[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 230 (Wednesday, December 1, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 74774-74861]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28803]



[[Page 74773]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 98



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

  Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 74774]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 98

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927; FRL-9226-8]
RIN 2060-AQ00


Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Additional Sources of 
Fluorinated GHGs

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing a regulation to require monitoring and 
reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from additional sources of 
fluorinated greenhouse gases, including electronics manufacturing, 
fluorinated gas production, electrical equipment use, electrical 
equipment manufacture or refurbishment, as well as importers and 
exporters of pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams. This rule 
requires monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gases for these source 
categories only for sources with carbon dioxide equivalent emissions, 
imports, or exports above certain threshold levels. This rule does not 
require control of greenhouse gases.

DATES: The final rule is effective on December 31, 2010. The 
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule 
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of December 31, 
2010.

ADDRESSES: EPA established a single docket under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0927 for this rule. All documents in the docket are listed on 
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, 
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business 
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is 
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard 
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 
EPA's Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 
1301 Constitution Avenue, 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 and implementation 
materials, please go to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program Web site 
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html. To 
submit a question, select Rule Help Center, followed by Contact Us.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. The Administrator 
determined that this action is subject to the provisions of Clean Air 
Act (CAA) section 307(d). See CAA section 307(d)(1)(V) (the provisions 
of CAA section 307(d) apply to ``such other actions as the 
Administrator may determine.''). This final rule affects owners and 
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 include those listed in Table 1 of this preamble.

           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  Liquid Crystal Display
                                                 (LCD) unit screens
                                                 manufacturing
                                                 facilities.
                                        334419  Micro-electro-mechanical
                                                 systems (MEMS)
                                                 manufacturing
                                                 facilities.
Fluorinated Gas 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-                   equipment (except room
 Cell Foams.                                     units) merchant
                                                 wholesalers.
                                        333415  Air-conditioning
                                                 equipment (except motor
                                                 vehicle) manufacturing.
                                        336391  Motor vehicle air-
                                                 conditioning
                                                 manufacturing.
                                        423620  Air-conditioners, room,
                                                 merchant wholesalers.
                                        443111  Household appliance
                                                 stores.
                                        423730  Automotive air-
                                                 conditioners merchant
                                                 wholesalers.
                                        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 of this preamble 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 subparts related to electronics 
manufacturing facilities, fluorinated gas production facilities, 
electric power transmission or distribution facilities, 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 
GENERAL INFORMATION CONTACT section.

[[Page 74775]]

    Many facilities that are affected by the final rule have greenhouse 
gas (GHG) emissions from multiple source categories listed in 40 CFR 
part 98. Table 2 of this preamble has been developed as a guide to help 
potential reporters in the source categories subject to this reporting 
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       Subparts recommended for review to
        applicable subpart)                determine applicability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electricity Generation............  Electrical Equipment Use.
Electronics Manufacturing.........  General Stationary Fuel Combustion.
Fluorinated Gas Production........  General Stationary Fuel Combustion
                                     Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse
                                     Gases.
Electrical Equipment Use..........  General Stationary Fuel Combustion.
Imports and Exports of Fluorinated  Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse
 GHGs Inside Pre-charged Equipment   Gases.
 and Closed-Cell Foams.             Sulfur Hexafluoride and PFCs from
                                     Electrical Equipment Manufacture
                                     and Refurbishment.
Electrical Equipment Manufacture    General Stationary Fuel Combustion
 or Refurbishment.                   Imports and Exports of Fluorinated
                                     GHGs Inside Pre-charged Equipment
                                     and Closed-Cell Foams.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    What is the effective date? The final rule is effective on December 
31, 2010. Section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 
U.S.C. Chapter 5, generally provides that rules may not take effect 
earlier than 30 days after they are published in the Federal Register. 
EPA is issuing this final rule under section 307(d)(1) of the Clean Air 
Act, which states: ``The provisions of section 553 through 557 * * * of 
Title 5 shall not, except as expressly provided in this section, apply 
to actions to which this subsection applies.'' Thus, section 553(d) of 
the APA does not apply to this rule. EPA is nevertheless acting 
consistently with the purposes underlying APA section 553(d) in making 
this rule effective on December 31, 2010. Section 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) 
allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication ``as 
otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published 
with the rule.'' As explained below, EPA finds that there is good cause 
for this rule to become effective on or before December 31, 2010, even 
if this results in an effective date fewer than 30 days from date of 
publication in the Federal Register.
    While this action is being signed prior to December 1, 2010, there 
is likely to be a significant delay in the publication of this rule as 
it contains complex diagrams, equations, and charts, and is relatively 
long in length. As an example, EPA signed a shorter technical 
amendments package related to the same underlying reporting rule on 
October 7, 2010, and it was not published until October 28, 2010, 75 FR 
66434, three weeks later.
    The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 
553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their 
behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. Where, as 
here, the final rule will be signed and made available on the EPA Web 
site more than 30 days before the effective date, but where the 
publication is likely to be delayed due to the complexity and length of 
the rule, that purpose is still met. Moreover, through June 30, 2011, 
facilities covered by this rule may use Best Available Monitoring 
Methods (BAMM) for any parameter for which it is not reasonably 
feasible to acquire, install, or operate a required piece of monitoring 
equipment in a facility, or to procure measurement services from 
necessary providers. This will provide facilities a substantial 
additional period to adjust their behavior to the requirements of the 
final rule. Accordingly, we find good cause exists to make this rule 
effective on or before December 31, 2010, consistent with the purposes 
of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We recognize that this rule could be published at least 30 
days before December 31, 2010, which would negate the need for this 
good cause finding, and we plan to request expedited publication of 
this rule in order to decrease the likelihood of a printing delay. 
However, as we cannot know the date of publication in advance of 
signing this rule, we are proceeding with this good cause finding 
for an effective date on or before December 31, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Judicial Review.
    Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final rule is 
available only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by January 31, 2011. Under 
CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), only an objection to this final rule that was 
raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment 
can be raised during judicial review. This section also provides a 
mechanism for EPA to convene a proceeding for reconsideration, ``[i]f 
the person raising an objection can demonstrate to EPA that it was 
impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for public 
comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period 
for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) 
and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of this 
rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration to EPA should 
submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the 
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Room 3000, Ariel Rios 
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004, with a 
copy to the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and 
Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20004. Note, under CAA section 307(b)(2), the 
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged 
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to 
enforce these requirements.
    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
BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics
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
DE destruction efficiency
DRE destruction or removal efficiency
ECD electron capture detector
EFC emission factor for the valve-hose combination
EIA Economic Impact Analysis

[[Page 74776]]

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
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCFC hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HFC hydrofluorocarbon
HFE hydrofluoroether
HTF heat transfer fluid
IBR incorporation by reference
ICR information collection request
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
kg kilograms
LCD liquid crystal displays
LED light-emitting diode
MEMS micro-electro-mechanical systems
MMTCO2e million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent
MRR mandatory greenhouse gas reporting rule
MS mass spectrometry
MVAC motor vehicle air conditioner
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
NMR nuclear magnetic resonance
NRECA National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PFC perfluorocarbon
POHC principal organic hazardous constituent
PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration
PSEF process-vent-specific emission factor
PV photovoltaic cells
QA quality assurance
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QMS Quadrapole Mass Spectroscopy
R&D research and development
RF radio frequency
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RGGI Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
RPS remote plasma source
SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
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 Final Rule
    C. Legal Authority
II. Requirements for Specific Source Categories
    A. Overview of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program
    B. Overview of Confidentiality Determination for Data Elements 
in the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rules
    C. Summary of Changes to the General Provisions of the General 
Provisions of 40 CFR Part 98 Related to the Addition of Subparts I, 
L, DD, QQ, and SS
    D. Electronics Manufacturing (Subpart I)
    E. Fluorinated Gas Production (Subpart L)
    F. Electrical Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use 
(Subpart DD)
    G. Importers and Exporters of Fluorinated GHGs Inside Pre-
Charged Equipment or Closed-Cell Foams (Subpart QQ)
    H. Electrical Equipment Manufacture or Refurbishment (Subpart 
SS)
III. Economic Impacts of the Final 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
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. Background

A. Organization of This Preamble

    This preamble is broken into several large sections, as detailed 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 rule, including a brief discussion 
of the rationale for revising the initially proposed requirements for 
subparts L, DD, and SS. This section also discusses EPA's use of our 
legal authority under the CAA to collect the required data, and the 
benefits of collecting the data.
    The second section of this preamble provides a brief summary of the 
key design elements for each subpart. For each subpart, this section 
includes (1) The definition of the source category, (2) GHGs to report, 
(3) GHG emission calculating and monitoring methods, (4) data reporting 
requirements, and (5) records that must be retained. Each subpart also 
includes a summary of major changes since proposal and a summary of 
comments and responses. 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 rule from the Economic Analysis. 
Finally, the last section discusses the various statutory and executive 
order requirements applicable to this rule.

B. Background on the Final Rule

    This action finalizes monitoring and reporting requirements for the 
following five source categories: Electronics manufacturing, 
fluorinated gas production, electrical equipment use, electrical 
equipment manufacture and refurbishment, and importers and exporters 
and pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams.
    EPA initially proposed reporting requirements for electronics, 
fluorinated GHG production, and electrical equipment use on April 12, 
2009 (74 FR 16448) as part of a larger rulemaking effort to establish a 
GHG reporting program for all sectors of the economy. In that proposal, 
EPA also requested comment on requiring reporting of the quantities of 
fluorinated GHGs imported and exported inside pre-charged equipment and 
foams. However, EPA did not include requirements for these source 
categories in the Final Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule (Part 98) (40 CFR 
part 98), which was signed by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson on 
September 22, 2009 and published in the Federal Register on October 30, 
2009 (74 FR 56260).
    EPA deferred action on these source categories because EPA received 
a number of lengthy, detailed comments regarding the proposed 
requirements for these source categories. These comments, which are 
described in more detail in the discussions of the individual source 
categories in the April 12, 2010 proposed rule, 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 fluorinated GHGs contained in

[[Page 74777]]

imported and exported pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams.
    EPA recognized the concerns raised by stakeholders, and decided to 
re-propose significant pieces of these subparts. The revised proposed 
rule was published in the Federal Register on April 12, 2010. A public 
hearing on the proposed rule was held on April 20, 2010 in Washington, 
DC, and the 60-day public comment period ended on June 11, 2010.
    For subparts I and L this rule incorporates a number of technical 
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 April 2009 proposal. 
Where aspects of the initial proposals for subparts I and L are 
retained in this rule, 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, this rule adds more flexibility in how and how 
frequently the underlying data are gathered. In addition, EPA is 
requiring facilities 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 have concluded that the monitoring approaches required in this 
rule, which combine direct measurement and facility-specific 
calculations, effectively balance accuracy and costs, and that they are 
warranted because the resulting data will enable EPA to analyze and 
develop a range of potential CAA GHG policies and programs. A 
consistent and accurate data set is crucial to serve this intended 
purpose.
    Under this rule, facilities and suppliers will begin data 
collection in 2011 following the methods outlined in this rule and will 
submit data to EPA by March 31, 2012. EPA is allowing facilities and 
suppliers to use the Best Available Monitoring Methods (BAMM) through 
June 30, 2011 without submitting a petition to EPA. EPA is also 
allowing facilities to request an extension for the use of BAMM beyond 
the initial 6-month period. For details on BAMM extension requests, 
including their due dates and required contents, refer to the 
Monitoring and QA/QC Requirements section of each subpart and to the 
preamble discussions for subparts I and L.

C. Legal Authority

    EPA is finalizing requirements for five source categories 
(electronics manufacturing, production of fluorinated gases, use of 
electrical transmission and distribution equipment, manufacture or 
refurbishment of electrical equipment, and imports and exports of pre-
charges equipment and closed cell-foams) under its existing CAA 
authority; specifically, authorities provided in CAA section 114. As 
discussed in detail in Sections I.C and II.Q of the preamble to the 
2009 final rule (74 FR 56260, October 30, 2009), CAA section 114(a)(1) 
provides EPA with broad authority to require emissions sources, persons 
subject to the CAA, manufacturers of process or control equipment, 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. Further information is available in ``Mandatory Greenhouse 
Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments, Legal Issues'' 
(available in EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508)

II. Requirements for Specific Source Categories

A. Overview of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program

    On October 30, 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
published a rule for the mandatory reporting of greenhouse gases (GHG) 
(also referred to as 40 CFR part 98) from large GHG emissions sources 
in the United States. Implementation of 40 CFR Part 98 is referred to 
as the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP).
    The rule requires reporting of GHG emissions and supply from 
certain sectors of the economy, and apply to certain downstream 
facilities that emit GHGs, as well as to certain upstream suppliers of 
fossil fuels and industrial GHGs. The regulations require annual 
reporting of GHGs including carbon dioxide (CO2, methane 
(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons 
(HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), 
and other fluorinated compounds (e.g., hydrofluoroethers (HFEs)).
    Part 98 regulations require only that source categories subject to 
the rule monitor and report GHGs in accordance with the methods 
specified in the individual subparts. In this action, EPA is adding 
five source categories to part 98. For a list of the specific GHGs to 
be reported and the GHG calculation procedures, monitoring, missing 
data procedures, recordkeeping, and reporting required for facilities 
subject to subparts I, L, DD, QQ, and SS see the relevant subpart 
description below.

B. Overview of Confidentiality Determination for Data Elements in the 
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rules

    This action does not address whether data reported under subparts 
I, L, DD, QQ, or SS will be treated as confidential business 
information (CBI). EPA published a proposed confidentiality 
determination on July 7, 2010 (75 FR 39094) which addressed this issue. 
In that action, EPA proposed which specific data elements would be 
treated as CBI and which data elements must be available to the public 
under CAA section 114. EPA has received several comments on the 
proposal, and is in the process of considering these comments. A final 
determination will be issued before any data is released, and the final 
determination will include all of the data elements under these 
subparts.

C. Summary of Changes to the General Provisions of the General 
Provisions of 40 CFR Part 98 Related to the Addition of Subparts I, L, 
DD, QQ, and SS

    Changes to Applicability. We are making changes to 40 CFR 
98.3(c)(5) to be consistent with previous revisions that were made on 
July 12, 2010. On July 12, 2010 (75 FR 39736), we made a number of 
conforming changes to the General Provisions (subpart A to part 98) to 
accommodate the addition of new source categories that were being added 
to Part 98. In the July 12, 2010 notice, we added Tables A-3 through A-
5 to replace the list of source categories and supplier categories in 
40 CFR 98.2(a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(4), respectively. Under this revised 
approach, as new subparts are adopted, a new row is added to the 
appropriate table for the year in which reporting is required to 
commence for the new source category or supplier category. As a 
conforming change, the text of 40 CFR 98.3(c)(4) was reworded to refer 
to ``Table A-3 and Table A-4'' instead of ``subparts C-JJ.''
    In this action, we are amending Tables A-3, A-4, and A-5 to subpart 
A to add entries for five subparts: DD, SS, I, L, and QQ. Because we 
are now adding a new supplier category to the reporting requirements, 
we are also making a conforming change to 40 CFR 98.3(c)(5)(i) and (ii) 
to replace the reference to ``subparts KK through PP'' with a reference 
to ``Table A-5.'' This conforming change does not alter any reporting 
requirements.
    The following source categories have been added to the list of 
source categories in Table A-3 to subpart A because they have a 
production capacity

[[Page 74778]]

or gas consumption threshold rather than a CO2e emission 
threshold.
     Electric power transmission or distribution facilities 
that include the total nameplate capacity located within the facility, 
when added to the total nameplate capacity of SF6 and PFC 
containing equipment that is not located within the facility but is 
under common ownership or control, exceeds 17,820 pounds of sulfur 
hexafluoride (SF6)or perfluorocarbons (PFCs) (subpart DD).
     Electric power equipment manufacturing or refurbishing 
facilities with total annual SF6 and PFC purchases 
(combined) that exceed 23,000 pounds per year (subpart SS).
    The following source categories are subject to the rule if facility 
emissions are equal to or greater than 25,000 metric tons 
CO2e per year. Therefore, these source categories have been 
added to the list of emission threshold source categories referenced in 
Table A-4 to subpart A.
     Fluorinated gas production facilities whose emissions 
would exceed 25,000 mtCO2e in the absence of control 
technologies (subpart L).
     Electronics manufacturing facilities whose emissions would 
exceed 25,000 mtCO2e in the absence of control technologies 
(subpart I).
    For all of these facilities, whether they are listed in Table A-3 
or A-4 to subpart A, the annual GHG report must cover stationary fuel 
combustion sources, miscellaneous uses of carbonates, and all 
applicable source categories listed in Table A-3 and Table A-4 to 
subpart A.
    Importers and exporters of certain types of pre-charged equipment 
or closed-cell foam products containing fluorinated GHGs, 
N2O, or CO2 (subpart QQ) have been added to Table 
A-5 to subpart A because they are suppliers of GHGs.
    As is true for the source categories covered by the final Part 98, 
a facility or supplier in any of these source categories may cease 
reporting if their emissions are less than 25,000 mtCO2e per 
year for five consecutive years or less than 15,000 mtCO2e 
per year for three consecutive years, subject to the procedures at 40 
CFR 98.2(i).
    Reporting CO2e emissions. EPA is adding a paragraph to 40 CFR 
98.3(c)(4) to clarify that facilities that emit fluorinated GHGs are 
required to calculate and report CO2e emissions only for 
those fluorinated GHGs that are listed in Table A-1 of this subpart, 
not for other fluorinated GHGs. However, it is important to note that 
fluorinated GHG emitters are still required to report all fluorinated 
GHGs emitted under 40 CFR 98.3(c)(4)(iii) (in metric tons of GHG). This 
change clarifies that emitters are not required to develop GWPs for 
fluorinated GHGs that are not listed in Table A-1 and ensures 
consistent reporting of such fluorinated GHGs among different 
reporters. The change is being made in parallel with a similar change 
to 40 CFR 98.3(c)(5) through a separate rulemaking.
    Definitions. EPA is revising one definition in 40 CFR part 98 
subpart A and is adding a number of definitions applicable to specific 
source categories to the corresponding subparts. The definition that is 
being revised in subpart A is the definition of ``destruction 
efficiency,'' which is being revised to be expressed in tons of 
specific greenhouse gases rather than tons of CO2e. This revision and 
the rationale for it are discussed in more detail in Section II.E of 
this preamble.
    The definitions that are applicable to specific source categories 
are not being added to the definitions section in 40 CFR part 98 
subpart A because they do not have broader applicability to part 98. 
EPA has sought to avoid any conflict between these subpart-specific 
definitions and the definitions in Subpart A. In one instance, for 
electric power systems, EPA is applying a category-specific definition 
of facility rather than the general definition of facility in the 
General Provisions. The reasons for this source-category-specific 
definition of facility are set forth in Section II.G of this preamble. 
The remaining definitions are intended as supplements to the 
definitions section in the General Provisions. EPA does not expect 
these definitions to create conflicts with the General Provisions. To 
the extent regulated entities are in doubt as to which definition 
applies, they should assume that the category-specific definitions are 
controlling.
    Incorporation by Reference (IBR). We are amending 40 CFR 98.7 
(incorporation by reference) to include standard methods used in the 
subparts. In particular, for subpart I, we are adding the following 
three standards: the 2006 International SEMATECH Manufacturing 
Initiative's Guideline for Environmental Characterization of 
Semiconductor Process Equipment (International SEMATECH 
06124825A-ENG), the 2001 International SEMATECH's Guidelines 
for Environmental Characterization of Semiconductor Equipment 
(International SEMATECH 01104197A-XFR), and EPA's Protocol for 
Measuring Destruction or Removal Efficiency (DRE) of Fluorinated 
Greenhouse Gas Abatement Equipment in Electronics Manufacturing, 
Version 1, EPA 430-R-10-003. These standards are referenced in 40 CFR 
98.94 (Monitoring and QA/QC requirements for subpart I), 40 CFR 98.96 
(Data reporting requirements for subpart I), 40 CFR 98.97 (Records that 
must be retained for subpart I), and 40 CFR 98.98 (Definitions for 
subpart I).
    In addition, for subpart L, we are revising the paragraphs listing 
several ASME standards and one ASTM standard that are already contained 
in 40 CFR 98.7 to indicate that these standards are also referenced by 
40 CFR 98.124 (Monitoring and QA/QC requirements in 40 CFR part 98, 
subpart L, fluorinated gas production). We are also adding the 
following seven standards: ASTM D2879-97 (Reapproved 2007) Standard 
Test Method for Vapor Pressure-Temperature Relationship and Initial 
Decomposition Temperature of Liquids by Isoteniscope; ASTM D7359-08 
Standard Test Method for Total Fluorine, Chlorine and Sulfur in 
Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Their Mixtures by Oxidative Pyrohydrolytic 
Combustion followed by Ion Chromatography Detection (Combustion Ion 
Chromatography-CIC); Tracer Gas Protocol for the Determination of 
Volumetric Flow Rate Through the Ring Pipe of the Xact Multi-Metals 
Monitoring System (also known as Other Test Method 24); Approved 
Alternative Method 012: An Alternate Procedure for Stack Gas Volumetric 
Flow Rate Determination (Tracer Gas); the Emission Inventory 
Improvement Program, Volume II: Chapter 16, Methods for Estimating Air 
Emissions from Chemical Manufacturing Facilities; Protocol for 
Equipment Leak Emission Estimates; and EPA's Protocol for Measuring 
Destruction or Removal Efficiency (DRE) of Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas 
Abatement Equipment in Electronics Manufacturing, Version 1, EPA 430-R-
10-003. These are referenced in 40 CFR 98.123 (Calculating GHG 
emissions for subpart L), 40 CFR 98.124 (Monitoring and QA/QC 
requirements for subpart L), and 40 CFR 98.128 (Definitions for subpart 
L).

D. Electronics Manufacturing (Subpart I)

1. Summary of the Final Rule
    Source Category Definition. The electronics manufacturing source 
category consists of any of the following five production processes. 
Facilities that use these processes include, but are not limited to, 
those facilities that manufacture micro-electro-mechanical systems 
(MEMS), liquid crystal displays (LCDs), photovoltaic cells (PV), and 
semiconductors (including light-emitting diodes).

[[Page 74779]]

     Electronics manufacturing production processes 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) or substrate (e.g., 
silicon) to selectively remove portions of material.
     Electronics manufacturing production processes in which 
chambers used for depositing thin films are cleaned periodically using 
plasma-generated fluorine atoms and other reactive fluorine-containing 
fragments.
     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, including the wafer edge.
     Electronics manufacturing production processes in which 
the chemical vapor deposition process (CVD) or other manufacturing 
processes use N2O.
     Production processes which use fluorinated GHGs as heat 
transfer fluids to cool process equipment, to control temperature 
during device testing, to clean substrate surfaces and other parts, and 
for soldering (e.g., vapor phase reflow). Heat transfer fluids commonly 
used in electronics manufacturing include those sold under the trade 
names ``Galden[supreg]'' and ``Fluorinertsu.\TM\''
    Reporting Threshold. Electronics manufacturing facilities that meet 
the applicability criteria in the General Provisions (40 CFR 98.2) must 
report GHG emissions. Electronics manufacturing facilities covered by 
subpart I are those that have emissions equal to or greater than 25,000 
mtCO2e. For electronics manufacturing, EPA is requiring that 
uncontrolled emissions be used for purposes of determining whether a 
facility's emissions are equal to or greater than 25,000 
mtCO2e.\2\ Facilities must determine if they meet the 
applicability criteria in the General Provisions (40 CFR 98.2(a)(2)) by 
using the methods in 40 CFR 98.91 and summarized as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For purposes of calculating and reporting emissions for this 
subpart, facilities may report controlled emissions if they abide by 
provisions in 40 CFR 98.94(f) of this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Semiconductor, MEMS, and LCD manufacturing facilities are 
required to use gas specific emission factors and 100 percent of annual 
manufacturing capacity. Because heat transfer fluids are widely used in 
semiconductor manufacturing, to account for emissions from heat 
transfer fluids, semiconductor manufacturing facilities are required to 
add 10 percent of total clean and etch emissions at a facility to their 
total estimate. For semiconductor and LCD manufacturing facilities, the 
gas specific emission factors are consistent with the 2006 IPCC Tier 1 
emission factors. For MEMS manufacturing facilities, because there is 
no IPCC factor available, the emission factor was developed by EPA and 
is based on the IPCC Tier 2b SF6 emission factor for 
semiconductors.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For a more detailed explanation of the MEMS default factor, 
please refer to the Electronics Manufacturing TSD (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-
0927).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     PV manufacturing facilities are required to multiply 
annual fluorinated GHG purchases or consumption by the gas-appropriate 
100-year GWPs (provided in Table A-1 to subpart A of this part).
    It is important to clarify that these methods for determining 
whether a manufacturer exceeds the threshold are different from those 
used to calculate and report annual GHG emissions. The methods for 
calculating GHG emissions and consumption for reporting purposes are 
provided in the following paragraphs.
    GHGs to Report. Each facility must calculate and report the 
following GHG emissions and consumption:
     Fluorinated GHG emissions from plasma etching, chamber 
cleaning, and wafer cleaning.
     N2O emissions from chemical vapor deposition 
and other electronics manufacturing processes.
     Fluorinated GHG emissions from heat transfer fluid use.
     Consumption for all fluorinated GHGs and N2O 
including gases used for manufacturing processes other than those 
listed above.
     CO2, CH4, and N2O 
combustion emissions from stationary combustion units by following the 
requirements of 40 CFR part 98, subpart C (General Stationary Fuel 
Combustion Sources).
    GHG Emissions Calculation and Monitoring. To calculate fluorinated 
GHG and N2O emissions from electronics manufacturing, 
reporters must use the following methods, as appropriate for each 
electronics manufacturing facility (depending on the product 
manufactured, i.e., MEMS, LCD, PV, or semiconductors).
Fluorinated GHG Emissions
    All electronics manufacturing facilities are required to calculate 
fluorinated GHG emissions from etch and clean processes by estimating 
emissions of input fluorinated GHGs and of by-product fluorinated GHGs. 
This is done by applying utilization factors and by-product formation 
factors (collectively referred to as ``emission factors'' below) to the 
consumption of each fluorinated GHG by each process type, process sub-
type or recipe, as appropriate. However, the methods prescribed for use 
by different types of electronics manufacturing facilities differ in 
the values of these emission factors, the level of aggregation to which 
the factors are applied (process type, process sub-type, or recipe), 
and whether defaults or recipe-specific factors are applied. This 
framework is discussed in detail in the following paragraphs.
    To calculate and report fluorinated GHG emissions, reporters must 
adhere to the typology shown in Figure 1 of this preamble.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.000


[[Page 74780]]


    At the top of the typology figure are process types, which consist 
of plasma etching, chamber cleaning, and wafer cleaning. The second 
level in the figure consists of process sub-types, which are identified 
for only the chamber cleaning process type. As explained in Section 
II.D.2 of this preamble (Summary of Major Changes Since the Proposal) 
and Section II.D.3 of this preamble (Summary of Comments and 
Responses), EPA is only establishing sub-types for the chamber cleaning 
process type because sufficient information was available for these 
sub-types to establish default emission factors. The three chamber 
cleaning process sub-types are in-situ plasma, remote plasma, and in-
situ thermal cleans. The bottom of the figure displays production 
process recipes. Definitions are provided in the paragraphs below.
    Process Type. EPA is defining a process type as a broad group of 
manufacturing steps used at a facility associated with substrate (e.g., 
wafer) processing during device manufacture for which fluorinated GHG 
emissions and fluorinated GHG usages are calculated and reported. The 
process types are plasma etching, chamber cleaning, and wafer 
cleaning.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As defined in the final rule, the plasma etching process 
type consists of any production process using fluorinated GHG 
reagents to selectively remove materials that have been deposited on 
a substrate during electronics manufacturing. Also as defined in the 
final rule, the wafer cleaning process type consists of any 
production process using fluorinated GHG reagents to clean wafers at 
any step during production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Process Sub-type. EPA is defining a process sub-type as a set of 
similar manufacturing steps, more closely related within a broad 
process type. (For clarity, EPA is referring to what was previously 
termed process categories in the April 2010 proposed rule (75 FR 18652) 
as process sub-types).
    In situ plasma process sub-type consists of the cleaning of thin-
film production chambers, after processing substrates, with a 
fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent that is dissociated into its cleaning 
constituents by a plasma generated inside the chamber where the films 
are produced.
    Remote plasma process sub-type consists of the cleaning of thin-
film production chambers, after processing substrates, with a 
fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent dissociated by a remotely located 
(e.g., upstream) plasma source.
    In situ thermal process sub-type consists of the cleaning of thin-
film production chambers, after processing substrates, with a 
fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent that is thermally dissociated into its 
cleaning constituents inside the chamber where one or more thin films 
are produced.
    Production Process Recipe (Recipe). EPA has included definitions of 
``individual recipe'' and ``similar'' with respect to recipes in this 
final rule as an aid to understanding the portions of the rule where a 
facility is required or allowed to calculate emissions on a recipe-
specific basis. The final rule uses the term ``individual recipe'' to 
refer to a specific combination of gases, under specific conditions of 
reactor temperature, pressure, flow, radio frequency (RF) power and 
duration, used repeatedly to fabricate a specific feature on a specific 
film or substrate. EPA is also introducing the term ``similar,'' with 
respect to recipes, to refer to recipes that are composed of the same 
set of chemicals and have the same flow stabilization times and where 
the documented differences, considered separately, in reactor pressure, 
individual gas flow rates, and applied RF power are less than or equal 
to plus or minus 10 percent. For purposes of comparing and documenting 
recipes that are similar, facilities may use either the best known 
method provided by an equipment manufacturer or the process of record, 
for which emission factors for either have been measured (see the 
Electronics Manufacturing TSD (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927) for supporting 
information). Generally, where facilities develop recipe-specific 
utilization and by-product formation rates, they may apply the 
utilization and by-product formation rates developed for an individual 
recipe to any ``similar recipe.\5\ ''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ To be included in a set of similar recipes for the purposes 
of this subpart, a recipe must be similar to the recipe in the set 
for which recipe-specific utilization and by-product formation rates 
have been measured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Electronics manufacturing facilities must calculate and report 
emissions of each fluorinated GHG used at the facility by adhering to 
typologies discussed and defined earlier in this section, as 
appropriate, and using the following methods based on the use of (1) 
Gas consumption, and (2) emission factors for fluorinated-GHG 
utilization and by-product formation rates. Where facilities are 
required to estimate and calculate emissions for sub-types or recipes, 
they are also required to report those emissions in aggregate by 
process type.
    The required methods are summarized in Table 3 of this preamble. 
EPA is naming the methodologies described below using a format similar 
to that used in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas 
Inventories. While EPA's methodologies may be viewed generally as an 
extension from and building upon the IPCC's methods, EPA's approach is 
distinct in terms of its applicability and level of detail.

Table 3--Summary of Final Provisions for Electronics Manufacturing Facilities To Estimate and Report Fluorinated
                                GHG Emissions From Etching and Cleaning Processes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Manufactured wafer                           Required            Optional
      Product manufactured               size         Annual capacity\a\      methodology         methodology
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PV, MEMS, LCDs..................  NA................  NA................  Modified Tier 2b--  Tier 3--Use recipe-
                                                                           Use EPA default     specific emission
                                                                           emission            factors for all
                                                                           factors\b\ for      production
                                                                           plasma etching      processes that
                                                                           and chamber         use fluorinated
                                                                           cleaning process    GHGs.
                                                                           types.\c\
Semiconductors..................  300 mm and smaller  Less than or equal  Tier 2c--Use EPA    Tier 3--Use recipe-
                                                       to 10,500 m\2\ of   default emission    specific emission
                                                       substrate.          factors for         factors for all
                                                                           plasma etching,     production
                                                                           chamber cleaning    processes that
                                                                           (including in-      use fluorinated
                                                                           situ plasma         GHGs.
                                                                           cleaning, remote
                                                                           plasma cleaning,
                                                                           in-situ thermal
                                                                           cleaning sub-
                                                                           types), and wafer
                                                                           cleaning process
                                                                           types.\c\

[[Page 74781]]

 
Semiconductors..................  300 mm and smaller  Greater than        Tier 2d--Use EPA    Tier 3--Use recipe-
                                                       10,500 m\2\ of      default emission    specific emission
                                                       substrate.          factors for         factors for all
                                                                           chamber cleaning    production
                                                                           (including in-      processes that
                                                                           situ plasma         use fluorinated
                                                                           cleaning, remote    GHGs.
                                                                           plasma cleaning,
                                                                           in-situ thermal
                                                                           cleaning sub-
                                                                           types), and wafer
                                                                           cleaning process
                                                                           types, and recipe-
                                                                           specific emission
                                                                           factors for
                                                                           plasma
                                                                           etching.\c\
Semiconductors..................  Larger than 300 mm  NA................  Tier 3--Use recipe- None.
                                                                           specific emission
                                                                           factors for all
                                                                           production
                                                                           processes that
                                                                           use fluorinated
                                                                           GHG.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 \a\ Manufacturing capacity is 100 percent of annual manufacturing capacity of a facility as determined by
  summing the area of maximum designed substrate starts of a facility per month over the reporting period.
 \b\ These emission factors are consistent with emission factors published in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
 \c\ Where default emission factors are not provided in Tables I-3, I-4, I-5, I-6, or I-7 for a particular
  fluorinated GHG and process type or sub-type combination, a facility must either use utilization and by-
  product formation rates of 0 or use directly measured recipe-specific emission factors using the procedures of
  this subpart.

Gas Consumption
    Electronics manufacturing facilities must use the following methods 
to calculate and apportion fluorinated GHG consumption:
     Total annual gas consumption, for all fluorinated GHGs, 
calculated using the facility's purchase records, disbursements, gas 
container inventories, and gas- and facility-specific heel factors.
     Total annual gas consumption apportioning factors 
developed using facility-specific engineering models based on 
quantifiable metrics (i.e., a metric that is proportional to gas usage) 
of fluorinated GHG-using activity. Facilities must document these 
models in their site GHG Monitoring Plans (as required under 40 CFR 
98.3) and verify them. At a minimum, facilities must verify and 
document the information listed in 40 CFR 98.94(c) and 40 CFR 98.97(c), 
respectively. This information must be updated each reporting year.

Fluorinated GHG Utilization and By-Product Formation Rates (Emission 
Factors)
    Electronics manufacturing facilities must use the following methods 
for applying (and in some cases, developing) fluorinated GHG emission 
factors, as appropriate. Where a facility uses less than 50 kg of a 
fluorinated GHG in one reporting year, rather than calculate emissions 
using an emission factor, they may report the emissions of that gas as 
equal to consumption.
Facilities That Manufacture MEMS, LCDs, and PV
    Facilities that manufacture MEMS, LCDs, and PV are required to 
calculate and report their fluorinated GHG emissions from two process 
types: Plasma etching and chamber cleaning. These facilities are 
required to use default emission factors presented in Tables I-5, I-6, 
or I-7 to subpart I for MEMS, LCDs, PV, respectively. EPA is using the 
term ``Modified Tier 2b Method'' to refer to this methodology.
    A facility may use directly measured recipe-specific emission 
factors in lieu of defaults for all production processes that use 
fluorinated GHGs only if the recipe-specific emission factors are 
measured using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines, International SEMATECH 
06124825A-ENG, with limited exceptions.\6\ The facility must 
develop recipe-specific factors for each individual recipe except that 
a factor developed for one individual recipe may be applied to similar 
recipes. In a given reporting year, a facility must develop new recipe-
specific emission factors only for recipes which are not similar to any 
recipe used in a previous reporting year. Facilities that choose the 
recipe-specific approach must also aggregate the recipe-specific 
emissions and report the total emissions by process type (plasma 
etching and chamber cleaning). In addition, where a facility reports 
using recipe-specific emission factors, they are required to report the 
film or substrate that was etched/cleaned and the feature type that was 
etched.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ EPA is permitting facilities to use emission factors 
measured using the 2001 ISMI Guidelines, International SEMATECH 
01104197A-XFR, provided the emissions factors were measured 
prior to January 1, 2007. Documentation for the measurements is 
required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A facility that is using a method based on default emission 
factors, but uses a fluorinated GHG for a particular process type for 
which default emission factors are not provided in Tables I-5, I-6, or 
I-7, must either use utilization and by-product formation rates of 0 
or, in that particular instance, use directly measured recipe-specific 
emission factors measured using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines, International 
SEMATECH 06124825A-ENG, with limited exceptions.\7\ The 
facility must develop and report the recipe-specific emission factors 
using the same procedures as discussed in the paragraph above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See footnote 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the exception of where default emission factors are not 
provided in Tables I-5, I-6, or I-7 for a particular process type, EPA 
is prohibiting a facility from creating and using a hybrid method to 
ensure consistent methods of calculating and reporting emissions. This 
means that a single facility must choose between using only default 
emission factors or using recipe-specific emission factors for all 
process types; hybrid methods using both default emission factors and 
recipe-specific factors within the same reporting year are not 
permitted. This restriction will enable EPA to analyze emissions and 
trends using a consistent set of data.
Facilities That Manufacture Semiconductors
    EPA is requiring facilities that manufacture semiconductors to use 
a method to calculate and report their fluorinated GHG emissions which 
varies depending on the size of wafers that the facility is 
manufacturing (i.e., whether the facility manufactures wafers measuring 
300 mm and less or greater than 300 mm). This distinction was proposed 
in the April 2010 proposed rule (75 FR 18652). For facilities that 
manufacture wafers measuring 300 mm and less, EPA is requiring the use 
of one of two following methods for calculating and reporting 
emissions, depending on the facility's manufacturing capacity: (1) A 
method for facilities that have an annual manufacturing capacity that 
is less than or equal to 10,500 m\2\ of substrate, and (2) a method for 
those

[[Page 74782]]

that have an annual manufacturing capacity greater than 10,500 m\2\ of 
substrate. A facility's manufacturing capacity (as calculated using 
Equation I-5 of subpart I) is 100 percent of the maximum designed 
substrate starts, expressed as surface area, for the reporting year. 
This distinction in manufacturing capacity was part of EPA's initial 
April 2009 proposed rule (74 FR 16448).
Semiconductor Manufacturing Facilities That Fabricate Devices on Wafers 
Measuring 300 mm or Less in Diameter and That Have an Annual 
Manufacturing Capacity of Less Than or Equal to 10,500 m\2\ of 
Substrate
    Semiconductor manufacturing facilities that fabricate devices on 
wafers measuring 300 mm or less in diameter and that have an annual 
manufacturing capacity of less than or equal to 10,500 m\2\ of 
substrate \8\ must calculate and report their fluorinated GHG emissions 
using the following five process types and sub-types, and the 
corresponding default emission factors presented in Tables I-3 and I-4 
to subpart I:

    \8\ As calculated in Equation I-5 of subpart I, manufacturing 
capacity is 100 percent of annual manufacturing capacity of a 
facility as determined by summing the area of maximum designed 
substrate starts of a facility per month over the reporting period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Plasma etching process type.
 Chamber cleaning process type which includes the following 
three process sub-types:
--In-situ plasma chamber cleaning process sub-type.
--Remote plasma chamber cleaning process sub-type.
--In-situ thermal chamber cleaning process sub-type.
 Wafer cleaning process type.

    Default emission factors are differentiated by 150/200 mm and 300 
mm wafer technologies. The default emission factors were developed 
using the data provided in Table 5 of the report Draft Emission Factors 
for Refined Semiconductor Manufacturing Process Categories (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0927-0073). EPA is using the term ``Tier 2c Method'' to refer to 
this methodology.
    A facility may use directly measured recipe-specific emission 
factors for each individual recipe or recipe that is not a similar 
recipe in lieu of defaults only if the recipe-specific emission factors 
are measured using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines, International SEMATECH 
06124825A-ENG, with limited exceptions.\9\ The facility must 
develop recipe-specific factors for each individual recipe except that 
factors developed for one individual recipe may be applied to similar 
recipes. In a given reporting year, a facility must develop recipe-
specific emission factors only for new recipes which are not similar to 
any recipe used in a previous reporting year. Facilities that choose 
the recipe-specific approach must also aggregate the recipe-specific 
emissions and report the total emissions by process type (plasma 
etching, chamber cleaning, and wafer cleaning). In addition, where a 
facility reports using recipe-specific emission factors, they are 
required to report the film or substrate that was etched/cleaned and 
the feature type that was etched.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See footnote 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A facility that is using a method based on default emission 
factors, but uses a fluorinated GHG for a particular process type or 
sub-type for which default emission factors are not provided in Tables 
I-3 and I-4, must either use utilization and by-product formation rates 
of 0 or, in that particular instance, use directly measured recipe-
specific emission factors measured using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines, 
International SEMATECH 06124825A-ENG, with limited 
exceptions.\10\ The facility must develop and report the recipe-
specific emission factors using the same procedures as discussed in the 
paragraph above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See footnote 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the exception of where default emission factors are not 
provided in the Tables I-3 and I-4 for a particular process type or 
sub-type, a facility must use either default emission factors only, or 
recipe-specific emission factors only for all process types and sub-
types; creating and using a hybrid method is not permitted for the 
reasons discussed earlier in this section.
Semiconductor Manufacturing Facilities That Fabricate Devices on Wafers 
Measuring 300 mm or Less in Diameter and That Have an Annual 
Manufacturing Capacity of Greater Than 10,500 m\2\ of Substrate
    Semiconductor manufacturing facilities that fabricate devices on 
wafers measuring 300 mm or less in diameter and that have an annual 
manufacturing capacity greater than 10,500 m\2\ of substrate (the 
``largest'' semiconductor manufacturing facilities) \11\ must calculate 
and report their emissions using a combination of default emission 
factors and directly measured recipe-specific emission factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ EPA estimates that the largest semiconductor facilities 
comprise 29 facilities out of 175 total semiconductor facilities. 
See the Electronics Manufacturing TSD available in the docket (EPA-
HQ-OAR-2009-0927) for EPA's analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the following four process types and sub-types, facilities must 
calculate emissions using only the default emission factors in Tables 
I-3 and I-4 of subpart I:

 Chamber cleaning process type:
--In-situ plasma chamber cleaning process sub-type.
--Remote plasma chamber cleaning process sub-type.
--In-situ thermal chamber cleaning process sub-type.
 Wafer cleaning process type.

    Default emission factors are differentiated by 150/200 mm and 300 
mm wafer technologies. These emission factors, which are the same 
emission factors as specified for the Tier 2c method, were developed 
using the data provided in Table 5 of the report Draft Emission Factors 
for Refined Semiconductor Manufacturing Process Categories (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0927-0073). EPA is using the term ``Tier 2d Method'' to refer to 
this methodology.
    For the plasma etching process type, facilities must calculate 
emissions using only directly measured recipe-specific emission 
factors. The facility must develop recipe-specific factors for each 
individual recipe except that factors developed for one individual 
recipe may be applied to similar recipes. In a given reporting year, a 
facility must develop new recipe-specific emission factors only for 
recipes which are not similar to any recipe used in a previous 
reporting year. Plasma etching recipe-specific emission factors must be 
measured using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines, International SEMATECH 
06124825A-ENG, with limited exemptions.\12\ Facilities must 
also aggregate the recipe-specific emissions and report the total 
emissions by plasma etching process type. In addition, the facility is 
required to report the film or substrate that was etched/cleaned and 
the feature type that was etched for recipes used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See footnote 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A facility also has the option of using directly measured recipe-
specific emission factors in lieu of default emission factors for the 
chamber and wafer cleaning process types, but only if the recipe-
specific factors are measured using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines, 
International SEMATECH 06124825A-ENG, with limited 
exceptions.\13\ The facility must develop recipe-specific factors for 
each individual recipe except that factors developed for one individual 
recipe may be applied to similar recipes. In a given reporting year, a 
facility must develop new recipe-

[[Page 74783]]

specific emission factors only for recipes which are not similar to any 
recipe used in a previous reporting year. Facilities that choose the 
recipe-specific approach for the chamber and wafer cleaning process 
types must also aggregate the recipe-specific emissions and report the 
total emissions by those process types. In addition, where a facility 
reports using recipe-specific emission factors, they are required to 
report the film or substrate that was etched/cleaned and the feature 
type that was etched.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See footnote 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A facility that is using a method based on default emission 
factors, but uses a fluorinated GHG for a particular process type or 
sub-type for which default emission factors are not provided in Tables 
I-3 and I-4, must either use utilization and by-product formation rates 
of 0 or, in that particular instance, use directly measured recipe-
specific emission factors measured using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines, 
International SEMATECH 06124825A-ENG, with limited 
exceptions.\14\ The facility must develop and report the recipe-
specific emission factors using the same procedures as discussed in the 
paragraph above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See footnote 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the exception of where default emission factors are not 
provided in the Tables I-3 and I-4 for a particular process type or 
sub-type, a hybrid method using both default emission factors and 
recipe-specific factors for the chamber cleaning and wafer cleaning 
process types within the same reporting year is not permitted for 
reasons discussed earlier in this section.
Semiconductor Facilities That Fabricate Devices on Wafers Measuring 
Greater Than 300 mm in Diameter
    Semiconductor manufacturing facilities that fabricate devices on 
wafers measuring greater than 300 mm in diameter, regardless of 
capacity, must calculate and report all of their emissions from 
processes that use fluorinated GHGs (including plasma etching, chamber 
cleaning, and wafer cleaning process types) using directly measured 
recipe-specific emission factors (i.e., an approach consistent with the 
2006 IPCC Tier 3 methodology). EPA is using the term ``Tier 3 Method'' 
to refer to this methodology. In a given reporting year, a facility 
must develop new recipe-specific emission factors only for recipes 
which are not similar to any recipe used in a previous reporting year. 
Emission factors must be measured using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines, 
International SEMATECH 06124825A-ENG, with limited 
exceptions.\15\ Facilities must also aggregate the recipe-specific 
emissions and report the total emissions by process type (plasma 
etching, chamber cleaning, and wafer cleaning). In addition, each 
facility is required to report the film or substrate that was etched/
cleaned and the feature type that was etched for recipes used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See footnote 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    N2O Emissions: Electronics manufacturing facilities must 
calculate emissions of N2O using:
     Requirements for calculating and apportioning gas 
consumption as outlined above for ``Fluorinated GHG Emissions.''
     Production process emission factors for chemical vapor 
deposition and other electronics manufacturing processes using either 
defaults provided in Table I-8 to subpart I or facility-specific 
N2O emission factors based on facility measurements of 
N2O. Emission factors must be measured using the 2006 ISMI 
Guidelines, International SEMATECH 06124825A-ENG, with limited 
exceptions.\16\ Where a facility uses less than 50 kg of N2O 
in one reporting year, rather than calculate emissions using an 
emission factor, they may report the emissions as equal to consumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See footnote 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Heat Transfer Fluid Emissions: Electronics manufacturing facilities 
must calculate and report emissions from heat transfer fluids using a 
mass balance approach.
    Reporting Controlled Emissions from Abatement Systems: Electronics 
manufacturing facilities that wish to calculate and report controlled 
fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions from the use of abatement 
systems must certify that their abatement systems are installed, 
operated, and maintained in accordance with the manufacturers' 
specifications, as well as account for uptime of abatement systems.\17\ 
Facilities must calculate controlled emissions from abatement systems 
using either:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ In the final rule, EPA is defining controlled emissions as 
the quantity of emissions that are released to the atmosphere after 
application of an emission control device (e.g., abatement system).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Destruction or removal efficiencies based on a default 
value of 60 percent. This approach requires certification that the 
abatement system is specifically designed for fluorinated GHG and 
N2O abatement. A facility must support its certification 
that the abatement system is specifically designed for fluorinated GHG 
and N2O abatement by documenting the suppliers 
specifications; or
     Directly measured destruction or removal efficiencies 
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), Version 1, EPA 430-R-
10-003. These destruction or removal efficiencies must be measured at a 
frequency specified by EPA's random sampling abatement system testing 
program (RSASTP).
    Best Available Monitoring Methods. EPA is allowing electronics 
manufacturing facilities to use Best Available Monitoring Methods 
(BAMM) through June 30, 2011 for this source category without 
submitting a request. The owner or operator must use the calculation 
methodologies and equations in the Calculating GHG Emissions section of 
subpart I (40 CFR 98.93), but may use BAMM for any parameter for which 
it is not reasonably feasible to acquire, install, or operate a 
required piece of monitoring equipment in a facility, or to procure 
measurement services from necessary providers. EPA is allowing 
facilities to use BAMM for 6 months based on EPA's experience 
implementing the Final MRR issued in October 2009 and because it has 
determined that some electronics manufacturing facilities may need 
additional time to comply with the requirements in the final rule.
    Facilities wishing to extend the use of BAMM beyond the initial 6-
month period, but no later than December 31, 2011, must submit a 
petition to EPA by February 28, 2011. Requests for BAMM extensions must 
include detailed explanations and supporting documentation to describe 
why it is not reasonably feasible for the facility to comply with the 
required provisions. In general, extension requests must include 
detailed descriptions and evidence that it is not reasonably feasible 
to acquire, install, or operate a required piece of monitoring 
equipment in a facility, or to procure necessary measurement services 
from providers by July 1, 2011.
    Where a facility is required to estimate emissions using recipe-
specific utilization and by-product formation rates for the plasma 
etching process type (i.e., the Tier 2d method) and they are unable to 
develop those factors, EPA is requiring the facility to provide reasons 
why it is not reasonably feasible to obtain, install, or operate the 
needed equipment, or to procure necessary measurement services, before 
December 31, 2011 (in lieu of July 1, 2011) because recipe-specific 
emission factors may be measured at any time during the reporting year. 
These facilities must

[[Page 74784]]

submit a petition to EPA by June 30, 2011.
    BAMM extension requests must also document the facility's efforts 
to comply with the requirements and explain the best available 
monitoring method that the facility will use, should EPA approve the 
request.
    EPA is requiring that if a facility is allowed to use BAMM in 2011 
the facility must recalculate and resubmit 2011 emissions with their 
report for the 2012 reporting year (to be submitted in 2013). For 
example, such a facility having been granted BAMM may use a default 
etch emission factor to calculate and report its 2011 emissions. This 
facility must then recalculate and report its 2011 emissions with its 
2012 report. Where a facility is allowed to use BAMM for apportioning 
gas consumption it is not required to verify its 2011 engineering model 
with its recalculated report.
    EPA does not anticipate approving the use of BAMM beyond December 
31, 2011; however, EPA reserves the right to approve any such requests 
submitted by June 30, 2011 for unique and extreme circumstances which 
include safety, technical infeasibility, or inconsistency with other 
local, State or Federal regulations. Facilities requesting BAMM past 
December 31, 2011 would have to submit similar documentation to support 
the request as was required for BAMM requests in 2011. In addition, 
these facilities would be required to describe the unique and extreme 
circumstances which necessitate the extended use of BAMM. Facilities 
allowed to use BAMM through 2012 would be required to recalculate and 
resubmit their 2012 emissions. The recalculated emissions must be 
reported with the 2013 report (submitted in 2014). Where a facility is 
allowed to use BAMM for apportioning gas consumption it is not required 
to verify its 2012 engineering model with its recalculated report.
    Data Reporting. In addition to the information required to be 
reported by the General Provisions (40 CFR 98.3(c)), reporters must 
annually submit additional data used to calculate GHG emissions and 
consumption. A list of the specific data to be reported for this source 
category is contained in 40 CFR 98.96.
    Recordkeeping. In addition to the records required by the General 
Provisions (40 CFR 98.3(g)), reporters must keep records of additional 
data used to calculate GHG emissions and consumption. A list of 
specific records that must be retained for this source category is 
included in 40 CFR 98.97.
2. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal
    The major changes in this rule since the April 2010 proposal are 
identified in the following list. The rationales for these, and the 
identification of and rationale for other significant changes to the 
proposed rule can be found below or in ``Mandatory Greenhouse Gas 
Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments, Subpart I: 
Electronics Manufacturing'' (available in the docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-
0927). Relevant comments on EPA's initial April 2009 proposal for 
electronics manufacturing are included below or in the Response to 
Comment Document. In addition to the changes identified below, EPA 
reorganized sections of the proposed regulatory text and made editorial 
changes to improve clarity and readability.
    Definition of the source category:
     EPA has clarified that semiconductors include, among 
others, light-emitting diodes (LEDs). As explained in more detail in 
``Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public 
Comments, Subpart I: Electronics Manufacturing,'' (available in the 
docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927), LEDs are a semiconductor light source. 
When a LED is switched on, electrons are able to recombine with holes 
within the device, releasing energy in the form of light whose color is 
governed by the nature of the semiconductor. Many LEDs are manufactured 
on a wafer (usually different than silicon) using methods that are 
similar to the manufacture of integrated circuits.
    Reporting threshold:
     EPA has clarified what manufacturing capacity of a 
facility means by providing a new equation (Equation I-5 of this rule) 
in the final rule that specifies manufacturing capacity is 100 percent 
of annual manufacturing capacity of a facility as determined by summing 
the area of maximum designed substrate starts of a facility per month 
over the reporting period. EPA has also provided a definition of 
maximum designed substrate starts.
    Calculating GHG emissions:
     EPA has revised the requirements for semiconductor 
manufacturing facilities that fabricate devices on wafers measuring 300 
mm or less in diameter to calculate and report fluorinated GHG 
emissions from etching and cleaning process types. In the final rule, 
EPA is requiring these facilities to use one of two different 
methodologies, depending on the manufacturing capacity of the facility.
     EPA has modified the requirement for semiconductor 
manufacturing facilities that fabricate devices on wafers measuring 300 
mm or less in diameter to require those facilities that have an annual 
manufacturing capacity of less than or equal to 10,500 m\2\ of 
substrate to calculate and report fluorinated GHG emissions based on 
five process types and sub-types, as opposed to nine emitting process 
sub-types as proposed in the April 2010 rule. These facilities must 
calculate and report fluorinated GHG emissions from the etching process 
type, the chamber cleaning process type and its associated sub-types 
(in-situ plasma, remote plasma, in-situ thermal), and the wafer 
cleaning process type. The five process types and sub-types are 
differentiated by two wafer technologies (150/200 mm and 300 mm wafer 
size). EPA is using the term ``Tier 2c'' to refer to this methodology. 
EPA is combining default emission factors for 150 mm and 200 mm wafer 
technologies because EPA did not have sufficient measured emissions 
data to establish different factors for these two technologies. For 
each of these process types and associated sub-types, EPA provides 
default emission factors accounting for (1) The mass fraction of the 
input gas that is utilized during manufacturing (i.e., not emitted from 
the process type or sub-type), and (2) the mass of each reportable 
fluorinated GHG by-product formed as a fraction of the mass of the 
fluorinated GHG input gas with the largest mass flow used.
     EPA has added provisions to require the largest 
semiconductor facilities (defined as facilities with annual capacities 
of greater than 10,500 m\2\ of substrate) to calculate and report their 
emissions from the plasma etching process type using directly measured 
recipe-specific emission factors, while using EPA's default emission 
factors for chamber cleaning sub-types, and for the wafer cleaning 
process type. EPA is using the term ``Tier 2d'' to refer to this hybrid 
methodology. All emission factors (utilization and by-product formation 
rates) for the etch processes are required to be measured using the 
2006 ISMI Guidelines, with limited exceptions.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See footnote 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The requirement for semiconductor manufacturing facilities to 
calculate their emissions using process-specific process utilization 
and by-product formation rates (i.e., recipe-specific emission factors) 
was originally proposed in EPA's initial April 2009 proposal (74 FR 
16448). In that proposed rule, EPA proposed to require the large 
semiconductor manufacturing

