Monday, 

April 12, 2010 

Part IV 

Environmental 

Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 98 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse 

Gases: Additional Sources of Fluorinated 

GHGs; Proposed Rule 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
18652 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 98 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0927; FRL–9130–7] 

RIN 2060–AQ00 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse 

Gases: Additional Sources of 

Fluorinated GHGs 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is revising and 

supplementing its initial proposed 

actions to require reporting of 

fluorinated greenhouse gas (fluorinated 

GHG) emissions from certain source 

categories. Specifically, EPA is revising 

and supplementing its initial proposal 

to require reporting of fluorinated GHG 

emissions from electronics 

manufacturing, production of 

fluorinated gases, and use of electrical 

transmission and distribution 

equipment. EPA is also proposing to 

require such reporting from 

manufacture or refurbishment of 

electrical equipment and import and 

export of pre-charged equipment and 

closed cell foams. This proposed rule 

would not require control of greenhouse 

gases; rather it would require only that 

sources above certain threshold levels 

monitor and report emissions. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 11, 2010. There will be 

a public hearing from 9 a.m. to 12 noon 

on April 20, 2010 at 1310 L St., NW., 

Room 152, Washington, DC 20005. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket ID EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0927 by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: 

GHGReportingFGHG@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–1741. 

• Mail: EPA Docket Center, Attention 

Docket OAR–2009–0927, Mail code 

2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket 

Center, Public Reading Room, Room 

3334, EPA West Building, Attention 

Docket OAR–2009–0927, 1301 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20004. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Docket’s normal 

hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0927. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA’s Docket Center, Public Reading 

Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20004. This Docket 

Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1744, and the telephone number for 

the Air Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carole Cook, Climate Change Division, 

Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC– 

6207J), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number: (202) 343–9263; fax number: 

(202) 343–2342; e-mail address: 

GHGReportingRule@epa.gov. For 

technical information contact the 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule e-mail: 

ghgmrr@epa.gov. To obtain information 

about the public hearings or to register 

to speak at the hearings, please go to 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ 

emissions/ghgrulemaking.html. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Additional Information on Submitting 

Comments: To expedite review of your 

comments by Agency staff, you are 

encouraged to send a separate copy of 

your comments, in addition to the copy 

you submit to the official docket, to 

Carole Cook, U.S. EPA, Office of 

Atmospheric Programs, Climate Change 

Division, Mail Code 6207–J, 

Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 

343–9263, e-mail 

GHGReportingRule@epa.gov. 

As indicated above, although EPA 

previously proposed a version of some 

parts of this rule, that proposal has not 

become final. This proposal partly 

supplements and partly replaces that 

initial proposal. Comments on the 

initial proposal will be considered only 

to the extent they remain relevant. To 

ensure that their comments on newly 

proposed or re-proposed provisions are 

considered, parties should submit or resubmit them at this time. 

Regulated Entities. The Administrator 

determined that this action is subject to 

the provisions of Clean Air Act (CAA) 

section 307(d). See CAA section 

307(d)(1)(V) (the provisions of section 

307(d) apply to ‘‘such other actions as 

the Administrator may determine.’’). 

This is a proposed regulation. If 

finalized, these regulations would affect 

owners or operators of electronics 

manufacturing facilities, fluorinated gas 

production facilities, electric power 

systems, and electrical equipment 

manufacturing facilities, as well as 

importers and exporters of pre-charged 

equipment and closed-cell foams. 

Regulated categories and entities would 

include those listed in Table 1 of this 

preamble: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18653 

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 LCD unit screens manufacturing facilities. 

334419 MEMS manufacturing facilities. 

Fluorinated GHG Production ............................................ 325120 Industrial gases manufacturing facilities. 

Electrical Equipment Use ................................................. 221121 Electric bulk power transmission and control facilities. 

Electrical Equipment Manufacture 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. 

423620 Air-conditioners, room, merchant wholesalers. 

443111 Household Appliance Stores. 

326150 Polyurethane foam products manufacturing. 

335313 Circuit breakers, power, manufacturing. 

423610 Circuit breakers merchant wholesalers. 

Table 1 of this preamble is not 

intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide for readers regarding 

facilities likely to be affected by this 

action. Table 1 lists the types of 

facilities that EPA is now aware could 

be potentially affected by the reporting 

requirements. Other types of facilities 

and companies not listed in the table 

could also be subject to reporting 

requirements. To determine whether 

you are affected by this action, you 

should carefully examine the 

applicability criteria found in 40 CFR 

part 98, subpart A and the relevant 

criteria in the proposed subparts related 

to electronics manufacturing facilities, 

fluorinated gas production facilities, 

electrical equipment use, electrical 

equipment manufacturing or 

refurbishment facilities, and importers 

and exporters of pre-charged equipment 

and closed-cell foams. If you have 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular facility, 

consult the person listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

Many facilities that would be affected 

by the proposed rule have GHG 

emissions from multiple source 

categories listed in 40 CFR part 98 or in 

this proposed rule. Table 2 of this 

preamble has been developed as a guide 

to help potential reporters in the source 

categories subject to the proposed rule 

identify the source categories (by 

subpart) that they may need to (1) 

consider in their facility applicability 

determination, and/or (2) include in 

their reporting. The table should only be 

seen as a guide. Additional subparts in 

40 CFR part 98 may be relevant for a 

given reporter. Similarly, not all listed 

subparts are relevant for all reporters. 

TABLE 2—SOURCE CATEGORIES AND RELEVANT SUBPARTS

Source category (and main applicable subpart) Subparts recommended for review to determine 

applicability 

Electricity Generation ............................................................... Electrical Equipment Use. 

Electronics Manufacturing ........................................................ General Stationary Fuel Combustion. 

Fluorinated GHG Production .................................................... General Stationary Fuel Combustion. Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases. 

Electrical Equipment Use ......................................................... General Stationary Fuel Combustion. 

Imports and Exports of Fluorinated GHGs 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. 

Acronyms and Abbreviations. The 

following acronyms and abbreviations 

are used in this document. 

ASTM American Society for Testing and 

Materials 

BAMM Best Available Monitoring Methods 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CARB California Air Resources Board 

CBI confidential business information 

CFC chlorofluorocarbon 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

CO2e CO2-equivalent 

EIA Economic Impact Analysis 

EO Executive Order 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

F–GHG fluorinated greenhouse gas 

FTIR fourier transform infrared 

(spectroscopy) 

FID flame ionization detector 

GC gas chromatography 

GHG greenhouse gas 

GWP global warming potential 

HCFC hydrochlorofluorocarbon 

HFC hydrofluorocarbon 

HFE hydrofluoroether 

HTF heat transfer fluid 

ICR information collection request 

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change 

kg kilograms 

LCD liquid crystal displays 

MEMS microelectromechanical devices 

MMTCO2e million metric tons carbon 

dioxide equivalent 

MRR mandatory greenhouse gas reporting 

rule 

MS mass spectrometry 

N2O nitrous oxide 

NACAA National Association of Clean Air 

Agencies 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NERC North American Energy Reliability 

Corporation 

NESHAP National Emissions Standard for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NF3 nitrogen trifluoride 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
18654 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Public 

Law 110–161, 121 Stat. 1844, 2128. 

NMR nuclear magnetic resonance 

NSPS New Source Performance Standards 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PFC perfluorocarbon 

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

PV photovoltaic cells 

QA quality assurance 

QA/QC quality assurance/quality control 

R&D research and development 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RGGI Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative 

RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis 

SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

SF6 sulfur hexafluoride 

TCR The Climate Registry 

TSD technical support document 

U.S. United States 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

VOC volatile organic compound(s) 

WCI Western Climate Initiative 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. Organization of This Preamble 

B. Background on the Proposed Rule 

C. Legal Authority 

D. Relationship to other Federal, State and 

Regional Programs 

II. Summary of and Rationale for the 

Reporting, Recordkeeping and 

Verification Requirements for Specific 

Source Categories 

A. Electronics Manufacturing 

B. Fluorinated Gas Production 

C. Electric Transmission and Distribution 

Equipment Use 

D. Imports and Exports of Fluorinated 

GHGs inside pre-charged equipment and 

closed-cell foams 

E. Electrical Equipment Manufacture or 

Refurbishment 

F. Subpart A Revisions 

III. Economic Impacts on the Rule 

A. How were compliance costs estimated? 

B. What are the costs of the rule? 

C. What are the economic impacts of the 

rule? 

D. What are the impacts of the rule on 

small businesses? 

E. What are the benefits of the rule for 

society? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. Background 

A. Organization of This Preamble 

This preamble is broken into several 

large sections, as detailed above in the 

Table of Contents. The paragraphs 

below describe the layout of the 

preamble and provide a brief summary 

of each section. 

The first section of this preamble 

contains the basic background 

information about the origin of this 

proposed rule, including a brief 

discussion of the initial proposed 

requirements for electronics, fluorinated 

gas production, and use of electrical 

transmission and distribution 

equipment. This section also discusses 

EPA’s use of our legal authority under 

the CAA to collect the proposed data, 

and the benefits of collecting the data. 

The second section of this preamble 

provides a brief summary of, and 

rationale for, the key design elements on 

which EPA is seeking comment today 

for each subpart. Depending on the 

subpart, this section may include EPA’s 

rationale for (i) the definition of the 

source category, (ii) selection of 

reporting threshold, (iii) selection of 

proposed reporting and monitoring 

methods, (iv) selection of procedures for 

estimating missing data, (v) selection of 

data reporting requirements, and (vi) 

selection of records that must be 

retained. EPA describes the proposed 

options for each design element, as well 

as the other options considered. 

Throughout this discussion, EPA 

highlights specific issues on which we 

solicit comment. Please refer to the 

specific source category of interest for 

more details. 

The third section provides the 

summary of the cost impacts, economic 

impacts, and benefits of this proposed 

rule from the Economic Analysis. 

Finally, the last section discusses the 

various statutory and executive order 

requirements applicable to this 

proposed rulemaking. 

B. Background on the Proposed Rule 

The Final Mandatory GHG Reporting 

Rule (Final MRR), (40 CFR part 98) was 

signed by EPA Administrator Lisa 

Jackson on September 22, 2009 and 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 30, 2009 (74 FR 56260). The 

Final MRR, which became effective on 

December 29, 2009, included reporting 

of GHGs from the facilities and 

suppliers that EPA determined should 

be included to appropriately respond to 

the direction in the 2008 Consolidated 

Appropriations Act.1 These source 

categories capture approximately 85 

percent of U.S. GHG emissions through 

reporting by direct emitters as well as 

suppliers of fossil fuels and industrial 

gases. 

In the April 2009 proposed mandatory 

GHG reporting rule, the electronics, 

fluorinated GHG production, and 

electrical equipment use source 

categories were included as subparts I, 

L, and DD. In addition, EPA requested 

comment on requiring reporting under 

subpart OO of the quantities of 

fluorinated GHGs imported and 

exported inside pre-charged equipment 

and foams. EPA received a number of 

lengthy, detailed comments regarding 

proposed subparts I and L, several 

comments regarding the definition of 

‘‘facility’’ under subpart DD, and several 

comments regarding a reporting 

requirement for imports and exports of 

fluorinated GHGs contained inside precharged equipment and foams. These 

comments, which are described in more 

detail in the discussions of the 

individual source categories below, 

raised concerns about the costs and 

technical feasibility of implementing 

subparts I and L as initially proposed, 

requested clarification of how ‘‘facility’’ 

should be interpreted under subpart DD, 

and both favored and opposed a 

requirement to report imports of 

fluorinated GHGs contained in imported 

and exported pre-charged equipment 

and closed-cell foams. 

EPA recognized the concerns raised 

by stakeholders, and decided not to 

finalize subparts I, L, and DD with the 

Final MRR, but instead to re-propose 

significant pieces of these subparts. For 

subparts I and L this proposal 

incorporates a number of changes 

including, but not limited to, the 

addition of different methodologies that 

provide improved emissions coverage at 

a lower cost burden to facilities as 

compared to the initial proposal. Where 

aspects of the initial proposals for 

subparts I and L are retained in this 

proposal, such as in the basic massbalance methodology for subpart L (as 

an option for some facilities) and in 

many of the equations for subpart I, 

today’s proposal adds more flexibility in 

how and how frequently the underlying 

data are gathered. In addition, EPA is 

proposing requirements to report 

emissions from manufacture or 

refurbishment of electrical equipment 

and to report the quantities of 

fluorinated GHGs imported and 

exported inside pre-charged equipment 

and foams. 

We believe the monitoring approaches 

proposed in this action, which combine 

direct measurement and facility-specific 

calculations, effectively balance 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18655 

2As discussed further below, EPA is proposing 

that uncontrolled emissions be used for purposes of 

determining whether a facility’s emissions are equal 

to or greater than 25,000 mtCO2e. 

accuracy and costs, and that they are 

warranted even though the rule does not 

contain any emissions reduction 

requirements. As we stated in the Final 

MRR, the data collected by the rule are 

expected to be used in analyzing and 

developing a range of potential CAA 

GHG policies and programs. A 

consistent and accurate data set is 

crucial to serve this intended purpose. 

Under this proposed rule, facilities 

not already reporting but required to 

report under this rule would begin data 

collection in 2011 following the 

methods outlined in the proposed rule 

and would submit data to EPA by March 

31, 2012. As is the case under the Final 

MRR, facilities would have the option to 

use Best Available Monitoring Methods 

(BAMM) for the first quarter of the first 

reporting year for the source categories 

included in this proposed rule. Thus, 

for these source categories, facilities 

could use BAMM through March 31, 

2011. 

C. Legal Authority 

EPA is proposing this rule under its 

existing CAA authority, specifically 

authorities provided in CAA section 

114. As discussed further below and in 

‘‘Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting 

Rule: EPA’s Response to Public 

Comments, Legal Issues’’ (available in 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0508), EPA is not 

citing the FY 2008 Consolidated 

Appropriations Act as the statutory 

basis for this action. While that law 

required that EPA spend no less than 

$3.5 million on a rule requiring the 

mandatory reporting of GHG emissions, 

it is the CAA, not the Appropriations 

Act, that EPA is citing as the authority 

to gather the information proposed by 

this rule. 

As stated in the Final MRR, CAA 

section 114 provides EPA broad 

authority to require the information 

proposed by this rule because such data 

would inform and are relevant to EPA’s 

carrying out a wide variety of CAA 

provisions. As discussed in the initial 

proposed rule (74 FR 16448, April 10, 

2009), CAA section 114(a)(1) authorizes 

the Administrator to require emissions 

sources, persons subject to the CAA, or 

persons whom the Administrator 

believes may have necessary 

information to monitor and report 

emissions and provide such other 

information the Administrator requests 

for the purposes of carrying out any 

provision of the CAA. EPA notes that 

while climate change legislation 

approved by the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and pending in the 

U.S. Senate, would provide EPA 

additional authority for a GHG registry 

similar to this proposed rule, and would 

do so for purposes of that pending 

legislation, this proposed rule is 

authorized by, and the information 

being gathered by this proposed rule is 

relevant to implementing, the existing 

CAA. EPA expects, however, that the 

information collected by this proposed 

rule would also prove useful to 

legislative efforts to address GHG 

emissions. 

For further information about EPA’s 

legal authority, see the proposed and 

Final MRR. 

D. Relationship to Other Federal, State 

and Regional Programs 

In developing this proposed rule, EPA 

reviewed monitoring methods included 

in international guidance (e.g., 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change), as well as Federal voluntary 

programs (e.g., EPA PFC Reduction/ 

Climate Partnership for the 

Semiconductor Industry and the U.S. 

Department of Energy Voluntary 

Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program 

(1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act), 

corporate protocols (e.g., World 

Resources Institute and World Business 

Council for Sustainable Development 

GHG Protocol) and industry guidance 

(e.g., 2006 ISMI Guideline for 

Environmental Characterization of 

Semiconductor Process Equipment). 

EPA also reviewed State reporting 

programs (e.g., California and New 

Mexico) and Regional partnerships (e.g., 

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, 

Western Climate Initiative, The Climate 

Registry). These are important programs 

that not only led the way in reporting 

of GHG emissions before the Federal 

government acted but also assist in 

quantifying the GHG reductions 

achieved by various policies. Many of 

these programs collect different or 

additional data as compared to this 

proposed rule. For example, State 

programs may establish lower 

thresholds for reporting, request 

information on areas not addressed in 

EPA’s reporting rule, or include 

different data elements to support other 

programs (e.g., offsets). For further 

discussion on the relationship of this 

proposed rule to other programs, please 

refer to the preamble to the Final MRR. 

II. Summary of and Rationale for the 

Reporting, Recordkeeping and 

Verification Requirements for Specific 

Source Categories 

A. Electronics Manufacturing 

1. Overview of Reporting Requirements 

Electronics manufacturing includes, 

but is not limited to, the manufacture of 

semiconductors, liquid crystal displays 

(LCDs), micro-electro-mechanical 

systems (MEMS), and photovoltaic cells 

(PV). The electronics industry uses 

multiple long-lived fluorinated 

greenhouse gases (fluorinated GHGs) 

such as perfluorocarbons (PFCs), 

hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), sulfur 

hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen 

trifluoride (NF3), as well as nitrous 

oxide (N2O). This proposed rule would 

apply to electronics manufacturing 

facilities where emissions from 

electronics manufacturing processes 

such as plasma etching, chemical vapor 

deposition, chamber cleaning, and heat 

transfer fluid use as well as stationary 

fuel combustion units equal or exceed 

25,000 metric tons of CO2e per year.2 In 

this action, we are proposing methods to 

estimate emissions from cleaning and 

etching for semiconductor, LCD, MEMS, 

and PV manufacture and also methods 

for estimating N2O emissions from 

chemical vapor deposition and other 

manufacturing processes such as 

chamber cleaning. We are also clarifying 

methods for estimating emissions from 

heat transfer fluids. And lastly, we are 

proposing methods for reporting 

controlled emissions from abatement 

systems. 

2. Major Changes Since Initial Rule 

Proposed 

In the initial proposal for electronics 

manufacturing, we included the 

following provisions for reporting 

emissions from electronics manufacture: 

(1) A capacity-based threshold for 

semiconductors, LCDs, and MEMS 

facilities and an emissions-based 

threshold for PV facilities; (2) methods 

for estimating fluorinated GHG 

emissions from etching and cleaning; (3) 

methods for estimating N2O emissions 

during etching and cleaning; (4) 

methods for verifying destruction or 

removal efficiency (DRE) of abatement 

systems; and (5) methods for estimating 

emissions from heat transfer fluids. 

As noted in the preamble to the Final 

MRR, we received a number of lengthy, 

detailed comments regarding the 

electronics manufacturing subpart. In 

total, we received comments from 

approximately 10 entities on the 

proposed rule regarding electronics 

manufacture. The commenters generally 

opposed the proposed reporting 

requirements for large semiconductor 

facilities and stated that excessive 

monitoring and reporting were required. 

For example, commenters asserted that 

they do not currently collect the data 

required to report using an IPCC Tier 3 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
18656 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

3For purposes of electronics manufacturing, we 

are using the term ‘‘gas utilization’’ to describe the 

fraction of input N2O or fluorinated GHG converted 

to other substances during the etching, deposition, 

and/or chamber/wafer cleaning processes. Gas 

utilization is expressed as a rate or factor for 

specific manufacturing processes. ‘‘Utilization’’ 

should not be confused with ‘‘use;’’ ‘‘use’’ refers to 

gas consumption or the quantity of gas fed into 

process at an electronics manufacturing facility. 

4For purposes of electronics manufacturing, ‘‘byproduct formation’’ is the quantity of fluorinated 

GHGs created during electronics manufacturing 

processes. Fluorinated GHG by-products may also 

be formed by abatement devices. 

approach, and that to collect such data 

would entail significant burden and 

capital costs. In most cases, commenters 

provided alternative approaches to each 

of the reporting requirements. 

We have carefully reviewed the 

comments, issues, and suggestions 

raised by stakeholders regarding 

electronics manufacturing. In response, 

we are revising our initial proposal and 

are proposing the following reporting 

provisions for electronics manufacture: 

(1) A single emissions-based reporting 

threshold for all semiconductor, LCD, 

MEMS, and PV facilities; (2) modified 

methods for estimating emissions from 

cleaning and etching activities for 

semiconductor facilities and other 

electronics facilities including those 

that manufacture LCDs, MEMS, and 

PVs; (3) modified methods for 

estimating facility N2O emissions; (4) 

clarified methods for estimating 

emissions from heat transfer fluids; and 

(5) revised methods for reporting 

controlled emissions from abatement 

systems. 

In the paragraphs below, we 

summarize the main provisions 

included in the initial proposal for 

reporting emissions from electronics 

manufacturing and we briefly 

summarize the major changes that are 

being proposed today. For more detailed 

information on the initial proposal, see 

the electronics manufacturing section of 

EPA’s proposed MRR (74 FR 16448, 

April 10, 2009). 

Reporting Threshold. In the initial 

proposal, we proposed a capacity-based 

threshold, requiring those facilities with 

emissions equal to or greater than the 

thresholds to report their GHG 

emissions. We proposed production 

capacity-based thresholds of 1,080 m 2, 

1,020 m 2, and 236,000 m 2 of substrate 

for semiconductor, MEMS, and LCD 

manufacturing facilities, respectively. 

The capacity-based threshold proposed 

were equivalent to 25,000 mtCO2e using 

the IPCC 2006 Tier 1 default factors and 

assumed no abatement. Where IPCC 

2006 Tier 1 default emission factors 

were unavailable (i.e., MEMS), the 

emission factor was estimated based on 

relevant IPCC Tier 1 emission factors for 

semiconductor production. Due to a 

lack of information on use and 

emissions of fluorinated GHGs for PV 

manufacture, we proposed an 

emissions-based threshold of 25,000 

mtCO2e for those facilities. We proposed 

to use a capacity-based threshold based 

on the published capacities of facilities, 

as opposed to an emissions-based 

threshold, where possible, because we 

believed that it simplified the 

applicability determination. 

Several commenters stated that the 

proposed capacity-based threshold 

created ambiguity. For example, one 

commenter noted that it was unclear 

how production capacity was defined as 

actual manufacturing levels could 

fluctuate year by year. In response to 

these comments, we are now proposing 

a single emissions-based threshold 

equal to or greater than 25,000 metric 

tons of CO2e per year for electronics 

manufacturing facilities. We have 

concluded that a single emissions-based 

threshold will simplify the applicability 

determination and that by applying the 

method for determining whether the 

threshold is met, a facility will be able 

to quickly determine whether they must 

report under this rule. 

Estimating Emissions from Cleaning 

and Etching Processes. With respect to 

estimating emissions from chamber 

cleaning and etching, in our initial 

proposal, we outlined two different 

methods; one method for relatively large 

semiconductor facilities, and another 

method for all other semiconductor 

facilities and LCD, MEMS, and PV 

facilities required to report. We defined 

large semiconductor facilities as those 

facilities with annual capacities of 

greater than 10,500 m2 silicon 

(equivalent to 29 out of 175 total 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities). 

For large semiconductor facilities we 

proposed an approach based on the 

IPCC Tier 3 method that required the 

use of company-specific data for (1) gas 

consumption, (2) gas utilization,3 (3) byproduct formation 4, and (4) DRE for all 

emissions abatement processes at the 

facility. As we stated in the initial 

proposal, we had concluded that large 

semiconductor facilities were already 

using Tier 3 methods and/or had the 

necessary data readily available either 

in-house or from suppliers to apply the 

highest Tier method. For smaller 

semiconductor facilities and LCD, 

MEMS, and PV facilities, we proposed 

an approach based on the IPCC Tier 2b 

method, which required using default 

emission factors for process utilization, 

by-product formation, and site-specific 

DRE measurements. 

Comments received in response to our 

initial proposal stated that the 2006 

IPCC Tier 3 method would be overly 

burdensome for semiconductor 

manufacturers and that process-specific 

emission factors do not exist for many 

tools and processes. The commenters 

noted that most semiconductor facilities 

do not track gas consumption by tool or 

process-type and that currently, only 

one large semiconductor company uses 

the Tier 3 method. Generally, 

commenters requested the use of the 

2006 IPCC Tier 2b method. 

In response to these comments, we are 

now proposing the use of a ‘‘Refined 

Method’’ for estimating these emissions 

from semiconductor facilities. Our 

revised methodology includes a simpler 

approach to estimating emissions from 

cleaning and etching as compared to the 

Tier 3 method that was initially 

proposed for larger semiconductor 

facilities. To this end, we estimate that 

our proposed methodology will result in 

a reduction in burden compared to the 

Tier 3 method for those facilities 

previously defined as large 

semiconductor facilities, and an 

improvement in accuracy of the 

emissions estimate as compared to the 

2006 IPCC Tier 2b method. 

Furthermore, since we anticipate that all 

semiconductor facilities already have, or 

have ready access to, the information 

required by this proposed methodology, 

we are also proposing to require all 

semiconductor facilities required to 

report to estimate emissions using the 

Refined Method. We have concluded 

the method we are proposing is the most 

appropriate method taking into account 

both the cost to the reporter as well as 

accuracy of emissions achieved. 

For LCD, MEMS, and PV facilities, in 

this action we are proposing to require 

an approach based on a slightly 

modified 2006 IPCC Tier 2b method 

which would include (1) gas-and 

facility-specific heel factors (consistent 

with the requirements we are proposing 

for semiconductor facilities), (2) gas 

consumption apportioned to 2006 IPCC 

Tier 2b process categories (i.e. clean and 

etch), (3) default factors consistent with 

the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b factors, and (4) 

methods for reporting controlled 

emissions from abatement systems (as 

proposed below). The main difference 

between the method proposed in this 

revised proposal and in the initial 

proposal is the addition of a gas-and 

facility-specific heel factor to determine 

overall gas consumption. We did not 

receive any comments on the Tier 2b 

method that we proposed for LCD, 

MEMS, and PV facilities in our initial 

proposal. We are proposing to add the 

requirement of gas-and-facility specific 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18657 

5The 40% utilization rate (60% emission factor) 

was identified based on a survey of industry 

conducted by ISMI and provided in comments in 

response to the initial proposal. 

heel factors based on comments 

received from semiconductor facilities 

in response to the initial proposal. It is 

our understanding that LCD, MEMS, 

and PV facilities have the data required 

to develop a gas-and-facility specific 

heel factors and that it can be 

implemented with minimal burden. 

Estimating Facility N2O Emissions. In 

our initial proposal, our approach 

required that facilities estimate annual 

N2O emissions using a simple massbalance method. This method assumed 

that all N2O consumed is emitted (i.e., 

not converted or destroyed). We also 

requested comment on utilization 

factors for N2O as well as on data on 

N2O by-product formation. 

In response to our initial proposal, we 

received comments that clarified that 

N2O is used primarily in the chemical 

vapor deposition process. Commenters 

opposed our proposed method for 

estimating N2O emissions, which 

assumed 100 percent N2O used is 

emitted, and asserted that 

semiconductor facilities should be 

permitted to use measured N2O 

emission factors where these factors 

were measured using methods 

consistent with the December 2006 

International SEMATECH 

Manufacturing Initiative’s Guideline for 

Environmental Characterization of 

Semiconductor Process Equipment 

(2006 ISMI Guidelines). Commenters 

also noted that facilities that have not 

developed N2O emission factors should 

be allowed to use a default emission 

factor of 60 percent, reflecting N2O 

utilization of 40 percent.5 Lastly, 

commenters asserted that those 

companies that have a measured DRE 

for N2O abatement be allowed to apply 

these DREs in the emission estimates. 

We are now proposing two methods 

for estimating N2O emissions from 

electronics manufacturing: one for 

estimating N2O emissions from 

chemical vapor deposition and another 

for estimating N2O emissions from all 

other manufacturing processes such as 

chamber cleaning. 

Reporting Controlled Emissions From 

Abatement Systems. The emissions 

estimation method originally proposed 

accounted for destruction by abatement 

systems only if facilities verified the 

performance of their systems using one 

of two methods. In particular, we 

proposed to require that the DRE be 

verified by either (1) measurement by 

the facility using the methods described 

in EPA’s Protocol for Measuring 

Destruction or Removal Efficiency of 

Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Abatement 

Equipment in Electronics 

Manufacturing (EPA’s DRE Protocol), or 

(2) purchase by the facility of abatement 

systems that were tested by a third party 

using a standard protocol such as EPA’s 

DRE Protocol. 

We also proposed to require that 

facilities use the systems within the 

manufacturer’s specified system 

lifetime, operate the system within the 

manufacturer specific limits for the gas 

mix and exhaust flow rate intended for 

the fluorinated GHG destruction, and 

maintain the equipment according to 

the manufacturer’s guidelines. 

In response to the initial proposal, 

commenters were generally opposed to 

EPA’s initial approach for measuring 

DRE, noting that according to the 

Results of the ISMI ESH Technology 

Center Greenhouse Gas Facility Survey, 

less than one percent of installed 

abatement systems have been properly 

tested using the draft EPA Protocol and 

that generally, facilities use the IPCC 

default factors or manufacturer-supplied 

measurements. In addition, commenters 

were also opposed to EPA’s proposed 

requirement that facilities rely on 

manufacturer-specified system lifetime 

as properly maintained and serviced 

abatement systems can last beyond the 

manufactures’ specified lifetime. For 

purposes of this reporting rule, we are 

now proposing that facilities that wish 

to document and report fluorinated 

GHG and N2O emissions reflecting the 

use of abatement systems adhere to a 

method that would require (1) 

documentation to certify that the 

abatement device is installed, operated, 

and maintained according to 

manufacturers’ specifications, (2) 

accounting for the system’s uptime, and 

(3) either certification that the 

abatement system is specifically 

designed for fluorinated GHG and N2O 

abatement and the use of EPA default 

DRE value, or directly and properly 

measured DRE (i.e., in accordance with 

EPA DRE Protocol) confirming 

abatement system’s performance. 

Estimating Emissions from Heat 

Transfer Fluids. To estimate the 

emissions from heat transfer fluids we 

proposed to require that electronics 

manufacturers use the 2006 IPCC Tier 2 

approach, which is based on a massbalance method. As we stated in the 

initial proposal, the 2006 IPCC Tier 2 

approach uses company-specific data 

and accounts for differences among 

facilities’ heat transfer fluids, leak rates, 

and service practices. 

In comments we received on our 

initial proposal, it was noted that our 

proposed method for estimating 

emissions from heat transfer fluids 

would require companies to compile a 

detailed inventory of all fluorinated heat 

transfer equipment and its nameplate 

capacity. Comments stated that such a 

mass balance approach would be overly 

burdensome. 

In evaluating these comments, we 

believe that there was some confusion 

regarding our intended method. As a 

result, we are not changing the broad 

outlines of our initial proposal, but we 

are clarifying required data elements. 

3. Definition of the Source Category 

The electronics industry uses 

multiple long-lived fluorinated GHGs 

such as PFCs, HFCs, SF6, and NF3, as 

well as N2O, during manufacturing of 

semiconductors, LCDs, MEMS, and PV. 

We understand that there are other 

electronics manufacturers such as those 

facilities that manufacture light-emitting 

diodes (LEDs) and disk readers that use 

fluorinated GHGs in similar 

manufacturing processes as 

semiconductors. As a result, we are 

seeking information on fluorinated GHG 

and N2O emissions associated with the 

manufacture of these products and also 

comment on whether to include them as 

part of the electronics manufacturing 

source category. It is our intent to 

include these other sources as part of 

the electronics manufacturing source 

category in the final rule where their 

emissions meet or exceed our proposed 

threshold of 25,000 mtCO2e. 

Fluorinated GHGs are used for plasma 

etching of silicon materials, cleaning 

deposition tool chambers, and wafer 

cleaning. N2O is also used in depositing 

certain films and chamber cleaning. 

Additionally, electronics manufacturing 

employs fluorinated GHGs (typically 

liquids at ambient temperature) as heat 

transfer fluids. The most common 

fluorinated GHGs in use for these 

purposes are CHF3 (HFC–23), CF4, C2F6, 

NF3, SF6 and FluorinertTM and Galden® 

heat transfer fluids; other compounds 

such as perfluoropropane (C3F8) and 

perfluorocyclobutane (c-C4F8) are also 

used in smaller quantities (EPA, 2008a). 

Table 3 of this preamble presents 

fluorinated GHGs typically used during 

manufacture of electronics devices. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
18658 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

6Electronics Manufacturing TSD (EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2009–0927); 2006 IPCC Guidelines. 

TABLE 3—EXAMPLES OF FLUORINATED GHGS USED BY THE ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY

Product type Fluorinated GHGs used during manufacture 

Electronics (e.g., Semiconductor, MEMS, LCD, PV) ............... CF4, C2F6, C3F8, c-C4F8, c-C4F8O, C4F6, C5F8, CHF3, CH2F2, NF3, SF6, and Heat 

Transfer Fluids (CF3–(O–CF(CF3)–CF2)n-(O–CF2)m-O–CF3, CnF2n+2, 

CnF2n+1(O)CmF2m+1, CnF2nO, (CnF2n+1)3N) a

a IPCC Guidelines do not specify the fluorinated GHGs used for MEMS production. Literature reviews revealed that among others CF4, SF6, 

and the Bosch process (consisting of alternating steps of SF6 and c-C4F8) are used to manufacture MEMS. For further information, see the Electronics Manufacturing TSD in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0927). 

Description of Electronics 

Manufacturing Processes and Activities. 

Fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions 

result from the following electronics 

processes and activities: 

(1) Plasma etching; 

(2) Chemical vapor deposition; 

(3) Chamber cleaning; 

(4) Wafer cleaning; and 

(5) Heat transfer fluid use. 

Plasma etching, essential to 

fabricating intricate, nanometer size 

features in contemporary electronic 

devices, is the removal of solid material 

from a substrate surface with gaseous 

reactants, in plasma, to produce gaseous 

products, which are then pumped away 

and disposed. Unless abated, unreacted 

fluorinated reactants or fluorinated GHG 

by-products from etching are emitted 

into the atmosphere. 

Typical fluorinated GHG etching 

reagents, used either individually or in 

combination, are CF4, CHF3, C2F6 and 

c–C4F8 for silicon dioxide and nitride 

films; CF4, NF3 and SF6 for polysilicon 

films; and CHF3 for aluminum and SF6

for tungsten films. A typical fluorinated 

GHG by-product from etching processes 

is CF4; in some instances C2F6 may also 

be formed. 

Deposition is a fundamental step in 

the fabrication of a variety of electronic 

devices. During deposition, layers of 

dielectric, barrier, or electrically 

conductive films are deposited or grown 

on a wafer or other substrate. Chemical 

vapor deposition enables the deposition 

of dielectric or metal films. During the 

chemical vapor deposition process, 

gases that contain atoms of the material 

to be deposited react on the wafer 

surface to form a thin film of solid 

material. Films deposited by chemical 

vapor deposition may be silicon oxide, 

single-layer crystal epitaxial silicon, 

amorphous silicon, silicon nitride, 

dielectric anti-reflective coatings, low k 

dielectric, aluminum, titanium, titanium 

nitride, polysilicon, tungsten, refractory 

metals or silicides. Nitrous oxide may 

be the oxidizer of choice during 

deposition of silicon oxide films. 

Chambers used for depositing 

polysilicon, dielectric and metal films 

are cleaned periodically using 

fluorinated GHGs, N2O, and other gases. 

During the cleaning cycle, the gas is 

converted to fluorine atoms in plasma, 

which etches away residual siliconcontaining material from chamber walls, 

electrodes, and chamber hardware. 

Undissociated fluorinated gases and 

other fluorinated and non-fluorinated 

products pass from the chamber to 

waste streams and, unless emissions 

control systems are employed, into the 

atmosphere. 

Typical fluorinated GHGs used for 

chamber cleaning are NF3, C2F6 and 

C3F8. N2O may also be used to reduce 

particle formation during chamber 

cleaning. As with etching films, 

fluorinated GHG by-products may be 

formed during chamber cleaning, 

typically CF4. 

During wafer processing, any residual 

photoresist material can be removed 

through an ashing process, which 

consists of placing partially processed 

wafers in an oxygen plasma to which 

CF4 may be added. The edges of wafers 

(the bevel) may require additional 

cleaning to remove yield-reducing 

residual material. Bevel cleaning may 

also use a plasma process with 

fluorinated gas chemistry. In both of 

these wafer cleaning processes, unused 

fluorinated GHGs are emitted unless 

abated. 

Fluorinated GHG liquids (at ambient 

temperature) such as fully fluorinated 

linear, branched or cyclic alkanes, 

ethers, tertiary amines and aminoethers, 

and mixtures thereof are used as heat 

transfer fluids at several semiconductor 

facilities to cool process equipment, 

control temperature during device 

testing, and solder semiconductor 

devices to circuit boards. The 

fluorinated heat transfer fluid’s high 

vapor pressures can lead to evaporative 

losses during use.6

Our understanding is that heat 

transfer fluids are widely used within 

semiconductor manufacturing. We are 

seeking comment on the extent of use 

and annual replacement quantities of 

heat transfer fluids in other electronics 

sectors, such as their use for cooling or 

cleaning during LCD manufacture. 

Total U.S. Emissions From Electronics 

Manufacturing. Emissions of fluorinated 

GHGs from 216 electronics facilities 

were estimated to be 6.1 million metric 

tons CO2e in 2006. Below is a 

breakdown of emissions by electronics 

product type. 

Semiconductors. Emissions of 

fluorinated GHGs, including heat 

transfer fluids, from 175 semiconductor 

facilities were estimated to be 5.9 

million metric tons CO2e in 2006. Of the 

total estimated semiconductor 

emissions, 5.4 million metric tons CO2e 

are from etching/chamber cleaning and 

0.5 million metric tons CO2e are from 

heat transfer fluid usage. 

MEMS. Emissions of fluorinated 

GHGs from 12 MEMS facilities were 

estimated to be 0.1 million metric tons 

CO2e in 2006. 

LCDs. Emissions of fluorinated GHGs 

from 9 LCD facilities were estimated to 

be 0.02 million metric tons CO2e in 

2006. 

PV. Emissions of fluorinated GHGs 

from 20 PV facilities were estimated to 

be 0.07 million metric tons CO2e in 

2006. We request comment on the 

number and capacity of PV facilities 

that employ thin film technologies (i.e., 

amorphous silicon) and other PV 

manufacturing facilities in the United 

States using fluorinated GHGs. 

For additional background 

information on the electronics industry, 

refer to the Electronics Manufacturing 

Technical Support Document (TSD) in 

the docket for this rulemaking (EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2009–0927). 

4. Threshold for Reporting 

For facilities that manufacture 

semiconductors, LCD, MEMS, and PV, 

we are proposing an emissions-based 

threshold of 25,000 mtCO2e. Consistent 

with other sections of the Final MRR, 

EPA is proposing that for the purposes 

of determining whether a facility emits 

amounts equal to or greater than 25,000 

mtCO2e, a facility must include 

emissions from all source categories for 

which methods are provided in the rule. 

For purposes of the threshold 

determination under subpart I, we are 

proposing two different methods, 

depending on whether the facility 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18659 

7For a more detailed explanation of MEMS 

default factor, please refer to the Electronics 

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

8For a more detailed explanation of MEMS 

default emission factor, please refer to the 

Electronics Manufacturing TSD (EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0927). 

manufacturers semiconductors, MEMS, 

LCDs or PVs (see proposed section 

98.91). It is important to note that these 

methods are only for determining 

whether a facility exceeds the threshold; 

the proposed methods required for 

monitoring and reporting emissions data 

are presented in section 5 below. 

To determine whether a manufacturer 

falls above or below the proposed 

25,000 mtCO2e threshold, we are 

proposing that semiconductor, MEMS, 

and LCD facilities use gas specific 

emission factors assuming 100 percent 

manufacturing capacity to calculate 

annual metric tons of emissions in CO2

equivalents. Because we understand 

that heat transfer fluids are widely used 

within semiconductor manufacturing, 

we are proposing that semiconductor 

manufacturers add 10 percent of total 

clean and etch emissions at a facility to 

their estimate. For applicability 

purposes, we propose that 

manufacturing capacity means the 

facility’s full planned design capacity. 

The gas specific emission factors we 

are proposing to use for threshold 

applicability for semiconductors and 

LCD facilities are consistent with the 

2006 IPCC Tier 1 emission factors. For 

MEMS, because there are no IPCC 

factors available, we are assuming that 

SF6 accounts for 100 percent of the 

sector’s total emissions. The emission 

factor we are proposing for threshold 

applicability is based on the assumption 

that the MEMS SF6 emission factor is 

equivalent to the IPCC Tier 1 SF6

emission factor for semiconductors, 

scaled up by a factor of 5.7

We are proposing that PV facilities 

multiply annual fluorinated GHG 

purchases or consumption by the gasappropriate 100-year GWPs, as defined 

in Table A–1 of subpart A of part 98, to 

calculate annual metric tons of 

emissions in CO2 equivalents. None of 

these calculations would account for 

emission abatement systems. 

We are proposing to require an 

emissions estimating method that does 

not account for destruction by 

abatement systems because actual 

emissions from facilities employing 

abatement systems may exceed 

estimates when based on the 

manufacturers’ rated DREs of the 

equipment and may therefore exceed 

the 25,000 mtCO2e threshold without 

the knowledge of the facility operators. 

When abatement equipment is used, 

electronics manufacturers often estimate 

their emissions using the manufacturersupplied DRE for the system. However, 

an abatement system may fail to achieve 

its rated DRE either because it was not 

installed properly, is not being properly 

operated and maintained, or because the 

DRE value itself was incorrectly 

measured due to a failure to properly 

account for the effects of dilution. For 

example, reported DREs for CF4 can be 

overstated by as much as a factor of 20 

to 50, and the corresponding figure for 

C2F6 can be overstated by a factor of up 

to 10 because of failure to properly 

account for dilution (Burton, 2007). 

In our analysis of the emissions 

thresholds, we considered thresholds of 

1,000 mtCO2e, 10,000 mtCO2e, 25,000 

mtCO2e, and 100,000 mtCO2e per year. 

To estimate the number of 

semiconductor facilities that would 

have to report under each of the various 

thresholds, we estimated emissions for 

each facility in the U.S. by using IPCC 

Tier 1 emission factors. These emissions 

estimates were then evaluated to 

determine how many facilities would 

meet the various thresholds. To estimate 

the collective emissions from the 

facilities that would have to report 

under the various thresholds, we used 

information from EPA’s PFC Reduction/ 

Climate Partnership for Semiconductors 

and the EPA PFC Emissions Vintaging 

Model. 

To estimate the number of LCD and 

PV facilities that would have to report 

under the various thresholds, as well as 

the collective emissions from these 

facilities, we used IPCC Tier 1 emission 

factors. Because IPCC emission factors 

for MEMS are not available, the number 

of facilities that would have to report 

and the collective emissions from these 

facilities were determined using an 

emission factor based on a relevant IPCC 

Tier 1 emission factor for semiconductor 

production.8 All of our analyses 

assumed no abatement. 

Table 4 of this preamble shows 

emissions and facilities that would be 

captured by the respective emissions 

thresholds. 

TABLE 4—THRESHOLD ANALYSIS FOR ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY

Emission threshold level metric tons CO2e/yr 

Total 

national 

emissions 

Total number 

of facilities 

Emissions covered Facilities covered 

metric tons 

CO2e/yr Percent Facilities Percent 

1,000 .................................................................................... 5,984,463 216 5,962,091 99.6 165 76 

10,000 .................................................................................. 5,984,463 216 5,813,200 97 114 53 

25,000 .................................................................................. 5,984,463 216 5,622,570 94 94 44 

100,000 ................................................................................ 5,984,463 216 4,737,622 79 55 26 

We selected the 25,000 mtCO2e per 

year threshold because it maximizes 

emissions reporting, while excluding 

small facilities that do not contribute 

significantly to the overall GHG 

emissions. 

Table 5 of this preamble shows the 

estimated emissions and number of 

facilities that would report for each type 

of source under the proposed emissionsbased thresholds. 

TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF RULE APPLICABILITY UNDER THE PROPOSED THRESHOLDS

Emissions source Threshold Total national 

facilities 

Total emissions of 

source 

(metric tons 

CO2e) 

Emissions covered Facilities covered 

metric tons 

CO2e/yr Percent Facilities Percent 

Semi-conductors ................. 25,000 Mt CO2 Eq. ............. 175 5,741,676 5,492,066 96 91 52 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
18660 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

9For purposes of electronic manufacturing, 

‘‘process category’’ is a set of similar manufacturing 

steps, performed for the same purpose, associated 

with substrate (e.g., wafer) processing during device 

manufacture for which fluorinated GHG and N2O 

emissions and fluorinated GHG and N2O usages are 

calculated and reported. 

10Pursuant to subpart A of the Final MRR, ‘‘heel’’ 

means the amount of gas that remains in a shipping 

container after it is discharged or off-loaded (that is 

no more than ten percent of the volume of the 

container). 

TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF RULE APPLICABILITY UNDER THE PROPOSED THRESHOLDS—Continued 

Emissions source Threshold Total national 

facilities 

Total emissions of 

source 

(metric tons 

CO2e) 

Emissions covered Facilities covered 

metric tons 

CO2e/yr Percent Facilities Percent 

MEMS ................................. 25,000 Mt CO2 Eq. ............. 12 146,115 96,164 66 2 17 

LCD ..................................... 25,000 Mt CO2 Eq. ............. 9 23,632 0 0 0 0 

PV ....................................... 25,000 Mt CO2 Eq. ............. 20 73,039 34,340 47 1 5 

The proposed emissions-based 

thresholds are estimated to include 

approximately 50 percent of 

semiconductor facilities and between 

approximately 5 percent and 17 percent 

of the facilities manufacturing PV and 

MEMS, respectively. At the same time, 

the thresholds are expected to cover 

nearly 96 percent of fluorinated GHG 

emissions from semiconductor facilities, 

66 percent of fluorinated GHG 

emissions from facilities manufacturing 

MEMS, and 47 percent of fluorinated 

GHG emissions from facilities 

manufacturing PV. Combined, these 

emissions are estimated to account for 

close to 94 percent of fluorinated GHG 

emissions from the electronics industry 

as a whole. 

Based on our current analysis, 

facilities manufacturing LCDs are not 

expected to meet the proposed 

threshold. In addition, only 2 MEMS 

facilities and 1 PV facility are expected 

to be covered. The data and information 

that we currently have on MEMS, LCD, 

and PV manufacturing, however, is 

limited and incomplete. We are 

including these sectors because they 

have similar fluorinated GHG and N2O 

use and manufacturing processes as 

those of semiconductor manufacturing 

and they are high growth sectors. We 

estimate that emissions from MEMS, 

LCD, and PV may be higher than our 

data show currently and we expect them 

to increase in the future. 

For additional background 

information on the threshold analysis, 

refer to the Electronics Manufacturing 

TSD. For specific information on costs, 

including unamortized first year capital 

expenditures, please refer to the EIA 

and the EIA cost appendix. 

5. Selection of Proposed Monitoring 

Methods 

We are proposing methods to monitor 

and estimate fluorinated GHG and N2O 

emissions from semiconductor, LCD, 

MEMS, and PV manufacture. The 

proposed methods discussed below 

include the following: (a) Estimating 

emissions from cleaning and etching 

processes; (b) estimating facility N2O 

emissions; (c) estimating emissions from 

heat transfer fluids; and (d) reporting 

controlled emissions from abatement 

equipment. The methods described and 

proposed in this section are for 

estimating emissions that would be 

required to be reported under this 

subpart (see proposed sections 98.93 

and 98.94). It is important to note that 

these methods differ from those 

proposed in the section above which are 

for determining applicability of the 

subpart. 

a. Methods for Estimating Emissions 

From Cleaning and Etching Processes 

We are proposing different methods 

for estimating fluorinated GHG 

emissions from etching and cleaning 

based on whether the facility is a 

semiconductor manufacturer or an LCD, 

MEMS, or PV manufacturer. 

Method for Semiconductor Facilities. 

Under this proposal, all semiconductor 

manufacturers that have emissions 

equal to or greater than 25,000 mtCO2e 

would be required to estimate and 

report emissions from etching and 

cleaning using one of two approaches. 

First, we are proposing an approach, 

hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Refined 

Method,’’ that is based on: 

(1) Gas consumption as calculated 

using the facility’s purchase records, 

inventory, and gas- and facility-specific 

heel factors, 

(2) Facility-specific methods for 

apportioning gas consumption by 

process category 9 using indicators of 

GHG-using activity (e.g., wafer passes), 

(3) Emission factors for utilization and 

by-product formation rates based on 

refined process categories (e.g., 

categories with more specificity than the 

simpler cleaning and etching categories 

listed in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines), and 

(4) Methods for reporting controlled 

emissions (as proposed below). 

Alternatively, we are proposing to 

permit those facilities that have 

monitoring infrastructure or the 

necessary data to estimate emissions 

obtained through recipe-specific 

measurements to report their emissions 

using their data by following an 

approach consistent with the 2006 IPCC 

Tier 3 method. In addition, for those 

semiconductor manufacturers that 

fabricate electronic devices on wafers of 

measuring greater than 300 mm in 

diameter, we are proposing to require 

that they estimate and report their 

emissions using recipe-specific 

measurements and follow an approach 

consistent with the IPCC Tier 3 method. 

Each of these approaches is discussed 

below. 

Refined Method. 

The Refined Method would apply to 

all covered semiconductor facilities and 

would not make a distinction between 

relatively large and other facilities. In 

the paragraphs below, we discuss in 

detail each one of the components we 

are proposing to require under this 

approach. 

