August 2012

Economic Impact Analysis for the 

Mandatory Reporting of 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

F-Gases: Subpart I

Final Report

Prepared for

Alexis McKittrick

Climate Change Division

EPA—Office of Air & Radiation

Prepared by

Tony Lentz

Carrie Richardson Fry

Chris Sichko

RTI International

3040 Cornwallis Road

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

RTI Project Number 0210826.029.000.009
iii

CONTENTS

Section Page

1 Introduction and Background ....................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Background.......................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Proposed Rule—Grant for Reconsideration ........................................................ 1-1

1.3 Economic Analysis .............................................................................................. 1-3

2 Regulatory Background ................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1 The EPA’s Overall Rulemaking Approach.......................................................... 2-1

2.1.1 Timing of Proposed Rule Implementation............................................... 2-1

2.2 Legal Authority.................................................................................................... 2-2

2.3 Existing Reporting Programs............................................................................... 2-3

3 Development of Subpart I............................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Affected Entities .................................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 Summary of Major Changes—Petition of Reconsideration ................................ 3-2

4 Engineering Cost Analysis............................................................................................ 4-1

4.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Overview of Cost Analysis.................................................................................. 4-2

4.2.1 Baseline Reporting................................................................................... 4-3

4.2.2 Reporting Costs........................................................................................ 4-3

4.3 Cost Analysis for Subpart I—Electronics Manufacturers ................................... 4-6

4.3.1 Model Facility Development ................................................................... 4-6

4.3.2 Determination of Cost Elements.............................................................. 4-7

4.3.3 Proportion of Facilities in the Different Model Facility Levels .............. 4-9

4.3.4 Assigning Costs to Cost Elements......................................................... 4-10
iv

5 Economic Impact Analysis........................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Change in National Cost Estimates...................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Economic Impact Analysis.................................................................................. 5-1

5.2.1 Overall Method of Assessing Economic Impacts.................................... 5-2

5.2.2 Assessing Economic Impacts on Small Entities...................................... 5-2

5.3 Synopsis of Benefits .......................................................................................... 5-12

6 Statutory and Executive Order Reviews....................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review ................................. 6-1

6.2 Paperwork Reduction Act.................................................................................... 6-1

6.3 Regulatory Flexibility Act ................................................................................... 6-2

6.3.1 Identify Affected Sectors and Entities..................................................... 6-2

6.3.2 Develop Small Entity Economic Impact Measures ................................. 6-2

6.3.3 Results of Screening Analysis ................................................................. 6-3

6.4 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act......................................................................... 6-4

6.5 Executive Order 13132: Federalism .................................................................... 6-5

6.6 Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments........................................................................................................ 6-5

6.7 Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental 

Health and Safety Risks....................................................................................... 6-6

6.8 Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use.............................................................................................. 6-6

6.9 National Technology Transfer Advancement Act ............................................... 6-6

6.10 Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice 

in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations....................................... 6-8

7 Conclusions................................................................................................................... 6-1

7.1 Summary.............................................................................................................. 6-1

7.2 Estimated Costs and Impacts of the GHG Reporting Program............................ 6-1

8 References..................................................................................................................... 6-1
v

LIST OF TABLES

Number Page

Table 3-1. Examples of Affected Entities by Category............................................. 3-2

Table 3-2. Summary Table: Proposed Changes Based on Petition for 

Reconsideration and Petitioner’s May 26, 2011 letter.................................................. 3-3

Table 3-3. Summary Table: Methods for Electronics Manufacturing Facilities....... 3-6

Table 4-1. Labor Categories and Hourly Rates (in $2011)....................................... 4-5

Table 4-2. Number of Representative Affected Fabs Used in the Cost 

Analysis 4-9

Table 4-3. Subpart I—Default Emission Factor Labor Costs (2011 dollars).......... 4-11

Table 4-4. Subpart I—Optional Stack Testing Method Labor Costs (2011 

dollars) 4-13

Table 5-1. National Cost Estimates........................................................................... 5-1

