74774 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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: 

GHGReportingRule@epa.gov. 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

Category NAICS Examples of affected 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 or Refurbishment.33531 Power transmission and distribution switchgear and specialty transformers 

manufacturing facilities. 

Importers and Exporters of Pre-charged Equipment and Closed-Cell Foams.423730 Air-conditioning equipment (except room 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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74775 

1We 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. 

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 applicable subpart) Subparts recommended for review to 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 

GHGs Inside Pre-charged Equipment and Closed-Cell Foams.

Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases. 

Sulfur Hexafluoride and PFCs from Electrical Equipment Manufacture and Refurbishment. 

Electrical Equipment Manufacture 

or Refurbishment.

General Stationary Fuel Combustion 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

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74776 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74777 

imported and exported pre-charged 

equipment and closed-cell foams. 

EPA recognized the concerns raised 

by stakeholders, and decided to repropose 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74778 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 categoryspecific 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 lightemitting diodes). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74779 

2For 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. 

3For a more detailed explanation of the MEMS 

default factor, please refer to the Electronics 

Manufacturing TSD (EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0927). 

• 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 thinfilms (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 plasmagenerated 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 fluorinecontaining 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®’’ 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: 

• 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

• 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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2ER01DE10.000</GPH>
74780 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

4As 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. 

5To 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. 

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 subtypes 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

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 ’’ 

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

Product manufactured Manufactured 

wafer size Annual capacitya Required methodology Optional methodology 

PV, MEMS, 

LCDs.

NA ..................... NA ..................... Modified Tier 2b—Use EPA default emission factorsb for plasma etching and chamber cleaning 

process types.c

Tier 3—Use recipe-specific emission factors for all production 

processes that use fluorinated 

GHGs. 

Semiconductors 300 mm and 

smaller.

Less than or 

equal to 

10,500 m2 of 

substrate.

Tier 2c—Use EPA default emission factors for 

plasma etching, chamber cleaning (including insitu plasma cleaning, remote plasma cleaning, 

in-situ thermal cleaning sub-types), and wafer 

cleaning process types.c

Tier 3—Use recipe-specific emission factors for all production 

processes that use fluorinated 

GHGs. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74781 

6EPA 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. 7See footnote 6. 

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF FINAL PROVISIONS FOR ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURING FACILITIES TO ESTIMATE AND REPORT

FLUORINATED GHG EMISSIONS FROM ETCHING AND CLEANING PROCESSES—Continued 

Product manufactured Manufactured 

wafer size Annual capacitya Required methodology Optional methodology 

Semiconductors 300 mm and 

smaller.

Greater than 

10,500 m2 of 

substrate.

Tier 2d—Use EPA default emission factors for 

chamber cleaning (including in-situ plasma 

cleaning, remote plasma cleaning, in-situ thermal cleaning sub-types), and wafer cleaning 

process types, and recipe-specific emission factors for plasma etching.c

Tier 3—Use recipe-specific emission factors for all production 

processes that use fluorinated 

GHGs. 

Semiconductors Larger than 300 

mm.

NA ..................... Tier 3—Use recipe-specific emission factors for all 

production processes that use fluorinated GHG. 

None. 

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 subtype 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 facilityspecific 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 ByProduct 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. 

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 byproduct 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. 

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 m2 of 

substrate, and (2) a method for those 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74782 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

8As 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. 

9See footnote 6. 

10See footnote 6. 

11EPA 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. 

12See footnote 6. 

13See footnote 6. 

that have an annual manufacturing 

capacity greater than 10,500 m2 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 m2 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 

m2 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: 

• 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. 

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. 

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 m2 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 m2 of 

substrate (the ‘‘largest’’ semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities) 11 must 

calculate and report their emissions 

using a combination of default emission 

factors and directly measured recipespecific emission factors. 

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 recipespecific 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. 

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 recipeVerDate Mar<15>2010 20:13 Nov 30, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2

jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74783 

14See footnote 6. 

15See footnote 6. 

16See footnote 6. 

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). 

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. 

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. 

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 recipespecific 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. 

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. 

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: 

• 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74784 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

18See footnote 6. 

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 m2 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 

m2 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

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74785 

19EPA’s ‘‘Refined Method’’ as proposed in April 

2010 (75 FR 18652) is based on nine process subtypes under the etching, chamber cleaning, and 

wafer cleaning process types (four etching process 

sub-types, three chamber cleaning process subtypes, and two wafer cleaning process sub-types) 

and EPA-published default emission factors. 

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

• 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 facilityspecific 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–10–0304E, 

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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74786 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

20See footnote 19. 

21Since 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 yearend 2010. 

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). 

23As 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. 

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. 

The ‘‘Alternative Refined Method,’’ as 

described in comments, would be 

comprised of five process types and subtypes, 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 subtypes, 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. 

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. 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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 m2 of substrate 

as the threshold for large facilities 

because facilities above this threshold 

are expected to account for nearly twothirds 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 m2) 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 recipespecific 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74788 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

24For 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). 

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). 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74789 

25Beu, L. (2005). ‘‘Reduction of Perfluorocarbon 

(PFC) Emissions: 2005 State-of-the-Technology 

Report’’, TT#0510469AENG, International 

SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative (ISMI), 

December 2005. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ 

highgwp/semiconductor-pfc/documents/ 

final_tt_report.pdf. 

26See footnote 21. 27See footnote 24. 28http://www.epa.gov/semiconductor-pfc/. 

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. 

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

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. 

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. 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74790 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

29An 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. 

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– 

0304E, Specification for Definition and 

Measurement of Equipment Reliability, 

Availability, and Maintainability was 

incorrect. The commenter noted that the 

SEMI Standard E–10–0304E 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–10–0304E 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–10–0304E because 

EPA agrees with the commenter that 

SEMI E–10–0304E 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 subtypes 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 facilityspecific 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. 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74791 

30Repeatable 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. 