Gas consumption as calculated using 

the facility’s purchase records, 

inventory, and gas- and facility-specific 

heel factors. Notwithstanding the 

definition of ‘‘heel’’ in subpart A of this 

rule,10 we are proposing that for 

purposes of electronics manufacturing 

that a heel means, ‘‘the amount of gas 

that remains in a gas cylinder or 

container after it is discharged or offloaded (this may vary by cylinder or 

container type and facility).’’ We are not 

planning to use the subpart A definition 

because it contains a default value of 10 

percent. In this action, we are proposing 

to require facilities to calculate gas- and 

facility-specific heel factors rather than 

using a default value. 

As part of determining each facility’s 

overall usage of each gas for a reporting 

period, we are proposing that a facility 

use their purchase records, inventory, 

and gas- and facility-specific heel 

factors. More specifically, for each 

cylinder/container type for each gas 

used, we are proposing that 

semiconductor facilities be required to 

base their heel factors on the residual 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18661 

weight or pressure of the gas cylinder or 

container that a facility uses to change 

out that cylinder/container. This is 

common practice in the industry and is 

typically referred to as the ‘‘trigger point 

for change out.’’ These points, one for 

each gas and cylinder/container type, 

together with the initial container mass 

or pressure, are used to calculate the 

unused gas for each container, which 

when expressed as a fraction of the 

initial amount in the container is the 

‘‘heel’’ (or unused fraction of the 

container). This gas- and facilityspecific heel factor would then be 

applied to each container for that gas to 

determine the net amount of that gas 

used at a facility. In cases where the 

‘‘trigger point for change out’’ used at a 

facility differs by more than one 

percentage point from that used to 

calculate the previous gas-specific heel 

factor, we propose that the gas- and 

facility-specific heel factor must be 

recalculated. 

Currently most semiconductor 

facilities rely upon the IPCC default heel 

factor of 10 percent and apply that value 

to each cylinder/container. Based on 

information provided in an industry 

study of facility-specific, gas-specific 

heel factors, the heel factor in a given 

facility for individual cylinders/ 

containers can vary from 3 percent to 25 

percent. Given this variation, we 

conclude that gas- and facility-specific 

heel factors would provide improved 

accuracy in emissions estimates over the 

use of the IPCC default heel factor. 

We understand that there are 

exceptional circumstances when 

facilities do not always change 

cylinders/containers exactly when they 

reach the targeted residual weight or 

pressure. In those instances, which we 

expect are infrequent, we are proposing 

that the cylinder/container must be 

weighed or the pressure measured using 

a pressure gauge; as opposed to using 

the facility-wide gas-specific heel factor 

as part of determining the net amount of 

gas used at a facility. We are proposing 

to define an exceptional circumstance as 

one which the cylinder/container is 

changed at a residual mass or pressure 

that differs by more than 20 percent 

from the ‘‘trigger point for change out.’’ 

We request comment on the frequency 

of these exceptional circumstances and 

also the percentage difference (i.e. 20 

percent) for which we are proposing to 

require that the exceptional cylinder/ 

container be weighed or the pressure 

measured. 

When taking an annual inventory, we 

understand that multiple cylinders/ 

containers are in service. We request 

comment on the significance of 

accounting for the quantity of 

fluorinated GHGs or N2O remaining in 

cylinders/containers in service at the 

end of the reporting period. We also 

request comment and detailed 

information on other methods and 

technologies (i.e. other than purchase 

records) that facilities may be using for 

determining annual gas consumption 

(e.g., recorded data from an automated 

gas inventory system). 

We are proposing that all flowmeters, 

weigh scales, pressure gauges, and 

thermometers used to measure 

quantities that are monitored or used in 

calculations in this proposal have an 

accuracy and precision of 1 percent of 

full scale or better. We request comment 

on this requirement including 

alternative accuracy and precision 

requirements and detailed information 

about why particular instruments can 

not meet the proposed 1 percent 

standard. 

Apportioning gas consumption to 

process categories. Estimating facility 

emissions requires apportioning annual 

facility-wide gas consumption across a 

facility’s emitting process categories by 

way of applying facility-specific 

apportioning factors. A facility’s 

uncontrolled emissions are the product 

of that apportioned gas consumption 

and the corresponding emission factor. 

To determine the share of each gas used 

by each process category, we are 

proposing to require that semiconductor 

facilities use a quantifiable indicator (or 

metric) of gas usage activity. More 

specifically, we are proposing facilities 

track wafer passes as an indicator of 

activity with which to apportion the 

facility’s gas consumption. Wafer passes 

is a count of the number of times a 

silicon wafer is processed for a specific 

process category. The total number of 

wafer passes over a reporting year is the 

number of wafer passes per tool times 

the number of operational process tools 

during the reporting year. 

To illustrate a case where wafer 

passes is used as a facility-specific 

engineering model, consider a facility 

that uses NF3 for chamber cleaning with 

remote plasma systems and for etching 

polysilicon and oxide films. With 

knowledge of the NF3-specfic heel and 

the number of NF3 containers used, the 

facility knows the amount of NF3

consumed. To estimate emissions, the 

facility must now apportion NF3 usage 

between the chamber cleaning and 

oxide and polysilicon etching processes. 

To do this it might use the total number 

of wafer passes through each and every 

NF3-cleaning system together with the 

time and nominal (not measured actual) 

gas flow rate for each and every NF3- 

cleaning system and the corresponding 

figures for oxide and polysilicon etch 

processes to arrive at the proportion of 

NF3 used for cleaning chambers and 

etching oxide and polysilicon films. 

Once developed, these apportioning 

factors would be used to estimate NF3

gas usage for the cleaning and etching 

process categories proposed in our 

method. This example is illustrated 

further in Table 6 of this preamble. 

TABLE 6—ILLUSTRATIVE CALCULATION FOR NF3 EXAMPLE AT ONE FACILITY

Gas type—annual usage, kg. Process category Apportioning 

factor 

Process category gas 

usage, kg. 

NF3—56,286 kg ............................................................... RPS Chamber Cleaning .................................................. 82% 46,202 

Polysilicon Etch ................................................................ 17% 9,561 

Oxide Etch ....................................................................... 1% 523 

Annual gas usage presented is the modeled usage not the nominal usage. 

We request comment on using wafer 

passes as an appropriate quantifiable 

indicator of activity, and on our 

description and example of how it 

would be used. 

We recognize that facilities may use 

other types of quantifiable indicators of 

gas-usage activity data to develop 

facility-specific engineering models to 

estimate gas consumption. We may 

include additional indicators as options 

in the final rule if they are quantifiable 

and if we receive adequate information 

regarding how they were developed and 

how they are used, including 

descriptions, examples, and any 

additional information that may be 

necessary to understand how such 

indicators of activity would be 

developed and used in a facility-specific 

engineering model to apportion annual 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
18662 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

11 In the case of mixtures of fluorinated GHGs, the 

‘‘dominant’’ fluorinated GHG constitutes the largest 

mass of gas used for that process. 

facility-wide gas usage across a facility’s 

emitting process categories. The use of 

engineering judgment, for example, is 

not based on a quantitative metric and 

would not be considered an acceptable 

quantifiable indicator of gas usage. We 

also request comment on the use of a 

representative sampling method for 

tracking activity indicators such as 

wafer passes that may be used in the 

engineering model. 

In many cases, EPA anticipates that 

the development of apportioning factors 

will result in a facility-wide 

consumption estimates that are 

independent of the estimates calculated 

using purchase records, inventory, and 

facility-specific heel factors. In such 

cases, we propose that facilities report 

these consumption estimates. 

Emission factors for refined process 

categories. We are proposing that 

semiconductor facilities estimate their 

emissions using a specific set of process 

categories. Our proposed method would 

simplify the reporting requirements as 

compared to the 2006 IPCC Tier 3 

method by lowering the number of 

emitting process categories from up to 

455 per facility down to a fixed figure 

of approximately nine. Our goal in 

establishing the process categories is to 

account for most of the variability in 

emission factors across processes while 

limiting the total number of process 

categories whose gas usage must be 

tracked by semiconductor facilities. 

Under this approach, we are 

proposing to require reporting of 

fluorinated GHG emissions for the 

following nine emitting process 

categories: four subcategories for wafer 

patterning (etching), three subcategories 

for chamber cleaning, and two 

subcategories for wafer cleaning. The 

nine process categories we are 

proposing account for distinct and 

widely-used manufacturing activities 

during production of discrete, logic and 

memory devices. We anticipate that 

these nine categories effectively capture 

current and projected processes and the 

differences in emission factors across 

various semiconductor manufacturing 

technologies. 

Our proposed definitions of these 

nine emitting categories are: 

Wafer patterning subcategories: 

Oxide etch means any process using 

fluorinated GHG reagents to selectively 

remove SiO2, SiOx-based or fully 

organic-based thin-film material that has 

been deposited on a wafer during 

semiconductor device manufacturing. 

Nitride etch means any process using 

fluorinated GHG reagents to selectively 

remove SiN, SiON, Si3N4, SiC, SiCO, 

SiCN, etc. (represented by the general 

chemical formula, SiwOxNyXz where 

w,x,y and z are zero or integers and X 

can be some other element such as 

carbon) that has been deposited on a 

wafer during semiconductor 

manufacturing. 

Silicon etch also often called 

polysilicon etch means any process 

using fluorinated GHG reagents to 

selectively remove silicon during 

semiconductor manufacturing. 

Metal etch means any process using 

fluorinated GHG reagents associated 

with removing metal films (such as 

aluminum or tungsten) that have been 

deposited on a wafer during 

semiconductor manufacturing. 

Chamber cleaning subcategories: 

In situ plasma means cleaning thinfilm production chambers, after 

processing one or more wafers, with a 

fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent that is 

dissociated into its cleaning 

constituents by a plasma generated 

inside the chamber where the film was 

produced. 

Remote plasma system means 

cleaning thin-film production chambers, 

after processing one or more wafers, 

with a fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent 

dissociated by a remotely located (e.g., 

upstream) plasma source. 

In situ thermal means cleaning thinfilm production chambers, after 

processing one or more wafers, with a 

fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent that is 

thermally dissociated into its cleaning 

constituents inside the chamber where 

the thin-film (or thin films) was (were) 

produced. 

Wafer cleaning subcategories: 

Bevel cleaning means any process 

using fluorinated GHG reagents with 

plasma to clean the edges of wafers 

during semiconductor manufacture. 

Ashing means any process using 

fluorinated GHG reagents with plasma 

to remove photoresist materials during 

wafer manufacture. 

We request comment on the nine 

process categories we are proposing, 

their definitions as specified above, and 

whether they clearly define a specific 

process without ambiguity. In addition 

we request comment on whether the 

categories should be further refined to 

better capture the variability in emission 

rates among fluorinated GHG using 

manufacturing activities (e.g., whether 

any additional categories should be 

added or whether the proposed 

categories should be combined, and the 

definition of those categories). 

Under this approach of defining a 

specific set of process categories, we are 

also considering additional patterning 

and chamber cleaning subcategories. 

The alternative patterning subcategories, 

which may replace or complement the 

four thin-film based subcategories 

defined previously, are: contact etch, 

self-alignment contact etch, gate etch, 

deep trench etch, isolation trench etch, 

through silicon vias and regular vias. 

Each of these subcategories represents a 

specific feature achieved through 

etching (instead of subcategories based 

on the type of thin film etched). 

Alternative chamber cleaning 

categories may distinguish between the 

types of films being removed from the 

chamber during cleaning. These might 

include distinguishing between 

chambers coated with tungsten and 

silicon-based films, or distinguishing 

between thin-film deposition equipment 

manufacturers. We request comment on 

these additional process categories and 

whether or not we should include 

alternative process categories in 

addition to the nine process categories 

that we are proposing. We also request 

comment on other methods of 

categorizing processes and detailed 

information on those categories. 

We are proposing nine process 

categories differentiated by production 

technology generation (i.e., wafer size). 

For each of the proposed nine process 

categories, we are proposing to establish 

a default emission factor within a range 

of values presented in Tables I–6, I–7, 

I–8 of subpart I. Within each process 

category, factors account for (1) the mass 

fraction of the input gas that is utilized 

during (i.e., not emitted from) the 

process and (2) the mass of each 

fluorinated GHG by-product formed as a 

fraction of the mass of the dominant 

fluorinated GHG input gas used.11 EPA 

is proposing a range of values for each 

default emission factor because the 

Agency has not yet received sufficient 

data to select a specific value within 

each range. 

To develop the proposed ranges for 

each emission factor, EPA requested 

from semiconductor device 

manufacturers and equipment suppliers, 

information on utilization and byproduct formation rates and details on 

the associated measurement approach 

(e.g., measured in accordance with the 

2006 ISMI Guidelines). EPA evaluated 

the data received as well as the standard 

deviations provided in Table 6.9 from 

Chapter 3 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. 

For additional information on how the 

ranges were developed, please refer to 

the Electronics Manufacturing TSD 

(EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0927). 

In a final rule, EPA intends to publish 

default emission factors for gas 

utilization and by-product formation 

rates for each process category, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18663 

12For additional information on the 2006 IPCC 

factor development methodology, see Emission 

Factors for Semiconductor Manufacturing: Sources, 

Methods, and Results (February 2006) available in 

the docket (EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0927). 

13Note, in the creation of the IPCC factors, 

sufficient information was not available to weigh 

each general process type (i.e., etch and clean 

categories for the IPCC Tier 2b method). 

differentiating amongst 150 mm, 200 

mm and 300 mm wafer technology to 

the extent feasible. To this end, EPA 

requests additional utilization and byproduct formation rates and supporting 

information on how they were 

developed. More specifically, EPA 

requests emission factors and byproduct formation rates and information 

including but not limited to the specific 

measurement method used (e.g., 

measurement using the 2006 ISMI 

Guidelines), the date of measurement, 

achievement of fluorine mass balance, 

associated standard deviations of 

measured factors, the relevant emissions 

process types and categories (for the 

patterning/etching process type noting 

both film type and etched feature where 

applicable), substrate size (i.e., 150 mm, 

200 mm, or 300 mm), the number of 

wafers used in the measurement study, 

and the equipment manufacturer name 

and model number where not 

considered confidential. 

Using additional data received, EPA 

intends to develop default emission 

factors for each process category using 

a method of aggregation similar to the 

2006 IPCC factor development 

methodology.12 Where available 

emission factor data are very limited or 

produce highly uncertain average 

factors, EPA may develop emissions 

factors that are conservative and less 

likely to underestimate actual 

emissions. If additional data are 

received in a timely fashion, EPA may 

develop draft emission factors prior to 

issuance of the final rule and will 

determine an appropriate way to 

promptly and clearly inform the 

regulated community. We welcome 

comments on such draft emission 

factors, recognizing that depending on 

when the emission factors are made 

available, such comments could be 

submitted after the close of the formal 

comment period. We will make every 

effort to consider such comments, 

including late comments, to the extent 

practicable in the development of the 

final rule. 

In developing emission factors for the 

final rule, EPA is also considering 

developing weighted average emission 

factors, for each wafer technology, with 

the weights based on the market 

penetration rates of process recipes used 

in current device manufacturing 

practices.13 Such weighted emission 

factors, if possible, may better represent 

actual emissions from installed 

manufacturing equipment and operating 

processes. We request comment on 

using a weighting scheme and detailed 

information on how it would be 

developed and implemented. 

The uncertainties associated with the 

2006 IPCC Tier 2b method are 

associated with aggregating, for each 

gas, all usage into just two process 

categories (i.e., etching and chamber 

cleaning) and all wafer technologies 

(i.e., 150 mm, 200 mm, and 300 mm 

wafer sizes) into one, and giving equal 

weights to all process recipes. A method 

based on refined processes categories 

keeps those processes separate, which 

reflects actual device manufacturing 

practices and as a result, produces a 

more representative and accurate 

emissions estimate. 

As an alternative, we are also 

considering an approach where each 

facility would develop for themselves or 

acquire from process equipment 

manufacturers emission factors (i.e., gas 

utilization and by-product formation 

rates) for the nine process categories. 

Under this approach, we would require 

the gas utilization and by-product 

formation rates to be developed using 

the 2006 ISMI Guidelines. Facilities 

would be required to construct and 

apply averages for each process 

category. One advantage of this 

approach is that these facility-specific 

emission factors would be expected to 

be more representative of the particular 

processes at that facility than the default 

emission factors. On the other hand, we 

estimate the burden associated with 

each facility developing its own 

emission factors would be greater 

compared to using the factors published 

by EPA. We request comment on this 

approach. 

We recognize that given the dynamic 

manufacturing processes by the 

industry, updates to the process 

categories and emission factors may be 

necessary. We request comment on the 

frequency with which those should be 

updated. 

We estimate that our Refined Method 

will result in a reduction in burden for 

the large semiconductor facilities 

(annual capacities greater than 10,000 

m 2 silicon) and an increase in accuracy 

as compared to the IPCC Tier 2b 

method. We estimate the uncertainty 

from using a set of refined process 

categories to be roughly one-half the 

uncertainty of the Tier 2b method, 

assuming similar methods for 

apportioning gas usage for each method. 

For the Tier 2b method the fluorinated 

GHG consuming processes used during 

semiconductor production are collapsed 

into just two categories, resulting in 

considerable variability for each 

category. For the Refined Method there 

are nine fluorinated GHG-using 

categories, resulting in less variability, 

on average, per category. Please refer to 

the Electronics Manufacturing TSD for a 

more detailed discussion of our 

uncertainty analysis. 

For the relatively smaller 

semiconductor facilities (annual 

production of less than 10,500 m 2 of 

silicon) we estimate an increase in 

burden as compared to our initial 

proposal where we required the use of 

the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b method; however, 

we anticipate that these facilities have 

the necessary data available to comply. 

The increase in burden for estimating 

emissions using the Refined Method, as 

opposed to the IPCC Tier 2b method, 

can be attributed to the increased level 

of effort to distinguish between nine 

refined process categories in 

comparison to two broad clean and etch 

categories, respectively. 

Recipe-specific measurements. As an 

alternative to the Refined Method where 

EPA default factors would be used, we 

are also proposing to permit those 

facilities that have monitoring 

infrastructure or the necessary data to 

estimate emissions obtained through 

recipe-specific measurements to report 

their emissions using their data (see 

proposed sections in 98.93 98.94(d)). 

This approach, consistent with the 2006 

IPCC Tier 3 method, is based on (1) gas 

consumption as calculated using the 

facility’s purchase records, inventory, 

and gas-and facility-specific heel factors 

(as described above), (2) facility-specific 

methods for apportioning gas 

consumption by individual process 

using indicators of GHG-using activity, 

(3) recipe-specific gas utilization and 

by-product formation factors, and also 

(4) methods for reporting controlled 

emissions from abatement devices (as 

proposed below). Under this approach, 

gas utilization and by-product formation 

rates would be required to be developed 

using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines for all 

fluorinated GHG-using process types at 

that facility. 

According to information provided by 

one of the commenters in response to 

our initial proposal, only one company 

currently estimates their emissions 

using an approach consistent with the 

Tier 3 method. Nevertheless, if a facility 

is using a method that provides more 

accurate data, then we believe that they 

should be permitted to use such 

method. We request comment on the 

number of companies that are currently 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
18664 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

or expecting to in the near future, report 

their emissions using this method. 

We are also proposing to require 

semiconductor manufacturers that 

fabricate devices on wafers measuring 

larger than 300 mm in diameter to 

estimate their emissions based on an 

approach consistent with the IPCC Tier 

3 method and gas- and facility-specific 

heel factors for estimating and reporting 

GHG emissions. Under this approach, 

gas utilization and by-product formation 

rates would be required to be developed 

using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines for all 

fluorinated GHG using process types at 

that facility. We understand the 

industry’s conversion to 450 mm is 

expected to begin in 2011 or shortly 

thereafter. We are proposing this 

requirement because we estimate that 

this method that uses recipe-specific gas 

utilization and by-product formation 

factors results in the most accurate 

facility-specific emission estimate. By 

including this requirement for only the 

450 mm or larger wafers in this 

proposal, we anticipate a reduction in 

burden as compared to requiring 

existing large semiconductor facilities to 

estimate their emissions using an 

approach consistent with the IPCC Tier 

3 method for the smaller sized wafers as 

well (i.e. 300 mm and smaller). We 

anticipate a reduction in burden 

because emission factors (i.e. gas 

utilization and by-product formation 

rates) can be developed over a number 

of years as semiconductor 

manufacturers begin to transition to 450 

mm tools and develop the estimating 

and reporting infrastructure. The 

commissioning process for new tools is 

an ideal opportunity for emission factor 

development and/or verification. We 

request comment on requiring 

semiconductor manufacturers that 

fabricate electronic devices on wafers of 

diameter 450 mm or larger to estimate 

their emissions based on an approach 

consistent with the IPCC Tier 3 method. 

During the development of this 

proposal, the 2006 International 

SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative’s 

Guideline for Environmental 

Characterization of Semiconductor 

Process Equipment was revised and 

republished (December 2009). We 

request comment on requiring the use of 

the revised version of the ISMI 

Guidelines to measure emission factors 

as opposed to the 2006 version of the 

ISMI Guidelines, and also information 

on emission factors (including 

utilization by-product formation rates) 

measured using the revised ISMI 

Guidelines. 

Method for LCD, MEMS, and PV 

Facilities. In this action for LCD, MEMS, 

and PV facilities, we are proposing an 

approach based on a slightly modified 

2006 IPCC Tier 2b method which would 

include (1) gas consumption calculated 

using the facility’s purchase records, 

inventory, and gas- and facility-specific 

heel factors (as described above for 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities), 

(2) gas consumption apportioned to 

2006 IPCC Tier 2b broad process 

categories, clean and etch, (3) default 

emission factors consistent with the 

2006 IPCC Tier 2b factors, and (4) 

methods for reporting controlled 

emissions from abatement equipment 

(as proposed below). 

The method proposed to develop the 

gas- and facility-specific heel factors for 

LCD, MEMS, and PV facilities is the 

same as proposed for semiconductor 

facilities including the provisions for 

exceptional circumstances. Although we 

don’t have complete information on 

how LCD, MEMS, and PV facilities are 

currently estimating their emissions 

from manufacture and how they are 

currently accounting for heels, their gas 

use and manufacturing processes are 

similar to that of semiconductor 

manufacturing. As a result, we have 

concluded these facilities have the data 

required to develop a gas- and facilityspecific heel factors and this method 

can be implemented with minimal 

burden. Similar to the semiconductor 

manufacturing case, the use of a gasand facility-specific heel factor is 

expected to result in improved accuracy 

when compared to the IPCC’s 10 percent 

default factor. We request comment on 

our proposal to require LCD, MEMS, 

and PV facilities to use gas- and facilityspecific heel factors and our 

understanding that these facilities have 

the data to develop such a factor with 

minimal burden. 

Under this approach consistent with 

the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b method, we 

propose that LCD, MEMS, and PV 

manufacturing facilities use the 

calculated mass of gas consumed and 

apportion this amount to the simplified 

process categories (i.e. etch and 

chemical vapor deposition chamber 

cleaning.) The associated emission 

factors including utilization and byproduct formation rates, would then be 

used to calculate uncontrolled 

fluorinated GHG emissions. The 

emission factors being proposed are 

consistent with the 2006 IPCC default 

values. For MEMS manufacturing, 

where an IPCC default value does not 

exist, we propose the use of factors 

consistent with the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b 

factors for semiconductor 

manufacturing. We selected these 

factors because we understand MEMS 

manufacturing is silicon wafer-based 

and uses processes similar to those 

found in semiconductor manufacturing. 

Additionally, we are proposing that 

LCD, MEMS, and PV manufacturing 

facilities abide by the requirements 

proposed for reporting controlled 

emissions from abatement systems as 

proposed below. 

We are requesting information on 

emissions and emission factors from 

LCD, MEMS, and PV manufacturing. We 

are requesting such information as a 

means to verify that the Tier 2b 

emission factors for each of the 

manufacturing types are reflective of 

current fluorinated GHG emitting 

processes. Based on new information we 

receive, we may consider updating the 

emission factors in the final rule. 

We expect that LCD, MEMS, and PV 

manufacturers may also use engineering 

models and quantifiable indicators (e.g., 

substrate-area based) of manufacturing 

activity for apportioning gas 

consumption by process category 

similar to the approach described for 

semiconductors above (e.g., wafer 

passes). We request detailed information 

on those indicators, how they were 

developed, and how they are used in a 

facility-specific engineering model to 

apportion annual facility-wide gas usage 

across a facility’s emitting process 

categories. 

We request comment on permitting 

those LCD, MEMS, and PV 

manufacturing facilities that have 

monitoring infrastructure or the 

necessary data to estimate emissions 

obtained through recipe-specific 

measurements to report their emissions 

using their data by following an 

approach consistent with the 2006 IPCC 

Tier 3 method. 

Review of Existing Reporting 

Programs and Methodologies and 

Consideration of Alternative Methods. 

EPA considered various methods for 

estimating emissions from etching and 

cleaning processes for electronics 

manufacturing facilities including the 

2006 IPCC Tier 1, 2a, 2b, and Tier 3 

method as well as a Tier 2b/3 hybrid 

which would apply Tier 3 to the most 

heavily used fluorinated GHGs in all 

facilities. For a detailed description of 

our evaluation of these options, please 

see the Electronics Manufacturing 

section of the initial Mandatory 

Reporting Rule (74 FR 16499). 

For this proposal, to estimate 

emissions from all semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities, we are also 

considering the alternative of a modified 

Tier 2b method (our preferred option for 

other electronics manufacturers) which 

would require the use of the 2006 IPCC 

Tier 2b default factors and gas- and 

facility-specific data on heels and gas 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18665 

14Nameplate capacity means the full and proper 

charge of gas specified by the equipment 

manufacturer to achieve the equipment’s specified 

performance. The nameplate capacity is typically 

indicated on the equipment’s nameplate; it is not 

necessarily the actual charge, which may be 

influenced by leakage and other emissions. 

use by process category. This approach 

would be based on a modified version 

of the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b method for 

estimating emissions and would require 

semiconductor facilities to report 

emissions using (1) gas consumption as 

calculated using the facility’s purchase 

records, inventory, and gas- and facilityspecific heel factors (as described 

above), (2) facility-specific methods for 

apportioning gas usage by process 

category using indicators of activity (as 

described above, e.g., wafer pass), (3) 

IPCC Tier 2b emission factors, and (4) 

methods for reporting controlled 

emissions using our proposed approach 

discussed below. We request comment 

on this approach. 

As an alternative to the Refined 

Method, we are also considering 

requiring all semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities to estimate their 

emissions using an approach consistent 

with the IPCC Tier 3 method based on 

(1) gas consumption as calculated using 

the facility’s purchase records, 

inventory, and gas- and facility-specific 

heel factors, (2) facility-specific methods 

for apportioning gas consumption by 

individual process using indicators of 

GHG-using activity, (3) recipe-specific 

gas utilization and by-product formation 

factors, and also (4) methods for 

reporting controlled emissions from 

abatement devices (as proposed below). 

Under this approach, facilities would be 

required to develop gas utilization and 

by-product formation rates using the 

2006 ISMI Guidelines for all fluorinated 

GHG-using process types at that facility. 

We request comment on this approach. 

Another option we are considering is 

to evaluate emissions from electronics 

manufacturing using continuous 

emission monitoring system(s) (CEMS). 

Under this approach, facilities would be 

required to install and operate CEMS to 

measure process emissions. A typical 

electronics manufacturing facility may 

have many individual process tools that 

influence emissions. Process tool 

exhaust is managed within the facility 

using stainless steel plumbing and 

ductwork. Due to the complexity of the 

manufacturing layout, CEMS would be 

attached either to every tool or to one 

or more final exhaust points (e.g., 

scrubber stacks). One possible option is 

to use Fourier Transform Infrared 

Spectrometers (FTIRs) in scrubber 

stacks to measure facility emissions. 

FTIR spectroscopy is presently used to 

conduct short-term fluorinated GHG 

emission measurements from single 

tools. EPA requests comment on the use 

of CEMS at electronics manufacturing 

facilities. We also request data and other 

information evaluating the use of CEMS 

in electronics facilities to determine 

fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions. 

(b) Method for Estimating N2O 

Emissions 

We are proposing that electronics 

manufacturers estimate N2O emissions 

from chemical vapor deposition 

processes and all other electronics 

manufacturing processes such as 

chamber cleaning, and that they 

estimate those emissions using the 

following proposed methods. 

To estimate N2O emissions from 

chemical vapor deposition we are 

proposing the use of a facility-specific 

emission factor based on facility 

measurements of N2O utilization for 

chemical vapor deposition, using 2006 

ISMI Guidelines. Under this approach, 

we propose to permit the facility to 

apply the average N2O utilization 

emission factor to all N2O using 

chemical vapor deposition recipes. In 

cases where a facility has not developed 

a facility-specific N2O utilization factor 

for chemical vapor deposition 

processes, we are proposing a default 

value in the range of 0 to 40 percent. We 

are taking comment on this range due to 

a lack of information for N2O utilization 

for chemical vapor deposition 

processes. 

In comments received in response to 

our initial proposal, industry provided 

information to support a N2O utilization 

factor of 40 percent, primarily in 300 

mm chemical vapor deposition 

processes. Taking the industry-provided 

40 percent utilization into account, we 

propose to select a N2O utilization factor 

in the range from 0 to 40 percent. In the 

industry’s survey, the measured 

utilization factors are largely from 

newer 300 mm manufacturing 

equipment. We do not expect these data 

fairly represent the entire population of 

all N2O processes and installed 

equipment, many of which are older 

tools. In addition, the industry 

comments did not fully identify the 

specific processes from which the 

average N2O utilization factor was 

calculated. For these reasons, and 

because we understand that N2O is most 

commonly used for chemical vapor 

deposition as opposed to other 

processes, we are proposing to establish 

a default value within a range of values 

with 40 percent as the upper bound and 

0 percent as the lower bound to be 

conservative, reducing potential for 

underestimating emissions. 

To estimate N2O emissions from all 

other manufacturing processes (e.g., 

chamber cleaning), we are proposing 

either a facility-specific utilization 

factor based on measurements using 

2006 ISMI Guidelines, or applying a 

default utilization factor of 0 percent 

which assumes N2O is not converted or 

destroyed during the manufacturing 

process. We are proposing this method 

due to a lack of information regarding 

other processes for which N2O is used 

and N2O utilization data in those 

processes. 

We request comment on values within 

the range that we are proposing to 

estimate N2O emissions from chemical 

vapor deposition processes and our 

approach for estimating N2O emissions 

from all other manufacturing processes. 

We also request additional information 

on N2O uses and N2O utilization in 

electronics manufacturing processes. 

More specifically, we request N2O 

emission factors and detailed 

supporting information including but 

not limited to the specific measurement 

method used, date of measurement, 

standard deviation of measured factors, 

identification of manufacturing process 

or process category, substrate size, and 

equipment manufacturer name and 

model number where not considered 

confidential. 

In addition, we request comment on 

using wafer passes or other appropriate 

quantifiable indictors of activity for 

apportioning N2O consumption to 

chemical vapor deposition and other 

manufacturing processes. 

We are proposing that as part of 

determining annual facility N2O 

emissions, if a facility employs 

abatement systems and it wishes to 

report N2O emission reductions due to 

these systems it must adhere to the 

methods for reporting controlled 

emissions included in this proposal. 

(c) Method for Estimating Emissions of 

Heat Transfer Fluids 

To estimate the emissions of heat 

transfer fluids, we propose that 

electronics manufacturers use the 2006 

IPCC Tier 2b approach, which is a massbalance approach. We are not changing 

the broad outlines of our initial 

proposal; however, we are clarifying 

required data elements. 

In evaluating the comments we 

received, we understand that there was 

some confusion regarding our intended 

method. The proposed method required 

data on the total nameplate capacity 14

of equipment that ‘‘is installed during 

the reporting year.’’ We intended 

‘‘installed during the reporting year’’ to 

mean newly installed during the period, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
18666 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

15Uptime means the total time during the 

reporting year when the abatement system for 

which controlled emissions will be reported was 

properly installed, operated, and maintained. 

not in place from the beginning of that 

period. To eliminate confusion, we are 

clarifying that facilities are required to 

provide the total nameplate capacity 

(charge) of equipment that is ‘‘newly 

installed’’ during the reporting year. We 

anticipate that facilities will find it 

straightforward to track the nameplate 

capacities of equipment that is newly 

installed or retired during the reporting 

year. 

In addition, we are also clarifying that 

a facility may only subtract the amount 

of fluorinated heat transfer fluids sent 

off site if the heat transfer fluids are 

properly recovered, stored, and sent off 

site for verifiable recycling or 

destruction during the reporting year. 

We are adding this clarification because 

we understand that facilities may be 

recovering, storing, and removing from 

their facility, fluorinated heat transfer 

fluids in a manner that does not 

effectively prevent the substance(s) from 

evaporating to the atmosphere. In such 

cases, the users of the chemicals would 

be required to account for these 

emissions using the mass-balance 

calculation provided. 

As we stated in our initial proposal, 

in developing our proposal for 

estimating heat transfer fluid emissions, 

we reviewed both the IPCC Tier 1 and 

IPCC Tier 2 approaches. The Tier 1 

approach for heat transfer fluid 

emissions is based on the utilization 

capacity of the semiconductor facility 

multiplied by a default emission factor. 

Although the Tier 1 approach has the 

advantages of simplicity, it is less 

accurate than the Tier 2 approach 

according to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. 

The IPCC Tier 2 approach uses 

company-specific data and accounts for 

differences among facilities’ heat 

transfer fluids (which vary in their 

GWPs), leak rates, and service practices. 

It has an uncertainty on the order of ±20 

percent at the 95 percent confidence 

interval according to the 2006 IPCC 

Guidelines. 

(d) Method for Reporting Controlled 

Emissions From Abatement Systems 

For this proposed rule, we are 

defining DRE as the efficiency of a 

control system designed to destroy or 

remove fluorinated GHGs, N2O, or both. 

The DRE is equal to one minus the ratio 

of the mass of all relevant GHGs exiting 

the emission abatement system to the 

mass of GHGs entering the emission 

abatement system. When fluorinated 

GHGs are formed in an abatement 

system, DRE is expressed as one minus 

the ratio of amounts of exiting GHGs to 

the amounts entering the system in 

units of CO2-equivalents. In addition, 

we are clarifying facilities may account 

for all abatement systems (e.g., multichamber POU, central devices) provided 

that they abide by the requirements 

below. 

We are proposing to use the term 

destruction or removal efficiency (DRE) 

as opposed to ‘‘destruction efficiency’’ or 

‘‘destruction,’’ terms that are already 

defined in subpart A of the Final MRR. 

We are proposing to use DRE because it 

is the term generally used by the 

electronics manufacturing industry. 

Furthermore, in addition to capturing 

the destruction of materials in the 

exhaust, the term also captures 

materials in the exhaust that are 

recycled or captured for reuse. 

For purposes of this reporting rule, we 

propose that facilities that wish to 

document and report fluorinated GHG 

and N2O emissions reflecting the use of 

abatement systems adhere to a method 

that would require: (1) Documentation 

to certify that the abatement system is 

installed, operated, and maintained in 

accordance with manufacturers’ 

specifications, (2) accounting for the 

system’s uptime,15 and (3) either 

certification that the abatement system 

is specifically designed for fluorinated 

GHG and N2O abatement and the use of 

an EPA default DRE value, or direct, 

proper DRE measurement to confirm the 

performance of the abatement system. 

Proper DRE measurement means 

measured in accordance with EPA’s 

Protocol for Measuring Destruction or 

Removal Efficiency of Fluorinated 

Greenhouse Gas Abatement Equipment 

in Electronics Manufacturing (EPA’s 

DRE Protocol). EPA’s DRE Protocol is 

available for review in the docket (EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2009–0927). Our proposed 

approach is depicted as a decision tree 

in Figure 1 of this preamble. 

The proposed approach requires 

annual certification to ensure that 

abatement systems for which controlled 

emissions are reported are installed, 

operating, and maintained according to 

manufacturers’ specifications. Our 

approach would also require that any 

DRE used in reporting emissions be 

based on an EPA default DRE value or 

on recent on-site measurements and 

actual uptime of the system, accounting 

for system redundancy. When process 

tools are equipped with multiple 

abatement systems designed for 

fluorinated GHGs and N2O, the facility 

may account for the combined uptime 

for the specific calculation of controlled 

emissions. Each one of these 

components is discussed in detail in the 

paragraphs below. We anticipate this 

method for reporting controlled 

emissions will ensure that abatement 

systems have been properly installed, 

operated and maintained during each 

reporting period and that best available 

measured DRE values are used to 

estimate and report emissions. 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18667 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C 

Proper Installation, Operation, and 

Maintenance. We are proposing that all 

facilities that use abatement systems 

and would like to reflect these 

emissions reductions in their annual 

emissions estimations be required to 

document and certify the abatement 

equipment’s proper installation, 

operation, and maintenance. There are 

many manufacturers, and for each 

manufacturer multiple models, that are 

marketed as fluorinated GHGdestruction capable (Beu, 2005). While 

some abatement systems may be capable 

of destroying some fluorinated GHGs, 

they may not be effective in abating CF4

(Beu, 2005), which in some processes 

can constitute 10 percent—20 percent 

(by volume) of fluorinated GHG exhaust 

composition (EPA, 2006). It appears that 

this variability may be partially 

attributable to installation as well as 

operating and maintenance practices 

although variations in how destruction 

is measured may also contribute to this 

variability (Beu, 2005). Evidence 

indicates abatement devices must be 

properly installed to ensure 

achievement of the manufacturer’s 

design goals. For this reason, we 

propose devices be installed in 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4EP12AP10.037</GPH>
18668 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

16Using data available from the in-fab DRE 

measurement program, we selected discrete 

numbers rather than the lower bound (e.g., ≥ 99%). 

17CF4 is a very stable chemical and especially 

difficult to effectively destroy. It may be used as an 

input gas and generated as a byproduct of other 

fluorinated GHG process reactions. 

accordance with manufacturers’ 

specifications. 

In terms of operation and 

maintenance, we also propose to require 

that abatement systems be operated and 

maintained in accordance with the 

manufacturers’ specifications. It is well 

known across the industry that 

abatement system performance varies 

greatly depending on a variety of 

abatement device and process 

parameters such as temperature, flow 

and exhaust composition (Beu, 2005, 

EPA 2006, 2007)). Our proposed 

requirement that abatement systems be 

operated and maintained in accordance 

with manufacturers’ specifications is 

intended to ensure best performance. 

We understand that many times a 

facility may have an independent 

quality assurance expert certify the 

installation, operation, and maintenance 

of abatement equipment. We are 

considering the inclusion in the final 

rule, a requirement for annual, on-site 

independent inspections of abatement 

system installation, operation, and 

maintenance, which could include a 

review of records and physical 

inspection of installed equipment. We 

request comment on whether to require 

an independent quality assurance audit/ 

inspection for abatement system 

installation, operation, and 

maintenance. 

Accounting for Abatement System 

Uptime. We are proposing that facilities 

account for abatement systems’ uptime 

to report controlled emissions. Uptime 

is the total time during the reporting 

year when the abatement systems for 

which controlled emissions are being 

reporting was properly installed, 

operated, and maintained. Uptime is 

calculated as the sum of time during the 

reporting period that an abatement 

system is in a standby, productive, and 

engineering state as described in SEMI 

Standard E10–0304, Specification for 

Definition and Measurement of 

Equipment Reliability, Availability, and 

Maintainability (2004). Abatement 

system uptime is expressed as the sum 

of an abatement system’s operational 

productive, standby, and engineering 

times divided by the total operations 

time of its associated manufacturing 

tool. For example, the time during 

which a system is in by-pass mode, 

undergoing maintenance, or not 

operating with O2-flow (in the case of a 

CF4 combustion system) is not included 

in uptime. An exception to this is time 

during which exhaust flows are passed 

through a redundant abatement system 

that is in the same abatement system 

class (discussed below) as the primary 

abatement system. Such time may be 

included in the uptime of the primary 

system. 

We are proposing this requirement 

because we anticipate accounting for 

uptime (i.e., tracking incidents when 

abatement systems may be ‘‘bypassed’’ 

or otherwise not in service) will 

produce a more accurate emissions 

estimate. We request comment on our 

proposal to account for and report the 

uptime of abatement systems. We also 

request detailed information on how 

uptime may be monitored and 

calculated. 

EPA Default DRE Value. In addition 

to certifying that an abatement system is 

installed, operated, and maintained 

according to manufacturers’ 

specifications, and accounting for the 

system’s uptime, the first approach we 

are proposing includes the following 

two key elements: (1) Certification that 

the abatement system is specifically 

designed for fluorinated GHG and N2O 

abatement, and (2) an EPA default DRE 

value. By applying the EPA default DRE 

value, the facility is not required to 

measure the DRE of their abatement 

system(s). We are proposing the use of 

a default DRE value of 60 percent if the 

facility certifies that the abatement 

systems for which this value is applied 

are specifically designed for fluorinated 

GHG and N2O abatement. 

To develop the default DRE of 60 

percent, we reviewed the individual 

DREs measured under our in-fab DRE 

measurement program and selected 

those that constituted discrete values 16

for systems that had been properly 

installed, operated and maintained. Of 

the data from the DRE measurement 

program, those that met the stated 

criteria were values for CF4. We 

calculated the mean and the lower one 

sided tolerance interval of the (CF4) DRE 

data set. This yielded an understated, 

default DRE, reducing the likelihood 

that the DRE of any particular system 

will be either overestimated or greatly 

underestimated. For additional 

information on how the EPA default 

DRE was developed, please refer to the 

Electronics Manufacturing TSD. 

While we are now proposing the use 

of an EPA default DRE value, consistent 

with our initial proposal we are not 

planning to permit use of the 2006 IPCC 

default factors or the manufacturer’s 

DRE values. We are not permitting their 

use because once installed, abatement 

equipment may fail to achieve the 

default or a supplier’s claimed DRE. 

DRE performance claimed by equipment 

suppliers and upon which the 2006 

IPCC default factors were based may 

have been incorrectly measured due to 

a failure to account for the effects of 

dilution (e.g., CF4 can be off by as much 

as a factor of 20 to 50 and C2F6 can be 

off by a factor of up to 10 [Burton, 

2007].) This understanding is supported 

by industry assessments as presented in 

Beu, 2005. 

We are permitting the use of our 

default DRE value because we estimate 

that it strikes an appropriate balance 

between being conservative and being 

representative where equipment is 

properly operated and maintained. Our 

default DRE value was calculated using 

data from measurements assured to 

properly account for the effects of 

dilution. In addition, the tested systems 

were properly installed, operated, and 

maintained. 

We request comment on our proposed 

default DRE value, and additional data 

and supporting documentation on DREs 

from studies that have been conducted 

on properly installed, operated, and 

maintained abatement systems and 

consistent with EPA’s DRE Protocol. 

Proper Measurement of the 

Abatement DRE. The second proposed 

approach for quantifying, documenting, 

and reporting controlled emissions from 

abatement systems, described below, 

would require proper measurement of 

the abatement system DRE in addition 

to documentation to certify that the 

abatement system is installed, operated, 

and maintained in accordance with 

manufacturers’ specifications, and 

accounting for uptime. 

Consistent with our initial proposal, 

this second proposed method permits 

facilities to account for destruction if 

the abatement system performance is 

measured and verified using EPA’s DRE 

Protocol. To measure DRE, we propose 

requiring facilities to conduct annual 

sampling through a random sampling 

abatement system testing program 

(RSASTP), spanning all abatement 

classes using the methods outlined in 

EPA’s DRE Protocol. ‘‘Class’’ refers to a 

category of abatement systems grouped 

by manufacturer model number(s) and 

by gas for which the system is used to 

abate, including N2O and CF4 direct and 

by-product formation, and all other 

fluorinated GHG gas direct and byproduct formation.17 ‘‘Classes’’ may also 

include any other abatement systems for 

which the reporting facility wishes to 

report controlled emissions provided 

that class is identified. For each class, 

the representative or average DRE 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18669 

18There are many manufacturers, and for each 

manufacturer many models, that are marketed as 

fluorinated GHGs-destruction capable (Beu, 2005). 

While some abatement devices may be capable of 

destroying some fluorinated GHGs, they may not be 

effective in abating CF4 (Beu, 2005), which in some 

processes can constitute 10%–20% (by volume) of 

fluorinated GHGs exhaust composition (EPA, 2006). 

19Some variability in performance may be 

partially attributable to installation as well as 

operating and maintenance practices although 

variations in how destruction is measured may also 

contribute to this variability (Beu, 2005). 

factors would then be applied to the yet 

unmeasured abatement devices of that 

class. 

An annual representative sample as 

part of the RSASTP would consist of 

three or 20 percent of installed 

abatement systems, whichever is 

greater, for each class each year, 

measuring the DRE for a different three 

or 20 percent set of systems each year. 

Where 20 percent of total abatement 

systems do not equal a whole number, 

the number of systems to be tested 

would be rounded up to the nearest 

integer (e.g., 16 abatement devices, 20 

percent of which equals 3.2; therefore, 

four abatement systems would be 

measured each year). Using the RSASTP 

and our rounding convention, all 

systems in each class would be tested 

within a five-year period. EPA is 

seeking comment on the required 

frequency of abatement system 

performance measurement. 

When reporting controlled emissions 

from manufacturing, we propose that 

the facility either use the measured DRE 

or, in those instances where an 

individual abatement system has not yet 

undergone proper DRE testing, a simple 

average of the measured DREs for 

systems of that class would be used. If 

redundant abatement systems were used 

during periods of maintenance or repair, 

then we propose that the measured or 

average DRE for that system’s class 

would be used. In any of these cases, the 

DRE used to report emissions would be 

adjusted to account for the actual 

uptime of the system. For example, if 

the uptime for a device is 98 percent 

over the reporting period, then the 

measured DRE (or class average of 

measured DREs when a system has not 

yet been measured) would be multiplied 

by 0.98. 

Under the RSASTP, all systems in 

each class would be tested within a fiveyear period, after which the process 

would be repeated as long as controlled 

emissions were reported. There are two 

reasons for requiring the DRE to be 

measured for each abatement device 

over a time period and by specific class. 

Some fluorinated GHGs, particularly 

CF4, are harder to destroy than others; 

thus, the performance of abatement 

systems with one fluorinated GHG 

cannot necessarily be assumed to apply 

to other fluorinated GHGs.18 Second, 

even if abatement systems rely on the 

same operating principle (e.g., thermal 

oxidation) and are used on the same 

gases, their performance can vary 

depending on their operation and 

maintenance.19 Moreover, maintenance 

that is adequate for abatement systems 

in some applications may not be 

adequate for abatement systems in 

others (e.g., those that handle high 

volumes of etched or cleaned material, 

which can be deposited inside 

abatement equipment and clog lines). 

This argues for gradually testing all of 

the abatement systems within a class, 

and for retesting individual abatement 

systems over time. 

We request comment on the method 

proposed for proper measurement of 

DRE at a facility and the proposed 

RSASTP for abatement systems by class. 

6. Selection of Procedures for Estimating 

Missing Data 

In general, it is not expected that data 

to estimate emissions from electronics 

manufacturing would be missing; gas 

consumption data and indicators of 

activity data (e.g., wafer passes) is 

collected as business as usual. For this 

reason, we are not proposing procedures 

for estimating missing data from 

emissions from cleaning, etching or 

deposition processes. Because our 

proposal includes an EPA default DRE 

value for estimating and reporting 

controlled emissions, we propose that 

no missing data procedures would 

apply. 

When estimating heat transfer fluid 

emissions during electronics 

manufacture, the use of the massbalance approach requires facilities to 

correct records for all inputs. Should the 

facility be missing records for a given 

input, heat transfer fluid emissions may 

be estimated using the arithmetic 

average of the emission rates for the year 

immediately preceding the period of 

missing data and the months 

immediately following the period of 

missing data. Alternatively it may be 

possible that the heat transfer fluid 

supplier has information in their 

records for the facility. 

7. Selection of Data Reporting 

Requirements 

We are proposing that owners and 

operators be required to report 

fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions for 

the facility for each electronics 

manufacturing process as well as all 

heat transfer fluid use. In addition, 

facilities would be required to report the 

following: method used to calculate 

emissions; factors used for gas 

utilization and by-product formation 

rates and the source for each factor for 

each fluorinated GHG and N2O; 

production in terms of substrate surface 

area (e.g., silicon, PV-cell, LCD); for 

each fluorinated GHG and N2O, annual 

gas consumed during the reporting year 

and gas- and facility-specific heel 

factors used; the apportioning factors 

used, a description of the engineering 

model used for apportioning gas usage, 

and facility-wide consumption 

estimates based upon development of 

the apportioning factors, independent of 

the consumption value calculated using 

purchase records; fraction of each gas 

fed into each process type that is fed 

into tools with abatement systems; 

descriptions and information about 

abatement systems through which 

fluorinated GHGs and N2O flow; inputs 

in the mass-balance equation (for heat 

transfer fluid emissions); and example 

calculations. Where process categories 

defined in the Refined Method and/or 

default gas utilization and by-product 

formation rates are not used, we propose 

that facilities provide descriptions of 

individual processes or processes 

categories used to estimate emissions 

consistent with the IPCC Tier 3 method. 