[[Page 74785]]

facilities to calculate and report emissions from all fluorinated GHG 
using processes using such an approach. Further, in EPA's April 2010 
proposal (75 FR 18652), EPA proposed, as an alternative to the Refined 
Method, to require all semiconductor manufacturing facilities to 
estimate and report using recipe-specific emission factors.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ EPA's ``Refined Method'' as proposed in April 2010 (75 FR 
18652) is based on nine process sub-types under the etching, chamber 
cleaning, and wafer cleaning process types (four etching process 
sub-types, three chamber cleaning process sub-types, and two wafer 
cleaning process sub-types) and EPA-published default emission 
factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     EPA clarified the requirement for recipe-specific 
measurements to facilitate the implementation of the Tier 2d and Tier 3 
methods. EPA provided definitions of ``individual recipe'' and 
``similar'' with respect to recipes. For recipe-specific emission 
factors, rather than requiring each and every individual recipe to be 
measured, EPA is permitting a facility to apply one measured recipe-
specific emission factor to a group of ``similar recipes.'' In a given 
reporting year, a facility must develop new recipe-specific emission 
factors only for recipes which are not similar to any recipe used in a 
previous reporting year. In addition, where a facility reports using 
recipe-specific emission factors, EPA is requiring that they report the 
film or substrate that was etched/cleaned and the feature type that was 
etched.
    Monitoring and QA/QC requirements:
     EPA has modified the procedures by which facilities must 
develop gas consumption apportioning factors. In the final rule, 
facilities must apportion gas consumption using facility-specific 
engineering models based on quantifiable metrics of activity. 
Facilities must verify these models as specified by EPA in 40 CFR 
98.96(c) and document them in their site GHG Monitoring Plans (as 
required under 40 CFR 98.3). EPA will permit the use of facility-
specific gas apportionment models based on quantifiable metrics, such 
as wafer pass or wafer starts, provided the facility documents and 
verifies the model. As part of these new requirements, EPA has added 
definitions for actual gas consumption, modeled gas consumption, 
repeatable, and wafer starts. Further, EPA has clarified that all 
electronics manufacturing facilities must apportion consumption of 
fluorinated GHGs and N2O used at a facility using the 
apportioning methods outlined in the final rule.
     EPA has revised the requirement to recalculate gas- and 
facility-specific heel factors. EPA is requiring facilities to 
recalculate gas- and facility-specific heel factors if the trigger 
point for change out used to establish a gas- and facility-specific 
heel factor differs by more than 5 percent, expressed as a percent of 
the previously used trigger point for change out. To clarify 
requirements to develop gas- and facility-specific heel factors, EPA 
has added a definition for trigger point for change out.
    EPA made this revision in response to comments received on its 
proposal. EPA agrees with commenters that asserted the proposed 
requirement to recalculate the heel factor when the percentage change 
from the original trigger point exceeded 1 percent was too burdensome. 
Please refer to ``Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's 
Response to Public Comments, Subpart I: Electronics Manufacturing'' 
(available in the docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927) for additional 
information on EPA's rationale.
     EPA has added equations specifying how to calculate uptime 
and how to account for uptime in DREs for abatement systems where a 
facility is calculating and reporting controlled emissions. EPA has 
also modified how uptime is calculated by defining an ``operational 
mode'' for abatement systems and removing the reference to SEMI 
Standard E-10-0304\E\, Specification for Definition and Measurement of 
Equipment Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability.
     EPA has modified the Best Available Monitoring Methods 
(BAMM) provisions for subpart I to allow electronics manufacturing 
facilities to use BAMM through June 30, 2011 without submitting a 
request to EPA. Facilities wishing to extend the use of BAMM beyond the 
initial 6-month period, but no later than December 31, 2011, must 
submit a petition to EPA by February 28, 2011 (or June 30, 2011 where a 
facility is requesting the use of BAMM for recipe-specific emission 
factors for the plasma etching process type). EPA anticipates 
facilities will need to use best available monitoring methods only 
under limited circumstances. See Section II.D.1 of this preamble for 
additional information about the BAMM provisions.
    Based on comments received on EPA's proposed rules (i.e., EPA's 
April 2009 and April 2010 proposed rules for electronics manufacturing) 
regarding the complexities perceived in implementing the methods 
contained in the final rule, EPA has concluded that some electronics 
manufacturing facilities may need additional time to fully meet the 
requirements finalized in this rule. However, EPA expects all 
electronics manufacturing facilities will be prepared to fully comply 
with this rule's requirements no later than year-end 2011. Therefore, 
extension of BAMM provisions beyond 2011 would only be granted in 
unique and extreme circumstances which include safety, technical 
infeasibility, or inconsistency with other local, State or Federal 
regulations. For a more detailed discussion on EPA's rationale, see 
``Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public 
Comments, Subpart I: Electronics Manufacturing'' (available in the 
docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927).
3. Summary of Comments and Responses
    This section contains a brief summary of major comments and 
responses. A large number of comments were received on this subpart 
covering numerous topics. Responses to additional significant comments 
received can be found in ``Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: 
EPA's Response to Public Comments, Subpart I: Electronics 
Manufacturing'' (available in the docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927).
    Comment: EPA received a broad range of comments stating that the 
initial and revised methodologies for calculating GHG emissions in 
subpart I were overly burdensome and costly. For example, with respect 
to EPA's revised proposal (75 FR 18652, April 2010), commenters 
asserted that the requirements for apportioning of gas usage without 
the use of ``engineering judgment'' would require the development of 
complex software systems and monitoring of activity data at a level of 
detail that would be costly and time-intensive. In another example, in 
regards to EPA's initial proposal (74 FR 16448, April 2009), commenters 
argued that the direct measurement requirement would result in high 
costs associated with the development of process-specific gas 
utilization and by-product formation factors for the largest 
semiconductor manufacturing facilities.
    Response: EPA considered all of these comments, and evaluated 
alternative methods for calculating GHG emissions for electronics 
manufacturing, controlled and uncontrolled. EPA considered alternative 
methods that would result in reduced burden on industry while 
maintaining or improving the quality and breadth of reported data. EPA 
also considered the gaps in the available emission factor knowledge 
base and has implemented a method to gain additional data to improve 
EPA's efforts to characterize the sector's GHG emissions.

[[Page 74786]]

    EPA has made every effort to reduce burden to the industry while 
maintaining requirements that it has determined are necessary to obtain 
facility-specific emission estimates. For example, based on comments 
received, EPA has revised the gas apportioning method to allow for the 
use of quantifiable metrics other than wafer passes. In the final rule, 
facilities will be allowed to develop apportioning factors based on 
other quantifiable metrics provided the method is described in writing, 
is repeatable, and is verified through comparison with actual gas 
consumption. This approach provides facilities flexibility in the 
choice of apportioning methods and assures a high degree of data 
quality. Additional details on the gas apportioning method are 
described in this Section II.D.3 (Summary of Comments and Responses) of 
the preamble.
    As another means to reduce burden to the industry, EPA is only 
requiring the largest semiconductor manufacturing facilities to 
calculate and report emissions using directly measured recipe-specific 
emission factors, ensuring that burden is commensurate with potential 
to emit. The largest semiconductor manufacturing facilities account for 
nearly two-thirds of uncontrolled emissions while accounting for less 
than 20 percent of all facilities expected to report under subpart I. 
In addition, the largest semiconductor manufacturing facilities are 
only required to directly measure etch process emissions. Etch 
processes are the least understood of the electronics manufacturing 
processes in terms of GHG emissions, and EPA lacks sufficient data to 
establish default emission factors for multiple etch processes. Lastly, 
in the final rule, EPA is also allowing the use of ``similar recipe'' 
emission factors to reduce the number and burden of direct measurements 
required.
    Additional details on steps taken to reduce the burden are 
described in this section II.D.3 (Summary of Comments and Responses) 
and in ``Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to 
Public Comments, Subpart I: Electronics Manufacturing'' (available in 
the docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927).
    In general, while commenters asserted that EPA's proposed 
requirements were too burdensome and costly, comments lacked sufficient 
quantitative detail or substantiation. However, in response to concerns 
that EPA did not fully account for compliance costs in its economic 
analysis, EPA did update its costs estimates to reflect the costs 
associated with the requirements finalized in the rule. EPA has 
concluded that its final cost estimates appropriately account for the 
compliance burden under this rule. For details on how EPA developed its 
final costs for this rule, please see Sections 4 & 5 of the Economic 
Impact Analysis (EIA) (available in the docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927).
Method for Calculating GHG Emissions
    Comment: While some commenters supported EPA's intent for the 
Refined Method to gather representative and accurate facility level 
emissions estimates, they argued that the Refined Method itself was not 
supported for several reasons.\20\ Commenters asserted that the Refined 
Method stemmed from a technically flawed uncertainty analysis and 
apparent misunderstandings of current process realities. Commenters 
also stated that extending the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b etch category 
(``process type'') from one to four refined categories (``sub-types'') 
was not justified given the limited data available for developing 
emissions factors. Several commenters suggested that etch emission 
factors could be developed through another process (i.e., not part of 
the rule) such as through the existing Memorandum of Understanding 
between EPA and the semiconductor industry.\21\ As an alternative to 
EPA's Refined Method, many commenters suggested an ``Alternative 
Refined Method,'' that they argued would achieve greater accuracy than 
the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b method and would avoid uncertainty issues created 
by EPA's Refined Method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See footnote 19.
    \21\ Since 1996, EPA has maintained a partnership with the U.S. 
semiconductor industry, EPA's PFC Reduction/Climate Partnership for 
the Semiconductor Industry. As part of the Partnership, 
semiconductor facilities have committed to reduce fluorinated GHG 
emissions by at least 10 percent below the industry's 1995 baseline 
level by year-end 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ``Alternative Refined Method,'' as described in comments, would 
be comprised of five process types and sub-types, which include: The 
three chamber clean sub-types (remote plasma clean, in-situ plasma 
clean, and in-situ thermal clean), the wafer cleaning process type, and 
one process type for all etch processes. Commenters suggested that this 
method would be superior to EPA's proposed Refined Method in terms of 
accuracy and cost.
    One commenter stated that the use of EPA's Refined Method to 
estimate emissions would result in less accurate emission data as 
compared to the 2006 IPCC Tier 3 Method. This commenter encouraged EPA 
to require the use of the 2006 IPCC Tier 3 method for all semiconductor 
facilities given the need for accurate data and the significant 
emissions from this sector, but argued that at a minimum EPA should 
rely on Tier 3 estimation for ``large facilities,'' as it did in its 
initial proposal.
    Response: In general, EPA agrees with commenters that stated the 
available data as of the proposal was sufficient to establish default 
emissions factors for multiple chamber clean process sub-types, but 
insufficient to support establishing default emission factors for 
multiple etch process sub-types. EPA did not receive enough additional 
data during the comment period to address this insufficiency.\22\ 
Accordingly, EPA is not establishing default emissions factors for etch 
sub-types in this final rule. EPA also agrees with the commenter that 
stated an estimation approach based on the IPCC Tier 3 method would 
result in the most accurate data. However, EPA is mindful of the burden 
that would be imposed by requiring all covered facilities to use an 
approach based on the 2006 IPCC Tier 3 method for all emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ In its proposed rule (75 FR 18652, April 2010), for each 
emission factor for the nine proposed process categories, EPA 
published a range of values. EPA proposed a range of values because 
it had not received sufficient data to select a specific value 
within each range. Based on additional information received after 
publication of the proposed rule, EPA published a Notice of Data 
Availability where it made available to the public draft default 
emission factors for semiconductor manufacturing refined process 
categories (75 FR 26904, May 2010). As of publication of this final 
rule, EPA has not received additional data (i.e., utilization and 
by-product formation rates).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this final rule, EPA is requiring semiconductor facilities to 
calculate and report fluorinated emissions by adhering to one of three 
different emission estimation methodologies, depending on the wafer 
size manufactured and the facility's manufacturing capacity.\23\ These 
requirements are presented in section II.D.1 (Summary of the Final 
Rule) of this preamble and summarized in Table 3 of this preamble. EPA 
has determined that the requirements in the final rule effectively 
balance EPA's objectives with an appropriate level of burden to 
industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ As calculated in Equation I-5 of this rule, manufacturing 
capacity is 100 percent of annual manufacturing capacity of a 
facility as determined by summing the area of maximum designed 
substrate starts of a facility per month over the reporting period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to comments received on EPA's proposed methodology for 
semiconductor manufacturing facilities, EPA undertook another analysis 
to evaluate the uncertainty associated with emission estimation 
methods. Specific information on the analysis can be

[[Page 74787]]

found in the Electronics Manufacturing TSD (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927). In 
summary, results from this exercise showed (a) emissions estimated with 
a Tier 2b method are understated, (b) more facility-level, emissions-
relevant information would permit an uncertainty analysis to be 
performed with more meaningful and robust results, and (c) moving from 
the use of a default factor(s) for etch sub-types to the use of recipe-
specific measurements appears to increase certainty in emission 
calculations. These results support the methodology finalized in the 
final rule.
    Given the current lack of available facility-level gas usage and 
emission information for etching in particular, and EPA's need for 
increased accuracy in emission estimates relative to the 2006 Tier 2b 
method, EPA is requiring that the largest semiconductor facilities 
estimate and report recipe-specific emission factors for all etch 
processes. EPA views the generation of such data as essential to 
improving future efforts to characterize this sector's GHG emissions.
    While EPA recognizes that more than half of the gas consumed in 
semiconductor manufacturing is for chamber cleaning, EPA also 
recognizes that most of the variability in gas consumption, and hence 
emissions, across many facilities is found for recipes used under the 
plasma etch process type. Etch recipes utilize many gases 
(approximately six or more either alone or in combination) with varying 
GWPs. Process recipes vary between facilities because they are a 
crucial part of company competitiveness and innovation.
    While EPA is finalizing the Tier 2c method for some semiconductor 
facilities (i.e., not the largest semiconductor manufacturing 
facilities) and has determined that it is an improvement over the 2006 
IPCC Tier 2b method, EPA maintains that estimating emissions based on 
process sub-types for etch with robust default factors would result in 
more accurate facility-level emission estimates as compared to 
estimating emissions using a single broad etch process type. To this 
end, in future years, EPA may evaluate the recipe-specific emission 
factors received through this final rule to determine whether a 
sufficiently robust data set exists to establish default emission 
factors for plasma etching process sub-types. In the future, EPA may 
consider requiring the semiconductor facilities that will be using a 
default emission factor for the etch process type under this final rule 
to estimate and report emissions using an approach based on multiple 
etch and chamber clean process sub-types similar to the Refined Method 
EPA proposed in April 2010.
    EPA is requiring only the largest facilities to report recipe-
specific emission factors for etching processes, rather than requiring 
all semiconductor facilities to report all etch processes regardless of 
capacity, or requiring the largest facilities to report all process 
emissions using recipe-specific emission factors, because EPA has 
concluded that this approach minimizes burden to industry. Further, 
this requirement ensures that the burden associated with reporting is 
proportional to the magnitude of a facility's potential emissions.
    EPA selected 10,500 m\2\ of substrate as the threshold for large 
facilities because facilities above this threshold are expected to 
account for nearly two-thirds of uncontrolled emissions while 
accounting for less than 20 percent of all facilities expected to 
report under subpart I. Based on EPA's analysis, the expected number of 
the ``largest'' facilities is 29 of the 175 total facilities. EPA 
originally proposed this distinction (i.e., facilities with an annual 
manufacturing capacity of greater than 10,500 m\2\) in its initial 
proposal for semiconductor manufacturing facilities (75 FR 18652, April 
2009). In response to EPA's proposal, some commenters stated that in 
the semiconductor industry, ``large'' facilities do not inherently have 
higher emissions of fluorinated GHGs. These commenters noted that 
beginning with the second generation of 200 mm facilities, transitions 
to NF3 remote cleans and deployment of point of use 
abatement resulted in significantly lower emissions as compared to 
older facilities. In response, while EPA acknowledges qualitative 
reports on second generation 200 mm wafer facilities adopting 
NF3 remote plasma cleans and point of use abatement systems 
as presented in comments, it is unaware of published studies that 
quantitatively document the market penetration of either NF3 
remote plasma source (RPS) or point of use fluorinated GHG abatement 
systems in those facilities.
    In the final rule, EPA is also clarifying what meets the 
requirement for recipe-specific measurements to facilitate 
implementation of the Tier 2d and Tier 3 methods. EPA recognizes a 
facility may employ potentially hundreds of recipes. Therefore, as a 
means to reduce burden for facilities that are required or elect to 
develop recipe-specific measurements, EPA is permitting a facility to 
apply the same emission factor to a group of ``similar recipes.'' In 
this regard, once a facility develops a recipe-specific emission factor 
for an individual recipe, it may apply that emission factor to recipes 
that are similar. This provision allows a facility to measure fewer 
manufacturing processes to develop the emission factors required for 
Tier 2d and Tier 3, thereby reducing burden in comparison to a more 
stringent approach which would require measurements for each and every 
individual recipe used at a facility. As another means to reduce burden 
EPA is clarifying that in a given reporting year, a facility must 
develop new recipe-specific emission factors only for recipes which are 
not similar to any recipe used in a previous reporting year.
    EPA is defining an individual recipe as a specific combination of 
gases, under specific conditions of reactor temperature, pressure, 
flow, RF power, and duration, used repeatedly to fabricate a specific 
feature on a specific film or substrate. EPA is defining similar, with 
respect to recipes, as those recipes that are composed of the same set 
of chemicals and have the same flow stabilization times and where the 
documented differences, considered separately, in reactor pressure, 
individual gas flow rates, and applied RF power are less than or equal 
to plus or minus 10 percent. For purposes of comparing and documenting 
recipes that are similar, facilities may use either the best known 
method provided by an equipment manufacturer or the process of record, 
for which emission factors for either have been measured (see the 
Electronics Manufacturing TSD for supporting information).
Monitoring and QA/QC Requirements
    Comment: Many commenters voiced concerns regarding the burden 
associated with EPA's proposed requirement to measure DRE of abatement 
equipment in accordance with EPA's DRE Protocol, (EPA 430-R-10-003). 
Some commenters also argued the required frequency of measurements in 
the proposed random sampling abatement system testing program (RSASTP) 
is overly burdensome and unnecessary.
    With respect to EPA's requirement to measure DRE in accordance with 
EPA's Protocol, commenters noted few facilities have characterized the 
DRE of installed abatement systems using EPA's DRE Protocol because the 
Protocol was published in 2010. One commenter requested that EPA permit 
the use of measurements made prior to the publication of EPA's DRE 
Protocol as long as the facility can demonstrate the measurements were 
based on test

[[Page 74788]]

methods substantially similar to those outlined in EPA's Protocol. In 
addition to providing comments on the required use of the DRE Protocol, 
commenters also requested that EPA allow the use of CF4 as a 
tracer to determine dilution when an abatement system is in ``low 
fire'' and that EPA permit the use of a Fourier Transform Infrared 
Spectroscopy (FTIR) without the additional use of Quadrapole Mass 
Spectroscopy (QMS).
    In regards to EPA's proposed RSASTP, many commenters asserted that 
the burden placed on facilities to comply with the RSASTP is not 
necessary. One commenter noted that that RSASTAP is an excessive burden 
as large facilities may have hundreds of abatement systems. Further, 
commenters argued that new abatement systems should not be required to 
be tested as long as the facility has installed, operated, and 
maintained the equipment properly. Some commenters asserted that 
testing should be required only for new models of abatement systems 
that are not simply a variant of an existing system used at a facility. 
Other commenters also suggested alternative testing regimes to the 
RSASTP that would place most of the DRE measurement burden in the early 
years of testing.
    Response: In general, EPA does not agree with commenters and is 
finalizing the requirements for measurement of abatement DRE using 
EPA's DRE Protocol and for the testing frequency described in the 
RSASTP.
    EPA is finalizing the requirement that facilities measure abatement 
system DREs in accordance with EPA's DRE Protocol because it will 
ensure that measured DREs are accurate through properly accounting for 
dilution and by meeting EPA's established performance standard (as 
specified in EPA's DRE Protocol). EPA's DRE Protocol is the only 
protocol (i.e., standard measurement method, not guideline) that exists 
to date for measuring DREs of abatement equipment used in electronics 
manufacturing. EPA's DRE Protocol is reliable because it was based upon 
and validated by actual experience and data collection in fully 
operational manufacturing facilities during multiple measurement 
studies performed by EPA in collaboration with industry.\24\ EPA's DRE 
Protocol has been through two public peer review processes over the 
course of two years and is based on input from national and 
international industry experts. For documentation of the comments 
received during these peer reviews, and EPA's response, please refer to 
the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ For more information about the three studies, please see 
the following reports: Developing a Reliable Fluorinated Greenhouse 
Gas (F-GHG) Destruction or Removal Efficiency (DRE) Measurement 
Method for Electronics Manufacturing: A Cooperative Evaluation with 
IBM (EPA 430-R-10-004); Developing a Reliable Fluorinated Greenhouse 
Gas (F-GHG) Destruction or Removal Efficiency (DRE) Measurement 
Method for Electronics Manufacturing: A Cooperative Evaluation with 
NEC Electronics, Inc. (EPA 430-R-10-005); and Developing a Reliable 
Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas (F-GHG) Destruction or Removal Efficiency 
(DRE) Measurement Method for Electronics Manufacturing: A 
Cooperative Evaluation with Qimonda (EPA 430-R-08-017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is important to clarify that EPA is not specifically prohibiting 
the use of previously measured DREs; a facility may use previously 
measured DREs provided the facility can demonstrate that the 
measurements were made in accordance with EPA's DRE Protocol. EPA's DRE 
Protocol permits flexibility in measurement practices provided the 
measurements achieve a performance standard that, among other things, 
ensures dilution is properly measured.
    EPA does not wholly prohibit the use of CF4 as a tracer 
in the DRE Protocol. Specifically, with respect to measuring systems 
that do not abate CF4 and/or SF6, EPA's DRE 
Protocol states, ``In such systems, CF4 or SF6 
can be used in place of an inert gas since their DREs are zero percent. 
Table 2 of the Protocol provides a list of acceptable gases for 
measuring total abatement system flows, along with their use 
conditions.'' As discussed in this excerpt, EPA's DRE Protocol does not 
permit the use of either CF4 or SF6 as tracer 
gases in abatement systems designed to abate these gases. Additionally, 
EPA prohibits use of CF4 as a tracer in fluorinated GHG 
abatement systems operating in ``low fire'' because reviewers of early 
drafts of EPA's DRE Protocol made repeated claims that one could not be 
certain some abatement was not occurring.
    EPA does not agree with commenters who suggested that the use of 
only an FTIR and not a QMS to measure dilution, and hence DREs, should 
always be permitted. The DRE Protocol permits the use of an FTIR in 
place of a QMS when tracer gases, such as CF4 and 
SF6, are used in place of an inert gas to measure dilution 
(provided the abatement system which is being tested does not abate the 
tracer gas (CF4 or SF6)). The DRE Protocol does 
not permit, however, the use of an FTIR in place of a QMS for measuring 
dilution with tracers that are inert because while a method that uses 
FTIR-measurable gases may become available, EPA is not aware of robust 
measurements that demonstrate such a method.
    With respect to EPA's requirement to measure DREs with the 
frequency prescribed in the RSASTP, EPA does not agree with commenters 
who suggested the RSASTP is burdensome and unnecessary. Commenters did 
not provide EPA sufficient information or data to support their claim 
that the RSASTP is unnecessary. As described below, the RSASTP provides 
a much less burdensome device measurement scheme when compared to 
requiring a facility to test all abatement systems used annually, but 
still allows EPA to ensure a facility has measured DREs accurately and 
at least once every five years.
    EPA considered commenters' concerns about the RSASTP and EPA does 
not agree with commenters who state that new abatement systems should 
not be required to be tested as long as the facility has installed, 
operated, and maintained the equipment properly. Abatement manufacturer 
specified installation, operation and maintenance practices are based 
upon the testing and development of abatement systems in controlled 
settings. When using these systems in actual facility settings, 
ensuring the proper installation, operation, and maintenance of 
abatement systems may not always be a means to guarantee that the 
abatement system will run exactly as abatement manufacturers intended, 
or that the manufacturer supplied DRE will be achieved. However, EPA is 
maintaining the requirement for facilities to properly install, 
operate, and maintain abatement systems according to system 
manufacturer specifications. This practice is expected to reduce the 
likelihood of inaccurate estimations of DREs.
    Even if abatement systems rely on the same operating principle 
(e.g., thermal oxidation) and are used to abate the same gases, their 
performance can vary depending on their operation and maintenance. 
Thus, 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).
    EPA has concluded that there is a need for gradually testing all of 
the abatement systems within a class, and for retesting individual 
abatement systems over time. As EPA stated in the preamble to the April 
2010 proposed rule (75 FR 18652), some fluorinated GHGs, such as 
CF4, are harder to destroy than others; thus, the 
performance of abatement systems with one fluorinated GHG cannot 
necessarily be assumed to

[[Page 74789]]

apply to other fluorinated GHGs. 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.\25\ As stated by many commenters, facilities 
develop and ultimately use new processes potentially every year, and 
the parameters of these processes vary. To this end, by requiring the 
gradual testing and retesting of abatement systems over time through 
the RSASTP, EPA can ensure properly measured DREs and DRE class 
averages used at a facility will accurately reflect controlled 
emissions. In addition, through the use of the RSASTP, EPA is reducing 
burden, for instance, for facilities that continually modify their 
processes. EPA is basing the RSASTP around classes defined as abatement 
systems grouped by manufacturer model number(s) and by the gas which 
the system is used to abate; varying process parameters, such as flows, 
temperature and exhaust composition do not factor into the requirements 
of the RSASTP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Beu, L. (2005). ``Reduction of Perfluorocarbon (PFC) 
Emissions: 2005 State-of-the-Technology Report'', 
TT0510469AENG, International SEMATECH Manufacturing 
Initiative (ISMI), December 2005. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/highgwp/semiconductor-pfc/documents/final_tt_report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: In general, most commenters supported the inclusion of a 
default DRE value, but opposed EPA's proposed default DRE value of 60 
percent. Commenters argued EPA's proposed default DRE factor of 60 
percent was unreasonably low, in part because the 60 percent default 
factor was based on CF4 destruction data and therefore, 
should not be applied to other fluorinated GHGs. Commenters noted that 
CF4 is the most stable compound and the most difficult among 
all fluorinated GHG to destroy and, as a result, it should be addressed 
separately to avoid significantly overestimating emissions. Further, 
one commenter asserted that the unreasonably low value for the default 
DRE penalizes semiconductor manufacturers who have operated voluntarily 
and in good faith under EPA's MOU and other GHG reduction programs to 
install and maintain control devices.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See footnote 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an alternative, commenters recommend that IPCC and/or abatement 
system manufacturer default DREs should be permitted, and potentially 
discounted by 10 percent to account for differences between field and 
lab certification conditions. Commenters also suggested that EPA 
provide additional default factors for C2F6 and 
other fluorinated GHGs that are easier to abate than CF4.
    One commenter opposed EPA's default DRE value and asserted that 
default DREs should not be permitted at all because a default DRE does 
not capture the potentially high variability in DREs across different 
systems and across similar systems installed at different facilities. 
In addition, the commenter noted that EPA's default value was based on 
only 11 actual measured DRE values. The commenter encouraged EPA to 
require only direct measurement of DREs in accordance with EPA's DRE 
Protocol and disallow any application of a default DRE.
    Response: EPA disagrees with commenters that asserted EPA should 
permit electronics manufacturing facilities to report controlled 
emissions from abatement systems using 2006 IPCC default factors or the 
manufacturer's DRE values, with or without applying a 10 percent 
discount. As EPA stated in the proposal, EPA is not permitting the use 
of the IPCC 2006 default factors or the manufacturer's DRE values 
because once installed, abatement equipment may fail to achieve the 
IPCC 2006 default or 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 up to 10 (Burton, 2007). This understanding is supported 
by industry assessments as presented in Beu, 2005. As EPA stated in the 
proposal, the 60 percent 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.
    EPA is including the option for facilities to use a default DRE in 
the final rule to permit those facilities that have fluorinated GHG and 
N2O abatement systems to calculate and report controlled 
emissions using an approach that is less burdensome than directly 
measuring abatement systems in accordance with EPA's DRE Protocol. The 
default DRE is based on EPA's practical experience measuring the 
performance of abatement systems during the development of the DRE 
Protocol.\27\ Further, for a facility to use the default DRE, they are 
required to certify that their abatement systems are installed, 
operated, and maintained in accordance with the manufacturers' 
specifications, and provide certification that the abatement system is 
specifically designed for fluorinated GHG and N2O.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See footnote 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proud of its extensive collaboration with the semiconductor 
industry via the PFC Reduction/Climate Partnership for the 
Semiconductor Industry.\28\ EPA and its Partners have investigated the 
origins and magnitude of GHG emissions as well as technologies to 
minimize this pollution. EPA does not agree with one commenter's claim 
that the 60 percent default DRE penalizes Partner's facilities. One of 
many important lessons learned by the Partnership concerns the 
challenge of properly measuring and maintaining fluorinated GHG 
abatement system performance. As discussed above, the 60 percent 
default DRE value is based upon EPA's technical experience studying 
abatement systems, properly installed, operated and measured in actual 
production settings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ http://www.epa.gov/semiconductor-pfc/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, EPA does not agree with commenters' suggestion to apply a 
10 percent discount to the manufacturer's DRE values to account for 
differences between field and lab certification conditions. The 10 
percent discount appears arbitrary and was not accompanied by any 
empirical data. To this end, EPA is not permitting electronics 
manufacturing facilities to apply a 10 percent discount to 
manufacturers' DRE values.
    EPA agrees with commenters, in principle, that default DRE values 
could be developed for specific fluorinated GHGs, for example those 
that are easier to abate than CF4. However, EPA does not 
have sufficient DRE data for other fluorinated GHGs that were measured 
using EPA's DRE Protocol and thus assured to properly account for the 
effects of dilution. Further, commenters did not provide any such data 
in their comments to the proposed rule. In future years, EPA may 
consider establishing default DRE values for other fluorinated GHGs and 
N2O using data received from DRE measurements made in 
accordance with EPA's DRE Protocol.
    Comment: Most commenters opposed EPA's proposed procedures to 
account for abatement system uptime. Although several commenters agreed 
that accounting for uptime of abatement systems used at a facility is 
reasonable, some commenters asserted that EPA's proposed procedures may 
not reflect actual practices at most facilities.
    In some cases, commenters stated that tools and abatement systems 
are

[[Page 74790]]

interlocked (i.e., a tool can not be operated if an abatement device is 
not operating). As an alternative, commenters suggested that EPA allow 
facilities to monitor uptime by documenting where abatement systems and 
production tools are interlocked and recording instances when abatement 
systems fail.
    One commenter asserted that EPA's inclusion, in the uptime 
calculation procedures, of SEMI Standard E-10-0304\E\, Specification 
for Definition and Measurement of Equipment Reliability, Availability, 
and Maintainability was incorrect. The commenter noted that the SEMI 
Standard E-10-0304\E\ does not include the concept of co-dependent 
uptime of different equipment in any of its metrics. As a result, the 
commenter urged EPA to remove the reference to the SEMI standard and to 
define the appropriate calculation and its individual terms in the 
regulation unless EPA determines that one of the SEMI E-10-0304\E\ 
formulas may in fact be used.
    Response: EPA took into consideration all concerns from commenters 
about the methods by which EPA proposed to calculate uptime of 
abatement systems. In response, EPA has modified the procedures 
required for monitoring and accounting for uptime by removing reference 
to SEMI E-10-0304\E\ because EPA agrees with the commenter that SEMI E-
10-0304\E\ does not fit appropriately in this rule. To this end, the 
final rule allows a facility to calculate an abatement system's uptime 
by taking the ratio of (1) The total time during which the abatement 
system is in an operational mode with fluorinated GHGs or 
N2O flowing through production process tool(s) connected to 
that abatement system, to (2) the total time during which fluorinated 
GHGs or N2O are flowing through production process tool(s) 
connected to that abatement system. Further, EPA has defined 
operational mode as the time in which an abatement system is being 
operated within the range of parameters as specified in the operations 
manual provided by the system manufacturer. For clarification purposes, 
EPA has also added a discrete equation for calculating uptime into this 
rule. Lastly, also for clarification, EPA has added an equation that 
provides direction for facilities to account for uptime in overall 
facility emissions calculations.
    With respect to the commenter who suggested that EPA allow 
facilities to monitor and track uptime by documenting that tools are 
interlocked and instances in which abatement systems have failed, EPA 
appreciates the comment, but is not modifying the uptime requirements 
as suggested by the commenter. EPA expects facilities with interlocked 
abatement systems should be able to easily monitor and account for 
uptime of abatement systems using the methods provided in this rule. 
Also, EPA is not permitting facilities to use the method suggested by 
the commenter as this would allow the use of multiple methods to 
monitor and account for uptime. Where feasible, EPA would like to 
ensure that facilities are using consistent methods as part of 
estimating emissions because these methods will create a consistent 
basis on which to compare industry emissions and will also reduce EPA's 
administrative burden. Lastly, EPA is requiring detailed monitoring and 
reporting of uptime because this information will allow EPA to carry 
out emissions verification to ensure the consistency and accuracy of 
data collected under this rule.
    Comment: Many commenters expressed concern with EPA's proposed 
method to apportion gas consumption to the nine sub-types of the 
Refined Method (previously referred to as refined process categories in 
the April 2010 proposal) for semiconductor facilities using a 
quantifiable metric. According to commenters, the proposed method of 
apportioning gas to the nine process sub-types of the Refined Method 
using a facility-specific engineering model based on wafer passes is 
overly burdensome and not currently feasible. More specifically, 
commenters asserted that because many facilities do not currently track 
wafer passes, to do so would impose a burden in the form of capital 
costs for the software needed to collect these data. Some commenters 
argued that it is not feasible to apportion gas to the nine proposed 
process sub-types solely based on wafer pass information. For example, 
one commenter noted that when one recipe is used to etch multiple films 
in one wafer pass, emissions from the use of that one recipe would fall 
under multiple process sub-types for etch (which were based on film 
type). The commenter further stated that because tools do not, and can 
not, track how much of each gas in the recipe was specifically used for 
each film etched in that one wafer pass, it is not feasible in this 
situation to apportion gas based on wafer pass.
    In most cases, commenters provided alternative methods for 
apportioning gas consumption. For example, some commenters suggested 
more flexible methods in which the apportioning is based on at least 
one quantifiable indicator and engineering knowledge. Commenters also 
asserted that apportionment should be determined by the facility and 
that EPA should not prescribe specific quantifiable indicators for 
apportioning gas consumption in the final rule.
    Response: EPA appreciates the concerns raised by commenters about 
EPA's proposed method to apportion facility gas consumption. EPA is 
sensitive to the burden imposed by the rule and seeks to minimize it 
when possible without compromising the accuracy of reported emission 
estimates.
    Apportioning gas consumption to process types, process sub-types, 
or recipes, as defined in 40 CFR 98.98, regardless of the type of 
electronics manufacturing facility, is an essential part of the 
emission estimation methodology required by EPA in this subpart. 
Apportionment is required because emission factors are for specific 
process types, process sub-types, or recipes, and are based on 
knowledge of the amount of gas consumed. Requiring facilities to 
apportion gas consumption based on a metric that is quantifiable and 
measurable (a metric that is proportional to gas usage) is necessary 
for EPA to ensure that methods by which gas is apportioned, and hence 
emissions are estimated, are verifiable and accurate.
    In the final rule, to effectively balance commenters' concerns 
about burden and feasibility with EPA's objectives, EPA has decided to 
permit the use of facility-specific engineering models based on a 
quantifiable metric selected by the facility, (such as wafer passes or 
wafer starts) to apportion gas consumption. Under this final 
requirement, to develop apportioning factors, facilities must develop 
an engineering model that utilizes measureable process information.\29\ 
EPA is not specifying the quantifiable metric that must be used in 
these models; rather EPA is allowing reporters the flexibility to 
select the most appropriate quantifiable metric on which to base the 
facility-specific engineering model, provided model documentation and 
verification requirements as described below are met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ An apportioning factor denotes the amount of a specific gas 
consumed during a specific manufacturing process relative to the 
total amount of that gas used during all processes at the facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Documentation: As part of recordkeeping requirements, EPA is 
requiring facilities to document, in their site GHG Monitoring Plans 
(as required under 40 CFR 98.3), specific information about their 
facility-specific engineering model, including definitions of 
variables, derivations of

[[Page 74791]]

equations and formulas, and example calculations to ensure apportioning 
factors are repeatable. This information must be updated annually in 
the facility's site GHG monitoring plan. EPA is requiring this 
documentation as a means to verify that facility-specific engineering 
models are developed and then verified and documented each year for 
each facility, and that the apportioning factors developed from these 
models are based on a quantifiable metric. EPA is requiring facilities 
to update model documentation and verification each year to account for 
changes to tools or process at a facility between reporting periods.
    Verification: EPA is requiring facilities to verify their 
engineering models used to apportion gas consumption by demonstrating 
that the results from the model are repeatable \30\ and by comparing 
the difference between modeled gas usage and actual gas usage. EPA is 
requiring this comparison to be made yearly for two different gases, 
one corresponding to the gas used in the largest quantity for etching 
on a mass basis, and one used in the largest quantity for chamber 
cleaning on a mass basis during a reporting period, based on the total 
amount of gas usage measured by a facility. EPA would consider a model 
as verified when the apportioned plasma etching gas usage as modeled 
differs from the actual gas usage by less than or equal to 5 percent 
relative to actual gas consumption, reported to one significant figure 
using standard rounding conventions. This verification requirement only 
applies to the comparison for the plasma etching gas, and does not have 
to be completed for the comparison for the chamber cleaning gas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Repeatable means that the variables used in the formulas 
for the facility's engineering model for gas apportioning factors 
are based on observable and measurable quantities that govern gas 
consumption rather than engineering judgment about those quantities 
or gas consumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA selected a verification standard of 5 percent as a means for a 
facility to demonstrate to EPA that the uncertainty in modeled 
estimates of gas usage does not appreciably affect the uncertainty in 
that facility's reported emissions.\31\ EPA is focusing the 
verification of facility-specific engineering models on etching because 
information received in comments \32\ on the proposed rule and from 
Partner reports from EPA's PFC Reduction/Climate Partnership for the 
Semiconductor Industry show that reportable gases used for etching rank 
second and third in total quantities of usage industry-wide, and have 
the highest emission factors, which together make gas usage for etching 
process types a significant contributor to total facility 
emissions.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Please refer to the Electronics Manufacturing TSD (EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0927) for more details on the verification metric.
    \32\ Refer to comment number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-0131.
    \33\ Although EPA understands that chamber cleaning processes 
require the largest quantities of gas usage, the emission factors 
for chamber cleaning are low compared to etching emission factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To reduce burden associated with verification, in the final rule, 
EPA is requiring that gas usage data for verification purposes be 
collected only for a single 30-day period of operation during which the 
capacity utilization equals or exceeds 60 percent of the design 
capacity. EPA selected a 30-day period for model verification to 
minimize disruptions to normal manufacturing operations while, at the 
same time, establishing a time period that is sufficiently long and a 
utilization that is sufficiently high to be representative of facility 
operations.

E. Fluorinated Gas Production (Subpart L)

1. Summary of Final Rule
    Source Category Definition.
     The fluorinated gas production source category consists of 
processes that manufacture a fluorinated gas from any raw material or 
feedstock chemical, except for processes that generate HFC-23 during 
the production of HCFC-22. Producing a fluorinated gas includes the 
following:
    --Producing a fluorinated GHG as defined at 40 CFR 98.410(b).
    --The manufacture of a chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) or 
hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) from any raw material or feedstock 
chemical, including the manufacture of a CFC or HCFC as an isolated 
intermediate for use in a process that will result in its 
transformation either at or outside of the production facility.
     Producing a fluorinated gas does not include the 
following:
    --The reuse or recycling of a fluorinated gas.
    --The creation of HFC-23 during the production of HCFC-22.
    --The creation of intermediates that are created and transformed in 
a single process with no storage of the intermediates.
    --The creation of fluorinated GHGs that are released or destroyed 
at the production facility before the production measurement at 40 CFR 
98.414(a). However, although such release and destruction do not 
themselves constitute fluorinated gas production, they must be reported 
when they occur during fluorinated gas production.
    Reporters must submit annual GHG reports for facilities that meet 
applicability criteria in the (General Provisions (40 CFR 98.2)).
    GHGs to Report. For facilities that produce fluorinated gases, 
report the following:
     CO2, CH4, and N2O 
combustion emissions from each stationary combustion unit
     The total mass of fluorinated GHG emitted from:
    --Each fluorinated gas production process and all fluorinated gas 
production processes combined.
    --Each fluorinated gas transformation process that is not part of a 
fluorinated gas production process and all such fluorinated gas 
transformation processes combined.
    --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.
    --Venting of residual fluorinated GHGs in containers (e.g., 
returned heels).
    GHG Emission Calculation and Monitoring. Reporters must calculate 
F-GHG emissions for each process as follows:
     Initial Scoping speciation. Perform an initial scoping 
speciation under 40 CFR 98.124(a) to identify all fluorinated GHGs that 
occur in the process. The deadline for completing the scoping 
speciation is February 29, 2012.
     Estimating emissions. There are two methods for estimating 
fluorinated GHG emissions from fluorinated gas production and 
transformation processes: The mass balance method and the emission 
factor method.
     Mass balance method.
    --Accuracy and Precision Requirements. Before using the mass-
balance approach to estimate emissions from a process, you must ensure 
that the process and the equipment and methods used to measure it meet 
either the error limits specified at 40 CFR 98.123(b) or the 
requirements specified at 40 CFR 98.124(b)(8).
     Error limits. Based on one of the approaches described in 
the rule, determine the absolute error and the relative error of using 
the mass balance method to estimate emissions from the process. If 
these calculations show that use of the mass-balance approach to 
estimate emissions from the process will result in an absolute error 
less than or equal to 3,000 metric tons CO2e per year or a 
relative error less than or equal to 30 percent of the estimated 
emissions,

[[Page 74792]]

then you may use the mass-balance approach to estimate emissions from 
the process. Otherwise, you must either comply with the alternative to 
the error limits or use the emission factor (or emission calculation 
factor) method.
     Alternative to error limits. You must ensure that the 
process, and the equipment and methods used to measure it, meet the 
following requirements:
     The process must have a total annual throughput of 500,000 
mtCO2e or less, where the throughput is defined as the sum 
of the CO2-weighted masses of the fluorinated GHG reactants, 
products, and by-products.
     You must measure the masses and concentrations identified 
in the rule at least weekly, and you must calculate emissions at least 
weekly.
     You must measure the masses identified in the rule with an 
accuracy and precision of 0.2 percent of full scale or 
better.
     You must measure the concentrations identified in the rule 
using analytical methods with an accuracy and precision of 10 percent or better.
    --Mass-balance calculation. To perform the mass balance 
calculation, you must track and measure the fluorine-containing 
compounds that are added to or removed from the process, including 
reactants, by-products and products, to determine the emissions in 
terms of fluorine. (Alternatively, you may track the flows of another 
element, such as carbon, as long as this element is contained in all of 
the fluorinated GHGs fed into or generated by the process.) To track 
the fluorine removed from the process and destroyed or recaptured, you 
must either speciate the contents of the streams removed from the 
process or you must use analytical methods that measure the total 
fluorine in these streams.
    --To characterize emissions (i.e., divide them among reactants, 
products, and by-products), you must either assume that all emissions 
consist of the fluorinated GHG that has the highest GWP among the 
fluorinated GHGs that occur in more than trace concentrations in the 
process, or you must possess emission characterization measurements. 
For process vents that emit more than 25,000 mtCO2e per 
year, these measurements must include sampling and analysis of emitted 
streams. For other process vents, these measurements may also include 
previous measurements, provided the measurements are representative of 
the current operating conditions of the process, or bench-scale or 
pilot-scale test measurements representative of the process operating 
conditions.
     Emission factor (and emission calculation factor) methods.
    --For each continuous process vent, perform a preliminary estimate 
of emissions, considering any controls, using one of the methods 
outlined below. For any continuous process vent with estimated 
emissions greater than or equal to 10,000 mtCO2e, you must 
conduct emissions testing to develop an emission factor. For any batch 
process vent, and for any continuous process vent with estimated 
emissions less than 10,000 mtCO2e, you have the option to 
use engineering calculations or assessments to develop an emission 
calculation factor.
    --In the preliminary estimate, account for the demonstrated 
destruction efficiency and expected downtime of the destruction device, 
if applicable. Both the expected downtime of the device and the 
expected activity level for the process must be based on typical recent 
values unless there is a compelling reason to adopt a different value. 
If there is such a reason (e.g., introduction of controls for a 
previously uncontrolled vent), it must be documented in the facility's 
GHG Monitoring Plan. If your process vent emits one or more fluorinated 
GHGs whose GWPs are not listed in Table A-1 to subpart A, you may use a 
default global warming potential (GWP) of 2,000 for these fluorinated 
GHGs, or you may request to use provisional GWPs for these fluorinated 
GHGs if:
     The fluorinated GHGs are emitted in quantities that, with 
a default GWP of 2,000, result in total calculated annual emissions 
equal to or greater than 10,000 mtCO2e for the vent, and
     You possess data and analysis that indicate that the 
fluorinated GHGs have GWPs that would result in total calculated annual 
emissions less than 10,000 mtCO2e for the vent.
    --For the preliminary estimate, facilities may use the following 
methods:
     Facilities may use the Emissions Inventory Improvement 
Process, Volume II: Chapter 16, Methods for Estimating Air Emissions 
from Chemical Manufacturing Facilities. U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, August 2007.
     Facilities may determine the uncontrolled fluorinated GHG 
emissions from any process vent within the process using the procedures 
specified in 40 CFR 63.1257(d)(2)(i), ``National Emission Standards for 
Pharmaceutical Production,'' except as specified in 40 CFR 98.123, 
paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(B)(1) through (b)(1)(i)(B)(4).
     Facilities may use commercial software products that 
follow chemical engineering principles, including the calculation 
methodologies in 40 CFR 98.123, paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(A) and (B).
     Facilities may use previous test results, bench scale, or 
pilot-scale data, provided they are representative of the current 
process operating conditions.
     Facilities may use design analysis based on chemical 
engineering principles, measurable process parameters, or physical or 
chemical laws or properties.
     Facilities may use maximum flow rate, fluorinated GHG 
emission rate, concentration, or other relevant parameters specified or 
implied within a permit limit applicable to the process vent.
    --Emission and emission calculation factors for continuous 
processes: For continuous process vents with emissions, considering 
controls, that are greater than or equal to 10,000 mtCO2e, 
conduct emissions testing to determine the site-specific, process vent-
specific emissions factor.
     If the vent is controlled and annual emissions bypassing, 
i.e., not venting to, the control device are less than 10,000 
mtCO2e, then you may conduct emissions testing after the 
control device.
     Otherwise, conduct emissions testing before the control 
device. You may conduct emissions testing for fluorinated GHG following 
an acid gas scrubber, if there is no appreciable fluorinated GHG 
reduction occurring.
    --For batch process vents and for continuous process vents with 
annual emissions of less than 10,000 mtCO2e, either conduct 
emissions testing or use one of the engineering calculation or 
assessment methods outlined above (except the approach based on maximum 
flow rates, concentrations, etc.) to develop the site-specific, 
process-vent specific emission calculation factor. If and when 
emissions from a continuous process vent meet or exceed 10,000 
mtCO2e (e.g., due to activity increases, process changes, or 
destruction device malfunctions), you must conduct emissions testing 
and develop an emission factor for the vent by the end of the following 
year.
    --Emission and emission calculation factors for batch processes: 
For process vents from batch processes, either perform emissions 
testing as described above or use one of the engineering calculation or 
assessment methods outlined above (except the approach based on maximum 
flow rates, concentrations, etc.) to develop the site-

[[Page 74793]]

specific, process-vent specific emission calculation factor.
    --All processes: Determine the emissions factor or the emissions 
calculation factor using the fluorinated GHG emission rate and the 
process activity rate.
    --The deadline for completing development of emission factors and 
emission calculation factors is February 29, 2012.
    --Estimate annual fluorinated GHG emissions from each process vent 
using the emission factor or the emission calculation factor and the 
actual activity data along with the use and uptime of the destruction 
device.
    --Sum the fluorinated GHG emission for all vents in the process.
    --If using the emission factor or emission calculation factor 
approach, estimate emissions from equipment leaks using EPA's Protocol 
for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates (EPA-453/R-95-017). The equipment 
leak emission estimates may include use of Method 21 for appropriate 
fluorinated GHGs. Alternatively, use a site-specific leak detection 
method that you have validated for the fluorinated GHGs (or their 
surrogates) that occur in the process.
     To establish the destruction efficiency, conduct a 
performance test or use the destruction efficiency determined during a 
previous performance test that meets the rule requirements. For certain 
difficult-to-destroy fluorinated GHGs such as CF4, 
SF6, and saturated PFCs other than CF4, a 
destruction efficiency must be developed specifically for that compound 
or for a more difficult-to-destroy surrogate (e.g., CF4 may 
be used as a surrogate for SF6). For other fluorinated GHGs, 
the destruction efficiency may be developed using any Class 1 compound 
on the Thermal Stability Rankings List.
     For destruction processes, estimate emissions using the 
calculation methods in the rule.
     To estimate emissions from venting of container heels in 
cases where the heels are not recaptured or destroyed, either:
    --Weigh each container upon its return to the facility and before 
venting or
    --Develop a representative heel factor for each fluorinated GHG and 
container size and type and multiply it by the number of containers of 
that gas and size and type vented annually.
     Request to use a GWP other than 2,000 for fluorinated GHGs 
whose GWPs are not listed in Table A-1 to subpart A. As noted above, 
for purposes of the preliminary emissions estimate under the emission 
factor approach, facilities may request to use a GWP other than 2,000 
for fluorinated GHGs that do not have GWPs listed in Table A-1 to 
subpart A. Facilities must submit this request by February 28, 2011.
    --For each fluorinated GHG that does not have a GWP listed in Table 
A-1 to subpart A and that constitutes more than one percent by mass of 
the stream emitted from the vent, the facility must provide the 
identity of the fluorinated GHG (including its chemical formula), the 
estimated GWP of the fluorinated GHG, the data and analysis that 
supports the facility's estimate of the GWP of the fluorinated GHG, and 
the engineering calculations or assessments and underlying data that 
demonstrate that the process vent is calculated to emit less than 
10,000 mtCO2e only when the proposed provisional GWPs, not 
the default GWP of 2,000, are used for fluorinated GHGs whose GWPs are 
not listed in Table A-1 to subpart A.
    --If EPA makes a preliminary determination that the request is 
complete, that it substantiates each of the provisional GWPs, and that 
it demonstrates that the process vent is calculated to emit less than 
10,000 mtCO2e only when the provisional GWPs, not the 
default GWP of 2,000, are used for fluorinated GHGs whose GWPs are not 
listed in Table A-1 to subpart A, then EPA will publish a notice 
including a summary of the data and analysis supporting the GWPs. If, 
after review of public comment on the notice, EPA finalizes its 
preliminary determination, then EPA will permit the facility to use the 
provisional GWPs for the preliminary emissions calculations.
     Best available monitoring methods (BAMM). We are allowing 
facilities to use Best Available Monitoring Methods (BAMM) for any 
parameter that cannot reasonably be measured according to the 
monitoring and QA/QC requirements of subpart L. The owner or operator 
must use the calculation methodologies and equations in the 
``Calculating GHG emissions'' section of subpart L, but may use the 
best available monitoring method for any parameter for which it is not 
reasonably feasible to achieve the following by either July 1, 2011 or 
March 1, 2012 (these dates are discussed further below):
    --Acquire, install, or operate a required piece of monitoring 
equipment.
    --Procure services from necessary providers (e.g., contractors 
specializing in stack testing to support the development of emission 
factors).
    --Gain physical access to make required measurements (e.g., because 
a measurement requires the installation of a port and it is unsafe to 
install the port during process operation).
     BAMM Deadlines. Facilities may use BAMM to estimate 
emissions that occur through June 30, 2011 without submitting a request 
to EPA.
     Facilities wishing to use BAMM to estimate emissions that 
occur throughout 2011 for parameters other than scoping speciations, 
emission factors, and emission characterizations must submit a request 
to EPA by February 28, 2011.
     Facilities wishing to use BAMM to estimate emissions that 
occur throughout 2011 (or in unique or extreme circumstances, until 
after that date) for scoping speciations, emission factors, and 
emission characterizations must submit a petition to EPA by June 30, 
2011.
     Contents of BAMM Extension Requests. Requests for BAMM 
extensions must include detailed explanations and supporting 
documentation to describe why it is not reasonably feasible for the 
facility to comply with the applicable monitoring requirements. In 
general, extension requests must include detailed descriptions and 
evidence that it is not reasonably feasible for the facility to 
acquire, install, or operate a required piece of monitoring equipment, 
to procure services from necessary providers, or to gain physical 
access to make required measurements in a facility before July 1, 2011 
(for parameters other than scoping speciations, emission factors, and 
emission characterizations) or March 1, 2012 (for scoping speciations, 
emission factors, and emission characterizations). BAMM extension 
requests must also document the facility's efforts to comply with the 
requirements and explain the BAMM that the facility will use, should 
EPA approve the request. EPA does not anticipate approving the use of 
BAMM beyond December 31, 2011; however, EPA reserves the right to 
approve any such requests submitted by June 30, 2011 under unique and 
extreme circumstances which include safety, technical infeasibility, or 
inconsistency with other local, State or Federal regulations. 
Facilities requesting BAMM past December 31, 2011 would have to submit 
documentation to support the request similar to that required for BAMM 
requests in 2011. In addition, these facilities would be required to 
describe the unique and extreme circumstances which necessitate the 
extended BAMM.
     We anticipate that facilities will need to use best 
available monitoring methods only under limited circumstances.