31Please refer to the Electronics Manufacturing 

TSD (EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0927) for more details 

on the verification metric. 32Refer to comment number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0927–0131. 

33Although 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. 

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. 

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 facilityspecific 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

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 massbalance 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, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74792 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 siteVerDate Mar<15>2010 20:13 Nov 30, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2

jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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-todestroy 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-todestroy 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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74794 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

• 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 

§ 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 

§ 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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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, byproduct, 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74796 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

than requiring stack testing for highemitting 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 addon 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 byproduct 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74797 

34This 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. 

35The 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). 

36The 0.6 percent fraction was selected as an 

example because it equates to a 30 percent error for 

emissions of two percent of production. 

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. 

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-ventspecific 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 massbalance 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 massbalance 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. 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74798 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

37Facilities 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. 

38Class 1 is the group of POHCs and surrogates 

with the highest thermal stability, meaning they are 

the most difficult compounds to destroy. 

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. 

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 byproducts, 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. 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74799 

39W. 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. 

40SF6 temperature is from Appendix VIII ranking 

of POHCs; CF4 temperature is estimated based on 

the rate constant provided in Tsang, p. 393. 

41Tsang, p. 387. 

42A. Trenholm, C. Lee, and H. Jermyn, ‘‘FullScale 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. 

43USEPA, ‘‘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. 

44Nonetheless, 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. 

46Tsang, p. 401. 

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°C; for CF4, we project that 

the temperature would be on the order 

of 1,380°C.40 Researchers have 

suggested that CF4 may break down only 

in the flame zone.41

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 pointof-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

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. 

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. 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74800 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

47This approach was not proposed but is less 

burdensome than the other three methods in the 

Protocol, which were proposed. 

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-tomonitor.) 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. 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 systemlevel 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 offsite 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 § 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 corporatebased 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74802 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 corporatebased 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 systemwide 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 PFCinsulated 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-ofyear 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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 massbalance 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 facilitywide 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 sealedpressure 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 sealedpressure equipment, especially for 

facilities that specialize in electricity 

distribution. EPA has clarified that SF6

arriving inside newly acquired sealedpressure 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 precharged 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 precharged 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 precharged 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 closedcell foams, the report may be limited to 

the mass in CO2e of the fluorinated 

GHGs imported or exported in closedcell 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74804 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 enduse 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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 offline 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 longestablished 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74806 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

ensure importers and exporters are 

properly reporting imports and exports 

of pre-charged equipment and closedcell 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 closedcell 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 closedcell 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 closedcell foams when it is known. This is 

consistent with EPA’s approach for precharged 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 sealedpressure equipment including gasinsulated 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 sealedpressure 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 combustionrelated 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 massbalance 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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 massbalance 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74808 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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 

Subpart 

First year Subsequent years 

Millions 

2006$ $/ton Share (percent) 

Millions 

2006$ $/ton Share (percent) 

Subpart I—Electronics Industry ................................... $2 .9 $0.33 38 $5 .4 $0.33 76 

Subpart L—Fluorinated Gas Production ...................... 3 .0 0.28 40 0 .2 0.02 2 

Subpart DD—Electric Transmission and Distribution 

Equipment Use ......................................................... 0 .6 0.19 7 0 .6 0.05 8 

Subpart QQ—Imports and Exports of Fluorinated 

GHGs ........................................................................ 0 .7 0.03 9 0 .6 0.02 9 

Subpart SS—Electrical Equipment Manufacture and 

Refurbishment and Manufacturing of Electrical 

Components ............................................................. 0 .02 0.01 0.3 0 .02 0.01 0 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74810 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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$] 

2007 NAICS NAICS description Sub-part 

Average cost 

per entity 

($/entity) 

All enterprises 

(percent) 

334413 .............. Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing .................................. I (Semis) ........... $19,980 0.03 

334413 .............. Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing .................................. I (Non-Semis) ... 16,046 0.02

334119 .............. Other Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing ............................. I (Non-Semis) ... 16,046 0.06 

325120 .............. Industrial Gas Manufacturing ..................................................................... L ....................... 126,523 1.08 

221121 .............. Electrical Power Systems .......................................................................... DD .................... 2,213 0.00 

326140 .............. Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing ................................................ QQ .................... 3,364 0.03 

326150 .............. Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) Manufacturing. QQ .................... 3,364 0.03 

333415 .............. Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and 

Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing.

QQ .................... 3,364 0.01 

335313 .............. Switchgear and Switchboard Apparatus Manufacturing ........................... QQ .................... 3,364 0.02 

336391 .............. Motor Vehicle Air-Conditioning Manufacturing .......................................... QQ .................... 3,364 0.01 

423610 .............. Electrical Apparatus and Equipment, Wiring Supplies, and Related 

Equipment Merchant Wholesalers.

QQ .................... 3,364 0.05 

423620 .............. Electrical and Electronic Appliance, Television, and Radio Set Merchant 

Wholesalers.

QQ .................... 3,364 0.02 

423720 .............. Plumbing and Heating Equipment and Supplies (Hydronics) Merchant 

Wholesalers.