For each abatement system for which 

a facility is reporting controlled 

emissions, we propose that facilities be 

required to report the following: 

certification that the abatement device is 

installed, operated, and maintained 

according to manufacturers’ 

specifications; the uptime and the 

calculations to determine uptime for 

that reporting year; the DRE used (i.e. 

either the EPA default DRE value or a 

properly measured DRE); and 

documentation for the EPA default DRE 

value or a properly measured DRE. 

These data form the basis of the 

calculations and are needed for us to 

understand the reported emissions and 

verify their reasonableness. 

8. Selection of Records That Must Be 

Retained 

We propose that facilities keep 

records of data used to estimate 

emissions, records supporting values 

used to estimate emissions, purchase 

records, and invoices for gas purchases 

and sales. For those facilities that use 

facility-specific, recipe-specific gas 

utilization and by-production formation 

rates, we are proposing that the 

following records be maintained: 

documentation that the rates were 

measured using the 2006 ISMI 

Guidelines, documentation that the 

measurements made are representative 

of fluorinated GHG and N2O emitting 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
18670 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

20 In the April 2009 proposal, EPA requested 

comment on whether emissions of fluorinated 

GHGs from CFC and HCFC production processes 

should be subject to the subpart L reporting 

requirements. While no public comments were 

received on this topic, EPA has determined that 

HFCs and PFCs are likely to be generated during the 

production of several CFCs and HCFCs, and that the 

quantities generated may be significant. According 

processes at the facility, and the date 

and results of the initial and any 

subsequent tests to determine process 

tool gas utilization and by-product 

formation rates. 

For those facilities that are reporting 

controlled emissions, we propose that 

the following records be kept: 

documentation to certify that each 

abatement device used at the facility is 

installed, maintained, and operated in 

accordance with manufacturers’ 

specifications; records of the uptime 

and the calculations to determine 

uptime; abatement system calibration 

and maintenance records; 

documentation for the EPA default DRE 

value or a properly measured DRE. 

These records consist of values that 

are directly used to calculate the 

emissions that are reported and are 

necessary to enable verification that the 

GHG emissions monitoring and 

calculations are done correctly. 

B. Fluorinated Gas Production 

1. Overview of Reporting Requirements 

Under this proposal, subpart L would 

require facilities that produce 

fluorinated gases to report their 

fluorinated GHG emissions from 

fluorinated gas production and 

transformation and from fluorinated 

GHG destruction. Fluorinated gases 

include fluorinated GHGs (HFCs, PFCs, 

SF6, NF3, HFEs, etc.), CFCs, and HCFCs. 

Certain emissions subject to other 

subparts or authorities are excluded 

from this subpart. Specifically, 

emissions of HFC–23 from HCFC–22 

production are addressed under subpart 

O and are therefore excluded from this 

subpart. Similarly, as discussed in the 

Final MRR, emissions of ozone 

depleting substances (e.g., CFCs and 

HCFCs) are subject to Title VI of the 

CAA and are therefore excluded from 

this subpart. 

Under this proposed rule, facilities 

would be required to estimate their 

emissions from fluorinated GHG 

production processes using either a 

mass-balance approach or an approach 

based on measured (or in some cases, 

calculated) emission factors. Facilities 

would be required to estimate their 

emissions from CFC and HCFC 

production processes and from 

fluorinated gas transformation processes 

using an emission-factor-based 

approach. Consistent with the Final 

MRR, this proposal would establish an 

annual frequency for reporting and 

would include provisions to ensure the 

accuracy of emissions data through 

monitoring, reporting, and 

recordkeeping requirements. Reporting 

would be at the facility level. 

2. Summary of Major Changes Since 

Initial Proposal 

In the April 2009 proposed mandatory 

GHG reporting rule (74 FR 16448; April 

10, 2009), the fluorinated GHG 

production source category was 

included as proposed subpart L. That 

initial proposal would have required 

reporting from facilities emitting more 

than 25,000 mtCO2e from fluorinated 

GHG production and other source 

categories (e.g., stationary combustion). 

We proposed monitoring based on a 

daily mass-balance or yield approach 

that included measurements of the 

reactants and the fluorinated GHG 

product and byproducts. Under that 

approach, facilities would have had to 

calculate the difference between the 

expected production of each fluorinated 

GHG based on the consumption of 

reactants and the measured production 

of that fluorinated GHG, accounting for 

yield losses related to byproducts and 

wastes and accounting for streams that 

were recaptured and destroyed. 

Facilities would have been required to 

measure the various inputs and outputs 

daily using scales and flow meters with 

an accuracy and precision of 0.2 percent 

of full scale, and to measure 

concentrations in streams using 

methods with an accuracy and precision 

of 5 percent. (For more detailed 

information on the initial proposal, see 

the fluorinated gas production section of 

the April 10, 2009 proposed rule.) 

We received numerous comments on 

the proposed approach. Commenters 

stated that there may be significant 

uncertainty associated with the massbalance approach, that EPA’s stated 

accuracy and precision requirement of 

0.2 percent for flow meters and weigh 

equipment was costly and not 

technically achievable for many 

streams, that daily calculations were 

excessive and likely to introduce errors, 

that it was sometimes impracticable to 

perform a mass-balance for more than 

one reactant, and that the mass-balance 

approach was not appropriate for batch 

processes. 

Commenters also suggested 

alternatives to the mass-balance 

approach. Several commenters focused 

on the use of site-specific or processspecific emission factors. These 

commenters noted that many facilities 

in this source category already measure 

emissions during performance testing to 

verify compliance with their emission 

limits under other EPA regulations. 

Commenters also noted that some 

fluorinated GHG producers currently 

estimate their emissions of fluorinated 

GHG using the emission factor approach 

and that this approach is both more cost 

effective and more accurate than the 

mass-balance approach. One commenter 

using the emission factor approach 

stated that the estimated uncertainty of 

its overall fluorinated GHG emissions 

estimate was 13 percent (expressed as 

one standard deviation) and that the 

uncertainty associated with the 

estimates that it would develop using 

the proposed mass-balance approach 

would be significantly higher. 

Commenters suggested both emissions 

testing and chemical engineering 

calculations as appropriate techniques 

to develop site-specific emissions 

factors. 

Partly in response to the comments 

received on the April 2009 proposed 

MRR (74 FR 16448; April 10, 2009), 

today’s proposed subpart L rule 

incorporates a number of changes 

compared to the original proposal, 

including but not limited to: 

• Inclusion of additional emission 

estimation methodologies, including 

process-specific, site-specific emission 

factors, which allow facilities to 

estimate emissions using methods that 

may already be in place; 

• Revisions to the mass-balance 

approach, including provisions to allow 

monthly rather than daily monitoring; 

greater flexibility in the accuracy and 

precision of flowmeters, weigh scales, 

and concentration measurements (as 

long as the final estimate meets an 

overall accuracy and precision 

requirement); and the use of one rather 

than two reactants in the mass-balance 

equation; 

• Inclusion of fluorinated GHGs 

emitted as a by-product of the 

production of CFCs and HCFCs; and 

• Inclusion of fluorinated GHGs 

emitted as a feedstock or by-product of 

transformation processes that are not 

intended to produce any fluorinated 

gases (when those transformation 

processes are co-located with 

fluorinated gas production processes). 

3. Definition of Source Category 

This source category covers emissions 

of fluorinated GHGs that occur during 

the production of fluorinated gases, 

where fluorinated gases include 

fluorinated GHGs (HFCs, PFCs, SF6, 

NF3, and fluorinated ethers, among 

others), CFCs, and HCFCs (except 

HCFC–22).20 It also covers emissions of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18671 

to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and fluorinated gas 

producers, production of CFCs and HCFCs can 

generate and emit fluorinated GHGs such as various 

HFCs and some PFCs. (These HFCs exclude HFC– 

23 generated during HCFC–22 production, which is 

already covered under Subpart O). These emissions 

are by-product emissions that occur due to the 

chemical similarities between HFCs, PFCs, HCFCs, 

and CFCs and the common use of halogen 

replacement chemistry to produce them. HFC–23 

generated during HCFC–22 production is already 

covered under Subpart O. 

21Byproducts that are emitted or destroyed at the 

production facility are excluded from the Subpart 

OO definition of ‘‘produce a fluorinated GHG.’’ Any 

HFC–23 generated during the production of HCFC– 

22 is also excluded from this definition, even if the 

HFC–23 is recaptured. However, other fluorinated 

GHG byproducts that are recaptured for any reason 

are considered to be ‘‘produced.’’ 

fluorinated GHGs from transformation 

and destruction processes that occur at 

fluorinated gas production facilities. 

EPA estimates that total emissions from 

this source category were 10.6 million 

metric tons of CO2e in 2006. 

Emissions from fluorinated gas 

production facilities can occur from 

vents, from leaks at flanges and 

connections in the production line, and 

from control devices (e.g., thermal 

oxidizers). Undesired by-products may 

be deliberately vented, and some 

product (or reactant) may be vented at 

the same time due to imperfect 

separation of by-products, products, and 

reactants. Emissions can also occur 

during occasional service work on the 

production equipment, during blending 

and recycling of fluorinated GHGs, and 

during the evacuation and filling of 

tanks or other containers that are 

distributed by the producer (e.g., on 

trucks and railcars). 

Fluorinated GHG Emissions from 

Fluorinated GHG Production. Emissions 

that occur during fluorinated GHG 

production include fluorinated GHG 

products that are emitted before the 

production measurement and 

fluorinated GHG byproducts that are 

generated and emitted either without or 

despite recapture or destruction.21

These emissions are not counted as 

‘‘mass produced’’ under the final 

requirements for suppliers of industrial 

GHGs in 40 CFR part 98, subpart OO (74 

FR 56260; October 30, 2009). 

Fluorinated GHG emissions from U.S. 

facilities producing fluorinated GHGs 

are estimated to range from 0.8 percent 

to 2 percent of the amount of fluorinated 

GHG produced, depending on the 

facility. In 2006, 12 U.S. facilities 

produced over 350 million metric tons 

CO2e of HFCs, PFCs, SF6, and NF3, and 

an additional 6 facilities produced 

approximately 1 million metric tons 

CO2e of fluorinated anesthetics. Based 

on an emission rate of 1.5 percent, 

facilities are estimated to have emitted 

approximately 5.3 million metric tons 

CO2e of HFCs, PFCs, SF6, and NF3, and 

approximately 15,000 metric tons CO2e 

of fluorinated anesthetics. 

Fluorinated GHG Emissions from CFC 

and HCFC Production. Our proposal to 

include fluorinated GHG emissions that 

occur during CFC and HCFC production 

processes is based on two important 

considerations. First, while the quantity 

of by-product emissions is uncertain, we 

believe that it is significant and could be 

similar to total estimated emissions 

from fluorinated GHG production. 

Second, many CFC and HCFC 

production processes are co-located 

with fluorinated GHG production 

facilities, allowing for efficiencies in the 

application of estimation methods and 

monitoring and reporting 

infrastructures. These issues are 

discussed in more detail in the 

Fluorinated Gas Production Technical 

Support Document in the docket for this 

rulemaking (EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0927). 

Although we do not have precise 

estimates of the magnitude of 

fluorinated GHG emissions from 

production of CFCs and HCFCs, we 

estimate that if CFC and HCFC 

production processes emitted 

fluorinated GHGs equivalent to one 

percent of their CFC and HCFC 

production (excepting HCFC–22 

production), U.S. emissions from this 

source would be 5.3 mtCO2e, the same 

as from fluorinated GHG production. 

EPA requests comment on the extent to 

which fluorinated GHGs are generated 

and emitted during CFC and HCFC 

production. EPA also requests comment 

on the extent to which fluorinated GHGs 

may be generated and emitted during 

production of other ozone-depleting 

substances such as methyl chloroform 

and carbon tetrachloride and on 

whether such emissions should be 

reported under this rule. 

CFCs and HCFCs are often produced 

at the same facilities that produce 

fluorinated GHGs. In these cases, these 

facilities would need to quantify their 

fluorinated GHG emissions from a few 

processes in addition to those producing 

fluorinated GHGs. In other cases, CFCs 

or HCFCs are produced at facilities that 

do not produce fluorinated GHGs. In 

these cases, which EPA estimates 

include 2 facilities, the facilities would 

not have been covered by the initially 

proposed subpart L, but would be 

covered by today’s proposal. This 

coverage is reflected in the threshold 

analysis discussed below. 

Fluorinated GHG Emissions from 

Other Processes. Facilities producing 

fluorinated gases would also be required 

to report emissions of fluorinated GHG 

feedstocks that occur during the 

transformation of these feedstocks into 

other fluorinated substances such as 

fluoropolymers, as well as emissions of 

fluorinated GHGs that occur during 

destruction of fluorinated GHGs that are 

removed from the supply of industrial 

gases. 

The reasons for requiring reporting of 

fluorinated GHG emissions from 

transformation processes that are colocated with fluorinated gas production 

processes are similar to those for 

requiring reporting of fluorinated GHG 

emissions from CFC and HCFC 

production. First, although EPA does 

not have precise estimates of the 

magnitude of fluorinated GHG 

emissions from transformation 

processes, discussions with 

fluoropolymer producers indicate that 

these emissions do occur. Second, 

facilities could apply similar methods 

and monitoring approaches to estimate 

emissions from both fluorinated gas 

production and fluorinated gas 

transformation. The rationale for 

requiring reporting of emissions from 

the destruction of fluorinated GHGs that 

are removed from the supply of 

industrial gases is discussed below 

under Relationship between emissions 

covered under subpart L and those 

covered under subpart OO. 

EPA is also considering requiring 

reporting of fluorinated GHG emissions 

from two other types of processes. The 

first type includes processes (other than 

CFC and HCFC production processes) in 

which fluorinated GHGs are neither 

reactants nor products of the process but 

are nevertheless generated as byproducts or intermediates. To the extent 

that such processes may generate or 

emit significant amounts of fluorinated 

GHGs, it may be appropriate to require 

reporting of those emissions. This 

would be particularly true if the 

processes were co-located with 

fluorinated GHG production processes, 

permitting effiencies in the application 

of estimation methods and reporting 

infrastructures. EPA requests comment 

on whether, how often, and where such 

processes occur (i.e., at fluorinated gas 

production facilities or elsewhere). The 

second type of process includes 

fluorinated gas transformation processes 

that are not co-located with fluorinated 

gas production facilities. Again, it may 

be appropriate to require reporting of 

fluorinated GHG emissions from such 

processes if these emissions are 

significant. EPA requests comment on 

both of these options. 

Relationship between emissions 

covered under subpart L and those 

covered under subpart OO. Subpart L 

would require reporting from many of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
18672 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

22Specifically, subpart OO tracks the quantities of 

fluorinated GHGs that are (1) produced, (2) 

transformed, (3) destroyed, (4) imported, and (5) 

exported. 23 In theory, it might be possible to track 

emissions from transformation and destruction 

simply using quantities reported under OO. 

However, this would require that (1) fluorinated 

GHGs that are produced only to be transformed or 

destroyed be tracked separately, (2) production, 

transformation, and destruction be measured to 

very good precision and accuracy (e.g., 0.2 percent), 

and (3) that no by-products be formed or emitted 

during these processes. If all of these conditions 

were met, emissions could be equated to the 

differences between production and transformation 

and production and destruction. In practice, 

however, it would be difficult to meet all of these 

conditions. 24Following the precedents set by other Clean Air 

Act regulations, EPA is using the term 

‘‘uncontrolled’’ to describe such emissions. 

Specifically, EPA is proposing to define 

‘‘uncontrolled fluorinated GHG emissions’’ as a gas 

stream containing fluorinated GHG which has 

exited the process (or process condenser, where 

applicable), but which has not yet been introduced 

into an air pollution control device to reduce the 

mass of fluorinated GHGs in the stream. The term 

does not imply that the emissions are never 

controlled, but is synonymous with ‘‘pre-control 

emissions.’’ 

the same facilities (fluorinated GHG 

producers) that are required to report 

under subpart OO, which contains the 

industrial gas supply reporting 

provisions of the final MRR. In general, 

subpart OO is intended to capture the 

quantities of fluorinated GHGs that are 

entering and leaving the U.S. supply of 

industrial gases,22 while subpart L is 

intended to capture the quantities of 

fluorinated GHGs emitted at fluorinated 

gas production facilities. 

There are several areas of possible 

overlap between the emissions that 

could be reported under this subpart 

and those reported under subpart OO. 

The areas of overlap all concern 

emissions that occur at the fluorinated 

GHG production facility after 

(downstream of) the fluorinated GHG 

production measurement. These include 

emissions from: 

• Fluorinated GHG transformation 

processes (including polymerization), 

• Destruction of fluorinated GHGs 

that are removed from the supply of 

industrial gases, 

• Cylinder filling (if this occurs after 

the production measurement), 

• Blending of fluorinated GHGs, 

• Recycling or reclamation of 

fluorinated GHGs, and 

• Evacuation of fluorinated GHG 

heels from returned cylinders. 

The MRR is intended to inform a 

range of possible policies for reducing 

emissions of GHGs, including both 

upstream and downstream approaches. 

Under a policy that focused primarily 

on supply, the fluorinated GHGs added 

to and subtracted from the gas supply 

would be tracked, and only the on-site 

emissions that occurred before 

(upstream of) the fluorinated GHG 

production measurement would need to 

be covered for completeness. On-site 

emissions that occurred after the 

production measurement would be 

assumed to be captured by the 

production measurement. Under a 

policy that focused on actual emissions 

(i.e., ‘‘downstream coverage’’) rather than 

supply, on-site emissions that occurred 

both before and after the production 

measurement would need to be tracked. 

Maintaining flexibility to adopt either 

upstream or downstream approaches 

argues for some counting under L of 

emissions that are counted upstream (as 

supply) under OO.23 (See the October 

30, 2009 Final MRR, 74 FR 56260, for 

more discussion of the rationale for 

including both upstream and 

downstream emissions under the rule.) 

As noted above, EPA is proposing to 

require reporting of fluorinated GHG 

emissions from transformation and 

destruction processes that are located at 

fluorinated gas production facilities. 

However, EPA is also considering 

requiring reporting of fluorinated GHG 

emissions from the other activities that 

occur at fluorinated GHG production 

facilities downstream of the production 

measurement. EPA requests comment 

on the magnitude of these other on-site 

emissions and on whether or not they 

should be required to be reported under 

subpart L. 

4. Selection of Reporting Threshold 

Under today’s proposed rule, owners 

and operators of fluorinated gas 

production facilities would be required 

to estimate and report GHG emissions if 

those emissions, including both 

combustion and fluorinated GHG 

emissions, would exceed 25,000 mtCO2e 

in the absence of control technology 

(e.g., thermal oxidation).24

In developing the threshold, we 

considered multiple controlled and 

uncontrolled emissions thresholds, 

including 1,000, 10,000, 25,000, and 

100,000 metric tons CO2e. For 

fluorinated GHG production processes 

(including fluorinated anesthetics 

production processes), uncontrolled 

(pre-control) emissions were estimated 

by multiplying a factor of 3 percent by 

the estimated production at each 

facility. For CFC and HCFC production 

processes (except for HCFC–22 

production processes), uncontrolled 

emissions were estimated by 

multiplying a factor of 2 percent by the 

estimated production at each facility. 

Uncontrolled emissions are strongly 

influenced by by-product generation 

rates, which are known to vary between 

zero and several percent for fluorinated 

gas production processes; thus, these 

estimates are uncertain. Controlled 

emissions were assumed to be half of 

uncontrolled emissions at each facility. 

Because EPA has little information on 

combustion-related emissions at 

fluorinated gas production facilities, 

these emissions were not included in 

the analysis. The results of the analysis 

for production of HFCs, PFCs, SF6, NF3, 

CFCs, and HCFCs are shown in Tables 

7 and 8 of this preamble. 

TABLE 7—THRESHOLD ANALYSIS FOR FLUORINATED GHG EMISSIONS FROM PRODUCTION OF HFCS, PFCS, SF6, NF3, 

CFCS, AND HCFCS

[Uncontrolled Emissions] 

Threshold level 

(metric tons CO2e/r) 

Total national 

emissions 

(metric tons 

CO2e ) 

Number 

of facilities 

Emissions covered Facilities covered 

Metric tons 

CO2e Percent Number Percent 

1,000 ........................................................................................ 10,600,000 14 10,600,000 100 14 100 

10,000 ...................................................................................... 10,600,000 14 10,600,000 100 14 100

25,000 ...................................................................................... 10,600,000 14 10,600,000 100 14 100

100,000 .................................................................................... 10,600,000 14 10,600,000 100 13 93 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18673 

25 It is important to note that even if a threshold 

based on controlled emissions were adopted, failure 

to report as required when a source’s actual 

emissions were above that threshold would be a 

violation of these regulations and the Clean Air Act. 

Lack of test data or other errors of omission do not 

excuse such violations as the Clean Air Act is a 

strict liability statute. 

TABLE 8—THRESHOLD ANALYSIS FOR FLUORINATED GHG EMISSIONS FROM PRODUCTION OF HFCS, PFCS, SF6, NF3, 

CFCS, AND HCFCS

[Controlled Emissions] 

Threshold level 

(metric tons CO2e/r) 

Total national 

emissions 

(metric tons 

CO2e ) 

Number 

of facilities 

Emissions covered Facilities covered 

Metric tons 

CO2e Percent Number Percent 

1,000 ........................................................................................ 10,600,000 14 10,600,000 100 14 100 

10,000 ...................................................................................... 10,600,000 14 10,600,000 100 14 100

25,000 ...................................................................................... 10,600,000 14 10,600,000 100 14 100

100,000 .................................................................................... 10,600,000 14 10,300,000 97 10 71 

As can be seen from the tables, most 

HFC, PFC, SF2e , NF3, CFC, and HCFC 

production facilities would be covered 

by all the thresholds considered. 

Although we do not have facilityspecific production information for 

producers of fluorinated anesthetics, we 

believe that few or none of these 

facilities are likely to have uncontrolled 

emissions above the proposed 

threshold. 

EPA is proposing to use a threshold 

based on uncontrolled (pre-control) 

rather than controlled (post-control) 

emissions to ensure that facilities that 

generate significant quantities 

fluorinated GHGs fully characterize and 

quantify their emissions, even if they 

initially believe those emissions to be 

small. Discussions with fluorinated gas 

manufacturers indicate that 

occasionally, fluorinated GHG byproducts may be generated and emitted 

from production processes 

unexpectedly. If these by-products are 

relatively difficult to destroy (e.g., CF4), 

facilities’ post-control emissions may be 

significantly higher than expected.25

The initial scoping test described in the 

next section is intended to identify the 

full range of fluorinated GHGs in 

potentially emitted streams. Applying 

the full methodologies on the basis of 

the initial scoping study will provide 

EPA and the facilities with critical 

information on the extent to which 

control technologies are actually 

reducing emissions and therefore on the 

actual emissions from the facility. 

EPA is requesting comment on an 

alternative approach in which all 

fluorinated gas production facilities, 

regardless of their estimated pre-control 

emissions, would analyze their 

emissions using the initial scoping test 

discussed in the next section. This 

approach would ensure that facilities 

understood the identities, and therefore 

the GWPs, of the fluorinated GHGs 

potentially emitted. EPA requests 

comment on this option, as well as on 

the option of simply eliminating the 

threshold for fluorinated gas production 

facilities and making this an ‘‘all-in’’ 

category. 

As is true for the source categories 

covered by the Final MRR, fluorinated 

GHG production facilities could cease 

reporting if their controlled (postcontrol) emissions were less than 25,000 

mtCO2e per year for five consecutive 

years or less than 15,000 mtCO2e per 

year for three consecutive years. This 

approach may be appropriate if control 

technologies are effective and there is 

no evidence of unexpected uncontrolled 

emissions. However, EPA requests 

comment on an alternative ‘‘off-ramp’’ 

for this source category. Under this 

alternative approach, the 25,000 and 

15,000 mtCO2e triggers would be based 

on the level of emissions that is 

estimated before accounting for the use 

of any control technology (e.g., thermal 

oxidation). EPA is requesting comment 

on this approach because emissions can 

become quite large if the destruction 

device malfunctions, is not operated 

properly, or is not used for some other 

reason. 

As noted above, EPA estimates that 

under this proposal, all HFC, PFC, SF6, 

and NF3 production facilities would be 

covered, and few or no anesthetics 

producing facilities would be covered. 

However, it is possible that EPA has 

underestimated total pre-control 

emissions from anesthetics. In its 

threshold analysis for fluorinated GHG 

production, EPA has assumed that 

emissions have GWPs similar to those of 

the product produced. However, 

fluorinated anesthetics are 

hydrofluoroethers, and other HFE 

production processes of which EPA is 

aware generate by-products with higher 

GWPs than the product. EPA requests 

comment on this issue. 

A full discussion of the threshold 

selection analysis is available in the 

revised Fluorinated Gas Production 

TSD. For specific information on costs, 

including unamortized first year capital 

expenditures, please refer to the 

Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) for this 

rulemaking. 

5. Selection of Proposed Monitoring 

Methods 

a. Summary of Proposed Monitoring 

Methods 

We are proposing to allow facilities to 

use either a mass-balance approach or a 

site-specific, process-vent-specific 

emission factor (PSEF) approach to 

estimate their fluorinated GHG 

emissions from fluorinated GHG 

production. Facilities would be required 

to use the PSEF approach to estimate 

their fluorinated GHG emissions from 

CFC and HCFC production or from 

fluorinated gas transformation. The 

mass-balance approach is similar to that 

proposed in April, 2009, but has been 

modified in some details in response to 

comments. Facilities using either 

approach would be required to perform 

a one-time scoping test to identify the 

fluorinated GHGs in certain emitted 

streams and to verify the destruction 

efficiency (DE) of any destruction 

devices every five years. These 

approaches are discussed in more detail 

below. 

b. Initial Scoping Test of Potentially 

Emitted Fluorinated GHGs 

In today’s action, we are proposing 

that facilities that produce fluorinated 

gases perform an initial scoping test 

(proposed 40 CFR part 98.124(a)). The 

purpose of the scoping test is to ensure 

that all of the fluorinated GHGs that 

occur in emitted streams are properly 

identified. EPA is concerned that 

without the test, facilities could 

mischaracterize the set of fluorinated 

GHGs that was emitted, leading to 

inaccurate emissions estimates. We are 

aware that in general, facilities will have 

already identified most if not all of the 

fluorinated GHGs occurring in emitted 

streams during process design and 

bench and pilot scale testing. However, 

as noted above, we are also aware of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
18674 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

26For example, suppose that a facility believed 

that all of the fluorinated GHG by-products from a 

certain process consisted of HFCs, which its 

destruction device destroyed with a destruction 

efficiency of 99.9 percent, but that one of these byproducts was actually CF4, which the destruction 

device destroyed with an efficiency of only 50 

percent. In this case, the facility could 

underestimate its fluorinated GHG emissions by 

more than an order of magnitude, neither seeking 

nor finding the CF4 that it was actually emitting. 

27EPA is proposing to define ‘‘trace 

concentration’’ as any concentration less than 0.1 

percent by mass of the stream. 

situations in which producers have 

analyzed process or emissions streams 

and found fluorinated GHGs that they 

were not expecting. Such by-product 

fluorinated GHGs can have high GWPs, 

making their CO2-equivalent emissions 

significant. 

Under this requirement, which would 

be one-time for any given process, 

facilities would be required to sample 

the vent(s) or stream(s) that, alone or 

together, would be expected to contain 

all the fluorinated GHG by-products of 

the process. Facilities would be required 

to use EPA Method 18 (GC/ECD, GC/ 

MS), EPA Method 320 (FTIR), or ASTM 

D6348–03 (FTIR) to identify fluorinated 

GHGs that occur in concentrations 

above 0.1 percent in emitted streams. 

For facilities using the mass-balance 

approach, the scoping test could be used 

to determine whether some emissions 

that are assumed to occur in the form of 

the product are actually occurring as byproducts. For facilities using the 

process-vent-specific emission factor 

approach (PSEF), the test would identify 

by-products to measure in subsequent 

emissions testing to develop emission 

factors. 

To avoid the need to survey a large 

number of processes with relatively 

small fluorinated GHG emissions, EPA 

is proposing to limit the scoping test 

requirement to processes that would 

emit more than one metric ton per year 

of fluorinated GHGs before the 

imposition of control technologies. We 

are proposing a limit in tons of 

fluorinated GHGs rather than in tons of 

CO2e because the identities, and 

therefore the GWPs, of some fluorinated 

GHG constituents of the stream may not 

be known. Acquiring this information is 

the purpose of the test. We developed 

the one-ton limit by starting with a limit 

of 10,000 mtCO2e for each process and 

making the reasonably conservative 

assumption that the unknown 

fluorinated GHG could have a GWP of 

10,000. For purposes of estimating the 

mass of fluorinated GHG emitted from 

the process, facilities could use the 

same types of engineering calculations 

that they would use to determine 

whether process vent testing was 

required under the PSEF approach 

(described in more detail below). They 

could assume that the mass of carbon, 

fluorine, or another relevant element is 

emitted in the form of fluorinated GHGs 

that were previously identified in 

bench- or pilot-scale testing. 

We are proposing that the one-metricton trigger be applied to emissions 

before rather than after control because 

some byproducts, particularly CF4, are 

very difficult to destroy. If these byproducts occurred unexpectedly in a 

stream and if the trigger were applied to 

emissions after control, the facility 

would underestimate controlled 

emissions. Consequently, the facility 

could fail to undertake the scoping test 

when it was actually appropriate and 

could overlook the occurrence and 

emissions of the by-products.26 We are 

proposing that facilities test the streams 

before the control device because 

emissions streams are often diluted 

during destruction processes (e.g., due 

to fuel and air feeds), which would 

make it more difficult to detect and 

identify fluorinated GHGs that survived 

the destruction process. However, we 

request comment on this requirement as 

well as on the scoping test requirement 

as a whole. 

c. Mass-Balance Approach 

We are proposing that facilities 

producing fluorinated GHGs have the 

option of monitoring emissions using 

the mass-balance approach. In this 

approach, facilities would calculate the 

difference between the expected 

production of each fluorinated GHG 

based on the consumption of reactants 

and the measured production of that 

fluorinated GHG, accounting for yield 

losses related to byproducts (including 

intermediates permanently removed 

from the process) and wastes. Yield 

losses that could not be accounted for 

would be attributed to emissions of the 

fluorinated GHG product. This 

calculation could be performed for any 

fluorine- or carbon-containing reactant 

(e.g., HF or hydrocarbon) to estimate 

emissions of the fluorinated GHG 

product for that reactant (i.e., the mass 

balance may be based on a carbon 

balance or a fluorine balance). If 

fluorinated GHG byproducts were 

produced and were not completely 

recaptured or completely destroyed, 

facilities would also estimate emissions 

of each fluorinated GHG by-product. 

Because the mass-balance approach 

assumes that losses from the process are 

emissions of the product, EPA believes 

that the mass-balance approach would 

only be appropriate for estimating 

emissions from fluorinated GHG 

production, not production of CFCs, 

HCFCs, or polymers. (In the last three 

situations, the product is not a 

fluorinated GHG.) However, EPA 

requests comment on this issue. 

To be eligible to use the mass-balance 

approach, facilities would have to 

demonstrate that their planned 

measurements could meet a statistical 

error limit required in the rule 

(described below). If the facility could 

not demonstrate that it could meet the 

error limit, it would have to improve the 

accuracy and/or precision of its 

monitoring and measurement devices or 

opt to use another monitoring approach 

offered in the rule. 

To carry out the mass-balance 

approach, the facility would choose a 

reactant for yield calculation purposes. 

The facility would then weigh or meter 

the mass of that reactant fed into the 

process, any primary fluorinated GHG 

produced by the process, the mass of the 

reactant permanently removed from the 

process (i.e., sent to the thermal oxidizer 

or other equipment, not immediately 

recycled back into the process), any 

fluorinated GHG byproducts generated, 

and any streams that contain the 

product or fluorinated GHG byproducts 

and that are recaptured or destroyed. 

These measurements would be tracked 

monthly or more frequently and 

consolidated and recorded on a monthly 

basis. If monitored streams (including 

relevant process streams, emissions 

streams, and destroyed streams) 

included more than one component 

(product, byproducts, or other materials) 

in more than trace concentrations,27 the 

facility would be required to monitor 

concentrations of products and 

byproducts in these streams. Finally, the 

facility would be required to perform 

monthly mass-balance calculations for 

each product produced. 

Statistical Error Estimate. To estimate 

the statistical error associated with use 

of the mass-balance approach, facilities 

would be required to use error 

propagation, considering the accuracy 

and precision of their measurements 

and the calculation methods of the 

mass-balance approach. This approach 

is described in more detail in the TSD 

for this proposal. Under this approach, 

EPA would not specify precision and 

accuracy requirements for individual 

mass or concentration measurements. 

Instead, EPA would require that the 

error associated with the overall 

estimate of fluorinated GHG emissions 

fall under 30 percent (relative error) or 

under 3,000 mtCO2e (absolute error). 

(Both errors are expressed as halves of 

95 percent confidence intervals; for 

normal distributions, this is quite close 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18675 

28The mass-balance approach works by 

subtracting the masses of process outputs from 

those of process inputs. As a result, errors that are 

a relatively small share of these masses become a 

large share of the difference between them. Errors 

are particularly a concern for streams where the 

fluorinated GHG is only one component of the total 

flow, and where, therefore, fluorinated GHG 

concentrations must be measured. In general, the 

accuracy and precision of concentration 

measurements is expected to be approximately +/ 

¥10 percent, although this can be as low as five 

percent and as high as 20 percent, depending on the 

circumstances. If this 10 percent error applies to a 

stream that constitutes a significant input or (more 

likely) output of the process, it can lead to an 

emissions estimate with a high relative error. 

29A 13 percent error expressed as a standard 

deviation translates into a 26 percent error 

expressed as one half of a 95 percent confidence 

interval. 

30Under the initial proposed rule, facilities 

would have been required to perform the massbalance calculations for each reactant (e.g., both HF 

and the chlorocarbon or hydrocarbon) and to take 

the average of the two results as the emissions 

estimate. This would be expected to lead to the 

most robust estimate (i.e., the estimate with the 

lowest uncertainty) if the uncertainties in both yield 

calculations were similar. 

to two standard deviations). Facilities 

could achieve this level of precision 

however they chose. 

We are proposing to require the error 

estimate to ensure that the use of the 

mass-balance approach yields accurate 

emission estimates. As observed by 

several groups that commented on the 

initial proposal, the mass-balance 

approach can result in large errors if 

measurements of the flow of fluorinated 

GHGs in one or more streams have 

significant errors.28 We recognize that 

the proposed approach requires 

facilities to calculate the overall error of 

their own estimates, which adds 

complication and introduces 

opportunities for mistakes. We therefore 

plan to develop a calculation tool that 

would permit reporters to develop an 

error estimate, reducing both their 

burden and the likelihood of errors. 

We are proposing a maximum relative 

error of 30 percent because this error is 

comparable to that cited by the facility 

that has used an emission factor 

approach to estimate its fluorinated 

GHG emissions.29 It is also comparable 

to the error that EPA calculates for a 

facility with an emission rate of two 

percent and with good precisions and 

accuracies for its mass flow 

measurements (+/¥0.2 percent) and for 

its concentration measurement (+/¥10 

percent) of a waste stream constituting 

five percent of the process’s fluorinated 

GHG output flow. 

For facilities whose emissions 

constitute a very small share of their 

inputs and outputs (e.g., one percent or 

less), a relative error of 30 percent will 

be very difficult to achieve using a 

mass-balance approach. At the same 

time, the absolute error of such a 

facility’s estimate may be smaller than 

the absolute error of a facility that meets 

the relative error test but that has a 

higher emission rate. EPA is therefore 

proposing a maximum permissible 

absolute error of 3,000 mtCO2e for 

facilities whose estimates have relative 

errors greater than 30 percent. This 

absolute error is equivalent to 30 

percent of the 10,000 mtCO2e threshold 

that is used elsewhere in the subpart to 

establish requirements for different 

sources (e.g., process vents). Under this 

approach, processes whose emissions 

were lower than 10,000 mtCO2e could 

have relative errors higher than 30 

percent so long as they met the limit on 

absolute error. This approach avoids 

penalizing processes and facilities with 

low emissions. EPA requests comment 

on the absolute error limit of 3,000 

mtCO2e. EPA is also considering a 

higher limit, e.g., 5,000 mtCO2e. 

Another approach that would avoid 

penalizing facilities with low emission 

rates would be to express the maximum 

relative error as a fraction of the total 

mass of reactants fed into (or consumed 

by) the process. For a given process, this 

mass would remain relatively constant 

regardless of the emission rate. For the 

model facility described above, with 

errors of 0.2 percent in its mass flow 

measurements and of 10 percent in its 

concentration measurements, the error 

of the emissions estimate relative to the 

total mass of reactants is about 0.3 

percent. One advantage of this approach 

compared to the absolute limit is that 

this approach limits the relative errors 

for processes with small throughputs, 

while the absolute limit could permit 

very large relative errors for processes 

with small throughputs. EPA requests 

comment on this approach. 

In developing the approach to 

specifying maximum absolute and/or 

relative errors for the overall emissions 

estimate, we considered the alternative 

of specifying the maximum allowable 

errors (precisions and accuracies) of the 

individual measurements that feed into 

the mass-balance equation. This is the 

approach that EPA took in the initial 

proposal. This approach limits error, but 

it also limits flexibility, a concern raised 

by several commenters. Even a facility 

with a relatively large error in one 

stream may be able to bring the total 

error of its emissions estimate to a 

tolerable level by improving the 

accuracy and precision of other 

measurements that are used in the massbalance equation, such as the mass 

flows of reactants and products. 

Nevertheless, EPA requests comment on 

the option of reverting to specific 

tolerances for individual measurements 

that feed into the mass-balance 

equation, as originally proposed. 

Choice of Reactant Whose Yield Is 

Measured. EPA is today proposing to 

allow facilities to estimate emissions 

under the mass-balance approach using 

one of the reactants rather than both as 

originally proposed.30 Some fluorinated 

GHG producers noted that, for various 

reasons, it is sometimes considerably 

more difficult to track the yields of some 

reactants than others (e.g., HF vs. an 

organic feedstock). EPA notes that 

facilities estimating their emissions 

based on the yield of one reactant would 

still need to be able to demonstrate that 

their estimate passed the statistical error 

test discussed above. EPA requests 

comment on this approach. 

Frequency of Measurement and 

Calculation. In today’s proposed rule, 

EPA is proposing to require that 

facilities using the mass-balance 

approach measure and calculate their 

emissions monthly. A number of 

fluorocarbon producers who 

commented on the initial proposal 

noted that daily measurements were 

burdensome and led to large errors in 

the estimates of daily emissions. They 

observed that many streams contain 

acidic and reactive constituents such as 

HF, and that sampling from these 

streams can create safety hazards. They 

also noted that daily yield 

measurements can vary significantly 

(sometimes exceeding 100 percent) for 

three reasons. First, when continuous 

processes are first started, there is a lag 

time between the time the reactants are 

fed into the process and the time 

products emerge. Second, even after the 

process has been running for a while, 

the quantity of material in the process 

can vary based on weather, changes in 

production rates, and other conditions. 

Third, the relatively large errors in 

measurements of in-process product 

holding tanks (e.g., based on sight-glass 

readings) have a significant impact on 

daily mass balances. Over time, all of 

these effects smooth out, making longer 

term mass balances far more reliable 

than daily mass balances. 

EPA has carefully considered these 

comments. The goal of the rule is to 

gather information on annual, not daily, 

emissions. The advantage of more 

frequent measurements and calculations 

is that, where mass flows and 

concentrations are variable, more 

frequent measurements and calculations 

will lead to more accurate and precise 

estimates than less frequent 

measurements and calculations. 

However, in this case the disadvantages 

of daily measurement and calculation 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
18676 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

31For example, if the survey indicated that 

attributing all unaccounted-for losses to product 

emissions would lead to more than a ten percent 

error in the CO2e emitted, the facility could be 

required to adjust its emissions estimate to account 

for by-product losses. 

32Such equipment or procedures could include, 

for example, holding tank capacity, monitoring of 

by-pass streams, or compulsory process shutdowns 

in the event the destruction device remains off line. 

33As noted above, process vents are only one of 

the sources of emissions from production, 

transformation, and destruction processes. Another 

source is equipment leaks, specifically, leaks from 

piping and connections. The mass-balance 

approach does not need to be supplemented with 

equipment leak assessment because it accounts for 

all emissions between the measurements of inputs 

appear to outweigh the advantages. EPA 

believes that monthly mass-balance 

calculations will lead to acceptably 

accurate estimates at reasonable cost. 

Nevertheless, EPA requests comment on 

whether the variability of the mass 

flows or concentrations in some 

production processes may be 

sufficiently large to justify more 

frequent measurement and calculation, 

e.g., weekly. 

EPA also requests comment on 

whether annual or less frequent 

characterizations of fluorinated GHG 

concentrations in some streams should 

be permitted under the mass-balance 

approach. Some fluorinated GHG 

producers have stated that it is difficult 

to measure fluorinated GHG 

concentrations in some streams. In some 

cases, this is because waste streams 

contain hydrofluoric acid (HF), which, 

due to its acidity and reactivity, can 

damage sampling and analytical 

equipment. As discussed in the TSD, 

there may be technical solutions to this 

problem. To the extent that these 

approaches could be relatively difficult 

or expensive to implement, however, it 

might be appropriate to permit very 

infrequent measurements. The 

disadvantage of this approach is that it 

might lead to large errors, particularly 

for processes that vary over time. A 

series of measurements might be 

required to (1) reduce the error and (2) 

quantify the error for purposes of the 

statistical error test. Such measurements 

would be analogous to those used to 

develop emission factors. 

Reactant and Byproduct Emissions. 

EPA recognizes that the proposed massbalance approach would assume that all 

yield losses that are not accounted for 

are attributable to emissions of the 

fluorinated GHG product. In some cases, 

the losses may be untracked emissions 

(or other losses) of reactants or 

fluorinated by-products. In general, EPA 

understands that reactant flows are 

measured at the inlet to the reactor; 

thus, any losses of reactant that occur 

between the point of measurement and 

the reactor are likely to be small. 

However, reactants that are recovered 

from the process, whether they are 

recycled back into it or removed 

permanently, may experience some 

losses that the proposed method does 

not account for. 

Fluorocarbon by-products, according 

to the IPCC Guidelines, generally have 

‘‘radiative forcing properties similar to 

those of the desired fluorochemical.’’ 

However, EPA is aware of at least one 

facility where byproducts often have 

much larger GWPs than the products. In 

this case, assuming by-product 

emissions are product emissions would 

lead to large errors in estimating overall 

fluorinated GHG emissions. EPA 

believes that the initial scoping test of 

emitted streams that is discussed above 

would help to determine whether this 

was an issue for a given process.31 If it 

was, then the facility could elect to 

pursue the PSEF approach rather than 

the mass-balance approach for that 

process, or, if the facility was still 

interested in pursuing the mass-balance 

approach, it could perform more 

emissions testing to develop a robust 

break-out among the fluorinated GHGs 

assumed to be emitted under the massbalance approach. Such emissions 

testing would be similar to that 

performed for the PSEF approach below, 

except it would focus on the 

partitioning of emissions among the 

various fluorinated GHGs. This 

approach is discussed in more detail in 

the TSD. EPA requests comment on this 

and other possible approaches for 

distinguishing between emissions of 

fluorinated GHG products and 

emissions of fluorinated by-products 

under the mass-balance approach. 

Alternative approach based on 

measurements of balanced element (e.g., 

total fluorine). EPA is considering an 

alternative to the mass-balance 

approach described above in which 

facilities would not be required to 

speciate their streams (including 

relevant process streams, destroyed 

streams, and emitted streams) monthly. 

Instead, they could make monthly 

measurements of the total fluorine (or 

other element of interest other than 

carbon) in the streams, e.g., by burning 

them. This approach, which is 

described in more detail in the TSD, 

could be particularly useful for 

processes with multiple by-products. 

Facilities would still be required to 

perform an initial survey of the 

fluorinated GHGs in the stream(s) to 

identify the fluorinated GHG 

constituents. In addition, as discussed 

above, it may be appropriate to require 

facilities to perform emissions testing to 

ensure that emissions are properly 

allocated among the product and 

various by-products. However, facilities 

would perform this testing relatively 

infrequently (e.g., every five years) 

rather than monthly. One potential 

concern regarding this variant of the 

mass-balance approach is the potential 

difficulty of performing analysis of 

combustion products that are likely to 

include HF and HCl. It may be 

appropriate to require facilities to 

validate this approach against the massbalance method described above. EPA 

requests comment on this approach. 

d. Process-Specific Emission Factor 

Approach 

EPA is proposing an additional 

monitoring approach based on sitespecific, process-specific emissions 

factors. This approach includes either 

calculation or measurement of process 

vent emission factors depending on the 

size and fate of the emissions from the 

vent. Under this approach, facilities 

would develop preliminary emissions 

estimates to determine the level of 

annual uncontrolled emissions from 

each process vent in processes subject to 

this subpart. For process vents with 

uncontrolled emissions of less than 

10,000 mtCO2e (or less than 1 metric ton 

for emissions that include a fluorinated 

GHG whose GWP does not appear in 

Table A–1 of subpart A), facilities could 

conduct either engineering calculations 

or emissions testing to develop emission 

factors. Facilities could also conduct 

either engineering calculations or 

emissions testing to develop emission 

factors for emissions that were vented to 

a destruction device demonstrated to 

achieve a destruction efficiency of 99.9 

percent (for fluorinated GHGs), as long 

as equipment or procedures 32 were in 

place to ensure that uncontrolled 

emissions did not occur. For other 

vented emissions, facilities would be 

required to conduct emissions testing to 

determine the process vent emission 

factor. 

To estimate annual fluorinated GHG 

emissions from each vent, facilities 

would multiply each emission factor by 

the appropriate activity data and 

account for the use (and uptime) of 

destruction devices. The fluorinated 

GHG emissions for all vents at the 

facility would be summed to obtain the 

total emissions from process vents for 

the facility as a whole. 

To ensure that the emissions estimate 

encompassed all sources of emissions 

within the processes that would be 

subject to this subpart, facilities using 

the emission factor approach would also 

be required to estimate emissions from 

equipment leaks.33 Leaks would be 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18677 

and outputs, whether these emissions occur from 

vents or leaks. (This assumes that the production 

measurement used to estimate and report emissions 

under the mass-balance approach is the same as 

that used to report additions to the industrial gas 

supply. EPA is proposing that these two 

measurements be identical.) 

34EPA Method 320 and the ASTM method are 

Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) methods. For 

such methods, compounds are identified by 

characteristic spectra, and libraries providing 

spectra for the range of compounds likely to be 

found in emissions streams can greatly facilitate 

analysis. EPA requests comment on whether such 

spectral libraries are available for fluorinated GHGs, 

and if not, on whether EPA might play a role in 

assembling a spectral library for fluorinated GHGs. 

35EPA is proposing an exception if monitoring is 

sufficiently long to ensure that such events are not 

overrepresented in the emission factor. 

monitored annually using EPA Method 

21 and the Protocol for Equipment Leak 

Estimates U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA Publication No. 

EPA–453/R–95–017, November 1995. 

EPA is proposing less demanding 

measurement requirements for small 

and destroyed emission streams to 

ensure that the effort and resources 

expended to measure emissions are 

commensurate with the size of those 

emissions. This principle has been 

adopted both for other source categories 

in the MRR and for numerous other EPA 

programs. However, EPA is requesting 

comment on some aspects of its 

proposed approaches. 

First, we request comment on the 

appropriateness of the CO2e cutoff 

below which calculations are permitted. 

One potential concern associated with 

this approach is that 10,000 mtCO2e 

equates to relatively low mass emissions 

of fluorinated GHGs with high GWPs. 

For example, 10,000 mtCO2e equates to 

923 pounds of SF6 and 1,282 pounds of 

NF3. Our understanding is that SF6 can 

be detected at extremely low emission 

rates and concentrations, but we request 

comment on whether emissions of other 

high-GWP compounds at this level may 

be difficult to detect. An option on 

which we are requesting comment is to 

relax the CO2e emissions cutoff and to 

include an unweighted emissions cutoff 

(i.e., in tons of fluorinated GHG) along 

with it. For example, for process vents 

with less than 25,000 mtCO2e 

uncontrolled and less than 10,000 

pounds of fluorinated GHG 

uncontrolled, facilities would have the 

option to conduct emissions testing or 

engineering calculations or assessments. 

Second, EPA requests comment on its 

criteria for allowing use of engineering 

calculations to characterize the 

emissions of process vents that vent to 

destruction devices. EPA understands 

that many and perhaps most destruction 

devices used at fluorinated GHG 

production facilities can achieve DEs of 

99.9 percent or better. EPA also 

understands that many facilities have 

equipment or procedures in place to 

prevent uncontrolled emissions, though 

some do not. It is important to note that 

uncontrolled emissions during device 

downtime can reduce the effective 

(time-weighted average) DE to 90 

percent or less, increasing emissions by 

a factor of 100 or more. However, one 

alternative to the proposed approach 

would be to allow the use of engineering 

calculations for any vent whose 

emissions, considering both the DE and 

the historical uptime of the destruction 

device, fell below the 10,000 mtCO2e 

cutoff. For purposes of this calculation, 

the annual time of uncontrolled 

emissions could be equated to the 

longest annual time of uncontrolled 

emissions observed over the previous 

five years. EPA requests comment on 

this alternative approach. 

