                                  Owned by enterprises with:
                                                                  standard     Average               -----------------------------------------------------------------------
             NAICS              NAICS description    Sub-part    (effective    cost per   All enter-                                                               1,000 to
                                                                 March 11,    entity ($/    prises      1 to 20    20 to 99   100 to 499  500 to 749  750 to 999     1,499
                                                                   2008)       entity)                 employees   employees   employees   employees   employees   employees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
334413........................  Semiconductor and  I            500          $31,748      0.05%       2.07%       0.40%       0.12%       0.08%       0.02%       0.04%
                                 Related Device
                                 Manufacturing
                                 (Semiconductors).
334413........................  Semiconductor and  I            500          5,239        0.01%       0.34%       0.07%       0.02%       0.01%       0.00%       0.01%
                                 Related Device
                                 Manufacturing
                                 (MEMS).
334413........................  Semiconductor and  I            500          7,598        0.01%       0.50%       0.10%       0.03%       0.02%       0.01%       0.01%
                                 Related Device
                                 Manufacturing
                                 (LCD).

[[Page 18692]]

 
334119........................  Other Computer     I            1,000        8,777        0.04%       0.56%       0.09%       0.03%       0.01%       0.02%       0.01%
                                 Peripheral
                                 Equipment
                                 Manufacturing
                                 (Photovoltaics).
325120........................  Industrial Gas     L            1,000        151,045      1.44%       31.03%      1.03%       4.26%       NA          NA          NA
                                 Manufacturing.
326140........................  Polystyrene Foam   OO           500          3,364        0.03%       0.28%       0.07%       0.04%       NA          NA          0.01%
                                 Product
                                 Manufacturing.
326150........................  Urethane and       OO           500          3,364        0.03%       0.21%       0.06%       0.02%       0.02%       NA          NA
                                 Other Foam
                                 Product (except
                                 Polystyrene)
                                 Manufacturing.
333415........................  Air-Conditioning   OO           750          3,364        0.01%       0.25%       0.04%       0.02%       0.01%       0.01%       0.01%
                                 and Warm Air
                                 Heating
                                 Equipment and
                                 Commercial and
                                 Industrial
                                 Refrigeration
                                 Equipment
                                 Manufacturing.
335313........................  Switchgear and     OO           750          3,364        0.02%       0.26%       0.06%       0.02%       NA          NA          NA
                                 Switchboard
                                 Apparatus
                                 Manufacturing.
336391........................  Motor Vehicle Air- OO           750          3,364        0.01%       0.37%       0.08%       NA          NA          NA          NA
                                 Conditioning
                                 Manufacturing.
423610........................  Electrical         OO           100          3,364        0.05%       0.11%       0.03%       0.04%       0.05%       0.03%       0.04%
                                 Apparatus and
                                 Equipment,
                                 Wiring Supplies,
                                 and Related
                                 Equipment
                                 Merchant
                                 Wholesalers.
423620........................  Electrical and     OO           100          3,364        0.02%       0.08%       0.02%       0.01%       0.00%       0.01%       0.01%
                                 Electronic
                                 Appliance,
                                 Television, and
                                 Radio Set
                                 Merchant
                                 Wholesalers.
423720........................  Plumbing and       OO           100          3,364        0.05%       0.12%       0.02%       0.04%       0.07%       0.03%       0.10%
                                 Heating
                                 Equipment and
                                 Supplies
                                 (Hydronics)
                                 Merchant
                                 Wholesalers.
423730........................  Warm Air Heating   OO           100          3,364        0.07%       0.15%       0.06%       0.06%       0.12%       0.03%       NA
                                 and Air-
                                 Conditioning
                                 Equipment and
                                 Supplies
                                 Merchant
                                 Wholesalers.
423740........................  Refrigeration      OO           100          3,364        0.10%       0.18%       0.05%       0.11%       0.09%       0.05%       NA
                                 Equipment and
                                 Supplies
                                 Merchant
                                 Wholesalers.
443111........................  Household          OO           $9 M         3,364        0.27%       0.47%       0.10%       0.08%       NA          NA          NA
                                 Appliance Stores.
443112........................  Radio, Television  OO           $9 M         3,364        0.15%       0.59%       0.17%       0.26%       NA          NA          NA
                                 and Other
                                 Electronics
                                 Stores.
424610 \b\....................  Plastics           OO           100          3,364        0.04%       0.10%       0.03%       0.02%       0.01%       0.01%       0.06%
                                 Materials and
                                 Basic Forms and
                                 Shapes Merchant
                                 Wholesalers.
33361.........................  Engine, Turbine,   SS           500-1,000    2,213        0.01%       0.19%       0.03%       0.01%       0.01%       0.01%       0.01%
                                 and Power
                                 Transmission
                                 Equipment
                                 Manufacturing.
33531.........................  Electrical         SS           750-1,000    2,213        0.02%       0.22%       0.04%       0.01%       0.01%       0.00%       0.01%
                                 Equipment
                                 Manufacturing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The Census Bureau defines an enterprise as a business organization consisting of one or more domestic establishments that were specified under common ownership or control. The enterprise
  and the establishment are the same for single-establishment firms. Each multi-establishment company forms one enterprise--the enterprise employment and annual payroll are summed from the
  associated establishments. Enterprise size designations are determined by the summed employment of all associated establishments. Since the SBA's business size definitions (http://www.sba.gov/size) apply to an establishment's ultimate parent company, we assume in this analysis that the enterprise definition above is consistent with the concept of ultimate parent
  company that is typically used for Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) screening analyses.

[[Page 18693]]

 
\b\ The 2002 SUSB data uses 1997 NAICS codes. For this industry, the relevant code is NAICS 422610.

    EPA acknowledges that several enterprise categories have ratios 
that exceed this threshold (e.g., enterprise with one to 20 employees). 
The Industrial Gas Manufacturing industry (NAICS 325120) has sales test 
results over 1 percent for all enterprises. The following enterprise 
categories have sales test results over 1 percent and for entities with 
less than 20 employees: Industrial Gas Manufacturing (325120) and 
Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing (334413).
    EPA took a more detailed look at the categories noted above as 
having sales test ratios above 1 percent. EPA collected information on 
the entities likely to be covered by the rule as part of the expert 
sub-group process.
    Industrial Gas Manufacturing (325120). Subpart L covers facilities 
included in NAICS codes for Industrial Gas Manufacturing (NAICS 
325120). Within this subpart, EPA identified 13 ultimate parent company 
names covered by the proposed rule. Using publicly available sources 
(e.g., Hoovers.com), we collected parent company sales and employment 
data and found that only one company could be classified as a small 
entity. Using the cost data for a representative entity (see Section 
4), EPA determined the small entity's cost-to-sales ratio is below one 
percent.
    Electronic Computer Manufacturing (334111) and Semiconductor and 
Related Device Manufacturing (334413). Data on the number of 
electronics facilities comes from the World Fab Watch and the Flat 
Panel Display Fabs on Disk datasets. The census data categories cover 
more establishments than just those facilities covered in the rule. 
Subpart I covers facilities included in NAICS codes for Semiconductor 
and Related Device Manufacturing (334413) and Other Computer Peripheral 
Equipment Manufacturing (334119). The World Fab Watch dataset includes 
216 facilities (94 of which exceed the 25,000 ton threshold), while the 
sum of the two NAICS codes include 1,903 establishments. Covered 
facilities with emissions greater than 25,000 MtCO2e per 
year are unlikely to be included in the 1 to 20 employees size 
category. Emissions are roughly proportional to production, and 
establishments with 1 to 20 employees total only 1.6 percent of total 
receipts, while the proposed threshold excludes 6 percent of industry 
emissions from the least-emitting facilities. Although this rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, EPA nonetheless took several steps to reduce the impact of 
this rule on small entities. For example, EPA is proposing monitoring 
and reporting requirements that build off of the UIC program. In 
addition, EPA is proposing equipment and methods that may already be in 
use by a facility for compliance with its UIC permit. Also, EPA is 
requiring annual reporting instead of more frequent reporting.
    In addition to the public hearing that EPA plans to hold, EPA has 
an open door policy, similar to the outreach conducted during the 
development of the proposed and final MRR. Details of these meetings 
are available in the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927).

E. What are the benefits of the rule for society?

    EPA examined the potential benefits of the Fluorinated GHG 
Reporting Rule. EPA's previous analysis of the GHG reporting rule 
discussed the benefits of a reporting system with respect to policy 
making relevance, transparency issues, market efficiency. Instead of a 
quantitative analysis of the benefits, EPA conducted a systematic 
literature review of existing studies including government, consulting, 
and scholarly reports.
    A mandatory reporting system will benefit the public by increased 
transparency of facility emissions data. Transparent, public data on 
emissions allows for accountability of polluters to the public 
stakeholders who bear the cost of the pollution. Citizens, community 
groups, and labor unions have made use of data from Pollutant Release 
and Transfer Registers to negotiate directly with polluters to lower 
emissions, circumventing greater government regulation. Publicly 
available emissions data also will allow individuals to alter their 
consumption habits based on the GHG emissions of producers.
    The greatest benefit of mandatory reporting of industry GHG 
emissions to government will be realized in developing future GHG 
policies. For example, in the EU's Emissions Trading System, a lack of 
accurate monitoring at the facility level before establishing 
CO2 allowance permits resulted in allocation of permits for 
emissions levels an average of 15 percent above actual levels in every 
country except the United Kingdom.
    Benefits to industry of GHG emissions monitoring include the value 
of having independent, verifiable data to present to the public to 
demonstrate appropriate environmental stewardship, and a better 
understanding of their emission levels and sources to identify 
opportunities to reduce emissions. Such monitoring allows for inclusion 
of standardized GHG data into environmental management systems, 
providing the necessary information to achieve and disseminate their 
environmental achievements.
    Standardization will also be a benefit to industry, once facilities 
invest in the institutional knowledge and systems to report emissions, 
the cost of monitoring should fall and the accuracy of the accounting 
should improve. A standardized reporting program will also allow for 
facilities to benchmark themselves against similar facilities to 
understand better their relative standing within their industry.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 
October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not by itself an 
``economically significant regulatory action'' because it is unlikely 
to have an annual economic effect of less than $100 million. EPA's cost 
analysis, presented in Section 4 of the Economic Impact Analysis (EIA), 
estimates that for the minimum reporting under the recommended 
regulatory option, the total annualized cost of the rule will be 
approximately $6.1 million (in 2006$) during the first year of the 
program and $3.9 million in subsequent years (including $0.4 million of 
programmatic costs to the Agency). This proposed action adds subparts 
I, L, OO, and SS to the MRR, which was a significant regulatory action. 
Thus, EPA has chosen to analyze the impacts of this proposed rule as if 
it were significant. EPA submitted this proposed action to the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866, 
and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been 
documented in the docket for this proposed action.
    In addition, EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs 
associated with this proposed action. This analysis is contained in the 
Economic Impact Analysis (EIA), Economic Impact Analysis for the 
Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions F-Gases Subparts I, L, 
OO, and SS (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927). A copy of the analysis is available 
in the docket for this action and the analysis is briefly

[[Page 18694]]

summarized here. In this report, EPA has identified the regulatory 
options considered, their costs, the emissions that would likely be 
reported under each option, and explained the selection of the option 
chosen for the rule. Overall, EPA has concluded that the costs of the 
F-Gases Rule are outweighed by the potential benefits of more 
comprehensive information about GHG emissions.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 
Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been 
assigned EPA ICR number [2373.01].
    EPA has identified the following goals of the mandatory GHG 
reporting system:
     Obtain data that is of sufficient quality that it can be 
used to analyze and inform the development of a range of future climate 
change policies and potential regulations.
     Balance the rule's coverage to maximize the amount of 
emissions reported while excluding small emitters.
     Create reporting requirements that are, to the extent 
possible and appropriate, consistent with existing GHG reporting 
programs in order to reduce reporting burden for all parties involved.
    The information from fluorinated GHG facilities will allow EPA to 
make well-informed decisions about whether and how to use the CAA to 
regulate these facilities and encourage voluntary reductions. Because 
EPA does not yet know the specific policies that will be adopted, the 
data reported through the mandatory reporting system should be of 
sufficient quality to inform policy and program development. Also, 
consistent with the Appropriations Act, the reporting rule covers a 
broad range of sectors of the economy.
    This information collection is mandatory and will be carried out 
under CAA section 114. Information identified and marked as 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) will not be disclosed except in 
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2. However, 
emissions information collected under CAA section 114 generally cannot 
be claimed as CBI and will be made public.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Although CBI determinations are usually made on a case-by-
case basis, EPA has issued guidance in an earlier Federal Register 
notice on what constitutes emissions data that cannot be considered 
CBI (956 FR 7042-7043, February 21, 1991). As discussed in Section 
II.R of the preamble to the Final MRR, EPA will be initiating a 
separate notice and comment process to make CBI determinations for 
the data collected under this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The projected cost and hour respondent burden in the ICR, averaged 
over the first three years after promulgation, is $4.51 million and 
81,500 hours per year. The estimated average burden per response is 272 
hours; the frequency of response is annual for all respondents that 
must comply with the rule's reporting requirements; and the estimated 
average number of likely respondents per year is 276. The cost burden 
to respondents resulting from the collection of information includes 
the total capital and start-up cost annualized over the equipment's 
expected useful life (averaging $44,000 per year) a total operation and 
maintenance component (averaging $24,000 per year), and a labor cost 
component (averaging $4.44 million per year). Burden is defined at 5 
CFR Part 1320.3(b).
    These cost numbers differ from those shown elsewhere in the EIA 
because ICR costs represent the average cost over the first three years 
of the rule, but costs are reported elsewhere in the EIA for the first 
year of the rule. Also, the total cost estimate of the rule in the EIA 
includes the cost to the Agency to administer the program. The ICR 
differentiates between respondent burden and cost to the Agency, 
estimated to be $384,000.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is 
approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 
CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control number 
for the approved information collection requirements contained in the 
final rule.
    To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy 
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for 
minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for 
this proposed rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and 
OMB. See ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to 
submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for 
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR 
between 30 and 60 days after [date of publication], a comment to OMB is 
best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by 
[publication plus 30]. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public 
comments on the information collection requirements contained in this 
proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small 
entities, For the fluorinated GHG Reporting Rule, small entity is 
defined as a small business as defined by the Small Business 
Administration's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; according to these size 
standards, criteria for determining if ultimate parent companies owning 
affected facilities are categorized as small vary by NAICS. Small 
entity criteria range from total number of employees at the firm fewer 
than 100 to number of employees fewer than 1000; one affected NAICS, 
44311, defines small entities as those with sales below $9 million. EIA 
tables 5-11 and 5-12 present small business criteria and enterprise 
size distribution data for affected NAICS.EPA assessed the potential 
impacts of the proposed rule on small entities using a sales test, 
defined as the ratio of total annualized compliance costs to firm 
sales. Details are provided in section 5.3 of the EIA. These sales 
tests examine the average establishment's total annualized mandatory 
reporting costs to the average establishment receipts for enterprises 
within several employment categories.\46\ The average entity costs used 
to compute the sales test are the same across all of these enterprise 
size categories. As a result, the sales-test will overstate the cost-
to-receipt ratio for establishments owned by small businesses, because 
the reporting costs are likely lower than average entity estimates 
provided by the engineering cost analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ For the one to 20 employee category, we exclude SUSB data 
for enterprises with zero employees. These enterprises did not 
operate the entire year.

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

[[Page 18695]]

    The results of the screening analysis show that for most NAICS, the 
costs are estimated to be less than 1 percent of sales in all firm size 
categories. For two NAICS, however, the costs exceed 1 percent of sales 
for the 1-20 employee size category; for these NAICS, a more detailed 
assessment was conducted. For NAICS 334413, firms with fewer than 20 
employees produce less than 2 percent of output; firms below the 25,000 
Mt CO2e threshold release approximately 6 percent of 
emissions. Because emissions and production levels are highly 
correlated, firms with fewer than 20 employees are generally not 
expected to be affected by the proposed rule; if they are, their costs 
are likely to be lower than the overall average costs used in the 
screening analysis. Thus, EPA does not expect the proposed rule to 
impose significant costs to a substantial number of small entities in 
NAICS 334413. Subpart L covers facilities included in NAICS codes for 
Industrial Gas Manufacturing (NAICS 325120). Within this subpart, EPA 
identified 13 ultimate parent company names covered by the proposed 
rule. Using publicly available sources (e.g.,hoovers.com), we collected 
parent company sales and employment data and found that only one 
company could be classified as a small entity. Using the cost data for 
a representative entity (see Section 4 of the EA), EPA determined the 
small entity's cost-to-sales ratio is below one percent.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, I therefore certify that this proposed rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    Although this rule would not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities, the Agency nonetheless tried to 
reduce the impact of this rule on small entities, including seeking 
input from a wide range of private- and public-sector stakeholders. 
When developing the rule, the Agency took special steps to ensure that 
the burdens imposed on small entities were minimal. The Agency 
conducted several meetings with industry trade associations to discuss 
regulatory options and the corresponding burden on industry, such as 
recordkeeping and reporting. The Agency investigated alternative 
thresholds and analyzed the marginal costs associated with requiring 
smaller entities with lower emissions to report. The Agency also 
selected a hybrid method for reporting, which provides flexibility to 
entities and helps minimize reporting costs.
    In addition to the public hearing that EPA plans to hold, EPA has 
an open door policy, similar to the outreach conducted during the 
development of the proposed and final MRR.
    Details of these meetings are available in the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0927).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that may result in 
expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year.
    This proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may 
result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and 
Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one 
year. Overall, EPA estimates that the total annualized costs of this 
proposed rule are approximately $6.1 million in the first year, and 
$3.9 million per year in subsequent years. Thus, this proposed rule is 
not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
    This proposed rule is also not subject to the requirements of 
section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that 
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Facilities 
subject to the proposed rule include facilities that manufacture, sell, 
import or export fluorinated GHG related products. None of the 
facilities currently known to undertake these activities are owned by 
small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132. This regulation applies to 
facilities that manufacture, sell, import, or export fluorinated GHG 
related products. Few State or local government facilities would be 
affected. This regulation also does not limit the power of States or 
localities to collect GHG data and/or regulate GHG emissions. Thus, 
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local 
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action 
from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have Tribal implications.''
    This proposed rule is not expected to have Tribal implications, as 
specified in Executive Order 13175. This regulation applies to 
facilities that manufacture, sell, import, or export fluorinated GHG 
related products. Few facilities expected to be affected by the rule 
are likely to be owned by Tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 
13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.
    Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed 
rule, EPA sought opportunities to provide information to Tribal 
governments and representatives during development of the MRR rule. In 
consultation with EPA's American Indian Environment Office, EPA's 
outreach plan included Tribes. During the proposal phase, EPA staff 
provided information to Tribes through conference calls with multiple 
Indian working groups and organizations at EPA that interact with 
Tribes and through individual calls with two Tribal board members of 
TCR. In addition, EPA prepared a short article on the GHG reporting 
rule that appeared on the front page of a Tribal newsletter--Tribal Air 
News--that was distributed to EPA/OAQPS's network of Tribal 
organizations. EPA gave a presentation on various climate efforts, 
including the mandatory reporting rule, at the National Tribal 
Conference on Environmental Management in June, 2008. In addition, EPA 
had copies of a short information sheet distributed at a meeting of the 
National Tribal Caucus. EPA participated in a conference call with 
Tribal air coordinators in April 2009 and prepared a guidance sheet for 
Tribal governments on the proposed rule. It was posted on the MRR Web 
site and published in the Tribal Air Newsletter. For a complete list of 
Tribal contacts, see the ``Summary of EPA Outreach Activities for 
Developing the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule,'' in the Docket for the 
initial proposed rule

[[Page 18696]]

(EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-055). In addition to the consultation activities 
supporting the MRR, EPA continues to provide requested information to 
Tribal governments and representatives during development of the Track 
II rules such as this proposed rulemaking. EPA specifically solicits 
additional comment on this proposed action from Tribal officials.