QQ .................... 3,364 0.05 

423730 .............. Warm Air Heating and Air-Conditioning Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers.QQ .................... 3,364 0.07 

423740 .............. Refrigeration Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers ................. QQ .................... 3,364 0.09 

443111 .............. Household Appliance Stores ..................................................................... QQ .................... 3,364 0.24 

443112 .............. Radio, Television and Other Electronics Stores ....................................... QQ .................... 3,364 0.14 

422610 .............. Plastics Materials and Basic Forms and Shapes Merchant Wholesalers QQ .................... 3,364 0.03 

33361 ................ Engine, Turbine, and Power Transmission Equipment Manufacturing ..... SS ..................... 2,213 0.00 

33531 ................ Electrical Equipment Manufacturing .......................................................... SS ..................... 2,213 0.02 

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 industryspecific 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). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74811 

TABLE 14—ESTIMATED COST-TO-SALES RATIOS BY INDUSTRY AND ENTERPRISE SIZE (FIRST YEAR, 2006$) a

NAICS NAICS Description Sub-part 

SBA 

Size 

standard 

(effective 

March 

11, 

2008) 

Average 

cost per 

entity 

($/entity) 

All enterprises 

(percent) 

Owned by Enterprises with: 

1 to 20 

Employ- ees 

(percent) 

20 to 99 

Employ- ees 

(percent) 

100 to 

499 Employees 

(percent) 

500 to 

749 Employees 

(percent) 

750 to 

999 Employees 

(percent) 

1,000 to 

1,499 

Employ- ees 

(percent) 

334413 ..... Semiconductor and Related Device 

Manufacturing.

I (Semis) ..... 500 $19,980 0.03 1.16 0.22 0.07 0.04 0.01 0.02 

334413 ..... Semiconductor and Related Device 

Manufacturing.

I (NonSemis).500 16,046 0.02 0.94 0.18 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.02 

334119 ..... Other Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing.I (NonSemis).500 16,046 0.06 0.92 0.14 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.01 

325120 ..... Industrial Gas Manufacturing ........... L ................. 1,000 126,523 1.08 23.19 0.77 3.19 NA NA NA 

221121 ..... Electrical Power Systems ................ DD .............. (c) 2,213 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.01 NA NA NA 

326140 ..... Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing.QQ .............. 500 3,364 0.03 0.25 0.06 0.04 NA NA 0.01 

326150 ..... Urethane and Other Foam Product 

(except Polystyrene).

Manufacturing ..................................

QQ .............. 500 3,364 0.03 0.19 0.05 0.02 0.02 NA NA 

333415 ..... Air-Conditioning and Warm Air 

Heating Equipment.

and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration.

Equipment Manufacturing ................

QQ .............. 750 3,364 0.01 0.22 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 

335313 ..... Switchgear and Switchboard Apparatus Manufacturing.QQ .............. 750 3,364 0.02 0.24 0.05 0.02 NA NA NA 

336391 ..... Motor Vehicle Air-Conditioning Manufacturing.QQ .............. 750 3,364 0.01 0.33 0.07 NA NA NA NA 

423610 ..... Electrical Apparatus and Equipment, 

Wiring Supplies,.

and Related Equipment Merchant 

Wholesalers.

QQ .............. 100 3,364 0.05 0.10 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.03 

423620 ..... Electrical and Electronic Appliance, 

Television, and.

Radio Set Merchant Wholesalers ....

QQ .............. 100 3,364 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 

423720 ..... Plumbing and Heating Equipment 

and Supplies.

(Hydronics) Merchant Wholesalers ..

QQ .............. 100 3,364 0.05 0.10 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.09 

423730 ..... Warm Air Heating and Air-Conditioning Equipment.

and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 

QQ .............. 100 3,364 0.07 0.13 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.03 NA 

423740 ..... Refrigeration Equipment and Supplies Merchant.

Wholesalers .....................................

QQ .............. 100 3,364 0.09 0.16 0.05 0.10 0.08 0.04 NA 

443111 ..... Household Appliance Stores ........... QQ .............. $9 M 3,364 0.24 0.42 0.09 0.07 NA NA NA 

443112 ..... Radio, Television and Other Electronics Stores.QQ .............. $9 M 3,364 0.14 0.53 0.15 0.23 NA NA NA 

422610 ..... Plastics Materials and Basic Forms 

and Shapes.

Merchant Wholesalers .....................

QQ .............. 100 3,364 0.03 0.09 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.05 

33361 ....... Engine, Turbine, and Power Transmission Equipment Manufacturing.SS .............. 500– 

1,000 

2,213 0.00 0.17 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 

33531 ....... Electrical Equipment Manufacturing SS .............. 750– 

1,000 

2,213 0.02 0.19 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 

aThe 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. bThe 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74812 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 m2 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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74813 

48Although 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. 

49For the one to 20 employee category, we 

exclude SUSB data for enterprises with zero 

employees. These enterprises did not operate the 

entire year. 

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

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 

2007 

NAICS NAICS Description Subpart 

SBA Size 

standard 

(effective 

August 22, 2008) 

334413 .............. Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing ....................................................................... I ........... 500 

334119 .............. Other Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing .................................................................. I ........... 1,000 

325120 .............. Industrial Gas Manufacturing .......................................................................................................... L .......... 1,000 

221121 .............. Electrical Power Systems ............................................................................................................... DD ....... (1) 

326140 .............. Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing ...................................................................................... QQ ...... 500 

326150 .............. Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) Manufacturing ...................................... QQ ...... 500 

333415 .............. Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration 

Equipment Manufacturing.

QQ ...... 750 

335313 .............. Switchgear and Switchboard Apparatus Manufacturing ................................................................. QQ ...... 750 

336391 .............. Motor Vehicle Air-Conditioning Manufacturing ............................................................................... QQ ...... 750 

423610 .............. Electrical Apparatus and Equipment, Wiring Supplies, and Related Equipment Merchant 

Wholesalers.