Preliminary estimates. To develop 

preliminary emissions estimates for 

each vent, facilities would be permitted 

to use the same types of previous 

measurements, engineering calculations, 

and engineering assessments that they 

would be permitted to use to develop 

emission calculation factors. These are 

described below under ‘‘Process-specific 

Emission Calculation Factor Approach.’’ 

Process vent emissions testing. For 

process vent emissions testing, facilities 

would be required to use EPA reference 

methods, including EPA Method 18 and 

EPA Method 320, or ASTM D6348–03.34

Alternative testing methods could be 

used if validated using EPA Method 

301. EPA reference methods are 

included in the rule requirements for 

determining sample and velocity 

traverses, velocity and volumetric flow 

rates, gas analysis, and stack gas 

moisture, along with several alternative 

flow rate determination methods, such 

as OTM–24 and ALT–012. Commenters 

who have previously estimated their 

emissions of fluorinated GHGs stated 

that they used these approaches to do 

so. 

The testing periods would be required 

to include representative process 

operation and to exclude atypical events 

(such as process upsets or 

malfunctions).35 Within any given 

operating scenario (discussed further 

below), the full range of process 

operation would be required to be 

represented, i.e. the emissions data must 

be representative of typical process 

operation while also including process 

variability. Facilities would be required 

to consider process parameters that may 

potentially cause variability of the 

emissions, such as catalyst degradation, 

seasonal variability, raw material 

suppliers, etc. For example, where a 

facility uses a catalyst, test runs would 

have to be conducted at various points 

over the life of the catalyst. The 

production level during the testing 

periods would be required to be 

representative of normal operation. 

To develop process-specific emissions 

factors, facilities would be required to 

conduct at least three test runs and to 

analyze the relative standard deviation 

(RSD) of the emission factors 

corresponding to each run to determine 

whether additional runs were necessary. 

The emission factors and their RSD 

would be calculated across all 

fluorinated GHGs emitted from the vent 

in CO2e terms. If the RSD exceeded 

twenty percent, the facility would be 

required to conduct an additional three 

tests. The rationale for the RSD test is 

that if the variability of a population or 

parameter is large, then more samples 

are required to obtain a robust estimate 

of the mean (average) of that parameter. 

EPA estimates that at a relative standard 

deviation of 20 percent, an emission 

factor calculated as the mean of three 

test runs has a 95 percent chance of 

being within 50 percent of the actual 

mean emission rate of the process. The 

reasoning and calculations behind this 

conclusion are discussed in more detail 

in the TSD. 

An alternative approach would be to 

conduct additional runs until the 

change in the running average emission 

factor fell under 10 percent. This 

approach is similar to requirements for 

measuring emission factors (slope 

coefficients) in subpart F (Primary 

Aluminum) and could provide 

representative emissions from the 

process and address variability. 

However, it has two potential 

drawbacks in the context of fluorinated 

gas production. First, for processes 

whose variability is predictable (e.g., 

due to catalyst age) rather than random, 

the fourth sample could satisfy the 

running average requirement but lead to 

a biased emission factor, for example if 

two of the four samples were taken 

when the catalyst was new. Second, 

facilities could find it inconvenient to 

analyze samples and calculate emission 

factors between each test run after the 

first three. EPA requests comment on 

this alternative approach. 

For continuous process vents, 

facilities would conduct 1-hour test 

runs, and for batch process vents, 

facilities would test during emissions 

episodes of the batch. We request 

comment on the appropriate number of 

test runs to conduct for continuous and 

batch process vents and the appropriate 

RSD that facilities should meet. We also 

request comment of the appropriateness 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
18678 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

of testing batch process vents during 

emissions episodes only. Another 

option is to require testing of vents for 

the full duration of the batch process, 

but this could significantly increase the 

expense of the emissions test without 

necessarily improving its accuracy. 

Where multiple processes vent into a 

common vent or control device, EPA is 

proposing that facilities do one of the 

following: sample each process in the 

ducts before the emissions are 

combined, sample when only one 

process is operating, or sample the 

combined emissions at representative 

combinations of capacity utilizations for 

all the processes. If the last option were 

selected, facilities would be required to 

perform 3 times n test runs, where n is 

the number of processes feeding into the 

common vent or add-on control device. 

The emission factor would be calculated 

by dividing the total emissions by the 

summed activity across the processes 

venting to the common vent, and the 

PSEF would be applied whenever one 

or more of the processes was operating. 

Process activity data would have to be 

collected simultaneously with the 

emissions data during the emissions 

test. The process activity data would be 

used to develop the emissions factor. 

Process activity data that could be used 

in development of the emissions factor 

includes raw material feed, amount of 

product produced, or other process 

activity known to have a direct effect on 

emissions. 

Facilities would be required to define 

the operating scenario that encompasses 

the range of operating conditions that 

represent typical operation for the 

process and to develop representative 

emissions factors for each operating 

scenario. To define the process 

operating scenario, a facility would 

include information including the 

process description and the specific 

process equipment used; the process 

vents, emission episodes and durations, 

and the quantity of uncontrolled 

fluorinated GHG emissions; the control 

device or destruction device used to 

control emissions; and the manifolding 

of process vents within the process and 

from other processes. Alternative 

operating scenarios would also be 

defined for differences in operating 

conditions that affect emissions. 

Examples of situations where process 

differences may warrant separate 

operating scenarios include the 

following: Making small volumes of a 

product in one set of batch process 

equipment part of the year and making 

larger volumes in larger batch process 

equipment part of the year; use of two 

different types of catalyst in the same 

process; deliberate alterations in process 

conditions such as temperature or 

pressure to shift the reaction to a 

particular product; and making small 

volumes of a product in a batch process 

part of the year and making large 

volumes in a continuous process part of 

the year. A facility is required to 

develop a representative emissions 

factor for each process operating 

scenario because each operating 

scenario for a process will result in 

different emissions levels. 

In general, emissions testing during 

process startups and shutdowns would 

not be expected to lead to representative 

emission factors, because emission rates 

tend to fluctuate during such events. 

Exceptions to this could include longterm monitoring that would not overrepresent startup or shutdown 

conditions in the resulting emission 

factor, and monitoring specifically to 

obtain emission factors for startups and 

shutdowns conditions. Several 

companies indicated that they have 

analyzed the emissions profile during 

startup events and during shutdown 

events. They found that the emission 

rates during these events departed from 

those at steady state conditions, but that 

emissions profiles were consistent 

between one startup event and another. 

The uncertainty of the process-ventspecific emission factor approach is 

anticipated to be roughly 10 percent; the 

uncertainty of the emissions testing is 

estimated to be approximately 10 

percent (as calibration requirements for 

most test methods require ±10 percent 

accuracy and precision), and the 

uncertainty of the process activity 

measurement is ±1 percent. While 

emissions testing must continue if the 

first three test runs exhibit an RSD or 

0.2 or greater, the RSD is expected to be 

a measure of the variability of the 

process rather than the error of the 

measurement. 

EPA is proposing that emission 

factors would need to be developed 

before December 31, 2011, the end of 

the first year of reporting under this 

subpart. Throughout 2011, facilities 

would be responsible for gathering 

monthly activity data to which the 

emission factors, once developed, 

would be applied to estimate monthly 

and annual emissions from each 

process. 

Updates to Emission Factors. After 

developing their initial process-ventspecific emission factors, facilities 

would be required to update them every 

5 years or when there was a process or 

equipment change that would alter the 

process operating scenario. Process or 

equipment changes would include 

changes in raw materials, equipment, 

production levels, or operating 

conditions that would be expected to 

affect the level of emissions. EPA is 

proposing periodic updates of the 

emission factors because facilities that 

have measured and re-measured their 

emission factors over a period of several 

years have found that gradual, 

incremental changes to the process (e.g., 

to improve yields) have significantly 

changed emission factors over time. The 

proposed five-year frequency is 

consistent with that required for some 

source categories covered in the MRR 

(e.g., for process vents used in HCFC– 

22 production processes under subpart 

O) but is higher than that required for 

others (e.g., the 10-year frequency for 

measurement of slope factors for 

aluminum processes). EPA requests 

comment on the proposed frequency of 

measurement. 

An alternative to regular updates to 

emission factors would be updates 

triggered by changes to other indicators 

of emission rates, such as process 

yields. Under such an approach, 

facilities could calculate how their 

emission factor would change if the 

change in yield were attributable solely 

to a change in the emission rate. If this 

change exceeded 15 percent (as a 

fraction of the current emission factor), 

the emission factor would need to be remeasured. EPA requests comment on 

this alternative. 

Measurements performed before the 

effective date of this rule. We are 

proposing that emission factor 

measurements performed before the 

effective date of this rule could be used 

to estimate GHG emissions if the 

measurements were performed in 

accordance with the requirements of the 

rule less than five years before the 

effective date. We believe that it may 

also be appropriate to permit use of 

previously measured emission factors 

whose measurement departed in some 

particulars from the requirements of the 

rule but still substantially met most of 

the requirements, making it likely that 

the emission factors were 

representative. In this case, facilities 

could submit information to EPA on 

areas where measurements departed 

from the requirements from the rule, 

and EPA could review the 

measurements to verify that they still 

substantially met most of the 

requirements. We request comment on 

this option. 

Process-Specific Emission Calculation 

Factor Approach. As noted above, 

facilities could use engineering 

calculations to estimate emissions from 

vents that either (1) had annual 

emissions below 1,000 mtCO2e or (2) 

vented to a control device with a 

destruction efficiency of 99.9 percent 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18679 

36One producer estimates HFC and other 

fluorocarbon emissions by using the Average 

Emission Factor Approach. This approach simply 

assigns an average emission factor to each 

component without any evaluation of whether or 

how much that component is actually leaking. The 

second producer estimates emissions using the 

Screening Ranges Approach, which assigns 

different emission factors to components based on 

whether the concentrations of the target chemical 

are above or below 10,000 ppmv. This producer has 

developed a Response Factor for HCFC–22, which 

is present in the same streams as the HFC–23 whose 

leaks are being estimated. (HFC–23 emissions are 

discussed in Section O of the October 30, 2009 

MRR.) 

and had equipment and procedures in 

place to prevent uncontrolled 

emissions. We are proposing an 

emission factor approach that includes 

both emissions testing and engineering 

calculations, with the required approach 

depending on the magnitude of 

uncontrolled emissions from the process 

vent. 

Engineering calculations use basic 

chemical engineering principles and 

component property data to calculate 

emissions (and develop emission 

factors) rather than actually measuring 

emissions. Calculations for various 

emissions episodes could be conducted 

using standard equations presented in 

EPA’s Emissions Inventory 

Improvement Process guidance 

documents, Pharmaceutical NESHAP, 

and Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP. 

Calculations highlighted in these 

documents and in codified rule text 

include vapor displacement, purging, 

heating, depressurization, vacuum 

systems, gas evolution, air drying, and 

empty vessel purging. 

Engineering assessments may be 

conducted using previous test data or 

other information available on the 

process. Engineering assessments 

include use of previous test reports 

where the emissions are representative 

of current operating practices; benchscale or pilot-scale test data that are 

representative of full-scale process 

operating conditions; design analysis 

based on chemical engineering 

principles, measurable process 

parameters, or physical or chemical 

laws or properties. The data used in 

engineering assessments must be 

documented. 

Process activity data must be 

measured in conjunction with the 

emissions estimate based on 

calculations and assessments. This 

process activity data is needed to 

develop the emissions calculation 

factor. 

Just as for emission factor 

development, facilities are required to 

define the operating scenario for the 

emission calculation factor 

development. Alternative operating 

scenarios would also be defined for 

differences in operating conditions that 

affect emissions. As discussed 

previously for the emission factor 

approach, a facility would be required 

to develop a representative emission 

calculation factor for each process 

operating scenario because each 

operating scenario for a process will 

result in different emission levels (see 

discussion above). 

Facilities would update the processvent-specific emission calculation 

factors every five years or when there is 

a process or equipment change that 

would alter the process operating 

scenario. 

Potential use of continuous emissions 

monitors to measure emissions from 

vents. Another option we are 

considering is to require that facilities 

measure emissions from fluorinated gas 

production facilities using continuous 

emissions monitors (CEMS). Under this 

approach, facilities would be required to 

install and operate CEMS capable of 

measuring fluorinated GHGs to measure 

process emissions. The requirements for 

the CEMs would be similar to those in 

subpart C, adjusted, as appropriate, to 

accommodate CEMS for fluorinated 

gases. One possible option is to use 

Fourier Transform Infrared 

Spectrometers (FTIRs) in scrubber 

stacks to measure emissions. FTIR 

spectroscopy is presently used to 

conduct short-term fluorinated GHG 

emission measurements from processes. 

If properly selected and maintained, 

CEMS would be expected to provide 

estimates of emissions more accurate 

than either the mass-balance or the 

process-vent approach. However, 

potential drawbacks to requiring CEMS 

are that they would be relatively 

expensive to install and they may not 

tolerate the acidic and reactive 

environments found in vents at many 

fluorinated gas production facilities. 

(The latter concern might be mitigated 

by installing CEMS after a scrubber, if 

this is practicable.) Given these 

potential concerns, it may be 

appropriate to require CEMS for 

particularly large emission streams, e.g., 

those resulting in emissions of more 

than 50,000 mtCO2e annually. EPA 

requests comment on the use and 

implementation of CEMS at fluorinated 

gas production facilities. We also 

request data or other information 

evaluating the use of CEMS in 

fluorinated gas production facilities to 

determine fluorinated GHG emissions. 

Equipment Leak Emissions Estimates. 

For completeness, EPA is proposing that 

monitoring of process vents be 

supplemented by monitoring of 

equipment leaks, whose emissions do 

not occur through process vents. To 

estimate emissions from equipment 

leaks, we would require use of EPA 

Method 21 and the Protocol for 

Equipment Leak Estimates (EPA–453/R– 

95–017). Leak monitoring would be 

performed annually. The Protocol 

includes four methods for estimating 

equipment leaks. These are, from least 

to most accurate, the Average Emission 

Factor Approach, the Screening Ranges 

Approach, EPA Correlation Approach, 

and the Unit-Specific Correlation 

Approach. We are proposing that the 

facility use one of the last three 

methods. To use these methods, the 

facility would need to have (or develop) 

Response Factors relating 

concentrations of the target fluorinated 

GHG (or surrogate gas co-occurring in 

the stream) to concentrations of the gas 

with which the leak detector is 

calibrated. Our understanding is that 

flame ionization detectors (FIDs) are 

generally insensitive to fluorinated 

GHGs, and that they are therefore not 

likely to be effective for detecting and 

quantifying fluorinated GHG leaks. An 

exception to this would be a situation in 

which the fluorinated GHG occurred in 

a stream along with a substance (e.g., a 

hydrocarbon) to which the FID was 

sensitive; in this case, the other 

substance could be used as a surrogate 

to quantify leaks from the stream. We 

understand that at least two 

fluorocarbon producers currently use 

methods in the Protocol to quantify 

their emissions of fluorinated GHGs 

with different levels of accuracy and 

precision.36 Other analytical techniques 

that are sensitive to fluorinated 

compounds may be available to monitor 

concentrations of equipment leaks, 

including photoionization, ultraviolet, 

infrared, and others. EPA requests 

comment on the availability and use of 

portable monitoring instruments for 

equipment leak monitoring of 

fluorinated GHG. 

Another approach for monitoring 

leaks from pieces of equipment includes 

use of the Alternative Work Practice 

(AWP) for EPA Method 21 (similar to 

monitoring requirements under 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart A, 40 CFR part 60.18; 

40 CFR part 63, subpart A, 40 CFR part 

63.11; or 40 CFR part 65, subpart A, 40 

CFR part 65.7). This approach would 

include monitoring leaking equipment 

with an optical gas imaging instrument. 

Emissions from those pieces of 

equipment found to be leaking could be 

estimated based on emission factors. 

Under this approach, facilities would be 

required to image each piece of 

equipment associated with processes 

covered under subpart L and in 

fluorinated GHG service, and all 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
18680 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

emissions imaged by the optical gas 

imaging instrument would be 

considered leaks and would be subject 

to emissions estimation. EPA requests 

comment on the technical feasibility 

and accuracy of this approach for 

fluorinated GHG emissions. 

Other Potentially Significant Emission 

Points. We are requesting comment on 

the inclusion of fluorinated GHG 

emissions from storage tanks, 

wastewater, and container filling, 

particularly where these emissions 

occur before the production 

measurement at fluorinated GHG 

production facilities. We anticipate that 

emissions from wastewater and storage 

tanks would be small to insignificant 

due to the low solubility of most 

fluorinated GHGs in water and the use 

of pressurized tanks for storage. 

However, we request comment on the 

emission levels expected from these 

emission points. 

Our current understanding is that 

most fluorinated GHG production 

facilities measure their production 

before container filling, e.g., by using 

flowmeters just upstream of the 

container connection to measure the 

mass flowing into the containers. If this 

is the case, emissions that occur during 

or after filling (e.g., from hoses and 

connections) would have been included 

in the production (supply) 

measurement. However, if production is 

measured by weighing containers before 

and after filling, then emissions during 

container filling would not have been 

included in the production 

measurement. In these cases, facilities 

using the emission factor approach 

would need to quantify container filling 

emissions for completeness. Possible 

methods for tracking these emissions 

include engineering estimates, default 

or site-specific emission factors, and 

mass balances. These methods are 

discussed in more detail in the TSD. 

Destruction Device Performance 

Testing. EPA is proposing to require 

fluorinated gas producers that destroy 

fluorinated GHGs to conduct an 

emissions test every five years to 

determine the destruction efficiency 

(DE) of the destruction device. As 

discussed further in the TSD, the testing 

for determining the DE would be similar 

to the emissions testing required to 

develop process-specific emission 

factors, described above. Facilities 

would be required to conduct their 

testing when operating at high loads 

reasonably expected to occur and when 

destroying the most-difficult-to-destroy 

fluorinated GHG fed into the device (or 

when destroying a surrogate that was 

more difficult to destroy than that 

fluorinated GHG). The last point is 

particularly important because some 

fluorinated GHGs (e.g., CF4 and SF6) are 

extremely difficult to destroy; DEs 

determined for other fluorinated GHGs 

would overestimate the destruction of 

these fluorinated GHGs. 

Facilities that have conducted an 

emissions test on their destruction 

device within the five years prior to the 

effective date of the rule would be 

allowed to use the DE determined 

during that test if the test was 

conducted in accordance with the 

proposed test requirements. Facilities 

could also use the DREs determined 

during principal organic hazardous 

constituent testing and hazardous waste 

combustor testing, provided those tests 

determined the DRE based on the mostdifficult-to-destroy fluorinated GHG fed 

into the device (or based on a surrogate 

that was more difficult to destroy than 

the most-difficult-to-destroy fluorinated 

GHG). 

EPA is proposing to require reporting 

of fluorinated GHG emissions from 

destruction of fluorinated GHGs; we 

request comment on whether we should 

also require reporting of by-product 

fluorinated GHG emissions from 

destruction of CFCs and HCFCs. 

Specifically, we request comment on the 

extent to which fluorinated GHGs may 

be generated and emitted during 

destruction of CFCs and HCFCs at 

facilities producing these chemicals. 

Testing of destruction devices used in 

the electronics sector has shown that 

destruction of one fluorinated 

compound can lead to the emission of 

others under some circumstances. 

6. Selection of Procedures for Estimating 

Missing Data 

In the event that a scale or flowmeter 

normally used to measure reactants, 

products, by-products, or wastes fails to 

meet a test to verify its accuracy or 

precision, malfunctions, or is rendered 

inoperable, we are proposing that 

facilities be required to estimate these 

quantities using other measurements 

where these data are available. For 

example, facilities that ordinarily 

measure production by metering the 

flow into the day tank could use the 

weight of product charged into shipping 

containers for sale and distribution as a 

substitute. It is our understanding that 

the types of flowmeters and scales used 

to measure fluorocarbon production 

(e.g., Coriolis meters) are generally quite 

reliable, and therefore that it should 

rarely be necessary to rely solely on 

secondary production measurements. In 

general, production facilities rely on 

accurate monitoring and reporting of the 

inputs and outputs of the production 

process. Nevertheless, EPA is also 

proposing that if a secondary mass 

measurement for the stream is not 

available, producers can use a related 

parameter and the historical 

relationship between the related 

parameter and the missing parameter to 

estimate the flow. 

If concentration measurements are 

unavailable for some period, we are 

proposing that the facility use the 

average of the concentration 

measurements from just before and just 

after the period of missing data. 

We request comment on these 

proposed methods for estimating 

missing data. 

7. Selection of Data Reporting 

Requirements 

Under the proposed rule, owners and 

operators of facilities producing 

fluorinated gases would be required to 

report both their fluorinated GHG 

emissions and the quantities used to 

estimate them on a process-specific 

basis. They would also be required to 

report the results of each scoping study, 

specifically, the chemical identities of 

the contents of potentially emitted 

streams. Facilities using the massbalance approach would report the 

masses of the reactants, products, byproducts, and wastes, and, if applicable, 

the quantities of any product in the byproducts and/or wastes (if that product 

is emitted at the facility). The chemical 

identities of reactants, products, and byproducts would also be reported, along 

with the chemical equations used to 

estimate emissions. Facilities using the 

emission factor approach would report 

the activity data used to calculate 

emissions (e.g., the quantity produced, 

transformed, or destroyed) and the 

emission factors used to estimate them. 

We are proposing that owners and 

operators report annual totals of these 

quantities by process and facility. 

Where fluorinated GHG production 

facilities have estimated missing data, 

the facility would be required to report 

the reason the data were missing, the 

length of time the data were missing, the 

method used to estimate the missing 

data, and the estimates of those data. 

We propose that facilities report these 

data because the data are necessary to 

verify facilities’ calculations of 

fluorinated GHG emissions. We request 

comment on these proposed reporting 

requirements. 

8. Selection of Records That Must Be 

Retained 

Maintaining records of the 

information used to determine the 

reported GHG emissions is necessary to 

enable us to verify that the GHG 

emissions monitoring and calculations 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18681 

37Unless otherwise specified in an individual 

subpart, facility means any physical property, plant, 

building, structure, source, or stationary equipment 

located on one or more contiguous or adjacent 

properties in actual physical contact or separated 

solely by a public roadway or other public right-ofway and under common ownership or common 

control, that emits or may emit any greenhouse gas. 

Operators of military installations may classify such 

installations as more than a single facility based on 

distinct and independent functional groupings 

within contiguous military properties. 

38Energy Information Administration of the U.S. 

Department of Energy, Energy Glossary: Energy 

terms and definitions; http://www.eia.gov/glossary. 39Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative Model 

Rule, 2008. 

were done correctly. Under the 

proposed rule, owners and operators of 

facilities producing fluorinated GHGs 

would be required to retain records 

documenting the data reported, 

including records of monthly emission 

estimation calculations, all data that 

went in to the calculations, calibration 

records for flowmeters, scales, and gas 

chromatographs, and documentation of 

emission factor development activities. 

These records are necessary to verify 

that the GHG emissions monitoring and 

calculations were performed correctly. 

C. Electric Transmission and 

Distribution Equipment Use 

In the April 2009 proposed MRR (74 

FR 16448; April 10, 2009), EPA 

proposed mandatory reporting of SF6

and PFC emissions from electric power 

transmission and distribution system 

equipment in subpart DD. As initially 

proposed, this source category would 

comprise electric power transmission 

and distribution systems that operate 

using gas-insulated substations, circuit 

breakers and other switchgear, or power 

transformers containing sulfur 

hexafluoride (SF6) or perfluorocarbons 

(PFCs) and emissions would represent 

the annual facility-wide emissions of 

SF6 and PFCs for the reporting facility. 

EPA received comment from 

approximately 22 entities, many of 

whom requested elaboration on what is 

included in an electric power system for 

purposes of this source category as well 

as the relationship of an electric power 

system to a facility. The requirements of 

40 CFR part 98 apply to owners and 

operators of any ‘‘facility’’.37 EPA is 

issuing this supplemental proposal to 

provide additional detail on this source 

category. 

In doing so, our objective is to clarify 

and solicit further comment on the 

scope of an ‘‘electric power system’’ and 

what constitutes a facility for this 

subpart. We also provide further detail 

on options we considered. We are 

proposing to integrate the Energy 

Information Administration of the 

Department of Energy (EIA) list of 

examples of electric power entities into 

the definition of a facility for this 

subpart. The EIA lists the following as 

electric power entities: ‘‘a company; an 

electric cooperative; a public electric 

supply corporation as the Tennessee 

Valley authority; a similar Federal 

department or agency such as the 

Bonneville Power Administration; the 

Bureau of Reclamation or the Corps of 

Engineers; a municipally owned electric 

department offering service to the 

public; or an electric public utility 

district (a ‘‘PUD’’); also a jointly owned 

electric supply project such as the 

Keystone.’’ 38 We are proposing to 

incorporate the EIA list of electric 

power entities because it is widely used 

in the industry and includes the 

spectrum of energy supply participants 

with relevant operations, i.e., vertically 

integrated, generate and transmit only, 

transmit and distribute only, transmit 

only and distribute only. 

We are also seeking comment on 

whether it would be appropriate to use 

the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative 

(RGGI) definition of a transmission and/ 

or distribution entity in our definition of 

electric power system.39 RGGI defines 

an entity as ‘‘the assets and equipment 

used to transmit and distribute 

electricity from an electric generator to 

the electrical load of a customer.’’ It 

includes all related assets and 

equipment located within the service 

territory of the entity, defined as the 

service territory of a load-serving entity 

specified by the applicable State 

regulatory agency. In particular, EPA 

seeks comment on whether the RGGI 

definition includes the spectrum of 

entities identified in the EIA list and 

captures the full universe of SF6- 

emitting entities in the United States. 

EPA is requesting comments on only 

40 CFR 98.300 Definition of the Source 

Category in proposed subpart DD. EPA 

is not seeking further comment on other 

elements of the initial proposal such as 

the selection of the threshold and the 

proposed monitoring methods. 

1. Definition of the Source Category 

EPA proposes to define the source 

category as follows: ‘‘The electric 

equipment use source category includes 

electric power systems as described in 

this paragraph. Notwithstanding the 

definition of facility in subpart A, for 

purposes of this subpart, ‘‘facility’’ 

means an electric power system. Electric 

power system means the collection of 

SF6- and PFC-insulated equipment 

linked through electric power 

transmission or distribution lines and 

operated as an integrated unit by one 

electric power entity or several entities 

that have a single owner. SF6- and PFCinsulated equipment includes gasinsulated substations, circuit breakers, 

other switchgear, gas-insulated lines, 

and power transformers containing SF6

or PFCs. Equipment also includes gas 

containers such as pressurized 

cylinders, gas carts, new equipment 

owned but not yet installed, or other 

containers.’’ 

The largest use of SF6 is as an 

electrical insulator and interrupter in 

equipment intended for use in 

connection with generation, 

transmission, distribution, and 

conversion of electric energy. The gas 

has been employed by the electric 

power industry in the United States 

since the 1950s because of its dielectric 

strength and arc-quenching 

characteristics. SF6 has replaced 

flammable insulating oils in many 

applications and allows for more 

compact substations in dense urban 

areas. It has also facilitated expansion of 

the electric power grid through longdistance transmission at high and extrahigh voltages. SF6 is used in gasinsulated substations, circuit breakers 

and other switchgear, transformers, and 

gas-insulated lines. The types and 

location of gas-insulated equipment 

used varies depending on a number of 

technical, system design, geographic 

and historic factors. Currently, there are 

no available substitutes for SF6 in highvoltage applications. For further 

information, see the SF6 from Electrical 

Equipment TSD in the docket for this 

rulemaking (EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0927). 

Since SF6 is used in pressurized 

equipment, unintended emissions of 

SF6 occur over the life cycle of the 

equipment. SF6 can escape from gasinsulated substations and switchgear 

through seals, especially from older 

equipment. The gas can also be released 

during installation, servicing, and 

equipment disposal. Emissions of SF6

from electric power systems were 

estimated to be 12.4 million metric tons 

of CO2e in 2006. Emissions from 

electrical equipment manufacture and 

refurbishing are being covered in 

subpart SS. 

PFCs are sometimes used as dielectric 

and as heat transfer fluids in power 

transformers. PFCs are also used for 

retrofitting CFC–113 cooled 

transformers. The common PFC used in 

this application is perfluorohexane 

(C6F14). In terms of both absolute and 

carbon-weighted emissions, PFC 

emissions from electrical equipment are 

generally believed to be much smaller 

than SF6 emissions. EPA does not 

currently have an estimate of PFC 

emissions from this source category. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
18682 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

PFCs, however, are very potent and 

persistent greenhouse gases and an 

accurate inventory of use and emissions 

from all sources is important. 

Consequently, as stated in our initial 

proposal, we are proposing to include 

emissions of PFCs in this subpart. 

Reference to gas-insulated equipment 

implies SF6 and PFCs. 

The electric transmission and 

distribution equipment use source 

category includes all gas-insulated 

electrical equipment such as gasinsulated substations, circuit breakers, 

other switchgear, gas-insulated lines, 

and power transformers. This 

equipment is used as part of an 

interconnected group of electric 

transmission lines and associated 

equipment for the movement or transfer 

of electric energy in bulk between 

points of supply and points at which it 

is transformed for delivery to the 

ultimate customer. This equipment, 

along with lines and other associated 

equipment used for the movement or 

transfer of electric energy, operates as 

part of a contemporaneous network in 

real-time and in a synchronous manner 

to provide stable and reliable electricity 

to customers. 

A clear definition of a facility for this 

source category is important in order to 

determine whether a collection of 

electrical equipment meets the reporting 

threshold and to ensure that double or 

under reporting of emissions is 

minimized. In defining a facility, we 

reviewed current definitions used in the 

CAA and by the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC), North 

American Energy Reliability 

Corporation (NERC), California Air 

Resources Board (CARB), RGGI and EIA; 

consulted with industry; and reviewed 

current regulations relevant to the 

industry. Typically, the various 

regulations under the CAA define a 

facility as a group of emissions sources 

all located in a contiguous area and 

under the control of the same person (or 

persons under common control). The 

subpart A definition of facility would 

require all SF6 equipment included in 

the facility be located on contiguous or 

adjacent properties. We are proposing 

not to use the exact definition of 

‘‘facility’’ found in subpart A because the 

completeness and accuracy of emissions 

data for this source category are 

dependent on reporting on all 

equipment regardless of location. For 

completeness, reporting needs to 

account for and report on all sources 

and activities within the facility. The 

purpose of transmission is to move 

energy over long distances. Similarly, 

distribution can occur over large 

geographical areas. Therefore, it is 

neither practical nor appropriate to 

exclude certain types of equipment 

solely based on its lack of physical 

proximity. Emissions from gas-insulated 

equipment occur during installation, 

operation, servicing and 

decommissioning. Accuracy of reporting 

requires that emissions are 

systematically neither over nor under 

actual emissions; consequently 

including all equipment at all periods of 

the life cycle is necessary. Thus, EPA 

has concluded that strict adherence to 

the subpart A definition is not 

appropriate for this source category. 

In deciding where to draw the 

boundary between one facility and the 

next, we considered the following levels 

of reporting: Per piece of equipment, by 

substation or switchyard, corporatelevel, and aggregation of total 

equipment by system. Reporting per 

piece of equipment was deemed costly 

and highly impractical for reporters. 

Reporting by substation or switchyard, 

where multiple pieces of equipment is 

often located, would also be 

burdensome, given that a specific 

reporting protocol using the proposed 

mass-balance reporting method would 

have to be set up for each substation, 

requiring cylinder inventory and other 

data collection to be done on a per 

substation basis. Although this may be 

practical for some system owners, others 

have responsibility for dozens or 

hundreds of substations. Finally, EPA 

considered corporate-level reporting 

based on comments submitted on our 

initial proposal. We concluded, 

however, that given the complex and 

varied corporate structures within the 

electric power industry that approach 

would not be practical and appropriate 

for this source. The full results of our 

assessment can be found in the SF6 from 

Electrical Equipment TSD. 

For this source category, EPA is 

proposing to define the facility as an 

‘‘electric power system,’’ which would 

mean that reporting would occur at a 

‘‘system-wide’’ level. The electric power 

system would be defined as all electric 

power equipment insulated with SF6 or 

PFCs regardless of location linked 

through electric power transmission or 

distribution lines and operated as an 

integrated unit by one electric power 

entity or several entities that have a 

single owner. Reporting by the electric 

power system would comprise all gasinsulated equipment located between 

the point of generation and the point at 

which the ultimate customer receives 

the electricity. Such equipment includes 

gas-insulated substations, circuit 

breakers, other switchgear, gas-insulated 

lines, or power transformers containing 

SF6 or PFCs. EPA proposes to define an 

electric power entity as a company; an 

electric cooperative; a public electric 

supply corporation as the Tennessee 

Valley Authority; a similar Federal 

department or agency such as the 

Bonneville Power Administration; the 

Bureau of Reclamation or the Corps of 

Engineers; a municipally owned electric 

department offering service to the 

public; or an electric public utility 

district (a ‘‘PUD’’); also a jointly owned 

electric supply project such as the 

Keystone. Although the size of these 

facilities will vary, and some are 

expected to cross State lines, a facility 

is likely to encompass more than a 

thousand miles of lines and hundreds of 

pieces of equipment located at multiple 

substations or switchyards. Equipment 

also includes gas containers such as 

pressurized cylinders, gas carts, new 

equipment owned but not yet installed, 

or other containers. 

EPA believes the proposed definition 

of ‘‘facility’’ for this source category is 

appropriate and analogous to the 40 

CFR part 98 subpart A definition of a 

‘‘facility’’ used for other source 

categories due to the physical 

interconnection and operational 

dependence of the components of the 

system. It is also consistent with the 

concept of a ‘‘transmission and 

distribution system,’’ which is a 

standard term used by the industry. The 

transfer of energy is dependent on the 

collective functioning of all components 

of the system which must operate as a 

contemporaneous network in real-time 

and in a synchronous manner. Without 

system-wide use of gas-insulated 

equipment, operation and system 

reliability is not possible. Furthermore, 

system-wide reporting is consistent with 

the reported servicing and maintenance 

practices of many SF6-insulated 

equipment owners making this 

approach less burdensome and more 

efficient than using a substation or per 

piece of equipment source definition. 

This is also consistent with the 

approach used by over 80 systems from 

across the United States that are 

participating in the ‘‘EPA SF6 Emission 

Reduction Partnership for Electric 

Power Systems’’, and has proven to be 

a practical and reasonable approach for 

the collection of emissions data. In 

addition, the burden of using the massbalance method proposed for 

monitoring is lowest at a system-wide 

level. 

EPA is requesting comment on 

whether one electric power system 

should be distinguished from the next 

on the basis of operation, ownership, or 

some combination of the two. EPA is 

proposing that the electric power system 

be the collection of equipment operated 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18683 

as an integrated unit by one electric 

power entity or several entities that 

have a single owner because it best 

reflects the functional aspect of the 

system (transmitting and distributing 

power) and emphasizes the physical 

interconnection and operational 

dependence of the system components. 

It also reflects current voluntary best 

practices for GHG reporting from this 

source category. This proposed 

definition would not relieve entities that 

own but do not operate equipment of 

the obligation to report under 40 CFR 

98.3. Regardless of the role that 

operation or ownership plays in the 

final source category definition, the 

obligation to report will apply to both 

owners and operators. 

Under the proposed definition of 

facility, total emissions would be 

derived from the entire collection of 

servicing inventory (cylinders stored) 

and gas-insulated equipment. Reporting 

would be based on the aggregation of 

emissions of all servicing inventory and 

equipment. 

Installation of Electrical Equipment at 

Electric Power Systems. In section E 

below, EPA is requesting comment on 

two issues related to equipment 

installation and commissioning that is 

performed by equipment manufacturers 

at electric power systems. These issues 

affect both users and manufacturers of 

electrical equipment and could affect 

the calculation methods required under 

both subpart DD and subpart SS. Please 

see section E for a discussion of these 

issues. 

D. Imports and Exports of Fluorinated 

GHGs Inside Pre-Charged Equipment 

and Closed-Cell Foams 

1. Overview of Reporting Requirements 

Under today’s proposed rule, 

importers and exporters of pre-charged 

equipment and closed-cell foams would 

be required to report their imports and 

exports to EPA if either their imports or 

their exports contained a total of more 

than 25,000 mtCO2e of fluorinated 

GHGs. The reports would be similar to 

those required of importers and 

exporters of bulk GHGs under subpart 

OO of the final MRR published on 

October 28, 2009. In addition, 

equipment importers would be required 

to report the types and charge sizes of 

equipment and the number of pieces of 

each type of equipment that they 

imported or exported, while foam 

importers would be required to report 

the volume of foam and fluorinated 

GHG density of the foam that they 

imported. Importers and exporters 

would report at the corporate level. 

2. Summary of Initial Proposed Rule 

and Comments Received 

In the proposed MRR published on 

April 10, 2009, we did not propose to 

require reporting of the quantities of 

GHGs imported and exported inside 

products. We were concerned that it 

would be difficult for importers and 

exporters to identify and quantify the 

quantities of GHGs inside some 

products and that the number of 

importers and exporters would be high. 

However, we requested comment on the 

option of requiring reporting of imports 

and exports of HFCs and SF6 contained 

in pre-charged air-conditioning, 

refrigeration, and electrical equipment 

and in closed cell foams. We noted that 

for these products, information on the 

size and chemical identity of the charge 

or blowing agent is likely to be readily 

available to importers and exporters 

(e.g., from nameplates affixed to 

equipment, servicing manuals, and 

product information for foams). 

Moreover, as noted above, the total 

quantities of imported and exported 

fluorinated GHGs in pre-charged 

equipment and foams are significant. 

We received a range of comments on 

whether or not we should require 

reporting of fluorinated GHGs imported 

or exported inside of pre-charged 

equipment and closed-cell foams. 

Several manufacturers and importers of 

fluorinated GHGs supported such a 

requirement, noting that the identities 

and quantities of fluorinated GHGs 

inside equipment and foams are wellknown, that imported and exported 

quantities are significant in aggregate, 

that the number of importers and 

exporters is small, and that information 

on fluorinated GHGs imported or 

exported inside of equipment could 

help to inform legislation being 

considered by Congress, which would 

include fluorinated GHGs imported in 

pre-charged equipment under emissions 

caps. Some of these commenters stated 

that failure to require reporting of 

imported equipment and foams would 

be unfair to domestic manufacturers, 

who would be subject to reporting from 

which foreign manufacturers would be 

exempted. They observed that this 

inequity could drive production 

offshore, harming the U.S. economy and 

possibly increasing global GHG 

emissions if less efficient manufacturers 

in developing countries took over the 

lost U.S. production. 

Equipment importers and a 

fluorocarbon producer opposed a 

requirement to report imports and 

exports of fluorinated GHGs in precharged equipment and foams, stating 

that such a requirement would be 

unnecessary and costly. These 

commenters stated that the quantities of 

fluorinated GHGs inside individual 

pieces of equipment are small, ranging 

from ounces to pounds, and that 

emissions from such equipment are 

extremely small because the systems are 

hermetically sealed. 

After carefully considering the 

comments and available information on 

imports and exports of fluorinated 

GHGs inside pre-charged equipment 

and closed-cell foams, we are proposing 

to require reporting of these imports and 

exports. 

3. Definition of the Source Category 

This source category includes 

importers and exporters of pre-charged 

equipment and closed-cell foams that 

contain fluorinated GHGs. Pre-charged 

equipment includes air-conditioning 

equipment or equipment components 

that contain HFCs and electrical 

equipment or equipment components 

that contain SF6 or PFCs. Closed-cell 

foams include closed-cell foams blown 

with HFC blowing agents. 

Air-conditioning and refrigeration 

equipment generally uses HFC 

refrigerants. In this application, HFCs 

serve as substitutes for ozone-depleting 

substances (ODSs), which are being 

phased out under the Montreal Protocol 

and Title VI of the CAA. Because some 

ODSs (i.e., HCFCs) are only beginning to 

be phased out, the use of HFCs in 

equipment such as window and 

residential air-conditioners is expected 

to grow very quickly over the next 

decade. Imports and exports of HFC precharged equipment may grow as well. 

Although the quantities of chemical 

contained in each unit are small in 

absolute terms (i.e., a few pounds or 

less), they are more significant in CO2- 

equivalent terms, ranging up to eleven 

mtCO2e per unit for pre-charged 

commercial air-conditioners. This 

significance is due to the high GWPs of 

the HFCs. 

HFCs are also used as blowing agents 

during the manufacture of foams. Opencell foams are assumed to emit 100 

percent of the blowing agent in the year 

they are manufactured, whereas closedcell foams emit only a fraction of their 

total HFC content upon manufacture. 

Foam products that are closed-cell and 

imported or exported as a finished foam 

product therefore have potential to emit 

the blowing agent remaining in the foam 

after manufacture. Closed cell foams 

that are imported or exported include: 

polyurethane (PU) rigid foam used as 

insulation in domestic refrigerators and 

freezers; commercial refrigeration foam; 

PU rigid sandwich panel continuous 

and discontinuous foam; extruded 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
18684 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

40Emissions from use and manufacture of 

electrical equipment are addressed under subparts 

DD and SS of this rule; subpart QQ addresses only 

the import and export of such equipment. 

41Even if the fluorinated GHG is recovered from 

the equipment at the end of the equipment’s life, 

it will ultimately be either emitted or destroyed. 

Recycling delays emission or destruction (and 

reduces demand for new fluorinated GHG), but it 

does not avoid it. 

polystyrene (XPS) sheet foam; and XPS 

boardstock foam. 

SF6 is used as an electrical insulator 

and arc-quenching gas in electrical 

transmission equipment, including 

circuit breakers and gas-insulated 

substations. Again, the quantities of SF6

in each unit are often small in absolute 

terms (around 14 pounds per circuit 

breaker), but are larger in CO2- 

equivalent terms (around 150 mtCO2e 

per circuit breaker).40

Our analysis indicates that the 

quantities of fluorinated GHGs imported 

and exported inside of pre-charged 

equipment and foams are significant. 

Imports are estimated to total about 21 

million mtCO2e, while exports are 

estimated to total about 8 million 

mtCO2e. For further information, please 

see the TSD for Imports and Exports of 

Pre-Charged Equipment and Foams 

(Revised) in the docket for this 

rulemaking (EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0927). 

We are proposing to require reporting 

for a number of reasons. First, we have 

determined that exports and particularly 

imports of pre-charged equipment and 

foam have a substantial impact on the 

total U.S. supply of fluorinated GHGs 

and of industrial GHGs generally. Based 

on the estimates above, imports 

constitute between seven and ten 

percent of the net U.S. supply of 

fluorinated GHGs, while exports are 

equivalent to between three and four 

percent of that total. (The range is based 

on slightly different estimates of the net 

U.S. supply based on bottom-up and 

top-down approaches.) We estimate that 

22 million pieces of equipment and 66 

million board-feet of foam are imported 

annually. Although the quantities of 

HFCs and SF6 in individual pieces of 

equipment may be small in terms of the 

mass of chemical, the high GWPs of 

these chemicals can make them 

significant in CO2-equivalent terms. For 

example, a pre-charged residential air 

conditioner (unitary) contains about 7 

tons of CO2e, while an average size 

circuit breaker with a shipping charge of 

SF6 (20 percent of a full, operational 

charge) contains over 150 tons of CO2e. 

Imported and exported fluorinated 

GHGs are added to or subtracted from 

the U.S. supply of fluorinated GHGs 

regardless of whether they are imported 

in bulk or in equipment. Every year, a 

part of the U.S. fluorinated GHG supply 

is used to charge new equipment or to 

blow closed-cell foams. If equipment is 

imported already containing a charge, 

that charge offsets demand that would 

otherwise have occurred for fluorinated 

GHGs that are produced domestically or 

imported in bulk. Accounting for the 

quantities of fluorinated GHGs in 

equipment therefore significantly 

improves our understanding of the U.S. 

supply of fluorinated GHGs. Although 

commenters who opposed reporting 

noted that leak rates from some types of 

imported equipment are low, this does 

not distinguish fluorinated GHGs 

imported inside of equipment from 

fluorinated GHGs that are charged into 

the same type of equipment after its 

import or domestic manufacture. Any 

imported or domestically produced 

fluorinated GHG may be stored for many 

years inside equipment before being 

emitted or destroyed.41

The second reason that we are 

proposing to require reporting of 

imports and exports of fluorinated 

GHGs inside pre-charged equipment 

and foams is that discussions with 

industry experts indicate that the 

numbers of importers and exporters are 

relatively small, limiting the 

administrative burden of the rule and 

increasing the cost-effectiveness of the 

data gathering. Experts from the airconditioning and refrigeration industry 

estimate that there are approximately 50 

importers and 25 exporters of precharged air-conditioning and 

refrigeration equipment, and experts 

from the electrical equipment industry 

estimate that there are approximately 8 

importers and 10 exporters of precharged electrical equipment. Based on 

the membership of various trade 

organizations including foam 

manufacturers and distributors, EPA 

estimates that there are approximately 

50 entities that import and 25 entities 

that export foams. These numbers are 

considerably smaller than the number of 

importers and exporters of bulk 

fluorinated GHGs that are covered by 

the final rule published October 30, 

2009. 

Third, we estimate that the costs 

associated with identifying, quantifying, 

and reporting the quantities of 

fluorinated GHGs imported and 

exported inside pre-charged products 

and foams are reasonably modest. As 

noted above, information on the 

chemical identities and sizes of 

equipment charges should be readily 

available to importers and exporters, 

and the same is true for the identities 

and densities of the HFCs in foams, 

which strongly influence the insulating 

capacities of the foams. 

Inclusion of other products that 

contain fluorinated GHGs. EPA’s 

understanding is that pre-charged 

equipment and closed-cell foams 

account for the great majority of 

fluorinated GHGs that are imported in 

or exported from the United States 

inside of products. However, a variety of 

products containing fluorinated 

greenhouse gases (fluorinated GHGs), 

nitrous oxide (N2O), and carbon dioxide 

(CO2) are imported into and exported 

from the United States, including, for 

example, aerosols containing HFCs. EPA 

requests comment on the magnitude of 

imports and exports of these other 

products and on whether such imports 

and exports should be reported under 

this subpart. 

4. Selection of Reporting Threshold 

We are proposing to require that 

importers and exporters of fluorinated 

GHGs contained in pre-charged 

equipment and closed cell foams report 

their imports and exports if either their 

total imports or their total exports, in 

equipment, foams, and in bulk, exceed 

25,000 mtCO2e per year. This threshold 

is the same as that for bulk imports and 

exports. 

Tables 9 and 10 of this preamble show 

the estimated imports and exports (in 

mtCO2e) and facilities (corporations) 

that would be covered under the various 

thresholds for imports and exports of 

equipment and foam. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18685 

42This refers to any holding charge consisting of 

a fluorinated GHG. Holding charges consisting of 

other gases, such as nitrogen, are not included. 

TABLE 9—THRESHOLD ANALYSIS FOR FLUORINATED GHGS IMPORTED INSIDE PRE-CHARGED EQUIPMENT AND CLOSEDCELL FOAMS

Threshold level 

HFC refrigeration/AC 

equipment 

SF6 electrical equipment Closed-cell foams 

Imports 

covered 

Importers 

covered 

Imports 

covered 

Importers 

covered 

Imports 

covered 

Importers 

covered 

1,000 ................................................................................ 15,733,523 50 1,888,932 8 3,025,285 50 

10,000 .............................................................................. 15,733,523 50 1,888,932 8 3,025,285 50 

25,000 .............................................................................. 15,733,523 50 1,888,932 8 3,025,285 50 

100,000 ............................................................................ 15,733,523 50 1,888,932 8 0 0 

TABLE 10—THRESHOLD ANALYSIS FOR FLUORINATED GHGS EXPORTED INSIDE PRE-CHARGED EQUIPMENT AND CLOSEDCELL FOAMS

Threshold level Exports 

covered 

Exporters 

covered 

Exports 

covered 

Exporters 

covered 

Exports 

covered 

Exporters 

covered 

1,000 ................................................................................ 5,247,905 25 153,323 10 3,025,285 25 

10,000 .............................................................................. 5,247,905 25 107,326 5 3,025,285 25 

25,000 .............................................................................. 5,247,905 25 0 ................ 3,025,285 25

100,000 ............................................................................ 5,247,905 25 0 ................ 3,025,285 25 

In the absence of importer- and 

exporter-specific information, we 

assumed that within the three general 

categories of products, each importer 

and exporter imported or exported the 

same quantity of fluorinated GHGs. 

(Exports of SF6 in electrical equipment 

were the sole exception to this.) This 

assumption led to the conclusion that 

100 percent of imported and exported 

pre-charged equipment and foams 

(except exported electrical equipment) 

would be reported at the 25,000 mtCO2e 

threshold. In fact, imports and exports 

are likely to be concentrated among a 

subset of importers and exporters, and 

fewer entities are therefore likely to 

report at the 25,000 mtCO2e threshold. 

We request comment on the distribution 

of imports and exports among importers 

and exporters and on the likely coverage 

(in percentage terms) of imported and 

exported equipment and foams at the 

25,000 mtCO2e threshold. An alternative 

approach would be to lower the 

threshold or to require reporting by all 

importers and exporters of pre-charged 

equipment and closed cell foams, but 

EPA is concerned that this approach 

could burden many small importers and 

exporters with reporting while gaining 

little additional coverage of imports and 

exports in equipment and foams. 