[[Page 74794]]

     BAMM for facilities pursuing the emission factor approach. 
For facilities pursuing the emission factor approach for a given 
process, we expect that most activity data is already monitored using 
measurement devices with an accuracy and precision of 1 
percent of full scale or better. However, where this is not the case 
and where it is not reasonably feasible to acquire, install, or operate 
the measurement device by January 1, 2011 (or July 1, 2011), the 
facility would use the currently installed device (or would request to 
use it) through June 30, 2011 (or December 31, 2011).
     Facilities already have until February 29, 2012 to develop 
emission factors and emission characterizations; thus, they would not 
need to use BAMM for these parameters unless they could not complete 
stack testing and parameter development until after that date. In this 
case, if the request for extended BAMM were granted, the facility would 
have until February 28, 2013 to complete emissions testing and develop 
the emission factor or emission characterization for the affected vent 
and process. In the meantime, the facility would use an emission 
calculation factor or emission characterization developed through 
engineering calculations or assessments to estimate 2011 emissions. As 
a condition for any approval of 12-month BAMM during the development of 
emission factors and emission characterizations, we are requiring 
facilities to recalculate and re-submit their 2011 emission estimates 
for the affected processes to reflect the scoping speciations, emission 
factors, and emission characterizations that they complete or develop 
for those processes after February 29, 2012.
     We do not expect facilities to require BAMM for estimating 
emissions from equipment leaks because we are already providing a great 
deal of flexibility in how such leaks may be estimated, including 
allowing the use of default emission factors.
     BAMM for facilities pursuing the mass-balance approach. 
For facilities using the mass-balance approach for a given process, we 
anticipate that the main reason for using BAMM will be an inability to 
meet the error limit due to an inability to acquire, install, or 
operate measurement devices with sufficient accuracies and precisions 
by January 1, 2011. In such cases, facilities will have a choice 
regarding the monitoring method they select to estimate emissions from 
the process under the BAMM provisions. They may use engineering 
calculations or assessments to develop emission calculation factors, or 
they may apply the mass-balance equations to the data they acquire 
using their current measurement devices. Before pursuing the latter 
method, facilities must estimate the relative and absolute errors that 
would be associated with using the mass-balance method to estimate 
emissions based on their current monitoring data. We anticipate 
approving the use of BAMM with the mass-balance method only if those 
errors are less than 50 percent or less than 2,500 mtCO2e 
for 6 months of emissions from the process, respectively. If facilities 
cannot meet these error limits, they should use engineering 
calculations or assessments as their BAMM.
     BAMM for facilities pursuing either approach. Facilities 
requesting BAMM while they prepare to implement either the emission-
factor or the mass-balance approach must explain and document why it is 
not reasonably feasible for them to apply the other approach to 
estimate emissions from the relevant process. Thus, facilities 
requesting BAMM until January 1, 2012 while they prepare to implement 
the mass-balance approach must explain and document why it is not 
reasonably feasible for them to apply the emission factor approach by 
July 1, 2011, and vice versa.
     Destruction efficiencies. We do not anticipate approving 
the use of BAMM for destruction efficiencies for two reasons. First, 
facilities have the option of not reflecting, in their reporting, the 
destruction of fluorinated GHGs for which destruction efficiencies have 
not been demonstrated. Second, it would be difficult to select or 
justify the selection of a provisional destruction efficiency value if 
the destruction efficiency had not been measured for the fluorinated 
GHG at issue (or for a fluorinated GHG that is more difficult to 
destroy according to the hierarchy laid out at Sec.  98.124(g)(1)).
    Data Reporting. In addition to the information required to be 
reported by the General Provisions (40 CFR 98.3(c)), reporters must 
submit additional data that are used to calculate GHG emissions. A list 
of the specific data to be reported for this source category is 
contained in 40 CFR 98.126.
    Recordkeeping. In addition to the records required by the General 
Provisions (40 CFR 98.3(g)), reporters must keep records of additional 
data used to calculate GHG emissions. A list of specific records that 
must be retained for this source category is included in Sec.  98.127.
1. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal
    The major changes since proposal are identified in the following 
list. The rationale for these and any other significant changes can be 
found below or in ``Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's 
Response to Public Comments, Subpart L: Fluorinated Gas Production 
Processes.''
     We are adding a number of clarifications to assist 
reporters in determining when and how the initial scoping speciation 
must be performed. Specifically, the initial scoping speciation 
applicability criteria are applied on a process vent basis rather than 
a process basis; facilities may conduct sampling and analysis on 
process vents or on process streams; and testing methods specific to 
stack testing do not have to be used. Other validated industry sampling 
analysis standards may be used.
     We have added more flexibility and robustness to the mass-
balance approach by:
    --Allowing use of the mass-balance approach with processes that do 
not produce fluorinated GHGs but may nevertheless emit them (e.g., 
processes that transform fluorinated GHGs). The mass-balance equations 
no longer assume that the mass that is lost from the process is emitted 
in the form of the product; instead, the equations express losses as 
emissions of fluorine. To divide emissions among reactants, products, 
and by-products, facilities either must assume that all emissions 
consist of the fluorinated GHG that has the highest GWP among the 
fluorinated GHGs that occur in more than trace concentrations in the 
process, or they must use emission characterization measurements.
    --Incorporating process variability into the error calculation.
    --Providing an alternative to the error limits for facilities that 
do not wish to calculate these limits.
     We have added more flexibility to the emission factor 
approach by:
    --Allowing the use of engineering calculations or assessments to 
develop emission calculation factors for all batch process vents, 
regardless of emissions.
    --Changing the method for determining whether the emissions of a 
continuous process vent fall below the 10,000 mtCO2e cutoff 
that allows the use of engineering calculations rather than stack 
testing. First, we are allowing the use of controlled rather than 
uncontrolled emissions in this determination and are consequently 
eliminating the separate exemption for vents that are 99.9 percent 
controlled.

[[Page 74795]]

Second, where one or more fluorinated GHGs emitted from the vent do not 
have a GWP listed in Table A-1 to subpart A, we are allowing the use of 
a default GWP of 2,000 for these GHGs in the determination rather than 
setting a cutoff of one ton of chemical. We are also allowing 
facilities to request to use a provisional GWP where the facility 
believes that the fluorinated GHG's GWP is less than 2,000 and where 
the difference would reduce the calculated vent emissions from above 
the 10,000 mtCO2e cutoff to below it.
    --Providing an additional two months (until February 29, 2012) to 
develop emission factors, emission calculation factors, emission 
characterizations, and destruction efficiencies.
    --Allowing emissions testing after the control device if the vent 
is controlled and annual emissions bypassing (i.e., not vented to) the 
control device are less than 10,000 mtCO2e. This change is 
expected to reduce the number of situations in which testing of 
hazardous streams on the inlet side to the control device may be 
required, to limit the number of potential sampling ports that may need 
to be installed, and to increase the number of situations in which 
testing of outlet emissions only will be required, i.e., without need 
for additional destruction efficiency testing.
    --For vents from continuous processes with emissions over 10,000 
mtCO2e, summed across operating scenarios, requiring testing 
of only the largest-emitting operating scenario and any other operating 
scenario that (1) emits more than 10,000 mtCO2e through the 
vent, and (2) has an emission calculation factor that differs by 15 
percent or more from the emission calculation factor of the tested 
operating scenario. (In the proposed rule, stack testing would have 
been required for each operating scenario.)
    --Expanding the set of test methods that can be used for emissions 
testing. We are allowing industry standard sampling and analytical 
methods that have been validated using EPA Method 301 or other 
validation methods.
    --Expanding the set of methods that can be used for quantifying 
emissions from equipment leaks. We are now allowing use of the default 
average emission factor approach in EPA's Protocol for Equipment Leaks 
and are allowing facilities to implement their own methods for 
detecting and quantifying fluorinated GHG emissions from equipment 
leaks. Site-specific leak detection methods must be validated and both 
the methods and their validation must be documented in the facility's 
GHG Monitoring Plan.
    --For purposes of quantifying emissions from equipment leaks, 
defining ``in fluorinated GHG service'' as containing or contacting a 
feedstock, by-product, or product that contains 5 percent or more total 
fluorinated GHG by weight.
     We are adding a requirement to monitor and report 
fluorinated GHG emissions from containers when the residual fluorinated 
GHG (heel) is vented to the atmosphere rather than recaptured and 
reused or destroyed. As discussed in the proposed rule and in the 
technical support document, venting of residual gas from containers can 
have a significant impact on the overall emission rate of a fluorinated 
GHG production facility. Estimating such emissions is straightforward 
and is not expected to impose a significant burden on facilities.
     We are adding a one-time requirement to report existing 
data and analysis regarding the formation of products of incomplete 
combustion (PICs) that are fluorinated GHGs during the destruction of 
fluorinated gases. Studies of high-energy processes in the electronics 
industry indicate that PFC PICs may form in significant quantities 
during the destruction of fluorinated GHGs. Once formed, such PICs are 
likely to be very difficult to destroy. We considered requiring regular 
reporting of fluorinated GHG PIC generation and emissions under this 
rule, but we concluded that more information on the nature and 
magnitude of such emissions was needed to determine whether and how to 
craft reporting requirements. The one-time reporting requirement 
regarding PICs is intended to begin addressing this need.
     To clarify that PICs are excluded from reporting under 
this rule (except for the one-time reporting requirement), we are 
amending the definition of destruction efficiency in subpart A to 
express it in terms of the tons of a particular GHG that is fed into 
and exhausted from the device, rather than in terms of the tons of 
CO2e of all GHGs fed into and exhausted from the device. We 
are also deleting the phrase ``including GHGs formed during the 
destruction process'' from the definition of the quantity exhausted 
from the device.
     We are modifying the proposed BAMM provision to allow 
fluorinated gas production facilities to use BAMM to estimate emissions 
through June 30, 2011 without submitting a request to EPA. In the 
proposal, facilities would have been allowed to use BAMM to estimate 
emissions only through March 31, 2011 without submitting a request. We 
are also reserving the right to allow, in extremely limited 
circumstances, facilities to use BAMM to estimate 2012 emissions. We 
are allowing facilities to use BAMM for 6 months rather than three and 
are potentially allowing the use of BAMM beyond 2011 based on comments 
received on the April 12, 2010 proposed rule and our experience 
implementing the final reporting rule issued in October 2009. For a 
more detailed discussion on EPA's rationale, see ``Mandatory Greenhouse 
Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments, Subpart L: 
Fluorinated Gas Production'' (available in the docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-
0927).
2. Summary of Comments and Responses
    This section contains a brief summary of major comments and 
responses. A number of comments on fluorinated GHG production were 
received covering numerous topics. Responses to additional significant 
comments received can be found in ``Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting 
Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments, Subpart L: Fluorinated Gas 
Production Processes.''
Monitoring and QA/QC Requirements
    Comment: A number of commenters argued against requiring emission 
testing of vents from batch processes, stating that the episodic and 
variable nature of batch emissions make them extremely difficult to 
measure accurately. These commenters noted that both the flow rates and 
fluorinated GHG concentrations in batch emissions can change rapidly, 
making them difficult to characterize and quantify correctly, and that 
vents often consist of small diameter process piping where traditional 
gas flow measurement devices are not effective. Commenters specifically 
cited depressurizations and vapor displacements as batch events whose 
emissions are hard to measure because they are characterized by varying 
and very low flows, respectively. They also observed that batch 
processes can last for days, meaning that it could take weeks to 
complete three test cycles, or even one year or more if the process is 
run infrequently. The commenters concluded that due to these concerns, 
other regulations that required estimation of emissions from batch 
processes allowed estimates to be based on a broad range of engineering 
calculations and assessments, which yield accurate emission estimates 
for batch processes. They recommended that EPA provide similar 
flexibility for batch processes in subpart L. Rather

[[Page 74796]]

than requiring stack testing for high-emitting batch process vents, one 
commenter suggested that EPA require the verification of emission 
calculations using ``stack gas measurements that characterize the major 
emission events.''
    Response: In response to comments describing the technical issues 
associated with emission testing for batch processes, we have revised 
the requirements for estimating fluorinated GHG emissions from batch 
processes. In the final rule, facilities with batch process vents are 
required to develop emission calculation factors rather than conduct 
emission testing. As several commenters noted, there are several 
difficulties associated with conducting emissions testing for batch 
processes. Many batch processes have short to moderate batch lengths, 
short emission episode periods, low flow rates, and intermittent flow 
rates, and these characteristics make emissions from batch processes 
difficult to measure accurately. It is generally accepted that emission 
calculations for batch processes yield reasonably accurate results. As 
commenters noted, certain other rules for batch processes in the 
chemical manufacturing industry require emission calculations. Emission 
calculations are required for batch processes in the Pharmaceutical 
NESHAP and in the Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP, and emission 
calculations for batch processes are also laid out for industry in the 
Emissions Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP) guidance and in the 
Batch CTG document. The Pharmaceutical NESHAP and Miscellaneous Organic 
NESHAP do not require emissions testing to determine the emission rates 
for individual process vents from batch processes under these rules. 
(However, emissions testing to demonstrate the control efficiency 
achieved by an add-on air pollution control device on batch processes 
is conducted, based on the worst-case scenario).
    We considered requiring field verification of emission estimates 
for the largest batch emission episodes, but determined that we did not 
have enough information to finalize a requirement that could be 
consistently applied across different processes and facilities. Follow-
up discussions with the commenter that suggested the verification 
testing (as an alternative to full emissions testing) indicated that 
the methods used to verify emissions would almost certainly vary from 
process to process and would be difficult to prescribe. Moreover, it 
was unclear what the criteria for a successful verification would be, 
and how a facility would address an unsuccessful verification. For 
example, if measurements indicated that emissions from a particular 
episode were significantly lower than expected based on engineering 
calculations, the discrepancy could be due either to a process-wide 
overestimate of emissions (perhaps due to overestimated by-product 
generation rates) or to a misallocation of emissions among emission 
episodes. Different responses would be appropriate for addressing these 
two possibilities. Thus, although we strongly encourage facilities to 
test large emissions episodes from batch processes where feasible, we 
are not requiring that they do so in this final rule.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that the proposed Process Vent 
Threshold was too stringent, particularly in conjunction with a default 
GWP of 10,000 for compounds not listed in Table A-1 to subpart A. One 
commenter stated that by assigning this default GWP to all unknown 
fluorinated organic compounds, an emphasis is being placed on compounds 
that are not the focus of the rule. Another commenter noted that since 
many of their compounds are not included in Table A-1 to subpart A, 
they will not be able to use the 10,000 mtCO2e threshold. 
Several commenters requested that they be allowed to develop and use 
their own GWPs for compounds that are not listed in Table A-1 to 
subpart A, following the general guidance presented in various IPCC 
reports.
    Multiple commenters expressed concern regarding the proposed 
destruction efficiency (DE) criterion of 99.9 percent for allowing use 
of engineering calculations and assessments. These commenters requested 
that EPA allow post-control efficiencies for vents that are controlled 
by DEs of less than 99.9 percent. Additionally, the commenter noted 
that when a very low concentration of the analyte of interest is 
present in a stream, a 99.9 percent DE may not be achievable.
    One commenter recommended that EPA modify the threshold to reflect 
a sum of controlled and uncontrolled emissions to allow for situations 
when a destruction device is not in use. One commenter suggested that 
EPA establish a schedule that would require larger sources (greater 
than 50,000 or 100,000-mtCO2/year) to report for the first 
two years, with smaller sources tested in subsequent years as 
technologies improve. Another commenter requested that EPA implement 
the 10,000 mtCO2e threshold and that it be applied as an 
additive threshold amongst all portions of a facility that are covered 
under Part 98. This commenter also noted that the 10,000 
mtCO2e threshold is in accord with the requirements of many 
States and the Western Climate Initiative.
    Response: EPA appreciates the comments and has modified the method 
for determining whether the emissions of a process vent fall below the 
10,000 mtCO2e cutoff below which the facility may use 
engineering calculations rather than stack testing to estimate 
emissions. As noted in the response to the previous comment, we are 
allowing facilities to use engineering calculations and assessments to 
estimate emissions from all batch processes, regardless of emissions; 
thus, facilities must perform the determination only for continuous 
process vents.
    First, we are allowing the use of controlled rather than 
uncontrolled emissions in the determination and are consequently 
eliminating the separate exemption for vents that are 99.9 percent 
controlled. Second, where one or more fluorinated GHGs emitted from the 
vent do not have a GWP listed in Table A-1 to subpart A, we are 
allowing the use of a default GWP of 2,000 for these GHGs in the 
determination rather than setting a cutoff of one ton of chemical. 
Third, where facilities believe that the default GWP overestimates the 
actual GWP and where use of the estimated actual GWP would lower the 
calculated emissions from the vent from above the 10,000 
mtCO2e cutoff to below it, we are allowing facilities to 
request to use a GWP other than 2,000.
    We believe that this revised approach allows reasonable flexibility 
and ensures that the rigor of emission calculations is proportional to 
the likely magnitude of the emissions. While the proposed rule would 
have permitted the use of engineering calculations and assessments to 
estimate emissions from vents that were always 99.9 percent controlled, 
they would have required stack testing for vents controlled below the 
99.9 percent level, even if the emissions from these vents were 
considerably below 10,000 mtCO2e. This final rule 
establishes a more consistent approach to accounting for destruction by 
permitting the use of engineering calculations and assessments where 
controlled emissions fall below 10,000 mtCO2e.
    This final rule also allows for a more sophisticated treatment of 
fluorinated GHGs whose GWPs are not listed in Table A-1 to subpart A. 
Under the proposed rule, facilities would have been required to perform 
stack testing on fluorinated GHG streams that exceeded one ton and that 
included any fluorinated GHG that did not have a

[[Page 74797]]

GWP listed in table A-1 to subpart A, even if this fluorinated GHG made 
up a small fraction of the stream. Implicitly, this assigned a GWP of 
10,000 not only to the GHG without a GWP in table A-1 to subpart A, but 
to the rest of the stream. Assigning a default GWP of 2,000 to GHGs 
without GWPs in table A-1 to subpart A allows streams to be evaluated 
based on a reasonable estimate of the total CO2e rather than 
just on total F-GHG tonnage.\34\ The 2,000 value was selected based on 
an evaluation of all the known GWPs for fluorocarbon F-GHGs as listed 
in Table A-1 to subpart A.\35\ It is intended to be a short-term 
default value. In the long run, EPA intends to establish a broader 
program for evaluating the GWPs of fluorinated GHGs. However, such a 
program will not be established in time to evaluate all of the GWPs 
that must be evaluated for purposes of determining whether or not to 
perform stack testing on process vents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ This would avoid problematic situations that could arise if 
facilities simply switched to a 5-ton cut-off whenever part of an 
emissions stream lacked a GWP. One of these would be having to use 
stack testing on a 6-ton vent stream that consisted mostly (e.g., 
98%) of a fluorinated GHG with a GWP of 50, but consisted slightly 
(e.g., 2%) of a fluorinated GHG with an unknown GWP. Another 
problematic situation would be NOT having to use stack testing on a 
4-ton vent stream that consisted mostly (98%) of a fluorinated GHG 
with a GWP of 3000, but slightly (2%) of a fluorinated GHG with an 
unknown GWP.
    \35\ The average for all of the fluorocarbons in this list was 
2,300. For purposes of estimating the GWPs of fluorocarbons that do 
not appear in Table 1, this average may actually be high because it 
includes the GWPs of PFCs, which have an average GWP of about 7,600. 
EPA believes that most PFCs whose vapor pressures qualify them as 
fluorinated GHGs already have their GWPs listed in Table A-1. The 
average GWP of the fluorocarbons other than the PFCs is 
approximately 1,600. (HFCs have an average GWP of about 2,000, while 
HFEs have an average GWP of about 1,200 to 1,400).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The option to request to use a provisional GWP addresses situations 
where the GWP of 2,000 would significantly overestimate the 
CO2e emissions from a process vent and inappropriately 
trigger stack testing. In general, we expect such situations to be 
rare.
    Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that the analytical 
methods as proposed were too limited or prescriptive. They argued that 
the set of proposed methods, analytical technologies, and detectors may 
not be appropriate for all fluorinated compounds. Commenters 
specifically observed that the prescribed detectors (e.g., ECD) do not 
work well with all fluorinated compounds. Commenters also expressed 
concern that the proposed rule did not address the need to adapt the 
methods to accommodate site-specific issues or safety concerns. The 
commenters recommended that EPA increase the flexibility in the testing 
section, include the same level of flexibility as was proposed for 
subpart OO, allow more methods as alternatives for use in analysis, and 
rely heavily on the facility GHG Monitoring Plan.
    Response: EPA agrees that additional flexibility is appropriate and 
is allowing facilities to use alternative test methods and procedures 
to identify and quantify fluorinated GHGs in process and emissions 
streams. These alternative methods and procedures must be validated and 
documented in the facility's GHG Monitoring Plan. EPA has concluded 
that this change will provide the flexibility necessary to allow 
facilities to develop and apply new analytical procedures that may be 
required to identify and quantify all of the fluorinated GHGs in 
process and emissions streams. At the same time, the quality assurance, 
validation, and documentation requirements for analytical procedures 
will assure that facilities are able to obtain and report accurate 
emissions measurements.
    Comment: Several commenters requested clarification of or changes 
to the error test that facilities must perform before applying the 
mass-balance approach to estimate emissions from a process. Some 
commenters requested that EPA establish an error limit in terms of the 
quantity of reactants fed into the process, an option on which EPA had 
requested comment. These commenters were concerned that the error limit 
that was presented in the proposed regulatory text, which would require 
the error to fall below either 30 percent of emissions or 3,000 
mtCO2e, would disadvantage fluorinated GHG production 
processes with low emissions for which facilities might prefer to use 
the mass-balance approach.
    Response: EPA has carefully evaluated various options to ensure 
that emissions estimates developed using the mass-balance approach are 
reasonably accurate while avoiding placing a burden on facilities with 
low emissions. In our deliberations, we have considered the fact that 
for processes that do not pass the error test for the mass-balance 
approach, facilities may use the site-specific, process-vent-specific 
emission factor approach (PSEF), which is expected to have a relative 
error of less than 30 percent. The availability of the PSEF approach 
argues against allowing use of the mass-balance approach where relative 
and absolute errors are large.
    The approach that EPA proposed, which would require the error to 
fall below either 30 percent of emissions or 3,000 mtCO2e, 
limits the relative error of large emissions and the absolute error of 
small emissions. We anticipate that processes that have large 
throughputs, moderate to large emission rates (2 percent), and 
measurements with good precisions and accuracies will pass this error 
test, because the error will fall under 30 percent of emissions. EPA 
also anticipates that processes that have small to medium throughputs, 
small to medium emission rates, and measurements with moderate to good 
precisions and accuracies will pass the error test, because the error 
will fall either under 30 percent of emissions or under 3,000 
mtCO2e. However, processes with large throughputs and small 
emission rates may not pass the error test even if their measurements 
are highly accurate and precise, because the error will exceed both 
3,000 mtCO2e and 30 percent of emissions.
    The last set of processes described might be able to use the mass-
balance approach if the error test were applied to the ratio of the 
absolute error (numerator) and the reactants or products of the process 
(denominator). In this case, the quantity to which the error test was 
applied would remain constant regardless of the emission rate rather 
than increasing as emissions decreased. However, while such an approach 
would maintain the mass-balance approach as an option for large 
processes with small emission rates, it would do so at the cost of 
reducing the precision and accuracy of the resulting emission estimates 
well below what could be achieved using the emission factor approach. 
For example, consider a process producing 10 million mtCO2e 
of product (well within the range for HFCs) and emitting one percent of 
this, or 100,000 mtCO2e. If error was limited to 0.6 percent 
of the fluorinated GHG product,\36\ the error of the emissions estimate 
for this process could be 60 percent, or 60,000 mtCO2e. 
Using the emission factor approach, the error of the emissions estimate 
would be half this, 30,000 mtCO2e. Thus, EPA is not adopting 
the alternative error test. Instead, EPA is adopting the error test 
that was proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ The 0.6 percent fraction was selected as an example because 
it equates to a 30 percent error for emissions of two percent of 
production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter stated that the relative error associated 
with each measurement is not necessarily known. This commenter also 
requested clarification on when the error test must take place and how 
multiple measurements should be handled in the test. The commenter 
noted that over the reporting year, at least 12 measurements

[[Page 74798]]

would be made of masses and concentrations. If facilities waited until 
the end of the year to perform the error test and then found that the 
process ``failed'' it, they would not have time to pursue the 
alternative of developing and applying process-specific emission 
factors.
    Response: EPA agrees that there may be multiple sources of error in 
the mass and concentration measurements used to estimate emissions 
under the mass balance approach. However, while some of these sources 
of error may not be known or easily quantifiable, the most important 
sources of error can be assessed and quantified. These include the 
error of the measurement devices and the variability of the process. In 
general, facilities would be expected to know the accuracies and 
precisions of their devices (e.g., flowmeters) for measuring mass and 
their analytical methods for measuring concentrations. Facilities would 
also be expected to know how variable their process is and, in general, 
what drives that variability (e.g., catalyst age). Since mass 
measurements are cumulative (that is, the monthly estimates of mass 
flowing into or out of the process should be totals for the month), 
process variability will generally have much more of an impact on the 
accuracy and precision of the concentration measurements than on those 
of the mass measurements.
    If a facility has a record of concentration measurements that are 
representative of the current process (including its full variability) 
and analytical methods, then these concentration measurements may be 
used to assess the variability of the process. The variability in these 
measurements will also capture the random error (imprecision) of the 
analytical method. (The variability will not capture the systematic 
error or inaccuracy of the method, but this is generally expected to be 
smaller than the error associated with process variability.) To 
incorporate this variability into the error calculation, facilities 
must consider the fact that at least 12 concentration measurements 
would be taken over the course of the year.\37\ As explained further in 
the revised technical support document, this can be accomplished using 
the student's distribution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Facilities are required to time their monthly (or more 
frequent) concentration measurements so that they obtain a 
representative set of these measurements over the course of the 
year. For example, if the catalyst is renewed on the first of every 
month, facilities should take measurements at the beginning, middle, 
and end of the month, even if this means that three weeks or five 
weeks rather than one month may elapse between measurements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a facility does not have a record of concentration measurements 
that capture the variability of the process, the facility can assess 
this variability by either (1) relying on engineering calculations, or 
(2) taking several measurements over the first month or two of the 
reporting year. The facility can then incorporate the results of these 
measurements into the mass-balance error calculation. Since these two 
methods for assessing variability may be less reliable than long-term 
monitoring, the facility may wish to pursue the process-vent-specific 
emission factor approach if the results show that the process barely 
passes the error test.
    As discussed above, in response to this and other comments 
regarding the complexity of the mass-balance error calculation, we are 
including in the final rule an alternative set of requirements that are 
designed to ensure that emission estimates developed using the mass-
balance approach are reasonably accurate and precise. Under this 
alternative set of requirements, which can only be used for processes 
that have a total annual throughput of 500,000 mtCO2e or 
less of fluorinated GHG reactants, products, and by-products, 
facilities are required to measure the masses identified in the rule 
with an accuracy and precision of 0.2 percent of full scale 
or better, to measure the concentrations identified in the rule using 
analytical methods with an accuracy and precision of 10 
percent or better, and to conduct these measurements at least weekly. 
The rationale for this alternative approach is discussed further in 
``Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public 
Comments, Subpart L: Fluorinated Gas Production Processes.''
    Comment: Commenters also addressed the issue of the use of 
surrogates in determining destruction efficiency. They noted that in 
the destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) testing that is performed 
at hazardous waste combustors pursuant to 40 CFR 63.1219, facilities 
are allowed to test any principal organic hazardous constituent (POHC) 
within a thermal stability class to establish the DRE of all the other 
POHCs in that class. The commenters argued that EPA should take a 
similar approach in the requirements for determining the destruction 
efficiency (DE) for fluorinated GHGs, clarifying that Class 1 POHCs, 
such as naphthalene, are acceptable surrogates.
    Response: We understand that in the destruction and removal 
efficiency (DRE) testing that is performed at hazardous waste 
combustors pursuant to part 63, subpart EEE, facilities that 
demonstrate 99.99 percent DRE for a POHC within a thermal stability 
class are allowed to assume that 99.99 percent DRE would also be 
achieved for the other compounds in that class and for compounds in 
other thermal stability classes with lower thermal stability rankings. 
This approach is based on the general conclusion that, for POHCs that 
are in the same class and that occur in significant volumes, 
differences in DREs tend to be small, and that compounds in other 
thermal stability classes with lower stability rankings are easier to 
destroy.
    However, it would be a misapplication of the thermal stability 
index to conclude that a combustor that has demonstrated 99.99 percent 
DRE for any Class 1 compound \38\ would also achieve 99.99 percent DRE 
for SF6, a Class 1 compound, and for perfluoromethane 
(CF4). While achieving 99.99 percent DRE for SF6 
ensures 99.99 percent DRE for other Class 1 compounds, the converse may 
not be true. As discussed below, SF6 is substantially more 
thermally stable than other Class 1 compounds (and CF4 is 
substantially more thermally stable than SF6). Note that 
this does not undermine EPA's policy of assuming for purposes of the 
hazardous waste combustion standards that achieving 99.99 percent DRE 
for a Class 1 compound ensures 99.99 percent DRE for other Class 1 
compounds (and, therefore, for all POHCs). Given that SF6 is 
nontoxic and is not a RCRA Part 261, Appendix VIII organic compound for 
which 99.99 percent DRE would be required under the hazardous waste 
combustion standards, the fact that demonstrating 99.99 percent DRE for 
other Class 1 compounds may not ensure 99.99 percent DRE for 
SF6 is irrelevant to that policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Class 1 is the group of POHCs and surrogates with the 
highest thermal stability, meaning they are the most difficult 
compounds to destroy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The theoretical considerations that support the conclusion that 
fluorinated GHGs are extremely thermally stable relate to the high 
energies of the C-F and S-F bonds. These energies make it difficult to 
break the bonds through reaction with oxygen, hydrogen, or the hydroxyl 
radical, the typical means of destroying other class 1 compounds. 
Essentially, the only path available to destroy these fully fluorinated 
compounds in hazardous waste combustors or thermal oxidizers is through 
thermal decomposition at very

[[Page 74799]]

high temperatures.\39\ These temperatures are significantly higher than 
those required for the thermal decomposition of most other class 1 
compounds. For SF6, the thermal stability index indicates 
that the temperature to achieve 99 percent destruction with a two-
second residence time is 1,090[deg]C; for CF4, we project 
that the temperature would be on the order of 1,380[deg]C.\40\ 
Researchers have suggested that CF4 may break down only in 
the flame zone.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ W. Tsang et al make this case for perfluoromethane in 
Tsang, W., Burgess Jr., D. R., and Babushok, V. (1998) ``On the 
Incinerability of Highly Fluorinated Organic Compounds,'' Combustion 
Science and Technology, 139:1, 385-402. An analogous argument can be 
made for sulfur hexafluoride.
    \40\ SF6 temperature is from Appendix VIII ranking of 
POHCs; CF4 temperature is estimated based on the rate 
constant provided in Tsang, p. 393.
    \41\ Tsang, p. 387.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Experimental evidence supports the idea that SF6 and 
CF4 are difficult to destroy. Due in part to the theoretical 
considerations outlined above, several studies have evaluated the use 
of SF6 as a possible surrogate for POHCs in evaluating DREs. 
Most studies have verified that the DRE measured for SF6 is 
likely to be lower than that for POHCs, i.e., that it is likely to 
yield a conservative estimate of the DREs for POHCs under most 
conditions. In one experiment at a full-scale hazardous waste 
incinerator, the investigators found that even at high-temperature 
conditions, SF6 had a DRE that led to emissions 
approximately an order of magnitude higher than those of other POHCs, 
including both class 1 and class 2 compounds. At lower-temperature 
conditions, SF6 had a DRE that was over 100 times lower than 
those of other POHCs.\42\ As noted above, CF4 is even more 
difficult to destroy than SF6. This has been confirmed in 
testing of point-of-use thermal abatement devices used in electronics 
manufacturing, which destroyed CF4 with an efficiency that 
was significantly lower (sometimes orders of magnitude lower) than the 
efficiency with which they destroyed SF6.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ A. Trenholm, C. Lee, and H. Jermyn, ``Full-Scale POHC 
Incinerability Ranking and Surrogate Testing,'' 17th Annual RREL 
Hazardous Waste Research Symposium, EPA Office of Research and 
Development, EPA/600/9-91/002 April, 1991, pp. 79-88.
    \43\ USEPA, ``Developing a Reliable Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas 
(F-GHG) Destruction or Removal Efficiency (DRE) Measurement Method 
for Electronics Manufacturing: A Cooperative Evaluation with 
Qimonda,'' March 2008, EPA 430-R-08-017; USEPA, ``Developing a 
Reliable Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas (F-GHG) Destruction or Removal 
Efficiency (DRE) Measurement Method for Electronics Manufacturing: A 
Cooperative Evaluation with IBM,'' June 2009, EPA 430-R-10-004; and 
USEPA, ``Developing a Reliable Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas (F-GHG) 
Destruction or Removal Efficiency (DRE) Measurement Method for 
Electronics Manufacturing: A Cooperative Evaluation with NEC 
Electronics, Inc.,'' December 2008, EPA 430-R-10-005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sulfur hexafluoride is ranked fourth in the POHC Thermal Stability 
Index; CF4 is not ranked. Three compounds are ranked higher 
than SF6 (i.e., ranked as having higher thermal stability). 
Hydrogen cyanide and cyanogen are ranked first and second in the 
thermal stability Index, but these POHCs are rarely present at levels 
that qualify them as POHCs. Benzene is ranked third, but it frequently 
occurs as a product of incomplete combustion (PIC) and is therefore 
rarely selected as a POHC for DRE testing. For these reasons, the 
compounds above SF6 in the Index have not been used to 
measure the performance of most hazardous waste 
combustors.44 45 However, at fluorinated gas production 
sites that vent SF6, CF4, or other 
perfluorocarbons to destruction devices, these high-GWP compounds have 
the potential to profoundly affect the actual, CO2-weighted 
destruction efficiencies of those devices. The long atmospheric 
lifetimes of CF4 (50,000 years) and SF6 (3,000 
years) amplify the desirability of accurate measurements of their 
destruction. Thus, using these compounds themselves to measure their 
DEs, rather than compounds that may overestimate their DEs (and 
underestimate their emissions) by an order of magnitude or more, is 
critical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Nonetheless, if a combustor has demonstrated 99.995 DRE for 
any of these three compounds, it is reasonable to assume that it 
would also achieve 99.99% DRE for SF6.
    \45\ If hydrogen cyanide or cyanogens were present in a 
hazardous waste at levels high enough to consider them as principal 
organic hazardous compounds (POHCs), the regulatory authority would 
likely ensue that they were tested as POHCs given that they are 
substantially more thermally stable than other Class 1 compounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other fluorinated compounds are not likely to be as stable as 
CF4 and SF6 because they can be dissociated at C-
H and C-C bonds (which are weaker than C-F and S-F bonds). 
Nevertheless, higher molecular weight perfluorocarbons such as 
C2F6 are still expected to be relatively 
difficult to incinerate.\46\ As is true for CF4, the 
mechanism of destruction is expected to be thermal decomposition rather 
than attack by radicals, although the decomposition temperature will be 
lower than for CF4 due to the fact that the C-C bond is 
weaker than the C-F bond.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Tsang, p. 401.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, EPA is requiring that facilities that destroy 
CF4, SF6, and other PFCs test the DE of their 
destruction devices with the most difficult-to-destroy compound in this 
set that they actually destroy. (This requirement applies if the 
facility wishes to reflect the destruction in its emissions estimates; 
the facility has the option of forgoing testing if it does not wish to 
reflect the destruction.) Specifically, facilities that destroy 
CF4 must test the DE of their destruction device with 
CF4 to be able to apply an efficiency to this compound. 
Facilities that destroy SF6 must test the DE of their 
destruction device with SF6 or CF4 to be able to 
apply an efficiency to this compound. Facilities that destroy higher 
molecular weight PFCs must test the DE of their destruction device with 
the lowest molecular weight saturated PFC that they destroy, a lower 
molecular weight saturated PFC, or SF6 to apply an 
efficiency to these compounds. Facilities that destroy other 
fluorinated GHGs, such as HFCs, may test the DE of their destruction 
device using any class 1 compound in the POHC Thermal Stability Index.
    Comment: Commenters stated that the methods proposed for detecting 
and quantifying equipment leaks are burdensome and as currently 
written, are inappropriate for many fluorinated GHGs. The commenters 
noted that, in their experience in monitoring emissions of VOCs or HAP 
from equipment leaks, such leaks typically make up only a small 
percentage of facility emissions. Several commenters noted that the 
proposed methods are drawn from EPA's Protocol for Equipment Leak 
Estimates and would be used in conjunction with Method 21. Method 21 
was developed to detect and quantify emissions of volatile organic 
compounds (VOCs) from various sources. The technologies that are 
commonly used for quantifying leaks of VOCs do not detect many 
fluorinated GHGs at the sensitivity required by Method 21, and 
detectors that are capable of quantifying leaks of a range of these 
fluorinated GHGs do not meet all of the specifications for detectors 
set forth in Method 21, including, for example, probe diameter and 
sampling rate.
    Several commenters requested that EPA allow the use of alternative 
methods to detect and quantify fluorinated GHG equipment leaks. Some of 
these alternatives addressed the inability of Method-21-compliant 
technology to detect fluorinated GHGs. Others addressed the cost of 
screening large equipment sets for leaks, and some addressed both. The 
alternative methods included alternative detection technologies that 
did not meet all of the specifications of Method 21, any EPA monitoring 
approach in use in regulations, soap bubble testing either as

[[Page 74800]]

a screening approach to be followed up with leak quantification or as a 
leak designator in itself, pressure and vacuum tests on batch process 
equipment, various sampling regimens, and alternative equipment 
counting approaches (for example, approaches that focus on rotating but 
not static equipment). One commenter suggested that EPA permit 
monitoring of room exhaust to quantify leaks from process equipment 
inside the room where the facility successfully completes an EPA Method 
204 capture efficiency demonstration. Commenters requested that EPA 
allow facilities to establish and modify their own methods to provide 
appropriate equipment leak estimates for fluorinated GHG emissions, 
provided the methodology is documented in the GHG Monitoring Plan.
    Response: EPA agrees that it is appropriate to give facilities 
flexibility in designing and conducting their leak monitoring. In this 
final rule, we are expanding the set of methods that can be used for 
quantifying emissions from equipment leaks. We are now allowing use of 
the default Average Emission Factor approach in EPA's Protocol for 
Equipment Leak Estimates and are allowing facilities to implement their 
own methods for detecting and quantifying fluorinated GHG emissions 
from equipment leaks. Site-specific leak detection methods must be 
validated, e.g., through comparison with other methods, and both the 
methods and their validation must be documented in the facility's GHG 
Monitoring Plan.
    Three considerations have persuaded us to allow this flexibility. 
First, the equipment and methods for detecting and quantifying 
emissions of fluorinated GHGs from equipment leaks have not advanced as 
far as those for monitoring emissions of VOC from equipment leaks. 
While some fluorinated GHGs can be detected using instruments that meet 
EPA Method 21 specifications, many others cannot. Although instruments 
for detecting leaks of HFCs and SF6 from air-conditioning, 
refrigeration, and electrical equipment have existed for some time, 
most of these instruments do not quantify emissions and/or detect only 
one or two gases. In many cases, therefore, these instruments are not 
capable of quantifying emissions of the broad range of fluorinated GHGs 
that can leak from process equipment in fluorinated gas production 
facilities. For some fluorinated GHGs, the only instruments that are 
capable of detecting and quantifying emissions do not meet all of the 
Method 21 specifications or reach their maximum (``peg'') at relatively 
low concentrations. Thus, EPA is permitting use of monitoring equipment 
that departs from Method 21 specifications.
    Second, information submitted by several fluorinated gas producers 
indicates that equipment leaks account for a very small share of 
facility-wide fluorinated GHG emissions. Although this generalization 
is largely based on experience with VOCs and HAP, two fluorinated gas 
producers have surveyed at least some of their process equipment with 
detectors sensitive to fluorinated GHGs and have found a similar, very 
low, level of emissions. Consequently, if some leak quantification 
methods used to monitor equipment leak emissions under this rule, 
despite initial validation efforts, are later found to have relatively 
poor precisions or accuracies, these errors are unlikely to have had a 
large impact on facility emissions estimates in the meantime. The 
potential costs of experimentation in this area are relatively low.
    Third, the goal of this rule is to quantify fluorinated GHG 
emissions from leaks rather than to regulate them. Hence, leak 
quantification approaches that yield unbiased, if imprecise, estimates 
are preferable to approaches that yield biased (e.g., conservatively 
high) estimates (e.g., the Average Emission Factor Approach). Also, 
approaches that quantify leaks without locating them (i.e., the room 
exhaust test suggested by one commenter) are acceptable in this 
context.
    One area where we are setting a quantitative monitoring standard is 
in sampling fractions and frequencies. In addition to requiring the 
sampled equipment to be representative of the equipment used in the 
process (e.g., in terms of proportions of rotating equipment, etc.), we 
are requiring that at least one third of the equipment for each process 
be monitored each year. (There is an exception for equipment that is 
difficult-to-monitor and unsafe-to-monitor.) This requirement sets a 
consistent standard across facilities and ensures that all equipment is 
sampled over a three-year period.
    One option that we considered and rejected was to require 
facilities to use the Average Emission Factor Approach in the Protocol 
for Equipment Leak Estimates.\47\ This approach requires facilities to 
count the number of pieces of equipment of each type in a process and 
multiply the number of each type by a default emission factor. 
Fluorinated gas producers noted that this approach tends to grossly 
overestimate emissions from leaks, e.g., by a factor of 100 to 1000. As 
noted above, unbiased estimates, even if they are imprecise, are 
preferable to extremely conservative estimates in the context of a 
reporting rule. Thus, although we are giving facilities the option to 
use the Average Emission Factor Approach (which may be desirable in a 
facility for which even this approach will yield an equipment leak 
estimate that is a tiny percentage of overall facility emissions), we 
are not requiring it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ This approach was not proposed but is less burdensome than 
the other three methods in the Protocol, which were proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are requiring facilities to include brief descriptions of their 
leak detection methods in their annual GHG report. After facilities 
have gained experience designing and implementing leak detection 
approaches, we may revisit this issue to identify the approaches that 
are most effective.

F. Electrical Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use (Subpart DD)

1. Summary of the Final Rule
    Source Category Definition. The electrical transmission and 
distribution equipment use source category consists of all electric 
transmission and distribution equipment and servicing inventory 
insulated with or containing SF6 or PFCs used within 
electric power systems. Such equipment includes all gas-insulated 
substations, circuit breakers, switchgear (including both closed-
pressure and hermetically sealed-pressure equipment) electric power 
transformers, gas-insulated lines containing SF6 or PFCs, 
and new equipment owned but not yet installed. Servicing inventory 
includes pressurized cylinders, gas carts, and other containers of 
SF6 or PFC.
    Reporting Threshold. EPA is finalizing a reporting threshold based 
on nameplate capacity of equipment. Electric power systems must report 
if the total nameplate capacity of SF6 and PFC containing 
equipment located within the facility, when added to the total 
nameplate capacity of SF6 and PFC containing equipment that 
is not located within the facility but is under common ownership or 
control, exceeds 17,820 pounds. Hermetically sealed-pressure equipment 
is excluded from the reporting threshold. Electricity generating units 
that have SF6 and PFC containing equipment onsite do not 
need to report GHG emissions from this source category unless the total 
nameplate capacity of SF6 and PFC containing equipment 
located within the Subpart D facility exceeds 17,820 pounds.
    GHGs to Report. Electrical Equipment Users must report the total 
SF6 and PFC

[[Page 74801]]

emissions (including emissions from fugitive equipment leaks, 
installation, servicing, equipment decommissioning and disposal, and 
from storage cylinders) resulting from the transmission and 
distribution equipment and servicing inventory listed in Sec.  
98.300(a). For equipment installation, you must report emissions from 
new equipment or equipment being installed at your facility once the 
title to the equipment is transferred to the electric power 
transmission or distribution entity.
    GHG Emissions Calculation and Monitoring. Reporters must calculate 
emissions using the following system-level mass-balance approach:
     User Emissions = Decrease in SF6 Inventory + 
Acquisitions of SF6 + Disbursements of SF6- Net 
Increase in Total Nameplate Capacity of Equipment

Where:
--Decrease in SF6 Inventory is pounds of SF6 
stored in containers (but not in equipment) at the beginning of the 
year minus pounds of SF6 stored in containers (but not in 
equipment) at the end of the year.
--Acquisitions of SF6 is pounds of SF6 purchased 
from chemical producers or distributors in bulk + pounds of 
SF6 purchased from equipment manufacturers or distributors 
with or inside of equipment, including hermetically sealed-pressure 
switchgear + pounds of SF6 returned to site after off-site 
recycling.
--Disbursements of SF6 is pounds of SF6 in bulk 
and contained in equipment that is sold to other entities + pounds of 
SF6 returned to suppliers + pounds of SF6 sent 
off-site for recycling + pounds of SF6 sent off-site for 
destruction.
-Net Increase in Total Nameplate Capacity of Equipment is the nameplate 
capacity of new equipment, in pounds, including hermetically sealed-
pressure switchgear, in pounds, minus nameplate capacity of retiring 
equipment, in pounds, including hermetically sealed-pressure 
switchgear. (Note that nameplate capacity refers to the full and proper 
charge of equipment rather than to the actual charge, which may reflect 
leakage.)