QQ ...... 100 

423620 .............. Electrical and Electronic Appliance, Television, and Radio Set Merchant Wholesalers ................ QQ ...... 100 

423720 .............. Plumbing and Heating Equipment and Supplies (Hydronics) Merchant Wholesalers ................... QQ ...... 100 

423730 .............. Warm Air Heating and Air-Conditioning Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers ............ QQ ...... 100 

423740 .............. Refrigeration Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers ...................................................... QQ ...... 100 

443111 .............. Household Appliance Stores ........................................................................................................... QQ ...... $9 M 

443112 .............. Radio, Television and Other Electronics Stores ............................................................................. QQ ...... $9 M 

422610 .............. Plastics Materials and Basic Forms and Shapes Merchant Wholesalers ...................................... QQ ...... 100 

33361 ................ Engine, Turbine, and Power Transmission Equipment Manufacturing .......................................... SS ....... 500–1,000 

33531 ................ Electrical Equipment Manufacturing ............................................................................................... SS ....... 750–1,000 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74814 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

establishments owned by small 

businesses, because the reporting costs 

are likely lower than average entity 

estimates provided by the engineering 

cost analysis. 

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 precharged 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74815 

that they did not expect any Triballyowned 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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74816 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Dated: November 8, 2010. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal 

Regulations is amended as follows: 

PART 98—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 98 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart A—[Amended] 

■ 2. Section 98.3 is amended as follows: 

■ a. By adding paragraph (c)(4)(vi). 

■ b. By revising paragraphs(c)(5)(i) and 

(c)(5)(ii). 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 98.6 is amended by revising 

the definition of ‘‘Destruction efficiency’’ 

to read as follows: 

§ 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: 

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 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 98.7 is amended as follows: 

■ a. By revising paragraphs (d)(1) 

through (d)(8) and paragraph (e)(30). 

■ b. By adding paragraph (e)(46) and 

(e)(47). 

■ c. By adding paragraphs (m)(3) 

through (m)(7). 

■ d. By adding paragraph (n). 

§ 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 § 98.34(b), § 98.124(m)(1), 

§ 98.244(b), § 98.254(c), § 98.324(e), 

§ 98.344(c), § 98.354(d), § 98.354(h), and 

§ 98.364(e). 

(2) ASME MFC–4M–1986 (Reaffirmed 

1997) Measurement of Gas Flow by 

Turbine Meters, IBR approved for 

§ 98.34(b), § 98.124(m)(2), § 98.244(b), 

§ 98.254(c), § 98.324(e), § 98.344(c), 

§ 98.354(h), and § 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 § 98.34(b), § 98.124(m)(3), 

§ 98.244(b), and § 98.354(d). 

(4) ASME MFC–6M–1998 

Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes 

Using Vortex Flowmeters, IBR approved 

for § 98.34(b), § 98.124(m)(4), 

§ 98.244(b), § 98.254(c), § 98.324(e), 

§ 98.344(c), § 98.354(h), and § 98.364(e). 

(5) ASME MFC–7M–1987 (Reaffirmed 

1992) Measurement of Gas Flow by 

Means of Critical Flow Venturi Nozzles, 

IBR approved for § 98.34(b), 

§ 98.124(m)(5), § 98.244(b), § 98.254(c), 

§ 98.324(e), § 98.344(c), § 98.354(h), and 

§ 98.364(e). 

(6) ASME MFC–9M–1988 (Reaffirmed 

2001) Measurement of Liquid Flow in 

Closed Conduits by Weighing Method, 

IBR approved for § 98.34(b), 

§ 98.124(m)(6), and § 98.244(b). 

(7) ASME MFC–11M–2006 

Measurement of Fluid Flow by Means of 

Coriolis Mass Flowmeters, IBR 

approved for § 98.124(m)(7), § 98.244(b), 

§ 98.254(c), § 98.324(e), § 98.344(c), and 

§ 98.354(h). 

(8) ASME MFC–14M–2003 

Measurement of Fluid Flow Using Small 

Bore Precision Orifice Meters, IBR 

approved for § 98.124(m)(8), § 98.244(b), 

§ 98.254(c), § 98.324(e), § 98.344(c), 

§ 98.354(h), and § 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 § 98.54(b), 

§ 98.124(e)(2), and § 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 98.94(f)(4)(i), § 98.94(g)(3), 

§ 98.97(d)(4), § 98.98, and § 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 

§ 98.123(c)(1)(i)(A). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2ER01DE10.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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 

§ 98.123(d)(1)(i), § 98.123(d)(1)(ii), 

§ 98.123(d)(1)(iii), and § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 98.94(d), § 98.94(d)(1), 

§ 98.94(e), § 98.94(e)(1), § 98.94(g)(1), 

§ 98.96(f)(4), and § 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 § 98.94(d), § 98.94(d)(1), 

§ 98.94(e), § 98.94(e)(1), § 98.94(g)(2), 

§ 98.96(f)(4), and § 98.97(b)(1). 

* * * * * 

■ 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 § 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). 

aSource categories are defined in each applicable subpart. 

■ 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 § 98.2(a)(2) 

Source Categories a Applicable in 2010 and Future Years 

*******

Additional Source Categoriesa Applicable in 2011 and Future Years 

* * * * * * * 

Electronics manufacturing (subpart I) 

Fluorinated gas production (subpart L) 

aSource categories are defined in each applicable subpart. 

■ 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 § 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. 

aSuppliers are defined in each applicable subpart. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74818 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

■ 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 

§ 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 microelectro-mechanical systems (MEMS), 

liquid crystal displays (LCDs), 

photovoltaic cells (PV), and 

semiconductors (including lightemitting 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). 

§ 98.91 Reporting threshold. 

(a) You must report GHG emissions 

under this subpart if electronics 

manufacturing production processes, as 

defined in § 98.90, are performed at 

your facility and your facility meets the 

requirements of either § 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 § 98.2(a)(2), follow the 

requirements of § 98.2(b), with one 

exception. Rather than using the 

calculation methodologies in § 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. 

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 (m2). 

EFi = Emission factor for input gas i (kg/m2). 

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. 

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 (m2). 

EFi = Emission factor for input gas i (g/m2). 