5. Selection of Proposed Monitoring 

Methods 

We are proposing to require importers 

and exporters of equipment and foams 

to estimate their imports and exports of 

each fluorinated GHG by multiplying 

the mass of the fluorinated GHG 

contained in each type of equipment or 

foam by the number of pieces of 

equipment or by the volume of foam, as 

appropriate. As noted above, we believe 

that information on fluorinated GHG 

identity and charge size (or density, for 

foams) should be readily available to 

importers and exporters. 

Under the current MRR, bulk 

importers and exporters of fluorinated 

GHGs are not required to report 

individual shipments totaling less than 

250 mtCO2e of fluorinated GHGs. This 

exemption was intended to exclude 

small shipments, e.g., of chemical 

samples being shipped for analysis, 

from reporting. We established the 

exemption after an analysis of import 

and export shipments showed that it 

would decrease reporting by less than 

0.1 percent. We are not proposing a 

similar exemption for small shipments 

of equipment and foams because we do 

not believe it would be necessary and 

because we are concerned that it might 

lead to the exclusion of a significant 

share of imports and exports of these 

products. We do not believe the smallshipment exemption would be 

necessary because the definition of 

import in subpart A already excludes 

the bringing into the United States of 

household effects such as refrigerators 

and window air conditioners. We are 

concerned that the exemption may 

result in excluding a significant share of 

imports and exports because 250 

mtCO2e equates to a large number of 

pieces of some types of equipment (e.g., 

over 1,300 household refrigerators). 

6. Selection of Data To Be Reported 

EPA is proposing to require importers 

and exporters of pre-charged equipment 

and closed cell foams to report the 

following: 

(1) The total mass in metric tons of 

each fluorinated GHG imported or 

exported in pre-charged equipment or 

closed-cell foams. 

(2) For each type of pre-charged 

equipment, the identity of the 

fluorinated GHG used as a refrigerant or 

electrical insulator, charge size (holding 

charge,42 if applicable), and number 

imported or exported. 

(3) For closed-cell foams that are 

imported or exported inside of 

appliances, the identity of the 

fluorinated GHG contained in the foam, 

the quantity of fluorinated GHG 

contained in the foam in each 

appliance, and the number of 

appliances imported for each type of 

appliance. 

(4) For closed cell-foams that are not 

inside of appliances, the identity of the 

fluorinated GHG, the density of the 

fluorinated GHG in the foam (kg 

fluorinated GHG/cubic foot), and the 

quantity of foam imported or exported 

(cubic feet) for each type of closed-cell 

foam. 

(5) Dates on which the pre-charged 

equipment or closed-cell foams were 

imported or exported. 

(6) Ports of entry through which the 

pre-charged equipment or closed-cell 

foams passed. 

(7) Countries from or to which the 

pre-charged equipment or closed-cell 

foams were imported or exported. 

We are proposing to collect this 

information because it is necessary 

either to understand the total volume of 

fluorinated GHGs imported or exported 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
18686 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

43The 10 percent emission rate is the average of 

the ‘‘ideal’’ and ‘‘realistic’’ manufacturing emission 

rates (4 percent and 17 percent, respectively) 

identified in a paper prepared under the auspices 

of the International Council on Large Electric 

Systems (CIGRE) in February 2002 (O’Connell et al. 

2002). 

inside of pre-charged equipment and 

foams (and thereby contributing to the 

U.S. supply of fluorinated GHGs) or to 

verify submitted information. 

7. Selection of Recordkeeping 

Requirements 

EPA is proposing to require importers 

and exporters of equipment and closed 

cell foams to retain the following 

records: 

(1) A copy of the bill of lading for the 

import or export, 

(2) The invoice for the import or 

export, and 

(3) For imports, the U.S. Customs 

entry form. 

This information is necessary to verify 

submitted information. 

E. Electrical Equipment Manufacture or 

Refurbishment 

1. Definition of the Source Category 

This source category comprises 

electrical equipment manufacturers and 

refurbishers of SF6 or PFC-insulated 

closed-pressure equipment and sealedpressure equipment including gasinsulated substations, circuit breakers 

and other switchgear, gas-insulated 

lines, or power transformers containing 

sulfur-hexafluoride (SF6) or 

perfluorocarbons (PFCs). 

Electrical equipment employed to 

transmit and distribute electricity 

constitutes the largest use of SF6 in the 

world. The dielectric strength and arcquenching characteristics of SF6 make it 

an extremely effective electrical 

insulator and interrupter. For this 

reason, the electric power industry in 

the United States has used this gas since 

the 1950s in both closed-pressure and 

sealed-pressure equipment including 

gas-insulated substations, circuit 

breakers and other switchgear, and gasinsulated lines. Closed-pressure 

equipment requires periodic refilling 

(topping up) with gas during its lifetime, 

whereas sealed-pressure equipment 

generally does not. SF6 has replaced 

flammable insulating oils in many 

applications and allows for more 

compact substations in dense urban 

areas. SF6 insulated equipment has also 

made expansion of the grid through 

transmission over significantly longer 

distances economically practical. 

Currently, there are no available 

substitutes for SF6 in this application. 

For further information, see the SF6

from Electrical Equipment 

Manufacturers TSD in the docket for 

this rulemaking (EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0927). 

Manufacturers of gas insulated 

electrical equipment purchase bulk SF6

gas to: (1) Install a holding or shipping 

charge in high-voltage closed-pressure 

equipment, (2) ship alongside closedpressure equipment for topping off at 

installation site, (3) fill sealed-pressure 

equipment with its intended lifetime 

supply of SF6, and (4) develop and test 

equipment. 

Emissions of SF6 from equipment 

manufacturers can occur during the 

development and testing of equipment 

and during equipment filling, but 

emissions can also occur during the 

other uses of SF6 at manufacturing 

facilities. Refurbishment of equipment 

generally occurs at facilities used to 

manufacture new equipment and 

emissions typically occur during the 

leak test operations for gas-containing 

components as well as the disassembly 

and reassembly of equipment. 

PFCs are sometimes used as 

dielectrics and heat transfer fluids in 

power transformers. PFCs are also used 

for retrofitting CFC–113 cooled 

transformers. The most common PFC 

used in this application is 

perfluorohexane (C6F14). In terms of 

both absolute and carbon-weighted 

emissions, PFC emissions from 

electrical equipment are generally 

believed to be much smaller than SF6

emissions from electrical equipment. 

According to the U.S. Inventory of 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 

1990–2007 (EPA 2009), total U.S. 

estimated emissions of SF6 from 

electrical equipment manufacturers 

were 0.81 million metric tons CO2e in 

2006. EPA is proposing to require 

reporting from electrical equipment 

manufacture and refurbishment 

facilities because these operations 

represent a significant source, 

approximately 5 percent of U.S. SF6

emissions. It is estimated that ten 

equipment manufacturers were 

responsible for these emissions. 

EPA is seeking comment on whether 

transformers using PFCs are currently 

manufactured in the United States EPA 

is also seeking comment on whether 

PFC emissions associated with the 

production of this equipment occur at 

the same rate as SF6 emissions from 

equipment manufacture and whether 

emissions occur during the same 

processes. EPA is proposing to include 

emissions of PFCs emitted during the 

manufacture or refurbishment of PFCcontaining power transformers because 

while PFCs are known to be used in this 

application, the National Inventory has 

no information on the magnitude of this 

source. PFCs are very potent and 

persistent greenhouse gases and an 

accurate inventory of use and emissions 

from all sources is important. 

2. Selection of Reporting Threshold 

We propose to require electrical 

equipment manufacturers to report their 

SF6 and PFC emissions if their total 

annual purchases of SF6 and PFCs 

exceed 23,000 lbs. This consumptionbased threshold is equivalent to an 

emissions-based threshold of 25,000 

metric tons CO2 Eq., assuming an 

average manufacturer emission rate of 

10 percent.43

In developing this proposed 

threshold, we considered several 

emission-based threshold options 

including 1,000 metric tons CO2e; 

10,000 metric tons CO2e; 25,000 metric 

tons CO2e: and 100,000 metric tons 

CO2e. SF6 and PFC consumption 

thresholds of 922; 9,220; and 92,200 lbs 

of SF6 and PFC were also considered, 

corresponding to the emission threshold 

options of 1,000; 10,000; and 100,000 

metric tons CO2e, respectively. 

Summaries of the threshold options 

(consumption-based and emissionsbased) and the number of equipment 

manufacturers and emissions covered 

under each threshold are presented in 

Table 11 of this preamble. 

TABLE 11—THRESHOLD ANALYSIS FOR ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURE

Emission threshold level 

(metric tons CO2e/yr) 

Total national 

emissions 

Total 

number 

of facilities 

Emissions covered Facilities covered 

Metric tons 

CO2e/yr Percent Facilities Percent 

1,000 ........................................................................................ 814,128 10 814,128 100 10 100 

10,000 ...................................................................................... 814,128 10 814,128 100 10 100 

25,000 ...................................................................................... 814,128 10 814,128 100 10 100 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18687 

TABLE 11—THRESHOLD ANALYSIS FOR ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURE—Continued 

Emission threshold level 

(metric tons CO2e/yr) 

Total national 

emissions 

Total 

number 

of facilities 

Emissions covered Facilities covered 

Metric tons 

CO2e/yr Percent Facilities Percent 

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

The proposed consumption threshold 

and the corresponding emissions 

threshold level is consistent with 

general requirements of the Final MRR 

(74 FR 56260) and provides 

comprehensive coverage of emissions 

for this sector. A consumption-based 

threshold was selected because it 

permits equipment manufacturers to 

quickly determine whether they are 

covered by referring to SF6 and PFC 

purchase records. 

3. Selection of Proposed Monitoring 

Methods 

We are proposing that all electrical 

equipment manufacturing facilities 

where SF6 and PFC purchases exceed 

23,000 lbs per year report all SF6 and 

PFC emissions using a mass-balance 

approach. This would include all 

emissions from equipment testing, 

manufacturing (including filling), 

decommissioning and disposal, 

refurbishing, and from storage cylinders. 

We are proposing this approach because 

it is the most accurate and because all 

equipment manufacturers should be 

able to conduct the mass-balance 

analysis using readily available 

information. 

The proposed monitoring methods are 

similar to the methodologies described 

in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines Tier 3 

methods for emissions from electrical 

equipment manufacturing. These 

methodologies outline a mass-balance 

approach that is comparable to the 

proposed approach for subpart DD 

Electric Power System Equipment. 

The mass-balance approach we are 

proposing for electrical equipment 

manufacturers works by tracking and 

systematically accounting for all facility 

uses of SF6 and PFCs during the 

reporting year. The quantities of SF6 and 

PFCs that cannot be accounted for are 

assumed to have been emitted to the 

atmosphere. The emissions of SF6 and 

PFCs would be estimated and reported 

separately. 

The following equation describes the 

proposed facility-level mass-balance 

approach. (For brevity, the equation 

refers only to SF6; however, the method 

would also apply to PFCs in power 

transformers.) 

Equipment Manufacturing Emissions = 

Decrease in SF6 Inventory + Acquisitions 

of SF6¥Disbursements of SF6

Where: 

Decrease in SF6 Inventory = SF6 stored in 

containers at the beginning of the 

year¥SF6 stored in containers at the end 

of the year 

Acquisitions of SF6 = SF6 purchased from 

chemical producers or distributors in 

bulk + SF6 returned by equipment users 

or distributors with or inside equipment 

+ SF6 returned to site after off-site 

recycling 

Disbursements of SF6 = SF6 contained in 

new equipment delivered to customers + 

SF6 delivered to equipment users in 

containers + SF6 returned to suppliers + 

SF6 sent off-site for recycling + SF6 sent 

to destruction facilities. 

EPA is seeking comment on the 

proposed methods for determining 

disbursements of SF6 or PFCs, 

specifically, with respect to SF6 or PFCs 

contained in new equipment delivered 

to customers and SF6 or PFCs delivered 

to equipment users in cylinders. Two 

methods are being proposed. 

Disbursement of SF6 or PFCs to 

customers in new equipment or 

cylinders could be estimated by 

weighing containers before and after gas 

from the containers was used to fill 

equipment or cylinders, or by using 

flow meters to measure the amount of 

gas used to fill equipment or cylinders. 

EPA requests comment on these two 

options. 

Alone, both of these options would 

inappropriately count as 

‘‘disbursements’’ emissions that 

occurred between the flow meter or 

weighed container and the equipment 

being filled. These emissions could 

include losses from coupling and 

decoupling of fill valves and leaks from 

hoses or other flow lines that connect 

the container to the equipment that 

being filled. EPA is therefore proposing 

to require that these emissions be 

quantified and subtracted from the 

disbursement total. 

Specifically, EPA is proposing to 

require that these emissions be 

estimated using measurements and/or 

engineering assessments or calculations 

based on chemical engineering 

principles or physical or chemical laws 

or properties. Such assessments or 

calculations could be based on, as 

applicable, the internal volume of the 

hose or line that was open to the 

atmosphere during coupling and 

decoupling activities, the internal 

pressure of the hose or line, the time the 

hose or line was open to the atmosphere 

during coupling and decoupling 

activities, the frequency with which the 

hose or line was purged and the flow 

rate during purges. Such methods could 

also include the use of leak detection 

methods (e.g., EPA Method 21 and the 

Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission 

Estimates) to determine a loss factor 

appropriate to calculate emissions. 

Unexpected or accidental emissions 

from the filling lines or hoses would be 

required to be included in the total. 

EPA is seeking comment on the 

specific methods that should be 

employed to estimate emission losses 

from hoses or flow lines and on whether 

a particular method or set of methods 

should be required for this estimate. In 

addition, EPA requests comment on 

whether emissions downstream of the 

containers dispensing the SF6 or PFCs 

consist solely of emissions from lines or 

hoses. EPA’s understanding is that 

electrical equipment is at a vacuum and 

is sealed prior to being filled with SF6

or PFCs; however, if it contains air or 

nitrogen and this gas is purged during 

the filling process, then the method 

should also account for SF6 and PFC 

emissions that occur during such 

purging. 

EPA is also considering other options 

for accurately measuring the quantities 

of SF6 or PFCs disbursed to equipment 

users in equipment. (These options are 

described in more detail in the TSD.) 

One option being considered is to 

assume that the mass of SF6 or PFCs 

disbursed to customers in equipment is 

equal to the nameplate capacity of the 

equipment (or, where the equipment is 

shipped with a partial charge, equal to 

the nameplate capacity of the 

equipment times the ratio of the 

densities of the partial charge and the 

full charge.) Although the nominal 

nameplate capacity could be used for 

this calculation, EPA is concerned that 

the actual mass of SF6 or PFCs charged 

into each piece of equipment may vary 

by a few percent from the nominal 

capacity (e.g., because there is some 

variability in the internal volume of the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
18688 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

44The temperature of the liquid would need to be 

kept constant throughout this exercise to obtain an 

accurate measurement of the volume. 

equipment or in the density to which 

the equipment is charged). Because the 

mass-balance approach requires precise 

inputs, inaccuracies of even two or three 

percent could lead to very large 

inaccuracies in the facility’s emissions 

estimate. 

One way of developing a more precise 

estimate of the nameplate capacity of 

equipment would be to fill the 

equipment with a fluid and then to 

carefully recover the fluid, measuring 

what was recovered. This fluid could be 

SF6, another gas, or a liquid. If SF6 was 

used, the equipment would be charged 

to its operational or shipping SF6

density using the facility’s usual 

methods and then emptied. The mass of 

the SF6 recovered, adjusted slightly for 

the residual pressure of the SF6 that 

would remain in the equipment even at 

a deep vacuum, could be equated to the 

full or shipping charge, as applicable. 

One advantage of this approach is that 

it would reflect the actual SF6 charging 

practices of the facility; one 

disadvantage is that it could result in 

small SF6 emissions during the charging 

and recovery steps. 

If a liquid was used, the equipment 

would be filled carefully, ensuring that 

the full volume was filled, and then 

emptied. The volume of the liquid 

recovered would be equated to the 

internal volume of the equipment.44

This volume times the SF6 density at the 

full charge would yield the nameplate 

capacity of the equipment. 

To account for variability, a certain 

number of these measurements would 

need to be performed to develop a 

robust and representative average 

nameplate capacity (or shipping charge) 

for each make and model. The specific 

number of measurements would depend 

on the variability of the nameplate 

capacity within each make and model, 

as discussed in the TSD. It may be 

appropriate to select equipment samples 

filled at different times to reflect day-today variability in the facility’s filling 

practices and conditions. EPA seeks 

comment on these other options for 

accurately measuring the quantities of 

SF6 and PFCs disbursed to customers in 

equipment and/or cylinders. 

Another option is to require that the 

equipment filled with SF6 or the PFC 

from the container be weighed before 

and after filling. The tare weight of the 

equipment would then be subtracted 

from the weight of the filled equipment 

to determine the weight of the gas in the 

equipment, and therefore, the weight of 

the actual disbursement. One potential 

concern regarding this option is that the 

mass of the SF6 or PFC charged into the 

equipment is likely to be low relative to 

the mass of the equipment; thus, it may 

be difficult to obtain a precise 

measurement of the mass of the SF6 or 

PFC using this method (i.e., within 1 

percent) even if the scale is precise and 

accurate to within 1 percent of full 

scale. EPA requests comment on this 

approach. 

Installation of Electrical Equipment at 

Electric Power Systems. EPA also 

requests comment on two issues related 

to equipment installation and 

commissioning that is performed by 

equipment manufacturers at electric 

power systems. The first issue is 

whether an equipment installation 

mass-balance equation is required to 

measure emissions from equipment 

installation and commissioning that is 

performed by equipment manufacturers 

at utility locations. Where the 

manufacturer filled the equipment 

before transferring custody to the 

equipment user, EPA is assuming that 

the manufacturer would be responsible 

for the associated emissions. This would 

also apply to equipment that was filled 

at the factory but whose charge leaked 

out before being delivered to the 

customer. Quantitative methods for 

addressing these issues are discussed in 

more detail in the TSD. 

The second issue is whether 

manufacturers should be required to 

certify to equipment users the actual 

quantity (mass) of SF6 or PFCs charged 

into the equipment at installation. EPA 

understands that in some cases, 

manufacturers may deliberately exceed 

the nameplate capacity of equipment 

when charging it, e.g., to postpone the 

re-fill of the equipment in the event that 

the equipment develops a leak. If this is 

the case, then the actual initial charge 

of the equipment should be conveyed 

clearly to the equipment user, and the 

mass-balance approach used by the 

equipment user should be adjusted to 

reflect the over-charge. If it is not, the 

user will underestimate emissions. 

(These issues are discussed in more 

detail in the TSD.) EPA requests 

comment on how frequently equipment 

is over-charged at installation, and on 

quantitative methods for compensating 

for this overcharge in user emissions 

estimates (i.e., under proposed subpart 

DD). 

Other Options Considered. In 

developing the proposed approach, we 

reviewed the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, the 

United States GHG Inventory, DOE 

1605(b), EPA’s Climate Leaders 

Program, and The Climate Registry. In 

our review of the IPCC Guidelines, we 

also considered the IPCC Tier 1 and the 

IPCC Tier 2 methods for calculating and 

reporting SF6 and PFC emissions. 

Although the IPCC Tier 1 and IPCC Tier 

2 methods are simple, IPCC does not 

provide default emission factors for the 

United States due to lack of data. 

Furthermore, SF6 use in electrical 

equipment manufacturing is largely 

dependent on the type of equipment 

being produced and the specific 

handling practices at facilities. 

Applying an emission factor to all 

equipment manufacturers would not 

take into account the different types of 

equipment being produced at each 

facility or the variation in handling 

practices among facilities. Nor would it 

provide data of sufficient accuracy for 

the source or on a per facility basis. As 

a result, we are not proposing the IPCC 

Tier 1 or Tier 2 method. 

We are not proposing to require 

continuous emissions monitoring 

(CEMs) because of insufficient 

information on which to base a decision 

and because CEMs is not expected to be 

practical for this source category at this 

time due to the intermittent and 

widespread nature of the emissions. 

EPA seeks comment on whether 

continuous emissions monitoring is 

technically feasible for this source 

category. 

4. Selection of Procedures for Estimating 

Missing Data 

It is expected that equipment 

manufacturers should be able to obtain 

100 percent of the data needed to 

perform the mass-balance calculations 

for both SF6 and PFCs. The use of the 

mass-balance approach requires correct 

records for all inputs. However, if 

needed, missing data can be replaced 

using data from similar manufacturing 

operations, and from similar equipment 

testing and decommissioning activities 

for which data are available. 

5. QA/QC Requirements 

We propose that electrical equipment 

manufacturers be required to use 

flowmeters or scales that are accurate 

and precise to within one percent of full 

scale. In addition, we are proposing to 

require manufacturers to establish 

procedures for and document their 

measurements and calculations under 

this subpart, including check-out sheets 

and weigh-in procedures for cylinders, 

residual gas amounts in cylinders sent 

back to suppliers, invoices for gas and 

equipment purchases or sales, and 

documentation of recycling and 

destruction. The records that are being 

proposed are the minimum needed to 

reproduce and confirm emission 

calculations. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18689 

6. Selection of Data Reporting 

Requirements 

We propose annual reporting for the 

electrical equipment manufacturing and 

refurbishing industry. Equipment 

manufacturers would report all SF6 and 

PFC emissions, including those from 

equipment testing, equipment 

manufacturing, and bulk SF6 and PFC 

handling. However, the emissions 

would not need to be broken down and 

reported separately for testing, 

manufacturing, or bulk SF6 and PFC 

handling. Along with their emissions, 

electrical equipment manufacturers 

would be required to submit the 

following supplemental data: SF6 and 

PFCs with or inside equipment 

delivered to customers, the nameplate 

capacity of the equipment delivered to 

customers, SF6 and PFCs returned by 

customers with or inside equipment, 

bulk SF6 and PFC purchases, SF6 and 

PFCs sent off-site for destruction or to 

be recycled, SF6 and PFCs returned from 

offsite after recycling, SF6 and PFCs 

stored in containers at the beginning 

and end of the year, SF6 and PFCs 

returned to suppliers. For any missing 

data, manufacturers would be required 

to report the reason the data were 

missing, the length of time the data were 

missing, the method used to estimate 

emissions in their absence, and the 

quantity of emissions thereby estimated. 

These data would be submitted 

because they are the minimum data that 

are needed to understand and reproduce 

the emission calculations that are the 

basis of the reported emissions. 

7. Selection of Records That Must Be 

Retained 

We propose that electrical equipment 

manufacturers be required to keep 

records documenting (1) their adherence 

to the QA/QC requirements specified in 

the proposed rule, and (2) the data that 

would be included in their emission 

reports, as specified above. 

F. Subpart A Revisions 

Amendments to the General 

Provisions. In a separate rulemaking 

package that was recently published 

(March 16, 2010), EPA issued minor 

harmonizing changes to the general 

provisions for the GHG reporting rule 

(40 CFR part 98, subpart A) to 

accommodate the addition of source 

categories not included in the 2009 final 

rule (e.g., subparts proposed in April 

2009 but not finalized in 2009, any new 

subparts that may be proposed in the 

future). The changes update 98.2(a) on 

rule applicability and 98.3 regarding the 

reporting schedule to accommodate any 

additional subparts and the schedule for 

their reporting obligations (e.g., source 

categories finalized in 2010 would not 

begin data collection until 2011 and 

reporting in 2012). 

In particular, we restructured 40 CFR 

98.2(a) to move the lists of source 

categories from the text into tables. A 

table format improves clarity and 

facilitates the addition of source 

categories that were not included in 

calendar year 2010 reporting and would 

begin reporting in future years. A table, 

versus list, approach allows other 

sections of the rule to be updated 

automatically when the table is 

updated; a list approach requires 

separate updates to the various list 

references each time the list is changed. 

In addition to reformatting the 

98.2(a)(1)–(2) lists into tables, other 

sections of subpart A were reworded to 

refer to the source category tables 

because the tables make it clear which 

source categories are to be considered 

for determining the applicability 

threshold and reporting requirements 

for calendar years 2010, 2011, and 

future years. 

The source categories proposed in this 

notice would be added within 40 CFR 

98.2 as follows. The following source 

categories would be added to the list of 

‘‘all-in’’ source categories referenced in 

40 CFR 98.2(a)(1), because they have a 

production capacity or gas consumption 

threshold rather than a CO2e emission 

threshold: 

• Electric power systems that include 

electrical equipment with a total 

nameplate capacity that exceeds 17,820 

lbs (7,838 kg) of SF6 or perfluorocarbons 

(PFCs) (subpart DD). 

• Electric power equipment 

manufacturing with total annual SF6

and PFC purchases (combined) that 

exceed 23,000 lbs per year (subpart SS). 

The following source categories 

would be subject to the rule if facility 

emissions exceed 25,000 metric tons 

CO2e per year. Therefore, these source 

categories would be added to the list of 

emission threshold source categories 

referenced in 40 CFR 98.2(a)(2). 

• Fluorinated gas production 

facilities whose emissions would exceed 

25,000 mtCO2e in the absence of control 

technologies (subpart L). 

• Facilities with electronics 

manufacturing processes (as defined in 

proposed 40 CFR part 98, subpart I). 

In addition, importers and exporters 

of pre-charged equipment or closed-cell 

foam products containing fluorinated 

GHGs, N2O, or CO2 would be added to 

the list of suppliers referenced in 40 

CFR 98.2(a)(4). For all of these source 

categories, facilities would be required 

to begin collecting data in 2011 for 

reporting in 2012. 

Today’s proposed rule includes a 

number of definitions applicable to 

specific source categories. The agency is 

not planning to add these definitions to 

the definitions section in Subpart A 

because these definitions relate to these 

specific subparts and do not have 

broader applicability to EPA’s 

mandatory reporting regulations. 

Instead, EPA intends to include these 

definitions in the applicable subparts. 

EPA has sought to avoid any conflict 

between these subpart-specific 

definitions and the definitions in 

Subpart A. In one instance, the 

supplemental proposal for electric 

power systems, EPA is proposing to use 

a category-specific definition of facility 

rather than the general definition of 

facility in the General Provisions. The 

reasons for this category-specific 

definition of facility are set forth in 

section II.C of this preamble. The 

remaining definitions are intended as 

supplements to the definitions section 

in the General Provisions. EPA does not 

believe these definitions create conflicts 

with the General Provisions, although it 

welcomes comments on this issue. To 

the extent regulated entities are in doubt 

as to which definition applies, they 

should assume that the category-specific 

definitions are controlling. 

We propose to amend 40 CFR 98.7 

(incorporation by reference) to include 

standard methods used in the proposed 

subparts. In particular, we would add 

the 2006 International SEMATECH 

Manufacturing Initiative’s Guidelines 

for Environmental Characterization of 

Semiconductor Process Equipment and 

SEMI E10–0304 Specification for 

Definition and Measurement of 

Equipment Reliability, Availability, and 

Maintainability (2006), which are 

referenced in proposed 40 CFR 98.94 

(Monitoring and QA/QC Requirements 

for 40 CFR part 98, subpart I, electronics 

manufacturing) and 40 CFR 98.97 

(Records that must be retained). In 

addition, we propose to revise the 

paragraphs listing several ASME 

standards that are already contained in 

40 CFR 98.7 to indicate that these 

standards are also referenced by 

proposed 40 CFR 98.124 (Monitoring 

and QA/QC requirements in proposed 

40 CFR part 98, subpart L, fluorinated 

gas production). 

III. Economic Impacts of the Rule 

This section of the preamble examines 

the costs and economic impacts of the 

proposed rulemaking and the estimated 

economic impacts of the rule on affected 

entities, including estimated impacts on 

small entities. Complete detail of the 

economic impacts of the proposed rule 

can be found in the text of the economic 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
18690 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

impact analysis (EIA) in the docket for 

this rulemaking (EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0927). 

A. How were compliance costs 

estimated? 

1. Summary of Method Used To 

Estimate Compliance Costs 

EPA used available industry and EPA 

data to characterize conditions at 

affected sources. Incremental 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting activities were then identified 

for each type of facility and the 

associated costs were estimated. The 

annual costs reported in 2006$. EPA’s 

estimated costs of compliance are 

discussed below and in greater detail in 

section 4 of the economic impact 

analysis (EIA). 

Labor Costs. The vast majority of the 

reporting costs include the time of 

managers, technical, and administrative 

staff in both the private sector and the 

public sector. Staff hours are estimated 

for activities, including: 

• Monitoring (private): Staff hours to 

operate and maintain emissions 

monitoring systems. 

• Recordkeeping and Reporting 

(private): Staff hours to gather and 

process available data and reporting it to 

EPA through electronic systems. 

• Assuring and releasing data 

(public): Staff hours to quality assure, 

analyze, and release reports. 

Staff activities and associated labor 

costs will potentially vary over time. 

Thus, cost estimates are developed for 

start-up and first-time reporting, and 

subsequent reporting. Wage rates to 

monetize staff time are obtained from 

the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 

Equipment Costs. Equipment costs 

include both the initial purchase price 

and any facility modification that may 

be required. Based on expert judgment, 

the engineering costs analyses 

annualized capital equipment costs with 

appropriate lifetime and interest rate 

assumptions. One-time capital costs are 

amortized over a 10-year cost recovery 

period at a rate of 7 percent. 

B. What are the costs of the rule? 

1. Summary of Costs 

The total annualized costs incurred 

under the fluorinated GHG reporting 

rule would be approximately $6.1 

million in the first year and $3.9 million 

in subsequent years ($2006). This 

includes a public sector burden estimate 

of $384,000 for program implementation 

and verification activities. EPA also 

considered an alternative national cost 

scenario in order to assess national cost 

estimates if selected subpart I facilities 

validate the DRE of abatement devices. 

Under this scenario, the total 

annualized costs incurred under the 

fluorinated GHG reporting rule would 

be approximately $1.7 million higher (or 

$7.8 million first year; $5.6 million 

subsequent years). Table 12 shows the 

first year and subsequent year costs by 

subpart. In addition, it presents the cost 

per ton reported, and the relative share 

of the total cost represented by each 

subpart. 

TABLE 12—NATIONAL ANNUALIZED MANDATORY REPORTING COSTS ESTIMATES (2008$): SUBPARTS I, L, OO AND SS 

Subpart 

First year Subsequent years 

Millions 

2006$ $/ton Share (%) 

Millions 

2006$ $/ton Share (%) 

Subpart I—Electronics Industry ................................. $2 .9 $0.51 42 $2 .6 $0.45 67 

Subpart L—Fluorinated Gas Production .................... 2 .1 0.20 47 0 .3 0.08 7 

Subpart OO—Imports and Exports of Fluorinated 

GHGs ...................................................................... 0 .7 0.02 10 0 .6 0.02 16 

Subpart SS—Electrical Equipment Manufacture and 

Refurbishment and Manufacturing of Electrical 

Components ........................................................... 0 .02 0.01 0 .3 0 .02 0.01 1 

Private Sector, Total ........................................... 5 .7 .................... 94 3 .5 .................... 90 

Public Sector, Total ............................................ 0 .4 .................... 6 0 .4 .................... 10 

Total ............................................................. 6 .1 .................... 100 3 .9 .................... 100 

C. What are the economic impacts of the 

rule? 

1. Summary of Economic Impacts 

EPA prepared an economic analysis to 

evaluate the impacts of the proposed 

rule on affected industries. To estimate 

the economic impacts, EPA first 

conducted a screening assessment, 

comparing the estimated total 

annualized compliance costs by 

industry, where industry is defined in 

terms of North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) code, 

with industry average revenues. Average 

cost-to-sales ratios for establishments in 

affected NAICS codes are typically less 

than 1 percent. 

These low average cost-to-sales ratios 

indicate that the rule is unlikely to 

result in significant changes in firms’ 

production decisions or other 

behavioral changes, and thus unlikely to 

result in significant changes in prices or 

quantities in affected markets. Thus, 

EPA followed its Guidelines for 

Preparing Economic Analyses (EPA, 

2002, p. 124–125) and used the 

engineering cost estimates to measure 

the social cost of the rule, rather than 

modeling market responses and using 

the resulting measures of social cost. 

Table 13 of this preamble summarizes 

cost-to-sales ratios for affected 

industries. 

TABLE 13—ESTIMATED COST-TO-SALES RATIOS FOR AFFECTED ENTITIES

[First Year, 2006$] 

NAICS NAICS description Subpart 

Average cost 

per entity 

($/entity) 

All 

enterprises 

334413 .................. Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing (Semiconductors) ........... I $31,748 0.05% 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18691 

TABLE 13—ESTIMATED COST-TO-SALES RATIOS FOR AFFECTED ENTITIES—Continued 

[First Year, 2006$] 

NAICS NAICS description Subpart 

Average cost 

per entity 

($/entity) 

All 

enterprises 

334413 .................. Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing (MEMS) .......................... I 5,239 0.01 

334413 .................. Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing (LCD) .............................. I 7,598 0.01 

334119 .................. Other Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing (Photovoltaics) ........... I 8,777 0.04 

325120 .................. Industrial Gas Manufacturing ........................................................................... L 151,045 1.44 

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

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

333415 .................. Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing.OO 3,364 0.01 

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

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

423610 .................. Electrical Apparatus and Equipment, Wiring Supplies, and Related Equipment Merchant Wholesalers.OO 3,364 0.05 

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

Wholesalers.

OO 3,364 0.02 

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

Wholesalers.

OO 3,364 0.05 

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

Wholesalers.

OO 3,364 0.07 

423740 .................. Refrigeration Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers ....................... OO 3,364 0.10 

443111 .................. Household Appliance Stores ............................................................................ OO 3,364 0.27 

443112 .................. Radio, Television and Other Electronics Stores .............................................. OO 3,364 0.15 

424610 b ................ Plastics Materials and Basic Forms and Shapes Merchant Wholesalers ....... OO 3,364 0.04 

33361 .................... Engine, Turbine, and Power Transmission Equipment Manufacturing ............ SS 2,213 0.01 

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

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

D. What are the impacts of the rule on 

small businesses? 

1. Summary of Impacts on Small 

Businesses 

As required by the RFA and SBREFA, 

EPA assessed the potential impacts of 

the rule on small entities (small 

businesses, governments, and non-profit 

organizations). (See Section IV.C of this 

preamble for definitions of small 

entities.) 

EPA conducted a screening 

assessment comparing compliance costs 

for affected industry sectors to 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). 

TABLE 14—ESTIMATED COST-TO-SALES RATIOS BY INDUSTRY AND ENTERPRISE SIZE

[First Year, 2006$] a

NAICS NAICS description Subpart 

SBA 

size 

standard 

(effective 

March 

11, 

2008) 

Average 

cost per 

entity 

($/entity) 

All 

enterprises 

Owned by enterprises with: 

1 to 20 

employees 

20 to 

99 employees 

100 to 

499 

employees 

500 to 

749 

employees 

750 to 

999 

employees 

1,000 

to 

1,499 

employees 

334413 ....... Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing (Semiconductors).I 500 $31,748 0.05% 2.07% 0.40% 0.12% 0.08% 0.02% 0.04% 

334413 ....... Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing (MEMS).I 500 5,239 0.01% 0.34% 0.07% 0.02% 0.01% 0.00% 0.01% 

334413 ....... Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing (LCD).I 500 7,598 0.01% 0.50% 0.10% 0.03% 0.02% 0.01% 0.01% 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
18692 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 14—ESTIMATED COST-TO-SALES RATIOS BY INDUSTRY AND ENTERPRISE SIZE—Continued 

[First Year, 2006$] a

NAICS NAICS description Subpart 

SBA 

size 

standard 

(effective 

March 

11, 

2008) 

Average 

cost per 

entity 

($/entity) 

All 

enterprises 

Owned by enterprises with: 

1 to 20 

employees 

20 to 

99 employees 

100 to 

499 

employees 

500 to 

749 

employees 

750 to 

999 

employees 

1,000 

to 

1,499 

employees 

334119 ....... Other Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing (Photovoltaics).I 1,000 8,777 0.04% 0.56% 0.09% 0.03% 0.01% 0.02% 0.01% 

325120 ....... Industrial Gas Manufacturing.L 1,000 151,045 1.44% 31.03% 1.03% 4.26% NA NA NA 

326140 ....... Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing.OO 500 3,364 0.03% 0.28% 0.07% 0.04% NA NA 0.01% 

326150 ....... Urethane and Other Foam 

Product (except Polystyrene) Manufacturing.

OO 500 3,364 0.03% 0.21% 0.06% 0.02% 0.02% NA NA 

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

Warm Air Heating 

Equipment and Commercial and Industrial 

Refrigeration Equipment 

Manufacturing.

OO 750 3,364 0.01% 0.25% 0.04% 0.02% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 

335313 ....... Switchgear and Switchboard Apparatus Manufacturing.OO 750 3,364 0.02% 0.26% 0.06% 0.02% NA NA NA 

336391 ....... Motor Vehicle Air-Conditioning Manufacturing.OO 750 3,364 0.01% 0.37% 0.08% NA NA NA NA 

423610 ....... Electrical Apparatus and 

Equipment, Wiring Supplies, and Related 

Equipment Merchant 

Wholesalers.

OO 100 3,364 0.05% 0.11% 0.03% 0.04% 0.05% 0.03% 0.04% 

423620 ....... Electrical and Electronic 

Appliance, Television, 

and Radio Set Merchant Wholesalers.

OO 100 3,364 0.02% 0.08% 0.02% 0.01% 0.00% 0.01% 0.01% 

423720 ....... Plumbing and Heating 

Equipment and Supplies (Hydronics) Merchant Wholesalers.

OO 100 3,364 0.05% 0.12% 0.02% 0.04% 0.07% 0.03% 0.10% 

423730 ....... Warm Air Heating and 

Air-Conditioning Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers.

OO 100 3,364 0.07% 0.15% 0.06% 0.06% 0.12% 0.03% NA 

423740 ....... Refrigeration Equipment 

and Supplies Merchant 

Wholesalers.

OO 100 3,364 0.10% 0.18% 0.05% 0.11% 0.09% 0.05% NA 

443111 ....... Household Appliance 

Stores.

OO $9 M 3,364 0.27% 0.47% 0.10% 0.08% NA NA NA 

443112 ....... Radio, Television and 

Other Electronics 

Stores.

OO $9 M 3,364 0.15% 0.59% 0.17% 0.26% NA NA NA 

424610 b ..... Plastics Materials and 

Basic Forms and 

Shapes Merchant 

Wholesalers.

OO 100 3,364 0.04% 0.10% 0.03% 0.02% 0.01% 0.01% 0.06% 

33361 ......... Engine, Turbine, and 

Power Transmission 

Equipment Manufacturing.

SS 500– 

1,000 

2,213 0.01% 0.19% 0.03% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 

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

1,000 

2,213 0.02% 0.22% 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 enterprise definition above is consistent with the concept of ultimate parent company that is typically used for Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) 

screening analyses. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18693 

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

EPA acknowledges that several 

enterprise categories have ratios that 

exceed this threshold (e.g., enterprise 

with one to 20 employees). The 

Industrial Gas Manufacturing industry 

(NAICS 325120) has sales test results 

over 1 percent for all enterprises. The 

following enterprise categories have 

sales test results over 1 percent and for 

entities with less than 20 employees: 

Industrial Gas Manufacturing (325120) 

and Semiconductor and Related Device 

Manufacturing (334413). 

EPA took a more detailed look at the 

categories noted above as having sales 

test ratios above 1 percent. EPA 

collected information on the entities 

likely to be covered by the rule as part 

of the expert sub-group process. 

Industrial Gas Manufacturing 

(325120). Subpart L covers facilities 

included in NAICS codes for Industrial 

Gas Manufacturing (NAICS 325120). 

Within this subpart, EPA identified 13 

ultimate parent company names covered 

by the proposed rule. Using publicly 

available sources (e.g., Hoovers.com), 

we collected parent company sales and 

employment data and found that only 

one company could be classified as a 

small entity. Using the cost data for a 

representative entity (see Section 4), 

EPA determined the small entity’s costto-sales ratio is below one percent. 

Electronic Computer Manufacturing 

(334111) and Semiconductor and 

Related Device Manufacturing (334413). 

Data on the number of electronics 

facilities comes from the World Fab 

Watch and the Flat Panel Display Fabs 

on Disk datasets. The census data 

categories cover more establishments 

than just those facilities covered in the 

rule. Subpart I covers facilities included 

in NAICS codes for Semiconductor and 

Related Device Manufacturing (334413) 

and Other Computer Peripheral 

Equipment Manufacturing (334119). 

The World Fab Watch dataset includes 

216 facilities (94 of which exceed the 

25,000 ton threshold), while the sum of 

the two NAICS codes include 1,903 

establishments. Covered facilities with 

emissions greater than 25,000 MtCO2e 

per year are unlikely to be included in 

the 1 to 20 employees size category. 

Emissions are roughly proportional to 

production, and establishments with 1 

to 20 employees total only 1.6 percent 

of total receipts, while the proposed 

threshold excludes 6 percent of industry 

emissions from the least-emitting 

facilities. Although this rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities, 

EPA nonetheless took several steps to 

reduce the impact of this rule on small 

entities. For example, EPA is proposing 

monitoring and reporting requirements 

that build off of the UIC program. In 

addition, EPA is proposing equipment 

and methods that may already be in use 

by a facility for compliance with its UIC 

permit. Also, EPA is requiring annual 

reporting instead of more frequent 

reporting. 

In addition to the public hearing that 

EPA plans to hold, EPA has an open 

door policy, similar to the outreach 

conducted during the development of 

the proposed and final MRR. Details of 

these meetings are available in the 

docket (EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0927). 

E. What are the benefits of the rule for 

society? 

EPA examined the potential benefits 

of the Fluorinated GHG Reporting Rule. 

EPA’s previous analysis of the GHG 

reporting rule discussed the benefits of 

a reporting system with respect to 

policy making relevance, transparency 

issues, market efficiency. Instead of a 

quantitative analysis of the benefits, 

EPA conducted a systematic literature 

review of existing studies including 

government, consulting, and scholarly 

reports. 

A mandatory reporting system will 

benefit the public by increased 

transparency of facility emissions data. 

Transparent, public data on emissions 

allows for accountability of polluters to 

the public stakeholders who bear the 

cost of the pollution. Citizens, 

community groups, and labor unions 

have made use of data from Pollutant 

Release and Transfer Registers to 

negotiate directly with polluters to 

lower emissions, circumventing greater 

government regulation. Publicly 

available emissions data also will allow 

individuals to alter their consumption 

habits based on the GHG emissions of 

producers. 

The greatest benefit of mandatory 

reporting of industry GHG emissions to 

government will be realized in 

developing future GHG policies. For 

example, in the EU’s Emissions Trading 

System, a lack of accurate monitoring at 

the facility level before establishing CO2

allowance permits resulted in allocation 

of permits for emissions levels an 

average of 15 percent above actual levels 

in every country except the United 

Kingdom. 

Benefits to industry of GHG emissions 

monitoring include the value of having 

independent, verifiable data to present 

to the public to demonstrate appropriate 

environmental stewardship, and a better 

understanding of their emission levels 

and sources to identify opportunities to 

reduce emissions. Such monitoring 

allows for inclusion of standardized 

GHG data into environmental 

management systems, providing the 

necessary information to achieve and 

disseminate their environmental 

achievements. 

Standardization will also be a benefit 

to industry, once facilities invest in the 

institutional knowledge and systems to 

report emissions, the cost of monitoring 

should fall and the accuracy of the 

accounting should improve. A 

standardized reporting program will 

also allow for facilities to benchmark 

themselves against similar facilities to 

understand better their relative standing 

within their industry. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Section 3(f)(1) of Executive 

Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 

1993), this proposed action is not by 

itself an ‘‘economically significant 

regulatory action’’ because it is unlikely 

to have an annual economic effect of 

less than $100 million. EPA’s cost 

analysis, presented in Section 4 of the 

Economic Impact Analysis (EIA), 

estimates that for the minimum 

reporting under the recommended 

regulatory option, the total annualized 

cost of the rule will be approximately 

$6.1 million (in 2006$) during the first 

year of the program and $3.9 million in 

subsequent years (including $0.4 

million of programmatic costs to the 

Agency). This proposed action adds 

subparts I, L, OO, and SS to the MRR, 

which was a significant regulatory 

action. Thus, EPA has chosen to analyze 

the impacts of this proposed rule as if 

it were significant. EPA submitted this 

proposed action to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review under Executive Order 12866, 

and any changes made in response to 

OMB recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this 

proposed action. 

In addition, EPA prepared an analysis 

of the potential costs associated with 

this proposed action. This analysis is 

contained in the Economic Impact 

Analysis (EIA), Economic Impact 

Analysis for the Mandatory Reporting of 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions F–Gases 

Subparts I, L, OO, and SS (EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2009–0927). A copy of the 

analysis is available in the docket for 

this action and the analysis is briefly 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
18694 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

45Although CBI determinations are usually made 

on a case-by-case basis, EPA has issued guidance 

in an earlier Federal Register notice on what 

constitutes emissions data that cannot be 

considered CBI (956 FR 7042–7043, February 21, 

1991). As discussed in Section II.R of the preamble 

to the Final MRR, EPA will be initiating a separate 

notice and comment process to make CBI 

determinations for the data collected under this 

proposed rulemaking. 

46For the one to 20 employee category, we 

exclude SUSB data for enterprises with zero 

employees. These enterprises did not operate the 

entire year. 

summarized here. In this report, EPA 

has identified the regulatory options 

considered, their costs, the emissions 

that would likely be reported under 

each option, and explained the selection 

of the option chosen for the rule. 

Overall, EPA has concluded that the 

costs of the F-Gases Rule are 

outweighed by the potential benefits of 

more comprehensive information about 

GHG emissions. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this proposed rule have 

been submitted for approval to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 

Information Collection Request (ICR) 

document prepared by EPA has been 

assigned EPA ICR number [2373.01]. 

EPA has identified the following goals 

of the mandatory GHG reporting system: 

• Obtain data that is of sufficient 

quality that it can be used to analyze 

and inform the development of a range 

of future climate change policies and 

potential regulations. 

• Balance the rule’s coverage to 

maximize the amount of emissions 

reported while excluding small emitters. 

• Create reporting requirements that 

are, to the extent possible and 

appropriate, consistent with existing 

GHG reporting programs in order to 

reduce reporting burden for all parties 

involved. 

The information from fluorinated 

GHG facilities will allow EPA to make 

well-informed decisions about whether 

and how to use the CAA to regulate 

these facilities and encourage voluntary 

reductions. Because EPA does not yet 

know the specific policies that will be 

adopted, the data reported through the 

mandatory reporting system should be 

of sufficient quality to inform policy 

and program development. Also, 

consistent with the Appropriations Act, 

the reporting rule covers a broad range 

of sectors of the economy. 

This information collection is 

mandatory and will be carried out under 

CAA section 114. Information identified 

and marked as Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) will not be disclosed 

except in accordance with procedures 

set forth in 40 CFR Part 2. However, 

emissions information collected under 

CAA section 114 generally cannot be 

claimed as CBI and will be made 

public.45

The projected cost and hour 

respondent burden in the ICR, averaged 

over the first three years after 

promulgation, is $4.51 million and 

81,500 hours per year. The estimated 

average burden per response is 272 

hours; the frequency of response is 

annual for all respondents that must 

comply with the rule’s reporting 

requirements; and the estimated average 

number of likely respondents per year is 

276. The cost burden to respondents 

resulting from the collection of 

information includes the total capital 

and start-up cost annualized over the 

equipment’s expected useful life 

(averaging $44,000 per year) a total 

operation and maintenance component 

(averaging $24,000 per year), and a labor 

cost component (averaging $4.44 

million per year). Burden is defined at 

5 CFR Part 1320.3(b). 

These cost numbers differ from those 

shown elsewhere in the EIA because 

ICR costs represent the average cost over 

the first three years of the rule, but costs 

are reported elsewhere in the EIA for the 

first year of the rule. Also, the total cost 

estimate of the rule in the EIA includes 

the cost to the Agency to administer the 

program. The ICR differentiates between 

respondent burden and cost to the 

Agency, estimated to be $384,000. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When 

this ICR is approved by OMB, the 

Agency will publish a technical 

amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the 

Federal Register to display the OMB 

control number for the approved 

information collection requirements 

contained in the final rule. 

To comment on the Agency’s need for 

this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates, and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, EPA has established 

a public docket for this proposed rule, 

which includes this ICR, under Docket 

ID number EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0927. 

Submit any comments related to the ICR 

to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this notice 

for where to submit comments to EPA. 

Send comments to OMB at the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 725 

17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. 

Since OMB is required to make a 

decision concerning the ICR between 30 

and 60 days after [date of publication], 

a comment to OMB is best assured of 

having its full effect if OMB receives it 

by [publication plus 30]. The final rule 

will respond to any OMB or public 

comments on the information collection 

requirements contained in this proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

The RFA generally requires an agency 

to prepare a regulatory flexibility 

analysis of any rule subject to notice 

and comment rulemaking requirements 

under the Administrative Procedure Act 

or any other statute unless the agency 

certifies that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s rule on small entities, For the 

fluorinated GHG Reporting Rule, small 

entity is defined as a small business as 

defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s regulations at 13 CFR 

121.201; according to these size 

standards, criteria for determining if 

ultimate parent companies owning 

affected facilities are categorized as 

small vary by NAICS. Small entity 

criteria range from total number of 

employees at the firm fewer than 100 to 

number of employees fewer than 1000; 

one affected NAICS, 44311, defines 

small entities as those with sales below 

$9 million. EIA tables 5–11 and 5–12 

present small business criteria and 

enterprise size distribution data for 

affected NAICS.EPA assessed the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities using a sales test, 

defined as the ratio of total annualized 

compliance costs to firm sales. Details 

are provided in section 5.3 of the EIA. 