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

    EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying 
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, 
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the 
potential to influence the regulation. This proposed action is not 
subject to EO 13045 because it does not establish an environmental 
standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as 
defined in EO 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that this 
proposed rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects. This 
proposed rule relates to monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping at 
facilities that manufacture, sell, import, or export fluorinated GHG 
related products and does not impact energy supply, distribution or 
use. Therefore, we conclude that this proposed rule is not likely to 
have any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 
EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities 
unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards 
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and 
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary 
consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, 
through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available 
and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA will use 
voluntary consensus standards from at least seven different voluntary 
consensus standards bodies, including the following: ASTM, ASME, ISO, 
Gas Processors Association, American Gas Association, American 
Petroleum Institute, and National Lime Association. These voluntary 
consensus standards will help facilities monitor, report, and keep 
records of GHG emissions. No new test methods were developed for this 
proposed rule. Instead, from existing rules for source categories and 
voluntary greenhouse gas programs, EPA identified existing means of 
monitoring, reporting, and keeping records of greenhouse gas emissions. 
The existing methods (voluntary consensus standards) include a broad 
range of measurement techniques, such as methods to measure gas or 
liquid flow; and methods to gauge and measure petroleum and petroleum 
products. The test methods are incorporated by reference into the 
proposed rule and are available as specified in 40 CFR 98.7.
    By incorporating voluntary consensus standards into this proposed 
rule, EPA is both meeting the requirements of the NTTAA and presenting 
multiple options and flexibility in complying with the proposed rule. 
EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, 
specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-applicable 
voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should 
be used in this proposed regulation.

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

    EO 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes Federal 
executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs 
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by 
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying 
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse 
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and 
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the 
United States.
Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Additional Sources of 
Fluorinated GHGs (Page 229 of 363)
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not 
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the 
environment. This proposed rule does not affect the level of protection 
provided to human health or the environment because it is a rule 
addressing information collection and reporting procedures.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 98

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

    Dated: March 22, 2010.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 98--[AMENDED]

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

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

    2. Section 98.7 is amended as follows:
    a. By revising paragraph (d)(1).
    b. By revising paragraph (d)(2).
    c. By revising paragraph (d)(3).
    d. By revising paragraph (d)(4).
    e. By revising paragraph (d)(5).
    f. By revising paragraph (d)(6).
    g. By revising paragraph (d)(7).
    h. By revising paragraph (d)(8).
    i. By revising paragraph (e)(30).
    j. By adding paragraph (k).
    k. By adding paragraph (l).


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

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) ASME MFC-3M-2004 Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes Using 
Orifice, Nozzle, and Venturi, incorporation by reference (IBR) approved 
for Sec.  98.34(b), Sec.  98.124(k), Sec.  98.244(b), Sec.  98.254(c), 
Sec.  98.344(c), and Sec.  98.364(e).
    (2) ASME MFC-4M-1986 (Reaffirmed 1997) Measurement of Gas Flow by 
Turbine Meters, IBR approved for Sec.  98.34(b), Sec.  98.124(k), Sec.  
98.244(b), Sec.  98.254(c), Sec.  98.344(c), and Sec.  98.364(e).
    (3) ASME MFC-5M-1985 (Reaffirmed 1994) Measurement of Liquid Flow 
in Closed Conduits Using Transit-Time Ultrasonic Flowmeters, IBR 
approved for Sec.  98.34(b), Sec.  98.124(k), and Sec.  98.244(b).
    (4) ASME MFC-6M-1998 Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes Using 
Vortex Flowmeters, IBR approved for Sec.  98.34(b), Sec.  98.124(k), 
Sec.  98.244(b), Sec.  98.254(c), Sec.  98.344(c), and Sec.  98.364(e).

[[Page 18697]]

    (5) ASME MFC-7M-1987 (Reaffirmed 1992) Measurement of Gas Flow by 
Means of Critical Flow Venturi Nozzles, IBR approved for Sec.  
98.34(b), Sec.  98.124(k), Sec.  98.244(b), Sec.  98.254(c), Sec.  
98.344(c), and Sec.  98.364(e).
    (6) ASME MFC-9M-1988 (Reaffirmed 2001) Measurement of Liquid Flow 
in Closed Conduits by Weighing Method, IBR approved for Sec.  98.34(b), 
Sec.  98.124(k), and Sec.  98.244(b).
    (7) ASME MFC-11M-2006 Measurement of Fluid Flow by Means of 
Coriolis Mass Flowmeters, IBR approved for Sec.  98.124(k), Sec.  
98.244(b), Sec.  98.254(c), and Sec.  98.344(c).
    (8) ASME MFC-14M-2003 Measurement of Fluid Flow Using Small Bore 
Precision Orifice Meters, IBR approved for Sec.  98.124(k), Sec.  
98.244(b), Sec.  98.254(c), Sec.  98.344(c), and Sec.  98.364(e).
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
* * * * *
    (30) ASTM D6348-03 Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform 
Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, IBR approved for Sec.  98.54(b), Sec.  
98.124(c), and Sec.  98.224(b).
* * * * *
    (k) The following material is available from the International 
SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative, http://ismi.sematech.org.
    (1) Guideline for Environmental Characterization of Semiconductor 
Process Equipment, International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative 
Technology Transfer 06124825B-ENG. (2006).
    (l) The following material is available for purchase from SEMI, 
3081 Zanker Road, San Jose, CA 95134, (408) 943-6900, http://www.semi.org.
    (1) SEMI E10-0304 Specification for Definition and Measurement of 
Equipment Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability (2004).
    (2) [Reserved]
    3. Add subpart I to read as follows:
Subpart I--Electronics Manufacturing
Sec.
98.90 Definition of the source category.
98.91 Reporting threshold.
98.92 GHGs to report.
98.93 Calculating GHG emissions.
98.94 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.
98.95 Procedures for estimating missing data.
98.96 Data reporting requirements.
98.97 Records that must be retained.
98.98 Definitions.
Table I-1 of Subpart I--Default Emission Factors for Threshold 
Applicability Determination
Table I-2 of Subpart I--Examples of Fluorinated GHGs Used by the 
Electronics Industry
Table I-3 of Subpart I--Default Emission Factors for MEMS 
Manufacturing
Table I-4 of Subpart I--Default Emission Factors for LCD 
Manufacturing
Table I-5 of Subpart I--Default Emission Factors for PV 
Manufacturing
Table I-6 of Subpart I-Default Emission Factors for Refined Process 
Categories for Semiconductor Manufacturing for 150 mm Wafer Size
Table I-7 of Subpart I-Default Emission Factors for Refined Process 
Categories for Semiconductor Manufacturing for 200 mm Wafer Size
Table I-8 of Subpart I-Default Emission Factors for Refined Process 
Categories for Semiconductor Manufacturing for 300 mm Wafer Size

Subpart I--Electronics Manufacturing


Sec.  98.90  Definition of the source category.

    (a) The electronics source category consists of any of the 
processes listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(6) of this section. 
Electronics manufacturing facilities include, but are not limited to, 
facilities that manufacture semiconductors, liquid crystal displays 
(LCDs), micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS), and photovoltaic cells 
(PV).
    (1) Each electronics manufacturing production process in which the 
etching process uses plasma-generated fluorine atoms and other reactive 
fluorine-containing fragments, which chemically react with exposed 
thin-films (e.g., dielectric, metals) and silicon to selectively remove 
portions of material.
    (2) Each electronics manufacturing production process in which 
chambers used for depositing thin films are cleaned periodically using 
plasma-generated fluorine atoms and other reactive fluorine-containing 
fragments from fluorinated and other gases.
    (3) Each electronics manufacturing production process in which 
wafers are cleaned using plasma generated fluorine atoms or other 
reactive fluorine-containing fragments to remove residual material from 
wafer surfaces.
    (4) Each electronics manufacturing production process in which some 
fluorinated compounds can be transformed in the plasma processes into 
different fluorinated compounds which are then exhausted, unless 
abated, into the atmosphere.
    (5) Each electronics manufacturing production process in which the 
chemical vapor deposition process or other manufacturing processes use 
N2O.
    (6) Each electronics manufacturing production process in which 
fluorinated GHGs are used as heat transfer fluids to cool process 
equipment, control temperature during device testing, and solder 
semiconductor devices to circuit boards.
    (b) [Reserved]


Sec.  98.91  Reporting threshold.

    You must report GHG emissions under this subpart if your facility 
contains an electronics manufacturing process and the facility meets 
the requirements of either Sec.  98.2(a)(1) or (a)(2). To calculate GHG 
emissions for comparison to the 25,000 metric ton CO2e per 
year emission threshold in paragraph Sec.  98.2(a)(2), calculate 
process emissions from electronics manufacture by using either 
paragraph (a), (b), (c), or (d) of this section, as appropriate.
    (a) Semiconductor manufacturers shall calculate process emissions 
for applicability purposes using the default emission factors shown in 
Table I-1 of this subpart and Equation I-1 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.038

Where:

    ET = Total annual process emissions for applicability 
purposes (metric tons).
    1.1 = Factor accounting for heat transfer fluid emissions, 
estimated as 10 percent of total clean and etch emissions at a 
facility.
    S = 100 percent of manufacturing capacity of a facility (m\2\).
    EFi = Emission factor for input gas i.
    0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons.

    (b) LCD manufacturers shall calculate process emissions for 
applicability purposes using the default emission factors shown in 
Table I-1 of this subpart and Equation I-2 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.039

Where:

    ET = Total annual process emissions for applicability 
purposes (metric tons).
    S = 100 percent of manufacturing capacity of a facility (m\2\).
    EFi = Emission factor for input gas i.
    0.000001 = Conversion factor from g to metric tons.

    (c) MEMS manufacturers shall calculate process emissions for 
applicability purposes using the default emission factors shown in 
Table I-1 of this subpart and Equation I-3 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.040

Where:

    ET = Total annual process emissions for applicability 
purposes (metric tons).
    S = 100 percent of manufacturing capacity of a facility (m\2\).
    EFi = Emission factor for input gas i.
    0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons.


[[Page 18698]]


    (d) PV manufacturers shall calculate process emissions for 
applicability purposes using gas-appropriate GWP values shown in Table 
A-1 to subpart A and equation I-4 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.041

Where:

    ET = Total annual process emissions for applicability 
purposes (metric tons).
    Ci = Annual fluorinated GHG (gas i) purchases or 
consumption (kg).
    GWPi = Gas-appropriate GWP.
    0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons.


Sec.  98.92  GHGs to report.

    (a) You shall report emissions of N2O and fluorinated 
GHGs (as defined in Sec.  98.6). The fluorinated GHGs that are emitted 
from electronics production processes include, but are not limited to, 
those listed in Table I-2 of this subpart. You must report:
    (1) Fluorinated GHGs from plasma etching.
    (2) Fluorinated GHGs from chamber cleaning.
    (3) Fluorinated GHGs from wafer cleaning.
    (4) N2O from chemical vapor deposition and other 
manufacturing processes.
    (5) Fluorinated GHGs from heat transfer fluid use.
    (b) CO2, CH4, and N2O combustion 
emissions from each stationary combustion unit. You must calculate and 
report these emissions under subpart C of this part (General Stationary 
Fuel Combustion Sources) by following the requirements of subpart C.


Sec.  98.93  Calculating GHG emissions.

    (a) You shall calculate annual facility-level emissions for each 
fluorinated GHG used at your facility, for each process type used at 
your facility (plasma etching, chamber cleaning, or wafer cleaning) as 
appropriate, using equations I-5 and I-6 of this section and according 
to the procedures in paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of this 
section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.042

Where:

    processtypeEi = Annual emissions of input gas i from 
the processes type (metric tons).
    Eij = Annual emissions of input gas i from individual 
process j or process category j (metric tons).
    N = The total number of individual processes j or process 
categories j, which depend on the electronics manufacturing facility 
and emission calculation methodology.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.043

Where:

    processtypeBEk = Annual emissions of by-product gas k 
from the processes type (metric tons).
    BEkij = Annual emissions of by-product k formed from 
input gas i during individual process j or process category j 
(metric tons).
    N = The total number of individual processes j or process 
categories j, which depend on the electronics manufacturing facility 
and emission calculation methodology.

    (1) Semiconductor facilities that fabricate devices on wafers 
measuring 300 mm or less in diameter shall calculate annual facility-
level emissions of each fluorinated GHG used at a facility for each 
fluorinated GHG-using process type, either from all individual 
processes at that facility in accordance with Sec.  98.94(d), or from 
process categories as defined in this paragraph (a)(1).
    (i) All etching process categories for which annual fluorinated GHG 
emissions shall be calculated are defined in this paragraph (a)(1)(i).
    (A) Oxide etch means any process using fluorinated GHG reagents to 
selectively remove SiO2, SiOx-based or fully 
organic-based thin-film material that has been deposited on a wafer 
during semiconductor device manufacturing.
    (B) Nitride etch means any process using fluorinated GHG reagents 
to selectively remove SiN, SiON, Si3N4, SiC, 
SiCO, SiCN, etc. (represented by the general chemical formula, 
SiwOxNyXz where w, x, y and 
z are zero or integers and X can be some other element such as carbon) 
that has been deposited on a wafer during semiconductor manufacturing.
    (C) Silicon etch also often called polysilicon etch means any 
process using fluorinated GHG reagents to selectively remove silicon 
during semiconductor manufacturing.
    (D) Metal etch means any process using fluorinated GHG reagents 
associated with removing metal films (such as aluminum or tungsten) 
that have been deposited on a wafer during semiconductor manufacturing.
    (ii) All chamber cleaning process categories for which annual 
fluorinated GHG emissions shall be calculated are defined in this 
paragraph (a)(1)(ii).
    (A) In situ plasma means cleaning thin-film production chambers, 
after processing one or more wafers, with a fluorinated GHG cleaning 
reagent that is dissociated into its cleaning constituents by a plasma 
generated inside the chamber where the film was produced.
    (B) Remote plasma system means cleaning thin-film production 
chambers, after processing one or more wafers, with a fluorinated GHG 
cleaning reagent dissociated by a remotely located (e.g., upstream) 
plasma source.
    (C) In situ thermal means cleaning thin-film production chambers, 
after processing one or more wafers, with a fluorinated GHG cleaning 
reagent that is thermally dissociated into its cleaning constituents 
inside the chamber where the thin-film (or thin films) was (were) 
produced.
    (iii) All wafer cleaning process categories for which annual 
fluorinated GHG emissions shall be calculated are defined in this 
paragraph (a)(1)(iii).
    (A) Bevel cleaning means any process using fluorinated GHG reagents 
with plasma to clean the edges of wafers during semiconductor 
manufacture.
    (B) Ashing means any process using fluorinated GHG reagents with 
plasma to remove photoresist materials during wafer manufacture.
    (2) Semiconductor facilities that fabricate devices on wafers 
measuring greater than 300 mm in diameter shall calculate annual 
facility-level emissions of each fluorinated GHG used at a facility for 
all individual processes at that facility in accordance with Sec.  
98.94(d).
    (3) All other electronics facilities shall calculate annual 
facility-level emissions of each fluorinated GHG used at a facility for 
each process type, including etching and chemical vapor deposition 
chamber cleaning.
    (b) You shall calculate annual facility-level emissions for each 
fluorinated GHG used at your facility, for each individual process, 
process category, or process type used at your facility as appropriate, 
using Equations I-7 and I-8 of this section, and according to the 
procedures in either paragraph (b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3) of this 
section.

[[Page 18699]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.044

Where:

    Eij = Annual emissions of input gas i from individual 
process, process category, or process type j (metric tons).
    Cij = Amount of input gas i consumed in individual 
process, process category, or process type j, as calculated in 
Equation I-10 (kg) of this section and apportioned pursuant to Sec.  
98.94(c).
    Uij = Process utilization for input gas i during 
individual process, process category, or process type j.
    aij = Fraction of input gas i used in individual 
process, process category, or process type j with abatement systems.
    dij = Fraction of input gas i destroyed in abatement 
systems connected to individual process, process category, or 
process type j, accounting for uptime as specified in Sec.  
98.94(f)(2). This is zero unless the facility adheres to 
requirements in Sec.  98.94(f).
    0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.045
    
Where:

    BEijk = Annual emissions of by-product k formed from 
input gas i during individual process, process category, or process 
type j (metric tons).
    Bijk = Amount of gas k created as a by-product per 
amount of input gas i (kg) consumed in individual process, process 
category, or process type j (kg).
    Cij = Amount of input gas i consumed in individual 
process, process category, or process type j, as calculated in 
Equation I-10 of this section (kg) and apportioned pursuant to Sec.  
98.94(c).
    aij = Fraction of input gas i used in individual 
process, process category, or process type j with abatement systems.
    dkj = Fraction of by-product gas k destroyed in 
abatement systems connected to individual process, process category, 
or process type j, accounting for uptime as specified in Sec.  
98.94(f)(2). This is zero unless the facility adheres to 
requirements in Sec.  98.94(f).
    0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons.

    (1) Semiconductor facilities that fabricate devices on wafers 
measuring 300 mm or less in diameter shall use the procedures in either 
paragraph (b)(1)(i) or (b)(1)(ii) of this section.
    (i) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(1)(ii), you shall use 
default process category emission factors for process utilization and 
by-product formation rates shown in Tables I-6, I-7, and I-8 of this 
subpart as appropriate.
    (ii) You may use recipe-specific measurements instead of the 
process category default factors provided that you follow methods in 
Sec.  98.94(d).
    (2) Semiconductor facilities that fabricate devices on wafers 
measuring greater than 300 mm in diameter shall use recipe-specific 
measurements and follow methods in Sec.  98.94(d) to calculate 
emissions from each fluorinated GHG-using process type. You shall use 
Equations I-5 through I-8 of this section to calculate fluorinated GHG 
emissions from all fluorinated GHG-using process recipes.
    (3) All other electronics facilities shall use the default process 
type-specific emission factors for process utilization and by-product 
formation rates shown in Tables I-3, I-4, and I-5 of this subpart for 
MEMS, LCD, and PV manufacturing, respectively.
    (c) You shall calculate annual facility-level N2O 
emissions from electronics manufacturing processes, using Equation I-9 
of this section and the methods in this paragraph (c).
    (1) You shall use a factor for N2O utilization for 
chemical vapor deposition processes pursuant to either paragraph 
(c)(1)(i) or (c)(1)(ii) of this section.
    (i) You shall develop a facility-specific N2O 
utilization factor averaged over all N2O-using recipes used 
for chemical vapor deposition processes in accordance with Sec.  
98.94(e).
    (ii) If you do not use a facility-specific N2O 
utilization factor for chemical vapor deposition processes, you shall 
use 20 percent as the default utilization factor for N2O 
from chemical vapor deposition processes.
    (2) You shall use a factor for N2O utilization for other 
manufacturing processes pursuant to either paragraph (c)(2)(i) or 
(c)(2)(ii) of this section.
    (i) You shall develop a facility-specific N2O 
utilization factor averaged over all N2O-using recipes used 
for manufacturing processes other than chemical vapor deposition 
processes in accordance with Sec.  98.94(e).
    (ii) If you do not use a facility-specific N2O 
utilization factor for manufacturing processes other than chemical 
vapor deposition, you shall use the default utilization factor of 0 
percent for N2O from manufacturing processes other than 
chemical vapor deposition.
    (3) If your facility employs abatement systems and you wish to 
quantify and document N2O emission reductions due to these 
systems, you must adhere to the requirements in Sec.  98.94(f).
    (4) You shall calculate annual facility-level N2O 
emissions for all processes at your facility using Equation I-9 of this 
section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.046

Where:
    E(N2O) = Annual emissions of N2O (metric 
tons/year).
    CN2O,j = Amount of N2O consumed 
for N2O-using process j, as calculated in Equation I-10 
of this section and apportioned to N2O process j (kg).
    UN2O,j = Process utilization for 
N2O-using process j.
    aN2O,j = Fraction of N2O used 
in N2O-using process j with abatement systems.
    dN2O,j = Fraction of N2O for 
N2O-using process j destroyed by abatement systems 
connected to process j, accounting for uptime as specified in Sec.  
98.94(f)(2). This is zero unless the facility adheres to 
requirements in Sec.  98.94(f).
    0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons.