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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2ER01DE10.002</GPH> ER01DE10.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74819 

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. 

Where: 

ET = Annual production process emissions of 

all fluorinated GHGs for threshold 

applicability purposes (metric tons 

Co2e). 

d = 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. 

Where: 

S = 100 percent of annual manufacturing 

capacity of a facility (m2). 

Wx = Maximum designed substrate starts of 

a facility in month x (m2 per month). 

x = Month. 

§ 98.92 GHGs to report. 

(a) You must report emissions of 

fluorinated GHGs (as defined in § 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. 

§ 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 byproduct 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. 

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. 

Where: 

ProcesstypeBEk = Annual emissions of byproduct 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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2ER01DE10.004</GPH> ER01DE10.005</GPH> ER01DE10.006</GPH> ER01DE10.007</GPH> ER01DE10.008</GPH>
74820 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(1) If you manufacture MEMS, LCDs, 

or PVs, you must, except as provided in 

§ 98.93(a)(3), calculate annual facilitylevel 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 § 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 m2 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 insitu 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 m2 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 recipespecific utilization and by-product 

formation rates determined as specified 

in § 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 § 98.98. Recipespecific 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 

§ 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 insitu 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 byproduct formation rates determined as 

specified in § 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 § 98.98. 

Recipe-specific utilization and byproduct 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 § 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 recipespecific utilization and by-product 

formation rates as specified in 

§ 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 § 98.98. Recipespecific 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 

§ 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 byproduct formation rates of 0. 

(ii) You must develop recipe-specific 

utilization and by-product formation 

rates determined as specified in 

§ 98.94(d) for each individual recipe or 

set of similar recipes as defined in 

§ 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 § 98.98. 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2ER01DE10.009</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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. 

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 facilitylevel 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 facilityspecific N2O utilization factor averaged 

over all N2O-using chemical vapor 

deposition processes determined as 

specified in § 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 facilityspecific N2O utilization factor averaged 

over all N2O-using electronics 

manufacturing production processes 

other than chemical vapor deposition 

processes determined as specified in 

§ 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. 

Where: 

E(N2O)j = Annual emissions of N2O for N2Ousing process j (metric tons). 

CN2O,j = Amount of N2O consumed for N2Ousing process j, as calculated in Equation 

I–13 of this subpart and apportioned to 

N2O process j (kg). 

UN2O,j = Process utilization factor for N2Ousing 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 N2Ousing 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 § 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. 

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 gasspecific heel factors, as determined in 

§ 98.94(b), and by using Equation I–12 

of this subpart. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2ER01DE10.010</GPH> ER01DE10.011</GPH> ER01DE10.012</GPH>
74822 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 

§ 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. 

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-typespecific, or process type-specific input 

gas i apportioning factor (expressed as a 

decimal fraction), as determined in 

accordance with § 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 § 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. 

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 § 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 § 98.94(f), you must 

calculate the uptime by using Equation 

I–15 of this subpart. 

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. 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2ER01DE10.013</GPH> ER01DE10.014</GPH> ER01DE10.015</GPH> ER01DE10.016</GPH> ER01DE10.017</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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. 

§ 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 § 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 recipespecific utilization and by-product 

formation rates for the plasma etching 

process type. With respect to any 

provision of this subpart except 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 recipespecific utilization and by-product 

formation rates for the etching process 

type under § 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74824 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

§ 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 § 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 facilitywide 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 gasspecific 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 gasspecific heel factors in § 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. 

Where: 

p = Absolute pressure of the gas (Pa). 

V = Volume of the gas (m3). 

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 § 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 facilitywide 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 § 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 

§ 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2ER01DE10.018</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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 

§ 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 

§ 98.7) provided the measurements were 

made prior to January 1, 2007. You may 

use recipe-specific utilization and byproduct 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 byproduct formation rates using the 

International SEMATECH #06124825A– 

ENG (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 98.7,) or the International SEMATECH 

#01104197A–XFR (incorporated by 

reference, see § 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 § 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 § 98.7). 

You may use measurements made using 

the International SEMATECH 

#01104197A–XFR (incorporated by 

reference, see § 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 

§ 98.7,) or the International SEMATECH 

#01104197A–XFR (incorporated by 

reference, see § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74826 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(1) Follow the QA/QC procedures in 

the International SEMATECH 

#06124825A–ENG (incorporated by 

reference, see § 98.7) when measuring 

and calculating facility-specific, recipespecific 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 98.93 must have an 

accuracy and precision of one percent of 

full scale or better. 

§ 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 § 98.93 and § 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. 

§ 98.96 Data reporting requirements. 

In addition to the information 

required by § 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 § 98.93. 

(e) Annual production in terms of 

substrate surface area (e.g., silicon, PVcell, 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 § 98.98. 

(4) Certification that the 

measurements for all reported recipespecific 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 § 98.7), or the 

International SEMATECH #01104197A– 

XFR (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 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 gasspecific 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 98.94(c), the following 

information to determine it is verified in 

accordance with procedures in 

§ 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 § 98.94(c)(2)(i). 

(iii) Certification that the gases you 

selected under § 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 § 98.94(c)(2)(iii). 

(n) Fraction of each fluorinated GHG 

or N2O fed into a recipe, process subtype, 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 subtype, 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 § 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 § 98.94(a), the parameter 

measured or estimated using the 

method, and the time period during 

which the ‘‘best available monitoring 

method’’ was used. 

§ 98.97 Records that must be retained. 