These sales tests examine the average 

establishment’s total annualized 

mandatory reporting costs to the average 

establishment receipts for enterprises 

within several employment categories.46

The average entity costs used to 

compute the sales test are the same 

across all of these enterprise size 

categories. As a result, the sales-test will 

overstate the cost-to-receipt ratio for 

establishments owned by small 

businesses, because the reporting costs 

are likely lower than average entity 

estimates provided by the engineering 

cost analysis. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18695 

The results of the screening analysis 

show that for most NAICS, the costs are 

estimated to be less than 1 percent of 

sales in all firm size categories. For two 

NAICS, however, the costs exceed 1 

percent of sales for the 1–20 employee 

size category; for these NAICS, a more 

detailed assessment was conducted. For 

NAICS 334413, firms with fewer than 20 

employees produce less than 2 percent 

of output; firms below the 25,000 Mt 

CO2e threshold release approximately 6 

percent of emissions. Because emissions 

and production levels are highly 

correlated, firms with fewer than 20 

employees are generally not expected to 

be affected by the proposed rule; if they 

are, their costs are likely to be lower 

than the overall average costs used in 

the screening analysis. Thus, EPA does 

not expect the proposed rule to impose 

significant costs to a substantial number 

of small entities in NAICS 334413. 

Subpart L covers facilities included in 

NAICS codes for Industrial Gas 

Manufacturing (NAICS 325120). Within 

this subpart, EPA identified 13 ultimate 

parent company names covered by the 

proposed rule. Using publicly available 

sources (e.g.,hoovers.com), we collected 

parent company sales and employment 

data and found that only one company 

could be classified as a small entity. 

Using the cost data for a representative 

entity (see Section 4 of the EA), EPA 

determined the small entity’s cost-tosales ratio is below one percent. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed rule on 

small entities, I therefore certify that 

this proposed rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Although this rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

Agency nonetheless tried to reduce the 

impact of this rule on small entities, 

including seeking input from a wide 

range of private- and public-sector 

stakeholders. When developing the rule, 

the Agency took special steps to ensure 

that the burdens imposed on small 

entities were minimal. The Agency 

conducted several meetings with 

industry trade associations to discuss 

regulatory options and the 

corresponding burden on industry, such 

as recordkeeping and reporting. The 

Agency investigated alternative 

thresholds and analyzed the marginal 

costs associated with requiring smaller 

entities with lower emissions to report. 

The Agency also selected a hybrid 

method for reporting, which provides 

flexibility to entities and helps 

minimize reporting costs. 

In addition to the public hearing that 

EPA plans to hold, EPA has an open 

door policy, similar to the outreach 

conducted during the development of 

the proposed and final MRR. 

Details of these meetings are available 

in the docket (EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0927). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and Tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for final rules with ‘‘Federal 

mandates’’ that may result in 

expenditures to State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

in any one year. 

This proposed rule does not contain 

a Federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more 

for State, local, and Tribal governments, 

in the aggregate, or the private sector in 

any one year. Overall, EPA estimates 

that the total annualized costs of this 

proposed rule are approximately $6.1 

million in the first year, and $3.9 

million per year in subsequent years. 

Thus, this proposed rule is not subject 

to the requirements of sections 202 or 

205 of UMRA. 

This proposed rule is also not subject 

to the requirements of section 203 of 

UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

Facilities subject to the proposed rule 

include facilities that manufacture, sell, 

import or export fluorinated GHG 

related products. None of the facilities 

currently known to undertake these 

activities are owned by small 

governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. This regulation 

applies to facilities that manufacture, 

sell, import, or export fluorinated GHG 

related products. Few State or local 

government facilities would be affected. 

This regulation also does not limit the 

power of States or localities to collect 

GHG data and/or regulate GHG 

emissions. Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this action. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and State and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicits comment on this 

proposed action from State and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (59 FR 

22951, November 6, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

Tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have Tribal 

implications.’’ 

This proposed rule is not expected to 

have Tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. This regulation 

applies to facilities that manufacture, 

sell, import, or export fluorinated GHG 

related products. Few facilities expected 

to be affected by the rule are likely to 

be owned by Tribal governments. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this proposed rule. 

Although Executive Order 13175 does 

not apply to this proposed rule, EPA 

sought opportunities to provide 

information to Tribal governments and 

representatives during development of 

the MRR rule. In consultation with 

EPA’s American Indian Environment 

Office, EPA’s outreach plan included 

Tribes. During the proposal phase, EPA 

staff provided information to Tribes 

through conference calls with multiple 

Indian working groups and 

organizations at EPA that interact with 

Tribes and through individual calls with 

two Tribal board members of TCR. In 

addition, EPA prepared a short article 

on the GHG reporting rule that appeared 

on the front page of a Tribal 

newsletter—Tribal Air News—that was 

distributed to EPA/OAQPS’s network of 

Tribal organizations. EPA gave a 

presentation on various climate efforts, 

including the mandatory reporting rule, 

at the National Tribal Conference on 

Environmental Management in June, 

2008. In addition, EPA had copies of a 

short information sheet distributed at a 

meeting of the National Tribal Caucus. 

EPA participated in a conference call 

with Tribal air coordinators in April 

2009 and prepared a guidance sheet for 

Tribal governments on the proposed 

rule. It was posted on the MRR Web site 

and published in the Tribal Air 

Newsletter. For a complete list of Tribal 

contacts, see the ‘‘Summary of EPA 

Outreach Activities for Developing the 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule,’’ in the 

Docket for the initial proposed rule 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
18696 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0508–055). In 

addition to the consultation activities 

supporting the MRR, EPA continues to 

provide requested information to Tribal 

governments and representatives during 

development of the Track II rules such 

as this proposed rulemaking. EPA 

specifically solicits additional comment 

on this proposed action from Tribal 

officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only 

to those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the EO has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This proposed action is not 

subject to EO 13045 because it does not 

establish an environmental standard 

intended to mitigate health or safety 

risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ as defined in 

EO 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) 

because it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. Further, 

we have concluded that this proposed 

rule is not likely to have any adverse 

energy effects. This proposed rule 

relates to monitoring, reporting and 

recordkeeping at facilities that 

manufacture, sell, import, or export 

fluorinated GHG related products and 

does not impact energy supply, 

distribution or use. Therefore, we 

conclude that this proposed rule is not 

likely to have any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to 

use voluntary consensus standards in its 

regulatory activities unless to do so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA 

to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

This proposed rulemaking involves 

technical standards. EPA will use 

voluntary consensus standards from at 

least seven different voluntary 

consensus standards bodies, including 

the following: ASTM, ASME, ISO, Gas 

Processors Association, American Gas 

Association, American Petroleum 

Institute, and National Lime 

Association. These voluntary consensus 

standards will help facilities monitor, 

report, and keep records of GHG 

emissions. No new test methods were 

developed for this proposed rule. 

Instead, from existing rules for source 

categories and voluntary greenhouse gas 

programs, EPA identified existing 

means of monitoring, reporting, and 

keeping records of greenhouse gas 

emissions. The existing methods 

(voluntary consensus standards) include 

a broad range of measurement 

techniques, such as methods to measure 

gas or liquid flow; and methods to gauge 

and measure petroleum and petroleum 

products. The test methods are 

incorporated by reference into the 

proposed rule and are available as 

specified in 40 CFR 98.7. 

By incorporating voluntary consensus 

standards into this proposed rule, EPA 

is both meeting the requirements of the 

NTTAA and presenting multiple 

options and flexibility in complying 

with the proposed rule. EPA welcomes 

comments on this aspect of the 

proposed rulemaking and, specifically, 

invites the public to identify 

potentially-applicable voluntary 

consensus standards and to explain why 

such standards should be used in this 

proposed regulation. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

EO 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994) establishes Federal executive 

policy on environmental justice. Its 

main provision directs Federal agencies, 

to the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law, to make 

environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse 

Gases: Additional Sources of 

Fluorinated GHGs (Page 229 of 363) 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. This proposed rule 

does not affect the level of protection 

provided to human health or the 

environment because it is a rule 

addressing information collection and 

reporting procedures. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 98 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by 

reference, Suppliers, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: March 22, 2010. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 98—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 98 

continues to read as follows: 

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

2. Section 98.7 is amended as follows: 

a. By revising paragraph (d)(1). 

b. By revising paragraph (d)(2). 

c. By revising paragraph (d)(3). 

d. By revising paragraph (d)(4). 

e. By revising paragraph (d)(5). 

f. By revising paragraph (d)(6). 

g. By revising paragraph (d)(7). 

h. By revising paragraph (d)(8). 

i. By revising paragraph (e)(30). 

j. By adding paragraph (k). 

k. By adding paragraph (l). 

§ 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(k), 

§ 98.244(b), § 98.254(c), § 98.344(c), 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(k), § 98.244(b), 

§ 98.254(c), § 98.344(c), 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(k), and 

§ 98.244(b). 

(4) ASME MFC–6M–1998 

Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes 

Using Vortex Flowmeters, IBR approved 

for § 98.34(b), § 98.124(k), § 98.244(b), 

§ 98.254(c), § 98.344(c), and § 98.364(e). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18697 

(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(k), 

§ 98.244(b), § 98.254(c), § 98.344(c), 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(k), 

and § 98.244(b). 

(7) ASME MFC–11M–2006 

Measurement of Fluid Flow by Means of 

Coriolis Mass Flowmeters, IBR 

approved for § 98.124(k), § 98.244(b), 

§ 98.254(c), and § 98.344(c). 

(8) ASME MFC–14M–2003 

Measurement of Fluid Flow Using Small 

Bore Precision Orifice Meters, IBR 

approved for § 98.124(k), § 98.244(b), 

§ 98.254(c), § 98.344(c), 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, IBR approved for 

§ 98.54(b), § 98.124(c), and § 98.224(b). 

* * * * * 

(k) The following material is available 

from the International SEMATECH 

Manufacturing Initiative, http:// 

ismi.sematech.org. 

(1) Guideline for Environmental 

Characterization of Semiconductor 

Process Equipment, International 

SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative 

Technology Transfer #06124825B–ENG. 

(2006). 

(l) The following material is available 

for purchase from SEMI, 3081 Zanker 

Road, San Jose, CA 95134, (408) 943– 

6900, http://www.semi.org. 

(1) SEMI E10–0304 Specification for 

Definition and Measurement of 

Equipment Reliability, Availability, and 

Maintainability (2004). 

(2) [Reserved] 

3. Add subpart I to read as follows: 

Subpart I—Electronics Manufacturing 

Sec. 

98.90 Definition of the source category. 

98.91 Reporting threshold. 

98.92 GHGs to report. 

98.93 Calculating GHG emissions. 

98.94 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements. 

98.95 Procedures for estimating missing 

data. 

98.96 Data reporting requirements. 

98.97 Records that must be retained. 

98.98 Definitions. 

Table I–1 of Subpart I—Default Emission 

Factors for Threshold Applicability 

Determination 

Table I–2 of Subpart I—Examples of 

Fluorinated GHGs Used by the 

Electronics Industry 

Table I–3 of Subpart I—Default Emission 

Factors for MEMS Manufacturing 

Table I–4 of Subpart I—Default Emission 

Factors for LCD Manufacturing 

Table I–5 of Subpart I—Default Emission 

Factors for PV Manufacturing 

Table I–6 of Subpart I–Default Emission 

Factors for Refined Process Categories for 

Semiconductor Manufacturing for 150 

mm Wafer Size 

Table I–7 of Subpart I–Default Emission 

Factors for Refined Process Categories for 

Semiconductor Manufacturing for 200 

mm Wafer Size 

Table I–8 of Subpart I–Default Emission 

Factors for Refined Process Categories for 

Semiconductor Manufacturing for 300 

mm Wafer Size 

Subpart I—Electronics Manufacturing 

§ 98.90 Definition of the source category. 

(a) The electronics source category 

consists of any of the processes listed in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(6) of this 

section. Electronics manufacturing 

facilities include, but are not limited to, 

facilities that manufacture 

semiconductors, liquid crystal displays 

(LCDs), micro-electro-mechanical 

systems (MEMS), and photovoltaic cells 

(PV). 

(1) Each electronics manufacturing 

production process in which the etching 

process uses plasma-generated fluorine 

atoms and other reactive fluorinecontaining fragments, which chemically 

react with exposed thin-films (e.g., 

dielectric, metals) and silicon to 

selectively remove portions of material. 

(2) Each electronics manufacturing 

production process in which chambers 

used for depositing thin films are 

cleaned periodically using plasmagenerated fluorine atoms and other 

reactive fluorine-containing fragments 

from fluorinated and other gases. 

(3) Each electronics manufacturing 

production process in which wafers are 

cleaned using plasma generated fluorine 

atoms or other reactive fluorinecontaining fragments to remove residual 

material from wafer surfaces. 

(4) Each electronics manufacturing 

production process in which some 

fluorinated compounds can be 

transformed in the plasma processes 

into different fluorinated compounds 

which are then exhausted, unless 

abated, into the atmosphere. 

(5) Each electronics manufacturing 

production process in which the 

chemical vapor deposition process or 

other manufacturing processes use N2O. 

(6) Each electronics manufacturing 

production process in which fluorinated 

GHGs are used as heat transfer fluids to 

cool process equipment, control 

temperature during device testing, and 

solder semiconductor devices to circuit 

boards. 

(b) [Reserved] 

§ 98.91 Reporting threshold. 

You must report GHG emissions 

under this subpart if your facility 

contains an electronics manufacturing 

process and the facility meets the 

requirements of either § 98.2(a)(1) or 

(a)(2). To calculate GHG emissions for 

comparison to the 25,000 metric ton 

CO2e per year emission threshold in 

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

emissions from electronics manufacture 

by using either paragraph (a), (b), (c), or 

(d) of this section, as appropriate. 

(a) Semiconductor manufacturers 

shall calculate process emissions for 

applicability purposes using the default 

emission factors shown in Table I–1 of 

this subpart and Equation I–1 of this 

section. 

E EF T i =∗ ∗ ∗ 1 1 0 001 . . ∑S

i

(Eq. I-1)

Where: 

ET = Total annual process emissions for 

applicability purposes (metric tons). 

1.1 = Factor accounting for heat transfer 

fluid emissions, estimated as 10 percent 

of total clean and etch emissions at a 

facility. 

S = 100 percent of manufacturing capacity 

of a facility (m2). 

EFi = Emission factor for input gas i. 

0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric 

tons. 

(b) LCD manufacturers shall calculate 

process emissions for applicability 

purposes using the default emission 

factors shown in Table I–1 of this 

subpart and Equation I–2 of this section. 

E EF T i = ∗∗ ∑S

i

0 000001 . (Eq. I-2)

Where: 

ET = Total annual process emissions for 

applicability purposes (metric tons). 

S = 100 percent of manufacturing capacity 

of a facility (m2). 

EFi = Emission factor for input gas i. 

0.000001 = Conversion factor from g to 

metric tons. 

(c) MEMS manufacturers shall 

calculate process emissions for 

applicability purposes using the default 

emission factors shown in Table I–1 of 

this subpart and Equation I–3 of this 

section. 

E EF T i = ∗∗ ∑S

i

0 001 . (Eq. I-3)

Where: 

ET = Total annual process emissions for 

applicability purposes (metric tons). 

S = 100 percent of manufacturing capacity 

of a facility (m2). 

EFi = Emission factor for input gas i. 

0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric 

tons. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4EP12AP10.038</MATH> EP12AP10.039</MATH> EP12AP10.040</MATH>
18698 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(d) PV manufacturers shall calculate 

process emissions for applicability 

purposes using gas-appropriate GWP 

values shown in Table A–1 to subpart 

A and equation I–4 of this section. 

ET =∗∗ ∑C GWP i i

i

0 001 . (Eq. I-4)

Where: 

ET = Total annual process emissions for 

applicability purposes (metric tons). 

Ci = Annual fluorinated GHG (gas i) 

purchases or consumption (kg). 

GWPi = Gas-appropriate GWP. 

0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric 

tons. 

§ 98.92 GHGs to report. 

(a) You shall report emissions of N2O 

and fluorinated GHGs (as defined in 

§ 98.6). The fluorinated GHGs that are 

emitted from electronics production 

processes include, but are not limited 

to, those listed in Table I–2 of this 

subpart. You must report: 

(1) Fluorinated GHGs from plasma 

etching. 

(2) Fluorinated GHGs from chamber 

cleaning. 

(3) Fluorinated GHGs from wafer 

cleaning. 

(4) N2O from chemical vapor 

deposition and other manufacturing 

processes. 

(5) Fluorinated GHGs from heat 

transfer fluid use. 

(b) CO2, CH4, and N2O combustion 

emissions from each stationary 

combustion unit. You must calculate 

and report these emissions under 

subpart C of this part (General 

Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources) by 

following the requirements of subpart C. 

§ 98.93 Calculating GHG emissions. 

(a) You shall calculate annual facilitylevel emissions for each fluorinated 

GHG used at your facility, for each 

process type used at your facility 

(plasma etching, chamber cleaning, or 

wafer cleaning) as appropriate, using 

equations I–5 and I–6 of this section and 

according to the procedures in 

paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of this 

section. 

processtypeE E i ij

j

N

=

=

∑

1

(Eq. I-5)

Where: 

processtypeEi = Annual emissions of input 

gas i from the processes type (metric 

tons). 

Eij = Annual emissions of input gas i from 

individual process j or process category 

j (metric tons). 

N = The total number of individual 

processes j or process categories j, which 

depend on the electronics manufacturing 

facility and emission calculation 

methodology. 

processtypeBE BE k kij

j i

N

= ∑∑

=1

(Eq. I-6)

Where: 

processtypeBEk = Annual emissions of byproduct gas k from the processes type 

(metric tons). 

BEkij = Annual emissions of by-product k 

formed from input gas i during 

individual process j or process category 

j (metric tons). 

N = The total number of individual 

processes j or process categories j, which 

depend on the electronics manufacturing 

facility and emission calculation 

methodology. 

(1) Semiconductor facilities that 

fabricate devices on wafers measuring 

300 mm or less in diameter shall 

calculate annual facility-level emissions 

of each fluorinated GHG used at a 

facility for each fluorinated GHG-using 

process type, either from all individual 

processes at that facility in accordance 

with § 98.94(d), or from process 

categories as defined in this paragraph 

(a)(1). 

(i) All etching process categories for 

which annual fluorinated GHG 

emissions shall be calculated are 

defined in this paragraph (a)(1)(i). 

(A) Oxide etch means any process 

using fluorinated GHG reagents to 

selectively remove SiO2, SiOx-based or 

fully organic-based thin-film material 

that has been deposited on a wafer 

during semiconductor device 

manufacturing. 

(B) Nitride etch means any process 

using fluorinated GHG reagents to 

selectively remove SiN, SiON, Si3N4, 

SiC, SiCO, SiCN, etc. (represented by 

the general chemical formula, 

SiwOxNyXz where w, x, y and z are zero 

or integers and X can be some other 

element such as carbon) that has been 

deposited on a wafer during 

semiconductor manufacturing. 

(C) Silicon etch also often called 

polysilicon etch means any process 

using fluorinated GHG reagents to 

selectively remove silicon during 

semiconductor manufacturing. 

(D) Metal etch means any process 

using fluorinated GHG reagents 

associated with removing metal films 

(such as aluminum or tungsten) that 

have been deposited on a wafer during 

semiconductor manufacturing. 

(ii) All chamber cleaning process 

categories for which annual fluorinated 

GHG emissions shall be calculated are 

defined in this paragraph (a)(1)(ii). 

(A) In situ plasma means cleaning 

thin-film production chambers, after 

processing one or more wafers, with a 

fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent that is 

dissociated into its cleaning 

constituents by a plasma generated 

inside the chamber where the film was 

produced. 

(B) Remote plasma system means 

cleaning thin-film production chambers, 

after processing one or more wafers, 

with a fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent 

dissociated by a remotely located (e.g., 

upstream) plasma source. 

(C) In situ thermal means cleaning 

thin-film production chambers, after 

processing one or more wafers, with a 

fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent that is 

thermally dissociated into its cleaning 

constituents inside the chamber where 

the thin-film (or thin films) was (were) 

produced. 

(iii) All wafer cleaning process 

categories for which annual fluorinated 

GHG emissions shall be calculated are 

defined in this paragraph (a)(1)(iii). 

(A) Bevel cleaning means any process 

using fluorinated GHG reagents with 

plasma to clean the edges of wafers 

during semiconductor manufacture. 

(B) Ashing means any process using 

fluorinated GHG reagents with plasma 

to remove photoresist materials during 

wafer manufacture. 

(2) Semiconductor facilities that 

fabricate devices on wafers measuring 

greater than 300 mm in diameter shall 

calculate annual facility-level emissions 

of each fluorinated GHG used at a 

facility for all individual processes at 

that facility in accordance with 

§ 98.94(d). 

(3) All other electronics facilities shall 

calculate annual facility-level emissions 

of each fluorinated GHG used at a 

facility for each process type, including 

etching and chemical vapor deposition 

chamber cleaning. 

(b) You shall calculate annual facilitylevel emissions for each fluorinated 

GHG used at your facility, for each 

individual process, process category, or 

process type used at your facility as 

appropriate, using Equations I–7 and I– 

8 of this section, and according to the 

procedures in either paragraph (b)(1), 

(b)(2), or (b)(3) of this section. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4EP12AP10.041</MATH> EP12AP10.042</MATH> EP12AP10.043</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18699 

E U ad ij ij ij ij ij = ∗− C ( ) 1 1 0 001 ∗− ∗ ( ) ∗ . (Eq. I-7)

Where: 

Eij = Annual emissions of input gas i from 

individual process, process category, or 

process type j (metric tons). 

Cij = Amount of input gas i consumed in 

individual process, process category, or 

process type j, as calculated in Equation 

I–10 (kg) of this section and apportioned 

pursuant to § 98.94(c). 

Uij = Process utilization for input gas i 

during individual process, process 

category, or process type j. 

aij = Fraction of input gas i used in 

individual process, process category, or 

process type j with abatement systems. 

dij = Fraction of input gas i destroyed in 

abatement systems connected to 

individual process, process category, or 

process type j, accounting for uptime as 

specified in § 98.94(f)(2). This is zero 

unless the facility adheres to 

requirements in § 98.94(f). 

0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric 

tons. 

BE B C a d ijk ijk ij ij kj = ∗ ∗− ∗ ( ) 1 0 001 ∗ . (Eq. I-8)

Where: 

BEijk = Annual emissions of by-product k 

formed from input gas i during 

individual process, process category, or 

process type j (metric tons). 

Bijk = Amount of gas k created as a byproduct per amount of input gas i (kg) 

consumed in individual process, process 

category, or process type j (kg). 

Cij = Amount of input gas i consumed in 

individual process, process category, or 

process type j, as calculated in Equation 

I–10 of this section (kg) and apportioned 

pursuant to § 98.94(c). 

aij = Fraction of input gas i used in 

individual process, process category, or 

process type j with abatement systems. 

dkj = Fraction of by-product gas k 

destroyed in abatement systems 

connected to individual process, process 

category, or process type j, accounting 

for uptime as specified in § 98.94(f)(2). 

This is zero unless the facility adheres to 

requirements in § 98.94(f). 

0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric 

tons. 

(1) Semiconductor facilities that 

fabricate devices on wafers measuring 

300 mm or less in diameter shall use the 

procedures in either paragraph (b)(1)(i) 

or (b)(1)(ii) of this section. 

(i) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b)(1)(ii), you shall use default process 

category emission factors for process 

utilization and by-product formation 

rates shown in Tables I–6, I–7, and I– 

8 of this subpart as appropriate. 

(ii) You may use recipe-specific 

measurements instead of the process 

category default factors provided that 

you follow methods in § 98.94(d). 

(2) Semiconductor facilities that 

fabricate devices on wafers measuring 

greater than 300 mm in diameter shall 

use recipe-specific measurements and 

follow methods in § 98.94(d) to 

calculate emissions from each 

fluorinated GHG-using process type. 

You shall use Equations I–5 through I– 

8 of this section to calculate fluorinated 

GHG emissions from all fluorinated 

GHG-using process recipes. 

(3) All other electronics facilities shall 

use the default process type-specific 

emission factors for process utilization 

and by-product formation rates shown 

in Tables I–3, I–4, and I–5 of this 

subpart for MEMS, LCD, and PV 

manufacturing, respectively. 

(c) You shall calculate annual facilitylevel N2O emissions from electronics 

manufacturing processes, using 

Equation I–9 of this section and the 

methods in this paragraph (c). 

(1) You shall use a factor for N2O 

utilization for chemical vapor 

deposition processes pursuant to either 

paragraph (c)(1)(i) or (c)(1)(ii) of this 

section. 

(i) You shall develop a facilityspecific N2O utilization factor averaged 

over all N2O-using recipes used for 

chemical vapor deposition processes in 

accordance with § 98.94(e). 

(ii) If you do not use a facility-specific 

N2O utilization factor for chemical 

vapor deposition processes, you shall 

use 20 percent as the default utilization 

factor for N2O from chemical vapor 

deposition processes. 

(2) You shall use a factor for N2O 

utilization for other manufacturing 

processes pursuant to either paragraph 

(c)(2)(i) or (c)(2)(ii) of this section. 

(i) You shall develop a facilityspecific N2O utilization factor averaged 

over all N2O-using recipes used for 

manufacturing processes other than 

chemical vapor deposition processes in 

accordance with § 98.94(e). 

(ii) If you do not use a facility-specific 

N2O utilization factor for manufacturing 

processes other than chemical vapor 

deposition, you shall use the default 

utilization factor of 0 percent for N2O 

from manufacturing processes other 

than chemical vapor deposition. 

(3) If your facility employs abatement 

systems and you wish to quantify and 

document N2O emission reductions due 

to these systems, you must adhere to the 

requirements in § 98.94(f). 

(4) You shall calculate annual facilitylevel N2O emissions for all processes at 

your facility using Equation I–9 of this 

section. 

E NO U a d ( ) 2 = ∗− C 2 2 22 O, j O, j O, j O, j ( ) 1 1 0 001 N NN ∗− ∗ ( ) ∗

j

∑ N . (Eq. I-9)

Where: 

E(N2O) = Annual emissions of N2O (metric 

tons/year). 

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

I–10 of this section and apportioned to 

N2O process j (kg). 

UN2O,j = Process utilization for N2O-using 

process j. 

aN2O,j = Fraction of N2O used in N2O-using 

process j with abatement systems. 

dN2O,j = Fraction of N2O for N2O-using 

process j destroyed by abatement 

systems connected to process j, 

accounting for uptime as specified in 

§ 98.94(f)(2). This is zero unless the 

facility adheres to requirements in 

§ 98.94(f). 

0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric 

tons. 

(d) You shall calculate gas 

consumption for each fluorinated GHG 

and N2O used at your facility using 

facility-wide gas-specific heel factors, as 

determined in § 98.94(b), and using 

Equation I–10 of this section. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4EP12AP10.044</MATH> EP12AP10.045</MATH> EP12AP10.046</MATH>
18700 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

C I I AD i Bi Ei i i = −+− ( ) ∗ 0 001 . (Eq. I-10)

Where: 

Ci = Annual consumption of input gas i 

(metric tons/year). 

IBi = Inventory of input gas i stored in 

cylinders or other containers at the 

beginning of the year, including heels 

(kg). 

IEi = Inventory of input gas i stored in 

cylinders or other containers at the end 

of the year, including heels (kg). 

Ai = Acquisitions of gas i during the year 

through purchases or other transactions, 

including heels in cylinders or other 

containers returned to the electronics 

manufacturing facility (kg). 

Di = Disbursements under exceptional 

circumstances of gas i through sales or 

other transactions during the year, 

including heels in cylinders or other 

containers returned by the electronics 

manufacturing facility to the chemical 

supplier, calculated using equation I–11 

of this section (kg). 

0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric 

tons. 

(e) You shall calculate disbursements 

of gas i using Equation I–11 of this 

section. 

D h N FX i i ii i = ∗ ∗+ (Eq. I-11)

Where: 

Di = Disbursements of gas i through sales 

or other transactions during the year, 

including heels in cylinders or other 

containers returned by the electronics 

manufacturing facility to the gas 

distributor (kg). 

hi = Facility-wide gas-specific heel factor 

for input gas i (%), as determined in 

§ 98.94(b) of this subpart. 

Ni = Number of cylinders or other 

containers returned to the gas distributor 

containing the standard heel of gas i. 

Fi = Full capacity of cylinders or other 

containers containing gas i (kg). 

Xi = Disbursements under exceptional 

circumstances of gas i through sales or 

other transactions during the year. These 

include returns of containers whose 

contents have been weighed due to an 

exceptional circumstance as specified in 

§ 98.94(b)(5) of this subpart (kg). 

(f) For facilities that use fluorinated 

heat transfer fluids, you shall report the 

annual emissions of fluorinated GHG 

heat transfer fluids using the mass 

balance approach described in Equation 

I–12 of this section. 

EH density I P N R I D i io it it it it it = ∗ +− + −− ( ) ∗ 0 001 . (Eq. I-12)

Where: 

EHi = Emissions of fluorinated GHG heat 

transfer fluid i, (metric tons/year). 

Density = Density of fluorinated heat 

transfer fluid i (kg/l). 

Iio = Inventory of fluorinated heat transfer 

fluid i (kg) (in containers, not 

equipment) at the beginning of the 

reporting year (l). The inventory at the 

beginning of the reporting year must be 

the same as the inventory at the end of 

the previous reporting year. 

Pit = Acquisitions of fluorinated heat 

transfer fluid i (kg) during the current 

reporting year (l). Includes amounts 

purchased from chemical suppliers, 

amounts purchased from equipment 

suppliers with or inside of equipment, 

and amounts returned to the facility after 

off-site recycling. 

Nit = Total nameplate capacity (full and 

proper charge) of equipment that uses 

fluorinated heat transfer fluid i and that is 

newly installed during the reporting year 

(kg). 

Rit = Total nameplate capacity (full and 

proper charge) of equipment that uses 

fluorinated heat transfer fluid i and that is 

removed from service during the current 

reporting year (kg). 

Iit = Inventory of fluorinated heat transfer 

fluid i (kg) (in containers, not equipment) 

at the end of current reporting year (l). 

Dit = Disbursements of fluorinated heat 

transfer fluid i (kg) during the current 

reporting year (l). Includes amounts 

returned to chemical suppliers, sold with 

or inside of equipment, and sent off site for 

verifiable recycling or destruction. 

Disbursements should include only 

amounts that are properly stored and 

transported so as to prevent emissions in 

transit. 

0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric 

tons. 

§ 98.94 Monitoring and QA/QC 

requirements. 

(a) For calendar year 2011 monitoring, 

you may follow the provisions of 

§ 98.3(d)(1) through (d)(3) for best 

available monitoring methods rather 

than follow the monitoring 

requirements of this section. For 

purposes of subpart I, any reference to 

the year 2010 in § 98.3(d)(1) through 

(d)(3) shall mean 2011. 

(b) For purposes of Equation I–10 of 

this section, you must estimate facilitywide gas-specific heel factors for each 

cylinder/container type for each gas 

used according to the procedures in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(6) of this 

section. 

(1) You shall base your facility-wide 

gas-specific heel factors on the residual 

weight or pressure of a gas cylinder/ 

container that your facility uses to 

change out that cylinder/container for 

each cylinder/container type for each 

gas used. 

(2) The residual weight or pressure 

you use for § 98.94(b)(1) shall be 

determined by monitoring the mass or 

the pressure of your cylinders/ 

containers. If you monitor the pressure, 

you shall convert the pressure to mass 

using the ideal gas law, as displayed in 

Equation I–13 of this section, with an 

appropriately selected Z value. 

pV ZnRT = (Eq. I-13)

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) You shall use the facility-wide 

gas–specific cylinder/container residual 

mass, determined from § 98.94(b)(1) and 

(b)(2), to calculate the unused gas for 

each container, which when expressed 

as fraction of the initial mass in the 

cylinder/container is the heel factor. 

(4) The initial mass used to calculate 

the facility-wide gas-specific heel factor 

may be based on the weight of the gas 

provided to you in the gas supplier 

documents; however, you remain 

responsible for the accuracy of these 

masses and weights under this subpart. 

(5) In the exceptional circumstance 

that you change a cylinder/container at 

a residual mass or pressure that differs 

by more than 20 percent from your 

facility-wide gas-specific determined 

values, you shall weigh that cylinder, or 

measure the pressure of that cylinder 

with a pressure gauge, in place of using 

a heel factor. 

(6) You shall recalculate facility-wide 

gas-specific heel factors applied at your 

facility in the event that the residual 

weight or pressure of the gas cylinder/ 

container that your facility uses to 

change out that cylinder/container 

differs by more than 1 percentage point 

from that used to calculate the previous 

gas-specific heel factor. 

(c) Semiconductor facilities shall 

apportion fluorinated GHG 

consumption by process category, as 

defined in § 98.93(a)(1)(i) through 

(a)(1)(iii), or by individual process using 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4EP12AP10.047</MATH> EP12AP10.048</MATH> EP12AP10.049</MATH> EP12AP10.050</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18701 

a facility-specific engineering model 

based on wafer passes. 

(d) If you use factors for fluorinated 

GHG process utilization and by-product 

formation rates other than the defaults 

provided in Tables I–6 through I–8 of 

this subpart, you must use factors that 

have been measured using the 

International SEMATECH 

Manufacturing Initiative’s Guideline for 

Environmental Characterization of 

Semiconductor Process Equipment 

(December 2006). You may use factors 

for fluorinated GHG process utilization 

and by-product formation rates 

measured by manufacturing equipment 

suppliers if the conditions in paragraphs 

(d)(1) and (d)(2) of this section are met. 

(1) The manufacturing equipment 

supplier has measured the GHG 

emission factors for process utilization 

and by-product formation rates using 

the International SEMATECH 

Manufacturing Initiative’s Guideline for 

Environmental Characterization of 

Semiconductor Process Equipment 

(December 2006). 

(2) The conditions under which the 

measurements were made are 

representative of your facility’s 

fluorinated GHG emitting processes. 

(e) If you use N2O utilization factors 

other than those defaults provided in 

§ 98.93(c)(1)(ii) or (c)(2)(ii), you must 

use factors that have been measured 

using the International SEMATECH 

Manufacturing Initiative’s Guideline for 

Environmental Characterization of 

Semiconductor Process Equipment 

(December 2006). You may use 

utilization factors measured by 

manufacturing equipment suppliers if 

the conditions in paragraphs (e)(1) and 

(e)(2) of this section are met. 

(1) The manufacturing equipment 

supplier has measured the N2O 

utilization factors using the 

International SEMATECH 

Manufacturing Initiative’s Guideline for 

Environmental Characterization of 

Semiconductor Process Equipment 

(December 2006). 

(2) The conditions under which the 

measurements were made are 

representative of your facility’s N2O 

emitting processes. 

(f) If your facility employs abatement 

systems and you wish to reflect 

emission reductions due to these 

systems in appropriate calculations in 

§ 98.93, you must adhere to the 

procedures in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) 

of this section. If you use the default 

destruction or removal efficiency of 60 

percent, you must adhere to procedures 

in paragraph (f)(3) of this section. If you 

use either a properly measured 

destruction or removal efficiency, or a 

class average of properly measured 

destruction or removal efficiencies 

during a reporting year, you must 

adhere to procedures in paragraph (f)(4) 

of this section. 

(1) You must certify and document 

that the systems are properly installed, 

operated, and maintained according to 

manufacturers’ specifications by 

adhering to the procedures in 

paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(ii) of this 

section. 

(i) Proper installation must be verified 

by certifying the systems are installed in 

accordance with the manufacturers’ 

specifications. 

(ii) Proper operation and maintenance 

must be verified by certifying the 

systems are operated and maintained in 

accordance with the manufacturers’ 

specifications. 

(2) You shall take into account and 

report the uptime of abatement systems 

when using destruction or removal 

efficiencies to reflect emission 

reductions. Abatement system uptime is 

expressed as the sum of an abatement 

system’s operational productive, 

standby, and engineering times divided 

by the total operations time of its 

associated manufacturing tool(s) as 

referenced in SEMI Standard E–10–0340 

Specification for Definition and 

Measurement of Equipment Reliability, 

Availability, and Maintainability (2004). 

(3) To report controlled emissions 

using the default destruction or removal 

efficiency, you shall certify and 

document that the abatement systems at 

the facility for which you are reporting 

controlled emissions are specifically 

designed for fluorinated GHG and N2O 

abatement and you shall use a default 

destruction or removal efficiency of 60 

percent for those abatement systems. 

(4) If you do not use the default 

destruction or removal efficiency value 

to report controlled emissions, you shall 

use either a properly measured 

destruction or removal efficiency, or a 

class average of properly measured 

destruction or removal efficiencies 

during a reporting year, determined in 

accordance with procedures in 

paragraphs (f)(4)(i) through (f)(4)(v) of 

this section. 

(i) Destruction or removal efficiencies 

must be properly measured in 

accordance with EPA’s Protocol for 

Measuring Destruction or Removal 

Efficiency of Fluorinated Greenhouse 

Gas Abatement Equipment in 

Electronics Manufacturing (March 

2010). 

(ii) A facility must annually select and 

properly measure the destruction or 

removal efficiency for a random sample 

of abatement systems to include in a 

random sampling abatement system 

testing program (RSASTP) in 

accordance with procedures in 

paragraphs (f)(3)(ii)(A) and (f)(3)(ii)(B) of 

this section. 

(A) Each reporting year a random 

sample of three or 20 percent of 

installed abatement systems, whichever 

is greater, for each abatement system 

class shall be tested. In instances where 

20 percent of the total number of 

abatement systems in each class does 

not equate to a whole number, the 

number of systems to be tested shall be 

determined by rounding up to the 

nearest integer. 

(B) You shall select the random 

sample each reporting year for the 

RSASTP without repetition of systems 

in the sample, until all systems in each 

class are properly measured in a 5-year 

period. 

(iii) If a facility has measured the 

destruction or removal efficiency of a 

particular abatement system during the 

previous two-year period, the facility 

shall calculate emissions from that 

system using the destruction or removal 

efficiency most recently measured for 

that particular system. 

(iv) If an individual abatement system 

has not yet undergone proper 

destruction or removal efficiency testing 

during the previous two-year period, the 

facility may apply a simple average of 

the properly measured destruction or 

removal efficiencies for all systems of 

that class, in accordance with the 

RSASTP. The facility shall maintain or 

exceed the RSASTP schedule and 

regime if it wishes to apply class 

average destruction or removal 

efficiency factors to abatement systems 

that have not been properly measured as 

per the RSASTP. 

(v) In instances where redundant 

abatement systems are used, the facility 

may account for the total abatement 

system uptime calculated for a specific 

exhaust stream during the reporting 

year. 

(g) You shall adhere to the QA/QC 

procedures of this paragraph when 

estimating fluorinated GHG and N2O 

emissions from all electronics 

manufacturing processes: 

(1) You shall follow the QA/QC 

procedures in the International 

SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative’s 

Guideline for Environmental 

Characterization of Semiconductor 

Process Equipment (December 2006) 

when estimating facility-specific, 

recipe-specific fluorinated GHG and 

N2O utilization and by-product 

formation rates. 

(2) You shall follow the QA/QC 

procedures in EPA’s Protocol for 

Measuring Destruction or Removal 

Efficiency of Fluorinated Greenhouse 

Gas Abatement Equipment in 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
18702 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Electronics Manufacturing (March 2010) 

when estimating abatement systems 

destruction or removal efficiency. 

(3) You shall certify that gas 

consumption is tracked to a high degree 

of precision as part of normal facility 

operations ensuring that the inventory 

at the beginning of the reporting is the 

same as the inventory at the end of the 

previous year. 

(h) You shall adhere to the QA/QC 

procedures of this paragraph when 

estimating fluorinated GHG emissions 

from heat transfer fluid use and annual 

gas consumption for each fluorinated 

GHG and N2O used at your facility: 

(1) You shall review all inputs to 

Equations I–10 and I–12 of this section 

to ensure that all inputs and outputs to 

the facility’s system are accounted for. 

(2) You shall not enter negative inputs 

into the mass balance Equations I–10 

and I–12 of this section and shall ensure 

that no negative emissions are 

calculated. 

(3) You shall ensure that the 

beginning of year inventory matches the 

end of year inventory from the previous 

year. 

(i) All instruments (e.g., mass 

spectrometers and fourier transform 

infrared measuring systems) used to 

determine the concentration of 

fluorinated GHG and N2O in process 

streams shall be calibrated just prior to 

destruction or removal efficiency, gas 

utilization, or by-product formation 

measurement through analysis of 

certified standards with known 

concentrations of the same chemicals in 

the same ranges (fractions by mass) as 

the process samples. Calibration gases 

prepared from a high-concentration 

certified standard using a gas dilution 

system that meets the requirements 

specified in Method 205, 40 CFR part 

51, Appendix M may also be used. 

(j) All flowmeters, weigh scales, 

pressure gauges, and thermometers used 

to measure quantities that are monitored 

under this section or used in 

calculations under § 98.93 shall 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 

§ 98.95(b), 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–12 of this subpart, you shall 

estimate heat transfer fluid emissions 

using the arithmetic average of the 

emission rates for the year immediately 

preceding the period of missing data 

and the months immediately following 

the period of missing data. 

Alternatively, you may estimate missing 

information using records from the heat 

transfer fluid supplier. You shall 

document the method used and values 

estimated for all missing data values. 

§ 98.96 Data reporting requirements. 

In addition to the information 

required by § 98.3(c), you shall include 

in each annual report the following 

information for each electronics facility. 

(a) Annual emissions of each 

fluorinated GHG and N2O emitted from 

each individual process, process 

category, or process type as applicable 

and from all heat transfer fluid use as 

applicable. 

(b) The method of emissions 

calculation used in § 98.93. 

(c) Production in terms of substrate 

surface area (e.g., silicon, PV-cell, LCD). 

(d) Emission factors used for process 

utilization and by-product formation 

rates and the source for each factor for 

each fluorinated GHG and N2O. 

(e) Where process categories for 

semiconductor facilities as defined in 

§ 98.93(a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(iii) are not 

used, descriptions of individual 

processes or process categories used to 

estimate emissions. 

(f) For each fluorinated GHG and N2O, 

annual gas consumed during the 

reporting year and facility-wide gasspecific heel-factors used. 

(g) The apportioning factors for each 

process category (i.e., fractions of each 

gas fed into each individual process or 

process category used to calculate 

fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions) 

and a description of the engineering 

model used for apportioning gas usage 

per § 98.94(c). If the method used to 

develop the apportioning factors 

permits the development of facilitywide consumption estimates that are 

independent of the estimates calculated 

in Equation I–10 of this subpart (e.g., 

that are based on wafer passes for each 

individual process or process category), 

you shall report the independent 

facility-wide consumption estimate for 

each fluorinated GHG and N2O. 

(h) Fraction of each gas fed into each 

process type that is fed into tools with 

abatement systems. 

(i) Description of all abatement 

systems through which fluorinated 

GHGs or N2O flow at your facility, 

including the number of devices of each 

manufacturer, model numbers, 

manufacturers guaranteed destruction or 

removal efficiencies, if any, and record 

of destruction or removal efficiency 

measurements over its in-use life. The 

inventory of abatement systems shall 

also include a description of the 

associated tools and/or processes for 

which these systems treat exhaust. 

(j) For each abatement system through 

which fluorinated GHGs or N2O flow at 

your facility, for which you are 

reporting controlled emissions, the 

following: 

(1) Certification that each abatement 

system used at your facility is installed, 

maintained, and operated in accordance 

with manufacturers’ specifications. 

(2) The uptime and the calculations to 

determine uptime for that reporting 

year. 

(3) The default destruction or removal 

efficiency value or properly measured 

destruction or removal efficiencies for 

each abatement system used in that 

reporting year to reflect controlled 

emissions. 

(4) Where the default destruction or 

removal efficiency value is used to 

report controlled emissions, 

certification that the abatement systems 

for which controlled emissions are 

being reported are specifically designed 

for fluorinated GHG and N2O abatement. 

(5) Where properly measured 

destruction or removal efficiencies or 

class averages of destruction or removal 

efficiencies are used to report controlled 

emissions, the following: 

(i) A description of the class including 

the abatement system manufacturer and 

model number, and the fluorinated GHG 

and N2O in the process effluent stream; 

(ii) The total number of systems in 

that class for the reporting year. 

(iii) The total number of systems for 

which destruction or removal efficiency 

was measured in that class for the 

reporting year. 

(iv) A description of the calculation 

used to determine the class average, 

including all inputs of the calculation. 

(vi) A description of method of 

randomly selecting class members for 

testing. 

(k) For heat transfer fluid emissions, 

inputs in the mass-balance equation, 

Equation I–12 of this subpart for each 

fluorinated GHG. 

(l) Example calculations for 

fluorinated GHG, N2O, and heat transfer 

fluid emissions. 

§ 98.97 Records that must be retained. 

In addition to the information 

required by § 98.3(g), you must retain 

the following records: 

(a) Data and copies of calculations 

used to estimate emissions including all 

spreadsheets. 

(b) Documentation for the values used 

for fluorinated GHG and N2O utilization 

and by-product formation rates. If you 

use facility-specific, recipe-specific gas 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18703 

utilization and by-product formation 

rates, the following records must be 

retained: 

(1) Documentation that these were 

measured using the International 

SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative’s 

Guideline for Environmental 

Characterization of Semiconductor 

Process Equipment (December 2006). 

(2) Documentation that the 

measurements made are representative 

of fluorinated GHG and N2O emitting 

processes at your facility. 

(3) The date and results of the initial 

and any subsequent tests to determine 

process tool gas utilization and byproduct formation rates. 

(c) For each abatement system 

through which fluorinated GHGs or N2O 

flows at your facility, for which you are 

reporting controlled emissions, the 

following: 

(1) Documentation to certify that each 

abatement system used at your facility 

is installed, maintained, and operated in 

accordance with manufacturers’ 

specifications. 

(2) Records of the uptime and the 

calculations to determine how the 

uptime was accounted for at your 

facility. 

(3) Abatement system calibration and 

maintenance records. 

(4) Where the default destruction or 

removal efficiency value was used, 

documentation from the abatement 

system supplier describing the 

equipment’s designed purpose and 

emission control capabilities. 

(5) Where properly measured 

destruction or removal efficiency is 

used to report controlled emissions, 

dated certification by the technician 

who made the measurement that the 

destruction or removal efficiency was 

calculated according to methods in 

EPA’s Protocol for Measuring 

Destruction or Removal Efficiency of 

Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Abatement 

Equipment in Electronics 

Manufacturing, complete 

documentation of the results of any 

initial and subsequent tests, and the 

final report as specified in EPA’s 

Protocol for Measuring Destruction or 

Removal Efficiency of Fluorinated 

Greenhouse Gas Abatement Equipment 

in Electronics Manufacturing (March 

2010). 

(d) Purchase records for gas 

purchased. 

(e) Invoices for gas purchases and 

sales. 

§ 98.98 Definitions. 

Except as provided below, all of the 

terms used in this subpart have the 

same meaning given in the Clean Air 

Act and subpart A of this part. If a 

conflict exists between a definition 

provided in this subpart and a 

definition provided in subpart A, the 

definition in this subpart shall take 

precedence for the reporting 

requirements in this subpart. 

Abatement system means a device or 

equipment that destroys or removes 

fluorinated GHGs and/or N2O in waste 

streams from one or more electronics 

manufacturing tool chamber(s). 

By-product formation means the 

creation of fluorinated GHGs during 

electronics manufacturing processes or 

the creation of fluorinated GHGs by an 

abatement system. By-product formation 

is expressed as rate of the mass of the 

by-product formed to the mass of the 

fluorinated GHG used with the largest 

flow rate. 

Destruction or removal efficiency 

means the efficiency of a control system 

to destroy or remove fluorinated GHGs, 

N2O, or both. The destruction or 

removal efficiency is equal to one minus 

the ratio of the mass of all relevant 

GHGs exiting the emission abatement 

system to the mass of GHG entering the 

emission abatement system. When 

fluorinated GHGs are formed in an 

abatement system, destruction or 

removal efficiency is expressed as one 

minus the ratio of amounts of exiting 

GHGs to the amounts entering the 

system in units of CO2-equivalents. 

Gas utilization means the fraction of 

input N2O or fluorinated GHG converted 

to other substances during the etching, 

deposition, and/or wafer and chamber 

cleaning processes. Gas utilization is 

expressed as a rate or factor for specific 

manufacturing processes. 

Heat transfer fluids are fluorinated 

GHGs used for temperature control, 

device testing, and soldering in certain 

types of electronic manufacturing. Heat 

transfer fluids used in the electronics 

sector include perfluoropolyethers, 

perfluoroalkanes, perfluoroethers, 

tertiary perfluoroamines, and 

perfluorocyclic ethers. Heat transfer 

fluids commonly used in electronics 

manufacturing include those sold under 

the trade names ‘‘Galden®’’ and 

‘‘FluorinertTM.’’ Electronics 

manufacturers may also use these same 

fluorinated chemicals to clean substrate 

surfaces and other parts. 

Heel means the amount of gas that 

remains in a gas cylinder or container 

after it is discharged or off-loaded (this 

may vary by cylinder or container type 

and facility). 