    (d) You shall calculate gas consumption for each fluorinated GHG 
and N2O used at your facility using facility-wide gas-
specific heel factors, as determined in Sec.  98.94(b), and using 
Equation I-10 of this section.

[[Page 18700]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.047

Where:

    Ci = Annual consumption of input gas i (metric tons/
year).
    IBi = Inventory of input gas i stored in cylinders or 
other containers at the beginning of the year, including heels (kg).
    IEi = Inventory of input gas i stored in cylinders or 
other containers at the end of the year, including heels (kg).
    Ai = Acquisitions of gas i during the year through 
purchases or other transactions, including heels in cylinders or 
other containers returned to the electronics manufacturing facility 
(kg).
    Di = Disbursements under exceptional circumstances of 
gas i through sales or other transactions during the year, including 
heels in cylinders or other containers returned by the electronics 
manufacturing facility to the chemical supplier, calculated using 
equation I-11 of this section (kg).
    0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons.

    (e) You shall calculate disbursements of gas i using Equation I-11 
of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.048

Where:

    Di = Disbursements of gas i through sales or other 
transactions during the year, including heels in cylinders or other 
containers returned by the electronics manufacturing facility to the 
gas distributor (kg).
    hi = Facility-wide gas-specific heel factor for input 
gas i (%), as determined in Sec.  98.94(b) of this subpart.
    Ni = Number of cylinders or other containers returned 
to the gas distributor containing the standard heel of gas i.
    Fi = Full capacity of cylinders or other containers 
containing gas i (kg).
    Xi = Disbursements under exceptional circumstances of 
gas i through sales or other transactions during the year. These 
include returns of containers whose contents have been weighed due 
to an exceptional circumstance as specified in Sec.  98.94(b)(5) of 
this subpart (kg).

    (f) For facilities that use fluorinated heat transfer fluids, you 
shall report the annual emissions of fluorinated GHG heat transfer 
fluids using the mass balance approach described in Equation I-12 of 
this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.049

Where:

    EHi = Emissions of fluorinated GHG heat transfer 
fluid i, (metric tons/year).
    Density = Density of fluorinated heat transfer fluid i (kg/l).
    Iio = Inventory of fluorinated heat transfer fluid i 
(kg) (in containers, not equipment) at the beginning of the 
reporting year (l). The inventory at the beginning of the reporting 
year must be the same as the inventory at the end of the previous 
reporting year.
    Pit = Acquisitions of fluorinated heat transfer fluid 
i (kg) during the current reporting year (l). Includes amounts 
purchased from chemical suppliers, amounts purchased from equipment 
suppliers with or inside of equipment, and amounts returned to the 
facility after off-site recycling.
Nit = Total nameplate capacity (full and proper charge) 
of equipment that uses fluorinated heat transfer fluid i and that is 
newly installed during the reporting year (kg).
Rit = Total nameplate capacity (full and proper charge) 
of equipment that uses fluorinated heat transfer fluid i and that is 
removed from service during the current reporting year (kg).
Iit = Inventory of fluorinated heat transfer fluid i (kg) 
(in containers, not equipment) at the end of current reporting year 
(l).
Dit = Disbursements of fluorinated heat transfer fluid i 
(kg) during the current reporting year (l). Includes amounts 
returned to chemical suppliers, sold with or inside of equipment, 
and sent off site for verifiable recycling or destruction. 
Disbursements should include only amounts that are properly stored 
and transported so as to prevent emissions in transit.
    0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons.


Sec.  98.94  Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.

    (a) For calendar year 2011 monitoring, you may follow the 
provisions of Sec.  98.3(d)(1) through (d)(3) for best available 
monitoring methods rather than follow the monitoring requirements of 
this section. For purposes of subpart I, any reference to the year 2010 
in Sec.  98.3(d)(1) through (d)(3) shall mean 2011.
    (b) For purposes of Equation I-10 of this section, you must 
estimate facility-wide gas-specific heel factors for each cylinder/
container type for each gas used according to the procedures in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(6) of this section.
    (1) You shall base your facility-wide gas-specific heel factors on 
the residual weight or pressure of a gas cylinder/container that your 
facility uses to change out that cylinder/container for each cylinder/
container type for each gas used.
    (2) The residual weight or pressure you use for Sec.  98.94(b)(1) 
shall be determined by monitoring the mass or the pressure of your 
cylinders/containers. If you monitor the pressure, you shall convert 
the pressure to mass using the ideal gas law, as displayed in Equation 
I-13 of this section, with an appropriately selected Z value.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.050

Where:
    p = Absolute pressure of the gas (Pa)
    V = Volume of the gas (m\3\)
    Z = Compressibility factor
    n = Amount of substance of the gas (moles)
    R = Gas constant (8.314 Joule/Kelvin mole)
    T = Absolute temperature (K)

    (3) You shall use the facility-wide gas-specific cylinder/container 
residual mass, determined from Sec.  98.94(b)(1) and (b)(2), to 
calculate the unused gas for each container, which when expressed as 
fraction of the initial mass in the cylinder/container is the heel 
factor.
    (4) The initial mass used to calculate the facility-wide gas-
specific heel factor may be based on the weight of the gas provided to 
you in the gas supplier documents; however, you remain responsible for 
the accuracy of these masses and weights under this subpart.
    (5) In the exceptional circumstance that you change a cylinder/
container at a residual mass or pressure that differs by more than 20 
percent from your facility-wide gas-specific determined values, you 
shall weigh that cylinder, or measure the pressure of that cylinder 
with a pressure gauge, in place of using a heel factor.
    (6) You shall recalculate facility-wide gas-specific heel factors 
applied at your facility in the event that the residual weight or 
pressure of the gas cylinder/container that your facility uses to 
change out that cylinder/container differs by more than 1 percentage 
point from that used to calculate the previous gas-specific heel 
factor.
    (c) Semiconductor facilities shall apportion fluorinated GHG 
consumption by process category, as defined in Sec.  98.93(a)(1)(i) 
through (a)(1)(iii), or by individual process using

[[Page 18701]]

a facility-specific engineering model based on wafer passes.
    (d) If you use factors for fluorinated GHG process utilization and 
by-product formation rates other than the defaults provided in Tables 
I-6 through I-8 of this subpart, you must use factors that have been 
measured using the International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative's 
Guideline for Environmental Characterization of Semiconductor Process 
Equipment (December 2006). You may use factors for fluorinated GHG 
process utilization and by-product formation rates measured by 
manufacturing equipment suppliers if the conditions in paragraphs 
(d)(1) and (d)(2) of this section are met.
    (1) The manufacturing equipment supplier has measured the GHG 
emission factors for process utilization and by-product formation rates 
using the International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative's Guideline 
for Environmental Characterization of Semiconductor Process Equipment 
(December 2006).
    (2) The conditions under which the measurements were made are 
representative of your facility's fluorinated GHG emitting processes.
    (e) If you use N2O utilization factors other than those 
defaults provided in Sec.  98.93(c)(1)(ii) or (c)(2)(ii), you must use 
factors that have been measured using the International SEMATECH 
Manufacturing Initiative's Guideline for Environmental Characterization 
of Semiconductor Process Equipment (December 2006). You may use 
utilization factors measured by manufacturing equipment suppliers if 
the conditions in paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this section are met.
    (1) The manufacturing equipment supplier has measured the 
N2O utilization factors using the International SEMATECH 
Manufacturing Initiative's Guideline for Environmental Characterization 
of Semiconductor Process Equipment (December 2006).
    (2) The conditions under which the measurements were made are 
representative of your facility's N2O emitting processes.
    (f) If your facility employs abatement systems and you wish to 
reflect emission reductions due to these systems in appropriate 
calculations in Sec.  98.93, you must adhere to the procedures in 
paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section. If you use the default 
destruction or removal efficiency of 60 percent, you must adhere to 
procedures in paragraph (f)(3) of this section. If you use either a 
properly measured destruction or removal efficiency, or a class average 
of properly measured destruction or removal efficiencies during a 
reporting year, you must adhere to procedures in paragraph (f)(4) of 
this section.
    (1) You must certify and document that the systems are properly 
installed, operated, and maintained according to manufacturers' 
specifications by adhering to the procedures in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) 
and (f)(1)(ii) of this section.
    (i) Proper installation must be verified by certifying the systems 
are installed in accordance with the manufacturers' specifications.
    (ii) Proper operation and maintenance must be verified by 
certifying the systems are operated and maintained in accordance with 
the manufacturers' specifications.
    (2) You shall take into account and report the uptime of abatement 
systems when using destruction or removal efficiencies to reflect 
emission reductions. Abatement system uptime is expressed as the sum of 
an abatement system's operational productive, standby, and engineering 
times divided by the total operations time of its associated 
manufacturing tool(s) as referenced in SEMI Standard E-10-0340 
Specification for Definition and Measurement of Equipment Reliability, 
Availability, and Maintainability (2004).
    (3) To report controlled emissions using the default destruction or 
removal efficiency, you shall certify and document that the abatement 
systems at the facility for which you are reporting controlled 
emissions are specifically designed for fluorinated GHG and 
N2O abatement and you shall use a default destruction or 
removal efficiency of 60 percent for those abatement systems.
    (4) If you do not use the default destruction or removal efficiency 
value to report controlled emissions, you shall use either a properly 
measured destruction or removal efficiency, or a class average of 
properly measured destruction or removal efficiencies during a 
reporting year, determined in accordance with procedures in paragraphs 
(f)(4)(i) through (f)(4)(v) of this section.
    (i) Destruction or removal efficiencies must be properly measured 
in accordance with EPA's Protocol for Measuring Destruction or Removal 
Efficiency of Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Abatement Equipment in 
Electronics Manufacturing (March 2010).
    (ii) A facility must annually select and properly measure the 
destruction or removal efficiency for a random sample of abatement 
systems to include in a random sampling abatement system testing 
program (RSASTP) in accordance with procedures in paragraphs 
(f)(3)(ii)(A) and (f)(3)(ii)(B) of this section.
    (A) Each reporting year a random sample of three or 20 percent of 
installed abatement systems, whichever is greater, for each abatement 
system class shall be tested. In instances where 20 percent of the 
total number of abatement systems in each class does not equate to a 
whole number, the number of systems to be tested shall be determined by 
rounding up to the nearest integer.
    (B) You shall select the random sample each reporting year for the 
RSASTP without repetition of systems in the sample, until all systems 
in each class are properly measured in a 5-year period.
    (iii) If a facility has measured the destruction or removal 
efficiency of a particular abatement system during the previous two-
year period, the facility shall calculate emissions from that system 
using the destruction or removal efficiency most recently measured for 
that particular system.
    (iv) If an individual abatement system has not yet undergone proper 
destruction or removal efficiency testing during the previous two-year 
period, the facility may apply a simple average of the properly 
measured destruction or removal efficiencies for all systems of that 
class, in accordance with the RSASTP. The facility shall maintain or 
exceed the RSASTP schedule and regime if it wishes to apply class 
average destruction or removal efficiency factors to abatement systems 
that have not been properly measured as per the RSASTP.
    (v) In instances where redundant abatement systems are used, the 
facility may account for the total abatement system uptime calculated 
for a specific exhaust stream during the reporting year.
    (g) You shall adhere to the QA/QC procedures of this paragraph when 
estimating fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions from all 
electronics manufacturing processes:
    (1) You shall follow the QA/QC procedures in the International 
SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative's Guideline for Environmental 
Characterization of Semiconductor Process Equipment (December 2006) 
when estimating facility-specific, recipe-specific fluorinated GHG and 
N2O utilization and by-product formation rates.
    (2) You shall follow the QA/QC procedures in EPA's Protocol for 
Measuring Destruction or Removal Efficiency of Fluorinated Greenhouse 
Gas Abatement Equipment in

[[Page 18702]]

Electronics Manufacturing (March 2010) when estimating abatement 
systems destruction or removal efficiency.
    (3) You shall certify that gas consumption is tracked to a high 
degree of precision as part of normal facility operations ensuring that 
the inventory at the beginning of the reporting is the same as the 
inventory at the end of the previous year.
    (h) You shall adhere to the QA/QC procedures of this paragraph when 
estimating fluorinated GHG emissions from heat transfer fluid use and 
annual gas consumption for each fluorinated GHG and N2O used 
at your facility:
    (1) You shall review all inputs to Equations I-10 and I-12 of this 
section to ensure that all inputs and outputs to the facility's system 
are accounted for.
    (2) You shall not enter negative inputs into the mass balance 
Equations I-10 and I-12 of this section and shall ensure that no 
negative emissions are calculated.
    (3) You shall ensure that the beginning of year inventory matches 
the end of year inventory from the previous year.
    (i) All instruments (e.g., mass spectrometers and fourier transform 
infrared measuring systems) used to determine the concentration of 
fluorinated GHG and N2O in process streams shall be 
calibrated just prior to destruction or removal efficiency, gas 
utilization, or by-product formation measurement through analysis of 
certified standards with known concentrations of the same chemicals in 
the same ranges (fractions by mass) as the process samples. Calibration 
gases prepared from a high-concentration certified standard using a gas 
dilution system that meets the requirements specified in Method 205, 40 
CFR part 51, Appendix M may also be used.
    (j) All flowmeters, weigh scales, pressure gauges, and thermometers 
used to measure quantities that are monitored under this section or 
used in calculations under Sec.  98.93 shall have an accuracy and 
precision of one percent of full scale or better.


Sec.  98.95  Procedures for estimating missing data.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph Sec.  98.95(b), a complete 
record of all measured parameters used in the fluorinated GHG and 
N2O emissions calculations in Sec.  98.93 and Sec.  98.94 is 
required.
    (b) If you use heat transfer fluids at your facility and are 
missing data for one or more of the parameters in Equation I-12 of this 
subpart, you shall estimate heat transfer fluid emissions using the 
arithmetic average of the emission rates for the year immediately 
preceding the period of missing data and the months immediately 
following the period of missing data. Alternatively, you may estimate 
missing information using records from the heat transfer fluid 
supplier. You shall document the method used and values estimated for 
all missing data values.


Sec.  98.96  Data reporting requirements.

    In addition to the information required by Sec.  98.3(c), you shall 
include in each annual report the following information for each 
electronics facility.
    (a) Annual emissions of each fluorinated GHG and N2O 
emitted from each individual process, process category, or process type 
as applicable and from all heat transfer fluid use as applicable.
    (b) The method of emissions calculation used in Sec.  98.93.
    (c) Production in terms of substrate surface area (e.g., silicon, 
PV-cell, LCD).
    (d) Emission factors used for process utilization and by-product 
formation rates and the source for each factor for each fluorinated GHG 
and N2O.
    (e) Where process categories for semiconductor facilities as 
defined in Sec.  98.93(a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(iii) are not used, 
descriptions of individual processes or process categories used to 
estimate emissions.
    (f) For each fluorinated GHG and N2O, annual gas 
consumed during the reporting year and facility-wide gas-specific heel-
factors used.
    (g) The apportioning factors for each process category (i.e., 
fractions of each gas fed into each individual process or process 
category used to calculate fluorinated GHG and N2O 
emissions) and a description of the engineering model used for 
apportioning gas usage per Sec.  98.94(c). If the method used to 
develop the apportioning factors permits the development of facility-
wide consumption estimates that are independent of the estimates 
calculated in Equation I-10 of this subpart (e.g., that are based on 
wafer passes for each individual process or process category), you 
shall report the independent facility-wide consumption estimate for 
each fluorinated GHG and N2O.
    (h) Fraction of each gas fed into each process type that is fed 
into tools with abatement systems.
    (i) Description of all abatement systems through which fluorinated 
GHGs or N2O flow at your facility, including the number of 
devices of each manufacturer, model numbers, manufacturers guaranteed 
destruction or removal efficiencies, if any, and record of destruction 
or removal efficiency measurements over its in-use life. The inventory 
of abatement systems shall also include a description of the associated 
tools and/or processes for which these systems treat exhaust.
    (j) For each abatement system through which fluorinated GHGs or 
N2O flow at your facility, for which you are reporting 
controlled emissions, the following:
    (1) Certification that each abatement system used at your facility 
is installed, maintained, and operated in accordance with 
manufacturers' specifications.
    (2) The uptime and the calculations to determine uptime for that 
reporting year.
    (3) The default destruction or removal efficiency value or properly 
measured destruction or removal efficiencies for each abatement system 
used in that reporting year to reflect controlled emissions.
    (4) Where the default destruction or removal efficiency value is 
used to report controlled emissions, certification that the abatement 
systems for which controlled emissions are being reported are 
specifically designed for fluorinated GHG and N2O abatement.
    (5) Where properly measured destruction or removal efficiencies or 
class averages of destruction or removal efficiencies are used to 
report controlled emissions, the following:
    (i) A description of the class including the abatement system 
manufacturer and model number, and the fluorinated GHG and 
N2O in the process effluent stream;
    (ii) The total number of systems in that class for the reporting 
year.
    (iii) The total number of systems for which destruction or removal 
efficiency was measured in that class for the reporting year.
    (iv) A description of the calculation used to determine the class 
average, including all inputs of the calculation.
    (vi) A description of method of randomly selecting class members 
for testing.
    (k) For heat transfer fluid emissions, inputs in the mass-balance 
equation, Equation I-12 of this subpart for each fluorinated GHG.
    (l) Example calculations for fluorinated GHG, N2O, and 
heat transfer fluid emissions.


Sec.  98.97  Records that must be retained.

    In addition to the information required by Sec.  98.3(g), you must 
retain the following records:
    (a) Data and copies of calculations used to estimate emissions 
including all spreadsheets.
    (b) Documentation for the values used for fluorinated GHG and 
N2O utilization and by-product formation rates. If you use 
facility-specific, recipe-specific gas

[[Page 18703]]

utilization and by-product formation rates, the following records must 
be retained:
    (1) Documentation that these were measured using the International 
SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative's Guideline for Environmental 
Characterization of Semiconductor Process Equipment (December 2006).
    (2) Documentation that the measurements made are representative of 
fluorinated GHG and N2O emitting processes at your facility.
    (3) The date and results of the initial and any subsequent tests to 
determine process tool gas utilization and by-product formation rates.
    (c) For each abatement system through which fluorinated GHGs or 
N2O flows at your facility, for which you are reporting 
controlled emissions, the following:
    (1) Documentation to certify that each abatement system used at 
your facility is installed, maintained, and operated in accordance with 
manufacturers' specifications.
    (2) Records of the uptime and the calculations to determine how the 
uptime was accounted for at your facility.
    (3) Abatement system calibration and maintenance records.
    (4) Where the default destruction or removal efficiency value was 
used, documentation from the abatement system supplier describing the 
equipment's designed purpose and emission control capabilities.
    (5) Where properly measured destruction or removal efficiency is 
used to report controlled emissions, dated certification by the 
technician who made the measurement that the destruction or removal 
efficiency was calculated according to methods in EPA's Protocol for 
Measuring Destruction or Removal Efficiency of Fluorinated Greenhouse 
Gas Abatement Equipment in Electronics Manufacturing, complete 
documentation of the results of any initial and subsequent tests, and 
the final report as specified in EPA's Protocol for Measuring 
Destruction or Removal Efficiency of Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas 
Abatement Equipment in Electronics Manufacturing (March 2010).
    (d) Purchase records for gas purchased.
    (e) Invoices for gas purchases and sales.


Sec.  98.98  Definitions.