In addition to the information 

required by § 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 recipespecific utilization and by-product 

formation rates demonstrating that the 

values were measured using 

International SEMATECH #06124825A– 

ENG (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 98.7) or, if the measurements were 

made prior to January 1, 2007, 

International SEMATECH #01104197A– 

XFR (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 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 

§ 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 facilityspecific engineering model used to 

apportion fluorinated GHG and N2O 

consumption. This documentation must 

be part of your site GHG Monitoring 

Plan as required under § 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 typespecific gas apportioning factors (fij) for 

the two fluorinated GHGs used at your 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74828 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 

§ 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 § 98.3(g)(5), must be 

completed by April 1, 2011. You must 

update your GHG Monitoring Plan to 

comply with § 98.94(c) consistent with 

the requirements in § 98.3(g)(5)(iii). 

§ 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. Byproduct 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74829 

remove materials from a substrate 

during electronics manufacturing. The 

materials removed may include SiO2,

SiOx-based or fully organic-based thinfilm 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 § 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

Product type 

Emission factors EFi

CF4 C2F6 CHF3 C3F8 NF3 SF6

Semiconductors (kg/m2) .................................................. 0.90 1.00 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.20 

LCD (g/m2) ....................................................................... 0.50 NA NA NA 0.90 4.00 

MEMS (kg/m2) ................................................................. 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 BYPRODUCT FORMATION RATES (Bijk) FOR SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING FOR 150MM AND 200 MM WAFER SIZES

Process type/Sub-type 

Process gas i 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74830 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE I–3 TO SUBPART I OF PART 98—DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS (1–Uij) FOR GAS UTILIZATION RATES (Uij) AND BYPRODUCT FORMATION RATES (Bijk) FOR SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING FOR 150MM AND 200 MM WAFER

SIZES—Continued 

Process type/Sub-type 

Process gas i 

CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C3F8 c-C4F8 NF3 SF6 C4F6 C5F8 C4F8O 

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 BYPRODUCT FORMATION RATES (Bijk) FOR SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING FOR 300 MM WAFER SIZE

Process type/sub-type 

Process gas i 

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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74831 

TABLE I–5 TO SUBPART I OF PART 98—DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS (1–Uij) FOR GAS UTILIZATION RATES (Uij) AND BYPRODUCT FORMATION RATES (Bijk) FOR MEMS MANUFACTURING

Process type factors 

Process gas i 

CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C3F8 c-C4F8

NF3

Remote NF3 SF6 C4F6a C5F8a C4F8Oa

Etch 1–Ui .......................... 0.7 1 0.4 1 0.4 1 0.06 NA 1 0.2 NA 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 NA 

Etch BCF4 ........................ NA 1 0.4 1 0.07 1 0.08 NA 0.2 NA NA NA 1 0.3 0.2 NA 

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 0.02 2 0.1 NA NA 0.1 0.1 

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. 1Estimate includes multi-gas etch processes. 

2Estimate 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 BYPRODUCT FORMATION RATES (Bijk) FOR LCD MANUFACTURING

Process type factors 

Process Gas i 

CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C3F8 c-C4F8

NF3

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 BYPRODUCT FORMATION RATES (Bijk) FOR PV MANUFACTURING

Process type factors 

Process Gas i 

CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C3F8 c-C4F8 NF3

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 

■ 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 

§ 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 § 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74832 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

before the production measurement in 

§ 98.414(a). 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 98.2(a)(2), calculate process emissions 

from fluorinated gas production using 

uncontrolled GHG emissions. 

§ 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. 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 98.123(c)(1)(vi). 

Do not report CO2e emissions under 

§ 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 § 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 § 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): 

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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2ER01DE10.019</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74833 

(iv) Equation L–2 of this section 

provides the general formula for 

calculating the relative errors of sums 

and differences: 

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): 

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: 

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 § 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. 

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 byproducts (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. 

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). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2ER01DE10.020</GPH> ER01DE10.021</GPH> ER01DE10.022</GPH> ER01DE10.023</MATH> ER01DE10.024</MATH>
74834 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

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 byproduct 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 byproducts 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: 

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 fluorinecontaining 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. 

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 nonGHG 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: 

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 § 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 § 98.124(b)(4). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2ER01DE10.025</MATH> ER01DE10.026</MATH> ER01DE10.027</GPH> ER01DE10.028</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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 

§ 98.124(b)(5). 

(iii) For fluorine emissions that are 

not accounted for by vent estimates, you 

must characterize emissions as specified 

in § 98.124(b)(6). 

(9) The total mass of fluorinecontaining 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. 

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 byproduct 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 byproduct k, calculation in Equation L–16 

of this section. 

u = Number of fluorine-containing byproducts generated in process i. 

v = Number of fluorine-containing reactants 

fed into process i. 

(10) The total mass of fluorinecontaining 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. 

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 byproduct 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 byproduct k, calculation in Equation L–16 

of this section. 

u = Number of fluorine-containing byproducts generated in process i. 

v = Number of fluorine-containing reactants 

fed into process i. 

(11) The total mass of fluorinecontaining by-product k emitted must 

be estimated at least monthly based on 

the total fluorine emitted and the 

fraction that consists of fluorinecontaining by-products using Equation 

L–13 of this section. If fluorinecontaining by-product k is a non-GHG, 

you may assume that FEBk is zero. 

Where: 

EBk-ip = Total mass of fluorine-containing byproduct k emitted from process i over the 

period p (metric tons). 

FEBk = The fraction of the mass emitted that 

consists of fluorine-containing byproduct 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 byproduct k, calculation in Equation L–16 

of this section. 

u = Number of fluorine-containing byproducts 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: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2ER01DE10.029</GPH> ER01DE10.030</GPH> ER01DE10.031</GPH>
74836 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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: 

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: 

Where: 

MFFBk = Mass fraction of fluorine in the 

product (fraction). 

MFBk = Moles fluorine per mole of byproduct 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 fluorinecontaining compounds (including all 

fluorine-containing reactants, products, 

and byproducts) using Equation L–17 of 

this section. 

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 

§ 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. 