Nameplate capacity means the full 

and proper charge of gas specified by 

the equipment manufacturer to achieve 

the equipment’s specified performance. 

The nameplate capacity is typically 

indicated on the equipment’s 

nameplate; it is not necessarily the 

actual charge, which may be influenced 

by leakage and other emissions. 

Proper destruction or removal 

efficiency measurement means 

measured in accordance with EPA’s 

Protocol for Measuring Destruction or 

Removal Efficiency of Fluorinated 

Greenhouse Gas Abatement Equipment 

in Electronics Manufacturing (March 

2010). 

Uptime means the total time during 

the reporting year when the abatement 

system for which controlled emissions 

will be reported was properly installed, 

operated, and maintained. 

Wafer passes is a count of the number 

of times a silicon wafer is processed in 

a specific process category. The total 

number of wafer passes over a reporting 

year is the number of wafer passes per 

tool times the number of operational 

process tools in use during the reporting 

year. 

Process category is a set of similar 

manufacturing steps, performed for the 

same purpose, associated with substrate 

(e.g., wafer) processing during device 

manufacture for which fluorinated GHG 

and N2O emissions and fluorinated GHG 

and N2O usages are calculated and 

reported. 

TABLE I–1 OF SUBPART I—DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS FOR THRESHOLD APPLICABILITY DETERMINATION

Product type 

Emission factors EFi

CF4 C2F6 CHF3 C3F8 NF3 SF6

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

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

MEMs (kg/m2 Si) ...................................... NA NA NA NA NA 1.02 

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


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
18704 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE I–2 OF SUBPART I—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)mO-CF3, CnF2n+2, CnF2n+1(O)CmF2m+1, CnF2nO, (CnF2n+1)3N). 

TABLE I–3 OF SUBPART I—DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS FOR MEMS MANUFACTURING

Process type factors 

Process Gas i 

CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C3F8 c-C4F8 NF3 re- mote NF3 SF6 C4F6

a 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–4 OF SUBPART I—DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS 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–5 OF SUBPART I—DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS 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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18705 

TABLE I–6 OF

SUBPART I—DEFAULT

EMISSION

FACTORS FOR

REFINED

PROCESS

CATEGORIES FOR

SEMICONDUCTOR

MANUFACTURING FOR 150 MM

WAFER

SIZE

Refined process category 

Process gas i 

CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C3F8 c-C4F8 NF3 SF6 C4F6 C5F8 C4F O 8

PATTERNING/ETCHING 

Oxide etch: 

1–Ui ................................................ 0.2–0.8 0.2–0.7 0.2–0.7 0.02–0.3 NA 0.1–0.3 0.1–0.4 0.1–0.4 0.05–0.2 0.05–0.3 NA BCF4 ............................................... NA 0.05–0.5 0.01–0.8 0.05–0.1 NA 0.01–0.3 NA NA 0.02–0.4 0.02–0.4 NA BC2F6 .............................................. NA NA NA NA NA 0.01–0.3 NA NA 0.02–0.3 0.02–0.3 NA BC3F8 .............................................. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

Nitride etch: 

1–Ui ................................................ 0.2–0.8 0.2–0.7 0.2–0.7 0.02–0.3 NA 0.1–0.3 0.1–0.4 0.1–0.4 0.05–0.2 0.05–0.3 NA BCF4 ............................................... NA 0.05–0.5 0.01–0.8 0.05–0.1 NA 0.01–0.3 NA NA 0.02–0.4 0.02–0.4 NA BC2F6 .............................................. NA NA NA NA NA 0.01–0.3 NA NA 0.02–0.3 0.02–0.3 NA BC3F8 .............................................. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

Silicon etch: 

1–Ui ................................................ 0.2–0.8 0.2–0.7 0.2–0.7 0.02–0.3 NA 0.1–0.3 0.1–0.4 0.1–0.4 0.05–0.2 0.05–0.3 NA BCF4 ............................................... NA 0.05–0.5 0.01–0.8 0.05–0.1 NA 0.01–0.3 NA NA 0.02–0.4 0.02–0.4 NA BC2F6 .............................................. NA NA NA NA NA 0.01–0.3 NA NA 0.02–0.3 0.02–0.3 NA BC3F8 .............................................. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

Metal etch: 

1–Ui ................................................ 0.2–0.8 0.2–0.7 0.2–0.7 0.02–0.3 NA 0.1–0.3 0.1–0.4 0.1–0.4 0.05–0.2 0.05–0.3 NA BCF4 ............................................... NA 0.05–0.5 0.01–0.8 0.05–0.1 NA 0.01–0.3 NA NA 0.02–0.4 0.02–0.4 NA BC2F6 .............................................. NA NA NA NA NA 0.01–0.3 NA NA 0.02–0.3 0.02–0.3 NA BC3F8 .............................................. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

CHAMBER CLEANING 

In situ plasma cleaning: 

1–Ui ................................................ 0.8–0.95 0.4–0.8 NA NA 0.2–0.6 0.05–0.3 0.05–0.3 NA NA 0.05–0.2 0.05–0.2 BCF4 ............................................... NA 0.05–0.2 NA NA 0.05–0.2 0.05–0.2 0.05–0.2 NA NA 0.05–0.2 0.05–0.2 BC2F6 .............................................. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA BC3F8 .............................................. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.02–0.08 

Remote plasma cleaning: 

1–Ui ................................................ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA BCF4 ............................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA BC2F6 .............................................. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA BC3F8 .............................................. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

In situ thermal cleaning: 

1–Ui ................................................ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA BCF4 ............................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA BC2F6 .............................................. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA BC3F8 .............................................. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

WAFER CLEANING 

Bevel cleaning: 

1–Ui ................................................ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA BCF4 ............................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA BC2F6 .............................................. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA BC3F8 .............................................. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

Ashing: 

1–Ui ................................................ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA BCF4 ............................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA BC2F6 .............................................. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
18706 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE I–6 OF

SUBPART I—DEFAULT

EMISSION

FACTORS FOR

REFINED

PROCESS

CATEGORIES FOR

SEMICONDUCTOR

MANUFACTURING FOR 150 MM

WAFER

SIZE—Continued 

Refined process category 

Process gas i 

CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C3F8 c-C4F8 NF3 SF6 C4F6 C5F8 C4F O 8

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 PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18707 

TABLE I–7 OF SUBPART I—DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS FOR REFINED PROCESS CATEGORIES FOR SEMICONDUCTOR

MANUFACTURING FOR 200 MM WAFER SIZE

Refined process 

category 

Process gas i 

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

PATTERNING/ETCHING 

Oxide etch: 

1-Ui ........... 0.2–0.8 0.2–0.7 0.2–0.7 0.02–0.3 NA 0.1–0.3 0.1–0.4 0.1–0.4 0.05–0.5 0.05–0.3 NA 

BCF4 ......... NA 0.05–0.5 0.01–0.8 0.05–0.1 NA 0.01–0.3 NA NA 0.02–0.4 0.02–0.4 NA 

BC2F6 ....... NA NA NA NA NA 0.01–0.3 NA NA 0.02–0.3 0.02–0.3 NA 

BC3F8 ....... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

Nitride etch: 

1-Ui ........... 0.2–0.8 0.2–0.7 0.1–0.7 0.02–0.3 NA 0.05–0.3 0.1–0.4 0.1–0.4 0.05–0.2 0.05–0.3 NA 

BCF4 ......... NA 0.05–0.5 0.01–0.8 0.05–0.1 NA 0.02–0.3 NA NA 0.02–0.4 0.02–0.4 NA 

BC2F6 ....... NA NA NA NA NA 0.005–0.3 NA NA 0.02–0.3 0.02–0.3 NA 

BC3F8 ....... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

Silicon etch: 

1-Ui ........... 0.2–0.8 0.2–0.7 0.2–0.7 0.02–0.3 NA 0.1–0.3 0.1–0.4 0.1–0.4 0.05–0.2 0.05–0.3 NA 

BCF4 ......... NA 0.05–0.5 0.01–0.8 0.05–0.1 NA 0.01–0.3 NA NA 0.02–0.4 0.02–0.4 NA 

BC2F6 ....... NA NA NA NA NA 0.01–0.3 NA NA 0.02–0.3 0.02–0.3 NA 

BC3F8 ....... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

Metal etch: 

1-Ui ........... 0.2–0.8 0.2–0.7 0.2–0.7 0.02–0.3 NA 0.1–0.3 0.1–0.4 0.1–0.4 0.05–0.2 0.05–0.3 NA 

BCF4 ......... NA 0.05–0.5 0.01–0.8 0.05–0.1 NA 0.01–0.3 NA NA 0.02–0.4 0.02–0.4 NA 

BC2F6 ....... NA NA NA NA NA 0.01–0.3 NA NA 0.02–0.3 0.02–0.3 NA 

BC3F8 ....... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

CHAMBER CLEANING 

In situ plasma 

cleaning: 

1-Ui ........... 0.8–0.95 0.4–0.8 NA NA 0.2–0.6 005–0.3 0.05–0.2 NA NA 0.05–0.2 0.05–0.2 

BCF4 ......... NA 0.05–0.2 NA NA 0.05–0.2 0.05–0.2 0.05–0.1 NA NA 0.05–0.2 0.05–0.2 

BC2F6 ....... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

BC3F8 ....... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.02–0.08 

Remote plasma 

cleaning: 

1-Ui ........... NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.005–0.03 NA NA NA NA 

BCF4 ......... NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.0001–0.2 NA NA NA NA 

BC2F6 ....... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

BC3F8 ....... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

In situ thermal 

cleaning: 

1-Ui ........... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

BCF4 ......... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

BC2F6 ....... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

BC3F8 ....... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

WAFER CLEANING 

Bevel cleaning: 

1-Ui ........... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

BCF4 ......... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

BC2F6 ....... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

BC3F8 ....... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

Ashing: 

1-Ui ........... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

BCF4 ......... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

BC2F6 ....... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

BC3F8 ....... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

Note: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information. 

TABLE I–8 OF SUBPART I—DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS FOR REFINED PROCESS CATEGORIES FOR SEMICONDUCTOR

MANUFACTURING FOR 300 MM WAFER SIZE

Refined process 

category 

Process gas i 

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

PATTERNING/ETCHING 

Oxide etch: 

1-Ui ........... 0.2–0.8 0.2–0.7 0.2–0.4 0.1–0.8 NA 0.05–0.3 0.1–0.4 0.1–0.4 0.05–0.3 0.05–0.3 NA 

BCF4 ......... NA 0.05–0.5 0.005–0.03 0.001–0.01 NA 0.005–0.1 NA NA 0.02–0.4 0.02–0.4 NA 

BC2F6 ....... NA NA NA NA NA 0.005–0.1 NA NA 0.02–0.3 0.02–0.3 NA 

BC3F8 ....... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

Nitride etch: 

1-Ui ........... 0.2–0.8 0.2–0.7 0.2–0.4 0.1–0.8 NA 0.08–0.3 0.1–0.4 0.1–0.4 0.05–0.2 0.05–0.3 NA 

BCF4 ......... NA 0.05–0.5 0.003–0.1 0.01–0.1 NA 0.02–0.3 NA NA 0.05–0.4 0.05–0.4 NA 

BC2F6 ....... NA NA NA NA NA 0.02–0.3 NA NA 0.05–0.4 0.05–0.4 NA 

BC3F8 ....... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
18708 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE I–8 OF SUBPART I—DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS FOR REFINED PROCESS CATEGORIES FOR SEMICONDUCTOR

MANUFACTURING FOR 300 MM WAFER SIZE—Continued 

Refined process 

category 

Process gas i 

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

Silicon etch: 

1-Ui ........... 0.2–0.8 0.2–0.7 0.2–0.7 0.02–0.3 NA 0.1–0.3 0.1–0.4 0.1–0.4 0.05–0.2 0.05–0.3 NA 

BCF4 ......... NA 0.05–0.5 0.01–0.8 0.05–0.1 NA 0.01–0.3 NA NA 0.02–0.4 0.02–0.4 NA 

BC2F6 ....... NA NA NA NA NA 0.01–0.3 NA NA 0.02–0.3 0.02–0.3 NA 

BC3F8 ....... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

Metal etch: 

1-Ui ........... 0.2–0.8 0.2–0.7 0.2–0.7 0.02–0.3 NA 0.1–0.3 0.1–0.4 0.1–0.4 0.05–0.2 0.05–0.3 NA 

BCF4 ......... NA 0.05–0.5 0.01–0.8 0.05–0.1 NA 0.01–0.3 NA NA 0.02–0.4 0.02–0.4 NA 

BC2F6 ....... NA NA NA NA NA 0.01–0.3 NA NA 0.02–0.3 0.02–0.3 NA 

BC3F8 ....... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

CHAMBER CLEANING 

In situ plasma 

cleaning: 

1-Ui ........... NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.1–0.4 NA NA NA NA 

BCF4 ......... NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.001–0.6 NA NA NA NA 

BC2F6 ....... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

BC3F8 ....... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

Remote plasma 

cleaning: 

1-Ui ........... NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.002–0.03 NA NA NA NA 

BCF4 ......... NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.001–0.05 NA NA NA NA 

BC2F6 ....... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

BC3F8 ....... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

In situ thermal 

cleaning: 

1-Ui ........... NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.1–0.4 NA NA NA NA 

BCF4 ......... NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.005-.05 NA NA NA NA 

BC2F6 ....... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

BC3F8 ....... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

WAFER CLEANING 

Bevel cleaning: 

1-Ui ........... 0.3–0.8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

BCF4 ......... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

BC2F6 ....... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

BC3F8 ....... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

Ashing: 

1-Ui ........... 0.3–0.8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

BCF4 ......... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

BC2F6 ....... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

BC3F8 ....... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

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

4. Add subpart L to read as follows: 

Subpart L—Fluorinated Gas Production 

Sec. 

98.120 Definition of the source category. 

98.121 Reporting threshold. 

98.122 GHGs to report. 

98.123 Calculating GHG emissions. 

98.124 Monitoring and QA/QC 

requirements. 

98.125 Procedures for estimating missing 

data. 

98.126 Data reporting requirements. 

98.127 Records that must be retained. 

98.128 Definitions. 

Subpart L—Fluorinated Gas 

Production 

§ 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 for use in a process that 

will result in the transformation of the 

CFC or HCFC either at or outside of the 

production facility. Producing a 

fluorinated gas does not include the 

reuse or recycling of a fluorinated gas, 

the creation of HFC–23 during the 

production of HCFC–22, or the creation 

of by-products that are released or 

destroyed at the production facility. 

§ 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) of this part. 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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18709 

(b) You must report under subpart O 

of this part (HCFC–22 Production and 

HFC–23 Destruction) the emissions of 

HFC–23 from HCFC–22 production 

processes and HFC–23 destruction 

processes. Do not report the generation 

and emissions of HFC–23 from HCFC– 

22 production under this subpart. 

(c) You must report the total mass of 

each fluorinated GHG from: 

(1) Each fluorinated gas production 

process and all fluorinated gas 

production processes combined. 

(2) Each fluorinated gas 

transformation process that is not part of 

a fluorinated gas production process 

and all such fluorinated gas 

transformation processes combined. 

(3) Each fluorinated gas destruction 

process that is not part of a fluorinated 

gas production process or a fluorinated 

gas transformation process and all such 

fluorinated gas destruction processes 

combined. 

§ 98.123 Calculating GHG emissions. 

For fluorinated GHG production 

processes, you must calculate the 

fluorinated GHG emissions from each 

process using either the mass balance 

method specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section or the emission factor or 

emission calculation factor method 

specified in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) 

of this section, as appropriate. For 

processes that manufacture CFCs or 

HCFCs or that transform fluorinated 

gases into substances other than 

fluorinated GHGs, you must use the 

procedures in paragraphs (b), (c), and 

(d) of this section. For destruction 

processes that destroy fluorinated GHGs 

that were previously ‘‘produced’’ as 

defined at 98.410(b), you must use the 

procedures in paragraph (e) of this 

section. 

(a) Mass balance method. Before 

using the mass balance approach to 

estimate your fluorinated GHG 

emissions from a process, you must 

estimate the absolute and relative errors 

associated with using the mass balance 

approach on that process using 

Equations L–1 through L–4 of this 

section in conjunction with Equations 

L–7 through L–12 of this section. If this 

calculation shows that use of the massbalance approach to estimate emissions 

from the process will result in an 

absolute error exceeding 3,000 metric 

tons CO2e per year and a relative error 

exceeding 30 percent, then you cannot 

use the mass-balance approach to 

estimate emissions from the process. 

Instead, you must use the emission 

factor approach detailed in paragraphs 

(b), (c), and (d) of this section to 

estimate emissions from the process. To 

perform the calculation, you shall first 

calculate the absolute and relative errors 

associated with the quantities calculated 

using Equations L–8 through L–11. 

Once errors have been calculated for the 

quantities in these equations, those 

errors shall be used to calculate the 

errors in Equations L–7 and L–12. 

Where the measured quantity is a mass, 

the error in the mass shall be equated to 

the accuracy or precision (whichever is 

larger) of the flowmeter, scale, or 

combination of volumetric and density 

measurements at the flow rate or mass 

measured. Where the measured quantity 

is a concentration, the error of the 

concentration shall be equated to the 

accuracy or precision (whichever is 

larger) of the analytical technique used 

to measure the concentration at the 

concentration measured. 

(1) Equation L–1 of this section 

provides the general formula for 

calculating the absolute errors of sums 

and differences where the sum, S, is the 

summation of variables measured, a, b, 

c, etc. (e.g., S = a + b + c): 

e ae be ce SA = ∗ ( ) a bc + ∗ (( ) + ∗ ( ) ⎡

⎣

⎢ ⎤

⎦

⎥ 2 2 2

1 2

(Eq. L-1)

Where: 

eSA = absolute error of the sum, expressed 

as one half of a 95 percent confidence 

interval. 

ea = relative error of a, expressed as one 

half of a 95 percent confidence interval. 

eb = relative error of b, expressed as one 

half of a 95 percent confidence interval. 

ec = relative error of c, expressed as one 

half of a 95 percent confidence interval. 

(2) Equation L–2 of this section 

provides the general formula for 

calculating the relative errors of sums 

and differences: 

e =

e

a+b+c SR

sA

( ) (Eq. L-2)

Where: 

eSR = relative error of the sum, expressed 

as one half of a 95 percent confidence 

interval. 

eSA = absolute error of the sum, expressed 

as one half of a 95 percent confidence 

interval. 

a+b+c = sum of the variables measured. 

(3) Equation L–3 provides the general 

formula for calculating the absolute 

errors of products (e.g., flow rates of 

GHGs calculated as the product of the 

flow rate of the stream and the 

concentration of the GHG in the stream), 

where the product, P, is the result of 

multiplying the variables measured, a, 

b, c, etc. (e.g., P = a*b*c): 

e abce e e PA = ∗∗ ( )( ) abc + + 222 1 2(Eq. L-3)

Where: 

ePA = absolute error of the product, 

expressed as one half of a 95 percent 

confidence interval. 

ea = relative error of a, expressed as one 

half of a 95 percent confidence interval. 

eb = relative error of b, expressed as one 

half of a 95 percent confidence interval. 

ec = relative error of c, expressed as one 

half of a 95 percent confidence interval. 

(4) Equation L–4 of this section 

provides the general formula for 

calculating the relative errors of 

products: 

e =

e

abc PR

PA

( ) ∗ ∗ (Eq. L-4)

Where: 

ePR = relative error of the product, 

expressed as one half of a 95 percent 

confidence interval. 

ePA = absolute error of the product, 

expressed as one half of a 95 percent 

confidence interval. 

a*b*c = product of the variables measured. 

(5) The total mass of each fluorinated 

GHG product emitted annually from all 

fluorinated gas production processes 

shall be estimated by using Equation 

L–5 of this section: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4EP12AP10.051</MATH> EP12AP10.052</MATH> EP12AP10.053</MATH> EP12AP10.054</MATH>
18710 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

E E p Pip

i

m

p

n

= = =

∑∑ (Eq. L-5) 1 1

Where: 

EP = Total mass of each fluorinated GHG 

product emitted annually from all 

production processes (metric tons). 

EPip = Total mass of the fluorinated GHG 

product emitted from production process 

i over the period p (metric tons, defined 

in Equation L–7 of this section). 

n = Number of concentration and flow 

measurement periods for the year. 

m = Number of production processes. 

(6) The total mass of fluorinated GHG 

by-product k emitted annually from all 

fluorinated gas production processes 

shall be estimated by using Equation L– 

6 of this section: 

E E Bk Bkip

i

m

p

n

= = =

∑∑ (Eq. L-6) 1 1

Where: 

EBk = Total mass of fluorinated GHG byproduct k emitted annually from all 

production processes (metric tons). 

EBkip = Total mass of fluorinated GHG byproduct k emitted from production 

process i over the period p (metric tons, 

defined in Equation L–8 on this section). 

n = Number of concentration and flow 

measurement periods for the year. 

m = Number of production processes. 

(7) The total mass of each fluorinated 

GHG product emitted from production 

process i over the period p shall be 

estimated at least monthly by 

calculating the difference between the 

expected production of the fluorinated 

GHG based on the consumption of one 

of the reactants (e.g., HF or a 

chlorocarbon reactant) and the 

measured production of the fluorinated 

GHG, accounting for yield losses related 

to by-products and wastes. This 

calculation shall be performed using 

Equation L–7 of this section. 

E R MW SC

MW SC Pip P CW L P P

R R

P Dj Bkip

k

u

j

q

= ∗ ∗

∗ −− ∗ ( ) − = =

∑ ∑ 1 1

(Eq. L-7)

Where: 

EPip = Total mass of each fluorinated GHG 

product emitted from production process 

i over the period p (metric tons). 

P = Total mass of the fluorinated GHG 

produced by production process i over 

the period p (metric tons). 

R = Total mass of the reactant that is 

consumed by production process i over 

the period p (metric tons, defined in 

Equation L–8 of this section). 

MWP = Molecular weight of the fluorinated 

GHG produced. 

MWR = Molecular weight of the reactant. 

SCP = Stoichiometric coefficient of the 

fluorinated GHG produced. 

SCR = Stoichiometric coefficient of the 

reactant. 

CP = Concentration (mass fraction) of the 

fluorinated GHG product in stream j of 

destroyed wastes. If this concentration is 

only a trace concentration, CP is equal to 

zero. 

WDj = Mass of wastes removed from 

production process i in stream j and 

destroyed over the period p (metric tons, 

defined in Equation L–9 of this section). 

LBkip = Yield loss related to by-product k for 

production process i over the period p 

(metric tons, defined in Equation L–10 of 

this section). 

q = Number of waste streams destroyed in 

production process i. 

u = Number of by-products generated in 

production process i. 

(8) The total mass of the reactant that 

is consumed by production process i 

over the period p shall be estimated by 

using Equation L–8 of this section: 

RR R F R = (Eq. L- ) − 8

Where: 

R = Total mass of the reactant that is 

consumed by production process i over 

the period p (metric tons). 

RF = Total mass of the reactant that is fed into 

production process i over the period p 

(metric tons). 

RR = Total mass of the reactant that is 

permanently removed from production 

process i over the period p (metric tons). 

(9) The mass of wastes removed from 

production process i in stream j and 

destroyed over the period p shall be 

estimated using Equation L–9 of this 

section: 

W W DE Dj Fj = (Eq. L-9) ∗

Where: 

WDj = The mass of wastes removed from 

production process i in stream j and 

destroyed over the period p (metric 

tons). 

WFj = The total mass of wastes removed 

from production process i in stream j and 

fed into the destruction device over the 

period p (metric tons). 

DE = Destruction efficiency of the 

destruction device (fraction). 

(10) Yield loss related to by-product k 

for production process i over period p 

shall be estimated using Equation L–10 

of this section: 

L

B MW ME

MW ME Bkip

kip P Bk

Bk p

= ( ) ∗ ∗

( ) ∗ (Eq. L-10)

Where: 

LBkip = Yield loss related to by-product k 

for production process i over the period 

p (metric tons). 

Bkip = Mass of by-product k generated by 

production process i over the period p 

(metric tons, defined in Equation L–11 of 

this section). 

MWP = Molecular weight of the fluorinated 

GHG produced. 

MEBk = Moles of the element shared by the 

reactant, product, and by-product k per 

mole of by-product k. 

MWBk = Molecular weight of by-product k. 

MEP = Moles of the element shared by the 

reactant, product, and by-product k per 

mole of the product. 

(11) If by-product k is responsible for 

yield loss in production process i and 

occurs in any stream (including process 

streams, emissions streams, or destroyed 

streams) in more than trace 

concentrations, the mass of by-product 

k generated by production process i over 

the period p shall be estimated using 

Equation L–11 of this section: 

B cS kip Bjk j

j

q

 = (Eq. L-11) ∑ ∗

Where: 

Bkip = Mass of by-product k generated by 

production process i over the period p 

(metric tons). 

cBkj = Concentration (mass fraction) of the 

by-product k in stream j of production 

process i over the period p. If this 

concentration is only a trace 

concentration, cBkj is equal to zero. 

Sj = Mass flow of stream j of production 

process i over the period p. 


EP12AP10.055</MATH> EP12AP10.056</MATH> EP12AP10.057</MATH> EP12AP10.058</MATH> EP12AP10.059</MATH> EP12AP10.060</MATH> EP12AP10.061</MATH>jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18711 

q = Number of streams in production 

process i. 

(12) If by-product k is responsible for 

yield loss, is a fluorinated GHG, occurs 

in any stream (including process 

streams, emissions streams, or destroyed 

streams) in more than trace 

concentrations, and is not completely 

recaptured or completely destroyed; the 

total mass of by-product k emitted from 

production process i over the period p 

shall be estimated at least monthly 

using Equation L–12 of this section: 

E B cW c S Bkip kip Bkj Dj Bkl Rl

l

x

j

q

=− ∗− ∗

= =

∑ ∑

1 1

(Eq. L-12)

Where: 

EBkip = Mass of by-product k emitted from 

production process i over the period p 

(metric tons). 

Bkip = Mass of by-product k generated by 

production process i over the period p 

(metric tons). 

cBkj = Concentration (mass fraction) of the 

by-product k in stream j of destroyed 

wastes over the period p. If this 

concentration is only a trace 

concentration, cBjk is equal to zero. 

WDj = The mass of wastes that are removed 

from production process i in stream j and 

that are destroyed over the period p 

(metric tons, defined in Equation L–9 of 

this section). 

cBkl = The concentration (mass fraction) of 

the by-product k in stream l of 

recaptured material over the period p. If 

this concentration is only a trace 

concentration, cBkl is equal to zero. 

SRl = The mass of materials that are 

removed from production process i in 

stream l and that are recaptured over the 

period p. 

q = Number of waste streams destroyed in 

production process i. 

x = Number of streams recaptured in 

production process i. 

(b) Emission factor and emission 

calculation factor methods. To use the 

method in this paragraph, you must first 

make a preliminary estimate of the 

emissions from each individual process 

vent under paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section. Then, compare the preliminary 

estimate to the criteria in paragraph 

(b)(2) of this section to determine 

whether the process vent meets the 

criteria for using the emission factor 

method described in paragraph (b)(3) of 

this section or whether the process vent 

meets the criteria for using the emission 

calculation factor method described in 

paragraph (b)(4) of this section. 

(1) Preliminary estimate of emissions 

by process vent. You must estimate the 

annual uncontrolled emissions of 

fluorinated GHG for each process vent 

within a process. You may determine 

uncontrolled emissions of fluorinated 

GHG by process vent using existing 

measurements and/or calculations based 

on chemical engineering principles and 

chemical property data or you may 

conduct an engineering assessment. You 

must document all data, assumptions, 

and procedures used in the calculations 

or engineering assessment and keep a 

record of the uncontrolled emissions 

determination (in § 98.127(a)). 

(i) Engineering calculations. For 

process vent emission calculations, you 

may use paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A), (B), or 

(C) of this section. 

(A) Emissions Inventory Improvement 

Process, Volume II: Chapter 16, Methods 

for Estimating Air Emissions from 

Chemical Manufacturing Facilities. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

August 2007. 

(B) You may determine the 

uncontrolled fluorinated GHG emissions 

from any process vent within the 

process using the procedures specified 

in 40 CFR § 63.1257(d)(2)(i), except as 

specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(B)(1) 

through (b)(1)(i)(B)(7) of this section. 

For the purposes of this subpart, use of 

the term ‘‘HAP’’ in § 63.1257(d)(2)(i) 

shall mean ‘‘fluorinated GHG’’. 

(1) To calculate emissions caused by 

the heating of a vessel without a process 

condenser to a temperature lower than 

the boiling point, you must use the 

procedures in § 63.1257(d)(2)(i)(C)(3). 

(2) To calculate emissions from 

depressurization of a vessel without a 

process condenser, you must use the 

procedures in § 63.1257(d)(2)(i)(D)(10). 

(3) To calculate emissions from 

vacuum systems, the terms used in 

Equation 33 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

GGG, are defined as follows: 

(i) Psystem = absolute pressure of the 

receiving vessel; 

(ii) Pi = partial pressure of the 

fluorinated GHG determined at the exit 

temperature and exit pressure 

conditions of the condenser or at the 

conditions of the dedicated receiver; 

(iii) Pj = partial pressure of 

condensables (including fluorinated 

GHG) determined at the exit 

temperature and exit pressure 

conditions of the condenser or at the 

conditions of the dedicated receiver; 

(iv) MWFluorinated GHG = molecular 

weight of the fluorinated GHG 

determined at the exit temperature and 

exit pressure conditions of the 

condenser or at the conditions of the 

dedicated receiver. 

(4) To calculate uncontrolled 

emissions when a vessel is equipped 

with a process condenser, you must use 

the procedures in 40 CFR 

63.1257(d)(3)(i)(B), except as follows: 

(i) You must determine the flowrate of 

gas (or volume of gas), partial pressures 

of condensables, temperature (T), and 

fluorinated GHG molecular weight 

(MWFluorinated GHG) at the exit 

temperature and exit pressure 

conditions of the condenser or at the 

conditions of the dedicated receiver. 

(ii) You must assume that all of the 

components contained in the condenser 

exit vent stream are in equilibrium with 

the same components in the exit 

condensate stream (except for 

noncondensables). 

(iii) You must perform a material 

balance for each component. 

(iv) For the emissions from gas 

evolution, the term for time, t, must be 

used in Equation 12 to 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart GGG. 

(v) Emissions from empty vessel 

purging shall be calculated using 

Equation 36 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

GGG and the exit temperature and exit 

pressure conditions of the condenser or 

the conditions of the dedicated receiver. 

(C) Commercial software products 

that follow chemical engineering 

principles, including the calculation 

methodologies in paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(A) 

and (B) of this section. 

(ii) Engineering assessments. For 

process vent emissions determinations, 

you may conduct an engineering 

assessment to calculate uncontrolled 

emissions for each emission episode. An 

engineering assessment includes, but is 

not limited to, the following: 

(A) Previous test results, provided the 

tests are representative of current 

operating practices of the process. 

(B) Bench-scale or pilot-scale test data 

representative of the process under 

representative operating conditions. 

(C) Maximum flow rate, fluorinated 

GHG emission rate, concentration, or 

other relevant parameters specified or 

implied within a permit limit applicable 

to the process vent. 

(D) Design analysis based on chemical 

engineering principles, measureable 

process parameters, or physical or 

chemical laws or properties. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4EP12AP10.062</MATH>
18712 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(2) Process vent annual mass limit 

and control determination. 

(i) If the individual process vent 

meets the criteria in either paragraph 

(b)(2)(i)(A) or (b)(2)(i)(B) of this section, 

then you may comply with either 

paragraph (b)(3) (Emission Factor 

approach) or paragraph (b)(4) (Emission 

Calculation Factor approach). 

(A) Uncontrolled fluorinated GHG 

emissions for the individual process 

vent as estimated using procedures in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section are less 

than 10,000 metric tons CO2e per year 

or, for emissions including fluorinated 

GHGs whose GWPs are not listed in 

Table A–1, 1 metric ton per year. 

(B) The individual process vent is 

vented to a destruction device 

demonstrated to achieve a destruction 

efficiency of 99.9 percent for the 

fluorinated GHGs in the vent stream, 

and the facility has equipment (e.g., 

holding tank capacity; monitoring of bypass streams) or procedures (e.g., 

compulsory process shutdowns) in 

place that ensure that uncontrolled 

emissions do not occur. For each 

process, you should either track the 

amount of production or other process 

activity that is vented to the destruction 

device or track production or other 

process activity that by-passes the 

destruction device. 

(ii) If the individual process vent does 

not meet the criteria in either paragraph 

(b)(2)(i)(A) or (b)(2)(i)(B) of this section, 

then the facility must comply with the 

emission factor method specified in 

paragraph (b)(3) of this section. 

(3) Process-vent-specific emission 

factor method. For each process vent, 

conduct an emission test and measure 

uncontrolled fluorinated GHG emissions 

from the process and measure the 

process activity, such as the feed rate, 

production rate, or other process 

activity rate, during the test as described 

in this paragraph (b)(3). All emissions 

test data and procedures used in 

developing emission factors shall be 

documented according to § 98.127. 

(i) You must measure the process 

activity, such as the process feed rate, 

process production rate, or other 

process activity rate, as applicable, 

during the emission test according to 

the procedures in § 98.124 and calculate 

the rate for the test period, in kg per 

hour or in kg per batch. 

(ii) For continuous processes, you 

must calculate the hourly uncontrolled 

fluorinated GHG emission rate using 

Equation L–13 of this section and 

determine the hourly uncontrolled 

fluorinated GHG emission rate per 

process vent for the test run. For batch 

processes, you must calculate the 

uncontrolled fluorinated GHG emissions 

during each emission episode over the 

batch using Equation L–14 of this 

section and determine the fluorinated 

GHG emissions per process based on the 

batch runs conducted for the test. 

E C MW Q SV ContPV

PV = ∗ ∗ ∗∗∗ PV 10

1 1

10

60

1 6 3 (Eq. L-13)

Where: 

EContPV = Mass of fluorinated GHG f 

emitted from process vent v from 

production process i during the emission 

test during test run r (kg/hr). 

CPV = Concentration of fluorinated GHG f 

during test run r of the emission test 

(ppmv). 

MW = Molecular weight of fluorinated 

GHG f (g/g-mole). 

QPV = Flow rate of the process vent stream 

during test run r of the emission test (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 gram). 

60/1 = Conversion factor (60 minutes/1 

hour). 

E

CQD

MW

SV BatchPV

PV -ee PV -ee ee

=

∗ ∗

∗ ∗∗

∑

1

6 3 10

1 1

10

ee

(Eq. L-14)

Where: 

EBatchPV = Mass of fluorinated GHG f 

emitted from process vent v from 

production process i during the emission 

test during test run r (kg/batch). 

CPV-ee = Concentration of fluorinated GHG 

f during emission episode ee during test 

run r of the emission test (ppmv). 

QPV-ee = Flow rate of the process vent 

stream during emission episode ee 

during test run r of the emission test (m3/ 

min). 

Dee = Duration of emission episode ee 

during test run r of the emission test 

(minutes). 

MW = Molecular weight of fluorinated 

GHG f (g/g-mole). 

SV = Standard molar volume of gas (0.0240 

m3/g-mole at 68°F and 1 atm). 

1/103 = Conversion factor (1 kilogram/ 

1,000 gram). 

ee = Number of emission episodes ee from 

process vent v during process i. 

(iii) You must calculate a site-specific, 

process-vent-specific emission factor for 

each process vent, in kg of uncontrolled 

fluorinated GHG per process activity 

rate (e.g., kg of feed or production), as 

applicable, using Equation L–15 of this 

section. For continuous processes, 

divide the hourly fluorinated GHG 

emission rate during the test by the 

hourly process activity rate during the 

test runs. For batch processes, divide 

the fluorinated GHG emissions by the 

process activity rate for the batch runs. 

EF

E

Activity

r PV

PV

EmissionTest

r

=

⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠ ∑ ⎟

1 (Eq. L-15)


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4EP12AP10.063</MATH> EP12AP10.064</MATH> EP12AP10.065</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18713 

Where: 

EFPV = Average emission factor for 

fluorinated GHG f emitted from process 

vent v during production process i (kg 

emitted/kg product). 

EPV = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted 

from process vent v from production 

process i during the emission test during 

test run r, for either continuous or batch 

(kg emitted/hr for continuous, kg 

emitted/batch for batch). 

ActivityEmissionTest = Process feed, process 

production, or other process activity rate 

during the emission test during test run 

r (e.g., kg product/hr for continuous, 

calculated in Equation L–13 of this 

section, kg product/batch for batch, 

calculated in Equation L–14 of this 

section). 

r = Number of test runs (i.e., batches) 

performed during the emission test. 

(iv) You must calculate fluorinated 

GHG emissions for the process vent for 

the reporting period by multiplying the 

process-vent-specific emission factor by 

the total process activity, as applicable, 

for the reporting period, using Equation 

L–16 of this section. 

E EF Activity PV RptPeriod PV RptPeriod - = ∗ (Eq. L-16)

Where: 

EPV–RptPeriod = Mass of fluorinated GHG f 

emitted from process vent v from 

production process i, for the reporting 

period, either monthly or annually (kg/ 

month or kg/year). 

EFPV = Average emission factor for 

fluorinated GHG f emitted from process 

vent v during production process i (kg 

emitted/activity) (e.g., kg emitted/kg 

product). 

ActivityRptPeriod = Process feed, process 

production, or other process activity 

during the reporting period. 

(v) If the process vent is vented to a 

destruction device, apply the 

demonstrated destruction efficiency of 

the device to the fluorinated GHG 

emissions for the process vent, using 

Equation L–17 of this section. You may 

apply the destruction efficiency only to 

the portion of the process activity that 

is vented to the destruction device (i.e., 

controlled). 

E EF Activity Activity PV RptPeriod PV RptPeriod -U RptPeriod -C - =∗ + ∗ ( ) − (1 DE) (Eq. L-17)

Where: 

EPV–RptPeriod = Mass of fluorinated GHG f 

emitted from process vent v from 

production process i, for the reporting 

period, either monthly or annually, 

considering destruction efficiency (kg/ 

month or kg/year). 

EFPV = Emission factor for fluorinated GHG 

f emitted from process vent v during 

production process i (kg emitted/kg 

product). 

ActivityRptPeriod-U = Total process feed, 

process production, or other process 

activity during the reporting period for 

which the process vent is not vented to 

the destruction device (e.g., kg product). 

ActivityRptPeriod-C = Total process feed, 

process production, or other process 

activity during the reporting period for 

which the process vent is vented to the 

destruction device (e.g., kg product). 

DE = Demonstrated destruction efficiency 

of the destruction device (weight 

fraction). 

(vi) Sum the emissions from all 

process vents in the process for the 

reporting period to estimate total 

fluorinated GHG process emissions, 

using Equation L–18 of this section. 

E E Pfi PV RptPeriod

v

= ∑ -

1

(Eq. L-18)

Where: 

EPfi = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted 

from production process i, for the 

reporting period, either monthly or 

annually (kg). 

EPV–RptPeriod = Mass of fluorinated GHG f 

emitted from process vent v from 

production process i, for the reporting 

period, either monthly or annually, 

considering destruction efficiency (kg/ 

month or kg/year). 

v = Number of process vents in production 

process i. 

(vii) Sum the emissions from all 

processes for the reporting period to 

estimate total fluorinated GHG process 

vent emissions, using Equation L–19 of 

this section. 

E E P Pfi

i

= ∑

1

(Eq. L-19)

Where: 

EP = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted 

from all process vents at the facility, for 

the reporting period, either monthly or 

annually (kg). 

EPij = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted 

from production process i, for the 

reporting period, either monthly or 

annually (kg). 

i = Number of production processes i at the 

facility. 

(4) Process-vent-specific emission 

calculation factor method. For each 

process vent, determine fluorinated 

GHG emissions by calculations and 

determine the process activity rate, such 

as the feed rate, production rate, or 

other process activity rate, associated 

with the emission rate. 

(i) You must calculate uncontrolled 

emissions of fluorinated GHG by 

individual process vent, EPV, using 

measurements and/or calculations based 

on chemical engineering principles and 

chemical property data or you may 

conduct an engineering assessment, 

using the procedures in paragraphs 

(b)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section, except 

paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) of this section. 

The uncontrolled emissions must be 

based on a typical batch or production 

rate under a defined operating scenario. 

The process activity rate associated with 

the uncontrolled emissions must be 

determined. All data, assumptions, and 

procedures used in the calculations or 

engineering assessment shall be 

documented according to § 98.127. 

(ii) You must calculate a site-specific, 

process-vent-specific emission 

calculation factor for each process vent, 

in kg of fluorinated GHG per activity 

rate (e.g., kg of feed or production) as 

applicable, using Equation L–20 of this 

section. 

ECF

E

Activity PV

PV

presentative

=

Re

(Eq. L-20)


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4EP12AP10.066</MATH> EP12AP10.067</MATH> EP12AP10.068</MATH> EP12AP10.069</MATH> EP12AP10.070</MATH>
18714 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Where: 

ECFPV = Emission calculation factor for 

fluorinated GHG f emitted from process 

vent v during production process i (kg 

emitted/kg product). 

EPV = Average mass of fluorinated GHG f 

emitted, based on calculations, from 

process vent v from production process 

i during the period or batch for which 

emissions were calculated, for either 

continuous or batch (kg emitted/hr for 

continuous, kg emitted/batch for batch). 

ActivityRepresentative = Process feed, process 

production, or other process activity rate 

corresponding to average mass of 

emissions based on calculations (e.g., kg 

product/hr for continuous, kg product/ 

batch for batch). 

(iii) You must calculate fluorinated 

GHG emissions for the process vent for 

the reporting period by multiplying the 

process-vent-specific emission 

calculation factor by the total process 

activity, as applicable, for the reporting 

period, using Equation L–21 of this 

section. 

E ECF Activity PV RptPeriod PV RptPeriod - = ∗ (Eq. L-21)

Where: 

EPV–RptPeriod = Mass of fluorinated GHG f 

emitted from process vent v from 

production process i, for the reporting 

period, either monthly or annually (kg/ 

month or kg/year). 

ECFPV = Emission calculation factor for 

fluorinated GHG f emitted from process 

vent v during production process i (kg 

emitted/activity) (e.g., kg emitted/kg 

product). 

ActivityRptPeriod = Process feed, process 

production, or other process activity 

during the reporting period. 

(iv) If the process vent is vented to a 

destruction device, apply the 

demonstrated destruction efficiency of 

the device to the fluorinated GHG 

emissions for the process vent, using 

Equation L–22 of this section. You may 

apply the destruction efficiency only to 

the portion of the process activity that 

is vented to the destruction device (i.e., 

controlled). 

E ECF Activity Activity PV RptPeriod PV RptPeriod -U RptPeriod - - =∗ + ( ) C ∗ − (1 ) (Eq. L-22) DE

Where: 

EPV–RptPeriod = Mass of fluorinated GHG f 

emitted from process vent v from 

production process i, for the reporting 

period, either monthly or annually, 

considering destruction efficiency (kg/ 

month or kg/year). 

ECFPV = Emission calculation factor for 

fluorinated GHG f emitted from process 

vent v during production process i (kg 

emitted/kg product). 

ActivityRptPeriod-U = Total process feed, 

process production, or other process 

activity during the reporting period for 

which the process vent is not vented to 

the destruction device (e.g., kg product). 

ActivityRptPeriod-C = Total process feed, 

process production, or other process 

activity during the reporting period for 

which the process vent is vented to the 

destruction device (e.g., kg product). 

DE = Demonstrated destruction efficiency of 

the destruction device (weight fraction). 

(v) Sum the fluorinated GHG 

emissions from all process vents in the 

process for the reporting period to 

estimate total process emissions, using 

Equation L–23 of this section. 

E E Pfi PV RptPeriod

v

= ∑ -

1

(Eq. L-23)

Where: 

EPfi = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from 

production process i, for the reporting 

period, either monthly or annually (kg). 

EPV–RptPeriod = Mass of fluorinated GHG f 

emitted from process vent v from 

production process i, for the reporting 

period, either monthly or annually, 

considering destruction efficiency (kg/ 

month or kg/year). 

v = Number of process vents in production 

process i. 

(vi) Sum the emissions from all 

processes for the reporting period to 

estimate total fluorinated GHG process 

emissions, using Equation L–24 of this 

section. 

E E P Pfi

i

= ∑

1

(Eq. L-24)

Where: 

EP = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from 

all processes at the facility, for the 

reporting period, either monthly or 

annually (kg). 

EPij = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from 

production process i, for the reporting 

period, either monthly or annually (kg). 

i = Number of production processes i at the 

facility. 

(c) Calculate fluorinated GHG 

emissions for equipment leaks (EL). If 

you comply with paragraph (b) of this 

section, you must calculate the 

fluorinated GHG emissions from pieces 

of equipment associated with processes 

covered under this subpart and in 

fluorinated GHG service. The emissions 

from equipment leaks must be 

calculated using one of the following 

methods in the Protocol for Equipment 

Leak Emission Estimates, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

Publication No. EPA–453/R–95–017, 

November 1995: the Screening Ranges 

Approach; the EPA Correlation 

Approach; or the Unit-Specific 

Correlation Approach. You may not use 

the procedure in the protocol for 

Average Emission Factor Approach. 

(1) You must develop response factors 

for each fluorinated GHG or for each 

surrogate to be measured using EPA 

Method 21, 40 CFR part 60, Appendix 

A–7. For each fluorinated GHG 

measured, the response factor shall be 

less than 10. The response factor is the 

ratio of the known concentration of a 

fluorinated GHG to the observed meter 

reading when measured using an 

instrument calibrated with the reference 

compound. 

(2) You must collect information on 

the number of each type of equipment; 

the service of each piece of equipment 

(gas, light liquid, heavy liquid); the 

concentration of each fluorinated GHG 

in the stream; and the time period each 

piece of equipment was in service. 

Depending on which approach you 

follow, you must collect information for 

equipment on the associated screening 

data concentrations for greater than or 

equal to 10,000 ppmv and associated 

screening data concentrations for less 

than 10,000 ppmv; associated actual 

screening data concentrations; and 

associated screening data and leak rate 

data (i.e., bagging) used to develop a 

unit-specific correlation. 

(3) Calculate and sum the emissions 

of each fluorinated GHG in kg/yr for 

equipment pieces for all processes, EEL. 

(d) Calculate total fluorinated GHG 

emissions for the facility/source 

category. Estimate annually the total 

mass of fluorinated GHG emissions from 

process vents in either paragraph (c)(3) 

or (c)(4) of this section, as appropriate, 

and from equipment leak emissions in 

paragraph (d) using Equation L–25 of 

this section. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4EP12AP10.071</MATH> EP12AP10.072</MATH> EP12AP10.073</MATH> EP12AP10.074</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18715 

E=E E P EL + (Eq. L-25)

Where: 

E = Total mass of each fluorinated GHG f 

emitted from the facility, annual basis 

(kg/year). 

EP = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from 

all process vents at the facility, annually 

(kg). 

EEL = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from 

equipment leaks for pieces of equipment 

for the facility, annually (kg/year). 

(e) Calculate fluorinated GHG 

emissions from destruction of 

fluorinated GHGs that were previously 

‘‘produced’’ as defined at 98.410(b). 

Estimate annually the total mass of 

fluorinated GHGs emitted from 

destruction of fluorinated GHGs that 

were previously ‘‘produced’’ as defined 

at 98.410(b) using Equation L–26 of this 

section: 

E = RE DE D D ∗ − ( ) 1 (Eq. L-26)

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). 

§ 98.124 Monitoring and QA/QC 

requirements. 

(a) Initial scoping test for fluorinated 

GHGs. You must conduct an initial 

scoping test to identify all fluorinated 

GHGs that may be generated from 

processes that are subject to this subpart 

and that have uncontrolled emissions 

(i.e., pre-control emissions levels) of 1.0 

metric ton or more of fluorinated GHGs. 

For each process, you must conduct the 

initial scoping test on the stream(s) 

(including process streams or destroyed 

streams) or process vent(s) that would 

be expected to individually or 

collectively contain all of the 

fluorinated GHG by-products of the 

process. Initial scoping testing must be 

conducted according to the procedures 

in paragraph (c)(4)(v) of this section. 

(b) Mass Balance monitoring. If you 

determine fluorinated GHG emissions 

using the mass balance method under 

§ 98.123(a), you must estimate the total 

mass of each fluorinated GHG emitted 

from the process at least monthly. 

(1) You must conduct the following 

mass measurements on a monthly or 

more frequent basis using flowmeters, 

weigh scales, or a combination of 

volumetric and density measurements 

with accuracy and precision that allow 

the facility to meet the error criteria in 

§ 98.123(a): 

(i) Total mass of each fluorinated GHG 

produced shall be estimated using the 

methods and measurements set forth in 

§ 98.413(a) and (b) and in § 98.414(a) 

and (b). For each fluorinated GHG, the 

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

the mass produced that is reported 

under subpart OO. 

(ii) Total mass of each reactant fed 

into the production process shall be 

measured. 

(iii) Total mass of each reactant 

permanently removed from the 

production process shall be measured. 

(iv) If the waste permanently removed 

from the production process and fed 

into the destruction device contains 

more than trace concentrations of 

fluorinated GHG product, then the mass 

of waste fed into the destruction device 

shall be measured. 

(v) If a by-product is responsible for 

yield loss and occurs in any stream 

(including process steams, emissions 

streams, or destroyed streams) in more 

than trace concentrations, then the mass 

flow of each stream that contains more 

than trace concentrations of the byproduct shall be measured. 