Table 5-2. Number of Establishments by Affected Industry and Enterprisea

Size: 2007 5-3

Table 5-3. Receipts by Affected Industry and EnterpriseaSize: 2007 

(Thousands of 2011$)b.................................................................................................. 5-4

Table 5-4. Primary Analysis: Establishment Sales Tests by Industry and 

EnterpriseaSize: Default Factor First Year Costs......................................................... 5-7

Table 5-5. Primary Analysis: Establishment Sales Tests by Industry and 

EnterpriseaSize: Default Factor Second Year Costs.................................................... 5-8

Table 5-6. Sensitivity Analysis: Establishment Sales Tests by Industry and 

EnterpriseaSize: Stack Testing First Year Costs.......................................................... 5-9

Table 5-7. Sensitivity Analysis: Establishment Sales Tests by Industry and 

EnterpriseaSize: Stack Testing Second Year Costs.................................................... 5-10

Table 5-8. Secondary Data Analysis: Parent Company Sales Test Ratios.............. 5-12
1-1

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.1 Background

On December 26, 2007, President Bush signed the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations 

Act authorizing funding for the EPA to issue a rule requiring the mandatory reporting of 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. No.110-161, 

121 Stat 1844, 2128 (2008)). An accompanying joint explanatory statement directed the EPA to 

“use its existing authority under the Clean Air Act” to develop a mandatory GHG reporting rule.

The Final Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (Final GHG Reporting Rule) (40 CFR part 98) 

was signed on September 22, 2009 by Administrator Lisa Jackson and published in the Federal

Register on October 30, 2009 (74 FR 56260). The Final GHG Reporting Rule, which became 

effective on December 29, 2009, included reporting of GHGs from the facilities and suppliers 

that the EPA determined appropriately responded to the direction in the 2008 Consolidated 

Appropriations Act. These source categories capture approximately 85 percent of U.S. GHG 

emissions through reporting by certain downstream facilities that emit GHG, as well as certain 

upstream suppliers of products that will result in GHG emissions when combusted, released or 

oxidized.

The GHG reporting requirements for subpart I were initially proposed on April 10, 2009 

(74 FR 16448) along with reporting requirements for 39 other source categories and the general 

provisions for the EPA’s GHG reporting program. The EPA did not, however, include subpart I 

in the Final GHG Reporting Rule (74 FR 56260). Instead, the EPA re-proposed the data 

reporting requirements for subpart I on April 12, 2010 (75 FR 18652). The data reporting 

requirements for subpart I were finalized on December 1, 2010 (75 FR 74774) as an amendment 

to Part 98.

1.2 Proposed Rule—Grant for Reconsideration

Following the publication of the final subpart I rule in the Federal Register, the 

Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) submitted an administrative petition on January 31, 

2011 titled “Petition for Reconsideration and Request for Stay Pending Reconsideration of 

subpart I of the Final Rule for Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases” (“Petition for 

Reconsideration”), requesting reconsideration of numerous provisions in the final rule. Since that 

petition was filed, the EPA has published actions related to subpart I.
1-2

 Final rule: Additional Sources of Fluorinated GHGs: Extension of Best Available 

Monitoring Provisions for Electronics Manufacturing (76 FR 36339, June 22, 2011). 

Granted the Petition for Reconsideration with respect to the provisions for the use of 

Best Available Monitoring Methods (BAMM). Extended three of the deadlines in 

subpart I related to using the (BAMM) provisions from June 30, 2011 to 

September 30, 2011.

 Final rule: Changes to Provisions for Electronics Manufacturing to Provide Flexibility

(76 FR 5942, September 27, 2011). Amended the calculation and monitoring 

provisions for the largest semiconductor manufacturing facilities to provide flexibility

through the end of 2013 and extended two deadlines in the BAMM provisions.

 Proposed rule: Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for subpart I and Proposed 

Amendments to Subpart I Best Available Monitoring Methods Provisions (77 FR 

10434, February 22, 2012). Re-proposed confidentiality determinations for data 

elements in subpart I and proposed amendments to the provisions regarding the 

calculation and reporting of emissions from facilities that use BAMM.