    Except as provided below, all of the terms used in this subpart 
have the same meaning given in the Clean Air Act and subpart A of this 
part. If a conflict exists between a definition provided in this 
subpart and a definition provided in subpart A, the definition in this 
subpart shall take precedence for the reporting requirements in this 
subpart.
    Abatement system means a device or equipment that destroys or 
removes fluorinated GHGs and/or N2O in waste streams from 
one or more electronics manufacturing tool chamber(s).
    By-product formation means the creation of fluorinated GHGs during 
electronics manufacturing processes or the creation of fluorinated GHGs 
by an abatement system. By-product formation is expressed as rate of 
the mass of the by-product formed to the mass of the fluorinated GHG 
used with the largest flow rate.
    Destruction or removal efficiency means the efficiency of a control 
system to destroy or remove fluorinated GHGs, N2O, or both. 
The destruction or removal efficiency is equal to one minus the ratio 
of the mass of all relevant GHGs exiting the emission abatement system 
to the mass of GHG entering the emission abatement system. When 
fluorinated GHGs are formed in an abatement system, destruction or 
removal efficiency is expressed as one minus the ratio of amounts of 
exiting GHGs to the amounts entering the system in units of 
CO2-equivalents.
    Gas utilization means the fraction of input N2O or 
fluorinated GHG converted to other substances during the etching, 
deposition, and/or wafer and chamber cleaning processes. Gas 
utilization is expressed as a rate or factor for specific manufacturing 
processes.
    Heat transfer fluids are fluorinated GHGs used for temperature 
control, device testing, and soldering in certain types of electronic 
manufacturing. Heat transfer fluids used in the electronics sector 
include perfluoropolyethers, perfluoroalkanes, perfluoroethers, 
tertiary perfluoroamines, and perfluorocyclic ethers. Heat transfer 
fluids commonly used in electronics manufacturing include those sold 
under the trade names ``Galden[reg]'' and ``FluorinertTM.'' 
Electronics manufacturers may also use these same fluorinated chemicals 
to clean substrate surfaces and other parts.
    Heel means the amount of gas that remains in a gas cylinder or 
container after it is discharged or off-loaded (this may vary by 
cylinder or container type and facility).
    Nameplate capacity means the full and proper charge of gas 
specified by the equipment manufacturer to achieve the equipment's 
specified performance. The nameplate capacity is typically indicated on 
the equipment's nameplate; it is not necessarily the actual charge, 
which may be influenced by leakage and other emissions.
    Proper destruction or removal efficiency measurement means measured 
in accordance with EPA's Protocol for Measuring Destruction or Removal 
Efficiency of Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Abatement Equipment in 
Electronics Manufacturing (March 2010).
    Uptime means the total time during the reporting year when the 
abatement system for which controlled emissions will be reported was 
properly installed, operated, and maintained.
    Wafer passes is a count of the number of times a silicon wafer is 
processed in a specific process category. The total number of wafer 
passes over a reporting year is the number of wafer passes per tool 
times the number of operational process tools in use during the 
reporting year.
    Process category is a set of similar manufacturing steps, performed 
for the same purpose, associated with substrate (e.g., wafer) 
processing during device manufacture for which fluorinated GHG and 
N2O emissions and fluorinated GHG and N2O usages 
are calculated and reported.

                               Table I-1 of Subpart I--Default Emission Factors for Threshold Applicability Determination
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Emission factors EFi
                      Product type                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                CF4            C2F6            CHF3            C3F8             NF3             SF6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Semiconductors (kg/m2 Si)...............................            0.90            1.00            0.04            0.05            0.04            0.20
LCD (g/m2 LCD)..........................................            0.50              NA              NA              NA            0.90            4.00
MEMs (kg/m2 Si).........................................              NA              NA              NA              NA              NA            1.02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information.


[[Page 18704]]


    Table I-2 of Subpart I--Examples of Fluorinated GHGs Used by the
                          Electronics Industry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Fluorinated GHGs used during
             Product type                          manufacture
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronics...........................  CF4, C2F6, C3F8, c-C4F8, c-
                                         C4F8O, C4F6, C5F8, CHF3, CH2F2,
                                         NF3, SF6, and HTFs (CF3-(O-
                                         CF(CF3)-CF2)n-(O-CF2)m-O-CF3,
                                         CnF2n+2, CnF2n+1(O)CmF2m+1,
                                         CnF2nO, (CnF2n+1)3N).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                         Table I-3 of Subpart I--Default Emission Factors for MEMS Manufacturing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Process Gas i
                                            ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Process type factors                                                                     NF3
                                               CF4      C2F6     CHF3    CH2F2     C3F8    c-C4F8   remote    NF3      SF6    C4F6\a\  C5F8\a\  C4F8O\a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Etch 1-Ui..................................      0.7  \1\ 0.4  \1\ 0.4      \1\       NA  \1\ 0.2       NA      0.2      0.2      0.1      0.2        NA
                                                                           0.06
Etch BCF4..................................       NA  \1\ 0.4      \1\      \1\       NA      0.2       NA       NA       NA  \1\ 0.3      0.2        NA
                                                                  0.07     0.08
Etch BC2F6.................................       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA      0.2       NA       NA       NA  \1\ 0.2      0.2        NA
CVD 1-Ui...................................      0.9      0.6       NA       NA      0.4      0.1     0.02      0.2       NA       NA      0.1       0.1
CVD BCF4...................................       NA      0.1       NA       NA      0.1      0.1      \2\  \2\ 0.1       NA       NA      0.1       0.1
                                                                                                      0.02
CVD BC3F8..................................       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       0.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information.
\1\ Estimate includes multi-gas etch processes.
\2\ Estimate reflects presence of low-k, carbide and multi-gas etch processes that may contain a C-containing fluorinated GHG additive.


                     Table I-4 of Subpart I--Default Emission Factors for LCD Manufacturing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Process gas i
                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Process type factors                                                               NF3
                                   CF4      C2F6     CHF3    CH2F2     C3F8    c-C4F8   remote    NF3      SF6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Etch 1-Ui......................      0.6       NA      0.2       NA       NA      0.1       NA       NA      0.3
Etch BCF4......................       NA       NA     0.07       NA       NA    0.009       NA       NA       NA
Etch BCHF3.....................       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA     0.02       NA       NA       NA
Etch BC2F6.....................       NA       NA     0.05       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA
CVD 1-Ui.......................       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA     0.03      0.3      0.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information.


                      Table I-5 of Subpart I--Default Emission Factors for PV Manufacturing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Process Gas i
                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Process type factors                                                               NF3
                                   CF4      C2F6     CHF3    CH2F2     C3F8    c-C4F8   Remote    NF3      SF6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Etch 1-Ui......................      0.7      0.4      0.4       NA       NA      0.2       NA       NA      0.4
Etch BCF4......................       NA      0.2       NA       NA       NA      0.1       NA       NA       NA
Etch BC2F6.....................       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA      0.1       NA       NA       NA
CVD 1-Ui.......................       NA      0.6       NA       NA      0.1      0.1       NA      0.3      0.4
CVD BCF4.......................       NA      0.2       NA       NA      0.2      0.1       NA       NA       NA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information.


[[Page 18705]]


                              Table I-6 of Subpart I--Default Emission Factors for Refined Process Categories for Semiconductor Manufacturing for 150 mm Wafer Size
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                         Process gas i
                  Refined process category                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  CF4        C2F6        CHF3        CH2F2       C3F8       c-C4F8        NF3         SF6        C4F6        C5F8        C4F8O
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        PATTERNING/ETCHING
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oxide etch:
    1-Ui....................................................     0.2-0.8     0.2-0.7     0.2-0.7    0.02-0.3          NA     0.1-0.3     0.1-0.4     0.1-0.4    0.05-0.2    0.05-0.3          NA
    BCF4....................................................          NA    0.05-0.5    0.01-0.8    0.05-0.1          NA    0.01-0.3          NA          NA    0.02-0.4    0.02-0.4          NA
    BC2F6...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA    0.01-0.3          NA          NA    0.02-0.3    0.02-0.3          NA
    BC3F8...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
Nitride etch:
    1-Ui....................................................     0.2-0.8     0.2-0.7     0.2-0.7    0.02-0.3          NA     0.1-0.3     0.1-0.4     0.1-0.4    0.05-0.2    0.05-0.3          NA
    BCF4....................................................          NA    0.05-0.5    0.01-0.8    0.05-0.1          NA    0.01-0.3          NA          NA    0.02-0.4    0.02-0.4          NA
    BC2F6...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA    0.01-0.3          NA          NA    0.02-0.3    0.02-0.3          NA
    BC3F8...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
Silicon etch:
    1-Ui....................................................     0.2-0.8     0.2-0.7     0.2-0.7    0.02-0.3          NA     0.1-0.3     0.1-0.4     0.1-0.4    0.05-0.2    0.05-0.3          NA
    BCF4....................................................          NA    0.05-0.5    0.01-0.8    0.05-0.1          NA    0.01-0.3          NA          NA    0.02-0.4    0.02-0.4          NA
    BC2F6...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA    0.01-0.3          NA          NA    0.02-0.3    0.02-0.3          NA
    BC3F8...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
Metal etch:
    1-Ui....................................................     0.2-0.8     0.2-0.7     0.2-0.7    0.02-0.3          NA     0.1-0.3     0.1-0.4     0.1-0.4    0.05-0.2    0.05-0.3          NA
    BCF4....................................................          NA    0.05-0.5    0.01-0.8    0.05-0.1          NA    0.01-0.3          NA          NA    0.02-0.4    0.02-0.4          NA
    BC2F6...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA    0.01-0.3          NA          NA    0.02-0.3    0.02-0.3          NA
    BC3F8...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        CHAMBER CLEANING
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In situ plasma cleaning:
    1-Ui....................................................    0.8-0.95     0.4-0.8          NA          NA     0.2-0.6    0.05-0.3    0.05-0.3          NA          NA    0.05-0.2    0.05-0.2
    BCF4....................................................          NA    0.05-0.2          NA          NA    0.05-0.2    0.05-0.2    0.05-0.2          NA          NA    0.05-0.2    0.05-0.2
    BC2F6...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
    BC3F8...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA   0.02-0.08
Remote plasma cleaning:
    1-Ui....................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
    BCF4....................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
    BC2F6...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
    BC3F8...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
In situ thermal cleaning:
    1-Ui....................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
    BCF4....................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
    BC2F6...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
    BC3F8...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         WAFER CLEANING
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bevel cleaning:
    1-Ui....................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
    BCF4....................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
    BC2F6...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
    BC3F8...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
Ashing:
    1-Ui....................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
    BCF4....................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
    BC2F6...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA

[[Page 18706]]

 
    BC3F8...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA         NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information.


[[Page 18707]]


                              Table I-7 of Subpart I--Default Emission Factors for Refined Process Categories for Semiconductor Manufacturing for 200 mm Wafer Size
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                         Process gas i
                  Refined process category                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  CF4        C2F6        CHF3        CH2F2       C3F8       c-C4F8        NF3         SF6        C4F6        C5F8        C4F8O
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       PATTERNING/ETCHING
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oxide etch:
    1-Ui....................................................     0.2-0.8     0.2-0.7     0.2-0.7    0.02-0.3          NA     0.1-0.3     0.1-0.4     0.1-0.4    0.05-0.5    0.05-0.3          NA
    BCF4....................................................          NA    0.05-0.5    0.01-0.8    0.05-0.1          NA    0.01-0.3          NA          NA    0.02-0.4    0.02-0.4          NA
    BC2F6...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA    0.01-0.3          NA          NA    0.02-0.3    0.02-0.3          NA
    BC3F8...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
Nitride etch:
    1-Ui....................................................     0.2-0.8     0.2-0.7     0.1-0.7    0.02-0.3          NA    0.05-0.3     0.1-0.4     0.1-0.4    0.05-0.2    0.05-0.3          NA
    BCF4....................................................          NA    0.05-0.5    0.01-0.8    0.05-0.1          NA    0.02-0.3          NA          NA    0.02-0.4    0.02-0.4          NA
    BC2F6...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA   0.005-0.3          NA          NA    0.02-0.3    0.02-0.3          NA
    BC3F8...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
Silicon etch:
    1-Ui....................................................     0.2-0.8     0.2-0.7     0.2-0.7    0.02-0.3          NA     0.1-0.3     0.1-0.4     0.1-0.4    0.05-0.2    0.05-0.3          NA
    BCF4....................................................          NA    0.05-0.5    0.01-0.8    0.05-0.1          NA    0.01-0.3          NA          NA    0.02-0.4    0.02-0.4          NA
    BC2F6...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA    0.01-0.3          NA          NA    0.02-0.3    0.02-0.3          NA
    BC3F8...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
Metal etch:
    1-Ui....................................................     0.2-0.8     0.2-0.7     0.2-0.7    0.02-0.3          NA     0.1-0.3     0.1-0.4     0.1-0.4    0.05-0.2    0.05-0.3          NA
    BCF4....................................................          NA    0.05-0.5    0.01-0.8    0.05-0.1          NA    0.01-0.3          NA          NA    0.02-0.4    0.02-0.4          NA
    BC2F6...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA    0.01-0.3          NA          NA    0.02-0.3    0.02-0.3          NA
    BC3F8...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        CHAMBER CLEANING
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In situ plasma cleaning:
    1-Ui....................................................    0.8-0.95     0.4-0.8          NA          NA     0.2-0.6     005-0.3    0.05-0.2          NA          NA    0.05-0.2    0.05-0.2
    BCF4....................................................          NA    0.05-0.2          NA          NA    0.05-0.2    0.05-0.2    0.05-0.1          NA          NA    0.05-0.2    0.05-0.2
    BC2F6...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
    BC3F8...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA   0.02-0.08
Remote plasma cleaning:
    1-Ui....................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA  0.005-0.03          NA          NA          NA          NA
    BCF4....................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA  0.0001-0.2          NA          NA          NA          NA
    BC2F6...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
    BC3F8...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
In situ thermal cleaning:
    1-Ui....................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
    BCF4....................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
    BC2F6...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
    BC3F8...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         WAFER CLEANING
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bevel cleaning:
    1-Ui....................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
    BCF4....................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
    BC2F6...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
    BC3F8...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
Ashing:
    1-Ui....................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
    BCF4....................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
    BC2F6...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
    BC3F8...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information.


                              Table I-8 of Subpart I--Default Emission Factors for Refined Process Categories for Semiconductor Manufacturing for 300 mm Wafer Size
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                         Process gas i
                  Refined process category                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  CF4        C2F6        CHF3        CH2F2       C3F8       c-C4F8        NF3         SF6        C4F6        C5F8        C4F8O
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       PATTERNING/ETCHING
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oxide etch:
    1-Ui....................................................     0.2-0.8     0.2-0.7     0.2-0.4     0.1-0.8          NA    0.05-0.3     0.1-0.4     0.1-0.4    0.05-0.3    0.05-0.3          NA
    BCF4....................................................          NA    0.05-0.5  0.005-0.03  0.001-0.01          NA   0.005-0.1          NA          NA    0.02-0.4    0.02-0.4          NA
    BC2F6...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA   0.005-0.1          NA          NA    0.02-0.3    0.02-0.3          NA
    BC3F8...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
Nitride etch:
    1-Ui....................................................     0.2-0.8     0.2-0.7     0.2-0.4     0.1-0.8          NA    0.08-0.3     0.1-0.4     0.1-0.4    0.05-0.2    0.05-0.3          NA
    BCF4....................................................          NA    0.05-0.5   0.003-0.1    0.01-0.1          NA    0.02-0.3          NA          NA    0.05-0.4    0.05-0.4          NA
    BC2F6...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA    0.02-0.3          NA          NA    0.05-0.4    0.05-0.4          NA
    BC3F8...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA

[[Page 18708]]

 
Silicon etch:
    1-Ui....................................................     0.2-0.8     0.2-0.7     0.2-0.7    0.02-0.3          NA     0.1-0.3     0.1-0.4     0.1-0.4    0.05-0.2    0.05-0.3          NA
    BCF4....................................................          NA    0.05-0.5    0.01-0.8    0.05-0.1          NA    0.01-0.3          NA          NA    0.02-0.4    0.02-0.4          NA
    BC2F6...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA    0.01-0.3          NA          NA    0.02-0.3    0.02-0.3          NA
    BC3F8...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
Metal etch:
    1-Ui....................................................     0.2-0.8     0.2-0.7     0.2-0.7    0.02-0.3          NA     0.1-0.3     0.1-0.4     0.1-0.4    0.05-0.2    0.05-0.3          NA
    BCF4....................................................          NA    0.05-0.5    0.01-0.8    0.05-0.1          NA    0.01-0.3          NA          NA    0.02-0.4    0.02-0.4          NA
    BC2F6...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA    0.01-0.3          NA          NA    0.02-0.3    0.02-0.3          NA
    BC3F8...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        CHAMBER CLEANING
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In situ plasma cleaning:
    1-Ui....................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA     0.1-0.4          NA          NA          NA          NA
    BCF4....................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA   0.001-0.6          NA          NA          NA          NA
    BC2F6...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
    BC3F8...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
Remote plasma cleaning:
    1-Ui....................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA  0.002-0.03          NA          NA          NA          NA
    BCF4....................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA  0.001-0.05          NA          NA          NA          NA
    BC2F6...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
    BC3F8...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
In situ thermal cleaning:
    1-Ui....................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA     0.1-0.4          NA          NA          NA          NA
    BCF4....................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA   0.005-.05          NA          NA          NA          NA
    BC2F6...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
    BC3F8...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         WAFER CLEANING
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bevel cleaning:
    1-Ui....................................................     0.3-0.8          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
    BCF4....................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
    BC2F6...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
    BC3F8...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
Ashing:
    1-Ui....................................................     0.3-0.8          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
    BCF4....................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
    BC2F6...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
    BC3F8...................................................          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA          NA         NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information.

    4. Add subpart L to read as follows:
Subpart L--Fluorinated Gas Production
Sec.
98.120 Definition of the source category.
98.121 Reporting threshold.
98.122 GHGs to report.
98.123 Calculating GHG emissions.
98.124 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.
98.125 Procedures for estimating missing data.
98.126 Data reporting requirements.
98.127 Records that must be retained.
98.128 Definitions.

Subpart L--Fluorinated Gas Production


Sec.  98.120  Definition of the source category.

    (a) The fluorinated gas production source category consists of 
processes that produce a fluorinated gas from any raw material or 
feedstock chemical, except for processes that generate HFC-23 during 
the production of HCFC-22.
    (b) To produce a fluorinated gas means to manufacture a fluorinated 
gas from any raw material or feedstock chemical. Producing a 
fluorinated gas includes producing a fluorinated GHG as defined at 
Sec.  98.410(b). Producing a fluorinated gas also includes the 
manufacture of a chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) or hydrochlorofluorocarbon 
(HCFC) from any raw material or feedstock chemical, including 
manufacture for use in a process that will result in the transformation 
of the CFC or HCFC either at or outside of the production facility. 
Producing a fluorinated gas does not include the reuse or recycling of 
a fluorinated gas, the creation of HFC-23 during the production of 
HCFC-22, or the creation of by-products that are released or destroyed 
at the production facility.


Sec.  98.121  Reporting threshold.

    You must report GHG emissions under this subpart if your facility 
contains a fluorinated gas production process that generates or emits 
fluorinated GHG and the facility meets the requirements of either Sec.  
98.2(a)(1) or (a)(2) of this part. To calculate GHG emissions for 
comparison to the 25,000 metric ton CO2e per year emission 
threshold in Sec.  98.2(a)(2), calculate process emissions from 
fluorinated gas production using uncontrolled GHG emissions.


Sec.  98.122  GHGs to report.

    (a) You must report CO2, CH4, and 
N2O combustion emissions from each stationary combustion 
unit. You must calculate and report these emissions under subpart C of 
this part (General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources) by following the 
requirements of subpart C.

[[Page 18709]]

    (b) You must report under subpart O of this part (HCFC-22 
Production and HFC-23 Destruction) the emissions of HFC-23 from HCFC-22 
production processes and HFC-23 destruction processes. Do not report 
the generation and emissions of HFC-23 from HCFC-22 production under 
this subpart.
    (c) You must report the total mass of each fluorinated GHG from:
    (1) Each fluorinated gas production process and all fluorinated gas 
production processes combined.
    (2) Each fluorinated gas transformation process that is not part of 
a fluorinated gas production process and all such fluorinated gas 
transformation processes combined.
    (3) Each fluorinated gas destruction process that is not part of a 
fluorinated gas production process or a fluorinated gas transformation 
process and all such fluorinated gas destruction processes combined.


Sec.  98.123  Calculating GHG emissions.