(vi) If a by-product is a fluorinated 

GHG (other than HFC-23 generated 

during HCFC-22 production), occurs in 

more than trace concentrations in any 

stream (including process streams, 

emissions streams, or destroyed 

streams), occurs in more than trace 

concentrations in any stream that is 

recaptured or is fed into a destruction 

device, and is not completely 

recaptured or completely destroyed, 

then the mass flow of each stream that 

contains more than trace concentrations 

of the by-product and that is recaptured 

or is fed into the destruction device 

shall be measured. 

(2) The following concentration 

measurements shall be measured on a 

regular basis using equipment and 

methods (e.g., gas chromatography) with 

an accuracy and precision that allow the 

facility to meet the error criteria in 

§ 98.123(a): 

(i) If the waste permanently removed 

from the production process and fed 

into the destruction device contains 

more than trace concentrations of 

fluorinated GHG product and if the 

stream mass includes more than trace 

concentrations of materials other than 

the product, then the concentration of 

the product shall be measured. 

(ii) If a by-product is responsible for 

yield loss and occurs in any stream 

(including process streams, emissions 

streams, or destroyed streams) in more 

than trace concentrations and if the 

stream mass includes more than trace 

concentrations of materials other than 

the by-product, then the concentration 

of the by-product shall be measured. 

(iii) If a by-product is a fluorinated 

GHG, occurs in more than trace 

concentrations in any stream (including 

process streams, emissions streams, or 

destroyed streams), occurs in more than 

trace concentrations in any stream that 

is recaptured or is fed into a destruction 

device, and is not completely 

recaptured or completely destroyed, and 

if the measured stream mass includes 

more than trace concentrations of 

materials other than the by-product, 

then the concentration of the by-product 

shall be measured. 

(c) Emission factor testing. If you 

determine fluorinated GHG emissions 

using the site-specific process-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 every 5 years that is 

based on representative performance 

(i.e., performance based on the normal 

operating scenario) of the affected 

process. For each continuous process 

vent, develop a process-vent-specific 

emission factor for the representative 

operating scenario. For each batch 

process vent, develop a process-ventspecific emission factor for the 

representative operating scenario, i.e., 

the typical batch process. Atypical 

events, such as process shutdowns or 

startups, may be included in the 

monitoring for batch processes and may 

be included for continuous process, if 

the monitoring is sufficiently long or 

comprehensive to ensure that such 

events are not overrepresented in the 

emission factor. Malfunction events 

shall not be included in the monitoring. 

(2) Different operating conditions. 

Develop separate process-vent-specific 

emission factor for other operating 

scenarios as needed. If your process 

operates under different conditions as 

part of normal operations, you must 

perform emission testing and develop 

separate emission factors for these 

different process operating scenarios. 

For continuous process vents, determine 

the emissions based on the process 

activity at each specific different 

condition. For batch process vents, 

determine emissions based on the 

process feed rate, process production 

rate, or other process activity rate for 

each typical batch operating scenario 

(i.e., each specific condition). 

(3) Number of runs. For continuous 

processes, sample the process vent for a 

minimum of 3 runs of 1 hour each. For 

batch processes, sample the process 

vent for all emission episodes over a 

minimum of 3 complete batch cycles. If 

the RSD of the emission factor 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4EP12AP10.075</MATH> EP12AP10.076</MATH>
18716 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

calculated based on the first 3 runs is 

greater than or equal to 0.2 for the 

emissions factor, continue to sample the 

process vent for an additional 3 runs of 

1 hour each or an additional 3 batch 

cycles. If more than one fluorinated 

GHG is measured, and if all measured 

fluorinated GHGs have GWPs listed in 

Table A–1, the emissions factor and 

RSD shall be expressed in terms of total 

CO2 equivalents. Otherwise, the 

emissions factor and RSD shall be 

expressed in terms of kilograms of each 

species. 

(4) Emission Test Methods. Conduct 

the emissions testing using the 

following methods: 

(i) Sample and velocity traverses. Use 

EPA Method 1 or 1A in Appendix A– 

1 of 40 CFR part 60. 

(ii) Velocity and volumetric flow 

rates. Use EPA Method 2, 2A, 2B, 2C, or 

2D, 2F, or 2G in Appendix A–1 of 40 

CFR part 60. Alternatives that may be 

used for determining flow rates include 

Other Test Method 24 (OTM–24) 

(incorporated by reference, see § 98.7) 

and Emission Measurement Center 

Alternative Test Method (EMC ALT– 

012) (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 98.7). 

(iii) Gas analysis. Use EPA Method 3, 

3A, or 3B in Appendix A–1 of 40 CFR 

part 60. 

(iv) Stack gas moisture. Use EPA 

Method 4 in Appendix A–1 of 40 CFR 

part 60. 

(v) Fluorinated GHG concentrations. 

Use EPA Method 18 (with GC and either 

MS or ECD) in Appendix A–1 of 40 CFR 

part 60; EPA Method 320 in Appendix 

A of 40 CFR part 63; Draft EPA DRE 

Protocol; or ASTM D6348–03 

(incorporated by reference in § 98.7). 

(vi) Alternative fluorinated GHG 

concentration methods. Alternatives 

that may be used for determining 

fluorinated GHG concentrations include 

EPA TO–15 or other alternative test 

methods conducted in conjunction with 

EPA Method 301 for validation. 

(5) Process activity measurements. 

Determine the mass rate of process feed, 

process production, or other process 

activity as applicable during the test 

using flow meters, weigh scales, or other 

measurement devices or instruments 

with an accuracy and precision of ±1 

percent of full scale or better. These 

devices may be the same plant 

instruments or procedures that are used 

for accounting purposes (such as weigh 

hoppers, belt weigh feeders, 

combination of volume measurements 

and bulk density, etc.) if these devices 

or procedures meet the requirement. For 

monitoring ongoing process activity, use 

flow meters, weigh scales, or other 

measurement devices or instruments 

with an accuracy and precision of ±1 

percent of full scale or better. 

(6) Sample each process. If process 

vents from separate processes are 

manifolded together to a common vent 

or to a common destruction device, you 

must sample each process in the ducts 

before the emissions are combined, 

sample when only one process is 

operating, or sample the combined 

emissions at representative 

combinations of capacity utilizations for 

all the processes. If the last option is 

selected, 3 times n test runs shall be 

required, where n is the number of 

processes feeding into the common vent 

or destruction device, and the processvent-specific emission factor shall be 

applied whenever one or more of the 

processes is operating. In this case, 

calculate the emission factor for each 

sample by dividing the total emissions 

by the summed process activity across 

the processes venting to the common 

vent. Derive the process-vent-specific 

emission factor by averaging the 3n 

emission factors. 

(7) Emission test results. The results 

of an emission test must include the 

analysis of samples, determination of 

emissions, and raw data. The emissions 

test report must contain all information 

and data used to derive the processvent-specific emission factor, as well as 

key process conditions during the test. 

Key process conditions include those 

that are normally monitored for process 

control purposes and may include but 

are not limited to yields, pressures, 

temperatures, etc. (e.g., of reactor 

vessels, distillation columns). 

(8) Previous measurements. If you 

have conducted an emissions test less 

than 5 years before the effective date of 

this rule, and the emissions testing 

meets the requirements in paragraph 

(c)(1) through (7) of this section, you 

may use the previous emissions testing 

to develop process-vent-specific 

emission factors. 

(d) Emission calculation factor 

monitoring. If you determine fluorinated 

GHG emissions using the site-specific 

process-vent-specific emission 

calculation factor, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) 

through (d)(3) of this section. 

(1) Revise the emission calculation 

factor for each process every 5 years 

based on representative operation (i.e., 

performance based on the normal 

operating scenario) of the affected 

process. For each continuous process 

vent, develop the emission calculation 

factor for the representative operating 

scenario. For each batch process vent, 

develop the emission calculation factor 

for the representative operating 

scenario, i.e., the typical batch process. 

(2) Different operating conditions. 

You must develop separate emissions 

calculation factors for other operating 

scenarios as needed. If your process 

operates under different conditions as 

part of normal operations, you must 

conduct emissions calculations and 

develop separate emission factors for 

these different process operating 

scenarios. For continuous process vents, 

determine the emissions based on the 

process activity at each specific 

different condition. For batch process 

vents, determine emissions based on the 

process feed rate, process production 

rate, or other process activity rate for 

each typical batch operating scenario 

and for each non-typical batch operating 

scenario (i.e., each specific condition). 

(3) Process activity measurements. 

Use flow meters, weigh scales, or other 

measurement devices or instruments 

with an accuracy and precision of ±1 

percent of full scale or better for 

monitoring ongoing process activity. 

(e) Emission monitoring for pieces of 

equipment. Conduct the screening level 

concentration measurements using EPA 

Method 21 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–7 to determine the screening level 

concentration data or actual screening 

level concentration data for the 

Screening Ranges Approach or the EPA 

Correlation Approach. Conduct the 

screening level concentration 

measurements using EPA Method 21 

and the bagging procedures to measure 

mass emissions for developing the UnitSpecific Correlation Approach in the 

Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission 

Estimates, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA Publication No. 

EPA–453/R–95–017, November 1995. 

Concentration measurements of bagged 

samples must be conducted using gas 

chromatography following EPA Method 

18 analytical procedures. Use methane 

as the calibration gas. 

(f) Destruction device performance 

testing. If you vent fluorinated GHG 

emissions or otherwise feed fluorinated 

GHGs into a destruction device and 

apply the destruction efficiency of the 

device in § 98.123, you must conduct an 

emissions test every 5 years to 

determine the destruction efficiency. 

(1) You must sample the inlet and 

outlet of the destruction device for a 

minimum of three runs of 1 hour each 

to determine the destruction efficiency. 

You must conduct the emissions testing 

using the methods in paragraph (c)(4) of 

this section. To determine the 

destruction efficiency, emission testing 

shall be conducted when operating at 

high loads reasonably expected to occur 

(i.e., representative of high total 

fluorinated GHG load that will be sent 

to the device) and when destroying the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18717 

most-difficult-to-destroy fluorinated 

GHG (or a surrogate that is still more 

difficult to destroy) that is fed into the 

device from the processes subject to this 

subpart. 

(2) Previous testing. If you have 

conducted an emissions test within the 

last 5 years prior to the effective date of 

this rule, and the emissions testing 

meets the requirements in paragraph 

(f)(1) of this section, you may use the 

destruction efficiency determined 

during this previous emissions testing. 

(3) Part 264, 266, and 270 principal 

organic hazardous constituent (POHC) 

testing. If a destruction device used to 

destroy fluorinated GHG is subject to 40 

CFR part 264 or 266 and is permitted 

under 40 CFR part 270 with a 

demonstrated DRE of at least 99.99 

percent for the most-difficult-to-destroy 

fluorinated GHG fed into the device 

from the processes subject to this 

subpart, the emissions testing under 

paragraph (f)(1) of this section is not 

required and you may use the 

destruction efficiency determined 

during this previous testing. 

(4) Hazardous Waste Combustor 

testing. If a destruction device used to 

destroy fluorinated GHG is subject to 40 

CFR part 63, subpart EEE and has a 

demonstrated DRE of at least 99.99 

percent for the most-difficult-to-destroy 

fluorinated GHG fed into the device 

from the processes subject to this 

subpart, the emissions testing under 

paragraph (f)(1) of this section is not 

required and you may use the 

destruction efficiency determined 

during this previous testing. 

(5) Process change. For process 

changes that require a new or revised 

operating scenario, you must determine 

whether the concentrations and the 

fluorinated gas compounds vented to 

the destruction device following the 

process change affects the DE (i.e., 

compare the post-process-change 

fluorinated GHG load and the mostdifficult-to-combust fluorinated GHG 

with the test conditions). If the 

operating conditions and DE 

demonstrated in the destruction device 

performance testing are not sufficient to 

achieve the DE for the concentrations 

and fluorinated gas compounds vented 

to the destruction device following the 

process change then, you must conduct 

another emissions test to demonstrate 

the DE. 

(g) Mass of previously produced 

fluorinated GHGs fed into destruction 

device. You must measure the mass of 

fluorinated GHGs that are fed into the 

destruction device and that were 

previously produced as defined at 

98.410(b). Such fluorinated GHGs 

include but are not limited to quantities 

that are shipped to the facility by 

another facility for destruction and 

quantities that are returned to the 

facility for reclamation but are found to 

be irretrievably contaminated and are 

therefore destroyed. You must use 

flowmeters, weigh scales, or a 

combination of volumetric and density 

measurements with an accuracy and 

precision of 1 percent of full scale or 

better. If the measured mass includes 

more than trace concentrations of 

materials other than the fluorinated 

GHG being destroyed, you must 

measure the concentrations of 

fluorinated GHG being destroyed. You 

must multiply this concentration (mass 

fraction) by the mass measurement to 

obtain the mass of the fluorinated GHG 

fed into the destruction device. 

(h) Emissions due to deviations of 

destruction device. In their estimates of 

the mass of fluorinated GHG destroyed, 

fluorinated GHG production facilities 

that destroy fluorinated GHGs shall 

account for any temporary reductions in 

the destruction efficiency that result 

from any malfunctions of the 

destruction device, including deviations 

from the operating conditions defined in 

State or local permitting requirements 

and/or oxidizer manufacturer 

specifications. 

(i) Emissions due to process startup, 

shutdown, or malfunctions. Fluorinated 

GHG production facilities shall account 

for fluorinated GHG emissions that 

occur as a result of startups, shutdowns, 

and malfunctions, either recording 

fluorinated GHG emissions during these 

events, or documenting that these 

events do not result in significant 

fluorinated GHG emissions. 

(j) Initial scoping testing, emissions 

testing, and emissions factor 

development must be completed by 

December 31, 2011. 

(k) Calibrate all flow meters, weigh 

scales, and combinations of volumetric 

and density measures using monitoring 

instruments traceable to the 

International System of Units (SI) 

through the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST) or 

other recognized national measurement 

institute. Recalibrate all flow meters, 

weigh scales, and combinations of 

volumetric and density measures at the 

minimum frequency specified by the 

manufacturer. Use any of the following 

applicable flow meter test methods or 

the calibration procedures specified by 

the flow meter, weigh-scale, or other 

volumetric or density measure 

manufacturer. 

(1) ASME MFC–3M–2004, 

Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes 

Using Orifice, Nozzle, and Venturi 

(incorporated by reference, see § 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). 

(l) All analytical equipment, 

including gas chromatographs, GC/MS, 

GC/ECD, FTIR and NMR devices, used 

to determine the concentration of 

fluorinated GHG in streams shall be 

calibrated at least monthly through 

analysis of certified standards with 

known concentrations of the same 

chemicals in the same ranges (fractions 

by mass) as the process samples. 

Calibration gases prepared from a highconcentration certified standard using a 

gas dilution system that meets the 

requirements specified in Method 205, 

40 CFR Part 51, Appendix M may also 

be used. 

(m) For calendar year 2011 

monitoring, you may follow the 

provisions of § 98.3(d)(1) through (3) for 

best available monitoring methods 

rather than follow the monitoring 

requirements of this section. For 

purposes of subpart L, any reference to 

the year 2010 in § 98.3(d)(1) through (3) 

shall mean 2011. 

§ 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 

unavailable, a substitute data value for 

the missing parameter shall be used in 

the calculations as specified in 

paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. 

You must document and keep records of 

the procedures used for all such 

estimates. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
18718 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(b) For each missing value of the 

fluorinated GHG concentration, the 

substitute data value shall be the 

arithmetic average of the quality-assured 

values of that parameter immediately 

preceding and immediately following 

the missing data incident. 

(c) For each missing value of the mass 

produced, fed into the production 

process, fed into the transformation 

process, fed into destruction devices, 

sent to another facility for 

transformation, or sent to another 

facility for destruction, the substitute 

value of that parameter shall be a 

secondary mass measurement where 

such a measurement is available. For 

example, if the mass produced is 

usually measured with a flowmeter at 

the inlet to the day tank and that 

flowmeter fails to meet an accuracy or 

precision test, malfunctions, or is 

rendered inoperable, then the mass 

produced may be estimated by 

calculating the change in volume in the 

day tank and multiplying it by the 

density of the product. Where a 

secondary mass measurement is not 

available, the substitute value of the 

parameter shall be an estimate based on 

a related parameter. For example, if a 

flowmeter measuring the mass fed into 

a destruction device is rendered 

inoperable, then the mass fed into the 

destruction device may be estimated 

using the production rate and the 

previously observed relationship 

between the production rate and the 

mass flow rate into the destruction 

device. 

§ 98.126 Data reporting requirements. 

(a) All facilities. In addition to the 

information required by § 98.3(c), you 

shall report the following information. 

(1) The chemical identities of the 

contents of the stream(s) (including 

process, emissions, and destroyed 

streams) analyzed under the initial 

scoping test of fluorinated GHG at 

§ 98.124(a), by process. 

(2) The location and function of the 

stream(s) (including process streams, 

emissions streams, and destroyed 

streams) that were analyzed under the 

initial scoping test of fluorinated GHG at 

§ 98.124(a), by process. 

(3) The annual emissions of each 

fluorinated GHG by process, for 

equipment leaks, and for the facility as 

a whole. 

(4) The method used to determine the 

mass emissions of each fluorinated 

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

factor, for each process and process vent 

at the facility. 

(5) The chemical formula and total 

mass produced of the fluorinated gas 

product in metric tons, by chemical and 

process. 

(b) Reporting for mass balance 

approach. For processes whose 

emissions are determined using the 

mass-balance approach under 

§ 98.123(a), you shall report the 

following for each process: 

(1) The absolute and relative 

uncertainties calculated under 

paragraphs § 98.123(a)(1) through (a)(4), 

as well as the data (including quantities 

and their uncertainties) used in these 

calculations. 

(2) The balanced chemical equation 

that describes the reaction used to 

manufacture the fluorinated GHG 

product (specifically, the equation that 

provides the stoichiometric coefficients 

in Equation L–7 of this subpart). 

(3) The total mass and chemical 

formula of each reactant fed into the 

production process in metric tons, by 

chemical. 

(4) The total mass of each reactant 

permanently removed from the 

production process in metric tons, by 

chemical. 

(5) The total mass of the fluorinated 

GHG product removed from the 

production process and destroyed. 

(6) The mass and chemical formula of 

each by-product generated. 

(7) The mass of each by-product 

destroyed at the facility. 

(9) The mass of each by-product 

recaptured and sent off-site for 

destruction. 

(10) The mass of each by-product 

recaptured for other purposes. 

(c) Reporting for emission factor and 

emission calculation factor approach. 

For processes whose emissions are 

determined using the emission factor 

approach under § 98.123(b)(3) or the 

emission calculation factor under 

§ 98.123(b)(4), you shall report the 

following for each process: 

(1) The process activity used to 

estimate emissions (e.g., tons of product 

produced or tons of reactant consumed). 

(2) The site-specific, process-ventspecific emission factor or emission 

calculation factor for each process vent. 

(3) The mass of each fluorinated GHG 

emitted, including the mass of each 

fluorinated GHG emitted from 

equipment leaks. 

(d) Reporting for missing data. Where 

missing data have been estimated 

pursuant to § 98.125, you shall report 

the reason the data were missing, the 

length of time the data were missing, the 

method used to estimate the missing 

data, and the estimates of those data. 

(e) Reporting of destruction device 

monitoring data. A fluorinated GHG 

production facility that destroys 

fluorinated GHGs shall report the 

monitoring results for the destruction 

device that are deviations from the 

monitoring limit set (e.g., parametric 

monitoring of incinerator temperature, 

outlet concentration checks, etc.) during 

the emissions test. 

(f) Reporting of destruction device 

testing. A fluorinated GHG production 

facility that destroys fluorinated GHGs 

shall submit the emissions test report 

for the emission test conducted every 5 

years. The emissions testing report must 

contain the following information: 

(1) Destruction efficiency (DE) of each 

destruction unit for each fluorinated 

GHG, or if a surrogate was used, the DE 

of the surrogate. 

(2) Test methods used to determine 

the destruction efficiency. 

(3) Methods used to record the mass 

of fluorinated GHG destroyed. 

(4) Chemical identity of the 

fluorinated GHG(s) used in the 

performance test conducted to 

determine DE, including surrogates, and 

information on why the surrogate is 

sufficient to demonstrate DE for all 

fluorinated GHG vented to the 

destruction unit. 

(5) Name of all applicable Federal or 

State regulations that may apply to the 

destruction process. 

(6) If process changes affect the 

destruction efficiency of the destruction 

device or the methods used to record 

mass of fluorinated GHG destroyed, 

then the revised emission testing report 

must be submitted to reflect the 

changes. The revised report must be 

submitted to EPA within 60 days of the 

change. 

(g) Reporting for destruction of 

previously produced fluorinated GHGs. 

A fluorinated GHG production facility 

that destroys fluorinated GHGs shall 

report the following for each previously 

produced fluorinated GHG destroyed: 

(1) The mass of the fluorinated GHG 

fed into the destruction device. 

(2) The mass of the fluorinated GHG 

emitted from the destruction device. 

§ 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 (h) of this section, as 

applicable. 

(a) Process information records. 

(1) Identify all products and processes 

subject to this subpart. Include the unit 

identification as appropriate. 

(2) Monthly and annual records of all 

analyses and calculations conducted, 

including all information reported as 

required under §§ 98.123 and 98.126. 

(b) Emission factor and emission 

calculation factor method. Retain the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18719 

following records for each process at the 

facility. 

(1) Identify all process vents above 

and below the 10,000 metric tons CO2e 

per year uncontrolled emission limit for 

fluorinated GHG. 

(2) For vents above the 10,000 metric 

tons CO2e per year uncontrolled 

emission limit, identify those that vent 

to a destruction device demonstrated to 

achieve a destruction efficiency of 99.9 

percent for fluorinated GHGs, and for 

which the facility has equipment (e.g., 

holding tank capacity; monitoring of bypass streams) or procedures (e.g., 

compulsory process shutdowns) in 

place that ensure that uncontrolled 

emissions do not occur. 

(3) For each vent, identify the method 

used to develop the factor (i.e., emission 

factor by emissions test or emissions 

calculation factor). 

(4) The emissions test data and 

reports and the calculations used to 

determine the process-vent-specific 

emissions factor, including the actual 

process-vent-specific emission factor, 

the average hourly fluorinated GHG 

emission rate from the process vent 

during the test or the average 

fluorinated GHG emissions per batch 

and the process feed rate, process 

production rate, or other process 

activity rate during the test. 

(5) The calculations used to determine 

the process-vent-specific emissions 

calculation factor and the actual 

emissions calculation factor. 

(6) The ongoing monthly, campaign, 

or batch process production quantity 

and annual process production quantity 

or other process activity information in 

the appropriate units, along with the 

dates and time period during which the 

process was operating. 

(7) For continuous processes, identify 

whether the process was representative 

or whether it was another operating 

scenario. For batch processes, identify 

whether each batch operated was 

considered a typical batch or whether it 

was another operating scenario. For 

both continuous and batch processes, 

identify and provide the measurements 

during the test of the key process 

parameters that define the operating 

scenario (e.g., process equipment, 

process vents, destruction device)). 

(8) Calculations used to determine 

annual emissions of each fluorinated 

GHG for each process and the total 

fluorinated GHG emissions for all 

processes, i.e., total for facility. 

(9) The dates and time periods when 

the process vent emissions from a 

campaign or batch were vented to the 

destruction device. 

(c) Missing data records. Where 

missing data have been estimated 

pursuant to § 98.125, you shall record 

the reason the data were missing, the 

length of time the data were missing, the 

method used to estimate the missing 

data, and the estimates of those data. 

(d) 5-year process vent emission 

testing. A fluorinated GHG production 

facility that conducts process vent 

emission testing to determine processvent-specific emission factor for 

fluorinated GHGs shall retain the results 

of the emission testing, including data 

in § 98.124(c)(7) and: 

(1) Test methods used to determine 

the flow rate and fluorinated GHG 

concentrations of the process vent 

stream. 

(2) Flow rate of fluorinated GHG 

stream. 

(3) Concentration (mass fraction) of 

each fluorinated GHG. 

(4) Emission factor calculated from 

paragraph (b)(4) of this section in metric 

tons per activity. 

(e) 5-year destruction efficiency 

testing. A fluorinated GHG production 

facility that destroys fluorinated GHGs 

shall retain the emissions performance 

testing report containing the following 

information: 

(1) Destruction efficiency (DE) of each 

destruction device. 

(2) Test methods used to determine 

the destruction efficiency. 

(3) Methods used to record the mass 

of fluorinated GHG destroyed. 

(4) Chemical identity of the 

fluorinated GHG(s) used in the 

performance test conducted to 

determine DE. 

(5) Name of all applicable Federal or 

State regulations that may apply to the 

destruction process. 

(6) If process changes affect the 

destruction efficiency of the destruction 

device or the methods used to record 

mass of fluorinated GHG destroyed, 

then the revised emission testing report 

must be submitted to reflect the 

changes. The revised report must be 

submitted to EPA within 60 days of the 

change. 

(7) Records of test reports and other 

information documenting the facility’s 

five-year destruction efficiency report in 

§ 98.126(e) and (g). 

(f) Equipment leak records. If you are 

subject to § 98.123(c) of this subpart, 

you must maintain information on the 

number of each type of equipment; the 

service of each piece of equipment (gas, 

light liquid, heavy liquid); the 

concentration of each fluorinated GHG 

in the stream; the time period each 

piece of equipment was in service, and 

the emission calculations for each 

fluorinated GHG for all processes. 

Depending on which equipment leak 

monitoring approach you follow, you 

must maintain information for 

equipment on the associated screening 

data concentrations for greater than or 

equal to 10,000 ppmv and associated 

screening data concentrations for less 

than 10,000 ppmv; associated actual 

screening data concentrations; and 

associated screening data and leak rate 

data (i.e., bagging) used to develop a 

unit-specific correlation. 

(g) All facilities. Dated records 

documenting the initial and periodic 

calibration of the gas chromatographs, 

GC/MS, GC/ECD, FTIR, and NMR 

devices, weigh scales, flowmeters, and 

volumetric and density measures used 

to measure the quantities reported 

under this subpart, including the 

industry standards or manufacturer 

directions used for calibration pursuant 

to § 98.124(c), (e), (f), (k) and (l). 

§ 98.128 Definitions. 

Except as provided below, all of the 

terms used in this subpart have the 

same meaning given in the Clean Air 

Act and subpart A of this part. If a 

conflict exists between a definition 

provided in this subpart and a 

definition provided in subpart A, the 

definition in this subpart shall take 

precedence for the reporting 

requirements in this subpart. 

Batch process or batch operation 

means a noncontinuous operation 

involving intermittent or discontinuous 

feed into equipment, and, in general, 

involves the emptying of the equipment 

after the batch operation ceases and 

prior to beginning a new operation. 

Addition of raw material and 

withdrawal of product do not occur 

simultaneously in a batch operation. 

Batch emission episode means a 

discrete venting episode associated with 

a vessel in a process; a vessel may have 

more than one batch emission episode. 

For example, a displacement of vapor 

resulting from the charging of a vessel 

with a feed material will result in a 

discrete emission episode that will last 

through the duration of the charge and 

will have an average flow rate equal to 

the rate of the charge. If the vessel is 

then heated, there will also be another 

discrete emission episode resulting from 

the expulsion of expanded vapor. Other 

emission episodes also may occur from 

the same vessel and other vessels in the 

process, depending on process 

operations. 

Completely destroyed means 

destroyed with a destruction efficiency 

of 99.99 percent or greater. 

Completely recaptured means 99.99 

percent or greater of each fluorinated 

GHG is removed from a stream. 

Continuous process or operation 

means a process where the inputs and 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
18720 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

outputs flow continuously throughout 

the duration of the process. Continuous 

processes are typically steady state. 

Destruction process means a process 

used to destroy fluorinated GHG in a 

destruction device such as a thermal 

incinerator or catalytic oxidizer. 

Equipment (for the purposes of 40 

CFR part 98, subpart L only) means each 

pump, compressor, agitator, pressure 

relief device, sampling connection 

system, open-ended valve or line, valve, 

connector, and instrumentation system 

in fluorinated GHG service for a process 

subject to this subpart; and any 

destruction devices or closed-vent 

systems to which processes subject to 

this subpart are vented. 

Fluorinated gas means any 

fluorinated GHG, CFC, or HCFC. 

In fluorinated GHG service means that 

a piece of equipment either contains or 

contacts a feedstock, byproduct, or 

product that contains fluorinated GHG. 

Isolated intermediate means a product 

of a process that is stored before 

subsequent processing. An isolated 

intermediate is usually a product of 

chemical synthesis. Storage of an 

isolated intermediate marks the end of 

a process. Storage occurs at any time the 

intermediate is placed in equipment 

used solely for storage. 

Operating scenario means any 

specific operation of a process and 

includes for each process: (1) A 

description of the process and the 

specific process equipment used; (2) An 

identification of related process vents, 

their associated emissions episodes and 

durations, and calculations and 

engineering analyses to show the annual 

uncontrolled fluorinated GHG emissions 

from the process vent; (3) The control or 

destruction devices used, as applicable, 

including a description of operating 

and/or testing conditions for any 

associated destruction device; (4) The 

process vents (including those from 

other processes) that are simultaneously 

routed to the control or destruction 

device(s); and (5) The applicable 

monitoring requirements and any 

parametric level that assures destruction 

or removal for all emissions routed to 

the control or destruction device. A 

change to any of these elements not 

previously reported, except for item (4) 

of this definition, shall constitute a 

different operating scenario. 

Process means all equipment which 

collectively function to produce a 

fluorinated gas product, including an 

isolated intermediate (which is also a 

fluorinated gas product), or to transform 

a fluorinated gas product. A process 

may consist of one or more unit 

operations. For the purposes of this 

subpart, process includes any, all, or a 

combination of reaction, recovery, 

separation, purification, or other 

activity, operation, manufacture, or 

treatment which are used to produce a 

fluorinated gas product. For a 

continuous process, cleaning operations 

conducted may be considered part of 

the process, at the discretion of the 

facility. For a batch process, cleaning 

operations are part of the process. 

Ancillary activities are not considered a 

process or part of any process under this 

subpart. Ancillary activities include 

boilers and incinerators, chillers and 

refrigeration systems, and other 

equipment and activities that are not 

directly involved (i.e., they operate 

within a closed system and materials are 

not combined with process fluids) in the 

processing of raw materials or the 

manufacturing of a fluorinated gas 

product. 

Process condenser means a condenser 

whose primary purpose is to recover 

material as an integral part of a process. 

All condensers recovering condensate 

from a process vent at or above the 

boiling point or all condensers in line 

prior to a vacuum source are considered 

process condensers. Typically, a 

primary condenser or condensers in 

series are considered to be integral to 

the process if they are capable of and 

normally used for the purpose of 

recovering chemicals for fuel value (i.e., 

net positive heating value), use, reuse or 

for sale for fuel value, use, or reuse. 

Process vent (for the purposes of 40 

CFR part 98, subpart L only) means a 

vent from a process vessel or vents from 

multiple process vessels within a 

process that are manifolded together 

into a common header, through which 

a fluorinated GHG-containing gas stream 

is, or has the potential to be, released to 

the atmosphere. Examples of process 

vents include, but are not limited to, 

vents on condensers used for product 

recovery, bottoms receivers, surge 

control vessels, reactors, filters, 

centrifuges, and process tanks. Process 

vents do not include vents on storage 

tanks or pieces of equipment. 

Typical batch means a batch process 

operated within a range of operating 

conditions that are documented in an 

operating scenario. Emissions from a 

typical batch are based on the operating 

conditions that result in representative 

emissions. The typical batch defines the 

uncontrolled emissions for each 

emission episode defined under the 

operating scenario. 

Uncontrolled fluorinated GHG 

emissions means a gas stream 

containing fluorinated GHG which has 

exited the process (or process 

condenser, where applicable), but 

which has not yet been introduced into 

a destruction device to reduce the mass 

of fluorinated GHG in the stream. If the 

emissions from the process are not 

routed to a destruction device, 

uncontrolled emissions are those 

fluorinated GHG emissions released to 

the atmosphere. 

5. Add subpart QQ to read as follows: 

Subpart QQ—Importers and Exporters of 

Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases Contained 

in Pre-Charged Equipment or Closed-Cell 

Foams 

Sec. 

98.430 Definition of the source category. 

98.431 Reporting threshold. 

98.432 GHGs to report. 

98.433 Calculating GHG emissions. 

98.434 Monitoring and QA/QC 

requirements. 

98.435 Procedures for estimating missing 

data. 

98.436 Data reporting requirements. 

98.437 Records that must be retained. 

98.438 Definitions. 

Subpart QQ—Importers and Exporters 

of Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases 

Contained in Pre-Charged Equipment 

or Closed-Cell Foams 

§ 98.430 Definition of the source category. 

(a) The source category, importers and 

exporters of fluorinated GHGs contained 

in pre-charged equipment or closed-cell 

foams, consists of the following 

suppliers: any entity that is importing or 

exporting pre-charged equipment that 

contains a fluorinated GHG, and any 

entity that is importing or exporting 

closed-cell foams that contain a 

fluorinated GHG. 

§ 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 quantity of each 

fluorinated GHG contained in precharged equipment or closed-cell foams 

that you import or export during the 

calendar year. 

§ 98.433 Calculating GHG contained in 

pre-charged equipment or closed-cell 

foams. 

(a) The total mass of each fluorinated 

GHG imported and exported inside 

equipment or foams shall be estimated 

using Equation QQ–1 of this section: 

I= S N t t

t

∑ ∗ ∗ 0 001 . (Eq. QQ-1)

Where: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4EP12AP10.077</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18721 

I = Total mass of the fluorinated GHG 

imported or exported by the entity 

annually (metric tons) 

t = Type of equipment/foam containing the 

fluorinated GHG 

St = Mass of fluorinated GHG per unit of 

equipment or foam type t (charge per 

piece of equipment or kg/cubic foot of 

foam, kg) 

Nt = Number of units of equipment or foam 

type t imported or exported annually 

(pieces of equipment or cubic feet of 

foam) 

0.001 = Factor converting kg to metric tons 

§ 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)(3) for best 

available monitoring methods rather 

than follow the monitoring 

requirements of this section. For 

purposes of this subpart, any reference 

to the year 2010 in § 98.3(d)(1) through 

(3) shall mean 2011. 

(b) The inputs to the annual 

submission shall be reviewed against 

the import or export transaction records 

to ensure that the information submitted 

to EPA is being accurately transcribed as 

the correct chemical or blend in the 

correct pre-charged equipment or 

closed-cell foam in the correct 

quantities (metric tons) and units (cubic 

feet and kg/cubic foot). 

§ 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 shall submit an 

annual report that summarizes its 

imports at the corporate level, except for 

transshipments, as specified: 

(1) Total mass in metric tons of each 

fluorinated GHG imported in precharged equipment or closed-cell foams. 

(2) For each type of pre-charged 

equipment, the identity of the 

fluorinated GHG used as a refrigerant or 

electrical insulator, charge size (holding 

charge, if applicable), and number 

imported. 

(3) For closed-cell foams that are 

imported inside of appliances, the 

identity of the fluorinated GHG 

contained in the foam, the quantity of 

fluorinated GHG contained in the foam 

in each appliance, and the number of 

appliances imported for each type of 

appliance. 

(4) For imported closed cell-foams 

that are not imported inside of 

appliances, the identity of the 

fluorinated GHG, the density of the 

fluorinated GHG in the foam (kg 

fluorinated GHG/cubic foot), and the 

quantity of foam imported (cubic feet) 

for each type of closed-cell foam. 

(5) Dates on which the pre-charged 

equipment or closed-cell foams were 

imported. 

(6) Ports of entry through which the 

pre-charged equipment or closed-cell 

foams passed. 

(7) Countries from which the precharged equipment or closed-cell foams 

were imported. 

(b) Each exporter of fluorinated GHGs 

contained in pre-charged equipment or 

closed-cell foams shall submit an 

annual report that summarizes its 

exports at the corporate level, except for 

transshipments, as specified: 

(1) Total mass in metric tons of each 

fluorinated GHG exported in precharged equipment or closed-cell foams. 

(2) For each type of pre-charged 

equipment, the identity of the 

fluorinated GHG used as a refrigerant or 

electrical insulator, charge size 

(including holding charge, if 

applicable), and number exported. (3) 

For closed-cell foams that are exported 

inside of appliances, the identity of the 

fluorinated GHG contained in the foam, 

the quantity of fluorinated GHG 

contained in the foam in each 

appliance, and the number of 

appliances exported for each type of 

appliance. 

(4) For exported closed cell-foams that 

are not exported inside of appliances, 

the identity of the fluorinated GHG, the 

density of the fluorinated GHG in the 

foam (kg fluorinated GHG/cubic foot), 

and the quantity of foam exported 

(cubic feet) for each type of closed-cell 

foam. 

(5) Dates on which the pre-charged 

equipment or closed-cell foams were 

exported. 

(6) Ports of exit through which the 

pre-charged equipment or closed-cell 

foams passed. 

(7) Countries to which the precharged equipment or closed-cell foams 

were exported. 

§ 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 shall retain the following 

records substantiating each of the 

imports that they report: 

(1) A copy of the bill of lading for the 

import. 

(2) The invoice for the import. 

(3) The U.S. Customs entry form. 

(b) In addition to the data required by 

§ 98.3(g), exporters of fluorinated GHGs 

in pre-charged equipment and closedcell foams shall retain the following 

records substantiating each of the 

exports that they report: 

(1) A copy of the bill of lading for the 

export and 

(2) The invoice for the export. 

(c) Persons who transship pre-charged 

equipment and closed cell foams 

containing fluorinated GHGs shall 

maintain records that indicated that the 

pre-charged equipment or foam 

originated in a foreign country and was 

destined for another foreign country and 

did not enter into commerce in the 

United States. 

§ 98.438 Definitions. 

Except as provided below, all of the 

terms used in this subpart have the 

same meaning given in the Clean Air 

Act and subpart A of this part. If a 

conflict exists between a definition 

provided in this subpart and a 

definition provided in subpart A, the 

definition in this subpart shall take 

precedence for the reporting 

requirements in this subpart. 

Appliance means any device which 

contains and uses a fluorinated 

greenhouse gas refrigerant and which is 

used for household or commercial 

purposes, including any air conditioner, 

refrigerator, chiller, or freezer. 

Closed cell foam means any foam 

product constructed with a closed cell 

structure and a blowing agent 

containing a fluorinated GHG, including 

but not limited to polyurethane (PU) 

appliance foam, PU continuous and 

discontinuous panel foam, PU one 

component foam, PU spray foam, 

extruded polystyrene (XPS) boardstock 

foam, and XPS sheet foam. 

Electrical Equipment means 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). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
18722 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 

distribution, or offer for sale or 

distribution in interstate commerce. 

This includes both equipment that 

contain the full charge necessary for 

operation and equipment that contain a 

partial ‘‘holding’’ charge of the 

fluorinated GHG (e.g., for shipment 

purposes). 

Pre-charged electrical equipment 

component means any portion of 

electrical equipment that is charged 

with SF6 or PFCs prior to sale or 

distribution or offer for sale or 

distribution in interstate commerce. 

6. Add subpart SS to read as follows: 

Subpart SS—Sulfur Hexafluoride and 

Perfluorocarbons From Electrical 

Equipment Manufacture or Refurbishment 

Sec. 

98.450 Definition of the source category. 

98.451 Reporting threshold. 

98.452 GHGs to report. 

98.453 Calculating GHG emissions. 

98.454 Monitoring and QA/QC 

requirements. 

98.455 Procedures for estimating missing 

data. 

98.456 Data reporting requirements. 

98.457 Records that must be retained. 

98.458 Definitions 

Subpart SS—Sulfur Hexafluoride and 

Perfluorocarbons From Electrical 

Equipment Manufacture or 

Refurbishment 

§ 98.450 Definition of the source category. 

The electrical equipment 

manufacturing category consists of 

processes that manufacture or refurbish 

gas-insulated substations, circuit 

breakers, other switchgear, gas-insulated 

lines, or power transformers (including 

gas-containing components of such 

equipment) containing sulfurhexafluoride (SF6) or perfluorocarbons 

(PFCs). 

§ 98.451 Reporting threshold. 

You must report GHG emissions 

under this subpart if your facility 

contains an electrical equipment 

manufacturing process and the facility 

meets the requirements of either 

§ 98.2(a)(1) or (a)(2). 

§ 98.452 GHGs to report. 

(a) You must report annual SF6 and 

PFC emissions (including emissions 

from equipment testing, manufacturing, 

decommissioning and disposal, 

refurbishing, and from storage cylinders 

and other containers) from any facility 

associated with the manufacture or 

refurbishment of closed-pressure and 

sealed-pressure equipment (including 

components of such equipment). 

(b) You must report CO2, N2O and 

CH4 combustion-related emissions from 

each stationary combustion unit. You 

must calculate and report these 

emissions under subpart C of this part 

(General Stationary Fuel Combustion 

Sources) by following the requirements 

of subpart C. 

§ 98.453 Calculating GHG emissions. 

(a) For each electrical equipment 

manufacturer, you must estimate the 

annual SF6 and PFC emissions using the 

mass-balance approach in Equation SS– 

1 of this section: 

User Emissions = Decrease in SF Acquisitions 6 ( ) Inventory + of SF Disbursements of SF (Eq. SS-1) ( ) 6 6 − ( )

Where: 

Decrease in SF6 Inventory = (SF6 stored in 

containers at the beginning of the year)— 

(SF6 stored in containers at the end of 

the year). 

Acquisitions of SF6 = (SF6 purchased from 

chemical producers or distributors in 

bulk) + (SF6 returned by equipment users 

or distributors in equipment or 

containers) + (SF6 returned to site after 

off-site recycling). 

Disbursements of SF6 = (SF6 contained in 

new equipment delivered to customers) 

+ (SF6 delivered to equipment users in 

containers) + (SF6 returned to suppliers) 

+ (SF6 sent off site for recycling) + (SF6

sent to destruction facilities). 

(b) The mass-balance method in 

paragraph (a) of this section shall be 

used to estimate emissions of PFCs 

associated with the manufacture or 

refurbishment of power transformers, 

substituting the relevant PFC(s) for SF6

in Equation SS–1. 

(c) The disbursements of SF6 or PFCs 

to customers in new equipment or 

cylinders shall be estimated using 

Equation SS–2 of this section: 

D Q GHG p

p

n

=

=

∑

1

(Eq. SS-2)

Where: 

DGHG = The disbursement of SF6 or PFCs 

over the period to customers in new 

equipment or cylinders. 

Qp = The mass of the SF6 or PFCs charged 

into equipment or containers over the 

period p sent to customers or sent off-site 

for other purposes including for 

recycling, for destruction or to be 

returned to suppliers. 

n = The number of periods in the year. 

(d) The mass of SF6 or PFCs disbursed 

to customers in new equipment or 

cylinders over the period p may be 

estimated by monitoring the mass flow 

of the SF6 or PFCs into the new 

equipment or cylinders using a flow 

meter or by weighing containers before 

and after gas from containers is used to 

fill equipment or cylinders. 

(e) If the mass of SF6 or the PFC 

disbursed to customers in new 

equipment or cylinders over the period 

p is estimated by weighing containers 

before and after gas from containers is 

used to fill equipment or cylinders, this 

quantity shall be estimated by using 

Equation SS–3 of this section: 

QMME p B EL =−− (Eq. SS-3)

Where: 

Qp = The mass of SF6 or the PFC disbursed 

to customers over the period p. 

MB = The mass of the contents of the 

containers used to fill equipment or 

cylinders at the beginning of period p. 

ME = The mass of the contents of the 

containers used to fill equipment or 

cylinders at the end of period p. 

EL = The mass of SF6 or the PFC emitted 

during the period p downstream of the 

containers used to fill equipment or 

cylinders (e.g., emissions from hoses or 

other flow lines that connect the 

container to the equipment or cylinder 

that is being filled). 

(f) If the mass of SF6 or the PFC 

disbursed to customers in new 

equipment or cylinders over the period 

p is determined using a flow meter, this 

quantity shall be estimated using 

Equation SS–4 of this section: 

QM E p mr L = − (Eq. SS-4)

Where: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4EP12AP10.078</MATH> EP12AP10.079</MATH> EP12AP10.080</MATH> EP12AP10.081</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18723 

Qp = The mass of SF6 or the PFC disbursed 

to customers over the period p. 

Mmr = The mass of the SF6 or the PFC that 

has flowed through the flow meter 

during the period p. 

EL = The mass of SF6 or the PFC emitted 

downstream of the flowmeter during the 

period p (e.g., emissions from hoses or 

other flow lines that connect the 

container to the equipment that is being 

filled). 

§ 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)(3) for best 

available monitoring methods rather 

than follow the monitoring 

requirements of this section. For 

purposes of subpart SS any reference to 

the year 2010 in § 98.3(d)(1) through 

(d)(3) shall mean 2011. 

(b) Ensure that all the quantities 

required by the equations of this subpart 

have been measured using scales or flow 

meters that are certified with an 

accuracy and precision to within one 

percent of the true mass or weight or 

better, and is periodically recalibrated 

per the manufacturer’s specifications. 

Account for the tare weights of the 

containers. Either measure new or 

residual gas (the amount of gas 

remaining in returned cylinders) or have 

the gas supplier measure them. If the gas 

supplier weighs the new or residual gas, 

obtain from the gas supplier a detailed 

monthly accounting, within 1 percent, 

of new or residual gas amounts in the 

cylinders returned to the gas supplier. 

You remain responsible for the accuracy 

of these masses and weights under this 

subpart. 

(c) For purposes of Equations SS–3 

and SS–4 of this subpart, the mass of 

SF6 or the PFC emitted downstream of 

the container or flowmeter during the 

period p shall be estimated using 

measurements and/or engineering 

assessments or calculations based on 

chemical engineering principles or 

physical or chemical laws or properties. 

Such assessments or calculations may 

be based on, as applicable, the internal 

volume of hose or line that is open to 

the atmosphere during coupling and 

decoupling activities, the internal 

pressure of the hose or line, the time the 

hose or line is open to the atmosphere 

during coupling and decoupling 

activities, the frequency with which the 

hose or line is purged and the flow rate 

during purges. The estimated mass of 

SF6 or the PFC emitted downstream of 

the container or flowmeter during the 

period p shall include unexpected or 

accidental losses. 

(d) Calibrate all flow meters, weigh 

scales, and combinations of volumetric 

and density measures that are used to 

measure or calculate quantities that are 

to be reported under this subpart prior 

to the first year for which GHG 

emissions are reported under this part. 

Calibrations performed prior to the 

effective date of this rule satisfy this 

requirement. Recalibrate all flow meters, 

weigh scales, and combinations of 

volumetric and density measures at the 

minimum frequency specified by the 

manufacturer. Use National Institute of 

Standards and Technology-traceable 

standards and suitable methods 

published by a consensus standards 

organization (e.g., ASTM, ASME, ISO, 

or others). 

(e) Ensure the following QA/QC 

methods are employed throughout the 

year: 

(1) Ensure that procedures are in 

place and followed to track and weigh 

all cylinders or other containers at the 

beginning and end of the year. 

(2) Ensure all domestic electrical 

equipment manufacturing locations 

have provided information to the 

manager compiling the emissions report 

(if it is not already handled through an 

electronic inventory system). 

(f) You must adhere to the following 

QA/QC methods for reviewing the 

completeness and accuracy of reporting: 

(1) Review inputs to Equation SS–1 of 

this subpart to ensure inputs and 

outputs to the company’s system are 

included. 

(2) Do not enter negative inputs and 

confirm that negative emissions are not 

calculated. However, the decrease in 

SF6 inventory may be calculated as 

negative. 

(3) Ensure that beginning-of-year 

inventory matches end-of-year 

inventory from the previous year. 

(4) Ensure that in addition to SF6

purchased from bulk gas distributors, 

SF6 returned from equipment users with 

or inside equipment and SF6 returned 

from off-site recycling are also 

accounted for among the total additions. 

§ 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 

at each facility level, by chemical: 

(a) SF6 and PFC sales and purchases. 

(b) SF6 and PFCs sent off site for 

destruction. 

(c) SF6 and PFCs sent off site to be 

recycled. 

(d) SF6 and PFCs returned from off 

site after recycling. 

(e) SF6 and PFCs returned by 

equipment users with or inside 

equipment. 

(f) SF6 and PFCs stored in containers 

at the beginning and end of the year. 

(g) SF6 and PFCs inside equipment 

delivered to customers. 

(h) SF6 and PFCs returned to 

suppliers. 

(i) The nameplate capacity of the 

equipment delivered to customers with 

SF6 or PFCs inside, if different from the 

quantity in paragraph (g) of this section. 

(j) A description of the engineering 

methods and calculations used to 

determine emissions from hoses or other 

flow lines that connect the container to 

the equipment that is being filled. 

(k) For any missing data, you must 

report the reason the data were missing, 

the length of time the data were missing, 

the method used to estimate emissions 

in their absence, and the quantity of 

emissions thereby estimated. 

§ 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) Check-out and weigh-in sheets and 

procedures for cylinders. 

(d) Residual gas amounts in cylinders 

sent back to suppliers. 

(e) Invoices for gas purchases and 

sales. 

§ 98.458 Definitions. 

All terms used in this subpart have 

the same meaning given in the Clean Air 

Act and subpart A of this part. 

[FR Doc. 2010–6768 Filed 4–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4