    The same method must be used to estimate emissions of PFCs.
    Data Reporting. In addition to the information required to be 
reported by the General Provisions (40 CFR 98.3(c)) and summarized in 
Section II.A of this preamble, reporters must submit additional data 
that are used to calculate GHG emissions. A list of the specific data 
to be reported for this source category is contained in Sec.  98.306.
    Recordkeeping. In addition to the records required by the General 
Provisions (40 CFR 98.3(g)) and summarized in Section II.A of this 
preamble, reporters must keep records of additional data used to 
calculate GHG emissions. A list of specific records that must be 
retained for this source category is included in 40 CFR 98.307.
2. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal
    Major changes in this source category since proposal are identified 
in the following list. The rationale for these and other additional 
significant changes can be found below or in ``Mandatory Greenhouse Gas 
Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments, Electric 
Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use--2009 proposal'' and 
``Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public 
Comments, Electric Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use--2010 
proposal.''
     We are providing a definition of facility for subpart DD 
that is based on the system-wide physical collection of transmission 
and distribution equipment between the point at which electricity is 
obtained by an electric power system and the point at which electricity 
is provided to the customer or another electric power transmission or 
distribution entity not under common ownership.
     We are clarifying that the term operator, when applied to 
this source category, does not include entities whose sole 
responsibility is to balance load or otherwise address electricity 
flow. As specified in the General Provisions for part 98, the term 
Operator does include any other person who operates or supervises an 
electric power transmission or distribution facility.
     We are requiring scales to be accurate within +/- 2 pounds 
of true weight. This absolute accuracy requirement is less stringent 
than the 1 percent relative accuracy requirement that was originally 
proposed.
     We are requiring scales to be recalibrated at the 
frequency recommended by the manufacturer rather than annually as 
originally proposed.
3. Summary of Comments and Responses
    This section contains a brief summary of major comments and 
responses. A large number of comments on this subpart were received 
covering numerous topics. Responses to significant comments received 
can be found in ``Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's 
Response to Public Comments, Subpart DD: Electrical Transmission and 
Distribution Equipment Use'' (available in the docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-
0927).
    Definition of Source Category.
    Comment: Nearly all commenters stated that the proposed definition 
of an electric power transmission and distribution facility was 
generally appropriate and consistent with current industry practice of 
system-wide servicing equipment and tracking data. Several commenters 
suggested that the definition of a facility for this subpart could be 
further modified to more clearly define where an electric power systems 
begins and ends as well as who is responsible for reporting emissions 
that occur from electrical equipment that might be owned and serviced 
by multiple entities.
    A few commenters recommended that the term ``facility'' for this 
source category be defined on the basis of corporate-level ownership. 
These commenters stated that a corporate-based facility boundary would 
help ensure that potential emitters of SF6 are covered by 
the rule (by their aggregate emissions falling above the threshold) and 
ensure more accurate emissions reporting while minimizing the burden on 
owners and operators of electric power systems in figuring out how to 
define facility boundaries. One commenter stated that a corporate-level 
facility definition would allow the most accurate and quickest 
determination of whether an entity is above the reporting threshold by 
enabling the entity to review the service and maintenance records for 
equipment that it owns. This commenter also expressed concern over who 
should be considered an operator of an electric power transmission and 
distribution facility, stating that the ``operation'' of an electric 
system relates to entities that coordinate operations across company 
lines to ensure reliability, balance load, and address congestion 
through generation dispatch and system planning.
    Two additional commenters from the electric power industry were 
supportive of defining the boundaries of a facility on the basis of 
equipment operation and thought this would be the most straightforward 
method for determining which equipment to include in their emission 
estimates.
    Response: In developing the proposed definition of a facility for 
this source category, EPA carefully considered definitions based on 
numerous concepts, including corporate-level

[[Page 74802]]

ownership as well as equipment collectively operated by a single 
entity.
    A definition of a facility that mandated corporate-level boundaries 
was not considered optimal in the context of the facility definition 
for this source category. First, there are many non-corporate entities 
in the electric power industry, including municipalities and federal 
government agencies, that do not fit into a corporate-based definition 
of a facility.
    Second, a corporate-based facility definition is not well-suited to 
cases where there are multiple owners and operators of equipment that 
is interconnected or located within the same substation. The monitoring 
methods for subpart DD are designed to measure system-wide emissions 
from groups of equipment and SF6 storage stocks that are 
serviced and maintained together rather than emissions from individual 
pieces of equipment or individual cylinders. Some commenters expressed 
that they service and maintain equipment that they do not own using 
their centralized SF6 gas stocks, which are also used to 
service equipment they do own. In this example, a facility definition 
based on corporate ownership would require emissions for a few pieces 
of the equipment to be estimated separately from the rest of the 
equipment, which would not be a good fit with the system-wide mass-
balance monitoring methods required by subpart DD.
    Instead, EPA has defined facility for this source category to mean 
the electric power system, which comprises all electric transmission 
and distribution equipment insulated with or containing SF6 
or PFCs which is linked through electric power transmission or 
distribution lines, functions as an integrated unit, is owned, 
serviced, or maintained by a single electric power transmission or 
distribution entity (or multiple entities with a common owner), and is 
located between: (1) The point(s) at which electric energy is obtained 
by the facility from an electricity generating unit or a different 
electric power transmission or distribution entity that does not have a 
common owner and (2) the point(s) at which the customer(s) or another 
electric power transmission or distribution entity that does not have a 
common owner receives the electric energy. The facility also includes 
all servicing inventory for this equipment that contains SF6 
or PFCs.
    In addition, EPA has defined Electric Power Transmission or 
Distribution Entity as any entity that transmits, distributes, or 
supplies electricity to a consumer or other user, including any 
company, electric cooperative, public electric supply corporation, a 
similar Federal department (including the Bureau of Reclamation or the 
Corps of Engineers), a municipally owned electric department offering 
service to the public, an electric public utility district, or a 
jointly owned electric supply project.
    Per the General Provisions (40 CFR 98.2-98.4) summarized in Section 
II.A of this preamble, although the reporting requirements are 
applicable to both the owners and operators of a facility, each 
facility must have one and only one designated representative who will 
be responsible for certifying, signing, and submitting GHG emissions 
reports to EPA. The designated representative is to be selected by an 
agreement binding on the owners and operators of the facility. Since 
the definition of operator in the General Provisions (40 CFR 98.6) is 
ambiguous in the context of the electric transmission and distribution 
equipment use source category, EPA has provided a clarification of 
operator for this source category, which is the following: ``Operator 
excludes entities whose sole responsibility is to ensure reliability, 
balance load or otherwise address electricity flow.''
    Definition of Source Category.
    Comment: EPA received comments stating that electrical generating 
units (EGUs) (Subpart D) should not be required to report 
SF6 emissions from electrical equipment located within the 
boundary of their generating facilities as part of the EGUs' facility 
emission reports. This comment is in reference to the requirement in 40 
CFR 98.2(a)(1) requirement that reports for facilities that contain any 
source category (as defined in subparts C through JJ) must cover all 
source categories and GHGs for which calculation methodologies are 
provided in those subparts. Commenters noted that since the mass-
balance monitoring methods in subpart DD are designed to monitor 
emissions at the system-wide level, it would be very difficult and 
time-consuming for an integrated electric power entity that operates 
electrical equipment at both generation facilities and across 
transmission and distribution systems (using the same SF6 
gas stocks) to estimate emissions only for the generation facilities. 
Furthermore, commenters noted that since the definition of an electric 
power system for subpart DD is already inclusive of any equipment 
operated by the electric power system at a generation facility, there 
could be double-counting of emissions for both the electric power 
system and the electricity generation facility.
    Response: EPA considered the potential for double-counting 
emissions from Subpart D electricity generating units and Subpart DD 
electrical transmission and distribution equipment use as well as the 
challenge of estimating SF6 emissions solely from an 
electricity generating unit that is part of a larger integrated 
electric power system. EPA is confirming that an electricity generating 
unit would be required to report emissions associated with the Electric 
Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use source category, but only 
if SF6 and PFC-insulated equipment within the Subpart D 
facility exceeded the reporting threshold for Subpart DD. EPA expects 
that in general, the Subpart DD facility will not independently meet 
this threshold and thus is unlikely to incur the reporting obligation. 
Therefore, EPA does not anticipate double counting as a significant 
issue for electricity generating units covered by other subparts and 
Subparts DD Electrical Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use.
    Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.
    Comment: Several commenters were critical of the requirement for 
weighing SF6 cylinders each time they enter and leave 
storage (40 CFR 98.306(b)2)). Commenters noted the high burden 
associated with such frequent weighing of cylinders and also the lack 
of a perceived benefit since the cylinders already must be weighed at 
the beginning and end of each year for the beginning and end-of-year 
storage inventory.
    Response: EPA agrees that the benefit of weighing SF6 
gas cylinders as they enter and leave inventory does not justify the 
costs of performing this activity. EPA has removed this requirement 
from 40 CFR 98.306(b)(2) and clarified that the QA/QC requirements for 
scale accuracy and calibration apply to cylinders returned to the gas 
supplier and cylinders weighed at the beginning and end of each year 
for the beginning and end-of-year storage inventory.
    Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.
    Comment: Commenters generally expressed agreement that it was 
excessively burdensome to require scales used to weigh cylinders to be 
accurate and precise to within 1 percent of the true weight and to be 
recalibrated at least annually or at the minimum frequency specified by 
the manufacturer, whichever is more frequent (40 CFR 98.304(b)). 
Numerous commenters stated that the recalibration frequency specified 
by the manufacturer would be sufficient, thereby making the annual 
recalibration minimum

[[Page 74803]]

unnecessary. Some commenters also stated that purchasing 1 percent 
accuracy scales would be expensive. One commenter suggested requiring 
scales with accuracies of +/- 2 pounds of full scale, which provides an 
accuracy within or close to 1 percent for the cylinder weights 
typically measured by electric power entities (i.e., between 105 and 
225 pounds including tare weight).
    Response: The 1 percent accuracy requirement was proposed by EPA 
because the mass-balance method for measuring emissions requires 
accurate inputs, and the overall uncertainty of the emission estimate 
rises as the potential inaccuracy of each input increases. However, EPA 
also recognizes that the price of scales does increase as the accuracy 
of the scale increases and that many facilities containing electrical 
transmission and distribution equipment use do not currently use scales 
that are accurate to within 1 percent of the true weight.
    In order to balance the reporting burden with the need for accurate 
mass-balance inputs, this final rule requires the accuracy and 
precision of scales used to weigh cylinders to be based on pounds, 
specifically, to be within 2 pounds of true weight. In addition, scale 
recalibration is required in accordance with manufacturer 
specifications, with no requirement that scale recalibration occur at 
least annually. As discussed further in EPA's Response to Public 
Comments for Subpart DD, EPA believes these adjustments still provide 
data of sufficient accuracy and certainty.
    Data Reporting Requirements.
    Comment: EPA received many comments regarding the inclusion of 
sealed-pressure equipment--which is not intended to leak during its 
lifetime--into the facility-wide nameplate capacity estimates that must 
be reported to EPA under 40 CFR 98.306(a). Commenters recommended 
either (1) A minimum threshold be established to exclude sealed-
pressure electrical equipment from the nameplate capacity estimation or 
(2) alternative methods should be allowed for estimating the nameplate 
capacity of sealed-pressure equipment (rather than performing a bottom-
up inventory of the equipment). The most commonly cited rationale for 
these recommendations was the high burden associated with determining 
the nameplate capacity for each piece of sealed-pressure equipment 
within electric power systems, which can contain thousands of pieces of 
sealed-pressure equipment. Most commenters correctly acknowledged that 
even if a minimum threshold was established for reporting total 
facility-wide nameplate capacity, emissions from sealed-pressure 
equipment would still be captured in the mass-balance monitoring 
methods in 40 CFR 98.304, and therefore establishing a minimum 
threshold for the nameplate capacity inventory would not exclude 
sealed-pressure equipment from reported emissions.
    Response: EPA agrees that the burden associated with performing a 
bottom-up assessment to determine the nameplate capacity of each piece 
of sealed-pressure equipment within an electric power transmission and 
distribution facility is unnecessarily high when compared to the 
benefits of performing such an assessment. As a result, EPA has 
excluded sealed-pressure equipment from the data reporting requirement 
for total facility-wide nameplate capacity existing as of the beginning 
of the year. (Sealed-pressure equipment is also excluded in the 
determination of the reporting threshold.)
    However, the potential for emissions from sealed-pressure equipment 
due to catastrophic events or equipment disposal still makes it 
important to document emissions from sealed-pressure equipment, 
especially for facilities that specialize in electricity distribution. 
EPA has clarified that SF6 arriving inside newly acquired 
sealed-pressure equipment must still be considered as part of the 
SF6 acquisitions input of the mass-balance equation, and 
sealed-pressure equipment that is new or retired must still be 
considered as a change to the nameplate capacity in the mass-balance 
equation. This will ensure that emissions from sealed-pressure 
equipment are still included in the overall emissions estimate.
    Since sealed-pressure equipment is no longer required to be 
included in the total facility-wide nameplate capacity estimate, EPA is 
including distribution miles in 40 CFR 98.306 Data Reporting 
Requirements because distribution miles provide an approximate 
indication of how much sealed-pressure equipment is within an electric 
power transmission and distribution system.

G. Importers and Exporters of Fluorinated GHGs Inside Pre-Charged 
Equipment or Closed-Cell Foams (Subpart QQ)

1. Summary of the Final Rule
    Source Category Definition. This source category consists of any 
entity that is importing or exporting pre-charged equipment that 
contains a fluorinated GHG and also consists of any entity that is 
importing or exporting closed-cell foams that contain a fluorinated 
GHG.
    Any importer or exporter of fluorinated GHGs contained in pre-
charged equipment or closed-cell foams that meets the applicability 
criteria in the General Provisions (40 CFR 98.2(a)(4)) must report 
their GHG emissions.
    GHGs to Report. Importers and exporters of fluorinated GHGs inside 
pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foam report the quantity of each 
fluorinated GHG contained in pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams 
imported or exported during the calendar year. For importers and 
exporters of closed-cell foams that are not the manufacturers of the 
foams and do not know the identity and mass of the fluorinated GHG 
within the closed-cell foams, the report may be limited to the mass in 
CO2e of the fluorinated GHGs imported or exported in closed-
cell foams.
    GHG Emissions Calculation and Monitoring. The total mass of each 
fluorinated GHG imported and exported inside equipment or foams must be 
estimated by multiplying the mass of flourinated GHG per unit of 
equipment or foam type by the number of units of equipment or foam type 
imported or exported annually, as presented in Equation QQ-1 in 40 CFR 
98.433. For importers and exporters of closed-cell foams that do not 
know the identity and mass of the fluorinated GHG within the closed-
cell foams, the mass in CO2e of the fluorinated GHGs must be 
estimated by multiplying the mass in CO2e of flourinated 
GHGs per unit of equipment or foam type by the number of units of 
equipment or foam type imported or exported annually, as presented in 
Equation QQ-2 in 40 CFR 98.433.
    Data Reporting. In addition to the information required to be 
reported by the General Provisions (40 CFR 98.3(c)), reporters must 
submit additional data that are used to calculate GHG emissions. A list 
of the specific data to be reported for this source category is 
contained in 40 CFR 98.436.
    Recordkeeping. In addition to the records required by the General 
Provisions (40 CFR 98.3(g)), reporters must keep records of additional 
data used to calculate GHG emissions. A list of specific records that 
must be retained for this source category is included under 40 CFR 
98.437.
2. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal
    The major changes in this rule since the April 2010 proposal are 
identified in the following list. The rationale for these and any other 
significant changes

[[Page 74804]]

to the proposed rule can be found below or in ``Mandatory Greenhouse 
Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments, Subpart QQ: 
Importers and Exporters of Fluorinated GHGs Inside Pre-charged 
Equipment or Closed-cell Foams (available in the docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0927).
     EPA has revised the reporting requirements for closed-cell 
foams such that, in cases where the importer or exporter does not know 
the identity and amount of fluorinated GHGs inside the closed-cell 
foam, they can report the amount of fluorinated GHGS imported or 
exported on a Co2e basis, based on information from the 
manufacturer.
     EPA has revised the definition of closed-cell foams to 
exclude packaging foam.
     EPA has revised the requirements for importers such that 
the port of entry and country of origin are no longer listed under data 
reporting requirements. These two data elements are now listed under 
recordkeeping requirements.
     EPA has revised the requirement for exporters such that 
the port of exit and countries to which items were exported are no 
longer listed under data reporting requirements. These are two data 
elements are now listed under recordkeeping requirements.
     EPA has clarified that importers and exporters must report 
the number of pieces of pre-charge equipment and closed-cell foam 
imported with each unique combination of charge size and charge type. 
Importers and exporters cannot report the average charge size or most 
common fluorinated GHG used for a particular type of equipment.
3. Summary of Comments and Responses
    This section contains a brief summary of major comments and 
responses. A number of comments on this subpart were received covering 
numerous topics. Responses to additional significant comments received 
can be found in ``Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's 
Response to Public Comments, Subpart QQ: Importers and Exporters of 
Fluorinated GHGs Inside Pre-charged Equipment or Closed-cell Foams'' 
(available in the docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927).
    Comment: Commenters stated that data on fluorinated GHGs contained 
in pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams does not constitute 
emissions data and is thus outside EPA's authority to collect under 
this rulemaking. Commenters also stated that any emissions from these 
equipment types would depend upon ``the ultimate end-use and disposal'' 
of the equipment, activities beyond the reporter's control.
    Response: In this final rule, EPA is issuing reporting requirements 
for importers and exporters of fluorinated GHGs inside pre-charged 
equipment or closed-cell foams. EPA notes that this source category is 
added as a supplier source category under 98.2(4).
    As discussed in the preamble to the October 2009 Final Part 98 (74 
FR 56260), that rule (as well as this action) responds to a specific 
request from Congress to collect data on GHG emissions from both 
upstream production and downstream sources, as appropriate. Therefore, 
EPA has developed reporting requirements for direct emitters of GHGs as 
well as for suppliers of fuels and industrial gases. For fluorinated 
GHGs in particular, the U.S. supply is impacted by the production, 
import, and export of fluorinated GHGs in bulk as well as by the import 
and export of fluorinated GHGs in pre-charged equipment or closed-cell 
foams. EPA has already finalized reporting requirements for suppliers 
of industrial gases (40 CFR 98 Subpart OO) which include importers and 
exporters of fluorinated GHGs in bulk. This action supplements EPA's 
previous action by requiring reporting from importers and exporters of 
fluorinated GHGs in equipment and closed-cell foams.
    In many cases, the fluorinated GHGs contained in equipment and 
closed-cell foams are ultimately emitted by a large number of small 
sources. To cover these direct emissions would require reporting by 
hundreds of thousands of small entities, such as individual homes with 
leaking air conditioning units. To avoid this impact, the rule does not 
include all of those emitters but instead requires reporting by 
importers and exporters of fluorinated GHGs in equipment and closed-
cell foams. For further discussion of the need for upstream reporting, 
see the preamble to the October 2009 Final Part 98 (74 FR 56271).
    EPA has the legal authority to collect data from suppliers, 
including importers and exporters of fluorinated GHGS contained in 
equipment and closed-cell foams. Section 114 of the CAA authorizes EPA 
to gather information from any person who is subject to a requirement 
of the CAA (other than engine manufacturers) or who may have 
information the Administrator believes is necessary for purposes of CAA 
section 114(a) (which in turn references carrying out any provision of 
the CAA). Information from suppliers of industrial greenhouse gases is 
relevant to understanding the quantities and types of gases being 
supplied to the economy, in particular those that could be emitted 
downstream, which will aid in evaluating action under CAA section 111, 
as well as various sections of title VI (e.g., CAA sections 609 and 
612) that address substitutes to ozone depleting substances. A complete 
discussion of these issues, including a discussion of EPA's legal basis 
for collecting information from upstream reporters, can be found in 
Section I.C of the preamble to the October 2009 Final Part 98 (74 FR 
56271) and Volume 9 of the Response to Comments to the Mandatory 
Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule (HQ-OAR-2008-0508).
    EPA notes that some commenters appear to associate comments on 
whether EPA has authority to collect subpart QQ data, comments on 
whether subpart QQ data is ``emission data,'' and comments on whether 
data collected under QQ should be protected as CBI. EPA's authority to 
collect subpart QQ data is addressed above. This action does not 
address whether data reported under this subpart are ``emission data'' 
or whether these data will be treated as confidential business 
information (CBI). EPA published a proposed confidentiality 
determination on July 7, 2010 (75 FR 39094) which addressed these 
issues. See Section II.B of this preamble for more information.
    Comment: Some commenters stated that this subpart is a minor source 
of GHG emissions. 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 ''de minimis'' because the systems are hermetically sealed.
    Response: In this final rule, EPA is issuing reporting requirements 
for importers and exporters of fluorinated GHGs inside pre-charged 
equipment or closed-cell foams. Despite small charge sizes, the 
quantities of fluorinated GHGs imported in pre-charged equipment and 
closed-cell foams are significant because of the high GWP (up to 
12,000) of these refrigerants. EPA estimates that approximately 22 
MMTCO2e are imported by entities subject to this subpart, 
which together comprise the eleventh most significant source of GHGs 
(in carbon dioxide equivalent terms) covered under the Greenhouse Gas 
Reporting Program. (More information on these estimates can be found in 
subpart QQ TSD, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927). Imports of fluorinated GHGs from 
entities subject to this subpart are estimated to account for seven to 
10 percent of the U.S. fluorinated GHG supply, while exports

[[Page 74805]]

are estimated to account for one to two percent.
    A portion of fluorinated GHGs consumed in the U.S. are eventually 
emitted into the atmosphere, as these gases leak from the equipment or 
are vented during service and disposal events. By accounting for all 
chemical flows into and out of the U.S., including in pre-charged 
equipment or closed-cell foams, EPA's approach results in an estimate 
of consumption and ultimately emissions that is more accurate than are 
estimates that do not account for these flows. As commenters note, 
these equipment are purchased and used by a diffuse variety of 
entities. Upstream data gathering is thus the most effective and 
accurate method to obtain this important data. For further discussion 
of the need for upstream reporting, see the preamble to the October 
2009 Final Part 98 (74 FR 56271).
    Comment: EPA received comments from an association representing 
some motor vehicle manufacturers concerning the reporting of 
fluorinated GHGs contained in motor vehicle air conditioners (MVACs). 
The commenter recommended delaying the reporting requirements for MVACs 
or exempting them altogether. The commenter noted that the Final Rule 
on Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Corporate 
Average Fuel Economy Standards (75 FR 25324) (light duty vehicle rule) 
includes incentives for low-GWP refrigerants. The commenter also noted 
that manufacturers are contemplating the use of lower GWP refrigerants 
in MVACs due to the ability to voluntarily generate credits under the 
light duty vehicle rule and EU regulations. Commenters stated that 
exempting or delaying the applicability of the reporting requirements 
would conserve public resources and harmonize existing incentives. The 
commenter also stated that EPA should modify reporting requirements for 
MVAC imports and exports to allow reporting of data by model year, that 
reporting of certain data elements would require reconfiguration of 
existing systems, and that these particular reporting requirements 
should be developed off-line for verification purposes.
    Response: In this final rule, EPA is not exempting importers and 
exporters of MVACs or delaying the applicability of the reporting 
requirements to them. MVACs are a significant source of fluorinated 
GHGs; EPA estimates that currently approximately 18 percent of 
fluorinated GHGs (in carbon dioxide equivalent terms) imported under 
this subpart are contained within MVACs. EPA recognizes there is 
significant interest and research into new low-GWP refrigerants; 
however, the timing and the extent of the MVAC market to make such a 
transition are uncertain. Under CAA section 612, EPA has proposed to 
find the low-GWP refrigerant HFO-1234yf acceptable, subject to use 
conditions, in MVACs (75 FR 53445); however, this rule has not been 
finalized. In addition, although the light duty vehicle rule allows 
automakers to earn additional leakage credits if they use a low GWP 
refrigerant, EPA actually predicted that automakers would meet the 
standards in the Model Year 2012 through 2016 timeframe by reducing 
refrigerant leakage, not by switching to lower-GWP alternatives (see 
the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Rule on Light-Duty Vehicle 
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy 
Standards, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472). Based on these factors, EPA concluded 
there is not sufficient evidence that the transition to low GWP 
refrigerants in MVACs is underway such that the importers and exporters 
of MVACs should be exempt or that the reporting requirements should be 
delayed.
    Reporting imports and exports of MVACs on a model year basis would 
be inconsistent with the reporting requirements for all other subparts 
under 40 CFR Part 98 where EPA is collecting information on a calendar 
year basis. EPA plans to use data collected under Part 98 to support 
analyses of various GHG policy options; therefore, EPA requires the 
data on a calendar year basis to allow meaningful comparison of data 
across and within subparts. Model year reporting for new vehicle and 
engine manufacturers was included under the Final Mandatory Reporting 
of Greenhouse Gases Rule, but those reporting requirements were not 
developed to fit into Part 98. Instead, they were created to fit into 
the existing reporting framework for long-established EPA vehicle and 
engine programs as discussed in Section V.QQ of the preamble to the 
April 2009 Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Proposed Rule (74 FR 
16586). The data collected under subpart QQ of part 98 is needed on a 
calendar year basis, in particular, because EPA intends to analyze and 
compare the data on imports and exports of fluorinated GHGs in MVACs 
with data on fluorinated GHGs imported and exported in other types of 
pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams. EPA also intends to 
compare this data with data on fluorinated GHGs collected under other 
subparts, all of which is collected on a calendar year basis.
    In developing these requirements, EPA recognized that some 
reporting requirements may require the reconfiguration of existing 
tracking systems or the development of new tracking systems. In fact, 
EPA included the development of tracking system as an implementation 
cost in the ``Economic Impact Analysis for the Mandatory Reporting of 
Greenhouse Gas Emissions F-Gases: Subparts I, L, QQ, SS Draft Report'' 
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927). EPA did not receive any comments related to 
these implementation costs for subpart QQ developed under the Economic 
Impact Analysis. This commenter, in particular, did not provide 
specific information related to the burden of reporting data on a 
calendar year basis. Therefore, given the utility of the data and the 
need for meaningful annual analysis, EPA is finalizing the requirement 
to report the imports and exports of fluorinated GHGs within pre-
charged equipment or closed-cell foams on an annual basis.
    Finally, the commenter suggested that the port of entry (or exit), 
the country from which (or to which) items were shipped, and the date 
of import (or export) could be developed off-line for verification 
purposes. These three reporting requirements are similar to those for 
importers and exporters of industrial gases under 40 CFR subpart OO, 
which involves imports and exports of bulk chemicals. However this 
subpart involves more detailed reporting requirements regarding the 
contents of each particular shipment (such as the number of units, 
charge size, and charge type) and not just the amount of the particular 
industrial gas imported and exported. Some types of equipment, such as 
refrigerators, may hold a refrigerant charge of fluorinated GHGs and 
include fluorinated GHG within the closed-cell foams, which will 
further complicate reporting on this shipment. Given these additional 
reporting requirements under this subpart, EPA agrees that the port of 
entry (or exit) and the country from which (or to which) items were 
shipped can be maintained as records and has therefore moved these two 
items to record keeping requirements. However, EPA is maintaining the 
date of import (or export) as a reporting requirement as the date of 
import (or export) is necessary for verification activities. EPA can 
use the date of import or export in combination with other information 
to conduct verification activities. For example, EPA can crosswalk 
information collected under this rule with records maintained by U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection to

[[Page 74806]]

ensure importers and exporters are properly reporting imports and 
exports of pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams.
    Comment: EPA received comments regarding the calculation of 
fluorinated GHGs within closed-cell foams. One commenter stated that 
fluorinated GHGs are emitted from closed-cell foams at varying rates, 
and therefore, the best way to determine the amount of fluorinated GHGs 
contained in closed-cell foams is to require reporting on the total 
amount of fluorinated GHGs consumed by the foreign manufacture at the 
point of manufacture. One commenter stated that the proposed reporting 
requirements would result in a cumbersome process between appliance 
manufacturers and foam suppliers where the foam suppliers would be 
required to disclose proprietary information on the closed-cell foam 
composition to equipment manufacturers. The commenter stated that EPA 
should therefore allow reporting on a C02e basis.
    Response: EPA has finalized the requirement to report only the 
amount of fluorinated GHGs imported or exported within closed-cell 
foams. EPA has added an alternative reporting method for instances when 
the type and mass of fluorinated GHGs within the closed-cell foams are 
not known by the importers and exporters.
    The intent of this rule is to better understand U.S. GHG emissions 
in order to inform policy decisions. This rule does not attempt to 
quantify emissions that occur during the production of materials that 
are eventually imported into the U.S. such as emissions that occur 
during the manufacture of closed-cell foams. Therefore, EPA is 
finalizing the requirement to report only the amount of fluorinated 
GHGs contained in the closed-cell foams that are imported or exported, 
not the total amount of fluorinated GHGs consumed during the 
manufacture of these products. EPA notes that the identity and mass of 
the fluorinated GHGs within closed-cell foams impact the foams' ability 
to insulate and that these parameters are known to the entities that 
manufacture and market these products.
    EPA recognizes the unique situation that may arise when an importer 
of closed-cell foams is not the same entity that manufactured the 
closed-cell foam. In such cases, the importer may not know the mass and 
identity of the fluorinated GHG within the closed-cell foam. Therefore, 
EPA has added an alternative reporting provision that allows reporting 
by CO2e basis for closed-cell foams under these 
circumstances.
    EPA is requiring importers and exporters to report the identity and 
mass of the fluorinated GHG within closed-cell foams when it is known. 
This is consistent with EPA's approach for pre-charged equipment, where 
EPA requires importers and exporters to report the identity and amount 
of fluorinated GHGs within equipment. EPA will use this information to 
better understand the types and amounts of fluorinated GHGs imported 
and exported into the U.S. This information will support analysis under 
this subpart as well as analysis across subparts, particularly subparts 
that collect data on fluorinated GHGs.
    For importers and exporters that are unable to obtain detailed 
information on the closed-cell foams from the manufacturer, EPA is 
requiring that the importers and exporters identify the foam 
manufacturer and to certify that they were unable to obtain this 
information from them. These importers and exporters are also required 
to document the communications with the foam manufacturer and retain 
the information in their records. When verifying data collected under 
this rule, EPA may contact foam manufacturers independently to obtain 
more detailed information on the identity and mass of the fluorinated 
GHGs contained within these closed-cell foams.
    Further discussion of issues related reporting requirements for 
closed-cell foams can be found in the ``Mandatory Greenhouse Gas 
Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments, Subpart QQ: 
Importers and Exporters of Fluorinated GHGs Inside Pre-charged 
Equipment or Closed-cell Foams'' (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927).
    Comment: EPA also received comments as to whether packaging foams 
would be included under this subpart.
    Response: EPA has excluded packaging foam from this subpart. EPA's 
original analysis of this source category identified only imports and 
exports of closed-cell foams used to insulate, such as closed-cell 
foams used in refrigeration equipment, as a significant source of 
fluorinated GHGs. In subsequent conversation with industry, EPA learned 
that closed-cell foams can sometimes be used in general packaging. EPA 
never intended to include these sources. Packaging foams are widely 
used when shipping materials, and EPA anticipates it would be too 
burdensome for entities to ascertain the type of packaging foam and the 
blowing agent used in that foam when shipping materials, particularly 
as the packaging foam is incidental to the items being imported or 
exported. Therefore, EPA has clarified the definition of closed-cell 
foams to explicitly exclude packaging foam.

H. Electrical Equipment Manufacture or Refurbishment (Subpart SS)

1. Summary of the Final Rule
    Source Category Definition. This source category consists of 
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).
    Reporting Threshold. Reporters must submit annual GHG reports for 
facilities that meet the applicability criteria in the General 
Provisions of 40 CFR 98.2(a)(1). Facilities undertaking electrical 
equipment manufacturing and refurbishing are covered by this rule if 
total annual purchases of SF6 and PFCs exceed 23,000 pounds.
    GHGs to Report. For electrical equipment manufacturers and 
refurbishers of SF6 or PFC-insulated closed-pressure 
equipment and sealed-pressure equipment, report the following 
emissions:
     SF6 and PFC emissions from electrical equipment 
manufacturing.
     SF6 and PFC emissions from electrical equipment 
refurbishing.
     SF6 and PFCs emissions from electrical 
equipment testing.
     SF6 and PFCs emissions from electrical 
equipment decommissioning and disposal.
     SF6 and PFCs emissions from storage cylinders 
and other containers.
     SF6 and PFC emissions from electrical equipment 
installation that occurs before title to the equipment is transferred 
to the customer.
    In addition, report GHG emissions for other source categories at 
the facility for which calculation methods are provided in the rule, as 
applicable. For example, report CO2, N2O and 
CH4 combustion-related emissions from each stationary 
combustion unit on site under 40 CFR part 98, subpart C (General 
Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources).
    GHG Emissions Calculation and Monitoring. Reporters must calculate 
SF6 and PFC emissions using a mass-balance approach, which 
includes the following inputs (For brevity, the inputs refer only to 
SF6; however, the method also applies PFCs):
     The decrease in SF6 Inventory must be 
determined by subtracting SF6, in

[[Page 74807]]

pounds, stored in containers at the end of the year from 
SF6, in pounds, stored in containers at the beginning of the 
year.
     Acquisitions of SF6 must be determined by 
summing pounds of SF6 purchased from chemical producers or 
distributors in bulk, pounds of SF6 returned by equipment 
users or distributors with or inside equipment, and pounds of 
SF6 returned to site after off-site recycling.
     Disbursements of SF6 must be determined by 
summing pounds of SF6 contained in new equipment delivered 
to customers, pounds of SF6 delivered to equipment users in 
containers, pounds of SF6 returned to suppliers, pounds of 
SF6 sent off-site for recycling, and pounds of 
SF6 sent off-site for destruction.
    Reporters also must calculate SF6 and PFC emissions from 
the equipment being installed on the electric power system's premises 
when the installation occurs before the title to the equipment is 
transferred to the electric power entity. Reporters may use a mass-
balance approach or an engineering calculation to estimate installation 
losses.
    Data Reporting. In addition to the information required to be 
reported by the General Provisions (40 CFR 98.3(c)) and summarized in 
Section II.A of this preamble, reporters must submit additional data 
that are used to calculate GHG emissions. A list of the specific data 
to be reported for this source category is contained in 40 CFR 98.456.
    Recordkeeping. In addition to the records required by the General 
Provisions (40 CFR 98.3(g)) and summarized in Section II.A of this 
preamble, reporters must keep records of additional data used to 
calculate GHG emissions. A list of specific records that must be 
retained for this source category is included in 40 CFR 98.457.
2. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal
    The major changes in this rule since the proposal are identified in 
the following list. The rationale for additional significant changes to 
subpart SS can be found below or in ``Mandatory Greenhouse Gas 
Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments, Subpart SS: Sulfur 
Hexafluoride and Perfluorocarbons from Electrical Equipment Manufacture 
or Refurbishment.''
     EPA is modifying the accuracy and precision requirements 
for scales and flowmeters used to measure mass for the mass-balance 
equation. Specifically, rather than requiring flowmeters and scales to 
have an accuracy and precision of 1 percent of the true 
mass or weight, we are requiring them to have an accuracy and precision 
of 1 percent of either full scale (for flowmeters) or the 
maximum weight of the containers typically weighed on the scale (for 
scales). For scales that are used to weigh cylinders containing 115 
pounds of gas when full, this equates to 1 percent of the 
sum of 115 pounds and approximately 120 pounds tare, or slightly more 
than 2 pounds. This absolute accuracy requirement, 
expressed as a percentage of the filled weight of the container that is 
weighed on the scale, is less stringent than the 1 percent (of true 
weight) relative accuracy requirement in the proposed rule.
     To reduce burden and increase flexibility, EPA is allowing 
use of a calculated emission factor for determining emissions 
downstream of the flow meter measuring the mass of SF6 being 
transferred from the storage container to the equipment being filled. A 
value must be determined for each combination of hose and valve of a 
given sized diameter. The calculated emission factor must be multiplied 
by the number of annual fill operations that uses the hose and valve 
combination. The calculation must be performed annually to account for 
changes to the specifications of the valves or hoses that may occur 
throughout the year.
     To increase flexibility, EPA is providing an additional 
option for determining the mass of SF6 or the PFCs disbursed 
to customers in new equipment. EPA is allowing the equipment's 
nameplate capacity or, in cases where equipment is shipped with a 
partial charge, the equipment's partial shipping charge to be assumed 
as equal to the disbursement. A sufficiently precise estimate of the 
nameplate capacity for each make and model of equipment must be 
determined through a number of measurements. The number of measurements 
required must be calculated to achieve a precision of one percent of 
the true mean, using a 95 percent confidence interval.
     To improve data accuracy, the quantity of gas charged into 
delivered equipment and added during installation by the manufacturer 
must be certified by the manufacturer and expressed in pounds of 
SF6 or PFC.
     To clarify the reporting boundary between subparts DD and 
SS, EPA is requiring electrical equipment manufacturers to estimate and 
report the annual SF6 and PFC emissions from the equipment 
being installed on the electric power system's premises until the title 
of the equipment has transferred to the electric power transmission or 
distribution entity. An equipment installation mass balance equation 
must be used.
3. Summary of Comments and Responses
    This section contains a brief summary of major comments and 
responses. A small number of comments which covered several topics were 
received on this subpart. Responses to additional significant comments 
received can be found in ``Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: 
EPA's Response to Public Comments, Subpart SS: Electrical Equipment 
Manufacture or Refurbishment'' (available in the docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0927).
Selection of Reporting Threshold
    Comment: EPA received comment that gas cylinders which are sealed 
and unused should not count toward the reporting threshold. These 
cylinders are purchased by the electrical equipment manufacturer for 
shipment to customers. According to the commenter, since these 
cylinders are never opened and their seals remain intact, no leakages 
can occur. The commenter explained that the 10 percent leak rate used 
to determine the threshold is based upon losses during testing, 
manufacturing, and commissioning. Activities such as storage should not 
count toward the leak rate.
    Response: EPA disagrees that sealed and unused cylinders should not 
count toward the reporting threshold. EPA recognizes that sealed 
cylinders are unlikely to be a major source of emissions and that it 
has been the standard practice by some manufacturers to deliver sealed 
cylinders with new equipment. However, EPA is concerned that not 
including these cylinders could introduce complications in tracking gas 
in cylinders and other containers because of the need to differentiate 
those cylinders that are sealed and destined for the customer and those 
cylinders that are sealed and destined for use by the electrical 
equipment manufacturer. Further it would be virtually impossible for an 
audit of threshold and cylinder record keeping requirements to 
distinguish the different use of cylinders at the beginning and end of 
the year. Therefore, EPA is finalizing the requirement that sealed and 
unused cylinders count toward the determination of the reporting 
threshold.
Monitoring and QA/QC Requirements
    Comment: EPA received comment that measuring residual gas amounts 
to within 1 percent of accuracy is not

[[Page 74808]]

attainable in practice. Scales currently in use have an accuracy of 
 2 pounds; a 1 percent measurement of ``new or residual gas 
amounts'' would require a scale with an accuracy of  0.1 
pounds, or 200 times more precise than currently in use. The commenter 
suggested that the required accuracy be no stricter than 10 percent for 
residual gas amounts.
    Response: EPA has reviewed this commenter's concern as well as 
similar concerns of several commenters on the accuracy requirement of 
scales for Subpart DD, Electric Transmission and Distribution Equipment 
Uses.
    After further evaluation of the types of scales available, the 
range of accuracies and precisions, and the effect of those accuracies 
and precisions on the accuracy and precision of facility-level 
emissions estimates, we have eased the requirements for scale accuracy 
and precision. As noted above, we proposed that scales be accurate and 
precise to within  1 percent of the true mass or weight or 
better. When the mass being weighed on the scale is small, as is the 
case for the residual gas being returned to the supplier, this requires 
a very good absolute precision and accuracy, e.g., better than  0.1 pounds. EPA conducted an analysis that examined the impact 
of different scale accuracies on the relative uncertainty of emission 
estimates from two hypothetical electrical equipment manufacturer 
facilities; the findings indicate that the incremental increase in 
relative uncertainty from a requirement of  1 percent of 
true mass or weight scale accuracy to  2 pounds scale 
accuracy was not enough to justify a more stringent accuracy of 1 
percent and its associated burden.
    This final rule requires the accuracy and precision of scales used 
to weigh cylinders to be  1 percent of full scale or better 
of the filled weight (gas plus tare) of the containers of 
SF6 or PFCs that are weighed on the scale. This absolute 
error would be allowed for container heels as well as for the full 
container. For scales that are generally used to weigh cylinders 
containing 115 pounds of gas when full, this equates to  1 
percent of the sum of 115 pounds and approximately 120 pounds tare, or 
slightly more than  2 pounds. EPA concluded this change 
will lower the burden on reporters without significant compromise to 
data quality.
    Comment: EPA received comment regarding the administrative burden 
of the proposed method to determine emissions downstream of the 
flowmeter measuring the mass of SF6 (or PFC) being 
transferred from the storage container to the equipment being filled. 
The commenter asserted that accurately determining emissions downstream 
of the flowmeter (to subtract from the disbursement total) could 
require an inordinate administrative burden associated with recording 
the numerous parameters for individual fill operations. The commenter 
suggested that the entity be explicitly permitted to apply a 
statistical calculation to a subset of individual fill operations, such 
as a midpoint or average loss rates, to use as the loss rates 
associated with all fill operations. The statistical calculation would 
be based on the factors outlined in the proposed rule, but the proposed 
approach would relieve the burden of rerecording the measurements for 
each individual operation.
    Response: EPA recognizes that developing a representative loss 
factor that can be used for all filling events is more practical than 
performing measurements for each individual fill operation. EPA agrees 
with the commenters that direct measurement is unnecessarily 
burdensome. Consequently, rather than requiring actual measurements as 
proposed, EPA is allowing reporters to account for variability in the 
diameters and fittings of hoses supplied by various manufacturers and 
applied under varying conditions and requiring an emission factor be 
calculated for each hose and valve, or fitting, combination. For each 
hose-valve combination, the calculated emission factor must be 
multiplied by the number of annual fill operations that use that hose-
valve arrangement. The calculation must be recalculated annually to 
account for changes to the specifications of the valves or hoses that 
may occur throughout the year. In addition, EPA is requiring electrical 
equipment manufacturers to account for SF6 or PFC emissions 
that occur as a result of unexpected events or accidental losses, such 
as a malfunctioning hose or leak in the flow line, during the filling 
of equipment or containers for disbursement. If there is a sudden rise 
in the quantity of SF6 or PFC gas that is needed to fill a 
certain make and model to its shipping charge, or nameplate capacity, 
this may be indicative of a leak in the lines. It is good practice to 
note unusual changes to the quantities used to fill equipment.
    Comment: Several entities provided comment as to whether 
manufacturers should be required to certify to equipment users the 
actual quantity of SF6 or PFCs charged into equipment at the 
manufacturing facility as well as the actual quantity of SF6 
or PFCs charged into equipment at installation. In general, users of 
electric power equipment supported both certifying requirements as they 
would provide more accurate acquisitions inputs needed for the mass-
balance method required for estimating emissions from electric power 
equipment use.
    Response: EPA had requested comment on whether manufacturers should 
be required to certify the actual quantity (mass) of SF6 or 
PFCs charged into equipment at installation. EPA concludes that the 
electrical equipment manufacturer should certify the quantity of gas 
provided in delivered equipment as it represents two inputs to two mass 
balance equations--the disbursements input (i.e., sales of 
SF6 to other entities, including gas in equipment that is 
sold) of the mass-balance equation used by manufacturers and the 
acquisitions input (i.e., gas with or alongside equipment) of the mass-
balance equation used by electric power systems. Additionally, EPA 
concludes that the electrical equipment manufacturer should certify the 
quantity of gas charged into the equipment at installation as it 
represents the acquisition input to the electric power systems' mass 
balance equation. The validity of the mass-balance approach is 
dependent on precise inputs, consequently, inaccuracies of even two or 
three percent could lead to unacceptably large inaccuracies in 
emissions estimates. The final rule includes a requirement for 
electrical equipment manufacturers to maintain such certifications as 
records and to express the quantity in pounds of SF6 or PFC 
gas. Electrical equipment manufacturers should provide copies of the 
certifications to electric power systems upon request.
Installation of Electrical Equipment at Electric Power Systems
    Comment: EPA received comments from electric power systems and 
electrical equipment manufacturers regarding whether the manufacturer 
should be responsible for emissions during installation or whether 
those emissions should become the customer's responsibility. Equipment 
manufacturers and electric power systems commented that the reporting 
requirement should be the responsibility of the electric power system 
at the point in time when the equipment title is transferred.
    Response: EPA recognizes that some equipment, namely gas insulated 
substations, is typically manufactured by the manufacturer onsite and 
can take several months to complete assembly, inspection, and final 
acceptance and commissioning. For these projects, gas accounting is 
best done by the manufacturer that is assembling the

[[Page 74809]]

equipment and handling the gas that will be installed into the 
equipment. Based on EPA's review of these comments, the final rule 
specifies that the responsibility of reporting emissions from 
installation practices is dependent upon the point at which the title 
is transferred to the electric power transmission or distribution 
entity. In instances when the title to the equipment has not yet been 
transferred even though the equipment is at the electric power 
transmission or distribution facility, the equipment manufacturer must 
estimate and report emissions from equipment installation using the 
equipment installation mass balance equation or an engineering 
calculation. In instances when the title of the equipment has been 
transferred to the electric power transmission or distribution 
facility, the electric power transmission or distribution facility must 
estimate and report emissions during installation by accounting for the 
amount of gas inside the equipment, upon the date of the title transfer 
to the electric power transmission or distribution entity, in the mass 
balance acquisition input. If the title is transferred to the electric 
power transmission or distribution entity and the installation is 
conducted by a third party, the electric power transmission or 
distribution facility would be required to report emissions during 
installation. The role and responsibility of reporters with respect to 
use of contractors or third parties is elaborated in more detail in the 
Response to Comment Document for this subpart.

III. Economic Impacts of the Final Rule

    This section of the preamble examines the costs and economic 
impacts of this rule 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 rule can be found in the 
text of the economic impact analysis (EIA) in the docket for this 
rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927).
    A number of comments on economic impacts of the rule were received 
regarding the estimation of compliance costs for subparts covered by 
the rule. A summary of burden related comments can be found in the 
preamble for each subpart. Complete responses to significant comments 
received can be found in ``Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: 
EPA's Response to Public Comments, Additional Sources of Fluorinated 
GHGs (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 are 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 report 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 will be approximately $6.8 million in the first year and 
$7.4 million in subsequent years ($2006). This includes a public sector 
burden estimate of $384,000 for program implementation and verification 
activities. Table 12 of this preamble 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$): Subparts I, L, OO and SS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                First year                           Subsequent years
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Subpart                Millions                    Share       Millions                    Share
                                      2006$        $/ton      (percent)       2006$        $/ton      (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart I--Electronics Industry.         $2.9         $0.33           38         $5.4         $0.33           76
Subpart L--Fluorinated Gas                3.0          0.28           40          0.2          0.02            2
 Production.....................
Subpart DD--Electric                      0.6          0.19            7          0.6          0.05            8
 Transmission and Distribution
 Equipment Use..................
Subpart QQ--Imports and Exports           0.7          0.03            9          0.6          0.02            9
 of Fluorinated GHGs............
Subpart SS--Electrical Equipment          0.02         0.01          0.3          0.02         0.01            0
 Manufacture and Refurbishment
 and Manufacturing of Electrical
 Components.....................
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Private Sector, Total.......          7.2   ...........           95          6.8   ...........           95
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Public Sector, Total........          0.4   ...........            5          0.4   ...........            5
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total...................          7.6   ...........          100          7.2   ...........          100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 74810]]

C. What are the economic impacts of the rule?

1. Summary of Economic Impacts
    EPA prepared an economic analysis to evaluate the impacts of this 
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 2 
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$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Average cost         All
         2007 NAICS             NAICS description              Sub-part           per entity  ($/   enterprises
                                                                                      entity)        (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
334413.....................  Semiconductor and       I (Semis)..................         $19,980            0.03
                              Related Device
                              Manufacturing.
334413.....................  Semiconductor and       I (Non-Semis)..............          16,046            0.02
                              Related Device
                              Manufacturing.
334119.....................  Other Computer          I (Non-Semis)..............          16,046            0.06
                              Peripheral Equipment
                              Manufacturing.
325120.....................  Industrial Gas          L..........................         126,523            1.08
                              Manufacturing.
221121.....................  Electrical Power        DD.........................           2,213            0.00
                              Systems.
326140.....................  Polystyrene Foam        QQ.........................           3,364            0.03
                              Product Manufacturing.
326150.....................  Urethane and Other      QQ.........................           3,364            0.03
                              Foam Product (except
                              Polystyrene)
                              Manufacturing..
333415.....................  Air-Conditioning and    QQ.........................           3,364            0.01
                              Warm Air Heating
                              Equipment and
                              Commercial and
                              Industrial
                              Refrigeration
                              Equipment
                              Manufacturing.
335313.....................  Switchgear and          QQ.........................           3,364            0.02
                              Switchboard Apparatus
                              Manufacturing.
336391.....................  Motor Vehicle Air-      QQ.........................           3,364            0.01
                              Conditioning
                              Manufacturing.
423610.....................  Electrical Apparatus    QQ.........................           3,364            0.05
                              and Equipment, Wiring
                              Supplies, and Related
                              Equipment Merchant
                              Wholesalers.
423620.....................  Electrical and          QQ.........................           3,364            0.02
                              Electronic Appliance,
                              Television, and Radio
                              Set Merchant
                              Wholesalers.
423720.....................  Plumbing and Heating    QQ.........................           3,364            0.05
                              Equipment and
                              Supplies (Hydronics)
                              Merchant Wholesalers.
423730.....................  Warm Air Heating and    QQ.........................           3,364            0.07
                              Air-Conditioning
                              Equipment and
                              Supplies Merchant
                              Wholesalers.
423740.....................  Refrigeration           QQ.........................           3,364            0.09
                              Equipment and
                              Supplies Merchant
                              Wholesalers.
443111.....................  Household Appliance     QQ.........................           3,364            0.24
                              Stores.
443112.....................  Radio, Television and   QQ.........................           3,364            0.14
                              Other Electronics
                              Stores.
422610.....................  Plastics Materials and  QQ.........................           3,364            0.03
                              Basic Forms and
                              Shapes Merchant
                              Wholesalers.
33361......................  Engine, Turbine, and    SS.........................           2,213            0.00
                              Power Transmission
                              Equipment
                              Manufacturing.
33531......................  Electrical Equipment    SS.........................           2,213            0.02
                              Manufacturing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

1. Summary of Impacts on Small Businesses
    As required by the RFA and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act (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).

[[Page 74811]]



                             Table 14--Estimated Cost-to-Sales Ratios by Industry and Enterprise Size (First Year, 2006$) a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                           Owned by Enterprises with:
                                                      SBA Size    Average              -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      standard   cost per      All                              100 to     500 to     750 to    1,000 to
     NAICS       NAICS Description      Sub-part     (effective   entity   enterprises   1 to 20    20 to 99     499        749        999       1,499
                                                      March 11,     ($/     (percent)   Employees  Employees  Employees  Employees  Employees  Employees
                                                        2008)     entity)               (percent)  (percent)  (percent)  (percent)  (percent)  (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
334413.........  Semiconductor and  I (Semis)......        500    $19,980        0.03        1.16       0.22       0.07       0.04       0.01       0.02
                  Related Device
                  Manufacturing.
334413.........  Semiconductor and  I (Non-Semis)..        500     16,046        0.02        0.94       0.18       0.05       0.04       0.01       0.02
                  Related Device
                  Manufacturing.
334119.........  Other Computer     I (Non-Semis)..        500     16,046        0.06        0.92       0.14       0.04       0.02       0.04       0.01
                  Peripheral
                  Equipment
                  Manufacturing.
325120.........  Industrial Gas     L..............      1,000    126,523        1.08       23.19       0.77       3.19         NA         NA         NA
                  Manufacturing.
221121.........  Electrical Power   DD.............      (\c\)      2,213        0.00        0.10       0.01       0.01         NA         NA         NA
                  Systems.
326140.........  Polystyrene Foam   QQ.............        500      3,364        0.03        0.25       0.06       0.04         NA         NA       0.01
                  Product
                  Manufacturing.
326150.........  Urethane and       QQ.............        500      3,364        0.03        0.19       0.05       0.02       0.02         NA         NA
                  Other Foam
                  Product (except
                  Polystyrene).
                 Manufacturing....
333415.........  Air-Conditioning   QQ.............        750      3,364        0.01        0.22       0.04       0.01       0.01       0.01       0.01
                  and Warm Air
                  Heating
                  Equipment.
                 and Commercial
                  and Industrial
                  Refrigeration.
                 Equipment
                  Manufacturing.
335313.........  Switchgear and     QQ.............        750      3,364        0.02        0.24       0.05       0.02         NA         NA         NA
                  Switchboard
                  Apparatus
                  Manufacturing.
336391.........  Motor Vehicle Air- QQ.............        750      3,364        0.01        0.33       0.07         NA         NA         NA         NA
                  Conditioning
                  Manufacturing.
423610.........  Electrical         QQ.............        100      3,364        0.05        0.10       0.03       0.03       0.05       0.03       0.03
                  Apparatus and
                  Equipment,
                  Wiring Supplies,.
                 and Related
                  Equipment
                  Merchant
                  Wholesalers.
423620.........  Electrical and     QQ.............        100      3,364        0.02        0.07       0.02       0.01       0.00       0.01       0.01
                  Electronic
                  Appliance,
                  Television, and.
                 Radio Set
                  Merchant
                  Wholesalers.
423720.........  Plumbing and       QQ.............        100      3,364        0.05        0.10       0.02       0.03       0.06       0.03       0.09
                  Heating
                  Equipment and
                  Supplies.
                 (Hydronics)
                  Merchant
                  Wholesalers.
423730.........  Warm Air Heating   QQ.............        100      3,364        0.07        0.13       0.05       0.06       0.10       0.03         NA
                  and Air-
                  Conditioning
                  Equipment.
                 and Supplies
                  Merchant
                  Wholesalers.
423740.........  Refrigeration      QQ.............        100      3,364        0.09        0.16       0.05       0.10       0.08       0.04         NA
                  Equipment and
                  Supplies
                  Merchant.
                 Wholesalers......
443111.........  Household          QQ.............       $9 M      3,364        0.24        0.42       0.09       0.07         NA         NA         NA
                  Appliance Stores.
443112.........  Radio, Television  QQ.............       $9 M      3,364        0.14        0.53       0.15       0.23         NA         NA         NA
                  and Other
                  Electronics
                  Stores.
422610.........  Plastics           QQ.............        100      3,364        0.03        0.09       0.03       0.02       0.01       0.01       0.05
                  Materials and
                  Basic Forms and
                  Shapes.
                 Merchant
                  Wholesalers.
33361..........  Engine, Turbine,   SS.............  500-1,000      2,213        0.00        0.17       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        0.19       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 Census Bureau definition of enterprise is consistent with the concept of
  ultimate parent company that is typically used for Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) screening analyses.
\b\ The 2002 SUSB data uses 1997 NAICS codes. For this industry, the relevant code is NAICS 422610.
\c\ <4 Million MWh.

    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 and for most size 
categories. 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 this action. 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 
EIA), EPA determined the small entity's cost-to-sales ratio is below 
one percent.
    Electronic Computer Manufacturing (334111) and Semiconductor and

[[Page 74812]]

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 employee 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 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. The first 
and most important step is the establishment of reporting thresholds. 
As described in Sections II.D through II.H of this preamble, these 
thresholds exclude hundreds of small entities from the reporting 
requirements. In addition, EPA is allowing semiconductor manufacturing 
facilities whose emissions exceed the reporting threshold but whose 
capacity is equal to or less than 10,500 m\2\ of substrate to use 
default emission factors for their etch processes rather than measuring 
those factors. Moreover, EPA is requiring annual reporting instead of 
more frequent reporting.
    In addition to the public hearing that EPA held, EPA has an open 
door policy, similar to the outreach conducted during the development 
of the proposed and final Part 98. Details of these meetings are 
available in the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927).

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

1. 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, and 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.
    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 Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it may raise 
novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the 
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive 
Order. Accordingly, EPA submitted this 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 action.
    EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs associated with 
this 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, DD, QQ, 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 summarized here. In this 
report, EPA has identified the regulatory options considered, their 
costs, the emissions that will 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. The total annualized cost of the rule will be approximately 
$7.6 million (in 2006$) during the first year of the program and $7.2 
million in subsequent years (including $0.4 million of programmatic 
costs to the Agency).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this 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 2373.02.
    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.

[[Page 74813]]

    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, 
emission information collected under CAA section 114 generally cannot 
be claimed as CBI and will be made public.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 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 emission data that cannot be considered 
CBI (956 FR 7042-7043, February 21, 1991). As discussed in Section 
II.B of this preamble, EPA has initiated a separate notice and 
comment process to make CBI determinations for the data collected 
under this rule. See 75 FR 39094.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The projected cost and hour respondent burden in the ICR, averaged 
over the first three years after promulgation, is $6.87 million and 
76,701 hours per year. The estimated average burden per response is 
183.93 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 417. 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 $2.70 million per year), a 
total operation and maintenance component (averaging $9.5 thousand per 
year), and a labor cost component (averaging $4.15 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.

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 the Fluorinated GHG 
Reporting Rule on small entities, 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. Table 15 of this preamble presents 
small business criteria for affected NAICS.