    For fluorinated GHG production processes, you must calculate the 
fluorinated GHG emissions from each process using either the mass 
balance method specified in paragraph (a) of this section or the 
emission factor or emission calculation factor method specified in 
paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section, as appropriate. For 
processes that manufacture CFCs or HCFCs or that transform fluorinated 
gases into substances other than fluorinated GHGs, you must use the 
procedures in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section. For 
destruction processes that destroy fluorinated GHGs that were 
previously ``produced'' as defined at 98.410(b), you must use the 
procedures in paragraph (e) of this section.
    (a) Mass balance method. Before using the mass balance approach to 
estimate your fluorinated GHG emissions from a process, you must 
estimate the absolute and relative errors associated with using the 
mass balance approach on that process using Equations L-1 through L-4 
of this section in conjunction with Equations L-7 through L-12 of this 
section. If this calculation shows that use of the mass-balance 
approach to estimate emissions from the process will result in an 
absolute error exceeding 3,000 metric tons CO2e per year and 
a relative error exceeding 30 percent, then you cannot use the mass-
balance approach to estimate emissions from the process. Instead, you 
must use the emission factor approach detailed in paragraphs (b), (c), 
and (d) of this section to estimate emissions from the process. To 
perform the calculation, you shall first calculate the absolute and 
relative errors associated with the quantities calculated using 
Equations L-8 through L-11. Once errors have been calculated for the 
quantities in these equations, those errors shall be used to calculate 
the errors in Equations L-7 and L-12. Where the measured quantity is a 
mass, the error in the mass shall be equated to the accuracy or 
precision (whichever is larger) of the flowmeter, scale, or combination 
of volumetric and density measurements at the flow rate or mass 
measured. Where the measured quantity is a concentration, the error of 
the concentration shall be equated to the accuracy or precision 
(whichever is larger) of the analytical technique used to measure the 
concentration at the concentration measured.
    (1) Equation L-1 of this section provides the general formula for 
calculating the absolute errors of sums and differences where the sum, 
S, is the summation of variables measured, a, b, c, etc. (e.g., S = a + 
b + c):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.051


Where:
    eSA = absolute error of the sum, expressed as one 
half of a 95 percent confidence interval.
    ea = relative error of a, expressed as one half of a 
95 percent confidence interval.
    eb = relative error of b, expressed as one half of a 
95 percent confidence interval.
    ec = relative error of c, expressed as one half of a 
95 percent confidence interval.

    (2) Equation L-2 of this section provides the general formula for 
calculating the relative errors of sums and differences:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.052


Where:
    eSR = relative error of the sum, expressed as one 
half of a 95 percent confidence interval.
    eSA = absolute error of the sum, expressed as one 
half of a 95 percent confidence interval.
    a+b+c = sum of the variables measured.

    (3) Equation L-3 provides the general formula for calculating the 
absolute errors of products (e.g., flow rates of GHGs calculated as the 
product of the flow rate of the stream and the concentration of the GHG 
in the stream), where the product, P, is the result of multiplying the 
variables measured, a, b, c, etc. (e.g., P = a*b*c):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.053


Where:
    ePA = absolute error of the product, expressed as one 
half of a 95 percent confidence interval.
    ea = relative error of a, expressed as one half of a 
95 percent confidence interval.
    eb = relative error of b, expressed as one half of a 
95 percent confidence interval.
    ec = relative error of c, expressed as one half of a 
95 percent confidence interval.

    (4) Equation L-4 of this section provides the general formula for 
calculating the relative errors of products:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.054


Where:
    ePR = relative error of the product, expressed as one 
half of a 95 percent confidence interval.
    ePA = absolute error of the product, expressed as one 
half of a 95 percent confidence interval.
    a*b*c = product of the variables measured.

    (5) The total mass of each fluorinated GHG product emitted annually 
from all fluorinated gas production processes shall be estimated by 
using Equation L-5 of this section:

[[Page 18710]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.055


Where:

    EP = Total mass of each fluorinated GHG product 
emitted annually from all production processes (metric tons).
EPip = Total mass of the fluorinated GHG product emitted 
from production process i over the period p (metric tons, defined in 
Equation L-7 of this section).
n = Number of concentration and flow measurement periods for the 
year.
m = Number of production processes.

    (6) The total mass of fluorinated GHG by-product k emitted annually 
from all fluorinated gas production processes shall be estimated by 
using Equation L-6 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.056

Where:

EBk = Total mass of fluorinated GHG by-product k emitted 
annually from all production processes (metric tons).
EBkip = Total mass of fluorinated GHG by-product k 
emitted from production process i over the period p (metric tons, 
defined in Equation L-8 on this section).
n = Number of concentration and flow measurement periods for the 
year.
m = Number of production processes.

    (7) The total mass of each fluorinated GHG product emitted from 
production process i over the period p shall be estimated at least 
monthly by calculating the difference between the expected production 
of the fluorinated GHG based on the consumption of one of the reactants 
(e.g., HF or a chlorocarbon reactant) and the measured production of 
the fluorinated GHG, accounting for yield losses related to by-products 
and wastes. This calculation shall be performed using Equation L-7 of 
this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.057

Where:

EPip = Total mass of each fluorinated GHG product emitted 
from production process i over the period p (metric tons).
P = Total mass of the fluorinated GHG produced by production process 
i over the period p (metric tons).
R = Total mass of the reactant that is consumed by production 
process i over the period p (metric tons, defined in Equation L-8 of 
this section).
MWP = Molecular weight of the fluorinated GHG produced.
MWR = Molecular weight of the reactant.
SCP = Stoichiometric coefficient of the fluorinated GHG 
produced.
SCR = Stoichiometric coefficient of the reactant.
CP = Concentration (mass fraction) of the fluorinated GHG 
product in stream j of destroyed wastes. If this concentration is 
only a trace concentration, CP is equal to zero.
WDj = Mass of wastes removed from production process i in 
stream j and destroyed over the period p (metric tons, defined in 
Equation L-9 of this section).
LBkip = Yield loss related to by-product k for production 
process i over the period p (metric tons, defined in Equation L-10 
of this section).
q = Number of waste streams destroyed in production process i.
u = Number of by-products generated in production process i.

    (8) The total mass of the reactant that is consumed by production 
process i over the period p shall be estimated by using Equation L-8 of 
this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.058

Where:

R = Total mass of the reactant that is consumed by production 
process i over the period p (metric tons).
RF = Total mass of the reactant that is fed into 
production process i over the period p (metric tons).
RR = Total mass of the reactant that is permanently 
removed from production process i over the period p (metric tons).

    (9) The mass of wastes removed from production process i in stream 
j and destroyed over the period p shall be estimated using Equation L-9 
of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.059

Where:

WDj = The mass of wastes removed from production process 
i in stream j and destroyed over the period p (metric tons).
    WFj = The total mass of wastes removed from 
production process i in stream j and fed into the destruction device 
over the period p (metric tons).
    DE = Destruction efficiency of the destruction device 
(fraction).

    (10) Yield loss related to by-product k for production process i 
over period p shall be estimated using Equation L-10 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.060

Where:

    LBkip = Yield loss related to by-product k for 
production process i over the period p (metric tons).
    Bkip = Mass of by-product k generated by production 
process i over the period p (metric tons, defined in Equation L-11 
of this section).
    MWP = Molecular weight of the fluorinated GHG 
produced.
    MEBk = Moles of the element shared by the reactant, 
product, and by-product k per mole of by-product k.
    MWBk = Molecular weight of by-product k.
    MEP = Moles of the element shared by the reactant, 
product, and by-product k per mole of the product.

    (11) If by-product k is responsible for yield loss in production 
process i and occurs in any stream (including process streams, 
emissions streams, or destroyed streams) in more than trace 
concentrations, the mass of by-product k generated by production 
process i over the period p shall be estimated using Equation L-11 of 
this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.061

Where:

    Bkip = Mass of by-product k generated by production 
process i over the period p (metric tons).
    cBkj = Concentration (mass fraction) of the by-
product k in stream j of production process i over the period p. If 
this concentration is only a trace concentration, cBkj is 
equal to zero.
    Sj = Mass flow of stream j of production process i 
over the period p.

[[Page 18711]]

    q = Number of streams in production process i.

    (12) If by-product k is responsible for yield loss, is a 
fluorinated GHG, occurs in any stream (including process streams, 
emissions streams, or destroyed streams) in more than trace 
concentrations, and is not completely recaptured or completely 
destroyed; the total mass of by-product k emitted from production 
process i over the period p shall be estimated at least monthly using 
Equation L-12 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.062

Where:

    EBkip = Mass of by-product k emitted from production 
process i over the period p (metric tons).
    Bkip = Mass of by-product k generated by production 
process i over the period p (metric tons).
    cBkj = Concentration (mass fraction) of the by-
product k in stream j of destroyed wastes over the period p. If this 
concentration is only a trace concentration, cBjk is 
equal to zero.
    WDj = The mass of wastes that are removed from 
production process i in stream j and that are destroyed over the 
period p (metric tons, defined in Equation L-9 of this section).
    cBkl = The concentration (mass fraction) of the by-
product k in stream l of recaptured material over the period p. If 
this concentration is only a trace concentration, cBkl is 
equal to zero.
    SRl = The mass of materials that are removed from 
production process i in stream l and that are recaptured over the 
period p.
    q = Number of waste streams destroyed in production process i.
    x = Number of streams recaptured in production process i.

    (b) Emission factor and emission calculation factor methods. To use 
the method in this paragraph, you must first make a preliminary 
estimate of the emissions from each individual process vent under 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section. Then, compare the preliminary 
estimate to the criteria in paragraph (b)(2) of this section to 
determine whether the process vent meets the criteria for using the 
emission factor method described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section or 
whether the process vent meets the criteria for using the emission 
calculation factor method described in paragraph (b)(4) of this 
section.
    (1) Preliminary estimate of emissions by process vent. You must 
estimate the annual uncontrolled emissions of fluorinated GHG for each 
process vent within a process. You may determine uncontrolled emissions 
of fluorinated GHG by process vent using existing measurements and/or 
calculations based on chemical engineering principles and chemical 
property data or you may conduct an engineering assessment. You must 
document all data, assumptions, and procedures used in the calculations 
or engineering assessment and keep a record of the uncontrolled 
emissions determination (in Sec.  98.127(a)).
    (i) Engineering calculations. For process vent emission 
calculations, you may use paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A), (B), or (C) of this 
section.
    (A) Emissions Inventory Improvement Process, Volume II: Chapter 16, 
Methods for Estimating Air Emissions from Chemical Manufacturing 
Facilities. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, August 2007.
    (B) You may determine the uncontrolled fluorinated GHG emissions 
from any process vent within the process using the procedures specified 
in 40 CFR Sec.  63.1257(d)(2)(i), except as specified in paragraphs 
(b)(1)(i)(B)(1) through (b)(1)(i)(B)(7) of this section. For the 
purposes of this subpart, use of the term ``HAP'' in Sec.  
63.1257(d)(2)(i) shall mean ``fluorinated GHG''.
    (1) To calculate emissions caused by the heating of a vessel 
without a process condenser to a temperature lower than the boiling 
point, you must use the procedures in Sec.  63.1257(d)(2)(i)(C)(3).
    (2) To calculate emissions from depressurization of a vessel 
without a process condenser, you must use the procedures in Sec.  
63.1257(d)(2)(i)(D)(10).
    (3) To calculate emissions from vacuum systems, the terms used in 
Equation 33 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG, are defined as follows:
    (i) Psystem = absolute pressure of the receiving vessel;
    (ii) Pi = partial pressure of the fluorinated GHG 
determined at the exit temperature and exit pressure conditions of the 
condenser or at the conditions of the dedicated receiver;
    (iii) Pj = partial pressure of condensables (including 
fluorinated GHG) determined at the exit temperature and exit pressure 
conditions of the condenser or at the conditions of the dedicated 
receiver;
    (iv) MWFluorinated GHG = molecular weight of the 
fluorinated GHG determined at the exit temperature and exit pressure 
conditions of the condenser or at the conditions of the dedicated 
receiver.
    (4) To calculate uncontrolled emissions when a vessel is equipped 
with a process condenser, you must use the procedures in 40 CFR 
63.1257(d)(3)(i)(B), except as follows:
    (i) You must determine the flowrate of gas (or volume of gas), 
partial pressures of condensables, temperature (T), and fluorinated GHG 
molecular weight (MWFluorinated GHG) at the exit temperature 
and exit pressure conditions of the condenser or at the conditions of 
the dedicated receiver.
    (ii) You must assume that all of the components contained in the 
condenser exit vent stream are in equilibrium with the same components 
in the exit condensate stream (except for noncondensables).
    (iii) You must perform a material balance for each component.
    (iv) For the emissions from gas evolution, the term for time, t, 
must be used in Equation 12 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG.
    (v) Emissions from empty vessel purging shall be calculated using 
Equation 36 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG and the exit temperature and 
exit pressure conditions of the condenser or the conditions of the 
dedicated receiver.
    (C) Commercial software products that follow chemical engineering 
principles, including the calculation methodologies in paragraphs 
(b)(1)(i)(A) and (B) of this section.
    (ii) Engineering assessments. For process vent emissions 
determinations, you may conduct an engineering assessment to calculate 
uncontrolled emissions for each emission episode. An engineering 
assessment includes, but is not limited to, the following:
    (A) Previous test results, provided the tests are representative of 
current operating practices of the process.
    (B) Bench-scale or pilot-scale test data representative of the 
process under representative operating conditions.
    (C) Maximum flow rate, fluorinated GHG emission rate, 
concentration, or other relevant parameters specified or implied within 
a permit limit applicable to the process vent.
    (D) Design analysis based on chemical engineering principles, 
measureable process parameters, or physical or chemical laws or 
properties.

[[Page 18712]]

    (2) Process vent annual mass limit and control determination.
    (i) If the individual process vent meets the criteria in either 
paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A) or (b)(2)(i)(B) of this section, then you may 
comply with either paragraph (b)(3) (Emission Factor approach) or 
paragraph (b)(4) (Emission Calculation Factor approach).
    (A) Uncontrolled fluorinated GHG emissions for the individual 
process vent as estimated using procedures in paragraph (b)(1) of this 
section are less than 10,000 metric tons CO2e per year or, 
for emissions including fluorinated GHGs whose GWPs are not listed in 
Table A-1, 1 metric ton per year.
    (B) The individual process vent is vented to a destruction device 
demonstrated to achieve a destruction efficiency of 99.9 percent for 
the fluorinated GHGs in the vent stream, and the facility has equipment 
(e.g., holding tank capacity; monitoring of by-pass streams) or 
procedures (e.g., compulsory process shutdowns) in place that ensure 
that uncontrolled emissions do not occur. For each process, you should 
either track the amount of production or other process activity that is 
vented to the destruction device or track production or other process 
activity that by-passes the destruction device.
    (ii) If the individual process vent does not meet the criteria in 
either paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A) or (b)(2)(i)(B) of this section, then the 
facility must comply with the emission factor method specified in 
paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
    (3) Process-vent-specific emission factor method. For each process 
vent, conduct an emission test and measure uncontrolled fluorinated GHG 
emissions from the process and measure the process activity, such as 
the feed rate, production rate, or other process activity rate, during 
the test as described in this paragraph (b)(3). All emissions test data 
and procedures used in developing emission factors shall be documented 
according to Sec.  98.127.
    (i) You must measure the process activity, such as the process feed 
rate, process production rate, or other process activity rate, as 
applicable, during the emission test according to the procedures in 
Sec.  98.124 and calculate the rate for the test period, in kg per hour 
or in kg per batch.
    (ii) For continuous processes, you must calculate the hourly 
uncontrolled fluorinated GHG emission rate using Equation L-13 of this 
section and determine the hourly uncontrolled fluorinated GHG emission 
rate per process vent for the test run. For batch processes, you must 
calculate the uncontrolled fluorinated GHG emissions during each 
emission episode over the batch using Equation L-14 of this section and 
determine the fluorinated GHG emissions per process based on the batch 
runs conducted for the test.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.063

Where:

    EContPV = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from 
process vent v from production process i during the emission test 
during test run r (kg/hr).
    CPV = Concentration of fluorinated GHG f during test 
run r of the emission test (ppmv).
    MW = Molecular weight of fluorinated GHG f (g/g-mole).
    QPV = Flow rate of the process vent stream during 
test run r of the emission test (m\3\/min).
    SV = Standard molar volume of gas (0.0240 m\3\/g-mole at 68[deg] 
F and 1 atm).
    1/10\3\ = Conversion factor (1 kilogram/1,000 gram).
    60/1 = Conversion factor (60 minutes/1 hour).

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.064
    
Where:

    EBatchPV = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from 
process vent v from production process i during the emission test 
during test run r (kg/batch).
    CPV-ee = Concentration of fluorinated GHG f during 
emission episode ee during test run r of the emission test (ppmv).
    QPV-ee = Flow rate of the process vent stream during 
emission episode ee during test run r of the emission test (m\3\/
min).
    Dee = Duration of emission episode ee during test run 
r of the emission test (minutes).
    MW = Molecular weight of fluorinated GHG f (g/g-mole).
    SV = Standard molar volume of gas (0.0240 m\3\/g-mole at 
68[deg]F and 1 atm).
    1/10\3\ = Conversion factor (1 kilogram/1,000 gram).
    ee = Number of emission episodes ee from process vent v during 
process i.

    (iii) You must calculate a site-specific, process-vent-specific 
emission factor for each process vent, in kg of uncontrolled 
fluorinated GHG per process activity rate (e.g., kg of feed or 
production), as applicable, using Equation L-15 of this section. For 
continuous processes, divide the hourly fluorinated GHG emission rate 
during the test by the hourly process activity rate during the test 
runs. For batch processes, divide the fluorinated GHG emissions by the 
process activity rate for the batch runs.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.065


[[Page 18713]]


Where:

    EFPV = Average emission factor for fluorinated GHG f 
emitted from process vent v during production process i (kg emitted/
kg product).
    EPV = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from process 
vent v from production process i during the emission test during 
test run r, for either continuous or batch (kg emitted/hr for 
continuous, kg emitted/batch for batch).
    ActivityEmissionTest = Process feed, process 
production, or other process activity rate during the emission test 
during test run r (e.g., kg product/hr for continuous, calculated in 
Equation L-13 of this section, kg product/batch for batch, 
calculated in Equation L-14 of this section).
    r = Number of test runs (i.e., batches) performed during the 
emission test.

    (iv) You must calculate fluorinated GHG emissions for the process 
vent for the reporting period by multiplying the process-vent-specific 
emission factor by the total process activity, as applicable, for the 
reporting period, using Equation L-16 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.066

Where:

    EPV-RptPeriod = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted 
from process vent v from production process i, for the reporting 
period, either monthly or annually (kg/month or kg/year).
    EFPV = Average emission factor for fluorinated GHG f 
emitted from process vent v during production process i (kg emitted/
activity) (e.g., kg emitted/kg product).
    ActivityRptPeriod = Process feed, process production, 
or other process activity during the reporting period.

    (v) If the process vent is vented to a destruction device, apply 
the demonstrated destruction efficiency of the device to the 
fluorinated GHG emissions for the process vent, using Equation L-17 of 
this section. You may apply the destruction efficiency only to the 
portion of the process activity that is vented to the destruction 
device (i.e., controlled).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.067

Where:

    EPV-RptPeriod = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted 
from process vent v from production process i, for the reporting 
period, either monthly or annually, considering destruction 
efficiency (kg/month or kg/year).
    EFPV = Emission factor for fluorinated GHG f emitted 
from process vent v during production process i (kg emitted/kg 
product).
    ActivityRptPeriod-U = Total process feed, process 
production, or other process activity during the reporting period 
for which the process vent is not vented to the destruction device 
(e.g., kg product).
    ActivityRptPeriod-C = Total process feed, process 
production, or other process activity during the reporting period 
for which the process vent is vented to the destruction device 
(e.g., kg product).
    DE = Demonstrated destruction efficiency of the destruction 
device (weight fraction).