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 nonGHG 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). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2ER01DE10.032</GPH> ER01DE10.033</GPH> ER01DE10.034</GPH> ER01DE10.035</GPH> ER01DE10.036</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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 nonGHG 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 

§ 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 

§ 98.7). 

(B) You may determine the 

fluorinated GHG emissions from any 

process vent within the process using 

the procedures specified in 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 63.1257(d)(2)(i)(D)(10) 

of this chapter. 

(3) To calculate emissions from 

vacuum systems, the terms used in 

Equation 33 to § 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 

§ 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 

§ 63.1257(d)(2)(i)(B) of this chapter. 

(v) Emissions from empty vessel 

purging must be calculated using 

Equation 36 to § 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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74838 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(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 § 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 § 98.124. All emissions 

test data and procedures used in 

developing emission factors must be 

documented according to § 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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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. 

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 (m3/ 

min). 

SV = Standard molar volume of gas (0.0240 

m3/g-mole at 68 °F and 1 atm). 

1/103 = 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. 

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-ventspecific 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. 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2ER01DE10.037</GPH> ER01DE10.038</GPH> ER01DE10.039</GPH>
74840 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

are vented to the properly functioning 

destruction device (i.e., controlled). 

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 processvent-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). 

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. 

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 § 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. 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2ER01DE10.040</GPH> ER01DE10.041</GPH> ER01DE10.042</GPH> ER01DE10.043</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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. 

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). 

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. 

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-tomonitor, 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 § 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 

§ 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 sitespecific 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 § 98.7): 

The Screening Ranges Approach; the 

EPA Correlation Approach; or the UnitSpecific 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2ER01DE10.044</GPH> ER01DE10.045</GPH> ER01DE10.046</GPH>
74842 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

must meet the requirements in 

§ 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 § 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-tomonitor, 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. 

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. 

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 § 98.410(b) using Equation L–31 of 

this section: 

Where: 

ED = The mass of fluorinated GHGs emitted 

annually from destruction of fluorinated 

GHGs that were previously ‘‘produced’’ 

as defined at § 98.410(b) (metric tons). 

RED = The mass of fluorinated GHGs that 

were previously ‘‘produced’’ as defined at 

§ 98.410(b) and that are fed annually into 

the destruction device (metric tons). 

DE = Destruction efficiency of the destruction 

device (fraction). 

(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. 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2ER01DE10.047</MATH> ER01DE10.048</GPH> ER01DE10.049</MATH> ER01DE10.050</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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. 

Where: 

p = Absolute pressure of the gas (Pa) 

V = Volume of the gas (m3) 

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. 

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. 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 98.123(b)(1): 

(i) Total mass of each fluorinecontaining product produced. Account 

for any used fluorine-containing 

product added into the production 

process upstream of the output 

measurement as directed at § 98.413(b) 

and § 98.414(b). For each product, the 

mass produced used for the massbalance calculation must be the same as 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2ER01DE10.051</MATH> ER01DE10.052</MATH>
74844 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

the mass produced that is reported 

under subpart OO of this part, where 

applicable. 

(ii) Total mass of each fluorinecontaining 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 § 98.123(b)(4). If you use 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 98.123(b)(15). If you use 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 fluorinecontaining compound in each sample. 

Use equipment and methods that 

comply with paragraph (e) of this 

section. Calculate the average 

concentration of each fluorinecontaining compound across all three 

samples. 

(ii) Controlled emissions using 

§ 98.123(b)(15). If you use 

§ 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 fluorinecontaining compounds that are not 

fluorinated GHGs. 

(iii) Controlled emissions using 

§ 98.123(b)(4). If you use § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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 

§ 98.123(b)(15). If you use 

§ 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 fluorinecontaining compounds that are not 

fluorinated GHGs. 

(iii) Controlled emissions using 

§ 98.123(b)(4). If you use § 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 

§ 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 § 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 byproducts fed into and generated by the 

process. To convert these masses to 

CO2e, use Equation A–1 of § 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-ventspecific 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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74846 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(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 § 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-ventspecific 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 98.123, apply the revised process-ventspecific 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 

§ 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 remeasurement 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 processvent-specific emission calculation 

factor, you must conduct an emissions 

calculation to update the process-ventspecific emission calculation factor. In 

the calculations under § 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 § 98.123(c)(4)(i) and (c)(4)(ii), you 

may use the previous calculation to 

develop the site-specific process-ventspecific 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-fluorinatedGHG 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 § 98.7) and ALT–012 

(incorporated by reference, see § 98.7). 

(iii) Non-fluorinated-GHG gas 

analysis. Acceptable methods include 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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 qualityassured 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 § 98.7), ASTM D6348–03 

(incorporated by reference, see § 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 § 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 § 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 sitespecific 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 sitespecific 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 UnitSpecific 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 UnitSpecific Correlation Approach. For the 

one-time testing to develop the UnitSpecific Correlation equations in EPA– 

453/R–95–017 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 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 § 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 § 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74848 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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-todestroy 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 98.7). 

(2) ASME MFC–4M–1986 (Reaffirmed 

1997) Measurement of Gas Flow by 

Turbine Meters (incorporated by 

reference, see § 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 § 98.7). 

(4) ASME MFC–6M–1998 

Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes 

Using Vortex Flowmeters (incorporated 

by reference, see § 98.7). 

(5) ASME MFC–7M–1987 (Reaffirmed 

1992) Measurement of Gas Flow by 

Means of Critical Flow Venturi Nozzles 

(incorporated by reference, see § 98.7). 

(6) ASME MFC–9M–1988 (Reaffirmed 

2001) Measurement of Liquid Flow in 

Closed Conduits by Weighing Method 

(incorporated by reference, see § 98.7). 

(7) ASME MFC–11M–2006 

Measurement of Fluid Flow by Means of 

Coriolis Mass Flowmeters (incorporated 

by reference, see § 98.7). 