          Table 15--Small Business Criteria for Affected NAICS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            SBA Size
                                                            standard
      2007 NAICS        NAICS Description    Subpart       (effective
                                                        August 22, 2008)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
334413................  Semiconductor and  I..........               500
                         Related Device
                         Manufacturing.
334119................  Other Computer     I..........             1,000
                         Peripheral
                         Equipment
                         Manufacturing.
325120................  Industrial Gas     L..........             1,000
                         Manufacturing.
221121................  Electrical Power   DD.........             (\1\)
                         Systems.
326140................  Polystyrene Foam   QQ.........               500
                         Product
                         Manufacturing.
326150................  Urethane and       QQ.........               500
                         Other Foam
                         Product (except
                         Polystyrene)
                         Manufacturing.
333415................  Air-Conditioning   QQ.........               750
                         and Warm Air
                         Heating
                         Equipment and
                         Commercial and
                         Industrial
                         Refrigeration
                         Equipment
                         Manufacturing.
335313................  Switchgear and     QQ.........               750
                         Switchboard
                         Apparatus
                         Manufacturing.
336391................  Motor Vehicle Air- QQ.........               750
                         Conditioning
                         Manufacturing.
423610................  Electrical         QQ.........               100
                         Apparatus and
                         Equipment,
                         Wiring Supplies,
                         and Related
                         Equipment
                         Merchant
                         Wholesalers.
423620................  Electrical and     QQ.........               100
                         Electronic
                         Appliance,
                         Television, and
                         Radio Set
                         Merchant
                         Wholesalers.
423720................  Plumbing and       QQ.........               100
                         Heating
                         Equipment and
                         Supplies
                         (Hydronics)
                         Merchant
                         Wholesalers.
423730................  Warm Air Heating   QQ.........               100
                         and Air-
                         Conditioning
                         Equipment and
                         Supplies
                         Merchant
                         Wholesalers.
423740................  Refrigeration      QQ.........               100
                         Equipment and
                         Supplies
                         Merchant
                         Wholesalers.
443111................  Household          QQ.........              $9 M
                         Appliance Stores.
443112................  Radio, Television  QQ.........              $9 M
                         and Other
                         Electronics
                         Stores.
422610................  Plastics           QQ.........               100
                         Materials and
                         Basic Forms and
                         Shapes Merchant
                         Wholesalers.
33361.................  Engine, Turbine,   SS.........         500-1,000
                         and Power
                         Transmission
                         Equipment
                         Manufacturing.
33531.................  Electrical         SS.........         750-1,000
                         Equipment
                         Manufacturing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 4 Million MWh.

    EPA assessed the potential impacts of this 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 compare the average establishment's total annualized 
mandatory reporting costs to the average establishment receipts for 
enterprises within several employment categories.\49\ 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-sales ratio for

[[Page 74814]]

establishments owned by small businesses, because the reporting costs 
are likely lower than average entity estimates provided by the 
engineering cost analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ For the one to 20 employee category, we exclude SUSB data 
for enterprises with zero employees. These enterprises did not 
operate the entire year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, some size categories (especially 
those with 1-20 employees) show costs exceeding 1 percent of sales. 
These sectors are Industrial Gas Manufacturing (NAICS 325120) and 
Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing (NAICS 334413). A more 
careful examination of impacts on small firms in these NAICS codes was 
conducted.
    Analysis of firms in NAICS 334413 shows that 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 fewer than 20 employees are generally not expected to 
be affected by the final 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 final 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 final rule. Using 
publicly available sources (such as Hoovers.com), EPA 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 EIA), EPA determined the 
small entity's cost-to-sales ratio is below 1 percent.
    After considering the economic impacts of this action on small 
entities, I therefore certify that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Although this rule will 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.
    Through comprehensive outreach activities after proposal of the 
rule, EPA held meetings and/or conference calls with representatives of 
the primary audience groups. After proposal, EPA posted a general fact 
sheet for the rule, information sheets for every source category, and 
an FAQ document. We continued to meet with stakeholders and entered 
documentation of all meetings into the docket. One public hearing was 
held on April 12, 2010, which included three speakers from industry and 
one non-governmental environmental group. In addition, 20 outreach 
meetings were held. We considered public comments in developing the 
final rule.
    During rule implementation, EPA will maintain an ``open door'' 
policy for stakeholders to ask questions about rule or provide 
suggestions to EPA about the types of compliance assistance that would 
be useful to small businesses. EPA intends to develop a range of 
compliance assistance tools and materials and conduct extensive 
outreach for the final rule.

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 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 rule are 
approximately $7.6 million in the first year, and $7.2 million per year 
in subsequent years. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements 
of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
    This 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 rule include electronics manufacturers, fluorinated gas 
producers, electric power systems, electrical equipment manufacturers 
and refurbishers, as well as importers and exporters of pre-charged 
equipment and closed-cell foams. None of the facilities currently known 
to undertake these activities are owned by small government.

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 
electronics manufacturing, fluorinated gas production, electrical 
equipment use, electrical equipment manufacture or refurbishment, as 
well as importers and exporters of pre-charged equipment and closed-
cell foams. Few State or local government facilities will 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.

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 action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This regulation 
applies to facilities that manufacture electronic devices, produce 
fluorinated gases, use electrical equipment in electric power systems, 
import or export fluorinated GHGs inside pre-charged equipment and 
closed-cell foams, or manufacture electrical equipment. The only 
facilities among these that might be owned by Tribal governments are 
facilities that use electrical equipment in electric power systems. EPA 
contacted the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) 
and asked whether any electric power systems owned or operated by 
Tribal governments were likely to exceed the threshold for reporting 
emissions from electrical equipment use. NRECA stated

[[Page 74815]]

that they did not expect any Tribally-owned or operated electric power 
systems would trip the threshold. (There are a small number of 
distribution cooperatives owned by tribes but no transmission or 
generation.) Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
    Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this 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 Part 98, 
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 
proposal. 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 Part 98 
(April, 2009) (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-055).

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 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 Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This 
action is not subject to Executive Order 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 rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 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 
rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects. This rule 
relates to monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping at facilities that 
manufacture, sell, use, import, or export fluorinated GHG related 
products and does not impact energy supply, distribution or use. 
Therefore, we conclude that this 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 rule involves technical standards. EPA will use voluntary 
consensus standards from at least three different voluntary consensus 
standards bodies, including the following: ASTM, ASME, and 
International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative. These voluntary 
consensus standards will help facilities monitor, report, and keep 
records of GHG emissions. No new test methods were developed for this 
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 identify the contents of vented or exhausted 
streams. The test methods are incorporated by reference into the rule 
and are available as specified in 40 CFR 98.7.
    By incorporating voluntary consensus standards into this rule, EPA 
is both meeting the requirements of the NTTAA and presenting multiple 
options and flexibility in complying with this rule.

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

    Executive Order 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.
    EPA has determined that this 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 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.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the U.S. prior to 
publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2). This rule will be effective December 31, 2010.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 98

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


[[Page 74816]]


    Dated: November 8, 2010.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 98--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 98 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
2. Section 98.3 is amended as follows:
0
a. By adding paragraph (c)(4)(vi).
0
b. By revising paragraphs(c)(5)(i) and (c)(5)(ii).


Sec.  98.3  What are the general monitoring, reporting, and 
recordkeeping and verification requirements of this part?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (vi) When applying paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section to 
fluorinated GHGs, calculate and report CO2e for only those 
fluorinated GHGs listed in Table A-1 of this subpart.
    (5) * * *
    (i) Total quantity of GHG aggregated for all GHG from all 
applicable supply categories in Table A-5 of this subpart and expressed 
in metric tons of CO2e calculated using Equation A-1 of this 
subpart.
    (ii) Quantity of each GHG from each applicable supply category in 
Table A-5 of this subpart, expressed in metric tons of each GHG. For 
fluorinated GHG, report emissions of all fluorinated GHG, including 
those not listed in Table A-1 of this subpart.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 98.6 is amended by revising the definition of ``Destruction 
efficiency'' to read as follows:


Sec.  98.6  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Destruction efficiency means the efficiency with which a 
destruction device reduces the mass of a greenhouse gas fed into the 
device. Destruction efficiency, or flaring destruction efficiency, 
refers to the fraction of the gas that leaves the flare partially or 
fully oxidized. The destruction efficiency is expressed in Equation A-2 
of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.001

Where:

DE = Destruction Efficiency
tGHGiIN = The mass of GHG i fed into the destruction 
device
tGHGiOUT = The mass of GHG i exhausted from the 
destruction device
* * * * *

0
4. Section 98.7 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(8) and paragraph (e)(30).
0
b. By adding paragraph (e)(46) and (e)(47).
0
c. By adding paragraphs (m)(3) through (m)(7).
0
d. By adding paragraph (n).


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(m)(1), Sec.  98.244(b), Sec.  
98.254(c), Sec.  98.324(e), Sec.  98.344(c), Sec.  98.354(d), Sec.  
98.354(h), 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(m)(2), 
Sec.  98.244(b), Sec.  98.254(c), Sec.  98.324(e), Sec.  98.344(c), 
Sec.  98.354(h), 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(m)(3), Sec.  98.244(b), and 
Sec.  98.354(d).
    (4) ASME MFC-6M-1998 Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes Using 
Vortex Flowmeters, IBR approved for Sec.  98.34(b), Sec.  98.124(m)(4), 
Sec.  98.244(b), Sec.  98.254(c), Sec.  98.324(e), Sec.  98.344(c), 
Sec.  98.354(h), and Sec.  98.364(e).
    (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(m)(5), Sec.  98.244(b), Sec.  98.254(c), Sec.  
98.324(e), Sec.  98.344(c), Sec.  98.354(h), 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(m)(6), 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(m)(7), Sec.  
98.244(b), Sec.  98.254(c), Sec.  98.324(e), Sec.  98.344(c), and Sec.  
98.354(h).
    (8) ASME MFC-14M-2003 Measurement of Fluid Flow Using Small Bore 
Precision Orifice Meters, IBR approved for Sec.  98.124(m)(8), Sec.  
98.244(b), Sec.  98.254(c), Sec.  98.324(e), Sec.  98.344(c), Sec.  
98.354(h), 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 (ASTM D6348), IBR approved for Sec.  
98.54(b), Sec.  98.124(e)(2), and Sec.  98.224(b).
* * * * *
    (46) ASTM D2879-97 (Reapproved 2007) Standard Test Method for Vapor 
Pressure-Temperature Relationship and Initial Decomposition Temperature 
of Liquids by Isoteniscope (ASTM D2879), approved May 1, 2007, IBR 
approved for Sec.  98.128.
    (47) ASTM D7359-08 Standard Test Method for Total Fluorine, 
Chlorine and Sulfur in Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Their Mixtures by 
Oxidative Pyrohydrolytic Combustion followed by Ion Chromatography 
Detection (Combustion Ion Chromatography-CIC) (ASTM D7359), approved 
October 15, 2008, IBR approved for Sec.  98.124(e)(2).
* * * * *
    (m) * * *
    (3) Protocol for Measuring Destruction or Removal Efficiency (DRE) 
of Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Abatement Equipment in Electronics 
Manufacturing, Version 1, EPA-430-R-10-003, March 2010 (EPA 430-R-10-
003), http://www.epa.gov/semiconductor-pfc/documents/dre_protocol.pdf, 
IBR approved for Sec.  98.94(f)(4)(i), Sec.  98.94(g)(3), Sec.  
98.97(d)(4), Sec.  98.98, and Sec.  98.124(e)(2).
    (4) Emissions Inventory Improvement Program, Volume II: Chapter 16, 
Methods for Estimating Air Emissions from Chemical Manufacturing 
Facilities, August 2007, Final, http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eiip/techreport/volume02/index.html, IBR approved for Sec.  
98.123(c)(1)(i)(A).

[[Page 74817]]

    (5) Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates, EPA-453/R-95-
017, November 1995 (EPA-453/R-95-017), http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/efdocs/equiplks.pdf, IBR approved for Sec.  98.123(d)(1)(i), Sec.  
98.123(d)(1)(ii), Sec.  98.123(d)(1)(iii), and Sec.  98.124(f)(2).
    (6) Tracer Gas Protocol for the Determination of Volumetric Flow 
Rate Through the Ring Pipe of the Xact Multi-Metals Monitoring System, 
also known as Other Test Method 24 (Tracer Gas Protocol), Eli Lilly and 
Company Tippecanoe Laboratories, September 2006, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/prelim/otm24.pdf, IBR approved for Sec.  98.124(e)(1)(ii).
    (7) Approved Alternative Method 012: An Alternate Procedure for 
Stack Gas Volumetric Flow Rate Determination (Tracer Gas) (ALT-012), 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Emission Measurement Center, May 
23, 1994, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/approalt/alt-012.pdf, IBR approved 
for Sec.  98.124(e)(1)(ii).
* * * * *
    (n) The following material is available from the International 
SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative, 2706 Montopolis Drive, Austin, Texas 
78741, (512) 356-3500, http://ismi.sematech.org.
    (1) Guideline for Environmental Characterization of Semiconductor 
Process Equipment, International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative 
Technology Transfer 06124825A-ENG, December 22, 2006 
(International SEMATECH 06124825A-ENG), IBR approved for Sec.  
98.94(d), Sec.  98.94(d)(1), Sec.  98.94(e), Sec.  98.94(e)(1), Sec.  
98.94(g)(1), Sec.  98.96(f)(4), and Sec.  98.97(b)(1).
    (2) Guidelines for Environmental Characterization of Semiconductor 
Equipment, International SEMATECH Technology Transfer 
01104197A-XFR, December 4, 2001 (International SEMATECH 
01104197A-XFR), IBR approved for Sec.  98.94(d), Sec.  
98.94(d)(1), Sec.  98.94(e), Sec.  98.94(e)(1), Sec.  98.94(g)(2), 
Sec.  98.96(f)(4), and Sec.  98.97(b)(1).
* * * * *
0
5. Table A-3 to subpart A is amended by adding entries for ``Electrical 
Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use'' and ``Electrical 
Transmission Distribution Equipment Manufacture or Refurbishment'' to 
read as follows:

   Table A-3 to Subpart A--Source Category List for Sec.   98.2(a)(1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Source Categories \a\ Applicable in 2010 and Future Years
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
Additional Source Categories \a\ Applicable in 2011 and Future Years
 
                              * * * * * * *
Electrical transmission and distribution equipment use (subpart DD).
Electrical transmission and distribution equipment manufacture or
 refurbishment (subpart SS).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Source categories are defined in each applicable subpart.


0
6. Table A-4 to subpart A is amended by adding entries for 
``Electronics manufacturing'' and ``Fluorinated gas production'' to 
read as follows:

   Table A-4 to Subpart A--Source Category List for Sec.   98.2(a)(2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Source Categories \a\ Applicable in 2010 and Future Years
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
Additional Source Categories\a\ Applicable in 2011 and Future Years
 
                              * * * * * * *
Electronics manufacturing (subpart I)
Fluorinated gas production (subpart L)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Source categories are defined in each applicable subpart.


0
7. Table A-5 to subpart A is amended by adding entries for ``Importers 
and exporters of fluorinated greenhouse gases contained in pre-charged 
equipment or closed-cell foams'' to read as follows:

  Table A-5 to Subpart A--Supplier Category List for Sec.   98.2(a)(4)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Supplier Categories \a\ Applicable in 2010 and Future Years
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
Additional Supplier Categories \a\ Applicable in 2011 and Future Years
 
                              * * * * * * *
Importers and exporters of fluorinated greenhouse gases contained in pre-
 charged equipment or closed-cell foams (subpart QQ):
    (A) Importers of an annual quantity of fluorinated greenhouse gases
     contained in pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams that is
     equivalent to 25,000 metric tons CO2e or more.
    (B) Exporters of an annual quantity of fluorinated greenhouse gases
     contained in pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams that is
     equivalent to 25,000 metric tons CO2e or more.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Suppliers are defined in each applicable subpart.


[[Page 74818]]


0
8. 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.
Tables
    Table I-1 to Subpart I of Part 98--Default Emission Factors for 
Threshold Applicability Determination
    Table I-2 to Subpart I of Part 98--Examples of Fluorinated GHGs 
Used by the Electronics Industry
    Table I-3 to Subpart I of Part 98--Default Emission Factors (1-
Uij) for Gas Utilization Rates (Uij) and By-
Product Formation Rates (Bijk) for Semiconductor 
Manufacturing for 150 mm and 200 mm Wafer Sizes
    Table I-4 to Subpart I of Part 98--Default Emission Factors (1-
Uij) for Gas Utilization Rates (Uij) and By-
Product Formation Rates (Bijk) for Semiconductor 
Manufacturing for 300 mm Wafer Size
    Table I-5 to Subpart I of Part 98--Default Emission Factors (1-
Uij) for Gas Utilization Rates (Uij) and By-
Product Formation Rates (Bijk) for MEMS Manufacturing
    Table I-6 to Subpart I of Part 98--Default Emission Factors (1-
Uij) for Gas Utilization Rates (Uij) and By-
Product Formation Rates (Bijk) for LCD Manufacturing
    Table I-7 to Subpart I of Part 98--Default Emission Factors (1-
Uij) for Gas Utilization Rates (Uij) and By-
Product Formation Rates (Bijk) for PV Manufacturing
    Table I-8 to Subpart I of Part 98-- Default Emission Factors (1-
UN2O,j) for N2O Utilization 
(UN2O,j)

Subpart I--Electronics Manufacturing


Sec.  98.90  Definition of the source category.

    (a) The electronics manufacturing source category consists of any 
of the production processes listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) 
of this section that use fluorinated GHGs or N2O. Facilities 
that may use these processes include, but are not limited to, 
facilities that manufacture micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS), 
liquid crystal displays (LCDs), photovoltaic cells (PV), and 
semiconductors (including light-emitting diodes (LEDs)).
    (1) Any electronics production process in which the etching process 
uses plasma-generated fluorine atoms and other reactive fluorine-
containing fragments, that chemically react with exposed thin-films 
(e.g., dielectric, metals) or substrate (e.g., silicon) to selectively 
remove portions of material.
    (2) Any electronics production process in which chambers used for 
depositing thin films are cleaned periodically using plasma-generated 
fluorine atoms and other reactive fluorine-containing fragments.
    (3) Any electronics 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, 
including the wafer edge.
    (4) Any electronics production process in which the chemical vapor 
deposition (CVD) process or other manufacturing processes use 
N2O.
    (5) Any electronics manufacturing production process in which 
fluorinated GHGs are used as heat transfer fluids to cool process 
equipment, to control temperature during device testing, to clean 
substrate surfaces and other parts, and for soldering (e.g., vapor 
phase reflow).


Sec.  98.91  Reporting threshold.

    (a) You must report GHG emissions under this subpart if electronics 
manufacturing production processes, as defined in Sec.  98.90, are 
performed at your facility and your facility meets the requirements of 
either Sec.  98.2(a)(1) or (a)(2). To calculate total annual GHG 
emissions for comparison to the 25,000 metric ton CO2e per 
year emission threshold in Sec.  98.2(a)(2), follow the requirements of 
Sec.  98.2(b), with one exception. Rather than using the calculation 
methodologies in Sec.  98.93 to calculate emissions from electronics 
manufacturing production processes, calculate emissions of each 
fluorinated GHG from electronics manufacturing production processes by 
using paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of this section, as 
appropriate, and then sum the emissions of each fluorinated GHG by 
using paragraph (a)(4) of this section.
    (1) If you manufacture semiconductors or MEMS you must calculate 
annual production process emissions of each input gas i for threshold 
applicability purposes using the default emission factors shown in 
Table I-1 to this subpart and Equation I-1 of this subpart.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.002


Where:

Ei = Annual production process emissions of input gas i 
for threshold applicability purposes (metric tons CO2e).
S = 100 percent of annual manufacturing capacity of a facility as 
calculated using Equation I-5 of this subpart (m\2\).
EFi = Emission factor for input gas i (kg/m\2\).
GWPi = Gas-appropriate GWP as provided in Table A-1 to 
subpart A of this part.
0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons.
i = Input gas.

    (2) If you manufacture LCDs, you must calculate annual production 
process emissions of each input gas i for threshold applicability 
purposes using the default emission factors shown in Table I-1 to this 
subpart and Equation I-2 of this subpart.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.003

Where:

Ei = Annual production process emissions of input gas i 
for threshold applicability purposes (metric tons Co2e).
S = 100 percent of annual manufacturing capacity of a facility as 
calculated using Equation I-5 of this subpart (m\2\).
EFi = Emission factor for input gas i (g/m\2\).
GWPi = Gas-appropriate GWP as provided in Table A-1 to 
subpart A of this part.
0.000001 = Conversion factor from g to metric tons.
i = Input gas.

    (3) If you manufacture PVs, you must calculate annual production 
process emissions of each input gas i for threshold applicability 
purposes using gas-appropriate GWP values shown in Table A-1 to subpart 
A of this part and Equation I-3 of this subpart.

[[Page 74819]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.004

Where:

Ei = Annual production process emissions of input gas i 
for threshold applicability purposes (metric tons Co2e).
Ci = Annual fluorinated GHG (input gas i) purchases or 
consumption (kg). Only gases used in PV manufacturing that have 
listed GWP values in Table A-1 to subpart A of this part must be 
considered for threshold applicability purposes.
GWPi = Gas-appropriate GWP as provided in Table A-1 to 
subpart A of this part.
0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons.
    i = Input gas.

    (4) You must calculate total annual production process emissions 
for threshold applicability purposes using Equation I-4 of this 
subpart.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.005

Where:

ET = Annual production process emissions of all 
fluorinated GHGs for threshold applicability purposes (metric tons 
Co2e).
[delta] = Factor accounting for heat transfer fluid emissions, 
estimated as 10 percent of total annual production process emissions 
at a semiconductor facility. Set equal to 1.1 when Equation I-4 of 
this subpart is used to calculate total annual production process 
emissions from semiconductor manufacturing. Set equal to 1 when 
Equation I-4 of this subpart is used to calculate total annual 
production process emissions from MEMS, LCD, or PV manufacturing.
Ei = Annual production process emissions of input gas i 
for threshold applicability purposes (metric tons Co2e), 
as calculated in Equations I-1, I-2 or I-3 of this subpart.
i = Input gas.

    (b) You must calculate annual manufacturing capacity of a facility 
using Equation I-5 of this subpart.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.006

Where:

S = 100 percent of annual manufacturing capacity of a facility 
(m\2\).
Wx = Maximum designed substrate starts of a facility in 
month x (m\2\ per month).
x = Month.


Sec.  98.92  GHGs to report.

    (a) You must report emissions of fluorinated GHGs (as defined in 
Sec.  98.6) and N2O. The fluorinated GHGs that are emitted 
from electronics manufacturing production processes include, but are 
not limited to, those listed in Table I-2 to this subpart. You must 
individually report, as appropriate:
    (1) Fluorinated GHGs emitted from plasma etching.
    (2) Fluorinated GHGs emitted from chamber cleaning.
    (3) Fluorinated GHGs emitted from wafer cleaning.
    (4) N2O emitted from chemical vapor deposition and other 
electronics manufacturing processes.
    (5) Fluorinated GHGs emitted from heat transfer fluid use.
    (6) All fluorinated GHGs and N2O consumed, including 
gases used in manufacturing processes other than those listed in 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) of this section.
    (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 of 
this part.


Sec.  98.93  Calculating GHG emissions.

    (a) You must calculate total annual facility-level emissions of 
each fluorinated GHG used in electronics manufacturing production 
processes at your facility, for each process type, using Equations I-6 
and I-7 of this subpart according to the procedures in paragraphs 
(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5), or (a)(6) of this section, as 
appropriate. Facilities to which the procedures in paragraphs (a)(1) of 
this section or (a)(2) of this section apply may elect to use the 
procedures in paragraph (a)(3) as an alternative. If your facility uses 
less than 50 kg of a fluorinated GHG in one reporting year, you may 
calculate emissions as equal to your facility's annual consumption for 
that specific gas as calculated in Equation I-11 of this subpart. Where 
your facility is required to perform calculations using default 
emission factors for gas utilization and by-product formation rates 
according to the procedures in paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this 
section, and default values are not available for a particular input 
gas and process type or sub-type combination in Tables I-3, I-4, I-5, 
I-6, or I-7, you must follow the procedures in paragraph (a)(6) of this 
section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.007

Where:

ProcesstypeEi = Annual emissions of input gas i from the 
processes type (metric tons).
Eij = Annual emissions of input gas i from recipe, 
process sub-type, or process type j as calculated in Equation I-8 of 
this subpart (metric tons).
N = The total number of recipes or process sub-types j that depends 
on the electronics manufacturing facility and emission calculation 
methodology. If Eij is calculated for a process type j in 
Equation I-8 of this subpart, N = 1.
i = Input gas.
j = Recipe, process sub-type, or process type.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.008

Where:

ProcesstypeBEk = Annual emissions of by-product gas k 
from the processes type (metric tons).
BEijk = Annual emissions of by-product gas k formed from 
input gas i used for recipe, process sub-type, or process type j as 
calculated in Equation I-9 of this subpart (metric tons).
N = The total number of recipes or process sub-types j that depends 
on the electronics manufacturing facility and emission calculation 
methodology. If BEkij is calculated for a process type j 
in Equation I-9 of this subpart, N = 1.
i = Input gas.
j = Recipe, process sub-type, or process type.
k = By-product gas.


[[Page 74820]]


    (1) If you manufacture MEMS, LCDs, or PVs, you must, except as 
provided in Sec.  98.93(a)(3), calculate annual facility-level 
emissions of each fluorinated GHG used for the plasma etching and 
chamber cleaning process types using default utilization and by-product 
formation rates as shown in Table I-5, I-6, or I-7 of this subpart, as 
appropriate, and by using Equations I-8 and I-9 of this subpart.
    (2) If you manufacture semiconductors on wafers measuring 300 mm or 
less in diameter, except as provided in Sec.  98.93(a)(3), you must 
adhere to the procedures in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) or (a)(2)(ii) of this 
section.
    (i) If your facility has an annual manufacturing capacity, as 
calculated using Equation I-5 of this subpart, of less than or equal to 
10,500 m\2\ of substrate, you must adhere to the procedures in 
paragraphs (a)(i)(A) through (a)(i)(C) of this section.
    (A) You must calculate annual facility-level emissions of each 
fluorinated GHG used for the plasma etching process type using default 
utilization and by-product formation rates as shown in Table I-3 or I-4 
of this subpart, and by using Equations I-8 and I-9 of this subpart.
    (B) You must calculate annual facility-level emissions of each 
fluorinated GHG used for each of the process sub-types associated with 
the chamber cleaning process type, including in-situ plasma chamber 
clean, remote plasma chamber clean, and in-situ thermal chamber clean, 
using default utilization and by-product formation rates as shown in 
Table I-3 or I-4 of this subpart, and by using Equations I-8 and I-9 of 
this subpart.
    (C) You must calculate annual facility-level emissions of each 
fluorinated GHG used for the wafer cleaning process type using default 
utilization and by-product formation rates as shown in Table I-3 or I-4 
of this subpart and by using Equations I-8 and I-9 of this subpart.
    (ii) If your facility has an annual manufacturing capacity of 
greater than 10,500 m\2\ of substrate, as calculated using Equation I-5 
of this subpart, you must adhere to the procedures in paragraphs 
(a)(ii)(A) through (a)(ii)(C) of this section.
    (A) You must calculate annual facility-level emissions of each 
fluorinated GHG used for the plasma etching process type using recipe-
specific utilization and by-product formation rates determined as 
specified in Sec.  98.94(d), and by using Equations I-8 and I-9 of this 
subpart. You must develop recipe-specific utilization and by-product 
formation rates for each individual recipe or set of similar recipes as 
defined in Sec.  98.98. Recipe-specific utilization and by-product 
formation rates must be developed each reporting year only for recipes 
which are not similar to any recipe used in a previous reporting year, 
as defined in Sec.  98.98.
    (B) You must calculate annual facility-level emissions of each 
fluorinated GHG used for each of the process sub-types associated with 
the chamber cleaning process type, including in-situ plasma chamber 
clean, remote plasma chamber clean, and in-situ thermal chamber clean, 
using default utilization and by-product formation rates as shown in 
Table I-3 or I-4 to this subpart, and by using Equations I-8 and I-9 of 
this subpart.
    (C) You must calculate annual facility-level emissions of each 
fluorinated GHG used for the wafer cleaning process type using default 
utilization and by-product formation rates as shown in Table I-3 or I-4 
to this subpart, and by using Equations I-8 and I-9 of this subpart.
    (3) If you do not adhere to procedures as specified in paragraphs 
(a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section, you must calculate annual facility-
level emissions of each fluorinated GHG for all fluorinated GHG-
emitting production processes using recipe-specific utilization and by-
product formation rates determined as specified in Sec.  98.94(d) and 
by using Equations I-8 and I-9 of this subpart. You must develop 
recipe-specific utilization and by-product formation rates for each 
individual recipe or set of similar recipes as defined in Sec.  98.98. 
Recipe-specific utilization and by-product formation rates must be 
developed each reporting year only for recipes which are not similar to 
any recipe used in a previous reporting year, as defined in Sec.  
98.98.
    (4) If you manufacture semiconductors on wafers measuring greater 
than 300 mm in diameter, you must calculate annual facility-level 
emissions of each fluorinated GHG used for all fluorinated GHG emitting 
production processes using recipe-specific utilization and by-product 
formation rates as specified in Sec.  98.94(d), and by using Equations 
I-8 and I-9 of this subpart. You must develop recipe-specific 
utilization and by-product formation rates for each individual recipe 
or set of similar recipes as defined in Sec.  98.98. Recipe-specific 
utilization and by-product formation rates must be developed each 
reporting year only for recipes that are not similar to any recipe used 
in a previous reporting year, as defined in Sec.  98.98.
    (5) To be included in a set of similar recipes for the purposes of 
this subpart, a recipe must be similar to the recipe in the set for 
which recipe-specific utilization and by-product formation rates have 
been measured.
    (6) Where your facility is required to perform calculations using 
default emission factors for gas utilization and by-product formation 
rates according to the procedures in paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2) of 
this section, and default values are not available for a particular 
input gas and process type or sub-type combination in Tables I-3, I-4, 
I-5, I-6, or I-7, you must follow the procedures in either paragraph 
(a)(6)(i) or (a)(6)(ii) of this section and use Equations I-8 and I-9 
of this subpart.
    (i) You must use utilization and by-product formation rates of 0.
    (ii) You must develop recipe-specific utilization and by-product 
formation rates determined as specified in Sec.  98.94(d) for each 
individual recipe or set of similar recipes as defined in Sec.  98.98. 
Recipe-specific utilization and by-product formation rates must be 
developed each reporting year only for recipes that are not similar to 
any recipe used in a previous reporting year, as defined in Sec.  
98.98.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.009

Where:

Eij = Annual emissions of input gas i from recipe, 
process sub-type, or process type j (metric tons).
Cij = Amount of input gas i consumed for recipe, process 
sub-type, or process type j, as calculated in Equation I-13 of this 
subpart (kg).
Uij = Process utilization rate for input gas i for 
recipe, process sub-type, or process type j (expressed as a decimal 
fraction).
aij = Fraction of input gas i used in recipe, process 
sub-type, or process type j with abatement systems (expressed as a 
decimal fraction).
dij = Fraction of input gas i destroyed or removed in 
abatement systems connected to process tools where recipe, process 
sub-type, or process type j is used, as calculated in Equation I-14 
of

[[Page 74821]]

this subpart (expressed as a decimal fraction).
0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons.
i = Input gas.
j = Recipe, process sub-type, or process type.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.010

Where:

BEijk = Annual emissions of by-product gas k formed from 
input gas i from recipe, process sub-type, or process type j (metric 
tons).
Bijk = By-product formation rate of gas k created as a 
by-product per amount of input gas i (kg) consumed by recipe, 
process sub-type, or process type j (kg).
Cij = Amount of input gas i consumed for recipe, process 
sub-type, or process type j, as calculated in Equation I-13 of this 
subpart (kg)).
aij = Fraction of input gas i used for recipe, process 
sub-type, or process type j with abatement systems (expressed as a 
decimal fraction).
djk = Fraction of by-product gas k destroyed or removed 
in abatement systems connected to process tools where recipe, 
process sub-type, or process type j is used, as calculated in 
Equation I-14 of this subpart (expressed as a decimal fraction).
0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons.
i = Input gas.
j = Recipe, process sub-type, or process type.
k = By-product gas.
    (b) You must calculate annual facility-level N2O 
emissions from each chemical vapor deposition process and other 
electronics manufacturing production processes using Equation I-10 of 
this subpart and the methods in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this 
section. If your facility uses less than 50 kg of N2O in one 
reporting year, you may calculate emissions as equal to your facility's 
annual consumption for N2O as calculated in Equation I-11 of 
this subpart.
    (1) You must use a factor for N2O utilization for 
chemical vapor deposition processes pursuant to either paragraph 
(b)(1)(i) or (b)(1)(ii) of this section.
    (i) You must develop a facility-specific N2O utilization 
factor averaged over all N2O-using chemical vapor deposition 
processes determined as specified in Sec.  98.94(e).
    (ii) If you do not use a facility-specific N2O 
utilization factor for chemical vapor deposition processes, you must 
use the default utilization factor as shown in Table I-8 to this 
subpart for N2O from chemical vapor deposition processes.
    (2) You must use a factor for N2O utilization for other 
manufacturing processes pursuant to either paragraph (b)(2)(i) or 
(b)(2)(ii) of this section.
    (i) You must develop a facility-specific N2O utilization 
factor averaged over all N2O-using electronics manufacturing 
production processes other than chemical vapor deposition processes 
determined as specified in Sec.  98.94(e).
    (ii) If you do not use a facility-specific N2O 
utilization factor for manufacturing production processes other than 
chemical vapor deposition, you must use the default utilization factor 
in as shown in Table I-8 to this subpart for N2O from 
manufacturing production processes other than chemical vapor 
deposition.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.011

Where:

E(N2O)j = Annual emissions of N2O 
for N2O-using process j (metric tons).
CN2O,j = Amount of N2O consumed for 
N2O-using process j, as calculated in Equation I-13 of 
this subpart and apportioned to N2O process j (kg).
UN2O,j = Process utilization factor for N2O-
using process j (expressed as a decimal fraction).
aN2O,j = Fraction of N2O used in 
N2O-using process j with abatement systems (expressed as 
a decimal fraction).
dN2O,j = Fraction of N2O for N2O-
using process j destroyed or removed in abatement systems connected 
to process tools where process j is used, as calculated in Equation 
I-14 of this subpart (expressed as a decimal fraction).
0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons.
j = Type of N2O-using process, either chemical vapor 
deposition or other N2O-using manufacturing processes.

    (c) You must calculate total annual input gas i consumption for 
each fluorinated GHG and N2O using Equation I-11 of this 
subpart. Pursuant to Sec.  98.92(a)(6), for all fluorinated GHGs and 
N2O used at your facility for which you do not calculate 
emissions using Equations I-6, I-7, I-8, I-9, and I-10 of this subpart, 
calculate consumption of these fluorinated GHGs and N2O 
using Equation I-11 of this subpart.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.012

Where:

Ci = Annual consumption of input gas i (kg per year).
IBi = Inventory of input gas i stored in containers at 
the beginning of the reporting year, including heels (kg). For 
containers in service at the beginning of a reporting year, account 
for the quantity in these containers as if they were full.
IEi = Inventory of input gas i stored in containers at 
the end of the reporting year, including heels (kg). For containers 
in service at the end of a reporting year, account for the quantity 
in these containers as if they were full.
Ai = Acquisitions of input gas i during the year through 
purchases or other transactions, including heels in containers 
returned to the electronics manufacturing facility (kg).
Di = Disbursements of input gas i through sales or other 
transactions during the year, including heels in containers returned 
by the electronics manufacturing facility to the chemical supplier, 
as calculated using Equation I-12 of this subpart (kg).
i = Input gas.

    (d) You must calculate disbursements of input gas i using facility-
wide gas-specific heel factors, as determined in Sec.  98.94(b), and by 
using Equation I-12 of this subpart.

[[Page 74822]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.013

Where:

Di = Disbursements of input gas i through sales or other 
transactions during the reporting year, including heels in 
containers returned by the electronics manufacturing facility to the 
gas distributor (kg).
hil = Facility-wide gas-specific heel factor for input 
gas i and container size and type l (expressed as a decimal 
fraction), as determined in Sec.  98.94(b). If your facility uses 
less than 50 kg of a fluorinated GHG or N2O in one 
reporting year, you may assume that any hil for that 
fluorinated GHG or N2O is equal to zero.
Nil = Number of containers of size and type l returned to 
the gas distributor containing the standard heel of input gas i.
Fil = Full capacity of containers of size and type l 
containing input gas i (kg).
Xi = Disbursements under exceptional circumstances of 
input gas i through sales or other transactions during the year 
(kg). These include returns of containers whose contents have been 
weighed due to an exceptional circumstance as specified in Sec.  
98.94(b)(4).
i = Input gas.
l = Size and type of gas container.
M = The total number of different sized container types. If only one 
size and container type is used for an input gas i, M=1.

    (e) You must calculate the amount of input gas i consumed for each 
individual recipe (including those in a set of similar recipes) process 
sub-type, or process type j, using Equation I-13 of this subpart.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.014

Where:

Ci,j = The annual amount of input gas i consumed for 
recipe, process sub-type, or process type j (kg).
fi,j = Recipe-specific, process sub-type-specific, or 
process type-specific input gas i apportioning factor (expressed as 
a decimal fraction), as determined in accordance with Sec.  
98.94(c).
Ci = Annual consumption of input gas i as calculated 
using Equation I-11 of this subpart (kg).
i = Input gas.
j = Recipe, process sub-type, or process type.

    (f) If you report controlled emissions pursuant to Sec.  98.94(f), 
you must calculate the fraction of input gas i destroyed in abatement 
systems for each individual recipe (including those in a set of similar 
recipes) process sub-type, or process type j by using Equation I-14 of 
this subpart.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.015

Where:

dij = Fraction of input gas i destroyed or removed in 
abatement systems connected to process tools where recipe, process 
sub-type, or process type j is used (expressed as a decimal 
fraction).
Cijp = The amount of input gas i consumed for recipe, 
process sub-type, or process type j fed into abatement system p 
(kg).
dijp = Destruction or removal efficiency for input gas i 
in abatement system p connected to process tools where recipe, 
process sub-type, or process type j is used (expressed as a decimal 
fraction). This is zero unless the facility adheres to requirements 
in Sec.  98.94(f).
up = The uptime of abatement system p as calculated in 
Equation I-15 of this subpart (expressed as a decimal fraction).
i = Input gas.
j = Recipe, process sub-type, or process type.
p = Abatement system.

    (g) If you report controlled emissions pursuant to Sec.  98.94(f), 
you must calculate the uptime by using Equation I-15 of this subpart.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.016

Where:

up = The uptime of abatement system p (expressed as a 
decimal fraction).
tp = The total time in which abatement system p is in an 
operational mode when fluorinated GHGs or N2O are flowing 
through production process tool(s) connected to abatement system p 
(hours).
Tp = Total time in which fluorinated GHGs or 
N2O are flowing through production process tool(s) 
connected to abatement system p (hours).
p = Abatement system.

    (h) If you use fluorinated heat transfer fluids, you must report 
the annual emissions of fluorinated GHG heat transfer fluids using the 
mass balance approach described in Equation I-16 of this subpart.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.017

Where:

EHi = Emissions of fluorinated GHG heat transfer fluid i, 
(metric tons/year).
Densityi = Density of fluorinated heat transfer fluid i 
(kg/l).
IiB = Inventory of fluorinated heat transfer fluid i in 
containers other than equipment at the beginning of the reporting 
year (in stock or storage) (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.
Pi = Acquisitions of fluorinated heat transfer fluid i 
during the reporting year (l), including 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.
Ni = Total nameplate capacity (full and proper charge) of 
equipment that uses fluorinated heat transfer fluid i and that

[[Page 74823]]

is newly installed during the reporting year (l).
Ri = Total nameplate capacity (full and proper charge) of 
equipment that uses fluorinated heat transfer fluid i and that is 
removed from service during the reporting year (l).
IiE = Inventory of fluorinated heat transfer fluid i in 
containers other than equipment at the end of the reporting year (in 
stock or storage)(l).
Di = Disbursements of fluorinated heat transfer fluid i 
during the reporting year, including amounts returned to chemical 
suppliers, sold with or inside of equipment, and sent off-site for 
verifiable recycling or destruction (l). 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.
i = Heat transfer fluid.


Sec.  98.94  Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.

    (a) For calendar year 2011 monitoring, you may follow the 
provisions in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section for best 
available monitoring methods.
    (1) Best available monitoring methods. From January 1, 2011 through 
June 30, 2011, owners or operators may use best available monitoring 
methods for any parameter that cannot reasonably be measured according 
to the monitoring and QA/QC requirements of this subpart. The owner or 
operator must use the calculation methodologies and equations in Sec.  
98.93, but may use the best available monitoring method for any 
parameter for which it is not reasonably feasible to acquire, install, 
or operate a required piece of monitoring equipment in a facility, or 
to procure necessary measurement services by January 1, 2011. Starting 
no later than July 1, 2011, the owner or operator must discontinue 
using best available monitoring methods and begin following all 
applicable monitoring and QA/QC requirements of this part, except as 
provided in paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3), or (a)(4) of this section. Best 
available monitoring methods means any of the following methods 
specified in this paragraph:
    (i) Monitoring methods currently used by the facility that do not 
meet the specifications of this subpart.
    (ii) Supplier data.
    (iii) Engineering calculations.
    (iv) Other company records.
    (2) Requests for extension of the use of best available monitoring 
methods in 2011 for parameters other than recipe-specific utilization 
and by-product formation rates for the plasma etching process type. 
With respect to any provision of this subpart except Sec.  
98.93(a)(2)(ii)(A), the owner or operator may submit a request to the 
Administrator under this paragraph (a)(2) to use one or more best 
available monitoring methods to estimate emissions that occur between 
July 1, 2011 and December 31, 2011.
    (i) Timing of request. The extension request must be submitted to 
EPA no later than February 28, 2011.
    (ii) Content of request. Requests must contain the following 
information:
    (A) A list of specific items of monitoring instrumentation and 
measuring services for which the request is being made and the 
locations where each piece of monitoring instrumentation will be 
installed and where each measurement service will be provided.
    (B) Identification of the specific rule requirements for which the 
instrumentation or measurement service is needed.
    (C) A description of the reasons why the needed equipment could not 
be obtained, installed, or operated or why the needed measurement 
service could not be provided before July 1, 2011.
    (D) If the reason for the extension is that the equipment cannot be 
purchased, delivered, or installed before July 1, 2011, include 
supporting documentation such as the date the monitoring equipment was 
ordered, investigation of alternative suppliers, and the dates by which 
alternative vendors promised delivery or installation, backorder 
notices or unexpected delays, descriptions of actions taken to expedite 
delivery or installation, and the current expected date of delivery or 
installation.
    (E) If the reason for the extension is that service providers were 
unable to provide necessary measurement services, include supporting 
documentation demonstrating that these services could not be acquired 
before July 1, 2011. This documentation must include written 
correspondence to and from at least three service providers stating 
that they will not be available to provide the necessary services 
before July 1, 2011.
    (F) A detailed description of the specific best available 
monitoring methods that the facility will use in place of the required 
methods.
    (G) A description of the specific actions the owner or operator 
will take to comply with monitoring requirements by January 1, 2012.
    (iii) Approval criteria. To obtain approval, the owner or operator 
must demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that by July 1, 
2011, it is not reasonably feasible to acquire, install, or operate the 
required piece of monitoring equipment, or procure necessary 
measurement services to comply with the requirements of this subpart. 
As a condition for allowing the use of best available monitoring 
methods through December 31, 2011, facilities must recalculate and 
resubmit their 2011 estimated emissions using the requirements of this 
subpart. Where a facility is allowed to use best available monitoring 
methods for apportioning gas consumption under Sec.  98.94(c), it is 
not required to verify its 2011 engineering model with its recalculated 
report. The facility's recalculated emissions must be reported with its 
report for the 2012 reporting year (to be submitted in 2013) unless the 
facility receives an additional extension under paragraph (a)(4) of 
this section.
    (3) Requests for extension of the use of best available monitoring 
methods in 2011 for recipe-specific utilization and by-product 
formation rates for the plasma etching process type under Sec.  
98.93(a)(2)(ii)(A). The owner or operator may submit a request to the 
Administrator under this paragraph (a)(3) to use one or more best 
available monitoring methods to estimate emissions that occur between 
July 1, 2011 and December 31, 2011 for recipe-specific utilization and 
by-product formation rates for the etching process type under Sec.  
98.93(a)(2)(ii)(A).
    (i) Timing of request. The extension request must be submitted to 
EPA no later than June 30, 2011.
    (ii) Content of request. Requests must contain the following 
information:
    (A) The information outlined in paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(A) through 
(a)(2)(ii)(F) of this section, substituting December 31, 2011 for July 
1, 2011.
    (B) A description of the specific actions the owner or operator 
will take to comply with monitoring requirements by January 1, 2012.
    (iii) Approval criteria. To obtain approval, the owner or operator 
must demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that by December 
31, 2011 it is not reasonably feasible to acquire, install, or operate 
the required piece of monitoring equipment or procure necessary 
measurement services to comply with the requirements of this subpart. 
As a condition for allowing the use of best available monitoring 
methods through December 31, 2011, facilities must recalculate and 
resubmit their 2011 estimated emissions using the requirements of this 
subpart. The facility's recalculated emissions must be reported with 
its report for the 2012 reporting year (to be submitted in 2013) unless 
the facility receives an additional

[[Page 74824]]

extension under paragraph (a)(4) of this section.
    (4) Requests for extension of the use of best available monitoring 
methods beyond 2011. EPA does not anticipate approving the use of best 
available monitoring methods beyond December 31, 2011; however, EPA 
reserves the right to approve any such requests submitted for unique 
and extreme circumstances, which include safety, technical 
infeasibility, or inconsistency with other local, State or Federal 
regulations.
    (i) Timing of request. The extension request must be submitted to 
EPA no later than June 30, 2011.
    (ii) Content of request. Requests must contain the following 
information:
    (A) A list of parameters for which the owner or operator is seeking 
use of best available monitoring methods beyond 2011.
    (B) A description of the specific rule requirements that the owner 
or operator cannot meet, including a detailed explanation as to why the 
requirements can not be met.
    (C) Detailed description of the unique circumstances necessitating 
an extension, including specific data collection issues that do not 
meet safety regulations, technical infeasibility, or specific laws or 
regulations that conflict with data collection.
    (D) A detailed explanation and supporting documentation of how and 
when the owner or operator will receive the required data and/or 
services to comply with the reporting requirements of this subpart in 
the future.
    (E) A detailed description of the specific best available 
monitoring methods that the facility will use in place of the required 
methods.
    (F) The Administrator reserves the right to require that the owner 
or operator provide additional documentation.
    (iii) Approval criteria. To obtain approval, the owner or operator 
must demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that by December 
31, 2011 (or in the case of facilities that are required to calculate 
and report emissions in accordance with Sec.  98.93(a)(2)(ii)(A), 
December 31, 2012), it is not reasonably feasible to acquire, install, 
or operate the required piece of monitoring equipment according to the 
requirements of this subpart. As a condition for allowing the use of 
best available monitoring methods through December 31, 2012, facilities 
must recalculate and resubmit their 2012 estimated emissions using the 
requirements of this subpart. Where a facility is allowed to use best 
available monitoring methods for apportioning gas consumption under 
Sec.  98.94(c), it is not required to verify its 2012 engineering model 
with its recalculated report. The facility's recalculated emissions 
must be reported with its report for the 2013 reporting year (to be 
submitted in 2014).
    (b) For purposes of Equation I-12 of this subpart, you must 
estimate facility-wide gas-specific heel factors for each container 
type for each gas used, except for fluorinated GHGs or N2O 
which your facility uses in quantities less than 50 kg in one reporting 
year, according to the procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) 
of this section.
    (1) Base your facility-wide gas-specific heel factors on the 
trigger point for change out of a container for each container size and 
type for each gas used. Facility-wide gas-specific heel factors must be 
expressed as the ratio of the trigger point for change out, in terms of 
mass, to the initial mass in the container, as determined by paragraphs 
(b)(2) and (b)(3) of this section.
    (2) The trigger points for change out you use to calculate 
facility-wide gas-specific heel factors in Sec.  98.94(b)(1) must be 
determined by monitoring the mass or the pressure of your containers. 
If you monitor the pressure, convert the pressure to mass using the 
ideal gas law, as displayed in Equation I-17 of this subpart, with the 
appropriate Z value selected based upon the properties of the gas.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.018

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) The initial mass you use to calculate a facility-wide gas-
specific heel factor in Sec.  98.94(b)(1) may be based on the weight of 
the gas provided to you in gas supplier documents; however, you remain 
responsible for the accuracy of these masses and weights under this 
subpart.
    (4) If a container is changed in an exceptional circumstance, you 
must weigh that container or measure the pressure of that container 
with a pressure gauge, in place of using a heel factor to determine the 
residual weight of gas. An exceptional circumstance is a change out 
point that differs by more than 20 percent from the trigger point for 
change out used to calculate your facility-wide gas-specific heel 
factor for that gas and container type. When using mass-based trigger 
points for change out, you must determine if an exceptional 
circumstance has occurred based on the net weight of gas in the 
container, excluding the tare weight of the container.
    (5) You must re-calculate a facility-wide gas-specific heel factor 
if you use a trigger point for change out for a gas and container type 
that differs by more than 5 percent from the previously used trigger 
point for change out for that gas and container type.
    (c) You must develop apportioning factors for fluorinated GHG and 
N2O consumption to use in Equation I-13 of this subpart for 
each input gas i, as appropriate, using a facility-specific engineering 
model that is documented in your site GHG Monitoring Plan as required 
under Sec.  98.3(g)(5). This model must be based on a quantifiable 
metric, such as wafer passes or wafer starts. To verify your model, you 
must demonstrate its precision and accuracy by adhering to the 
requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section.
    (1) You must demonstrate that the fluorinated GHG and 
N2O apportioning factors are developed using calculations 
that are repeatable, as defined in Sec.  98.98.
    (2) You must demonstrate the accuracy of your facility-specific 
model by comparing the actual amount of input gas i consumed and the 
modeled amount of input gas i consumed for the plasma etching and 
chamber cleaning process types, as follows:
    (i) You must analyze at least a 30-day period of operation during 
which the capacity utilization equals or exceeds 60 percent of its 
design capacity. In the event your facility operates below 60 percent 
of its design capacity during the reporting year, you must use the 
period during which the facility experiences its highest 30-day average 
utilization for model verification.
    (ii) You must compare the actual gas consumed of input gas i to the 
modeled gas consumed of input gas i for one fluorinated GHG reported 
under this subpart under the plasma etching process type and the 
chamber cleaning

[[Page 74825]]

process type. You must certify that the fluorinated GHGs selected for 
comparison correspond to the largest quantities, on a mass basis, of 
fluorinated GHGs used at your facility during the reporting year for 
the plasma etching process type and the chamber cleaning process type.
    (iii) You must demonstrate that the comparison performed for the 
largest quantity of gas, on a mass basis, consumed under the plasma 
etching process type in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section, does not 
result in a difference between the actual and modeled gas consumption 
that exceeds five percent relative to actual gas consumption, reported 
to one significant figure using standard rounding conventions.
    (d) If you use factors for fluorinated GHG process utilization and 
by-product formation rates other than the defaults provided in Tables 
I-3, I-4, I-5, I-6, and I-7 to this subpart, you must use utilization 
and by-product formation rates that are developed with measurements 
made using the International SEMATECH 06124825A-ENG 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  98.7). You may use recipe-
specific utilization and by-product formation rates that were measured 
using the International SEMATECH 01104197A-XFR (incorporated 
by reference, see Sec.  98.7) provided the measurements were made prior 
to January 1, 2007. You may use recipe-specific utilization and by-
product formation rates measured by a third party, such as a 
manufacturing equipment supplier, if the conditions in paragraphs 
(d)(1) and (d)(2) of this section are met.
    (1) The third party has measured recipe-specific utilization and 
by-product formation rates using the International SEMATECH 
06124825A-ENG (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  98.7,) or 
the International SEMATECH 01104197A-XFR (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  98.7) provided the measurements were made prior to 
January 1, 2007.
    (2) Measurements made by a third party to develop recipe-specific 
utilization and by-product formation rates must have been made for 
recipes that are similar recipes to those used at your facility, as 
defined in Sec.  98.98.
    (e) If you use N2O utilization factors other than the 
defaults provided in Table I-8 to this subpart, you must use factors 
developed with measurements made using the International SEMATECH 
06124825A-ENG (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  98.7). You 
may use measurements made using the International SEMATECH 
01104197A-XFR (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  98.7) 
provided the measurements were made prior to January 1, 2007. You may 
use N2O utilization factors measured by a third party, such 
as a manufacturing equipment supplier, if the conditions in paragraphs 
(e)(1) and (e)(2) of this section are met.
    (1) The third party has measured N2O utilization factors 
using the International SEMATECH 06124825A-ENG (incorporated 
by reference, see Sec.  98.7,) or the International SEMATECH 
01104197A-XFR (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  98.7) 
provided the measurements were made prior to January 1, 2007.
    (2) The conditions under which the measurements were made are 
representative of your facility's N2O emitting production 
processes.
    (f) If your facility employs abatement systems and you wish to 
reflect emission reductions due to these systems in 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 as defined in Sec.  98.98, 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 abatement systems are 
properly installed, operated, and maintained according to 
manufacturers' specifications by adhering to the procedures in 
paragraphs (1)(i) and (1)(ii) of this section.
    (i) You must certify and document proper installation by verifying 
your systems were installed in accordance with the manufacturers' 
specifications.
    (ii) You must certify and document your systems are operated and 
maintained in accordance with the manufacturers' specifications.
    (2) You must calculate and report the uptime of abatement systems 
using Equation I-15 of this subpart.
    (3) To report emissions using the default destruction or removal 
efficiency of 60 percent, you must certify and document that the 
abatement systems at your facility are specifically designed for 
fluorinated GHG and N2O abatement.
    (4) If you do not use the default destruction or removal efficiency 
value to calculate and report controlled emissions, you must use either 
a properly measured destruction or removal efficiency, or a class 
average of properly measured destruction or removal efficiencies, 
determined in accordance with procedures in paragraphs (f)(4)(i) 
through (f)(4)(v) of this section.
    (i) A properly measured destruction or removal efficiency value 
must be determined in accordance with EPA 430-R-10-003 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  98.7).
    (ii) You 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)(4)(ii)(A) and 
(f)(4)(ii)(B) of this section.
    (A) Each reporting year for each abatement system class a random 
sample of three or 20 percent of installed abatement systems, whichever 
is greater, must be tested. If 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 must be determined by rounding up to the 
nearest integer.
    (B) You must select the random sample each reporting year for the 
RSASTP without repetition of previously-measured systems in the sample, 
until all systems in each class are properly measured in a 5-year 
period.
    (iii) If you have measured the destruction or removal efficiency of 
a particular abatement system during the previous 2-year period, you 
must calculate emissions from that system using the most recently 
measured destruction or removal efficiency for that particular system.
    (iv) If the destruction or removal efficiency of an individual 
abatement system has not been properly measured during the previous 2-
year period, you may use a simple average of the properly measured 
destruction or removal efficiencies for systems of that class, in 
accordance with the RSASTP. Your facility must maintain or exceed the 
RSASTP schedule if you wish to apply class average destruction or 
removal efficiency factors to abatement systems that have not yet been 
properly measured.
    (v) If your facility uses redundant abatement systems, you may 
account for the total abatement system uptime calculated for a specific 
exhaust stream during the reporting year.
    (g) You must adhere to the QA/QC procedures of this paragraph when 
calculating fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions from 
electronics manufacturing production processes:

[[Page 74826]]

    (1) Follow the QA/QC procedures in the International SEMATECH 
06124825A-ENG (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  98.7) when 
measuring and calculating facility-specific, recipe-specific 
fluorinated GHG and N2O utilization and by-product formation 
rates.
    (2) Where you use facility-specific, recipe-specific fluorinated 
GHG and N2O utilization and by-product formation rates 
measured prior to January 1, 2007, verify that the QA/QC procedures in 
the International SEMATECH 01104197A-XFR (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  98.7) were followed during measurement and 
calculation of the factors.
    (3) Follow the QA/QC procedures in accordance with those in EPA 
430-R-10-003 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  98.7) when 
calculating abatement systems destruction or removal efficiencies.
    (4) Demonstrate that as part of normal facility operations the 
inventory of gas stored in containers at the beginning of the reporting 
year is the same as the inventory of gas stored in containers at the 
end of the previous reporting year.
    (h) You must adhere to the QA/QC procedures of this paragraph (h) 
when calculating annual gas consumption for each fluorinated GHG and 
N2O used at your facility and fluorinated GHG emissions from 
heat transfer fluid use.
    (1) Review all inputs to Equations I-11 and I-16 of this subpart to 
ensure that all inputs and outputs are accounted for.
    (2) Do not enter negative inputs into the mass balance Equations I-
11 and I-16 of this subpart and ensure that no negative emissions are 
calculated.
    (3) Ensure that the inventory at the beginning of one reporting 
year is identical to the inventory reported at the end of the previous 
reporting year.
    (4) Ensure that the total quantity of gas i in containers in 
service at the end of a reporting year is accounted for as if the in-
service containers were full for Equation I-11 of this subpart. Ensure 
also that the same quantity is accounted for in the inventory of input 
gas i stored in containers at the beginning of the subsequent reporting 
year.
    (i) 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 must 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 (b) of this section, 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-16 of this 
subpart, you must estimate heat transfer fluid emissions using the 
arithmetic average of the emission rates for the reporting 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 must document the method used and values used for 
all missing data values.