    (vi) Sum the emissions from all process vents in the process for 
the reporting period to estimate total fluorinated GHG process 
emissions, using Equation L-18 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.068

Where:

    EPfi = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from 
production process i, for the reporting period, either monthly or 
annually (kg).
    EPV-RptPeriod = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted 
from process vent v from production process i, for the reporting 
period, either monthly or annually, considering destruction 
efficiency (kg/month or kg/year).
    v = Number of process vents in production process i.

    (vii) Sum the emissions from all processes for the reporting period 
to estimate total fluorinated GHG process vent emissions, using 
Equation L-19 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.069

Where:

    EP = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from all 
process vents at the facility, for the reporting period, either 
monthly or annually (kg).
    EPij = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from 
production process i, for the reporting period, either monthly or 
annually (kg).
    i = Number of production processes i at the facility.

    (4) Process-vent-specific emission calculation factor method. For 
each process vent, determine fluorinated GHG emissions by calculations 
and determine the process activity rate, such as the feed rate, 
production rate, or other process activity rate, associated with the 
emission rate.
    (i) You must calculate uncontrolled emissions of fluorinated GHG by 
individual process vent, EPV, using measurements and/or 
calculations based on chemical engineering principles and chemical 
property data or you may conduct an engineering assessment, using the 
procedures in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section, except 
paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) of this section. The uncontrolled emissions 
must be based on a typical batch or production rate under a defined 
operating scenario. The process activity rate associated with the 
uncontrolled emissions must be determined. All data, assumptions, and 
procedures used in the calculations or engineering assessment shall be 
documented according to Sec.  98.127.
    (ii) You must calculate a site-specific, process-vent-specific 
emission calculation factor for each process vent, in kg of fluorinated 
GHG per activity rate (e.g., kg of feed or production) as applicable, 
using Equation L-20 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.070


[[Page 18714]]


Where:

    ECFPV = Emission calculation factor for fluorinated 
GHG f emitted from process vent v during production process i (kg 
emitted/kg product).
    EPV = Average mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted, 
based on calculations, from process vent v from production process i 
during the period or batch for which emissions were calculated, for 
either continuous or batch (kg emitted/hr for continuous, kg 
emitted/batch for batch).
    ActivityRepresentative = Process feed, process 
production, or other process activity rate corresponding to average 
mass of emissions based on calculations (e.g., kg product/hr for 
continuous, kg product/batch for batch).

    (iii) You must calculate fluorinated GHG emissions for the process 
vent for the reporting period by multiplying the process-vent-specific 
emission calculation factor by the total process activity, as 
applicable, for the reporting period, using Equation L-21 of this 
section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.071

Where:

EPV-RptPeriod = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from 
process vent v from production process i, for the reporting period, 
either monthly or annually (kg/month or kg/year).
ECFPV = Emission calculation factor for fluorinated GHG f 
emitted from process vent v during production process i (kg emitted/
activity) (e.g., kg emitted/kg product).
ActivityRptPeriod = Process feed, process production, or 
other process activity during the reporting period.

    (iv) If the process vent is vented to a destruction device, apply 
the demonstrated destruction efficiency of the device to the 
fluorinated GHG emissions for the process vent, using Equation L-22 of 
this section. You may apply the destruction efficiency only to the 
portion of the process activity that is vented to the destruction 
device (i.e., controlled).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.072

Where:

EPV-RptPeriod = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from 
process vent v from production process i, for the reporting period, 
either monthly or annually, considering destruction efficiency (kg/
month or kg/year).
ECFPV = Emission calculation factor for fluorinated GHG f 
emitted from process vent v during production process i (kg emitted/
kg product).
ActivityRptPeriod-U = Total process feed, process 
production, or other process activity during the reporting period 
for which the process vent is not vented to the destruction device 
(e.g., kg product).
ActivityRptPeriod-C = Total process feed, process 
production, or other process activity during the reporting period 
for which the process vent is vented to the destruction device 
(e.g., kg product).
DE = Demonstrated destruction efficiency of the destruction device 
(weight fraction).

    (v) Sum the fluorinated GHG emissions from all process vents in the 
process for the reporting period to estimate total process emissions, 
using Equation L-23 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.073

Where:

EPfi = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from production 
process i, for the reporting period, either monthly or annually 
(kg).
EPV-RptPeriod = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from 
process vent v from production process i, for the reporting period, 
either monthly or annually, considering destruction efficiency (kg/
month or kg/year).
v = Number of process vents in production process i.

    (vi) Sum the emissions from all processes for the reporting period 
to estimate total fluorinated GHG process emissions, using Equation L-
24 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.074

Where:

EP = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from all processes 
at the facility, for the reporting period, either monthly or 
annually (kg).
EPij = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from production 
process i, for the reporting period, either monthly or annually 
(kg).
i = Number of production processes i at the facility.

    (c) Calculate fluorinated GHG emissions for equipment leaks (EL). 
If you comply with paragraph (b) of this section, you must calculate 
the fluorinated GHG emissions from pieces of equipment associated with 
processes covered under this subpart and in fluorinated GHG service. 
The emissions from equipment leaks must be calculated using one of the 
following methods in the Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission 
Estimates, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Publication No. 
EPA-453/R-95-017, November 1995: the Screening Ranges Approach; the EPA 
Correlation Approach; or the Unit-Specific Correlation Approach. You 
may not use the procedure in the protocol for Average Emission Factor 
Approach.
    (1) You must develop response factors for each fluorinated GHG or 
for each surrogate to be measured using EPA Method 21, 40 CFR part 60, 
Appendix A-7. For each fluorinated GHG measured, the response factor 
shall be less than 10. The response factor is the ratio of the known 
concentration of a fluorinated GHG to the observed meter reading when 
measured using an instrument calibrated with the reference compound.
    (2) You must collect information on the number of each type of 
equipment; the service of each piece of equipment (gas, light liquid, 
heavy liquid); the concentration of each fluorinated GHG in the stream; 
and the time period each piece of equipment was in service. Depending 
on which approach you follow, you must collect information for 
equipment on the associated screening data concentrations for greater 
than or equal to 10,000 ppmv and associated screening data 
concentrations for less than 10,000 ppmv; associated actual screening 
data concentrations; and associated screening data and leak rate data 
(i.e., bagging) used to develop a unit-specific correlation.
    (3) Calculate and sum the emissions of each fluorinated GHG in kg/
yr for equipment pieces for all processes, EEL.
    (d) Calculate total fluorinated GHG emissions for the facility/
source category. Estimate annually the total mass of fluorinated GHG 
emissions from process vents in either paragraph (c)(3) or (c)(4) of 
this section, as appropriate, and from equipment leak emissions in 
paragraph (d) using Equation L-25 of this section.

[[Page 18715]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.075

Where:

E = Total mass of each fluorinated GHG f emitted from the facility, 
annual basis (kg/year).
EP = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from all process 
vents at the facility, annually (kg).
EEL = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from equipment 
leaks for pieces of equipment for the facility, annually (kg/year).

    (e) Calculate fluorinated GHG emissions from destruction of 
fluorinated GHGs that were previously ``produced'' as defined at 
98.410(b). Estimate annually the total mass of fluorinated GHGs emitted 
from destruction of fluorinated GHGs that were previously ``produced'' 
as defined at 98.410(b) using Equation L-26 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.076

Where:

ED = The mass of fluorinated GHGs emitted annually from 
destruction of fluorinated GHGs that were previously ``produced'' as 
defined at 98.410(b) (metric tons).
RED = The mass of fluorinated GHGs that were previously 
``produced'' as defined at 98.410(b) and that are fed annually into 
the destruction device (metric tons).
DE = Destruction efficiency of the destruction device (fraction).

Sec.  98.124  Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.

    (a) Initial scoping test for fluorinated GHGs. You must conduct an 
initial scoping test to identify all fluorinated GHGs that may be 
generated from processes that are subject to this subpart and that have 
uncontrolled emissions (i.e., pre-control emissions levels) of 1.0 
metric ton or more of fluorinated GHGs. For each process, you must 
conduct the initial scoping test on the stream(s) (including process 
streams or destroyed streams) or process vent(s) that would be expected 
to individually or collectively contain all of the fluorinated GHG by-
products of the process. Initial scoping testing must be conducted 
according to the procedures in paragraph (c)(4)(v) of this section.
    (b) Mass Balance monitoring. If you determine fluorinated GHG 
emissions using the mass balance method under Sec.  98.123(a), you must 
estimate the total mass of each fluorinated GHG emitted from the 
process at least monthly.
    (1) You must conduct the following mass measurements on a monthly 
or more frequent basis using flowmeters, weigh scales, or a combination 
of volumetric and density measurements with accuracy and precision that 
allow the facility to meet the error criteria in Sec.  98.123(a):
    (i) Total mass of each fluorinated GHG produced shall be estimated 
using the methods and measurements set forth in Sec.  98.413(a) and (b) 
and in Sec.  98.414(a) and (b). For each fluorinated GHG, the mass 
produced used for the mass-balance calculation shall be the same as the 
mass produced that is reported under subpart OO.
    (ii) Total mass of each reactant fed into the production process 
shall be measured.
    (iii) Total mass of each reactant permanently removed from the 
production process shall be measured.
    (iv) If the waste permanently removed from the production process 
and fed into the destruction device contains more than trace 
concentrations of fluorinated GHG product, then the mass of waste fed 
into the destruction device shall be measured.
    (v) If a by-product is responsible for yield loss and occurs in any 
stream (including process steams, emissions streams, or destroyed 
streams) in more than trace concentrations, then the mass flow of each 
stream that contains more than trace concentrations of the by-product 
shall be measured.
    (vi) If a by-product is a fluorinated GHG (other than HFC-23 
generated during HCFC-22 production), occurs in more than trace 
concentrations in any stream (including process streams, emissions 
streams, or destroyed streams), occurs in more than trace 
concentrations in any stream that is recaptured or is fed into a 
destruction device, and is not completely recaptured or completely 
destroyed, then the mass flow of each stream that contains more than 
trace concentrations of the by-product and that is recaptured or is fed 
into the destruction device shall be measured.
    (2) The following concentration measurements shall be measured on a 
regular basis using equipment and methods (e.g., gas chromatography) 
with an accuracy and precision that allow the facility to meet the 
error criteria in Sec.  98.123(a):
    (i) If the waste permanently removed from the production process 
and fed into the destruction device contains more than trace 
concentrations of fluorinated GHG product and if the stream mass 
includes more than trace concentrations of materials other than the 
product, then the concentration of the product shall be measured.
    (ii) If a by-product is responsible for yield loss and occurs in 
any stream (including process streams, emissions streams, or destroyed 
streams) in more than trace concentrations and if the stream mass 
includes more than trace concentrations of materials other than the by-
product, then the concentration of the by-product shall be measured.
    (iii) If a by-product is a fluorinated GHG, occurs in more than 
trace concentrations in any stream (including process streams, 
emissions streams, or destroyed streams), occurs in more than trace 
concentrations in any stream that is recaptured or is fed into a 
destruction device, and is not completely recaptured or completely 
destroyed, and if the measured stream mass includes more than trace 
concentrations of materials other than the by-product, then the 
concentration of the by-product shall be measured.
    (c) Emission factor testing. If you determine fluorinated GHG 
emissions using the site-specific process-vent-specific emission 
factor, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) through 
(c)(8) of this section.
    (1) Process vent testing. Conduct an emissions test every 5 years 
that is based on representative performance (i.e., performance based on 
the normal operating scenario) of the affected process. For each 
continuous process vent, develop a process-vent-specific emission 
factor for the representative operating scenario. For each batch 
process vent, develop a process-vent-specific emission factor for the 
representative operating scenario, i.e., the typical batch process. 
Atypical events, such as process shutdowns or startups, may be included 
in the monitoring for batch processes and may be included for 
continuous process, if the monitoring is sufficiently long or 
comprehensive to ensure that such events are not overrepresented in the 
emission factor. Malfunction events shall not be included in the 
monitoring.
    (2) Different operating conditions. Develop separate process-vent-
specific emission factor for other operating scenarios as needed. If 
your process operates under different conditions as part of normal 
operations, you must perform emission testing and develop separate 
emission factors for these different process operating scenarios. For 
continuous process vents, determine the emissions based on the process 
activity at each specific different condition. For batch process vents, 
determine emissions based on the process feed rate, process production 
rate, or other process activity rate for each typical batch operating 
scenario (i.e., each specific condition).
    (3) Number of runs. For continuous processes, sample the process 
vent for a minimum of 3 runs of 1 hour each. For batch processes, 
sample the process vent for all emission episodes over a minimum of 3 
complete batch cycles. If the RSD of the emission factor

[[Page 18716]]

calculated based on the first 3 runs is greater than or equal to 0.2 
for the emissions factor, continue to sample the process vent for an 
additional 3 runs of 1 hour each or an additional 3 batch cycles. If 
more than one fluorinated GHG is measured, and if all measured 
fluorinated GHGs have GWPs listed in Table A-1, the emissions factor 
and RSD shall be expressed in terms of total CO2 
equivalents. Otherwise, the emissions factor and RSD shall be expressed 
in terms of kilograms of each species.
    (4) Emission Test Methods. Conduct the emissions testing using the 
following methods:
    (i) Sample and velocity traverses. Use EPA Method 1 or 1A in 
Appendix A-1 of 40 CFR part 60.
    (ii) Velocity and volumetric flow rates. Use EPA Method 2, 2A, 2B, 
2C, or 2D, 2F, or 2G in Appendix A-1 of 40 CFR part 60. Alternatives 
that may be used for determining flow rates include Other Test Method 
24 (OTM-24) (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  98.7) and Emission 
Measurement Center Alternative Test Method (EMC ALT-012) (incorporated 
by reference, see Sec.  98.7).
    (iii) Gas analysis. Use EPA Method 3, 3A, or 3B in Appendix A-1 of 
40 CFR part 60.
    (iv) Stack gas moisture. Use EPA Method 4 in Appendix A-1 of 40 CFR 
part 60.
    (v) Fluorinated GHG concentrations. Use EPA Method 18 (with GC and 
either MS or ECD) in Appendix A-1 of 40 CFR part 60; EPA Method 320 in 
Appendix A of 40 CFR part 63; Draft EPA DRE Protocol; or ASTM D6348-03 
(incorporated by reference in Sec.  98.7).
    (vi) Alternative fluorinated GHG concentration methods. 
Alternatives that may be used for determining fluorinated GHG 
concentrations include EPA TO-15 or other alternative test methods 
conducted in conjunction with EPA Method 301 for validation.
    (5) Process activity measurements. Determine the mass rate of 
process feed, process production, or other process activity as 
applicable during the test using flow meters, weigh scales, or other 
measurement devices or instruments with an accuracy and precision of 
1 percent of full scale or better. These devices may be the 
same plant instruments or procedures that are used for accounting 
purposes (such as weigh hoppers, belt weigh feeders, combination of 
volume measurements and bulk density, etc.) if these devices or 
procedures meet the requirement. For monitoring ongoing process 
activity, use flow meters, weigh scales, or other measurement devices 
or instruments with an accuracy and precision of 1 percent 
of full scale or better.
    (6) Sample each process. If process vents from separate processes 
are manifolded together to a common vent or to a common destruction 
device, you must sample each process in the ducts before the emissions 
are combined, sample when only one process is operating, or sample the 
combined emissions at representative combinations of capacity 
utilizations for all the processes. If the last option is selected, 3 
times n test runs shall be required, where n is the number of processes 
feeding into the common vent or destruction device, and the process-
vent-specific emission factor shall be applied whenever one or more of 
the processes is operating. In this case, calculate the emission factor 
for each sample by dividing the total emissions by the summed process 
activity across the processes venting to the common vent. Derive the 
process-vent-specific emission factor by averaging the 3n emission 
factors.
    (7) Emission test results. The results of an emission test must 
include the analysis of samples, determination of emissions, and raw 
data. The emissions test report must contain all information and data 
used to derive the process-vent-specific emission factor, as well as 
key process conditions during the test. Key process conditions include 
those that are normally monitored for process control purposes and may 
include but are not limited to yields, pressures, temperatures, etc. 
(e.g., of reactor vessels, distillation columns).
    (8) Previous measurements. If you have conducted an emissions test 
less than 5 years before the effective date of this rule, and the 
emissions testing meets the requirements in paragraph (c)(1) through 
(7) of this section, you may use the previous emissions testing to 
develop process-vent-specific emission factors.
    (d) Emission calculation factor monitoring. If you determine 
fluorinated GHG emissions using the site-specific process-vent-specific 
emission calculation factor, you must meet the requirements in 
paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(3) of this section.
    (1) Revise the emission calculation factor for each process every 5 
years based on representative operation (i.e., performance based on the 
normal operating scenario) of the affected process. For each continuous 
process vent, develop the emission calculation factor for the 
representative operating scenario. For each batch process vent, develop 
the emission calculation factor for the representative operating 
scenario, i.e., the typical batch process.
    (2) Different operating conditions. You must develop separate 
emissions calculation factors for other operating scenarios as needed. 
If your process operates under different conditions as part of normal 
operations, you must conduct emissions calculations and develop 
separate emission factors for these different process operating 
scenarios. For continuous process vents, determine the emissions based 
on the process activity at each specific different condition. For batch 
process vents, determine emissions based on the process feed rate, 
process production rate, or other process activity rate for each 
typical batch operating scenario and for each non-typical batch 
operating scenario (i.e., each specific condition).
    (3) Process activity measurements. Use flow meters, weigh scales, 
or other measurement devices or instruments with an accuracy and 
precision of 1 percent of full scale or better for 
monitoring ongoing process activity.
    (e) Emission monitoring for pieces of equipment. Conduct the 
screening level concentration measurements using EPA Method 21 in 40 
CFR part 60, appendix A-7 to determine the screening level 
concentration data or actual screening level concentration data for the 
Screening Ranges Approach or the EPA Correlation Approach. Conduct the 
screening level concentration measurements using EPA Method 21 and the 
bagging procedures to measure mass emissions for developing the Unit-
Specific Correlation Approach in the Protocol for Equipment Leak 
Emission Estimates, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 
Publication No. EPA-453/R-95-017, November 1995. Concentration 
measurements of bagged samples must be conducted using gas 
chromatography following EPA Method 18 analytical procedures. Use 
methane as the calibration gas.
    (f) Destruction device performance testing. If you vent fluorinated 
GHG emissions or otherwise feed fluorinated GHGs into a destruction 
device and apply the destruction efficiency of the device in Sec.  
98.123, you must conduct an emissions test every 5 years to determine 
the destruction efficiency.
    (1) You must sample the inlet and outlet of the destruction device 
for a minimum of three runs of 1 hour each to determine the destruction 
efficiency. You must conduct the emissions testing using the methods in 
paragraph (c)(4) of this section. To determine the destruction 
efficiency, emission testing shall be conducted when operating at high 
loads reasonably expected to occur (i.e., representative of high total 
fluorinated GHG load that will be sent to the device) and when 
destroying the