(8) ASME MFC–14M–2003 

Measurement of Fluid Flow Using Small 

Bore Precision Orifice Meters 

(incorporated by reference, see § 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 

§ 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 § 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74850 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

§ 98.123(c)(3)(viii) to adjust the 

emission factor(s) or emission 

characterizations measured for the postFebruary 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 § 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. 

§ 98.125 Procedures for estimating 

missing data. 

(a) A complete record of all measured 

parameters used in the GHG emissions 

calculations in § 98.123 is required. 

Therefore, whenever a quality-assured 

value of a required parameter is 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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. 

§ 98.126 Data reporting requirements. 

(a) All facilities. In addition to the 

information required by § 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 § 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 § 98.124(a), by process. 

(5) The method used to determine the 

mass emissions of each fluorinated 

GHG, i.e., mass balance, process-ventspecific emission factor, or processvent-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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 98.123(b)(16). 

(10) The fraction of the mass emitted 

that consists of each fluorine-containing 

reactant. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74852 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(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 

§ 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 § 98.123(c)(3) or the 

emission calculation factor under 

§ 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-ventspecific 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 98.123, in accordance with 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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. 

§ 98.127 Records that must be retained. 

In addition to the records required by 

§ 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 § 98.123, including the data 

monitored under § 98.124, and all 

information reported as required and 

§ 98.126. 

(b) Scoping speciation. Retain records 

documenting the information reported 

under § 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 

§ 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 § 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). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74853 

(4) The emissions test data and 

reports (see § 98.124(c)(5)) and the 

calculations used to determine the 

process-vent-specific emission factor, 

including the actual process-ventspecific 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-ventspecific 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 98.123, in accordance with 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 98.124(e), (f), (g), (m), and (n). 

(j) GHG Monitoring Plans, as 

described in § 98.3(g)(5), must be 

completed by April 1, 2011. 

§ 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74854 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

§ 98.123(d) and § 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 °C. 

(2) The total concentration of the pure 

compounds constituents having a vapor 

pressure greater than 0.3 kilopascals at 

20 °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 § 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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-tomonitor equipment include, but are not 

limited to, equipment under extreme 

pressure or heat. 

■ 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 

§ 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 closedpressure and hermetically sealedpressure 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. 

§ 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 § 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. 

§ 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 § 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. 

§ 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: 

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. 

§ 98.304 Monitoring and QA/QC 

requirements. 

(a) For calendar year 2011 monitoring, 

you may follow the provisions of 

§ 98.3(d)(1) through (d)(2) for best 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2ER01DE10.053</GPH>
74856 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

available monitoring methods rather 

than follow the monitoring 

requirements of this section. For 

purposes of this subpart, any reference 

in § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 98.3(g)(5), must be 

completed by April 1, 2011. 

§ 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. 

§ 98.306 Data reporting requirements. 

In addition to the information 

required by § 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 sealedpressure 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 offsite for recycling. 

(l) Pounds of SF6 and PFC sent off-site 

for destruction. 

§ 98.307 Records that must be retained. 

In addition to the information 

required by § 98.3(g), you must retain 

records of the information reported and 

listed in § 98.306. 

§ 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. 

■ 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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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 

§ 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. 

§ 98.431 Reporting threshold. 

Any importer or exporter of 

fluorinated GHGs contained in precharged equipment or closed-cell foams 

who meets the requirements of 

§ 98.2(a)(4) must report each fluorinated 

GHG contained in the imported or 

exported pre-charged equipment or 

closed-cell foams. 

§ 98.432 GHGs to report. 

You must report the mass of each 

fluorinated GHG contained in precharged 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. 

§ 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: 

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: 

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. 

§ 98.434 Monitoring and QA/QC 

requirements. 

(a) For calendar year 2011 monitoring, 

you may follow the provisions of 

§ 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 § 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 § 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). 

§ 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 precharged equipment or closed-cell foams 

is required. 

§ 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 precharged 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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2ER01DE10.054</GPH> ER01DE10.055</GPH>
74858 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(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 precharged 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. 

§ 98.437 Records that must be retained. 

(a) In addition to the data required by 

§ 98.3(g), importers of fluorinated GHGs 

in pre-charged equipment and closedcell 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 precharged 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 

§ 98.3(g), exporters of fluorinated GHGs 

in pre-charged equipment and closedcell 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 precharged 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 

§ 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. 

§ 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. Closedcell 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 gasinsulated 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 gasinsulated substations, circuit breakers, 

other switchgear, gas-insulated lines, or 

power transformers containing a 

fluorinated GHG prior to sale or 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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. 

■ 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 

§ 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 gascontaining components of such 

equipment) containing sulfurhexafluoride (SF6) or perfluorocarbons 

(PFCs). The processes include 

equipment testing, installation, 

manufacturing, decommissioning and 

disposal, refurbishing, and storage in 

gas cylinders and other containers. 

§ 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 § 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. 

§ 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. 

§ 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: 

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: 

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: 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2ER01DE10.056</GPH> ER01DE10.057</GPH> ER01DE10.058</GPH>
74860 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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: 

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: 

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 

§ 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: 

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. 

§ 98.454 Monitoring and QA/QC 

requirements. 

(a) For calendar year 2011 monitoring, 

you may follow the provisions of 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2ER01DE10.059</GPH> ER01DE10.060</GPH> ER01DE10.061</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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. 

§ 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. 

§ 98.456 Data reporting requirements. 

In addition to the information 

required by § 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 offsite 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. 

§ 98.457 Records that must be retained. 

In addition to the information 

required by § 98.3(g), you must retain 

the following records: 

(a) All information reported and listed 

in § 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 § 98.3(g)(5), must be 

completed by April 1, 2011. 

§ 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2