Sec.  98.96  Data reporting requirements.

    In addition to the information required by Sec.  98.3(c), you must 
include in each annual report the following information for each 
electronics manufacturing facility:
    (a) Annual manufacturing capacity of your facility as determined in 
Equation I-5 of this subpart.
    (b) For facilities that manufacture semiconductors, the diameter of 
wafers manufactured at your facility (mm).
    (c) Annual emissions of:
    (1) Each fluorinated GHG emitted from each process type for which 
your facility is required to calculate emissions as calculated in 
Equations I-6 and I-7 of this subpart.
    (2) Each fluorinated GHG emitted from each individual recipe 
(including those in a set of similar recipes), or process sub-type as 
calculated in Equations I-8 and I-9 of this subpart, as applicable.
    (3) N2O emitted from each chemical vapor deposition 
process and from other N2O-using manufacturing processes as 
calculated in Equation I-10 of this subpart.
    (4) Each heat transfer fluid emitted as calculated in Equation 1-16 
of this subpart.
    (d) The method of emissions calculation used in Sec.  98.93.
    (e) Annual production in terms of substrate surface area (e.g., 
silicon, PV-cell, glass).
    (f) When you use factors for fluorinated GHG process utilization 
and by-product formation rates other than the defaults provided in 
Tables I-3, I-4, I-5, I-6, and I-7 to this subpart and/or 
N2O utilization factors other than the defaults provided in 
Table I-8 to this subpart, you must report the following, as 
applicable:
    (1) The recipe-specific utilization and by-product formation rates 
for each individual recipe (or set of similar recipes) and/or facility-
specific N2O utilization factors.
    (2) For recipe-specific utilization and by-product formation rates, 
the film or substrate that was etched/cleaned and the feature type that 
was etched, as applicable.
    (3) Certification that the recipes included in a set of similar 
recipes are similar, as defined in Sec.  98.98.
    (4) Certification that the measurements for all reported recipe-
specific utilization and by-product formation rates and/or facility-
specific N2O utilization factors were made using the 
International SEMATECH 06124825A-ENG (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  98.7), or the International SEMATECH 
01104197A-XFR (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  98.7) if 
measurements were made prior to January 1, 2007.
    (5) Source of the recipe-specific utilization and by-product 
formation rates and/or facility-specific-N2O utilization 
factors.
    (6) Certification that the conditions under which the measurements 
were made for facility-specific N2O utilization factors are 
representative of your facility's N2O emitting production 
processes.
    (g) Annual gas consumption for each fluorinated GHG and 
N2O as calculated in Equation I-11 of this subpart, 
including where your facility used less than 50 kg of a particular 
fluorinated GHG or N2O during the reporting year. For all 
fluorinated GHGs and N2O used at your facility for which you 
have not calculated emissions using Equations I-6, I-7, I-8, I-9, and 
I-10 of this subpart, the chemical name of the GHG used, the annual 
consumption of the gas, and a brief description of its use.
    (h) All inputs used to calculate gas consumption in Equation I-11 
of this subpart, for each fluorinated GHG and N2O used.
    (i) Disbursements for each fluorinated GHG and N2O 
during the reporting year, as calculated using Equation I-12 of this 
subpart.
    (j) All inputs used to calculate disbursements for each fluorinated 
GHG and N2O used in Equation I-12 of this subpart, including 
all facility-wide gas-specific heel factors used for each fluorinated 
GHG and N2O. If your facility used less than 50 kg of a 
particular fluorinated GHG during the reporting year, facility-wide 
gas-specific heel factors do not need to be reported for those gases.
    (k) Annual amount of each fluorinated GHG consumed for each recipe, 
process sub-type, or process type, as appropriate, and the annual 
amount of

[[Page 74827]]

N2O consumed for each chemical vapor deposition and other 
electronics manufacturing production processes, as calculated using 
Equation I-13 of this subpart.
    (l) All apportioning factors used to apportion fluorinated GHG and 
N2O consumption.
    (m) For the facility-specific apportioning model used to apportion 
fluorinated GHG and N2O consumption under Sec.  98.94(c), 
the following information to determine it is verified in accordance 
with procedures in Sec.  98.94(c)(1) and (2):
    (i) Identification of the quantifiable metric used in your 
facility-specific engineering model to apportion gas consumption.
    (ii) The start and end dates selected under Sec.  98.94(c)(2)(i).
    (iii) Certification that the gases you selected under Sec.  
98.94(c)(2)(ii) correspond to the largest quantities consumed on a mass 
basis, at your facility in the reporting year for the plasma etching 
process type and the chamber cleaning process type.
    (iv) The result of the calculation comparing the actual and modeled 
gas consumption under Sec.  98.94(c)(2)(iii).
    (n) Fraction of each fluorinated GHG or N2O fed into a 
recipe, process sub-type, or process type that is fed into tools 
connected to abatement systems.
    (o) Fraction of each fluorinated GHG or N2O destroyed or 
removed in abatement systems connected to process tools where recipe, 
process sub-type, or process type j is used, as well as all inputs and 
calculations used to determine the inputs for Equation I-14 of this 
subpart.
    (p) Inventory and 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, 
manufacturer claimed fluorinated GHG and N2O destruction or 
removal efficiencies, if any, and records of destruction or removal 
efficiency measurements over their in-use lives. The inventory of 
abatement systems must describe the tools with model numbers and the 
recipe(s), process sub-type, or process type for which these systems 
treat exhaust.
    (q) 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 has been installed, 
maintained, and operated in accordance with manufacturers' 
specifications.
    (2) All inputs and results of calculations made accounting for the 
uptime of abatement systems used during the reporting year, in 
accordance with Equations I-14 and I-15 of this subpart.
    (3) The default destruction or removal efficiency value or properly 
measured destruction or removal efficiencies for each abatement system 
used in the reporting year.
    (4) Where the default destruction or removal efficiency value is 
used to report controlled emissions, certification that the abatement 
systems for which emissions are being reported were specifically 
designed for fluorinated GHG and N2O abatement. You must 
support this certification by providing abatement system supplier 
documentation stating that the system was 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, the 
following must also be reported:
    (i) A description of the class, including the abatement system 
manufacturer and model number and the fluorinated GHG(s) and 
N2O in the 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 properly measured in that class for the reporting year.
    (iv) A description of the calculation used to determine the class 
average, including all inputs to the calculation.
    (v) A description of the method used for randomly selecting class 
members for testing.
    (r) For heat transfer fluid emissions, inputs to the heat transfer 
fluid mass balance equation, Equation I-16 of this subpart, for each 
fluorinated GHG used.
    (s) Where missing data procedures were used to estimate inputs into 
the heat transfer fluid mass balance equation under Sec.  98.95(b), the 
number of times missing data procedures were followed in the reporting 
year, the method used to estimate the missing data, and the estimates 
of those data.
    (t) A brief description of each ``best available monitoring 
method'' used according to Sec.  98.94(a), the parameter measured or 
estimated using the method, and the time period during which the ``best 
available monitoring method'' was used.


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) All data used and copies of calculations made as part of 
estimating gas consumption and 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 and recipe-specific utilization and by-product 
formation rates, the following records must also be retained, as 
applicable:
    (1) Complete documentation and final report for measurements for 
recipe-specific utilization and by-product formation rates 
demonstrating that the values were measured using International 
SEMATECH 06124825A-ENG (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
98.7) or, if the measurements were made prior to January 1, 2007, 
International SEMATECH 01104197A-XFR (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  98.7).
    (2) Documentation that recipe-specific utilization and by-product 
formation rates developed for your facility are measured for recipes 
that are similar to those used at your facility, as defined in Sec.  
98.98. The documentation must include, at a minimum, recorded to the 
appropriate number of significant figures, reactor pressure, flow 
rates, chemical composition, applied RF power, direct current (DC) 
bias, temperature, flow stabilization time, and duration.
    (3) Documentation that your facility's N2O measurements 
are representative of the N2O emitting processes at your 
facility.
    (4) The date and results of the initial and any subsequent tests to 
determine utilization and by-product formation rates.
    (c) Documentation for the facility-specific engineering model used 
to apportion fluorinated GHG and N2O consumption. This 
documentation must be part of your site GHG Monitoring Plan as required 
under Sec.  98.3(g)(5). At a minimum, you must retain the following:
    (1) A clear, detailed description of the facility-specific model, 
including how it was developed; the quantifiable metric used in the 
model; all sources of information, equations, and formulas, each with 
clear definitions of terms and variables; and a clear record of any 
changes made to the model while it was used to apportion fluorinated 
GHG and N2O consumption across individual recipes (including 
those in a set of similar recipes), process sub-types, and/or process 
types.
    (2) Sample calculations used for developing a recipe-specific, 
process sub-type-specific, or process type-specific gas apportioning 
factors (fij) for the two fluorinated GHGs used at your

[[Page 74828]]

facility in the largest quantities, on a mass basis, during the 
reporting year.
    (d) For each abatement system through which fluorinated GHGs or 
N2O flow at your facility, for which you are reporting 
controlled emissions, the following:
    (1) Documentation to certify the abatement system is installed, 
maintained, and operated in accordance with manufacturers' 
specifications.
    (2) Abatement system calibration and maintenance records.
    (3) Where the default destruction or removal efficiency value is 
used, documentation from the abatement system supplier describing the 
equipment's designed purpose and emission control capabilities for 
fluorinated GHG and N2O.
    (4) Where properly measured DRE is used to report emissions, dated 
certification by the technician who made the measurement that the 
destruction or removal efficiency is calculated in accordance with 
methods in EPA 430-R-10-003 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
98.7), complete documentation of the results of any initial and 
subsequent tests, and the final report as specified in EPA 430-R-10-003 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  98.7).
    (e) Purchase records for gas purchased.
    (f) Invoices for gas purchases and sales.
    (g) Documents and records used to monitor and calculate abatement 
system uptime.
    (h) GHG Monitoring Plans, as described in Sec.  98.3(g)(5), must be 
completed by April 1, 2011. You must update your GHG Monitoring Plan to 
comply with Sec.  98.94(c) consistent with the requirements in Sec.  
98.3(g)(5)(iii).


Sec.  98.98  Definitions.

    Except as provided in this section, 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 takes precedence for the reporting requirements in this 
subpart.
    Abatement system means a device or equipment that destroys or 
removes fluorinated GHGs and N2O in waste streams from one 
or more electronics manufacturing production processes.
    Actual gas consumption means the quantity of gas used during wafer/
substrate processing over some period based on a measured change in gas 
container weight or gas container pressure or on a measured volume of 
gas.
    By-product formation means the creation of fluorinated GHGs during 
electronics manufacturing production processes or the creation of 
fluorinated GHGs by an abatement system. By-product formation is the 
ratio of the mass of the by-product formed to the mass flow of the 
input gas, where, for multi-fluorinated-GHG recipes, the denominator 
corresponds to the fluorinated GHG with the largest mass flow.
    Chamber cleaning is a process type that consists of the process 
sub-types defined in paragraphs (1) through (3) of this definition.
    (1) In situ plasma process sub-type consists of the cleaning of 
thin-film production chambers, after processing substrates, with a 
fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent that is dissociated into its cleaning 
constituents by a plasma generated inside the chamber where the film is 
produced.
    (2) Remote plasma process sub-type consists of the cleaning of 
thin-film production chambers, after processing substrates, with a 
fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent dissociated by a remotely located 
plasma source.
    (3) In situ thermal process sub-type consists of the cleaning of 
thin-film production chambers, after processing substrates, with a 
fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent that is thermally dissociated into its 
cleaning constituents inside the chamber where thin films are produced.
    Class means a category of abatement systems grouped by manufacturer 
model number(s) and by the gas that the system abates, including 
N2O and carbon tetrafluoride (CF4) direct 
emissions and by-product formation, and all other fluorinated GHG 
direct emissions and by-product formation. Classes may also include any 
other abatement systems for which the reporting facility wishes to 
report controlled emissions provided that class is identified.
    Controlled emissions means the quantity of emissions that are 
released to the atmosphere after application of an emission control 
device (e.g., abatement system).
    Destruction or removal efficiency (DRE) means the efficiency of an 
abatement 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 abatement system 
to the mass of GHG entering the abatement system. When 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 
(CO2e).
    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 electronics 
manufacturing recipes, process sub-types, or process types.
    Heat transfer fluids are fluorinated GHGs used for temperature 
control, device testing, and soldering in certain types of electronic 
manufacturing production processes. Heat transfer fluids used in the 
electronics sector include perfluoropolyethers, perfluoroalkanes, 
perfluoroethers, tertiary perfluoroamines, and perfluorocyclic ethers. 
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 container after 
it is discharged or off-loaded; heel may vary by container type.
    Individual recipe means a specific combination of gases, under 
specific conditions of reactor temperature, pressure, flow, radio 
frequency (RF) power and duration, used repeatedly to fabricate a 
specific feature on a specific film or substrate.
    Maximum designed substrate starts means the maximum quantity of 
substrates, expressed as surface area, that could be started each month 
during a reporting year if the facility were fully equipped as defined 
in the facility design specifications and if the equipment were fully 
utilized. It denotes 100 percent of annual manufacturing capacity of a 
facility.
    Modeled gas consumed means the quantity of gas used during wafer/
substrate processing over some period based on a verified facility-
specific engineering model used to apportion gas consumption.
    Nameplate capacity means the full and proper charge of chemical 
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.
    Operational mode means the time in which an abatement system is 
being operated within the range of parameters as specified in the 
operations manual provided by the system manufacturer.
    Plasma etching is a process type that consists of any production 
process using fluorinated GHG reagents to selectively

[[Page 74829]]

remove materials from a substrate during electronics manufacturing. The 
materials removed may include SiO2, SiOx-based or 
fully organic-based thin-film material, 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 may be some other element such as carbon), 
substrate, or metal films (such as aluminum or tungsten).
    Process sub-type is a set of similar manufacturing steps, more 
closely related within a broad process type. For example, the chamber 
cleaning process type includes in-situ plasma chamber cleaning, remote 
plasma chamber cleaning, and in-situ thermal chamber cleaning sub-
types.
    Process types are broad groups of manufacturing steps used at a 
facility associated with substrate (e.g., wafer) processing during 
device manufacture for which fluorinated GHG emissions and fluorinated 
GHG usages are calculated and reported. The process types are Plasma 
etching, Chamber cleaning, and Wafer cleaning.
    Properly measured destruction or removal efficiency means 
destruction or removal efficiencies measured in accordance with EPA 
430-R-10-003 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  98.7).
    The Random Sampling Abatement System Testing Program (RSASTP) means 
the required frequency for measuring the destruction or removal 
efficiencies of abatement systems in order to apply properly measured 
destruction or removal efficiencies to report controlled emissions.
    Redundant abatement systems means a system that is specifically 
designed, installed and operated for the purpose of destroying 
fluorinated GHGs and N2O gases. A redundant abatement system 
is used as a backup to the main fluorinated GHGs and N2O 
abatement system during those times when the main system is not 
functioning or operating in accordance with design and operating 
specifications.
    Repeatable means that the variables used in the formulas for the 
facility's engineering model for gas apportioning factors are based on 
observable and measurable quantities that govern gas consumption rather 
than engineering judgment about those quantities or gas consumption.
    Similar, with respect to recipes, means those recipes that are 
composed of the same set of chemicals and have the same flow 
stabilization times and where the documented differences, considered 
separately, in reactor pressure, individual gas flow rates, and applied 
radio frequency (RF) power are less than or equal to plus or minus 10 
percent. For purposes of comparing and documenting recipes that are 
similar, facilities may use either the best known method provided by an 
equipment manufacturer or the process of record, for which emission 
factors for either have been measured.
    Trigger point for change out means the residual weight or pressure 
of a gas container type that a facility uses to change out that gas 
container.
    Uptime means the ratio of the total time during which the abatement 
system is in an operational mode with fluorinated GHGs or 
N2O flowing through production process tool(s) connected to 
that abatement system, to the total time during which fluorinated GHGs 
or N2O are flowing through production process tool(s) 
connected to that abatement system.
    Wafer cleaning is a process type that consists of any production 
process using fluorinated GHG reagents to clean wafers at any step 
during production.
    Wafer passes is a count of the number of times a wafer substrate is 
processed in a specific process recipe, sub-type, or type. The total 
number of wafer passes over a reporting year is the number of wafer 
passes per tool multiplied by the number of operational process tools 
in use during the reporting year.
    Wafer starts means the number of fresh wafers that are introduced 
into the fabrication sequence each month. It includes test wafers, 
which means wafers that are exposed to all of the conditions of process 
characterization, including but not limited to actual etch conditions 
or actual film deposition conditions.

      Table I-1 to Subpart I of Part 98--Default Emission Factors for Threshold Applicability Determination
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Emission factors EFi
           Product type            -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        CF4          C2F6         CHF3         C3F8         NF3          SF6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Semiconductors (kg/m\2\)..........         0.90         1.00         0.04         0.05         0.04         0.20
LCD (g/m\2\)......................         0.50           NA           NA           NA         0.90         4.00
MEMS (kg/m\2\)....................           NA           NA           NA           NA           NA         1.02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information.


 Table I-2 to Subpart I of Part 98--Examples of Fluorinated GHGs Used by
                        the Electronics Industry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Product type           Fluorinated GHGs used during 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 to Subpart I of Part 98--Default Emission Factors (1-Uij) for Gas Utilization Rates (Uij) and By-Product Formation Rates (Bijk) for
                                              Semiconductor Manufacturing for 150mm and 200 mm Wafer Sizes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Process gas i
                Process type/Sub-type                 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         CF4      C2F6     CHF3    CH2F2     C3F8    c-C4F8    NF3      SF6      C4F6     C5F8    C4F8O
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Plasma Etching
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-Ui.................................................     0.69     0.56     0.38    0.093       NA     0.25    0.038     0.20     0.14       NA       NA
BCF4.................................................       NA     0.23    0.026    0.021       NA     0.19   0.0040       NA     0.13       NA       NA
BC2F6................................................       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA    0.084       NA       NA     0.12       NA       NA
BC3F8................................................       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 74830]]

 
                                                                    Chamber Cleaning
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In situ plasma cleaning:
    1-Ui.............................................     0.92     0.55       NA       NA     0.40     0.10     0.18       NA       NA       NA     0.14
    BCF4.............................................       NA     0.19       NA       NA     0.20     0.11    0.011       NA       NA       NA     0.13
    BC2F6............................................       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA    0.030
    BC3F8............................................       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA
Remote plasma cleaning:
    1-Ui.............................................       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA    0.018       NA       NA       NA       NA
    BCF4.............................................       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA   0.0047       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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-Ui.................................................     0.77       NA       NA     0.24       NA       NA     0.23     0.20       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.


      Table I-4 to Subpart I of Part 98-Default Emission Factors (1-Uij) for Gas Utilization Rates (Uij) and By-Product Formation Rates (Bijk) for
                                                    Semiconductor Manufacturing for 300 mm Wafer Size
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Process gas i
                Process type/sub-type                 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         CF4      C2F6     CHF3    CH2F2     C3F8    c-C4F8    NF3      SF6      C4F6     C5F8    C4F8O
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Plasma Etching
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-Ui.................................................     0.80     0.80     0.48     0.14       NA     0.29     0.32     0.37     0.09       NA       NA
BCF4.................................................       NA       NA   0.0018   0.0011       NA    0.079       NA       NA     0.27       NA       NA
BC2F6................................................       NA       NA   0.0011       NA       NA     0.12       NA       NA     0.29       NA       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     0.23       NA       NA       NA       NA
    BCF4.............................................       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA   0.0046       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    0.063       NA    0.018       NA       NA       NA       NA
    BCF4.............................................       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA    0.040       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     0.28       NA       NA       NA       NA
    BCF4.............................................       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA    0.010       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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-Ui.................................................     0.77       NA       NA     0.24       NA       NA     0.23     0.20       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.


[[Page 74831]]


   Table I-5 to Subpart I of Part 98--Default Emission Factors (1-Uij) for Gas Utilization Rates (Uij) and By-Product Formation Rates (Bijk) for MEMS
                                                                      Manufacturing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             Process gas i
                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Process type factors                                                                      NF3
                                                CF4      C2F6     CHF3    CH2F2     C3F8    c-C4F8   Remote    NF3      SF6     C4F6a    C5F8a    C4F8Oa
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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-6 to Subpart I of Part 98--Default Emission Factors (1-Uij) for Gas Utilization Rates (Uij) and By-
                              Product Formation Rates (Bijk) 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-7 to Subpart I of Part 98--Default Emission Factors (1-Uij) for Gas Utilization Rates (Uij) and By-
                               Product Formation Rates (Bijk) 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.


 Table I-8 to Subpart I of Part 98--Default Emission Factors (1-UN2O j)
                      for N2O Utilization (UN2O j)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Process type factors                         N2O
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CVD 1-Ui.........................................................    0.8
Other Manufacturing Process 1-Ui.................................    1.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
9. 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 of a CFC or HCFC as an isolated intermediate 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, the creation of intermediates that are created and transformed in a 
single process with no storage of the intermediates, or the creation of 
fluorinated GHGs that are released or destroyed at the production 
facility

[[Page 74832]]

before the production measurement in Sec.  98.414(a).


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). 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.
    (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 emitted 
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, except report separately fluorinated 
GHG emissions from transformation processes where a fluorinated GHG 
reactant is produced at another facility.
    (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.
    (4) Venting of residual fluorinated GHGs from containers returned 
from the field.


Sec.  98.123  Calculating GHG emissions.

    For fluorinated gas production and transformation processes, you 
must calculate the fluorinated GHG emissions from each process using 
either the mass balance method specified in paragraph (b) of this 
section or the emission factor or emission calculation factor method 
specified in paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this section, as 
appropriate. For destruction processes that destroy fluorinated GHGs 
that were previously ``produced'' as defined at Sec.  98.410(b), you 
must calculate emissions using the procedures in paragraph (f) of this 
section. For venting of residual gas from containers (e.g., cylinder 
heels), you must calculate emissions using the procedures in paragraph 
(g) of this section.
    (a) Default GWP value. In paragraphs (b)(1) and (c)(1) of this 
section and in Sec.  98.124(b)(8) and (c)(2), use a GWP of 2,000 for 
fluorinated GHGs that do not have GWPs listed in Table A-1 to subpart A 
of this part, except as provided in paragraph Sec.  98.123(c)(1)(vi). 
Do not report CO2e emissions under Sec.  98.3(c)(4) for 
fluorinated GHGs that do not have GWPs listed in Table A-1 to subpart A 
of this part.
    (b) Mass balance method. Before using the mass balance approach to 
estimate your fluorinated GHG emissions from a process, you must ensure 
that the process and the equipment and methods used to measure it meet 
either the error limits described in this paragraph and calculated 
under paragraph (b)(1) of this section or the requirements specified in 
paragraph Sec.  98.124(b)(8). If you choose to calculate the error 
limits, 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-5 through 
L-10 of this section. You may use the mass-balance approach to estimate 
emissions from the process if this calculation results in an absolute 
error of less than or equal to 3,000 metric tons CO2e per 
year or a relative error of less than or equal to 30 percent of the 
estimated CO2e fluorinated GHG emissions. If you do not meet 
either of the error limits or the requirements of paragraph Sec.  
98.124(b)(8), you must use the emission factor approach detailed in 
paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this section to estimate emissions from 
the process.
    (1) Error calculation. To perform the calculation, you must first 
calculate the absolute and relative errors associated with the 
quantities calculated using either Equations L-7 through L-10 of this 
section or Equation L-17 of this section. Alternatively, you may 
estimate these errors based on the variability of previous process 
measurements (e.g., the variability of measurements of stream 
concentrations), provided these measurements are representative of the 
current process and current measurement devices and techniques. Once 
errors have been calculated for the quantities in these equations, 
those errors must be used to calculate the errors in Equations L-6 and 
L-5 of this section. You may ignore the errors associated with 
Equations L-11, L-12, and L-13 of this section.
    (i) Where the measured quantity is a mass, the error in the mass 
must 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.
    (ii) Where the measured quantity is a concentration of a stream 
component, the error of the concentration must be equated to the 
accuracy or precision (whichever is larger) with which you estimate the 
mean concentration of that stream component, accounting for the 
variability of the process, the frequency of the measurements, and the 
accuracy or precision (whichever is larger) of the analytical technique 
used to measure the concentration at the concentration measured. If the 
variability of process measurements is used to estimate the error, this 
variability shall be assumed to account both for the variability of the 
process and the precision of the analytical technique. Use standard 
statistical techniques such as the student's t distribution to estimate 
the error of the mean of the concentration measurements as a function 
of process variability and frequency of measurement.
    (iii) 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] TR01DE10.019

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.


[[Page 74833]]


    (iv) Equation L-2 of this section provides the general formula for 
calculating the relative errors of sums and differences:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.020

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.

    (v) Equation L-3 of this section 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] TR01DE10.021

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.

    (vi) Equation L-4 of this section provides the general formula for 
calculating the relative errors of products:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.022

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.

    (vii) Calculate the absolute error of the emissions estimate in 
terms of CO2e by performing a preliminary estimate of the 
annual CO2e emissions of the process using the method in 
paragraph (b)(1)(viii) of this section. Multiply this result by the 
relative error calculated for the mass of fluorine emitted from the 
process in Equation L-6 of this section.
    (viii) To estimate the annual CO2e emissions of the 
process for use in the error estimate, apply the methods set forth in 
paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(7) and (b)(9) through (b)(16) of this 
section to representative process measurements. If these process 
measurements represent less than one year of typical process activity, 
adjust the estimated emissions to account for one year of typical 
process activity. To estimate the terms FERd, FEP, and 
FEBk for use in the error estimate for Equations L-11, L-12, 
and L-13 of this section, you must either use emission testing, 
monitoring of emitted streams, and/or engineering calculations or 
assessments, or in the alternative assume that all fluorine is emitted 
in the form of the fluorinated GHG that has the highest GWP among the 
fluorinated GHGs that occur in more than trace concentrations in the 
process. To convert the fluorinated GHG emissions to CO2e, 
use Equation A-1 of Sec.  98.2. For fluorinated GHGs whose GWPs are not 
listed in Table A-1 to subpart A of this part, use a default GWP of 
2,000.
    (2) The total mass of each fluorinated GHG emitted annually from 
each fluorinated gas production and each fluorinated GHG transformation 
process must be estimated by using Equation L-5 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.023

Where:

EFGHGf = Total mass of each fluorinated GHG f emitted 
annually from production or transformation process i (metric tons).
ERp-FGHGf = Total mass of fluorinated GHG reactant f 
emitted from production process i over the period p (metric tons, 
calculated in Equation L-11 of this section).
EPp-FGHGf = Total mass of the fluorinated GHG product f 
emitted from production process i over the period p (metric tons, 
calculated in Equation L-12 of this section).
EBp-FGHGf = Total mass of fluorinated GHG by-product f 
emitted from production process i over the period p (metric tons, 
calculated in Equation L-13 of this section).
n = Number of concentration and flow measurement periods for the 
year.

    (3) The total mass of fluorine emitted from process i over the 
period p must be estimated at least monthly by calculating the 
difference between the total mass of fluorine in the reactant(s) (or 
inputs, for processes that do not involve a chemical reaction) and the 
total mass of fluorine in the product (or outputs, for processes that 
do not involve a chemical reaction), accounting for the total mass of 
fluorine in any destroyed or recaptured streams that contain reactants, 
products, or by-products (or inputs or outputs). This calculation must 
be performed using Equation L-6 of this section. An element other than 
fluorine may be used in the mass-balance equation, provided the element 
occurs in all of the fluorinated GHGs fed into or generated by the 
process. In this case, the mass fractions of the element in the 
reactants, products, and by-products must be calculated as appropriate 
for that element.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.024

Where:

EF = Total mass of fluorine emitted from process i over 
the period p (metric tons).
Rd = Total mass of the fluorine-containing reactant d 
that is fed into process i over the period p (metric tons).
P = Total mass of the fluorine-containing product produced by 
process i over the period p (metric tons).

[[Page 74834]]

MFFRd = Mass fraction of fluorine in reactant d, 
calculated in Equation L-14 of this section.
MFFP = Mass fraction of fluorine in the product, 
calculated in Equation L-15 of this section.
FD = Total mass of fluorine in destroyed or recaptured 
streams from process i containing fluorine-containing reactants, 
products, and by-products over the period p, calculated in Equation 
L-7 of this section.
v = Number of fluorine-containing reactants fed into process i.

    (4) The mass of total fluorine in destroyed or recaptured streams 
containing fluorine-containing reactants, products, and by-products 
must be estimated at least monthly using Equation L-7 of this section 
unless you use the alternative approach provided in paragraph (b)(15) 
of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.025

Where:

FD = Total mass of fluorine in destroyed or recaptured 
streams from process i containing fluorine-containing reactants, 
products, and by-products over the period p.
Pj = Mass of the fluorine-containing product removed from 
process i in stream j and destroyed over the period p (calculated in 
Equation L-8 or L-9 of this section).
Bkj = Mass of fluorine-containing by-product k removed 
from process i in stream j and destroyed over the period p 
(calculated in Equation L-8 or L-9 of this section).
Bkl = Mass of fluorine-containing by-product k removed 
from process i in stream l and recaptured over the period p.
Rdj = Mass of fluorine-containing reactant d removed from 
process i in stream j and destroyed over the period p (calculated in 
Equation L-8 or L-9 of this section).
MFFRd = Mass fraction of fluorine in reactant d, 
calculated in Equation L-14 of this section.
MFFP = Mass fraction of fluorine in the product, 
calculated in Equation L-15 of this section.
MFFBk = Mass fraction of fluorine in by-product k, 
calculated in Equation L-16 of this section.
q = Number of streams destroyed in process i.
x = Number of streams recaptured in process i.
u = Number of fluorine-containing by-products generated in process 
i.
v = Number of fluorine-containing reactants fed into process i.

    (5) The mass of each fluorinated GHG removed from process i in 
stream j and destroyed over the period p (i.e., Pj, 
Bkj, or Rdj, as applicable) must be estimated by 
applying the destruction efficiency of the device that has been 
demonstrated for the fluorinated GHG f to fluorinated GHG f using 
Equation L-8 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.026

Where:

MFGHGfj = Mass of fluorinated GHG f removed from process 
i in stream j and destroyed over the period p. (This may be 
Pj, Bkj, or Rdj, as applicable.)
DEFGHGf = Destruction efficiency of the device that has 
been demonstrated for fluorinated GHG f in stream j (fraction).
CFGHGfj = Concentration (mass fraction) of fluorinated 
GHG f in stream j removed from process i and fed into the 
destruction device over the period p. If this concentration is only 
a trace concentration, cF-GHGfj is equal to zero.
Sj = Mass removed in stream j from process i and fed into 
the destruction device over the period p (metric tons).

    (6) The mass of each fluorine-containing compound that is not a 
fluorinated GHG and that is removed from process i in stream j and 
destroyed over the period p (i.e., Pj, Bkj, or 
Rdj, as applicable) must be estimated using Equation L-9 of 
this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.027

Where:

MFCgj = Mass of non-GHG fluorine-containing compound g 
removed from process i in stream j and destroyed over the period p. 
(This may be Pj, Bkj, or Rdj, as 
applicable).
cFCgj = Concentration (mass fraction) of non-GHG 
fluorine-containing compound g in stream j removed from process i 
and fed into the destruction device over the period p. If this 
concentration is only a trace concentration, cFCgj is 
equal to zero.
Sj = Mass removed in stream j from process i and fed into 
the destruction device over the period p (metric tons).

    (7) The mass of fluorine-containing by-product k removed from 
process i in stream l and recaptured over the period p must be 
estimated using Equation L-10 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.028

Where:

Bkl = Mass of fluorine-containing by-product k removed 
from process i in stream l and recaptured over the period p (metric 
tons).
cBkl = Concentration (mass fraction) of fluorine-
containing by-product k in stream l removed from process i and 
recaptured over the period p. If this concentration is only a trace 
concentration, cBkl is equal to zero.
Sl = Mass removed in stream l from process i and 
recaptured over the period p (metric tons).

    (8) To estimate the terms FERd, FEP, and FEBk 
for Equations L-11, L-12, and L-13 of this section, you must assume 
that the total mass of fluorine emitted, EF, estimated in 
Equation L-6 of this section, occurs in the form of the fluorinated GHG 
that has the highest GWP among the fluorinated GHGs that occur in more 
than trace concentrations in the process unless you possess emission 
characterization measurements showing otherwise. These emission 
characterization measurements must meet the requirements in paragraph 
(8)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section, as appropriate. The sum of the 
terms must equal 1. You must document the data and calculations that 
are used to speciate individual compounds and to estimate 
FERd, FEP, and FEBk. Exclude from your 
calculations the fluorine included in FD. For example, 
exclude fluorine-containing compounds that are not fluorinated GHGs and 
that result from the destruction of fluorinated GHGs by any destruction 
devices (e.g., the mass of HF created by combustion of an HFC). 
However, include emissions of fluorinated GHGs that survive the 
destruction process.
    (i) If the calculations under paragraph (b)(1)(viii) of this 
section, or any subsequent measurements and calculations under this 
subpart, indicate that the process emits 25,000 metric tons 
CO2e or more, estimate the emissions from each process vent, 
considering controls, using the methods in Sec.  98.123(c)(1). You must 
characterize the emissions of any process vent that emits 25,000 metric 
tons CO2e or more as specified in Sec.  98.124(b)(4).

[[Page 74835]]

    (ii) For other vents, including vents from processes that emit less 
than 25,000 metric tons CO2e, you must characterize 
emissions as specified in Sec.  98.124(b)(5).
    (iii) For fluorine emissions that are not accounted for by vent 
estimates, you must characterize emissions as specified in Sec.  
98.124(b)(6).
    (9) The total mass of fluorine-containing reactant d emitted must 
be estimated at least monthly based on the total fluorine emitted and 
the fraction that consists of fluorine-containing reactants using 
Equation L-11 of this section. If the fluorine-containing reactant d is 
a non-GHG, you may assume that FERd is zero.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.029

Where:

ER-ip = Total mass of fluorine-containing reactant d that 
is emitted from process i over the period p (metric tons).
FERd = The fraction of the mass emitted that consists of 
the fluorine-containing reactant d.
EF = Total mass of fluorine emissions from process i over 
the period p (metric tons), calculated in Equation L-6 of this 
section.
FEP = The fraction of the mass emitted that consists of the 
fluorine-containing product.
FEBk = The fraction of the mass emitted that consists of 
fluorine-containing by-product k.
MFFRd = Mass fraction of fluorine in reactant d, 
calculated in Equation L-14 of this section.
MFFP = Mass fraction of fluorine in the product, 
calculated in Equation L-15 of this section.
MFFBk = Mass fraction of fluorine in by-product k, 
calculation in Equation L-16 of this section.
u = Number of fluorine-containing by-products generated in process 
i.
v = Number of fluorine-containing reactants fed into process i.

    (10) The total mass of fluorine-containing product emitted must be 
estimated at least monthly based on the total fluorine emitted and the 
fraction that consists of fluorine-containing products using Equation 
L-12 of this section. If the fluorine-containing product is a non-GHG, 
you may assume that FEP is zero.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.030

Where:

EP-ip = Total mass of fluorine-containing product emitted 
from process i over the period p (metric tons).
FEP = The fraction of the mass emitted that consists of the 
fluorine-containing product.
EF = Total mass of fluorine emissions from process i over 
the period p (metric tons), calculated in Equation L-6 of this 
section.
FERd = The fraction of the mass emitted that consists of 
fluorine-containing reactant d.
FEBk = The fraction of the mass emitted that consists of 
fluorine-containing by-product k.
MFFRd = Mass fraction of fluorine in reactant d, 
calculated in Equation L-14 of this section.
MFFP = Mass fraction of fluorine in the product, 
calculated in Equation L-15 of this section.
MFFBk = Mass fraction of fluorine in by-product k, 
calculation in Equation L-16 of this section.
u = Number of fluorine-containing by-products generated in process 
i.
v = Number of fluorine-containing reactants fed into process i.

    (11) The total mass of fluorine-containing by-product k emitted 
must be estimated at least monthly based on the total fluorine emitted 
and the fraction that consists of fluorine-containing by-products using 
Equation L-13 of this section. If fluorine-containing by-product k is a 
non-GHG, you may assume that FEBk is zero.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.031

Where:

EBk-ip = Total mass of fluorine-containing by-product k 
emitted from process i over the period p (metric tons).
FEBk = The fraction of the mass emitted that consists of 
fluorine-containing by-product k.
FERd = The fraction of the mass emitted that consists of 
fluorine-containing reactant d.
FEP = The fraction of the mass emitted that consists of the 
fluorine-containing product.
EF = Total mass of fluorine emissions from process i over 
the period p (metric tons), calculated in Equation L-6 of this 
section.
MFFRd = Mass fraction of fluorine in reactant d, 
calculated in Equation L-14 of this section.
MFFP = Mass fraction of fluorine in the product, 
calculated in Equation L-15 of this section.
MFFBk = Mass fraction of fluorine in by-product k, 
calculation in Equation L-16 of this section.
u = Number of fluorine-containing by-products generated in process 
i.
v = Number of fluorine-containing reactants fed into process i.

    (12) The mass fraction of fluorine in reactant d must be estimated 
using Equation L-14 of this section:

[[Page 74836]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.032

Where:

MFFRd = Mass fraction of fluorine in reactant d 
(fraction).
MFRd = Moles fluorine per mole of reactant d.
AWF = Atomic weight of fluorine.
MWRd = Molecular weight of reactant d.

    (13) The mass fraction of fluorine in the product must be estimated 
using Equation L-15 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.033

Where:

MFFP = Mass fraction of fluorine in the product 
(fraction).
MFP = Moles fluorine per mole of product.
AWF = Atomic weight of fluorine.
MWP = Molecular weight of the product produced.

    (14) The mass fraction of fluorine in by-product k must be 
estimated using Equation L-16 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.034

Where:

MFFBk = Mass fraction of fluorine in the product 
(fraction).
MFBk = Moles fluorine per mole of by-product k.
AWF = Atomic weight of fluorine.
MWBk = Molecular weight of by-product k.
    (15) Alternative for determining the mass of fluorine destroyed or 
recaptured. As an alternative to using Equation L-7 of this section as 
provided in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, you may estimate at least 
monthly the total mass of fluorine in destroyed or recaptured streams 
containing fluorine-containing compounds (including all fluorine-
containing reactants, products, and byproducts) using Equation L-17 of 
this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.035

Where:

FD = Total mass of fluorine in destroyed or recaptured 
streams from process i containing fluorine-containing reactants, 
products, and by-products over the period p.
DEavgj = Weighted average destruction efficiency of the 
destruction device for the fluorine-containing compounds identified 
in destroyed stream j under Sec.  98.124(b)(4)(ii) and (5)(ii) 
(calculated in Equation L-18 of this section)(fraction).
cTFj = Concentration (mass fraction) of total fluorine in 
stream j removed from process i and fed into the destruction device 
over the period p. If this concentration is only a trace 
concentration, cTFj is equal to zero.
Sj = Mass removed in stream j from process i and fed into 
the destruction device over the period p (metric tons).
cTFl = Concentration (mass fraction) of total fluorine in 
stream l removed from process i and recaptured over the period p. If 
this concentration is only a trace concentration, cBkl is 
equal to zero.
Sl = Mass removed in stream l from process i and 
recaptured over the period p.
q = Number of streams destroyed in process i.
x = Number of streams recaptured in process i.

    (16) Weighted average destruction efficiency. For purposes of 
Equation L-17 of this section, calculate the weighted average 
destruction efficiency applicable to a destroyed stream using Equation 
L-18 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.036

Where:

DEavgj = Weighted average destruction efficiency of the 
destruction device for the fluorine-containing compounds identified 
in destroyed stream j under 98.124(b)(4)(ii) or (b)(5)(ii), as 
appropriate.
DEFGHGf = Destruction efficiency of the device that has 
been demonstrated for fluorinated GHG f in stream j (fraction).
cFGHGfj = Concentration (mass fraction) of fluorinated 
GHG f in stream j removed from process i and fed into the 
destruction device over the period p. If this concentration is only 
a trace concentration, cF-GHGfj is equal to zero.
cFCgj = Concentration (mass fraction) of non-GHG 
fluorine-containing compound g in stream j removed from process i 
and fed into the destruction device over the period p. If this 
concentration is only a trace concentration, cFCgj is 
equal to zero.
Sj = Mass removed in stream j from process i and fed into 
the destruction device over the period p (metric tons).

[[Page 74837]]

MFFFGHGf = Mass fraction of fluorine in fluorinated GHG 
f, calculated in Equation L-14, L-15, or L-16 of this section, as 
appropriate.
MFFFCg = Mass fraction of fluorine in non-GHG fluorine-
containing compound g, calculated in Equation L-14, L-15, or L-16 of 
this section, as appropriate.
w = Number of fluorinated GHGs in destroyed stream j.
y = Number of non-GHG fluorine-containing compounds in destroyed 
stream j.

    (c) Emission factor and emission calculation factor methods. To use 
the method in this paragraph for batch processes, you must comply with 
either paragraph (c)(3) of this section (Emission Factor approach) or 
paragraph (c)(4) of this section (Emission Calculation Factor 
approach). To use the method in this paragraph for continuous 
processes, you must first make a preliminary estimate of the emissions 
from each individual continuous process vent under paragraph (c)(1) of 
this section. If your continuous process operates under different 
conditions as part of normal operations, you must also define the 
different operating scenarios and make a preliminary estimate of the 
emissions from the vent for each operating scenario. Then, compare the 
preliminary estimate for each continuous process vent (summed across 
operating scenarios) to the criteria in paragraph (c)(2) of this 
section to determine whether the process vent meets the criteria for 
using the emission factor method described in paragraph (c)(3) of this 
section or whether the process vent meets the criteria for using the 
emission calculation factor method described in paragraph (c)(4) of 
this section. For continuous process vents that meet the criteria for 
using the emission factor method described in paragraph (c)(3) of this 
section and that have more than one operating scenario, compare the 
preliminary estimate for each operating scenario to the criteria in 
(c)(3)(ii) to determine whether an emission factor must be developed 
for that operating scenario.
    (1) Preliminary estimate of emissions by process vent. You must 
estimate the annual CO2e emissions of fluorinated GHGs for 
each process vent within each operating scenario of a continuous 
process using the approaches specified in paragraph (c)(1)(i) or 
(c)(1)(ii) of this section, accounting for any destruction as specified 
in paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section. You must determine emissions 
of fluorinated GHGs by process vent by using measurements, by using 
calculations based on chemical engineering principles and chemical 
property data, or by conducting an engineering assessment. You may use 
previous measurements, calculations, and assessments if they represent 
current process operating conditions or process operating conditions 
that would result in higher fluorinated GHG emissions than the current 
operating conditions and if they were performed in accordance with 
paragraphs (c)(1)(i), (c)(1)(ii), and (c)(1)(iii) of this section, as 
applicable. You must document all data, assumptions, and procedures 
used in the calculations or engineering assessment and keep a record of 
the emissions determination as required by Sec.  98.127(a).
    (i) Engineering calculations. For process vent emission 
calculations, you may use any of paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(A), (c)(1)(i)(B), 
or (c)(1)(i)(C) of this section.
    (A) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Emission Inventory 
Improvement Program, Volume II: Chapter 16, Methods for Estimating Air 
Emissions from Chemical Manufacturing Facilities, August 2007, Final 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  98.7).
    (B) You may determine the fluorinated GHG emissions from any 
process vent within the process using the procedures specified in Sec.  
63.1257(d)(2)(i) and (d)(3)(i)(B) of this chapter, except as specified 
in paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(B)(1) through (c)(1)(i)(B)(4) of this section. 
For the purposes of this subpart, use of the term ``HAP'' in Sec.  
63.1257(d)(2)(i) and (d)(3)(i)(B) of this chapter means ``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) of 
this chapter.
    (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) of this chapter.
    (3) To calculate emissions from vacuum systems, the terms used in 
Equation 33 to Sec.  63.1257(d)(2)(i)(E) of this chapter 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 emissions when a vessel is equipped with a process 
condenser or a control condenser, you must use the procedures in Sec.  
63.1257(d)(3)(i)(B) of this chapter, 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, if 
the condensate receiver composition is not known.
    (iv) For the emissions from gas evolution, the term for time, t, 
must be used in Equation 12 to Sec.  63.1257(d)(2)(i)(B) of this 
chapter.
    (v) Emissions from empty vessel purging must be calculated using 
Equation 36 to Sec.  63.1257(d)(2)(i)(H) of this chapter 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 (e.g., including the calculation methodologies in paragraphs 
(c)(1)(i)(A) and (c)(1)(i)(B) of this section).
    (ii) Engineering assessments. For process vent emissions 
determinations, you may conduct an engineering assessment to calculate 
uncontrolled emissions. 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 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 74838]]

    (iii) Impact of destruction for the preliminary estimate. If the 
process vent is vented to a destruction device, you may reflect the 
impact of the destruction device on emissions. In your emissions 
estimate, account for the following:
    (A) The destruction efficiencies of the device that have been 
demonstrated for the fluorinated GHGs in the vent stream for periods 
when the process vent is vented to the destruction device.
    (B) Any periods when the process vent is not vented to the 
destruction device.
    (iv) Use of typical recent values. In the calculations in 
paragraphs (c)(1)(i), (c)(1)(ii), and (c)(1)(iii) of this section, the 
values used for the expected process activity and for the expected 
fraction of that activity whose emissions will be vented to the 
properly functioning destruction device must be based on either typical 
recent values for the process or values that would overestimate 
emissions from the process, unless there is a compelling reason to 
adopt a different value (e.g., installation of a destruction device for 
a previously uncontrolled process). If there is such a reason, it must 
be documented in the GHG Monitoring Plan.
    (v) GWPs. To convert the fluorinated GHG emissions to 
CO2e, use Equation A-1 of Sec.  98.2. For fluorinated GHGs 
whose GWPs are not listed in Table A-1 to subpart A of this part, use a 
default GWP of 2,000 unless you submit a request to use other GWPs for 
those fluorinated GHGs in that process under paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of 
this section and we approve that request.
    (vi) Request to use a GWP other than 2,000 for fluorinated GHGs 
whose GWPs are not listed in Table A-1 to subpart A of this part. If 
your process vent emits one or more fluorinated GHGs whose GWPs are not 
listed in Table A-1 to subpart A of this part, that are emitted in 
quantities that, with a default GWP of 2,000, result in total 
calculated annual emissions equal to or greater than 10,000 metric tons 
CO2e for the vent, and that you believe have GWPs that would 
result in total calculated annual emissions less than 10,000 metric 
tons CO2e for the vent, you may submit a request to use 
provisional GWPs for these fluorinated GHGs for purposes of the 
calculations in paragraph (c)(1) of this section. The request must be 
submitted by February 28, 2011 for a completeness determination and 
review by EPA.
    (A) Contents of the request. You must include the following 
information in the request for each fluorinated GHG that does not have 
a GWP listed in Table A-1 to subpart A of this part and that 
constitutes more than one percent by mass of the stream emitted from 
the vent:
    (1) The identity of the fluorinated GHG, including its chemical 
formula and, if available, CAS number.
    (2) The estimated GWP of the fluorinated GHG.
    (3) The data and analysis that supports your estimate of the GWP of 
the fluorinated GHG, including:
    (i) Data and analysis related to the low-pressure gas phase 
infrared absorption spectrum of the fluorinated GHG.
    (ii) Data and analysis related to the estimated atmospheric 
lifetime of the fluorinated GHG (reaction mechanisms and rates, 
including e.g., photolysis and reaction with atmospheric components 
such as OH, O3, CO, and water).
    (iii) The radiative transfer analysis that integrates the lifetime 
and infrared absorption spectrum data to calculate the GWP.
    (iv) Any published or unpublished studies of the GWP of the gas.
    (4) The engineering calculations or assessments and underlying data 
that demonstrate that the process vent is calculated to emit less than 
10,000 metric tons CO2e of this and other fluorinated GHGs 
only when the proposed provisional GWPs, not the default GWP of 2,000, 
are used for fluorinated GHGs whose GWPs are not listed in Table A-1 to 
subpart A of this part.
    (B) Review and completeness determination by EPA. If EPA makes a 
preliminary determination that the request is complete, that it 
substantiates each of the provisional GWPs, and that it demonstrates 
that the process vent is calculated to emit less than 10,000 metric 
tons CO2e of this and other fluorinated GHGs only when the 
provisional GWPs, not the default GWP of 2,000, are used for 
fluorinated GHGs whose GWPs are not listed in Table A-1 to subpart A of 
this part, then EPA will publish a notice including the data and 
analysis submitted under paragraphs (c)(1)(vi)(A)(1) through 
(c)(1)(vi)(A)(3) of this section. If, after review of public comment on 
the notice, EPA finalizes its preliminary determination, then EPA will 
permit the facility to use the provisional GWPs for the calculations in 
paragraph (c)(1) of this section unless and until EPA determines that 
one or more of the provisional GWPs is in error and provides reasonable 
notice to the facility.
    (2) Method selection for continuous process vents.
    (i) If the calculations under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, as 
well as any subsequent measurements and calculations under this 
subpart, indicate that the continuous process vent has fluorinated GHG 
emissions of less than 10,000 metric ton CO2e per year, 
summed across all operating scenarios, then you may comply with either 
paragraph (c)(3) of this section (Emission Factor approach) or 
paragraph (c)(4) of this section (Emission Calculation Factor 
approach).
    (ii) If the continuous process vent does not meet the criteria in 
paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section, then you must comply with the 
emission factor method specified in paragraph (c)(3) (Emission Factor 
approach) of this section.
    (A) You must conduct emission testing for process-vent-specific 
emission factor development before the destruction device unless the 
calculations you performed under paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section 
indicate that the uncontrolled fluorinated GHG emissions that occur 
during periods when the process vent is not vented to the properly 
functioning destruction device are less than 10,000 metric tons 
CO2e per year. In this case, you may conduct emission 
testing after the destruction device to develop a process-vent-specific 
emission factor. If you do so, you must develop and apply an emission 
calculation factor under paragraph (c)(4) to estimate emissions during 
any periods when the process vent is not vented to the properly 
functioning destruction device.
    (B) Regardless of the level of uncontrolled emissions, the emission 
testing for process-vent-specific emission factor development may be 
conducted on the outlet side of a wet scrubber in place for acid gas 
reduction, if one is in place, as long as there is no appreciable 
reduction in the fluorinated GHG.
    (3) Process-vent-specific emission factor method. For each process 
vent, conduct an emission test and measure 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 (c)(3). Conduct the emission test 
according to the procedures in Sec.  98.124. All emissions test data 
and procedures used in developing emission factors must be documented 
according to Sec.  98.127. If more than one operating scenario applies 
to the process that contains the subject process vent, you must comply 
with either paragraph (3)(i) or paragraph (3)(ii) of this section.
    (i) Conduct a separate emissions test for operation under each 
operating scenario.