[[Page 18717]]

most-difficult-to-destroy fluorinated GHG (or a surrogate that is still 
more difficult to destroy) that is fed into the device from the 
processes subject to this subpart.
    (2) Previous testing. If you have conducted an emissions test 
within the last 5 years prior to the effective date of this rule, and 
the emissions testing meets the requirements in paragraph (f)(1) of 
this section, you may use the destruction efficiency determined during 
this previous emissions testing.
    (3) Part 264, 266, and 270 principal organic hazardous constituent 
(POHC) testing. If a destruction device used to destroy fluorinated GHG 
is subject to 40 CFR part 264 or 266 and is permitted under 40 CFR part 
270 with a demonstrated DRE of at least 99.99 percent for the most-
difficult-to-destroy fluorinated GHG fed into the device from the 
processes subject to this subpart, the emissions testing under 
paragraph (f)(1) of this section is not required and you may use the 
destruction efficiency determined during this previous testing.
    (4) Hazardous Waste Combustor testing. If a destruction device used 
to destroy fluorinated GHG is subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE 
and has a demonstrated DRE of at least 99.99 percent for the most-
difficult-to-destroy fluorinated GHG fed into the device from the 
processes subject to this subpart, the emissions testing under 
paragraph (f)(1) of this section is not required and you may use the 
destruction efficiency determined during this previous testing.
    (5) Process change. For process changes that require a new or 
revised operating scenario, you must determine whether the 
concentrations and the fluorinated gas compounds vented to the 
destruction device following the process change affects the DE (i.e., 
compare the post-process-change fluorinated GHG load and the most-
difficult-to-combust fluorinated GHG with the test conditions). If the 
operating conditions and DE demonstrated in the destruction device 
performance testing are not sufficient to achieve the DE for the 
concentrations and fluorinated gas compounds vented to the destruction 
device following the process change then, you must conduct another 
emissions test to demonstrate the DE.
    (g) Mass of previously produced fluorinated GHGs fed into 
destruction device. You must measure the mass of fluorinated GHGs that 
are fed into the destruction device and that were previously produced 
as defined at 98.410(b). Such fluorinated GHGs include but are not 
limited to quantities that are shipped to the facility by another 
facility for destruction and quantities that are returned to the 
facility for reclamation but are found to be irretrievably contaminated 
and are therefore destroyed. You must use flowmeters, weigh scales, or 
a combination of volumetric and density measurements with an accuracy 
and precision of 1 percent of full scale or better. If the measured 
mass includes more than trace concentrations of materials other than 
the fluorinated GHG being destroyed, you must measure the 
concentrations of fluorinated GHG being destroyed. You must multiply 
this concentration (mass fraction) by the mass measurement to obtain 
the mass of the fluorinated GHG fed into the destruction device.
    (h) Emissions due to deviations of destruction device. In their 
estimates of the mass of fluorinated GHG destroyed, fluorinated GHG 
production facilities that destroy fluorinated GHGs shall account for 
any temporary reductions in the destruction efficiency that result from 
any malfunctions of the destruction device, including deviations from 
the operating conditions defined in State or local permitting 
requirements and/or oxidizer manufacturer specifications.
    (i) Emissions due to process startup, shutdown, or malfunctions. 
Fluorinated GHG production facilities shall account for fluorinated GHG 
emissions that occur as a result of startups, shutdowns, and 
malfunctions, either recording fluorinated GHG emissions during these 
events, or documenting that these events do not result in significant 
fluorinated GHG emissions.
    (j) Initial scoping testing, emissions testing, and emissions 
factor development must be completed by December 31, 2011.
    (k) Calibrate all flow meters, weigh scales, and combinations of 
volumetric and density measures using monitoring instruments traceable 
to the International System of Units (SI) through the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) or other recognized 
national measurement institute. Recalibrate all flow meters, weigh 
scales, and combinations of volumetric and density measures at the 
minimum frequency specified by the manufacturer. Use any of the 
following applicable flow meter test methods or the calibration 
procedures specified by the flow meter, weigh-scale, or other 
volumetric or density measure manufacturer.
    (1) ASME MFC-3M-2004, Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes Using 
Orifice, Nozzle, and Venturi (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
98.7).
    (2) ASME MFC-4M-1986 (Reaffirmed 1997), Measurement of Gas Flow by 
Turbine Meters (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  98.7).
    (3) ASME-MFC-5M-1985, (Reaffirmed 1994), Measurement of Liquid Flow 
in Closed Conduits Using Transit-Time Ultrasonic Flowmeters 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  98.7).
    (4) ASME MFC-6M-1998, Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes Using 
Vortex Flowmeters (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  98.7).
    (5) ASME MFC-7M-1987 (Reaffirmed 1992), Measurement of Gas Flow by 
Means of Critical Flow Venturi Nozzles (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  98.7).
    (6) ASME MFC-9M-1988 (Reaffirmed 2001), Measurement of Liquid Flow 
in Closed Conduits by Weighing Method (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  98.7).
    (7) ASME MFC-11M-2006, Measurement of Fluid Flow by Means of 
Coriolis Mass Flowmeters (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  98.7).
    (8) ASME MFC-14M-2003, Measurement of Fluid Flow Using Small Bore 
Precision Orifice Meters (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  98.7).
    (l) All analytical equipment, including gas chromatographs, GC/MS, 
GC/ECD, FTIR and NMR devices, used to determine the concentration of 
fluorinated GHG in streams shall be calibrated at least monthly through 
analysis of certified standards with known concentrations of the same 
chemicals in the same ranges (fractions by mass) as the process 
samples. Calibration gases prepared from a high-concentration certified 
standard using a gas dilution system that meets the requirements 
specified in Method 205, 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix M may also be used.
    (m) For calendar year 2011 monitoring, you may follow the 
provisions of Sec.  98.3(d)(1) through (3) for best available 
monitoring methods rather than follow the monitoring requirements of 
this section. For purposes of subpart L, any reference to the year 2010 
in Sec.  98.3(d)(1) through (3) shall mean 2011.


Sec.  98.125  Procedures for estimating missing data.

    (a) A complete record of all measured parameters used in the GHG 
emissions calculations in Sec.  98.123 is required. Therefore, whenever 
a quality-assured value of a required parameter is unavailable, a 
substitute data value for the missing parameter shall be used in the 
calculations as specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. 
You must document and keep records of the procedures used for all such 
estimates.

[[Page 18718]]

    (b) For each missing value of the fluorinated GHG concentration, 
the substitute data value shall be the arithmetic average of the 
quality-assured values of that parameter immediately preceding and 
immediately following the missing data incident.
    (c) For each missing value of the mass produced, fed into the 
production process, fed into the transformation process, fed into 
destruction devices, sent to another facility for transformation, or 
sent to another facility for destruction, the substitute value of that 
parameter shall be a secondary mass measurement where such a 
measurement is available. For example, if the mass produced is usually 
measured with a flowmeter at the inlet to the day tank and that 
flowmeter fails to meet an accuracy or precision test, malfunctions, or 
is rendered inoperable, then the mass produced may be estimated by 
calculating the change in volume in the day tank and multiplying it by 
the density of the product. Where a secondary mass measurement is not 
available, the substitute value of the parameter shall be an estimate 
based on a related parameter. For example, if a flowmeter measuring the 
mass fed into a destruction device is rendered inoperable, then the 
mass fed into the destruction device may be estimated using the 
production rate and the previously observed relationship between the 
production rate and the mass flow rate into the destruction device.


Sec.  98.126  Data reporting requirements.

    (a) All facilities. In addition to the information required by 
Sec.  98.3(c), you shall report the following information.
    (1) The chemical identities of the contents of the stream(s) 
(including process, emissions, and destroyed streams) analyzed under 
the initial scoping test of fluorinated GHG at Sec.  98.124(a), by 
process.
    (2) The location and function of the stream(s) (including process 
streams, emissions streams, and destroyed streams) that were analyzed 
under the initial scoping test of fluorinated GHG at Sec.  98.124(a), 
by process.
    (3) The annual emissions of each fluorinated GHG by process, for 
equipment leaks, and for the facility as a whole.
    (4) The method used to determine the mass emissions of each 
fluorinated GHG, i.e., mass balance, process-vent-specific emission 
factor, or process-vent-specific emission calculation factor, for each 
process and process vent at the facility.
    (5) The chemical formula and total mass produced of the fluorinated 
gas product in metric tons, by chemical and process.
    (b) Reporting for mass balance approach. For processes whose 
emissions are determined using the mass-balance approach under Sec.  
98.123(a), you shall report the following for each process:
    (1) The absolute and relative uncertainties calculated under 
paragraphs Sec.  98.123(a)(1) through (a)(4), as well as the data 
(including quantities and their uncertainties) used in these 
calculations.
    (2) The balanced chemical equation that describes the reaction used 
to manufacture the fluorinated GHG product (specifically, the equation 
that provides the stoichiometric coefficients in Equation L-7 of this 
subpart).
    (3) The total mass and chemical formula of each reactant fed into 
the production process in metric tons, by chemical.
    (4) The total mass of each reactant permanently removed from the 
production process in metric tons, by chemical.
    (5) The total mass of the fluorinated GHG product removed from the 
production process and destroyed.
    (6) The mass and chemical formula of each by-product generated.
    (7) The mass of each by-product destroyed at the facility.
    (9) The mass of each by-product recaptured and sent off-site for 
destruction.
    (10) The mass of each by-product recaptured for other purposes.
    (c) Reporting for emission factor and emission calculation factor 
approach. For processes whose emissions are determined using the 
emission factor approach under Sec.  98.123(b)(3) or the emission 
calculation factor under Sec.  98.123(b)(4), you shall report the 
following for each process:
    (1) The process activity used to estimate emissions (e.g., tons of 
product produced or tons of reactant consumed).
    (2) The site-specific, process-vent-specific emission factor or 
emission calculation factor for each process vent.
    (3) The mass of each fluorinated GHG emitted, including the mass of 
each fluorinated GHG emitted from equipment leaks.
    (d) Reporting for missing data. Where missing data have been 
estimated pursuant to Sec.  98.125, you shall report the reason the 
data were missing, the length of time the data were missing, the method 
used to estimate the missing data, and the estimates of those data.
    (e) Reporting of destruction device monitoring data. A fluorinated 
GHG production facility that destroys fluorinated GHGs shall report the 
monitoring results for the destruction device that are deviations from 
the monitoring limit set (e.g., parametric monitoring of incinerator 
temperature, outlet concentration checks, etc.) during the emissions 
test.
    (f) Reporting of destruction device testing. A fluorinated GHG 
production facility that destroys fluorinated GHGs shall submit the 
emissions test report for the emission test conducted every 5 years. 
The emissions testing report must contain the following information:
    (1) Destruction efficiency (DE) of each destruction unit for each 
fluorinated GHG, or if a surrogate was used, the DE of the surrogate.
    (2) Test methods used to determine the destruction efficiency.
    (3) Methods used to record the mass of fluorinated GHG destroyed.
    (4) Chemical identity of the fluorinated GHG(s) used in the 
performance test conducted to determine DE, including surrogates, and 
information on why the surrogate is sufficient to demonstrate DE for 
all fluorinated GHG vented to the destruction unit.
    (5) Name of all applicable Federal or State regulations that may 
apply to the destruction process.
    (6) If process changes affect the destruction efficiency of the 
destruction device or the methods used to record mass of fluorinated 
GHG destroyed, then the revised emission testing report must be 
submitted to reflect the changes. The revised report must be submitted 
to EPA within 60 days of the change.
    (g) Reporting for destruction of previously produced fluorinated 
GHGs. A fluorinated GHG production facility that destroys fluorinated 
GHGs shall report the following for each previously produced 
fluorinated GHG destroyed:
    (1) The mass of the fluorinated GHG fed into the destruction 
device.
    (2) The mass of the fluorinated GHG emitted from the destruction 
device.


Sec.  98.127  Records that must be retained.

    In addition to the records required by Sec.  98.3(g), you must 
retain the dated records specified in paragraphs (a) through (h) of 
this section, as applicable.
    (a) Process information records.
    (1) Identify all products and processes subject to this subpart. 
Include the unit identification as appropriate.
    (2) Monthly and annual records of all analyses and calculations 
conducted, including all information reported as required under 
Sec. Sec.  98.123 and 98.126.
    (b) Emission factor and emission calculation factor method. Retain 
the

[[Page 18719]]

following records for each process at the facility.
    (1) Identify all process vents above and below the 10,000 metric 
tons CO2e per year uncontrolled emission limit for 
fluorinated GHG.
    (2) For vents above the 10,000 metric tons CO2e per year 
uncontrolled emission limit, identify those that vent to a destruction 
device demonstrated to achieve a destruction efficiency of 99.9 percent 
for fluorinated GHGs, and for which the facility has equipment (e.g., 
holding tank capacity; monitoring of by-pass streams) or procedures 
(e.g., compulsory process shutdowns) in place that ensure that 
uncontrolled emissions do not occur.
    (3) For each vent, identify the method used to develop the factor 
(i.e., emission factor by emissions test or emissions calculation 
factor).
    (4) The emissions test data and reports and the calculations used 
to determine the process-vent-specific emissions factor, including the 
actual process-vent-specific emission factor, the average hourly 
fluorinated GHG emission rate from the process vent during the test or 
the average fluorinated GHG emissions per batch and the process feed 
rate, process production rate, or other process activity rate during 
the test.
    (5) The calculations used to determine the process-vent-specific 
emissions calculation factor and the actual emissions calculation 
factor.
    (6) The ongoing monthly, campaign, or batch process production 
quantity and annual process production quantity or other process 
activity information in the appropriate units, along with the dates and 
time period during which the process was operating.
    (7) For continuous processes, identify whether the process was 
representative or whether it was another operating scenario. For batch 
processes, identify whether each batch operated was considered a 
typical batch or whether it was another operating scenario. For both 
continuous and batch processes, identify and provide the measurements 
during the test of the key process parameters that define the operating 
scenario (e.g., process equipment, process vents, destruction device)).
    (8) Calculations used to determine annual emissions of each 
fluorinated GHG for each process and the total fluorinated GHG 
emissions for all processes, i.e., total for facility.
    (9) The dates and time periods when the process vent emissions from 
a campaign or batch were vented to the destruction device.
    (c) Missing data records. Where missing data have been estimated 
pursuant to Sec.  98.125, you shall record the reason the data were 
missing, the length of time the data were missing, the method used to 
estimate the missing data, and the estimates of those data.
    (d) 5-year process vent emission testing. A fluorinated GHG 
production facility that conducts process vent emission testing to 
determine process-vent-specific emission factor for fluorinated GHGs 
shall retain the results of the emission testing, including data in 
Sec.  98.124(c)(7) and:
    (1) Test methods used to determine the flow rate and fluorinated 
GHG concentrations of the process vent stream.
    (2) Flow rate of fluorinated GHG stream.
    (3) Concentration (mass fraction) of each fluorinated GHG.
    (4) Emission factor calculated from paragraph (b)(4) of this 
section in metric tons per activity.
    (e) 5-year destruction efficiency testing. A fluorinated GHG 
production facility that destroys fluorinated GHGs shall retain the 
emissions performance testing report containing the following 
information:
    (1) Destruction efficiency (DE) of each destruction device.
    (2) Test methods used to determine the destruction efficiency.
    (3) Methods used to record the mass of fluorinated GHG destroyed.
    (4) Chemical identity of the fluorinated GHG(s) used in the 
performance test conducted to determine DE.
    (5) Name of all applicable Federal or State regulations that may 
apply to the destruction process.
    (6) If process changes affect the destruction efficiency of the 
destruction device or the methods used to record mass of fluorinated 
GHG destroyed, then the revised emission testing report must be 
submitted to reflect the changes. The revised report must be submitted 
to EPA within 60 days of the change.
    (7) Records of test reports and other information documenting the 
facility's five-year destruction efficiency report in Sec.  98.126(e) 
and (g).
    (f) Equipment leak records. If you are subject to Sec.  98.123(c) 
of this subpart, you must maintain information on the number of each 
type of equipment; the service of each piece of equipment (gas, light 
liquid, heavy liquid); the concentration of each fluorinated GHG in the 
stream; the time period each piece of equipment was in service, and the 
emission calculations for each fluorinated GHG for all processes. 
Depending on which equipment leak monitoring approach you follow, you 
must maintain information for equipment on the associated screening 
data concentrations for greater than or equal to 10,000 ppmv and 
associated screening data concentrations for less than 10,000 ppmv; 
associated actual screening data concentrations; and associated 
screening data and leak rate data (i.e., bagging) used to develop a 
unit-specific correlation.
    (g) All facilities. Dated records documenting the initial and 
periodic calibration of the gas chromatographs, GC/MS, GC/ECD, FTIR, 
and NMR devices, weigh scales, flowmeters, and volumetric and density 
measures used to measure the quantities reported under this subpart, 
including the industry standards or manufacturer directions used for 
calibration pursuant to Sec.  98.124(c), (e), (f), (k) and (l).


Sec.  98.128  Definitions.

    Except as provided below, all of the terms used in this subpart 
have the same meaning given in the Clean Air Act and subpart A of this 
part. If a conflict exists between a definition provided in this 
subpart and a definition provided in subpart A, the definition in this 
subpart shall take precedence for the reporting requirements in this 
subpart.
    Batch process or batch operation means a noncontinuous operation 
involving intermittent or discontinuous feed into equipment, and, in 
general, involves the emptying of the equipment after the batch 
operation ceases and prior to beginning a new operation. Addition of 
raw material and withdrawal of product do not occur simultaneously in a 
batch operation.
    Batch emission episode means a discrete venting episode associated 
with a vessel in a process; a vessel may have more than one batch 
emission episode. For example, a displacement of vapor resulting from 
the charging of a vessel with a feed material will result in a discrete 
emission episode that will last through the duration of the charge and 
will have an average flow rate equal to the rate of the charge. If the 
vessel is then heated, there will also be another discrete emission 
episode resulting from the expulsion of expanded vapor. Other emission 
episodes also may occur from the same vessel and other vessels in the 
process, depending on process operations.
    Completely destroyed means destroyed with a destruction efficiency 
of 99.99 percent or greater.
    Completely recaptured means 99.99 percent or greater of each 
fluorinated GHG is removed from a stream.
    Continuous process or operation means a process where the inputs 
and

[[Page 18720]]

outputs flow continuously throughout the duration of the process. 
Continuous processes are typically steady state.
    Destruction process means a process used to destroy fluorinated GHG 
in a destruction device such as a thermal incinerator or catalytic 
oxidizer.
    Equipment (for the purposes of 40 CFR part 98, subpart L only) 
means each pump, compressor, agitator, pressure relief device, sampling 
connection system, open-ended valve or line, valve, connector, and 
instrumentation system in fluorinated GHG service for a process subject 
to this subpart; and any destruction devices or closed-vent systems to 
which processes subject to this subpart are vented.
    Fluorinated gas means any fluorinated GHG, CFC, or HCFC.
    In fluorinated GHG service means that a piece of equipment either 
contains or contacts a feedstock, byproduct, or product that contains 
fluorinated GHG.
    Isolated intermediate means a product of a process that is stored 
before subsequent processing. An isolated intermediate is usually a 
product of chemical synthesis. Storage of an isolated intermediate 
marks the end of a process. Storage occurs at any time the intermediate 
is placed in equipment used solely for storage.
    Operating scenario means any specific operation of a process and 
includes for each process: (1) A description of the process and the 
specific process equipment used; (2) An identification of related 
process vents, their associated emissions episodes and durations, and 
calculations and engineering analyses to show the annual uncontrolled 
fluorinated GHG emissions from the process vent; (3) The control or 
destruction devices used, as applicable, including a description of 
operating and/or testing conditions for any associated destruction 
device; (4) The process vents (including those from other processes) 
that are simultaneously routed to the control or destruction device(s); 
and (5) The applicable monitoring requirements and any parametric level 
that assures destruction or removal for all emissions routed to the 
control or destruction device. A change to any of these elements not 
previously reported, except for item (4) of this definition, shall 
constitute a different operating scenario.
    Process means all equipment which collectively function to produce 
a fluorinated gas product, including an isolated intermediate (which is 
also a fluorinated gas product), or to transform a fluorinated gas 
product. A process may consist of one or more unit operations. For the 
purposes of this subpart, process includes any, all, or a combination 
of reaction, recovery, separation, purification, or other activity, 
operation, manufacture, or treatment which are used to produce a 
fluorinated gas product. For a continuous process, cleaning operations 
conducted may be considered part of the process, at the discretion of 
the facility. For a batch process, cleaning operations are part of the 
process. Ancillary activities are not considered a process or part of 
any process under this subpart. Ancillary activities include boilers 
and incinerators, chillers and refrigeration systems, and other 
equipment and activities that are not directly involved (i.e., they 
operate within a closed system and materials are not combined with 
process fluids) in the processing of raw materials or the manufacturing 
of a fluorinated gas product.
    Process condenser means a condenser whose primary purpose is to 
recover material as an integral part of a process. All condensers 
recovering condensate from a process vent at or above the boiling point 
or all condensers in line prior to a vacuum source are considered 
process condensers. Typically, a primary condenser or condensers in 
series are considered to be integral to the process if they are capable 
of and normally used for the purpose of recovering chemicals for fuel 
value (i.e., net positive heating value), use, reuse or for sale for 
fuel value, use, or reuse.
    Process vent (for the purposes of 40 CFR part 98, subpart L only) 
means a vent from a process vessel or vents from multiple process 
vessels within a process that are manifolded together into a common 
header, through which a fluorinated GHG-containing gas stream is, or 
has the potential to be, released to the atmosphere. Examples of 
process vents include, but are not limited to, vents on condensers used 
for product recovery, bottoms receivers, surge control vessels, 
reactors, filters, centrifuges, and process tanks. Process vents do not 
include vents on storage tanks or pieces of equipment.
    Typical batch means a batch process operated within a range of 
operating conditions that are documented in an operating scenario. 
Emissions from a typical batch are based on the operating conditions 
that result in representative emissions. The typical batch defines the 
uncontrolled emissions for each emission episode defined under the 
operating scenario.
    Uncontrolled fluorinated GHG emissions means a gas stream 
containing fluorinated GHG which has exited the process (or process 
condenser, where applicable), but which has not yet been introduced 
into a destruction device to reduce the mass of fluorinated GHG in the 
stream. If the emissions from the process are not routed to a 
destruction device, uncontrolled emissions are those fluorinated GHG 
emissions released to the atmosphere.
    5. Add subpart QQ to read as follows:
Subpart QQ--Importers and Exporters of Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases 
Contained in Pre-Charged Equipment or Closed-Cell Foams
Sec.
98.430 Definition of the source category.
98.431 Reporting threshold.
98.432 GHGs to report.
98.433 Calculating GHG emissions.
98.434 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.
98.435 Procedures for estimating missing data.
98.436 Data reporting requirements.
98.437 Records that must be retained.
98.438 Definitions.

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


Sec.  98.430  Definition of the source category.

    (a) The source category, importers and exporters of fluorinated 
GHGs contained in pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams, consists 
of the following suppliers: any entity that is importing or exporting 
pre-charged equipment that contains a fluorinated GHG, and any entity 
that is importing or exporting closed-cell foams that contain a 
fluorinated GHG.


Sec.  98.431  Reporting threshold.

    Any importer or exporter of fluorinated GHGs contained in pre-
charged equipment or closed-cell foams who meets the requirements of 
Sec.  98.2(a)(4) must report each fluorinated GHG contained in the 
imported or exported pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams.


Sec.  98.432  GHGs to report.

    You must report the quantity of each fluorinated GHG contained in 
pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams that you import or export 
during the calendar year.


Sec.  98.433  Calculating GHG contained in pre-charged equipment or 
closed-cell foams.

    (a) The total mass of each fluorinated GHG imported and exported 
inside equipment or foams shall be estimated using Equation QQ-1 of 
this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.077

Where:


[[Page 18721]]


    I = Total mass of the fluorinated GHG imported or exported by 
the entity annually (metric tons)
    t = Type of equipment/foam containing the fluorinated GHG
    St = Mass of fluorinated GHG per unit of equipment or 
foam type t (charge per piece of equipment or kg/cubic foot of foam, 
kg)
    Nt = Number of units of equipment or foam type t 
imported or exported annually (pieces of equipment or cubic feet of 
foam)
    0.001 = Factor converting kg to metric tons

Sec.  98.434  Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.

    (a) For calendar year 2011 monitoring, you may follow the 
provisions of Sec.  98.3(d)(1) through (d)(3) for best available 
monitoring methods rather than follow the monitoring requirements of 
this section. For purposes of this subpart, any reference to the year 
2010 in Sec.  98.3(d)(1) through (3) shall mean 2011.
    (b) The inputs to the annual submission shall be reviewed against 
the import or export transaction records to ensure that the information 
submitted to EPA is being accurately transcribed as the correct 
chemical or blend in the correct pre-charged equipment or closed-cell 
foam in the correct quantities (metric tons) and units (cubic feet and 
kg/cubic foot).


Sec.  98.435  Procedures for estimating missing data.

    Procedures for estimating missing data are not provided for 
importers and exporters of fluorinated GHGs contained in pre-charged 
equipment or closed-cell foams. A complete record of all measured 
parameters used in tracking fluorinated GHGs contained in pre-charged 
equipment or closed-cell foams is required.


Sec.  98.436  Data reporting requirements.

    (a) Each importer of fluorinated GHGs contained in pre-charged 
equipment or closed-cell foams shall submit an annual report that 
summarizes its imports at the corporate level, except for 
transshipments, as specified:
    (1) Total mass in metric tons of each fluorinated GHG imported in 
pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams.
    (2) For each type of pre-charged equipment, the identity of the 
fluorinated GHG used as a refrigerant or electrical insulator, charge 
size (holding charge, if applicable), and number imported.
    (3) For closed-cell foams that are imported inside of appliances, 
the identity of the fluorinated GHG contained in the foam, the quantity 
of fluorinated GHG contained in the foam in each appliance, and the 
number of appliances imported for each type of appliance.
    (4) For imported closed cell-foams that are not imported inside of 
appliances, the identity of the fluorinated GHG, the density of the 
fluorinated GHG in the foam (kg fluorinated GHG/cubic foot), and the 
quantity of foam imported (cubic feet) for each type of closed-cell 
foam.
    (5) Dates on which the pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams 
were imported.
    (6) Ports of entry through which the pre-charged equipment or 
closed-cell foams passed.
    (7) Countries from which the pre-charged equipment or closed-cell 
foams were imported.
    (b) Each exporter of fluorinated GHGs contained in pre-charged 
equipment or closed-cell foams shall submit an annual report that 
summarizes its exports at the corporate level, except for 
transshipments, as specified:
    (1) Total mass in metric tons of each fluorinated GHG exported in 
pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams.
    (2) For each type of pre-charged equipment, the identity of the 
fluorinated GHG used as a refrigerant or electrical insulator, charge 
size (including holding charge, if applicable), and number exported. 
(3) For closed-cell foams that are exported inside of appliances, the 
identity of the fluorinated GHG contained in the foam, the quantity of 
fluorinated GHG contained in the foam in each appliance, and the number 
of appliances exported for each type of appliance.
    (4) For exported closed cell-foams that are not exported inside of 
appliances, the identity of the fluorinated GHG, the density of the 
fluorinated GHG in the foam (kg fluorinated GHG/cubic foot), and the 
quantity of foam exported (cubic feet) for each type of closed-cell 
foam.
    (5) Dates on which the pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams 
were exported.
    (6) Ports of exit through which the pre-charged equipment or 
closed-cell foams passed.
    (7) Countries to which the pre-charged equipment or closed-cell 
foams were exported.


Sec.  98.437  Records that must be retained.

    (a) In addition to the data required by Sec.  98.3(g), importers of 
fluorinated-GHGs in pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams shall 
retain the following records substantiating each of the imports that 
they report:
    (1) A copy of the bill of lading for the import.
    (2) The invoice for the import.
    (3) The U.S. Customs entry form.
    (b) In addition to the data required by Sec.  98.3(g), exporters of 
fluorinated GHGs in pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams shall 
retain the following records substantiating each of the exports that 
they report:
    (1) A copy of the bill of lading for the export and
    (2) The invoice for the export.
    (c) Persons who transship pre-charged equipment and closed cell 
foams containing fluorinated GHGs shall maintain records that indicated 
that the pre-charged equipment or foam originated in a foreign country 
and was destined for another foreign country and did not enter into 
commerce in the United States.


Sec.  98.438  Definitions.

    Except as provided below, all of the terms used in this subpart 
have the same meaning given in the Clean Air Act and subpart A of this 
part. If a conflict exists between a definition provided in this 
subpart and a definition provided in subpart A, the definition in this 
subpart shall take precedence for the reporting requirements in this 
subpart.
    Appliance means any device which contains and uses a fluorinated 
greenhouse gas refrigerant and which is used for household or 
commercial purposes, including any air conditioner, refrigerator, 
chiller, or freezer.
    Closed cell foam means any foam product constructed with a closed 
cell structure and a blowing agent containing a fluorinated GHG, 
including but not limited to polyurethane (PU) appliance foam, PU 
continuous and discontinuous panel foam, PU one component foam, PU 
spray foam, extruded polystyrene (XPS) boardstock foam, and XPS sheet 
foam.
    Electrical Equipment means gas-insulated substations, circuit 
breakers, other switchgear, gas-insulated lines, or power transformers.
    Fluorinated GHG refrigerant means, for purposes of this subpart, 
any substance consisting in part or whole of a fluorinated greenhouse 
gas and that is used for heat transfer purposes and provides a cooling 
effect.
    Pre-charged appliance means any appliance charged with fluorinated 
greenhouse gas refrigerant prior to sale or distribution or offer for 
sale or distribution in interstate commerce. This includes both 
appliances that contain the full charge necessary for operation and 
appliances that contain a partial ``holding'' charge of the fluorinated 
greenhouse gas refrigerant (e.g., for shipment purposes).

[[Page 18722]]

    Pre-charged appliance component means any portion of an appliance, 
including but not limited to condensers, compressors, line sets, and 
coils, that is charged with fluorinated greenhouse gas refrigerant 
prior to sale or distribution or offer for sale or distribution in 
interstate commerce.
    Pre-charged equipment means any pre-charged appliance, pre-charged 
appliance component, pre-charged electrical equipment, or pre-charged 
electrical equipment component.
    Pre-charged electrical equipment means any electrical equipment, 
including but not limited to gas-insulated substations, circuit 
breakers, other switchgear, gas-insulated lines, or power transformers 
containing a fluorinated GHG prior to sale or distribution, or offer 
for sale or distribution in interstate commerce. This includes both 
equipment that contain the full charge necessary for operation and 
equipment that contain a partial ``holding'' charge of the fluorinated 
GHG (e.g., for shipment purposes).
    Pre-charged electrical equipment component means any portion of 
electrical equipment that is charged with SF6 or PFCs prior 
to sale or distribution or offer for sale or distribution in interstate 
commerce.
    6. Add subpart SS to read as follows:
Subpart SS--Sulfur Hexafluoride and Perfluorocarbons From Electrical 
Equipment Manufacture or Refurbishment
Sec.
98.450 Definition of the source category.
98.451 Reporting threshold.
98.452 GHGs to report.
98.453 Calculating GHG emissions.
98.454 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.
98.455 Procedures for estimating missing data.
98.456 Data reporting requirements.
98.457 Records that must be retained.
98.458 Definitions

Subpart SS--Sulfur Hexafluoride and Perfluorocarbons From 
Electrical Equipment Manufacture or Refurbishment


Sec.  98.450  Definition of the source category.

    The electrical equipment manufacturing category consists of 
processes that manufacture or refurbish gas-insulated substations, 
circuit breakers, other switchgear, gas-insulated lines, or power 
transformers (including gas-containing components of such equipment) 
containing sulfur-hexafluoride (SF6) or perfluorocarbons 
(PFCs).


Sec.  98.451  Reporting threshold.

    You must report GHG emissions under this subpart if your facility 
contains an electrical equipment manufacturing process and the facility 
meets the requirements of either Sec.  98.2(a)(1) or (a)(2).


Sec.  98.452  GHGs to report.

    (a) You must report annual SF6 and PFC emissions 
(including emissions from equipment testing, manufacturing, 
decommissioning and disposal, refurbishing, and from storage cylinders 
and other containers) from any facility associated with the manufacture 
or refurbishment of closed-pressure and sealed-pressure equipment 
(including components of such equipment).
    (b) You must report CO2, N2O and 
CH4 combustion-related emissions from each stationary 
combustion unit. You must calculate and report these emissions under 
subpart C of this part (General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources) by 
following the requirements of subpart C.


Sec.  98.453  Calculating GHG emissions.

    (a) For each electrical equipment manufacturer, you must estimate 
the annual SF6 and PFC emissions using the mass-balance 
approach in Equation SS-1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.078

Where:

    Decrease in SF6 Inventory = (SF6 stored in 
containers at the beginning of the year)--(SF6 stored in 
containers at the end of the year).
    Acquisitions of SF6 = (SF6 purchased from 
chemical producers or distributors in bulk) + (SF6 
returned by equipment users or distributors in equipment or 
containers) + (SF6 returned to site after off-site 
recycling).
    Disbursements of SF6 = (SF6 contained in 
new equipment delivered to customers) + (SF6 delivered to 
equipment users in containers) + (SF6 returned to 
suppliers) + (SF6 sent off site for recycling) + 
(SF6 sent to destruction facilities).

    (b) The mass-balance method in paragraph (a) of this section shall 
be used to estimate emissions of PFCs associated with the manufacture 
or refurbishment of power transformers, substituting the relevant 
PFC(s) for SF6 in Equation SS-1.
    (c) The disbursements of SF6 or PFCs to customers in new 
equipment or cylinders shall be estimated using Equation SS-2 of this 
section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.079

Where:

    DGHG = The disbursement of SF6 or PFCs 
over the period to customers in new equipment or cylinders.
    Qp = The mass of the SF6 or PFCs charged 
into equipment or containers over the period p sent to customers or 
sent off-site for other purposes including for recycling, for 
destruction or to be returned to suppliers.
    n = The number of periods in the year.

    (d) The mass of SF6 or PFCs disbursed to customers in 
new equipment or cylinders over the period p may be estimated by 
monitoring the mass flow of the SF6 or PFCs into the new 
equipment or cylinders using a flow meter or by weighing containers 
before and after gas from containers is used to fill equipment or 
cylinders.
    (e) If the mass of SF6 or the PFC disbursed to customers 
in new equipment or cylinders over the period p is estimated by 
weighing containers before and after gas from containers is used to 
fill equipment or cylinders, this quantity shall be estimated by using 
Equation SS-3 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.080

Where:

    Qp = The mass of SF6 or the PFC disbursed 
to customers over the period p.
    MB = The mass of the contents of the containers used 
to fill equipment or cylinders at the beginning of period p.
    ME = The mass of the contents of the containers used 
to fill equipment or cylinders at the end of period p.
    EL = The mass of SF6 or the PFC emitted 
during the period p downstream of the containers used to fill 
equipment or cylinders (e.g., emissions from hoses or other flow 
lines that connect the container to the equipment or cylinder that 
is being filled).

    (f) If the mass of SF6 or the PFC disbursed to customers 
in new equipment or cylinders over the period p is determined using a 
flow meter, this quantity shall be estimated using Equation SS-4 of 
this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.081

Where:


[[Page 18723]]


    Qp = The mass of SF6 or the PFC disbursed 
to customers over the period p.
    Mmr = The mass of the SF6 or the PFC that 
has flowed through the flow meter during the period p.
    EL = The mass of SF6 or the PFC emitted 
downstream of the flowmeter during the period p (e.g., emissions 
from hoses or other flow lines that connect the container to the 
equipment that is being filled).

Sec.  98.454  Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.

    (a) For calendar year 2011 monitoring, you may follow the 
provisions of Sec.  98.3(d)(1) through (d)(3) for best available 
monitoring methods rather than follow the monitoring requirements of 
this section. For purposes of subpart SS any reference to the year 2010 
in Sec.  98.3(d)(1) through (d)(3) shall mean 2011.
    (b) Ensure that all the quantities required by the equations of 
this subpart have been measured using scales or flow meters that are 
certified with an accuracy and precision to within one percent of the 
true mass or weight or better, and is periodically recalibrated per the 
manufacturer's specifications. Account for the tare weights of the 
containers. Either measure new or residual gas (the amount of gas 
remaining in returned cylinders) or have the gas supplier measure them. 
If the gas supplier weighs the new or residual gas, obtain from the gas 
supplier a detailed monthly accounting, within 1 percent, of new or 
residual gas amounts in the cylinders returned to the gas supplier. You 
remain responsible for the accuracy of these masses and weights under 
this subpart.
    (c) For purposes of Equations SS-3 and SS-4 of this subpart, the 
mass of SF6 or the PFC emitted downstream of the container 
or flowmeter during the period p shall be estimated using measurements 
and/or engineering assessments or calculations based on chemical 
engineering principles or physical or chemical laws or properties. Such 
assessments or calculations may be based on, as applicable, the 
internal volume of hose or line that is open to the atmosphere during 
coupling and decoupling activities, the internal pressure of the hose 
or line, the time the hose or line is open to the atmosphere during 
coupling and decoupling activities, the frequency with which the hose 
or line is purged and the flow rate during purges. The estimated mass 
of SF6 or the PFC emitted downstream of the container or 
flowmeter during the period p shall include unexpected or accidental 
losses.
    (d) Calibrate all flow meters, weigh scales, and combinations of 
volumetric and density measures that are used to measure or calculate 
quantities that are to be reported under this subpart prior to the 
first year for which GHG emissions are reported under this part. 
Calibrations performed prior to the effective date of this rule satisfy 
this requirement. Recalibrate all flow meters, weigh scales, and 
combinations of volumetric and density measures at the minimum 
frequency specified by the manufacturer. Use National Institute of 
Standards and Technology-traceable standards and suitable methods 
published by a consensus standards organization (e.g., ASTM, ASME, ISO, 
or others).
    (e) Ensure the following QA/QC methods are employed throughout the 
year:
    (1) Ensure that procedures are in place and followed to track and 
weigh all cylinders or other containers at the beginning and end of the 
year.
    (2) Ensure all domestic electrical equipment manufacturing 
locations have provided information to the manager compiling the 
emissions report (if it is not already handled through an electronic 
inventory system).
    (f) You must adhere to the following QA/QC methods for reviewing 
the completeness and accuracy of reporting:
    (1) Review inputs to Equation SS-1 of this subpart to ensure inputs 
and outputs to the company's system are included.
    (2) Do not enter negative inputs and confirm that negative 
emissions are not calculated. However, the decrease in SF6 
inventory may be calculated as negative.
    (3) Ensure that beginning-of-year inventory matches end-of-year 
inventory from the previous year.
    (4) Ensure that in addition to SF6 purchased from bulk 
gas distributors, SF6 returned from equipment users with or 
inside equipment and SF6 returned from off-site recycling 
are also accounted for among the total additions.


Sec.  98.455  Procedures for estimating missing data.

    A complete record of all measured parameters used in the GHG 
emissions calculations is required. Replace missing data, if needed, 
based on data from similar manufacturing operations, and from similar 
equipment testing and decommissioning activities for which data are 
available.


Sec.  98.456  Data reporting requirements.

    In addition to the information required by Sec.  98.3(c), each 
annual report must contain the following information at each facility 
level, by chemical:
    (a) SF6 and PFC sales and purchases.
    (b) SF6 and PFCs sent off site for destruction.
    (c) SF6 and PFCs sent off site to be recycled.
    (d) SF6 and PFCs returned from off site after recycling.
    (e) SF6 and PFCs returned by equipment users with or 
inside equipment.
    (f) SF6 and PFCs stored in containers at the beginning 
and end of the year.
    (g) SF6 and PFCs inside equipment delivered to 
customers.
    (h) SF6 and PFCs returned to suppliers.
    (i) The nameplate capacity of the equipment delivered to customers 
with SF6 or PFCs inside, if different from the quantity in 
paragraph (g) of this section.
    (j) A description of the engineering methods and calculations used 
to determine emissions from hoses or other flow lines that connect the 
container to the equipment that is being filled.
    (k) For any missing data, you must report the reason the data were 
missing, the length of time the data were missing, the method used to 
estimate emissions in their absence, and the quantity of emissions 
thereby estimated.


Sec.  98.457  Records that must be retained.

    In addition to the information required by Sec.  98.3(g), you must 
retain the following records:
    (a) All information reported and listed in Sec.  98.456.
    (b) Accuracy certifications and calibration records for all scales 
and monitoring equipment, including the method or manufacturer's 
specification used for calibration.
    (c) Check-out and weigh-in sheets and procedures for cylinders.
    (d) Residual gas amounts in cylinders sent back to suppliers.
    (e) Invoices for gas purchases and sales.


Sec.  98.458  Definitions.

    All terms used in this subpart have the same meaning given in the 
Clean Air Act and subpart A of this part.

[FR Doc. 2010-6768 Filed 4-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P