[[Page 74839]]

    (ii) Conduct an emissions test for the operating scenario that is 
expected to have the largest emissions in terms of CO2e 
(considering both activity levels and emission calculation factors) on 
an annual basis. Also conduct an emissions test for each additional 
operating scenario that is estimated to emit 10,000 metric tons 
CO2e or more annually from the vent and whose emission 
calculation factor differs by 15 percent or more from the emission 
calculation factor of the operating scenario that is expected to have 
the largest emissions (or of another operating scenario for which 
emission testing is performed), unless the difference between the 
operating scenarios is solely due to the application of a destruction 
device to emissions under one of the operating scenarios. For any other 
operating scenarios, adjust the process-vent specific emission factor 
developed for the operating scenario that is expected to have the 
largest emissions (or for another operating scenario for which emission 
testing is performed) using the approach in paragraph (c)(3)(viii) of 
this section.
    (iii) 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 and calculate the rate for the 
test period, in kg (or another appropriate metric) per hour.
    (iv) For continuous processes, you must calculate the hourly 
emission rate of each fluorinated GHG using Equation L-19 of this 
section and determine the hourly emission rate of each fluorinated GHG 
per process vent (and per operating scenario, as applicable) for the 
test run.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.037

Where:

EContPV = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from process 
vent v from process i, operating scenario j, 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 grams).
60/1 = Conversion factor (60 minutes/1 hour).


    (v) You must calculate a site-specific, process-vent-specific 
emission factor for each fluorinated GHG for each process vent and each 
operating scenario, in kg of fluorinated GHG per process activity rate 
(e.g., kg of feed or production), as applicable, using Equation L-20 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.038

Where:

EFPV = Emission factor for fluorinated GHG f emitted from 
process vent v during process i, operating scenario j (e.g., kg 
emitted/kg activity).
EPV = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from process vent 
v from process i, operating scenario j, 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 for process i, operating scenario j, 
during the emission test during test run r (e.g., kg product/hr).
r = Number of test runs performed during the emission test.

    (vi) If you conducted emissions testing after the destruction 
device, you must calculate the emissions of each fluorinated GHG for 
the process vent (and operating scenario, as applicable) using Equation 
L-21 of this section. You must also develop a process-vent-specific 
emission calculation factor based on paragraph (c)(4) of this section 
for the periods when the process vent is not venting to the destruction 
device.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.039

Where:

EPV = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from process vent 
v from process i, operating scenario j, for the year (kg).
EFPV-C = Emission factor for fluorinated GHG f emitted 
from process vent v during process i, operating scenario j, based on 
testing after the destruction device (kg emitted/activity) (e.g., kg 
emitted/kg product).
ActivityC = Total process feed, process production, or 
other process activity for process i, operating scenario j, during 
the year for which emissions are vented to the properly functioning 
destruction device (i.e., controlled).
ECFPV-U = Emission calculation factor for fluorinated GHG 
f emitted from process vent v during process i, operating scenario j 
during periods when the process vent is not vented to the properly 
functioning destruction device (kg emitted/activity) (e.g., kg 
emitted/kg product).
ActivityU = Total process feed, process production, or 
other process activity during the year for which the process vent is 
not vented to the properly functioning destruction device (e.g., kg 
product).

    (vii) If you conducted emissions testing before the destruction 
device, apply the destruction efficiencies of the device that have been 
demonstrated for the fluorinated GHGs in the vent stream to the 
fluorinated GHG emissions for the process vent (and operating scenario, 
as applicable), using Equation L-22 of this section. You may apply the 
destruction efficiency only to the portion of the process activity 
during which emissions

[[Page 74840]]

are vented to the properly functioning destruction device (i.e., 
controlled).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.040

Where:

EPV = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from process vent 
v from process i, operating scenario j, for the year, considering 
destruction efficiency (kg).
EFPV-U = Emission factor (uncontrolled) for fluorinated 
GHG f emitted from process vent v during process i, operating 
scenario j (kg emitted/kg product).
ActivityU = Total process feed, process production, or 
other process activity for process i, operating scenario j, during 
the year for which the process vent is not vented to the properly 
functioning destruction device (e.g., kg product).
ActivityC = Total process feed, process production, or 
other process activity for process i, operating scenario j, during 
the year for which the process vent is vented to the properly 
functioning destruction device (e.g., kg product).
DE = Demonstrated destruction efficiency of the destruction device 
(weight fraction).

    (viii) Adjusted process-vent-specific emission factors for other 
operating scenarios. For process vents from processes with multiple 
operating scenarios, use Equation L-23 of this section to develop an 
adjusted process-vent-specific emission factor for each operating 
scenario from which the vent is estimated to emit less than 10,000 
metric tons CO2e annually or whose emission calculation 
factor differs by less than 15 percent from the emission calculation 
factor of the operating scenario that is expected to have the largest 
emissions (or of another operating scenario for which emission testing 
is performed).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.041

Where:

EFPVadj = Adjusted process-vent-specific emission factor 
for an untested operating scenario.
ECFUT = Emission calculation factor for the untested 
operating scenario developed under paragraph (c)(4) of this section.
ECFT = Emission calculation for the tested operating 
scenario developed under paragraph (c)(4) of this section.
EFPV = Process vent specific emission factor for the 
tested operating scenario.

    (ix) Sum the emissions of each fluorinated GHG from all process 
vents in each operating scenario and all operating scenarios in the 
process for the year to estimate the total process vent emissions of 
each fluorinated GHG from the process, using Equation L-24 of this 
section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.042

Where:

EPfi = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from process 
vents for process i for the year (kg).
EPV = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from process vent 
v from process i, operating scenario j, for the year, considering 
destruction efficiency (kg).
v = Number of process vents in process i, operating scenario j.
o = Number of operating scenarios for process i.

    (4) Process-vent-specific emission calculation factor method. For 
each process vent within an operating scenario, 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, by using measurements, by 
using calculations based on chemical engineering principles and 
chemical property data, or by conducting an engineering assessment. Use 
the procedures in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section, except 
paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(C) of this section. The procedures in paragraphs 
(c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section may be applied either to batch 
process vents or to continuous process vents. 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. The methods, data, and 
assumptions used to estimate emissions for each operating scenario must 
be selected to yield a best estimate (expected value) of emissions 
rather than an over- or underestimate of emissions for that operating 
scenario. All data, assumptions, and procedures used in the 
calculations or engineering assessment must be documented according to 
Sec.  98.127.
    (ii) You must calculate a site-specific, process-vent-specific 
emission calculation factor for each process vent, each operating 
scenario, and each fluorinated GHG, in kg of fluorinated GHG per 
activity rate (e.g., kg of feed or production) as applicable, using 
Equation L-25 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.043

Where:

ECFPV = Emission calculation factor for fluorinated GHG f 
emitted from process vent v during process i, operating scenario j, 
(e.g., kg emitted/kg product).
EPV = Average mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted, based on 
calculations, from process vent v from process i, operating scenario 
j, 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 emissions of each fluorinated GHG for the 
process vent (and operating scenario, as applicable) for the year by 
multiplying

[[Page 74841]]

the process-vent-specific emission calculation factor by the total 
process activity, as applicable, for the year, using Equation L-26 of 
this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.044

Where:

EPV = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from process vent 
v from process i, operating scenario j, for the year (kg).
ECFPV = Emission calculation factor for fluorinated GHG f 
emitted from process vent v during process i, operating scenario j, 
(kg emitted/activity) (e.g., kg emitted/kg product).
Activity = Process feed, process production, or other process 
activity for process i, operating scenario j, during the year.

    (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 (and operating scenario, 
as applicable), using Equation L-27 of this section. Apply the 
destruction efficiency only to the portion of the process activity that 
is vented to the properly functioning destruction device (i.e., 
controlled).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.045

Where:

EPV = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from process vent 
v from process i, operating scenario j, for the year considering 
destruction efficiency (kg).
ECFPV = Emission calculation factor for fluorinated GHG f 
emitted from process vent v during process i, operating scenario j, 
(e.g., kg emitted/kg product).
ActivityU = Total process feed, process production, or 
other process activity for process i, operating scenario j, during 
the year for which the process vent is not vented to the properly 
functioning destruction device (e.g., kg product).
ActivityC = Total process feed, process production, or 
other process activity for process i, operating scenario j, during 
the year for which the process vent is vented to the properly 
functioning destruction device (e.g., kg product).
DE = Demonstrated destruction efficiency of the destruction device 
(weight fraction).

    (v) Sum the emissions of each fluorinated GHG from all process 
vents in each operating scenario and all operating scenarios in the 
process for the year to estimate the total process vent emissions of 
each fluorinated GHG from the process, using Equation L-28 of this 
section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.046

Where:

EPfi = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from process 
vents for process i for the year (kg).
EPV = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from process vent 
v from process i, operating scenario j, for the year, considering 
destruction efficiency (kg).
v = Number of process vents in process i, operating scenario j.
o = Number of operating scenarios in process i.

    (d) Calculate fluorinated GHG emissions for equipment leaks (EL). 
If you comply with paragraph (c) 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. If 
you conduct monitoring of equipment in fluorinated GHG service, 
monitoring must be conducted for those in light liquid and in gas and 
vapor service. If you conduct monitoring of equipment in fluorinated 
GHG service, you may exclude from monitoring each piece of equipment 
that is difficult-to-monitor, that is unsafe-to-monitor, that is 
insulated, or that is in heavy liquid service; you may exclude from 
monitoring each pump with dual mechanical seals, agitator with dual 
mechanical seals, pump with no external shaft, agitator with no 
external shaft; you may exclude from monitoring each pressure relief 
device in gas and vapor service with upstream rupture disk, each 
sampling connection system with closed-loop or closed-purge systems, 
and any pieces of equipment where leaks are routed through a closed 
vent system to a destruction device. You must estimate emissions using 
another approach for those pieces of equipment excluded from 
monitoring. Equipment that is in fluorinated GHG service for less than 
300 hr/yr; equipment that is in vacuum service; pressure relief devices 
that are in light liquid service; and instrumentation systems are 
exempted from these requirements.
    (1) The emissions from equipment leaks must be calculated using any 
of the procedures in paragraphs (d)(1)(i), (d)(1)(ii), (d)(1)(iii), or 
(d)(1)(iv) of this section.
    (i) Use of Average Emission Factor Approach in EPA Protocol for 
Equipment Leak Emission Estimates. The emissions from equipment leaks 
may be calculated using the default Average Emission Factor Approach in 
EPA-453/R-95-017 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  98.7).
    (ii) Use of Other Approaches in EPA Protocol for Equipment Leak 
Emission Estimates in conjunction with EPA Method 21 at 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A-7. The emissions from equipment leaks may be calculated 
using one of the following methods in EPA-453/R-95-017 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  98.7): The Screening Ranges Approach; the EPA 
Correlation Approach; or the Unit-Specific Correlation Approach. If you 
determine that EPA Method 21 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 is 
appropriate for monitoring a fluorinated GHG, and if you calibrate your 
instrument with a compound different from one or more of the 
fluorinated GHGs or surrogates to be measured, you must develop 
response factors for each fluorinated GHG or for each surrogate to be 
measured using EPA Method 21 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. For each 
fluorinated GHG or surrogate measured, the response factor must be less 
than 10. The response factor is the ratio of the known concentration of 
a fluorinated GHG or surrogate to the observed meter reading when 
measured using an instrument calibrated with the reference compound.
    (iii) Use of Other Approaches in EPA Protocol for Equipment Leak 
Emission Estimates in conjunction with site-specific leak monitoring 
methods. The emissions from equipment leaks may be calculated using one 
of the following methods in EPA-453/R-95-017 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  98.7): The Screening Ranges Approach; the EPA 
Correlation Approach; or the Unit-Specific Correlation Approach. You 
may develop a site-specific leak monitoring method appropriate for 
monitoring fluorinated GHGs or surrogates to use along with these three 
approaches. The site-specific leak monitoring method

[[Page 74842]]

must meet the requirements in Sec.  98.124(f)(1).
    (iv) Use of site-specific leak monitoring methods. The emissions 
from equipment leaks may be calculated using a site-specific leak 
monitoring method. The site-specific leak monitoring method must meet 
the requirements in Sec.  98.124(f)(1).
    (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 may be required to 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; or 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 
metric tons per year for equipment pieces for each process, 
EELf, annually. You must include and estimate emissions for 
types of equipment that are excluded from monitoring, including 
difficult-to-monitor, unsafe-to-monitor and insulated pieces of 
equipment, pieces of equipment in heavy liquid service, pumps with dual 
mechanical seals, agitators with dual mechanical seals, pumps with no 
external shaft, agitators with no external shaft, pressure relief 
devices in gas and vapor service with upstream rupture disk, sampling 
connection systems with closed-loop or closed purge systems, and pieces 
of equipment where leaks are routed through a closed vent system to a 
destruction device.
    (e) Calculate total fluorinated GHG emissions for each process and 
for production or transformation processes at the facility.
    (i) Estimate annually the total mass of each fluorinated GHG 
emitted from each process, including emissions from process vents in 
paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4) of this section, as appropriate, and from 
equipment leaks in paragraph (d), using Equation L-29 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.047

Where:

Ei = Total mass of each fluorinated GHG f emitted from 
process i, annual basis (kg/year).
EPfi = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from all process 
vents and all operating scenarios in process i, annually (kg/year, 
calculated in Equation L-24 or L-28 of this section, as 
appropriate).
EELfi = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from equipment 
leaks for pieces of equipment for process i, annually (kg/year, 
calculated in paragraph (d)(3) of this section).

    (ii) Estimate annually the total mass of each fluorinated GHG 
emitted from each type of production or transformation process at the 
facility using Equation L-30 of this section. Develop separate totals 
for fluorinated gas production processes, transformation processes that 
transform fluorinated gases produced at the facility, and 
transformation processes that transform fluorinated gases produced at 
another facility.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.048

Where:

E = Total mass of each fluorinated GHG f emitted from all 
fluorinated gas production processes, all transformation processes 
that transform fluorinated gases produced at the facility, or all 
transformation processes that transform fluorinated gases produced 
at another facility, as appropriate (metric tons).
Ei = Total mass of each fluorinated GHG f emitted from 
each production or transformation process, annual basis (kg/year, 
calculated in Equation L-29 of this section).
0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons.
z = Total number of fluorinated gas production processes, 
fluorinated gas transformation processes that transform fluorinated 
gases produced at the facility, or transformation processes that 
transform fluorinated gases produced at another facility, as 
appropriate.

    (f) Calculate fluorinated GHG emissions from destruction of 
fluorinated GHGs that were previously ``produced''. Estimate annually 
the total mass of fluorinated GHGs emitted from destruction of 
fluorinated GHGs that were previously ``produced'' as defined at Sec.  
98.410(b) using Equation L-31 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.049

Where:

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

    (g) Emissions from venting of residual fluorinated GHGs in 
containers. If you vent residual fluorinated GHGs from containers, you 
must either measure the residual fluorinated GHGs vented from each 
container or develop a heel factor for each combination of fluorinated 
GHG, container size, and container type that you vent. You do not need 
to estimate de minimis emissions associated with good-faith attempts to 
recycle or recover residual fluorinated GHGs in or from containers.
    (1) Measuring contents of each container. If you weigh or otherwise 
measure the contents of each container before venting the residual 
fluorinated GHGs, use Equation L-32 of this section to calculate annual 
emissions of each fluorinated GHG from venting of residual fluorinated 
GHG from containers. Convert pressures to masses as directed in 
paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.050

Where:

ECf = Total mass of each fluorinated GHG f emitted from 
the facility through venting of residual fluorinated GHG from 
containers, annual basis (kg/year).
HBfj = Mass of residual fluorinated GHG f in container j 
when received by facility.
HEfj = Mass of residual fluorinated GHG f in container j 
after evacuation by facility. (Facility may equate to zero.)
n = Number of vented containers for each fluorinated GHG f.

    (2) Developing and applying heel factors. If you use heel factors 
to

[[Page 74843]]

estimate emissions of residual fluorinated GHGs vented from containers, 
you must annually develop these factors based on representative samples 
of the containers received by your facility from fluorinated GHG users.
    (i) Sample size. For each combination of fluorinated GHG, container 
size, and container type that you vent, select a representative sample 
of containers that reflects the full range of quantities of residual 
gas returned in that container size and type. This sample must reflect 
the full range of the industries and a broad range of the customers 
that use and return the fluorinated GHG, container size, and container 
type. The minimum sample size for each combination of fluorinated GHG, 
container size, and container type must be 30, unless this is greater 
than the number of containers returned within that combination 
annually, in which case the contents of every container returned must 
be measured.
    (ii) Measurement of residual gas. The residual weight or pressure 
you use for paragraph (g)(1) of this section must be determined by 
monitoring the mass or the pressure of your cylinders/containers 
according to Sec.  98.124(k). If you monitor the pressure, convert the 
pressure to mass using the ideal gas law, as displayed in Equation L-33 
of this section, with an appropriately selected Z value.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.051

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)
    (iii) Heel factor calculation. To determine the heel factor 
hfj for each combination of fluorinated GHG, container size, 
and container type, use paragraph (g)(1) of this section to calculate 
the total heel emissions for each sample selected under paragraph 
(g)(2)(i) of this section. Divide this total by the number of 
containers in the sample. Divide the result by the full capacity (the 
mass of the contents of a full container) of that combination of 
fluorinated GHG, container size, and container type. The heel factor is 
expressed as a fraction of the full capacity.
    (iv) Calculate annual emissions of each fluorinated GHG from 
venting of residual fluorinated GHG from containers using Equation L-34 
of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.052

Where:

ECf = Total mass of each fluorinated GHG f emitted from 
the facility through venting of residual fluorinated GHG from 
containers, annual basis (kg/year).
hfj = Facility-wide gas-specific heel factor for 
fluorinated GHG f (fraction) and container size and type j, as 
determined in paragraph (g)(2)(iii) of this section.
Nfj = Number of containers of size and type j returned to 
the fluorinated gas production facility.
Ffj = Full capacity of containers of size and type j 
containing fluorinated GHG f (kg).
n = Number of combinations of container sizes and types for 
fluorinated GHG f.


Sec.  98.124  Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.

    (a) Initial scoping speciation to identify fluorinated GHGs. You 
must conduct an initial scoping speciation to identify all fluorinated 
GHGs that may be generated from processes that are subject to this 
subpart and that have at least one process vent with uncontrolled 
emissions of 1.0 metric ton or more of fluorinated GHGs per year based 
on the preliminary estimate of emissions in Sec.  98.123(c)(1). You are 
not required to quantify emissions under this initial scoping 
speciation. Only fluorinated GHG products and by-products that occur in 
greater than trace concentrations in at least one stream must be 
identified under this paragraph.
    (1) Procedure. To conduct the scoping speciation, select 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 at their maximum 
concentrations and sample and analyze the contents of these selected 
streams or process vents. For example, if fluorinated GHG by-products 
are separated into one low-boiling-point and one high-boiling-point 
stream, sample and analyze both of these streams. Alternatively, you 
may sample and analyze streams where fluorinated GHG by-products occur 
at less than their maximum concentrations, but you must ensure that the 
sensitivity of the analysis is sufficient to compensate for the 
expected difference in concentration. For example, if you sample and 
analyze streams where fluorinated GHG by-products are expected to occur 
at one half their maximum concentrations elsewhere in the process, you 
must ensure that the sensitivity of the analysis is sufficient to 
detect fluorinated GHG by-products that occur at concentrations of 0.05 
percent or higher. You do not have to sample and analyze every stream 
or process vent, i.e., you do not have to sample and analyze a stream 
or process vent that contains only fluorinated GHGs that are contained 
in other streams or process vents that are being sampled and analyzed. 
Sampling and analysis must be conducted according to the procedures in 
paragraph (e) of this section.
    (2) Previous measurements. If you have conducted testing of streams 
(including process streams or destroyed streams) or process vents less 
than 10 years before December 31, 2010, and the testing meets the 
requirements in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, you may use the 
previous testing to satisfy this requirement.
    (b) Mass balance monitoring. If you determine fluorinated GHG 
emissions from any process using the mass balance method under Sec.  
98.123(b), you must estimate the total mass of each fluorinated GHG 
emitted from that process at least monthly. Only streams that contain 
greater than trace concentrations of fluorine-containing reactants, 
products, or by-products must be monitored under this paragraph. If you 
use an element other than fluorine in the mass-balance equation 
pursuant to Sec.  98.123(b)(3), substitute that element for fluorine in 
the monitoring requirements of this paragraph.
    (1) Mass measurements. Measure the following masses on a monthly or 
more frequent basis using flowmeters, weigh scales, or a combination of 
volumetric and density measurements with accuracies and precisions that 
allow the facility to meet the error criteria in Sec.  98.123(b)(1):
    (i) Total mass of each fluorine-containing product produced. 
Account for any used fluorine-containing product added into the 
production process upstream of the output measurement as directed at 
Sec.  98.413(b) and Sec.  98.414(b). For each product, the mass 
produced used for the mass-balance calculation must be the same as

[[Page 74844]]

the mass produced that is reported under subpart OO of this part, where 
applicable.
    (ii) Total mass of each fluorine-containing reactant fed into the 
process.
    (iii) The mass removed from the process in each stream fed into the 
destruction device.
    (iv) The mass removed from the process in each recaptured stream.
    (2) Concentration measurements for use with Sec.  98.123(b)(4). If 
you use Sec.  98.123(b)(4) to estimate the mass of fluorine in 
destroyed or recaptured streams, measure the following concentrations 
at least once each calendar month during which the process is 
operating, on a schedule to ensure that the measurements are 
representative of the full range of process conditions (e.g., catalyst 
age). Measure more frequently if this is necessary to meet the error 
criteria in Sec.  98.123(b)(1). Use equipment and methods (e.g., gas 
chromatography) that comply with paragraph (e) of this section and that 
have an accuracy and precision that allow the facility to meet the 
error criteria in Sec.  98.123(b)(1). Only fluorine-containing 
reactants, products, and by-products that occur in a stream in greater 
than trace concentrations must be monitored under this paragraph.
    (i) The concentration (mass fraction) of the fluorine-containing 
product in each stream that is fed into the destruction device.
    (ii) The concentration (mass fraction) of each fluorine-containing 
by-product in each stream that is fed into the destruction device.
    (iii) The concentration (mass fraction) of each fluorine-containing 
reactant in each stream that is fed into the destruction device.
    (iv) The concentration (mass fraction) of each fluorine-containing 
by-product in each stream that is recaptured (cBkl).
    (3) Concentration measurements for use with Sec.  98.123(b)(15). If 
you use Sec.  98.123(b)(15) to estimate the mass of fluorine in 
destroyed or recaptured streams, measure the concentrations listed in 
paragraphs (3)(i) and (ii) of this section at least once each calendar 
month during which the process is operating, on a schedule to ensure 
that the measurements are representative of the full range of process 
conditions (e.g., catalyst age). Measure more frequently if this is 
necessary to meet the error criteria in Sec.  98.123(b)(1). Use 
equipment and methods (e.g., gas chromatography) that comply with 
paragraph (e) of this section and that have an accuracy and precision 
that allow the facility to meet the error criteria in Sec.  
98.123(b)(1). Only fluorine-containing reactants, products, and by-
products that occur in a stream in greater than trace concentrations 
must be monitored under this paragraph.
    (i) The concentration (mass fraction) of total fluorine in each 
stream that is fed into the destruction device.
    (ii) The concentration (mass fraction) of total fluorine in each 
stream that is recaptured.
    (4) Emissions characterization: process vents emitting 25,000 
metric tons CO2e or more. To characterize emissions from any process 
vent emitting 25,000 metric tons CO2e or more, comply with 
paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (b)(4)(v) of this section, as appropriate. 
Only fluorine-containing reactants, products, and by-products that 
occur in a stream in greater than trace concentrations must be 
monitored under this paragraph.
    (i) Uncontrolled emissions. If emissions from the process vent are 
not routed through a destruction device, sample and analyze emissions 
at the process vent or stack or sample and analyze emitted streams 
before the process vent. If the process has more than one operating 
scenario, you must either perform the emission characterization for 
each operating scenario or perform the emission characterization for 
the operating scenario that is expected to have the largest emissions 
and adjust the emission characterization for other scenarios using 
engineering calculations and assessments as specified in Sec.  
98.123(c)(4). To perform the characterization, take three samples under 
conditions that are representative for the operating scenario. Measure 
the concentration of each fluorine-containing compound in each sample. 
Use equipment and methods that comply with paragraph (e) of this 
section. Calculate the average concentration of each fluorine-
containing compound across all three samples.
    (ii) Controlled emissions using Sec.  98.123(b)(15). If you use 
Sec.  98.123(b)(15) to estimate the total mass of fluorine in destroyed 
or recaptured streams, and if the emissions from the process vent are 
routed through a destruction device, characterize emissions as 
specified in paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section before the destruction 
device. Apply the destruction efficiency demonstrated for each 
fluorinated GHG in the destroyed stream to that fluorinated GHG. 
Exclude from the characterization fluorine-containing compounds that 
are not fluorinated GHGs.
    (iii) Controlled emissions using Sec.  98.123(b)(4). If you use 
Sec.  98.123(b)(4) to estimate the mass of fluorine in destroyed or 
recaptured streams, and if the emissions from the process vent are 
routed through a destruction device, characterize the process vent's 
emissions monthly (or more frequently) using the monthly (or more 
frequent) measurements under paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) and (b)(2)(i) 
through (b)(2)(iii) of this section. Apply the destruction efficiency 
demonstrated for each fluorinated GHG in the destroyed stream to that 
fluorinated GHG. Exclude from the characterization fluorine-containing 
compounds that are not fluorinated GHGs.
    (iv) Emissions characterization frequency. You must repeat emission 
characterizations performed under paragraph (b)(4)(i) and (b)(4)(ii) of 
this section under paragraph (b)(4)(iv)(A) or (b)(4)(iv)(B) of this 
section, whichever occurs first:
    (A) 10-year revision. Repeat the emission characterization every 10 
years. In the calculations under Sec.  98.123, apply the revised 
emission characterization to the process activity that occurs after the 
revision.
    (B) Operating scenario change that affects the emission 
characterization. For planned operating scenario changes, you must 
estimate and compare the emission calculation factors for the changed 
operating scenario and for the original operating scenario whose 
process vent specific emission factor was measured. Use the engineering 
calculations and assessments specified in Sec.  98.123(c)(4). If the 
share of total fluorine-containing compound emissions represented by 
any fluorinated GHG changes under the changed operating scenario by 15 
percent or more of the total, relative to the previous operating 
scenario (this includes the cumulative change in the emission 
calculation factor since the last emissions test), you must repeat the 
emission characterization. Perform the emission characterization before 
February 28 of the year that immediately follows the change. In the 
calculations under Sec.  98.123, apply the revised emission 
characterization to the process activity that occurs after the 
operating scenario change.
    (v) Subsequent measurements. If a process vent with fluorinated GHG 
emissions less than 25,000 metric tons CO2e, per Sec.  
98.123(c)(2), is later found to have fluorinated GHG emissions of 
25,000 metric tons CO2e or greater, you must perform an 
emission characterization under this paragraph during the following 
year.
    (5) Emissions characterization: process vents emitting less than 
25,000 metric tons CO2e. To characterize

[[Page 74845]]

emissions from any process vent emitting less than 25,000 metric tons 
CO2e, comply with paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (b)(5)(iii) 
of this section, as appropriate. Only fluorine-containing reactants, 
products, and by-products that occur in a stream in greater than trace 
concentrations must be monitored under this paragraph.
    (i) Uncontrolled emissions. If emissions from the process vent are 
not routed through a destruction device, emission measurements must 
consist of sampling and analysis of emissions at the process vent or 
stack, sampling and analysis of emitted streams before the process 
vent, previous test results, provided the tests are representative of 
current operating conditions of the process, or bench-scale or pilot-
scale test data representative of the process operating conditions.
    (ii) Controlled emissions using Sec.  98.123(b)(15). If you use 
Sec.  98.123(b)(15) to estimate the total mass of fluorine in destroyed 
or recaptured streams, and if the emissions from the process vent are 
routed through a destruction device, characterize emissions as 
specified in paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section before the destruction 
device. Apply the destruction efficiency demonstrated for each 
fluorinated GHG in the destroyed stream to that fluorinated GHG. 
Exclude from the characterization fluorine-containing compounds that 
are not fluorinated GHGs.
    (iii) Controlled emissions using Sec.  98.123(b)(4). If you use 
Sec.  98.123(b)(4) to estimate the mass of fluorine in destroyed or 
recaptured streams, and if the emissions from the process vent are 
routed through a destruction device, characterize the process vent's 
emissions monthly (or more frequently) using the monthly (or more 
frequent) measurements under paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) and (b)(2)(i) 
through (b)(2)(iii) of this section. Apply the destruction efficiency 
demonstrated for each fluorinated GHG in the destroyed stream to that 
fluorinated GHG. Exclude from the characterization fluorine-containing 
compounds that are not fluorinated GHGs.
    (6) Emissions characterization: emissions not accounted for by 
process vent estimates. Calculate the weighted average emission 
characterization across the process vents before any destruction 
devices. Apply the weighted average emission characterization for all 
the process vents to any fluorine emissions that are not accounted for 
by process vent estimates.
    (7) Impurities in reactants. If any fluorine-containing impurity is 
fed into a process along with a reactant (or other input) in greater 
than trace concentrations, this impurity shall be monitored under this 
section and included in the calculations under Sec.  98.123 in the same 
manner as reactants fed into the process, fed into the destruction 
device, recaptured, or emitted, except the concentration of the 
impurity in the mass fed into the process shall be measured, and the 
mass of the impurity fed into the process shall be calculated as the 
product of the concentration of the impurity and the mass fed into the 
process. The mass of the reactant fed into the process may be reduced 
to account for the mass of the impurity.
    (8) Alternative to error calculation. As an alternative to 
calculating the relative and absolute errors associated with the 
estimate of emissions under Sec.  98.123(b), you may comply with the 
precision, accuracy, measurement and calculation frequency, and 
fluorinated GHG throughput requirements of paragraph (b)(8)(i) through 
(b)(8)(iv) of this section.
    (i) Mass measurements. Measure the masses specified in paragraph 
(b)(1) of this section using flowmeters, weigh scales, or a combination 
of volumetric and density measurements with accuracies and precisions 
of 0.2 percent of full scale or better.
    (ii) Concentration measurements. Measure the concentrations 
specified in paragraph (b)(2) or paragraph (b)(3) of this section, as 
applicable, using analytical methods with accuracies and precisions of 
10 percent or better.
    (iii) Measurement and calculation frequency. Perform the mass 
measurements specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section and the 
concentration measurements specified in paragraph (b)(2) or paragraph 
(b)(3) of this section, as applicable, at least weekly, and calculate 
emissions at least weekly.
    (iv) Fluorinated-GHG throughput limit. You may use the alternative 
to the error calculation specified in paragraph (b)(8) of this section 
only if the total annual CO2-equivalent fluorinated GHG 
throughput of the process is 500,000 mtCO2e or less. The 
total throughput is the sum of the masses of the fluorinated GHG 
reactants, products, and by-products fed into and generated by the 
process. To convert these masses to CO2e, use Equation A-1 
of Sec.  98.2. For fluorinated GHGs whose GWPs are not listed in Table 
A-1 to subpart A of this part, use a default GWP of 2,000.
    (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 that is based 
on representative performance of the process or operating scenario(s) 
of the process, as applicable. Include in the emission test any 
fluorinated greenhouse gas that occurs in more than trace 
concentrations in the vent stream or, where a destruction device is 
used, in the inlet to the destruction device. You may include startup 
and shutdown events if the testing is sufficiently long or 
comprehensive to ensure that such events are not overrepresented in the 
emission factor. Malfunction events must not be included in the 
testing. If you conduct your emission testing after a destruction 
device, and if the outlet concentration of a fluorinated GHG that is 
fed into the device is below the detection limit of the method, you may 
use a concentration of one-half the detection limit to estimate the 
emission factor.
    (2) Number of runs. For continuous processes, sample the process 
vent for a minimum of 3 runs of 1 hour each. If the RSD of the emission 
factor calculated based on the first 3 runs is greater than or equal to 
0.15 for the emission factor, continue to sample the process vent for 
an additional 3 runs of 1 hour each. If more than one fluorinated GHG 
is measured, the RSD must be expressed in terms of total CO2 
equivalents. For fluorinated GHGs whose GWPs are not listed in Table A-
1 to subpart A of this part, use a default GWP of 2,000 in the RSD 
calculation.
    (3) 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.
    (4) Sample each process. If process vents from separate processes 
are manifolded together to a common vent or to a common destruction 
device, you must follow paragraph (c)(4)(i), (c)(4)(ii), or (c)(4)(iii) 
of this section.
    (i) You may sample emissions from each process in the ducts before 
the emissions are combined.

[[Page 74846]]

    (ii) You may sample in the common duct or at the outlet of the 
destruction device when only one process is operating.
    (iii) You may sample the combined emissions and use engineering 
calculations and assessments as specified in Sec.  98.123(c)(4) to 
allocate the emissions to each manifolded process vent, provided the 
sum of the calculated fluorinated GHG emissions across the individual 
process vents is within 20 percent of the total fluorinated GHG 
emissions measured during the manifolded testing.
    (5) Emission test results. The results of an emission test must 
include the analysis of samples, number of test runs, the results of 
the RSD analysis, the analytical method used, determination of 
emissions, the process activity, and raw data and must identify the 
process, the operating scenario, the process vents tested, and the 
fluorinated GHGs that were included in the test (i.e., the fluorinated 
GHGs that occur in more than trace concentrations in the vent stream 
or, where a destruction device is used, in the inlet to the destruction 
device, and any other fluorinated GHGs included in the test). 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).
    (7) Emissions testing frequency. You must conduct emissions testing 
to develop the process-vent-specific emission factor under paragraph 
(c)(7)(i) or (c)(7)(ii) of this section, whichever occurs first:
    (i) 10-year revision. Conduct an emissions test every 10 years. In 
the calculations under Sec.  98.123, apply the revised process-vent-
specific emission factor to the process activity that occurs after the 
revision.
    (ii) Operating scenario change that affects the emission factor. 
For planned operating scenario changes, you must estimate and compare 
the emission calculation factors for the changed operating scenario and 
for the original operating scenario whose process vent specific 
emission factor was measured. Use the calculation methods in Sec.  
98.123(c)(4). If the emission calculation factor for the changed 
operating scenario is 15 percent or more different from the emission 
calculation factor for the previous operating scenario (this includes 
the cumulative change in the emission calculation factor since the last 
emissions test), you must conduct an emissions test to update the 
process-vent-specific emission factor, unless the difference between 
the operating scenarios is solely due to the application of a 
destruction device to emissions under the changed operating scenario. 
Conduct the test before February 28 of the year that immediately 
follows the change. In the calculations under Sec.  98.123, apply the 
revised process-vent-specific emission factor to the process activity 
that occurs after the operating scenario change.
    (8) Subsequent measurements. If a continuous process vent with 
fluorinated GHG emissions less than 10,000 metric tons CO2e, 
per Sec.  98.123(c)(2), is later found to have fluorinated GHG 
emissions of 10,000 metric tons CO2e or greater, you must 
conduct the emissions testing for the process vent during the following 
year and develop the process-vent-specific emission factor from the 
emissions testing.
    (9) Previous measurements. If you have conducted an emissions test 
less than 10 years before December 31, 2010, and the emissions testing 
meets the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(8) of this 
section, you may use the previous emissions testing to develop process-
vent-specific emission factors. For purposes of paragraph (c)(7)(i) of 
this section, the date of the previous emissions test rather than 
December 31, 2010 shall constitute the beginning of the 10-year re-
measurement cycle.
    (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)(4) of this section.
    (1) Operating scenario. Perform the emissions calculation for the 
process vent based on representative performance of the operating 
scenario of the process. If more than one operating scenario applies to 
the process that contains the subject process vent, you must conduct a 
separate emissions calculation for operation under each operating 
scenario. For each continuous process vent that contains more than 
trace concentrations of any fluorinated GHG and for each batch process 
vent that contains more than trace concentrations of any fluorinated 
GHG, develop the process-vent-specific emission calculation factor for 
each operating scenario. For continuous process vents, determine the 
emissions based on the process activity for the representative 
performance of the operating scenario. For batch process vents, 
determine emissions based on the process activity for each typical 
batch operating scenario.
    (2) 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.
    (3) Emission calculation results. The emission calculation must be 
documented by identifying the process, the operating scenario, and the 
process vents. The documentation must contain the information and data 
used to calculate the process-vent-specific emission calculation 
factor.
    (4) Operating scenario change that affects the emission calculation 
factor. For planned operating scenario changes that are expected to 
change the process-vent-specific emission calculation factor, you must 
conduct an emissions calculation to update the process-vent-specific 
emission calculation factor. In the calculations under Sec.  98.123, 
apply the revised emission calculation factor to the process activity 
that occurs after the operating scenario change.
    (5) Previous calculations. If you have performed an emissions 
calculation for the process vent and operating scenario less than 10 
years before December 31, 2010, and the emissions calculation meets the 
requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(4) of this section and in 
Sec.  98.123(c)(4)(i) and (c)(4)(ii), you may use the previous 
calculation to develop the site-specific process-vent-specific emission 
calculation factor.
    (e) Emission and stream testing, including analytical methods. 
Select and document testing and analytical methods as follows:
    (1) Sampling and mass measurement for emission testing. For 
emission testing in process vents or at the stack, use methods for 
sampling, measuring volumetric flow rates, non-fluorinated-GHG gas 
analysis, and measuring stack gas moisture that have been validated 
using a scientifically sound validation protocol.
    (i) Sample and velocity traverses. Acceptable methods include but 
are not limited to EPA Method 1 or 1A in Appendix A-1 of 40 CFR part 
60.
    (ii) Velocity and volumetric flow rates. Acceptable methods include 
but are not limited to EPA Method 2, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G in 
Appendix A-1 of 40 CFR part 60. Alternatives that may be used for 
determining flow rates include OTM-24 (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  98.7) and ALT-012 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  98.7).
    (iii) Non-fluorinated-GHG gas analysis. Acceptable methods include

[[Page 74847]]

but are not limited to EPA Method 3, 3A, or 3B in Appendix A-1 of 40 
CFR part 60.
    (iv) Stack gas moisture. Acceptable methods include but are not 
limited to EPA Method 4 in Appendix A-1 of 40 CFR part 60.
    (2) Analytical methods. Use a quality-assured analytical 
measurement technology capable of detecting the analyte of interest at 
the concentration of interest and use a sampling and analytical 
procedure validated with the analyte of interest at the concentration 
of interest. Where calibration standards for the analyte are not 
available, a chemically similar surrogate may be used. Acceptable 
analytical measurement technologies include but are not limited to gas 
chromatography (GC) with an appropriate detector, infrared (IR), 
fourier transform infrared (FTIR), and nuclear magnetic resonance 
(NMR). Acceptable methods for determining fluorinated GHGs include EPA 
Method 18 in appendix A-1 of 40 CFR part 60, EPA Method 320 in appendix 
A of 40 CFR part 63, EPA 430-R-10-003 (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  98.7), ASTM D6348-03 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  98.7), 
or other analytical methods validated using EPA Method 301 at 40 CFR 
part 63, appendix A or some other scientifically sound validation 
protocol. Acceptable methods for determining total fluorine 
concentrations for fluorine-containing compounds in streams under 
paragraph (b)(3) of this section include ASTM D7359-08 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  98.7), or other analytical methods validated using 
EPA Method 301 at 40 CFR part 63, appendix A or some other 
scientifically sound validation protocol. The validation protocol may 
include analytical technology manufacturer specifications or 
recommendations.
    (3) Documentation in GHG Monitoring Plan. Describe the sampling, 
measurement, and analytical method(s) used under paragraphs (e)(1) and 
(e)(2) of this section in the GHG Monitoring Plan as required under 
Sec.  98.3(g)(5). Identify the methods used to obtain the samples and 
measurements listed under paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (e)(1)(iv) of 
this section. At a minimum, include in the description of the 
analytical method a description of the analytical measurement equipment 
and procedures, quantitative estimates of the method's accuracy and 
precision for the analytes of interest at the concentrations of 
interest, as well as a description of how these accuracies and 
precisions were estimated, including the validation protocol used.
    (f) Emission monitoring for pieces of equipment. If you conduct a 
site-specific leak detection method or monitoring approach for pieces 
of equipment, follow paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this section and 
follow paragraph (f)(3) of this section.
    (1) Site-specific leak monitoring approach. You may develop a site-
specific leak monitoring approach. You must validate the leak 
monitoring method and describe the method and the validation in the GHG 
Monitoring Plan. To validate the site-specific method, you may, for 
example, release a known rate of the fluorinated GHGs or surrogates of 
interest, or you may compare the results of the site-specific method to 
those of a method that has been validated for the fluorinated GHGs or 
surrogates of interest. In the description of the leak detection method 
and its validation, include a detailed description of the method, 
including the procedures and equipment used and any sampling 
strategies. Also include the rationale behind the method, including why 
the method is expected to result in an unbiased estimate of emissions 
from equipment leaks. If the method is based on methods that are used 
to detect or quantify leaks or other emissions in other regulations, 
standards, or guidelines, identify and describe the regulations, 
standards, or guidelines and why their methods are applicable to 
emissions of fluorinated GHGs or surrogates from leaks. Account for 
possible sources of error in the method, e.g., instrument detection 
limits, measurement biases, and sampling biases. Describe validation 
efforts, including but not limited to any comparisons against standard 
leaks or concentrations, any comparisons against other methods, and 
their results. If you use the Screening Ranges Approach, the EPA 
Correlation Approach, or the Unit-Specific Correlation Approach with a 
monitoring instrument that does not meet all of the specifications in 
EPA Method 21 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, then explain how and why 
the monitoring instrument, as used at your facility, would nevertheless 
be expected to accurately detect and quantify emissions of fluorinated 
GHGs or surrogates from process equipment, and describe how you 
verified its accuracy. For all methods, provide a quantitative estimate 
of the accuracy and precision of the method.
    (2) EPA Method 21 monitoring. If you determine that EPA Method 21 
at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 is appropriate for monitoring a 
fluorinated GHG, conduct the screening value concentration measurements 
using EPA Method 21 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 to determine the 
screening range data or the actual screening value data for the 
Screening Ranges Approach, EPA Correlation Approach, or the Unit-
Specific Correlation Approach. For the one-time testing to develop the 
Unit-Specific Correlation equations in EPA-453/R-95-017 (incorporated 
by reference, see Sec.  98.7), conduct the screening value 
concentration measurements using EPA Method 21 at 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A-7 and the bagging procedures to measure mass emissions. 
Concentration measurements of bagged samples must be conducted using 
gas chromatography following EPA Method 18 analytical procedures or 
other method according to Sec.  98.124(e). Use methane or other 
appropriate compound as the calibration gas.
    (3) Frequency of measurement and sampling. If you estimate 
emissions based on monitoring of equipment, conduct monitoring at least 
annually. Sample at least one-third of equipment annually (except for 
equipment that is unsafe-to-monitor, difficult-to-monitor, insulated, 
or in heavy liquid service, pumps with dual mechanical seals, agitators 
with dual mechanical seals, pumps with no external shaft, agitators 
with no external shaft, pressure relief devices in gas and vapor 
service with an upstream rupture disk, sampling connection systems with 
closed-loop or closed purge systems, and pieces of equipment whose 
leaks are routed through a closed vent system to a destruction device), 
changing the sample each year such that at the end of three years, all 
equipment in the process has been monitored. If you estimate emissions 
based on a sample of the equipment in the process, ensure that the 
sample is representative of the equipment in the process. If you have 
multiple processes that have similar types of equipment in similar 
service, and that produce or transform similar fluorinated GHGs (in 
terms of chemical composition, molecular weight, and vapor pressure) at 
similar pressures and concentrations, then you may annually sample all 
of the equipment in one third of these processes rather than one third 
of the equipment in each process.
    (g) Destruction device performance testing. If you vent or 
otherwise feed fluorinated GHGs into a destruction device and apply the 
destruction efficiency of the device to one or more fluorinated GHGs in 
Sec.  98.123, you must conduct emissions testing to determine the 
destruction efficiency for each fluorinated GHG to which you apply the 
destruction efficiency. You must either determine the destruction 
efficiency for the most-difficult-to-destroy fluorinated GHG fed into 
the device (or a surrogate

[[Page 74848]]

that is still more difficult to destroy) and apply that destruction 
efficiency to all the fluorinated GHGs fed into the device or 
alternatively determine different destruction efficiencies for 
different groups of fluorinated GHGs using the most-difficult-to-
destroy fluorinated GHG of each group (or a surrogate that is still 
more difficult to destroy).
    (1) Destruction efficiency testing. 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 (e) of this section. 
To determine the destruction efficiency, emission testing must 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 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 or that belongs to the group of fluorinated GHGs for which you 
wish to establish a DE. If the outlet concentration of a fluorinated 
GHG that is fed into the device is below the detection limit of the 
method, you may use a concentration of one-half the detection limit to 
estimate the destruction efficiency.
    (i) If perfluoromethane (CF4) is vented to the 
destruction device in any stream in more than trace concentrations, you 
must test and determine the destruction efficiency achieved 
specifically for CF4 to take credit for the CF4 
emissions reduction.
    (ii) If sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is vented to the 
destruction device in any stream in more than trace concentrations, you 
must test and determine the destruction efficiency achieved 
specifically for SF6, or alternatively for CF4 as 
a surrogate, to take credit for the SF6 emissions reduction.
    (iii) If saturated perfluorocarbons other than CF4 are 
vented to the destruction device in any stream in more than trace 
concentrations, you must test and determine the destruction efficiency 
achieved for the lowest molecular weight saturated perfluorocarbon 
vented to the destruction device, or alternatively for a lower 
molecular weight saturated PFC or SF6 as a surrogate, to 
take credit for the PFC emission reduction.
    (iv) For all other fluorinated GHGs that are vented to the 
destruction device in any stream in more than trace concentrations, you 
must test and determine the destruction efficiency achieved for the 
most-difficult-to-destroy fluorinated GHG or surrogate vented to the 
destruction device. Examples of acceptable surrogates include the Class 
1 compounds (ranked 1 through 34) in Appendix D, Table D-1 of 
``Guidance on Setting Permit Conditions and Reporting Trial Burn 
Results; Volume II of the Hazardous Waste Incineration Guidance 
Series,'' January 1989, EPA Publication EPA 625/6-89/019. You can 
obtain a copy of this publication by contacting the Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, 
(202) 272-0167, http://www.epa.gov.
    (2) Destruction efficiency testing frequency. You must conduct 
emissions testing to determine the destruction efficiency as provided 
in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section, whichever occurs 
first:
    (i) Conduct an emissions test every 10 years. In the calculations 
under Sec.  98.123, apply the updated destruction efficiency to the 
destruction that occurs after the test.
    (ii) Destruction device changes that affect the destruction 
efficiency. If you make a change to the destruction device that would 
be expected to affect the destruction efficiency, you must conduct an 
emissions test to update the destruction efficiency. Conduct the test 
before the February 28 of the year that immediately follows the change. 
In the calculations under Sec.  98.123, apply the updated destruction 
efficiency to the destruction that occurs after the change to the 
device.
    (3) Previous testing .If you have conducted an emissions test 
within the 10 years prior to December 31, 2010, and the emissions 
testing meets the requirements in paragraph (g)(1) of this section, you 
may use the destruction efficiency determined during this previous 
emissions testing. For purposes of paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this section, 
the date of the previous emissions test rather than December 31, 2010 
shall constitute the beginning of the 10-year re-measurement cycle.
    (4) Hazardous Waste Combustor testing. If a destruction device used 
to destroy fluorinated GHG is subject to subpart EEE of part 63 of this 
chapter or any portion of parts 260-270 of this chapter, you may apply 
the destruction efficiency specifically determined for CF4, 
SF6, PFCs other than CF4, and all other 
fluorinated GHGs under that test if the testing meets the criteria in 
paragraph (g)(1)(i) through (g)(1)(iv) of this section. If the testing 
of the destruction efficiency under subpart EEE of part 63 of this 
chapter was conducted more than 10 years ago, you may use the most 
recent destruction efficiency test provided that the design, operation, 
or maintenance of the destruction device has not changed since the last 
destruction efficiency test in a manner that could affect the ability 
to achieve the destruction efficiency, and the hazardous waste is fed 
into the normal flame zone.
    (h) Mass of previously produced fluorinated GHGs fed into 
destruction device. You must measure the mass of each fluorinated GHG 
that is fed into the destruction device in more than trace 
concentrations and that was previously produced as defined at Sec.  
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 
concentration of the 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.
    (i) Emissions due to malfunctions of destruction device. In their 
estimates of the mass of fluorinated GHG destroyed, fluorinated gas 
production facilities that destroy fluorinated GHGs must account for 
any temporary reductions in the destruction efficiency that result from 
any malfunctions of the destruction device, including periods of 
operation outside of the operating conditions defined in operating 
permit requirements and/or destruction device manufacturer 
specifications.
    (j) Emissions due to process startup, shutdown, or malfunctions. 
Fluorinated GHG production facilities must 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. Facilities may use the calculation methods 
in Sec.  98.123(c)(1) to estimate emissions during startups, shutdowns, 
and malfunctions.
    (k) Monitoring for venting residual fluorinated GHG in containers. 
Measure the residual fluorinated GHG in containers received by the 
facility either using scales or using pressure and

[[Page 74849]]

temperature measurements. You may use pressure and temperature 
measurements only in cases where no liquid fluorinated GHG is present 
in the container. Scales must have an accuracy and precision of 1 percent or better of the filled weight (gas plus tare) of the 
containers of fluorinated GHGs that are typically weighed on the scale. 
For example, for scales that are generally used to weigh cylinders that 
contain 115 pounds of gas when full and that have a tare weight of 115 
pounds, this equates to 1 percent of 230 pounds, or 2.3 pounds. Pressure gauges and thermometers used to measure 
quantities that are monitored under this paragraph must have an 
accuracy and precision of 1 percent of full scale or 
better.
    (l) Initial scoping speciations, emissions testing, emission factor 
development, emission calculation factor development, emission 
characterization development, and destruction efficiency determinations 
must be completed by February 29, 2012 for processes and operating 
scenarios that operate between December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2011. 
For other processes and operating scenarios, initial scoping 
speciations, emissions testing, emission factor development, emission 
calculation factor development, emission characterization development, 
and destruction efficiency determinations must be complete by February 
28 of the year following the year in which the process or operating 
scenario commences or recommences.
    (m) 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).
    (n) All analytical equipment used to determine the concentration of 
fluorinated GHGs, including but not limited to gas chromatographs and 
associated detectors, infrared (IR), fourier transform infrared (FTIR), 
and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) devices, must be calibrated at a 
frequency needed to support the type of analysis specified in the GHG 
Monitoring Plan as required under Sec.  98.124(e)(3) and 93.3(g)(5). 
Quality assurance samples at the concentrations of concern must be used 
for the calibration. Such quality assurance samples must consist of or 
be prepared from certified standards of the analytes of concern where 
available; if not available, calibration must be performed by a method 
specified in the GHG Monitoring Plan.
    (o) Special provisions for estimating 2011 and subsequent year 
emissions.
    (1) Best available monitoring methods. To estimate emissions that 
occur from January 1, 2011 through June 30, 2011, owners or operators 
may use best available monitoring methods for any parameter that cannot 
reasonably be measured according to the monitoring and QA/QC 
requirements of this subpart. The owner or operator must use the 
calculation methodologies and equations in Sec.  98.123, but may use 
the best available monitoring method for any parameter for which it is 
not reasonably feasible to acquire, install, or operate a required 
piece of monitoring equipment, to procure measurement services from 
necessary providers, or to gain physical access to make required 
measurements in a facility by January 1, 2011. Starting no later than 
July 1, 2011, the owner or operator must discontinue using best 
available methods and begin following all applicable monitoring and QA/
QC requirements of this part, except as provided in paragraphs (o)(2) 
through (o)(4) of this section. Best available monitoring methods means 
any of the following methods specified in this paragraph:
    (i) Monitoring methods currently used by the facility that do not 
meet the specifications of this subpart.
    (ii) Supplier data.
    (iii) Engineering calculations or assessments.
    (iv) Other company records.
    (2) Requests for extension of the use of best available monitoring 
methods to estimate 2011 emissions: parameters other than scoping 
speciations, emission factors, and emission characterizations. The 
owner or operator may submit a request to the Administrator to use one 
or more best available monitoring methods for parameters other than 
scoping speciations, emission factors, or emission characterizations to 
estimate emissions that occur between July 1, 2011 and December 31, 
2011.
    (i) Timing of request. The extension request must be submitted to 
EPA no later than February 28, 2011.
    (ii) Content of request. Requests must contain the following 
information:
    (A) A list of specific items of monitoring equipment and 
measurement services for which the request is being made and the 
locations (e.g., processes and vents) where each piece of monitoring 
equipment will be installed and where each measurement service will be 
provided.
    (B) Identification of the specific rule requirements for which the 
monitoring equipment or measurement service is needed.
    (C) A description of the reasons why the needed equipment could not 
be obtained, installed, or operated or why the needed measurement 
service could not be provided before July 1, 2011. The owner or 
operator must consider all of the data collection and emission 
calculation options outlined in the rule for a specific emissions 
source before claiming that a specific safety, technical, logistical, 
or legal barrier exists.
    (D) If the reason for the extension is that the equipment cannot be 
purchased, delivered, or installed before July 1, 2011, include 
supporting documentation such as the date the monitoring equipment was 
ordered, investigation of alternative suppliers, the dates by which 
alternative vendors promised delivery or installation, backorder 
notices or unexpected delays, descriptions of actions taken to expedite 
delivery or installation, and the current expected date of delivery or 
installation.
    (E) If the reason for the extension is that service providers were 
unable to provide necessary measurement

[[Page 74850]]

services, include supporting documentation demonstrating that these 
services could not be acquired before July 1, 2011. This documentation 
must include written correspondence to and from at least two service 
providers stating that they will not be able to provide the necessary 
services before July 1, 2011.
    (F) If the reason for the extension is that the process is 
operating continuously without process shutdown, include supporting 
documentation showing that it is not practicable to isolate the process 
equipment or unit and install the measurement device without a full 
shutdown or a hot tap, and that there is no opportunity before July 1, 
2011 to install the device. Include the date of the three most recent 
shutdowns for each relevant process equipment or unit, the frequency of 
shutdowns for each relevant process equipment or unit, and the date of 
the next planned process equipment or unit shutdown.
    (G) If the reason for the extension is that access to process 
streams, emissions streams, or destroyed streams, as applicable, could 
not be gained before July 1, 2011 for reasons other than the continuous 
operation of the process without shutdown, include illustrative 
documentation such as photographs and engineering diagrams 
demonstrating that access could not be gained.
    (H) A description of the best available monitoring methods that 
will be used and how their results will be applied (i.e., which 
calculation method will be used) to develop the emission estimate. 
Where the proposed best available monitoring method is the use of 
current monitoring data in the mass-balance approach, include the 
estimated relative and absolute errors of the mass-balance approach 
using the current monitoring data.
    (I) A description of the specific actions the owner or operator 
will take to comply with monitoring requirements by January 1, 2012.
    (3) Requests for extension of the use of best available monitoring 
methods to estimate 2011 emissions: scoping speciations, emission 
factors, and emission characterizations. The owner or operator may 
submit a request to the Administrator to use one or more best available 
monitoring methods for scoping speciations, emission factors, and 
emission characterizations to estimate emissions that occur between 
July 1, 2011 and December 31, 2011.
    (i) Timing of request. The extension request must be submitted to 
EPA no later than June 30, 2011.
    (ii) Content of request. Requests must contain the information 
outlined in paragraph (o)(2)(ii) of this section, substituting March 1, 
2012 for July 1, 2011 and substituting March 1, 2013 for January 1, 
2012.
    (iii) Reporting of 2011 emissions using scoping speciations, 
emission factors, and emission characterizations developed after 
February 29, 2012. Facilities that are approved to use best available 
monitoring methods in 2011 for scoping speciations, emission factors, 
or emission characterizations for certain processes must submit, by 
March 31, 2013, revised 2011 emission estimates that reflect the 
scoping speciations, emission factors, and emission characterizations 
that are measured for those processes after February 29, 2012. If the 
operating scenario for 2011 is different from all of the operating 
scenarios for which emission factors are developed after February 29, 
2012, use Equation L-23 at Sec.  98.123(c)(3)(viii) to adjust the 
emission factor(s) or emission characterizations measured for the post-
February 29, 2012 operating scenario(s) to account for the differences.
    (4) Requests for extension of the use of best available monitoring 
methods to estimate emissions that occur after 2011. EPA does not 
anticipate approving the use of best available monitoring methods to 
estimate emissions that occur beyond December 31, 2011; however, EPA 
reserves the right to review requests for unique and extreme 
circumstances which include safety, technical infeasibility, or 
inconsistency with other local, State or Federal regulations.
    (i) Timing of request. The extension request must be submitted to 
EPA no later than June 30, 2011.
    (ii) Content of request. Requests must contain the following 
information:
    (A) The information outlined in paragraph (o)(2)(ii) of this 
section. For scoping speciations, emission factors, and emission 
characterizations, substitute March 1, 2013 for July 1, 2011 and 
substitute March 1, 2014 for January 1, 2012. For other parameters, 
substitute January 1, 2012 for July 1, 2011 and substitute January 1, 
2013 for January 1, 2012.
    (B) A detailed outline of the unique circumstances necessitating an 
extension, including specific data collection issues that do not meet 
safety regulations, technical infeasibility or specific laws or 
regulations that conflict with data collection. The owner or operator 
must consider all the data collection and emission calculation options 
outlined in the rule for a specific emissions source before claiming 
that a specific safety, technical or legal barrier exists.
    (C) A detailed explanation and supporting documentation of how and 
when the owner or operator will receive the required data and/or 
services to comply with the reporting requirements of this subpart in 
the future.
    (E) The Administrator reserves the right to require that the owner 
or operator provide additional documentation.
    (iii) Reporting of 2011 and subsequent year emissions using scoping 
speciations, emission factors, and emission characterizations developed 
after approval to use best available monitoring methods expires. 
Facilities that are approved to use best available monitoring methods 
in 2011 and subsequent years for scoping speciations, emission factors, 
or emission characterizations for certain processes must submit, by 
March 31 of the year that begins one year after their approval to use 
best available monitoring method(s) expires, revised emission estimates 
for 2011 and subsequent years that reflect the scoping speciations, 
emission factors, and emission characterizations that are measured for 
those processes in 2013 or subsequent years. If the operating scenario 
for 2011 or subsequent years is different from all of the operating 
scenarios for which emission factors or emission characterizations are 
developed in 2013 or subsequent years, use Equation L-23 of Sec.  
98.123(c)(3)(viii) to adjust the emission factor(s) or emission 
characterization(s) measured for the new operating scenario(s) to 
account for the differences.
    (5) Approval criteria. To obtain approval, the owner or operator 
must demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that it is not 
reasonably feasible to acquire, install, or operate the required piece 
of monitoring equipment, to procure measurement services from necessary 
providers, or to gain physical access to make required measurements in 
a facility according to the requirements of this subpart by the dates 
specified in paragraphs (o)(2), (3), and (4) of this section for any of 
the reasons described in paragraph (o)(2)(ii) of this section, or, for 
requests under paragraph (o)(4) of this section, any of the reasons 
described in paragraph (o)(4)(ii)(B) of this section.


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

[[Page 74851]]

unavailable, a substitute data value for the missing parameter must be 
used in the calculations as specified in the paragraphs (b) and (c) of 
this section. You must document and keep records of the procedures used 
for all such estimates.
    (b) For each missing value of the fluorinated GHG concentration or 
fluorine-containing compound concentration, the substitute data value 
must 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, or fed into 
destruction devices, the substitute value of that parameter must 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 must 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 must report the information in paragraphs (a)(2) 
through (a)(6) of this section.
    (1) Frequency of reporting under paragraph (a) of this section. The 
information in paragraphs (a)(2), (5), and (6) of this section must be 
reported annually. The information in paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) of this 
section must be reported once by March 31, 2012 for each process and 
operating scenarios that operates between December 31, 2010 and 
December 31, 2011. For other processes and operating scenarios, the 
information in paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) of this section must be 
reported once by March 31 of the year following the year in which the 
process or operating scenario commences or recommences.
    (2) You must report the total mass in metric tons of each 
fluorinated GHG emitted from:
    (i) Each fluorinated gas production process and all fluorinated gas 
production processes combined.
    (ii) Each fluorinated gas transformation process that is not part 
of a fluorinated gas production process and all such fluorinated gas 
transformation processes combined, except report separately fluorinated 
GHG emissions from transformation processes where a fluorinated GHG 
reactant is produced at another facility.
    (iii) 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.
    (iv) Venting of residual fluorinated GHGs from containers returned 
from the field.
    (3) The chemical identities of the contents of the stream(s) 
(including process, emissions, and destroyed streams) analyzed under 
the initial scoping speciation of fluorinated GHG at Sec.  98.124(a), 
by process.
    (4) The location and function of the stream(s) (including process 
streams, emissions streams, and destroyed streams) that were analyzed 
under the initial scoping speciation of fluorinated GHG at Sec.  
98.124(a), by process.
    (5) 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. For processes for which the 
process-vent-specific emission factor or process-vent-specific emission 
calculation factor are used, report the method used to estimate 
emissions from equipment leaks.
    (6) 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(b), you must report the information listed in paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (b)(13) of this section for each process on an annual basis. 
Identify and separately report fluorinated GHG emissions from 
transformation processes where the fluorinated GHG reactants are 
produced at another facility. If you use an element other than fluorine 
in the mass-balance equation pursuant to Sec.  98.123(b)(3), substitute 
that element for fluorine in the reporting requirements of this 
paragraph.
    (1) If you calculate the relative and absolute errors under 
98.123(b)(1), the absolute and relative errors calculated under 
paragraph Sec.  98.123(b)(1), as well as the data (including quantities 
and their accuracies and precisions) used in these calculations.
    (2) The balanced chemical equation that describes the reaction used 
to manufacture the fluorinated GHG product and each fluorinated GHG 
transformation product.
    (3) The mass and chemical formula of each fluorinated GHG reactant 
emitted from the process in metric tons.
    (4) The mass and chemical formula of the fluorinated GHG product 
emitted from the process in metric tons.
    (5) The mass and chemical formula of each fluorinated GHG by-
product emitted from the process in metric tons.
    (6) The mass and chemical formula of each fluorine-containing 
reactant that is fed into the process (metric tons).
    (7) The mass and chemical formula of each fluorine-containing 
product produced by the process (metric tons).
    (8) If you use Sec.  98.123(b)(4) to estimate the total mass of 
fluorine in destroyed or recaptured streams, report the following.
    (i) The mass and chemical formula of each fluorine-containing 
product that is removed from the process and fed into the destruction 
device (metric tons).
    (ii) The mass and chemical formula of each fluorine-containing by-
product that is removed from the process and fed into the destruction 
device (metric tons).
    (iii) The mass and chemical formula of each fluorine-containing 
reactant that is removed from the process and fed into the destruction 
device (metric tons).
    (iv) The mass and chemical formula of each fluorine-containing by-
product that is removed from the process and recaptured (metric tons).
    (v) The demonstrated destruction efficiency of the destruction 
device for each fluorinated GHG fed into the device from the process in 
greater than trace concentrations (fraction).
    (9) If you use Sec.  98.123(b)(15) to estimate the total mass of 
fluorine in destroyed or recaptured streams, report the following.
    (i) The mass of fluorine in each stream that is fed into the 
destruction device (metric tons).
    (ii) The mass of fluorine that is recaptured (metric tons).
    (iii) The weighted average destruction efficiency of the 
destruction device calculated for each stream under Sec.  
98.123(b)(16).
    (10) The fraction of the mass emitted that consists of each 
fluorine-containing reactant.

[[Page 74852]]

    (11) The fraction of the mass emitted that consists of the 
fluorine-containing product.
    (12) The fraction of the mass emitted that consists of each 
fluorine-containing by-product.
    (13) The method used to estimate the total mass of fluorine in 
destroyed or recaptured streams (specify Sec.  98.123(b)(4) or (15)).
    (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(c)(3) or the emission 
calculation factor under Sec.  98.123(c)(4), you must report the 
following for each process. Fluorinated GHG emissions from 
transformation processes where the fluorinated GHG reactants are 
produced at another facility must be identified and reported separately 
from other fluorinated GHG emissions.
    (1) The identity and quantity of 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(s) or 
emission calculation factor for each process vent.
    (3) The mass of each fluorinated GHG emitted from each process vent 
(metric tons).
    (4) The mass of each fluorinated GHG emitted from equipment leaks 
(metric tons).
    (d) Reporting for missing data. Where missing data have been 
estimated pursuant to Sec.  98.125, you must 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 excess emissions data. Each 
fluorinated gas production facility that destroys fluorinated GHGs must 
report the excess emissions that result from malfunctions of the 
destruction device, and these excess emissions would be reflected in 
the fluorinated GHG estimates in Sec.  98.123(b) and (c). Such excess 
emissions would occur if the destruction efficiency was reduced due to 
the malfunction.
    (f) Reporting of destruction device testing. By March 31, 2012 or 
by March 31 of the year immediately following the year in which it 
begins fluorinated GHG destruction, each fluorinated gas production 
facility that destroys fluorinated GHGs must submit a report containing 
the information in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(4) of this section. 
This report is one-time unless you make a change to the destruction 
device that would be expected to affect its destruction efficiencies.
    (1) Destruction efficiency (DE) of each destruction device for each 
fluorinated GHG whose destruction the facility reflects in Sec.  
98.123, in accordance with Sec.  98.124(g)(1)(i) through (iv).
    (2) Chemical identity of the fluorinated GHG(s) used in the 
performance test conducted to determine destruction efficiency, 
including surrogates, and information on why the surrogate is 
sufficient to demonstrate the destruction efficiency for each 
fluorinated GHG, consistent with requirements in Sec.  98.124(g)(1), 
vented to the destruction device.
    (3) Date of the most recent destruction device test.
    (4) Name of all applicable Federal or State regulations that may 
apply to the destruction process.
    (5) If you make a change to the destruction device that would be 
expected to affect its destruction efficiencies, submit a revised 
report that reflects the changes, including the revised destruction 
efficiencies measured for the device under Sec.  98.124(g)(2)(ii), by 
March 31 of the year that immediately follows the change.
    (g) Reporting for destruction of previously produced fluorinated 
GHGs. Each fluorinated gas production facility that destroys 
fluorinated GHGs must report, separately from the fluorinated GHG 
emissions reported under paragraphs (b) or (c) of this section, 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.
    (h) Reporting of emissions from venting of residual fluorinated 
GHGs from containers. Each fluorinated gas production facility that 
vents residual fluorinated GHGs from containers must report the 
following for each fluorinated GHG vented:
    (1) The mass of the residual fluorinated GHG vented from each 
container size and type annually (tons).
    (2) If applicable, the heel factor calculated for each container 
size and type.
    (i) Reporting of fluorinated GHG products of incomplete combustion 
(PICs) of fluorinated gases. Each fluorinated gas production facility 
that destroys fluorinated gases must submit a one-time report by June 
30, 2011, that describes any measurements, research, or analysis that 
it has performed or obtained that relate to the formation of products 
of incomplete combustion that are fluorinated GHGs during the 
destruction of fluorinated gases. The report must include the methods 
and results of any measurement or modeling studies, including the 
products of incomplete combustion for which the exhaust stream was 
analyzed, as well as copies of relevant scientific papers, if 
available, or citations of the papers, if they are not. No new testing 
is required to fulfill this requirement.


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 (j) 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, as applicable, of all analyses and 
calculations conducted as required under Sec.  98.123, including the 
data monitored under Sec.  98.124, and all information reported as 
required and Sec.  98.126.
    (b) Scoping speciation. Retain records documenting the information 
reported under Sec.  98.126(a)(3) and (4).
    (c) Mass-balance method. Retain the following records for each 
process for which the mass-balance method was used to estimate 
emissions. If you use an element other than fluorine in the mass-
balance equation pursuant to Sec.  98.123(b)(3), substitute that 
element for fluorine in the recordkeeping requirements of this 
paragraph.
    (1) The data and calculations used to estimate the absolute and 
relative errors associated with use of the mass-balance approach.
    (2) The data and calculations used to estimate the mass of fluorine 
emitted from the process.
    (3) The data and calculations used to determine the fractions of 
the mass emitted consisting of each reactant (FERd), product 
(FEP), and by-product (FEBk), including the preliminary 
calculations in Sec.  98.123(b)(8)(i).
    (d) Emission factor and emission calculation factor method. Retain 
the following records for each process for which the emission factor or 
emission calculation factor method was used to estimate emissions.
    (1) Identify all continuous process vents with emissions of 
fluorinated GHGs that are less than 10,000 metric tons CO2e 
per year and all continuous process vents with emissions of 10,000 
metric tons CO2e per year or more. Include the data and 
calculation used to develop the preliminary estimate of emissions for 
each process vent.
    (2) Identify all batch process vents.
    (3) For each vent, identify the method used to develop the factor 
(i.e., emission factor by emissions test or emission calculation 
factor).

[[Page 74853]]

    (4) The emissions test data and reports (see Sec.  98.124(c)(5)) 
and the calculations used to determine the process-vent-specific 
emission factor, including the actual process-vent-specific emission 
factor, the average hourly emission rate of each fluorinated GHG from 
the process vent during the test and the process feed rate, process 
production rate, or other process activity rate during the test.
    (5) The process-vent-specific emission calculation factor and the 
calculations used to determine the process-vent-specific emission 
calculation factor.
    (6) The 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 and dates and time 
periods the process vents are vented to the destruction device. As an 
alternative to date and time periods when process vents are vented to 
the destruction device, a facility may track dates and time periods 
that process vents by-pass the destruction device.
    (7) 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.
    (e) Destruction efficiency testing. A fluorinated GHG production 
facility that destroys fluorinated GHGs and reflects this destruction 
in Sec.  98.123 must retain the emissions performance testing reports 
(including revised reports) for each destruction device. The emissions 
performance testing report must contain all information and data used 
to derive the destruction efficiency for each fluorinated GHG whose 
destruction the facility reflects in Sec.  98.123, as well as the key 
process and device conditions during the test. This information 
includes the following:
    (1) Destruction efficiency (DE) determined for each fluorinated GHG 
whose destruction the facility reflects in Sec.  98.123, in accordance 
with Sec.  98.124(g)(1)(i) through (iv).
    (2) Chemical identity of the fluorinated GHG(s) used in the 
performance test conducted to determine destruction efficiency, 
including surrogates, and information on why the surrogate is 
sufficient to demonstrate destruction efficiency for each fluorinated 
GHG, consistent with requirements in Sec.  98.124(g)(1)(i) through 
(iv), vented to the destruction device.
    (3) Mass flow rate of the stream containing the fluorinated GHG(s) 
or surrogate into the device during the test.
    (4) Concentration (mass fraction) of each fluorinated GHG or 
surrogate in the stream flowing into the device during the test.
    (5) Concentration (mass fraction) of each fluorinated GHG or 
surrogate at the outlet of the destruction device during the test.
    (6) Mass flow rate at the outlet of the destruction device during 
the test.
    (7) Test methods and analytical methods used to determine the mass 
flow rates and fluorinated GHG (or surrogate) concentrations of the 
streams flowing into and out of the destruction device during the test.
    (8) Destruction device conditions that are normally monitored for 
device control, such as temperature, total mass flow rates into the 
device, and CO or O2 levels.
    (9) Name of all applicable Federal or State regulations that may 
apply to the destruction process.
    (f) Equipment leak records. If you are subject to Sec.  98.123(d) 
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; each piece of equipment excluded from monitoring requirement; 
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. If you developed and follow a site-specific 
leak detection approach, provide the records for monitoring events and 
the emissions estimation calculations, as appropriate, consistent with 
the approach for equipment leak emission estimation in your GHG 
Monitoring Plan.
    (g) Container heel records. If you vent residual fluorinated GHGs 
from containers, maintain the following records of the measurements and 
calculations used to estimate emissions of residual fluorinated GHGs 
from containers.
    (i) If you measure the contents of each container, maintain records 
of these measurements and the calculations used to estimate emissions 
of each fluorinated GHG from each container size and type.
    (ii) If you develop and apply container heel factors to estimate 
emissions, maintain records of the measurements and calculations used 
to develop the heel factor for each fluorinated GHG and each container 
size and type and of the number of containers of each fluorinated GHG 
and of each container size and type returned to your facility.
    (h) Missing data records. Where missing data have been estimated 
pursuant to Sec.  98.125, you must 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.
    (i) All facilities. Dated records documenting the initial and 
periodic calibration of all analytical equipment used to determine the 
concentration of fluorinated GHGs, including but not limited to gas 
chromatographs, gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC/MS), gas 
chromatograph-electron capture detector (GC/ECD), fourier transform 
infrared (FTIR), and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) devices, and all 
mass measurement equipment such as 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(e), (f), (g), 
(m), and (n).
    (j) GHG Monitoring Plans, as described in Sec.  98.3(g)(5), must be 
completed by April 1, 2011.


Sec.  98.128  Definitions.

    Except as provided in this section, 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

[[Page 74854]]

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.
    By-product means a chemical that is produced coincidentally during 
the production of another chemical.
    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 outputs flow continuously throughout the duration of the process. 
Continuous processes are typically steady state.
    Destruction device means any device used to destroy fluorinated 
GHG.
    Destruction process means a process used to destroy fluorinated GHG 
in a destruction device such as a thermal incinerator or catalytic 
oxidizer.
    Difficult-to-monitor means the equipment piece may not be monitored 
without elevating the monitoring personnel more than 2 meters (7 feet) 
above a support surface or it is not accessible in a safe manner when 
it is in fluorinated GHG service.
    Dual mechanical seal pump and dual mechanical seal agitator means a 
pump or agitator equipped with a dual mechanical seal system that 
includes a barrier fluid system where the barrier fluid is not in light 
liquid service; each barrier fluid system is equipped with a sensor 
that will detect failure of the seal system, the barrier fluid system, 
or both; and meets the following requirements:
    (1) Each dual mechanical seal system is operated with the barrier 
fluid at a pressure that is at all times (except periods of startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction) greater than the pump or agitator stuffing 
box pressure; or
    (2) Equipped with a barrier fluid degassing reservoir that is 
routed to a process or fuel gas system or connected by a closed-vent 
system to a control device; or
    (3) Equipped with a closed-loop system that purges the barrier 
fluid into a process stream.
    Equipment (for the purposes of Sec.  98.123(d) and Sec.  98.124(f) 
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, by-product, or product that is a 
liquid or gas and contains at least 5 percent by weight fluorinated 
GHG.
    In gas and vapor service means that a piece of equipment in 
regulated material service contains a gas or vapor at operating 
conditions.
    In heavy liquid service means that a piece of equipment in 
regulated material service is not in gas and vapor service or in light 
liquid service.
    In light liquid service means that a piece of equipment in 
regulated material service contains a liquid that meets the following 
conditions:
    (1) The vapor pressure of one or more of the compounds is greater 
than 0.3 kilopascals at 20 [deg]C.
    (2) The total concentration of the pure compounds constituents 
having a vapor pressure greater than 0.3 kilopascals at 20 [deg]C is 
equal to or greater than 20 percent by weight of the total process 
stream.
    (3) The fluid is a liquid at operating conditions.
    Note to definition of ``in light liquid service'': Vapor pressures 
may be determined by standard reference texts or ASTM D-2879, 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  98.7).
    In vacuum service means that equipment is operating at an internal 
pressure which is at least 5 kilopascals below ambient pressure.
    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.
    No external shaft pump and No external shaft agitator means any 
pump or agitator that is designed with no externally actuated shaft 
penetrating the pump or agitator housing.
    Operating scenario means any specific operation of a process and 
includes the information specified in paragraphs (1) through (5) of 
this definition for each process. A change or series of changes to any 
of these elements, except for paragraph (4) of this definition, 
constitutes a different operating scenario.
    (1) A description of the process, the specific process equipment 
used, and the range of operating conditions for the process.
    (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).
    (5) The applicable monitoring requirements and any parametric level 
that assures destruction or removal for all emissions routed to the 
control or destruction device.
    Process means all equipment that collectively functions to produce 
a fluorinated gas product, including an isolated intermediate (which is 
also a fluorinated gas product), or to transform a fluorinated gas 
product. A process may consist of one or more unit operations. For the 
purposes of this subpart, process includes any, all, or a combination 
of reaction, recovery, separation, purification, or other activity, 
operation, manufacture, or treatment which are used to produce a 
fluorinated gas product. 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 this subpart only) means a vent 
from a

[[Page 74855]]

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 (or the point of entry into a control 
device, if any). 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, wastewater 
emission sources, 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 or control 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.
    Unsafe-to-monitor means that monitoring personnel would be exposed 
to an immediate danger as a consequence of monitoring the piece of 
equipment. Examples of unsafe-to-monitor equipment include, but are not 
limited to, equipment under extreme pressure or heat.

0
10. Add subpart DD to read as follows:
Subpart DD--Electrical Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use
Sec.
98.300 Definition of the source category.
98.301 Reporting threshold.
98.302 GHGs to report.
98.303 Calculating GHG emissions.
98.304 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.
98.305 Procedures for estimating missing data.
98.306 Data reporting requirements.
98.307 Records that must be retained.
98.308 Definitions.

Subpart DD--Electrical Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use


Sec.  98.300  Definition of the source category.

    (a) The electrical transmission and distribution equipment use 
source category consists of all electric transmission and distribution 
equipment and servicing inventory insulated with or containing sulfur 
hexafluoride (SF6) or perfluorocarbons (PFCs) used within an 
electric power system. Electric transmission and distribution equipment 
and servicing inventory includes, but is not limited to:
    (1) Gas-insulated substations.
    (2) Circuit breakers.
    (3) Switchgear, including closed-pressure and hermetically sealed-
pressure switchgear and gas-insulated lines containing SF6 
or PFCs.
    (4) Gas containers such as pressurized cylinders.
    (5) Gas carts.
    (6) Electric power transformers.
    (7) Other containers of SF6 or PFC.


Sec.  98.301  Reporting threshold.

    (a) You must report GHG emissions from an electric power system if 
the total nameplate capacity of SF6 and PFC containing 
equipment (excluding hermetically sealed-pressure equipment) located 
within the facility, when added to the total nameplate capacity of 
SF6 and PFC containing equipment (excluding hermetically 
sealed-pressure equipment) that is not located within the facility but 
is under common ownership or control, exceeds 17,820 pounds and the 
facility meets the requirements of Sec.  98.2(a)(1).
    (b) A facility other than an electric power system that is subject 
to this part because of emissions from any other source category listed 
in Table A-3 or A-4 in subpart A of this part is not required to report 
emissions under subpart DD of this part unless the total nameplate 
capacity of SF6 and PFC containing equipment located within 
that facility exceeds 17,820 pounds.


Sec.  98.302  GHGs to report.

    You must report total SF6 and PFC emissions from your 
facility (including emissions from fugitive equipment leaks, 
installation, servicing, equipment decommissioning and disposal, and 
from storage cylinders) resulting from the transmission and 
distribution servicing inventory and equipment listed in Sec.  
98.300(a). For acquisitions of equipment containing or insulated with 
SF6 or PFCs, you must report emissions from the equipment 
after the title to the equipment is transferred to the electric power 
transmission or distribution entity.


Sec.  98.303  Calculating GHG emissions.

    (a) Calculate the annual SF6 and PFC emissions using the 
mass-balance approach in Equation DD-1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.053


Where:

Decrease in SF6 Inventory = (pounds of SF6 
stored in containers, but not in energized equipment, at the 
beginning of the year)--(pounds of SF6 stored in 
containers, but not in energized equipment, at the end of the year).
Acquisitions of SF6 = (pounds of SF6 purchased 
from chemical producers or distributors in bulk) + (pounds of 
SF6 purchased from equipment manufacturers or 
distributors with or inside equipment, including hermetically 
sealed-pressure switchgear) + (pounds of SF6 returned to 
facility after off-site recycling).
Disbursements of SF6 = (pounds of SF6 in bulk 
and contained in equipment that is sold to other entities) + (pounds 
of SF6 returned to suppliers) + (pounds of SF6 
sent off site for recycling) + (pounds of SF6 sent off-
site for destruction).
Net Increase in Total Nameplate Capacity of Equipment Operated = 
(The Nameplate Capacity of new equipment in pounds, including 
hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear)--(Nameplate Capacity of 
retiring equipment in pounds, including hermetically sealed-pressure 
switchgear). (Note that Nameplate Capacity refers to the full and 
proper charge of equipment rather than to the actual charge, which 
may reflect leakage).

    (b) Use Equation DD-1 of this section to estimate emissions of PFCs 
from power transformers, substituting the relevant PFC(s) for 
SF6 in the equation.


Sec.  98.304  Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.

    (a) For calendar year 2011 monitoring, you may follow the 
provisions of Sec.  98.3(d)(1) through (d)(2) for best

[[Page 74856]]

available monitoring methods rather than follow the monitoring 
requirements of this section. For purposes of this subpart, any 
reference in Sec.  98.3(d)(1) through (d)(2) to 2010 means 2011, to 
March 31 means June 30, and to April 1 means July 1. Any reference to 
the effective date in Sec.  98.3(d)(1) through (d)(2) means February 
28, 2011.
    (b) You must adhere to the following QA/QC methods for reviewing 
the completeness and accuracy of reporting:
    (1) Review inputs to Equation DD-1 of this section 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 and the Net Increase in Total Nameplate Capacity may be 
calculated as negative numbers.
    (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 purchased from Original Equipment 
Manufacturers (OEM) and SF6 returned to the facility from 
off-site recycling are also accounted for among the total additions.
    (c) Ensure the following QA/QC methods are employed throughout the 
year:
    (1) Ensure that cylinders returned to the gas supplier are 
consistently weighed on a scale that is certified to be accurate and 
precise to within 2 pounds of the scale's capacity and is periodically 
recalibrated per the manufacturer's specifications. Either measure 
residual gas (the amount of gas remaining in returned cylinders) or 
have the gas supplier measure it. If the gas supplier weighs the 
residual gas, obtain from the gas supplier a detailed monthly 
accounting, within +/- 2 pounds, of residual gas amounts in the 
cylinders returned to the gas supplier.
    (2) Ensure that cylinders weighed for the beginning and end of year 
inventory measurements are weighed on a scale that is certified to be 
accurate to within 2 pounds of the scale's capacity and is periodically 
recalibrated per the manufacturer's specifications. All scales used to 
measure quantities that are to be reported under Sec.  98.306 must be 
calibrated using calibration procedures specified by the scale 
manufacturer. Calibration must be performed prior to the first 
reporting year. After the initial calibration, recalibration must be 
performed at the minimum frequency specified by the manufacturer.
    (3) Ensure all substations have provided information to the manager 
compiling the emissions report (if it is not already handled through an 
electronic inventory system).
    (d) GHG Monitoring Plans, as described in Sec.  98.3(g)(5), must be 
completed by April 1, 2011.


Sec.  98.305  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 equipment with a similar nameplate capacity for 
SF6 and PFC, and from similar equipment repair, replacement, 
and maintenance operations.


Sec.  98.306  Data reporting requirements.

    In addition to the information required by Sec.  98.3(c), each 
annual report must contain the following information for each electric 
power system, by chemical:
    (a) Nameplate capacity of equipment (pounds) containing 
SF6 and nameplate capacity of equipment (pounds) containing 
each PFC:
    (1) Existing at the beginning of the year (excluding hermetically 
sealed-pressure switchgear).
    (2) New during the year (all SF6-insulated equipment, 
including hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear).
    (3) Retired during the year (all SF6-insulated 
equipment, including hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear).
    (b) Transmission miles (length of lines carrying voltages above 35 
kilovolt).
    (c) Distribution miles (length of lines carrying voltages at or 
below 35 kilovolt).
    (d) Pounds of SF6 and PFC stored in containers, but not 
in energized equipment, at the beginning of the year.
    (e) Pounds of SF6 and PFC stored in containers, but not in 
energized equipment, at the end of the year.
    (f) Pounds of SF6 and PFC purchased in bulk from 
chemical producers or distributors.
    (g) Pounds of SF6 and PFC purchased from equipment 
manufacturers or distributors with or inside equipment, including 
hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear.
    (h) Pounds of SF6 and PFC returned to facility after 
off-site recycling.
    (i) Pounds of SF6 and PFC in bulk and contained in 
equipment sold to other entities.
    (j) Pounds of SF6 and PFC returned to suppliers.
    (k) Pounds of SF6 and PFC sent off-site for recycling.
    (l) Pounds of SF6 and PFC sent off-site for destruction.


Sec.  98.307  Records that must be retained.

    In addition to the information required by Sec.  98.3(g), you must 
retain records of the information reported and listed in Sec.  98.306.


Sec.  98.308  Definitions.

    Except as specified in this section, all terms used in this subpart 
have the same meaning given in the Clean Air Act and subpart A of this 
part.
    Facility, with respect to an electric power system, means the 
electric power system as defined in this paragraph. An electric power 
system is comprised of all electric transmission and distribution 
equipment insulated with or containing SF6 or PFCs that is 
linked through electric power transmission or distribution lines and 
functions as an integrated unit, that is owned, serviced, or maintained 
by a single electric power transmission or distribution entity (or 
multiple entities with a common owner), and that is located between: 
(1) The point(s) at which electric energy is obtained from an 
electricity generating unit or a different electric power transmission 
or distribution entity that does not have a common owner, and (2) the 
point(s) at which any customer or another electric power transmission 
or distribution entity that does not have a common owner receives the 
electric energy. The facility also includes servicing inventory for 
such equipment that contains SF6 or PFCs.
    Electric power transmission or distribution entity means any entity 
that transmits, distributes, or supplies electricity to a consumer or 
other user, including any company, electric cooperative, public 
electric supply corporation, a similar Federal department (including 
the Bureau of Reclamation or the Corps of Engineers), a municipally 
owned electric department offering service to the public, an electric 
public utility district, or a jointly owned electric supply project.
    Operator, for the purposes of this subpart, means any person who 
operates or supervises a facility, excluding a person whose sole 
responsibility is to ensure reliability, balance load or otherwise 
address electricity flow.

0
11. 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.

[[Page 74857]]

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 any entity that imports or exports pre-charged equipment that 
contains a fluorinated GHG, and any entity that imports or exports 
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 mass of each fluorinated GHG contained in pre-
charged equipment or closed-cell foams that you import or export during 
the calendar year. For imports and exports of closed-cell foams where 
you do not know the identity and mass of the fluorinated GHG, you must 
report the mass of fluorinated GHG in CO2e.


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 must be estimated using Equation QQ-1 of this 
section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.054


Where:

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

    (b) When the identity and mass of fluorinated GHGs in a closed-cell 
foam is unknown to the importer or exporter, the total mass in 
CO2e for the fluorinated GHGs imported and exported inside 
closed-cell foams must be estimated using Equation QQ-2 of this 
section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.055


Where:

I = Total mass in CO2e of the fluorinated GHGs imported 
or exported in close-cell foams annually (metric tons).
t = Equipment/foam type containing the fluorinated GHG.
St = Mass in CO2e of the fluorinated GHGs per 
unit of equipment type t or foam type t (charge per piece of 
equipment or cubic foot of foam, kg).
Nt = Number of units of equipment type t 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)(2) for best available 
monitoring methods rather than follow the monitoring requirements of 
this section. For purposes of this subpart, any reference in Sec.  
98.3(d)(1) through (d)(2) to the year 2010 means 2011, to March 31 
means June 30, and to April 1 means July 1. Any reference to the 
effective date or date of promulgation in Sec.  98.3(d)(1) through 
(d)(2) means February 28, 2011.
    (b) The inputs to the annual submission must 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 (kg per piece of 
equipment or cubic foot of foam).


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 must 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 with a unique 
combination of charge size and charge type, 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 in each 
appliance, the mass of the fluorinated GHG contained in the foam in 
each appliance, and the number of appliances imported with each unique 
combination of mass and identity of fluorinated GHG within the closed-
cell foams.
    (4) For closed cell-foams that are not imported inside of 
appliances, the identity of the fluorinated GHG in the foam, the 
density of the fluorinated GHG in the foam (kg fluorinated GHG/cubic 
foot), and the volume of foam imported (cubic feet) for each type of 
closed-cell foam with a unique combination of fluorinated GHG density 
and identity.
    (5) Dates on which the pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams 
were imported.
    (6) If the importer does not know the identity and mass of the 
fluorinated GHGs within the closed-cell foam, the importer must report 
the following:
    (i) Total mass in metric tons of CO2e of the fluorinated 
GHGs imported in closed-cell foams.
    (ii) For closed-cell foams that are imported inside of appliances, 
the mass of the fluorinated GHGs in CO2e contained in the 
foam in each appliance and the number of appliances imported for each 
type of appliance.
    (iii) For closed-cell foams that are not imported inside of 
appliances, the mass in CO2e of the fluorinated GHGs in the 
foam (kg CO2e/cubic foot) and the volume of foam imported 
(cubic feet) for each type of closed-cell foam.
    (iv) Dates on which the closed-cell foams were imported.
    (v) Name of the foam manufacturer for each type of closed-cell foam 
where the identity and mass of the fluorinated GHGs is unknown.
    (vi) Certification that the importer was unable to obtain 
information on the identity and mass of the fluorinated GHGs within the 
closed-cell foam from the closed-cell foam manufacturer or 
manufacturers.

[[Page 74858]]

    (b) Each exporter of fluorinated GHGs contained in pre-charged 
equipment or closed-cell foams must 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 with a unique 
combination of charge size and charge type, 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 in each 
appliance, the mass of the fluorinated GHG contained in the foam in 
each appliance, and the number of appliances exported with each unique 
combination of mass and identity of fluorinated GHG within the closed-
cell foams.
    (4) For closed-cell foams that are not exported inside of 
appliances, the identity of the fluorinated GHG in the foam, the 
density of the fluorinated GHG in the foam (kg fluorinated GHG/cubic 
foot), and the volume of foam exported (cubic feet) for each type of 
closed-cell foam with a unique combination of fluorinated GHG density 
and identity.
    (5) Dates on which the pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams 
were exported.
    (6) If the exporter does not know the identity and mass of the 
fluorinated GHG within the closed-cell foam, the exporter must report 
the following:
    (i) Total mass in metric tons of CO2e of the fluorinated 
GHGs exported in closed-cell foams.
    (ii) For closed-cell foams that are exported inside of appliances, 
the mass of the fluorinated GHGs in CO2e contained in the 
foam in each appliance and the number of appliances imported for each 
type of appliance.
    (iii) For closed-cell foams that are not exported inside of 
appliances, the mass in CO2e of the fluorinated GHGs in the 
foam (kg CO2e/cubic foot) and the volume of foam imported 
(cubic feet) for each type of closed-cell foam.
    (iv) Dates on which the closed-cell foams were exported.
    (v) Name of the foam manufacturer for each type of closed-cell foam 
where the identity and mass of the fluorinated GHGg is unknown.
    (vi) Certification that the exporter was unable to obtain 
information on the identity and mass of the fluorinated GHGs within the 
closed-cell foam from the closed-cell foam manufacturer or 
manufacturers.


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 must 
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.
    (4) Ports of entry through which the pre-charged equipment or 
closed-cell foams passed.
    (5) Countries from which the pre-charged equipment or closed-cell 
foams were imported.
    (6) For importers that report the mass of fluorinated GHGs within 
closed-cell foams on a CO2e basis, correspondence or other 
documents that show the importer was unable to obtain information on 
the identity and mass of fluorinated GHG within closed-cell foams from 
the foam manufacturer.
    (b) In addition to the data required by Sec.  98.3(g), exporters of 
fluorinated GHGs in pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams must 
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.
    (3) Ports of exit through which the pre-charged equipment or 
closed-cell foams passed.
    (4) Countries to which the pre-charged equipment or closed-cell 
foams were exported.
    (5) For exporters that report the mass of fluorinated GHGs within 
closed-cell foams on a CO2e basis, correspondence or other 
documents that show the exporter was unable to obtain information on 
the identity and mass of fluorinated GHG within closed-cell foams from 
the foam manufacturer.
    (c) For importers and exports of fluorinated GHGs inside pre-
charged equipment and closed-cell foams, the GHG Monitoring Plans, as 
described in Sec.  98.3(g)(5), must be completed by April 1, 2011.
    (d) Persons who transship pre-charged equipment and closed-cell 
foams containing fluorinated GHGs must 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 in this section, 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 must 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, excluding packaging foam, 
that is constructed with a closed-cell structure and a blowing agent 
containing a fluorinated GHG. Closed-cell foams include but are 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. 
Packaging foam means foam used exclusively during shipment or storage 
to temporarily enclose items.
    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).
    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

[[Page 74859]]

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.

0
12. Add subpart SS to read as follows:
Subpart SS--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--Electrical Equipment Manufacture or Refurbishment


Sec.  98.450  Definition of the source category.

    The electrical equipment manufacturing or refurbishment 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). The processes include equipment testing, 
installation, manufacturing, decommissioning and disposal, 
refurbishing, and storage in gas cylinders and other containers.


Sec.  98.451  Reporting threshold.

    You must report GHG emissions under this subpart if your facility 
contains an electrical equipment manufacturing or refurbishing process 
and the facility meets the requirements of Sec.  98.2(a)(1). Electrical 
equipment manufacturing and refurbishing facilities covered by this 
rule are those that have total annual purchases of SF6 and 
PFCs that exceed 23,000 pounds.


Sec.  98.452  GHGs to report.

    (a) You must report SF6 and PFC emissions at the 
facility level. Annual emissions from the facility must include 
SF6 and PFC emissions from equipment that is installed at an 
off-site electric power transmission or distribution location whenever 
emissions from installation activities (e.g., filling) occur before the 
title to the equipment is transferred to the electric power 
transmission or distribution entity.
    (b) You must report CO2, N2O and 
CH4 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 of this part.


Sec.  98.453  Calculating GHG emissions.

    (a) For each electrical equipment manufacturer or refurbisher, 
estimate the annual SF6 and PFC emissions using the mass-
balance approach in Equation SS-1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.056

Where:

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

    (b) Use the mass-balance method in paragraph (a) of this section 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 of this section.
    (c) Estimate the disbursements of SF6 or PFCs sent to 
customers in new equipment or cylinders or sent off-site for other 
purposes including for recycling, for destruction or to be returned to 
suppliers using Equation SS-2 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.057

Where:

DGHG = The annual disbursement of SF6 or PFCs 
sent to customers in new equipment or cylinders or sent off-site for 
other purposes including for recycling, for destruction or to be 
returned to suppliers.
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) Estimate the mass of SF6 or PFCs disbursed to 
customers in new equipment or cylinders over the period p by monitoring 
the mass flow of the SF6 or PFCs into the new equipment or 
cylinders using a flowmeter 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, estimate this quantity using Equation SS-3 
of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.058

Where:

Qp = The mass of SF6 or the PFC 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.
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

[[Page 74860]]

cylinders and in cases where a flowmeter is used, downstream of the 
flowmeter during the period p (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 
flowmeter, estimate this quantity using Equation SS-4 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.059

Where:

Qp = The mass of SF6 or the PFC 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.
Mmr = The mass of the SF6 or the PFC that has 
flowed through the flowmeter during the 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 and in cases where a flowmeter is used, 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).

    (g) Estimate 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) using 
Equation SS-5 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.060

Where:

EL = The mass of SF6 or the PFC emitted during 
the period p downstream of the containers used to fill equipment or 
cylinders and in cases where a flowmeter is used, downstream of the 
flowmeter during the period p (e.g., emissions from hoses or other 
flow lines that connect the container to the equipment or cylinder 
that is being filled)
FCi = The total number of fill operations over the period 
p for the valve-hose combination Ci.
EFCi = The emission factor for the valve-hose combination 
Ci.
n = The number of different valve-hose combinations C used during 
the period p.

    (h) The mass of SF6 or the PFC disbursed to customers in 
new equipment over the period p must be determined either by using the 
nameplate capacity of the equipment or, in cases where equipment is 
shipped with a partial charge, by calculating the partial shipping 
charge. Calculate the partial shipping charge by multiplying the 
nameplate capacity of the equipment by the ratio of the densities of 
the partial charge to the full charge. To determine the equipment's 
actual nameplate capacity, you must measure the nameplate capacities of 
a representative sample of each make and model and take the average for 
each make and model as specified at Sec.  98.454(f).
    (i) Estimate the annual SF6 and PFC emissions from the 
equipment that is installed at an off-site electric power transmission 
or distribution location before the title to the equipment is 
transferred by using Equation SS-6 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.061

Where:

EI = Total annual SF6 or PFC emissions from equipment 
installation at electric transmission or distribution facilities.
MF = The total annual mass of the SF6 or PFCs, in pounds, 
used to fill equipment.
MC = The total annual mass of the SF6 or PFCs, in pounds, 
used to charge the equipment prior to leaving the electrical 
equipment manufacturer facility.
NI = The total annual nameplate capacity of the equipment, in 
pounds, installed at electric transmission or distribution 
facilities.

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)(2) for best available 
monitoring methods rather than follow the monitoring requirements of 
this section. For purposes of this subpart, any reference in Sec.  
98.3(d)(1) through (d)(2) to 2010 means 2011, March 31 means June 30, 
and April 1 means July 1. Any reference to the effective date in Sec.  
98.3(d)(1) through (d)(2) means February 28, 2011.
    (b) Ensure that all the quantities required by the equations of 
this subpart have been measured using either flowmeters with an 
accuracy and precision of 1 percent of full scale or better 
or scales with an accuracy and precision of 1 percent of 
the filled weight (gas plus tare) of the containers of SF6 
or PFCs that are typically weighed on the scale. For scales that are 
generally used to weigh cylinders containing 115 pounds of gas when 
full, this equates to 1 percent of the sum of 115 pounds 
and approximately 120 pounds tare, or slightly more than 2 
pounds. Account for the tare weights of the containers. You may accept 
gas masses or weights provided by the gas supplier e.g., for the 
contents of cylinders containing new gas or for the heels remaining in 
cylinders returned to the gas supplier) if the supplier provides 
documentation verifying that accuracy standards are met; however, you 
remain responsible for the accuracy of these masses and weights under 
this subpart.
    (c) All flow meters, weigh scales, and combinations of volumetric 
and density measures that are used to measure or calculate quantities 
under this subpart must be calibrated using calibration procedures 
specified by the flowmeter, scale, volumetric or density measure 
equipment manufacturer. Calibration must be performed prior to the 
first reporting year. After the initial calibration, recalibration must 
be performed at the minimum frequency specified by the manufacturer.
    (d) For purposes of Equations SS-5 of this subpart, the emission 
factor for the valve-hose combination (EFC) must 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. You must develop a value for EFc (or use an 
industry-developed value) for each combination of hose and valve 
fitting, to use in Equation SS-5 of this subpart. The value for 
EFC must be determined for each combination of hose and 
valve fitting of a given diameter or size. The calculation must be 
recalculated annually to account for changes to the specifications of 
the valves or hoses that may occur throughout the year.
    (e) Electrical equipment manufacturers and refurbishers must 
account for SF6 or PFC emissions that occur as a result of 
unexpected events or accidental losses, such as a malfunctioning hose 
or leak in the flow line, during the filling of equipment or containers 
for disbursement by including these losses in the estimated mass of 
SF6 or the PFC emitted downstream of the container or 
flowmeter during the period p.
    (f) If the mass of SF6 or the PFC disbursed to customers 
in new equipment over the period p is determined by assuming that it is 
equal to the equipment's nameplate capacity or, in cases where 
equipment is shipped with a partial charge, equal to its partial 
shipping charge, equipment samples for

[[Page 74861]]

conducting the nameplate capacity tests must be selected using the 
following stratified sampling strategy in this paragraph. For each make 
and model, group the measurement conditions to reflect predictable 
variability in the facility's filling practices and conditions (e.g., 
temperatures at which equipment is filled). Then, independently select 
equipment samples at random from each make and model under each group 
of conditions. To account for variability, a certain number of these 
measurements must be performed to develop a robust and representative 
average nameplate capacity (or shipping charge) for each make, model, 
and group of conditions. A Student T distribution calculation should be 
conducted to determine how many samples are needed for each make, 
model, and group of conditions as a function of the relative standard 
deviation of the sample measurements. To determine a sufficiently 
precise estimate of the nameplate capacity, the number of measurements 
required must be calculated to achieve a precision of one percent of 
the true mean, using a 95 percent confidence interval. To estimate the 
nameplate capacity for a given make and model, you must use the lowest 
mean value among the different groups of conditions, or provide 
justification for the use of a different mean value for the group of 
conditions that represents the typical practices and conditions for 
that make and model. Measurements can be conducted using 
SF6, another gas, or a liquid. Re-measurement of nameplate 
capacities should be conducted every five years to reflect cumulative 
changes in manufacturing methods and conditions over time.
    (g) Ensure the following QA/QC methods are employed throughout the 
year:
    (1) Procedures are in place and followed to track and weigh all 
cylinders or other containers at the beginning and end of the year.
    (h) 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 for each chemical 
at the facility level:
    (a) Pounds of SF6 and PFCs stored in containers at the 
beginning of the year.
    (b) Pounds of SF6 and PFCs stored in containers at the 
end of the year.
    (c) Pounds of SF6 and PFCs purchased in bulk.
    (d) Pounds of SF6 and PFCs returned by equipment users 
with or inside equipment.
    (e) Pounds of SF6 and PFCs returned to site from off 
site after recycling.
    (f) Pounds of SF6 and PFCs inside new equipment 
delivered to customers.
    (g) Pounds of SF6 and PFCs delivered to equipment users 
in containers.
    (h) Pounds of SF6 and PFCs returned to suppliers.
    (i) Pounds of SF6 and PFCs sent off site for 
destruction.
    (j) Pounds of SF6 and PFCs sent off site to be recycled.
    (k) The nameplate capacity of the equipment, in pounds, delivered 
to customers with SF6 or PFCs inside, if different from the 
quantity in paragraph (f) of this section.
    (l) 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.
    (m) The values for EFC for each hose and valve 
combination and the associated valve fitting sizes and hose diameters.
    (n) The total number of fill operations for each hose and valve 
combination, or, FCi of Equation SS-5 of this subpart.
    (o) The mean value for each make, model, and group of conditions if 
the mass of SF6 or the PFC disbursed to customers in new 
equipment over the period p is determined by assuming that it is equal 
to the equipment's nameplate capacity or, in cases where equipment is 
shipped with a partial charge, equal to its partial shipping charge.
    (p) The number of samples and the upper and lower bounds on the 95 
percent confidence interval for each make, model, and group of 
conditions if the mass of SF6 or the PFC disbursed to 
customers in new equipment over the period p is determined by assuming 
that it is equal to the equipment's nameplate capacity or, in cases 
where equipment is shipped with a partial charge, equal to its partial 
shipping charge.
    (q) Pounds of SF6 and PFCs used to fill equipment at 
off-site electric power transmission or distribution locations, or 
MF, of Equation SS-6 of this subpart.
    (r) Pounds of SF6 and PFCs used to charge the equipment 
prior to leaving the electrical equipment manufacturer or refurbishment 
facility, or MC, of Equation SS-6 of this subpart.
    (s) The nameplate capacity of the equipment, in pounds, installed 
at off-site electric power transmission or distribution locations used 
to determine emissions from installation, or NI, of Equation 
SS-6 of this subpart.
    (t) For any missing data, you must report the reason the data were 
missing, the parameters for which the data were missing, the substitute 
parameters 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) Certifications of the quantity of gas, in pounds, charged into 
equipment at the electrical equipment manufacturer or refurbishment 
facility as well as the actual quantity of gas, in pounds, charged into 
equipment at installation.
    (d) Check-out and weigh-in sheets and procedures for cylinders.
    (e) Residual gas amounts, in pounds, in cylinders sent back to 
suppliers.
    (f) Invoices for gas purchases and sales.
    (g) GHG Monitoring Plans, as described in Sec.  98.3(g)(5), must be 
completed by April 1, 2011.


Sec.  98.458  Definitions.

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

[FR Doc. 2010-28803 Filed 11-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P