 Final rule: Revisions to Heat Transfer Fluid Provisions (77 FR 10373, February 22, 

2012). Final rule amended the definition of fluorinated heat transfer fluids 

(fluorinated HTFs) and the provisions to estimate and report emissions from 

fluorinated HTFs.

 Final rule: Confidentiality Determinations for Subpart I and Amendments to Subpart 

I Best Available Monitoring Methods Provisions (77 FR XXXXX, published 

XXXXX XX, 2012). Final confidentiality determinations for data elements in subpart

I and final amendments to the provisions regarding the calculation and reporting of 

emissions from facilities that use BAMM.

In today’s proposed rule, the EPA is granting reconsideration on the remaining issues in 

the Petition for Reconsideration. Section 3 of this document discusses the specific issues raised 

in the Petition for Reconsideration and the changes the EPA is proposing in response to the 

petition.

In summary, the major changes we are proposing will reduce industry reporting burden 

by providing all facilities with the choice of two calculation methods and removing the option

for certain facilities to determine and use recipe-specific gas utilization rates and by-product 

formation rates. The proposed rule would provide the option for reporters to either (1) use default 

gas utilization rates or by-product formation rates, which have been revised for semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities to reflect new industry data provided to the EPA, or (2) conduct stack 

testing to establish site-specific emission factors (EFs) for fluorinated GHGs (F-GHGs) that 

would be used to calculate F-GHG emissions. The proposed amendments would ensure that the 

EPA receives high quality and current facility-specific data. The proposed amendments also 
1-3

include provisions for the periodic review of industry advancements and changes that may

impact the default gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates and default destruction 

and removal efficiency (DRE) values used to estimate emissions, to ensure the continued 

collection of data that represent current industry practices. Additionally, the proposed stack 

testing approach allows for estimation of emissions based on periodic direct measurements of 

stack emissions from facilities. These proposed amendments would allow the EPA to accurately 

characterize and analyze GHG emissions from the electronics manufacturing industry.

1.3 Economic Analysis

This economic impact analysis considers the costs and benefits of today’s proposed 

rulemaking and is intended to provide a measure of the costs of using resources to comply with 

the proposed GHG reporting requirements. This report documents the methods and results and 

proceeds as follows: Section 2 describes the current regulatory context into which the new rule 

will be integrated. Section 3 explains the development process for subpart I, and Section 4 details 

the individual cost analyses methodology used to evaluate the regulation. Section 5 presents the 

results of the economic impact analysis. Section 5 also qualitatively describes the benefits of the 

proposal. A review of executive orders is provided in Section 6, which is followed by a brief 

Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) summary and conclusion in Section 7.
2-1

SECTION 2

REGULATORY BACKGROUND

The EPA is proposing amendments to the calculation and monitoring methodologies for 

subpart I, Electronics Manufacturing, of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP). 

Changes include revising certain calculation methods, amending data reporting requirements,

and clarifying terms and definitions. The EPA is proposing these amendments to (1) improve 

calculation methods and data requirements to better reflect new industry data and current 

practice; (2) provide additional calculation methods to allow individual facilities to choose the 

method best suited for their operations; (3) provide flexibility in implementation to balance the 

burden associated with existing requirements; and (4) address sensitive business information 

concerns raised by SIA, while ensuring that reporters continue to provide the EPA with reliable 

facility specific GHG data. Many of the proposed changes are in response to the Petition for 

Reconsideration referenced in Section 1.

2.1 The EPA’s Overall Rulemaking Approach

The purpose of the GHGRP is to collect comprehensive and accurate data which will 

inform future climate change policies. To this end, the EPA identified the following goals of the 

GHGRP:

 Obtain data that is of sufficient quality that it can be used to support a range of future 

climate change policies and regulations.

 Balance the rule coverage to maximize the amount of emissions reported while 

excluding small emitters.

 Create reporting requirements that are consistent with existing GHG reporting 

programs by using existing GHG emission estimation and reporting methodologies to 

reduce reporting burden, where feasible.

2.1.1 Timing of Proposed Rule Implementation

The EPA has requested comments on today’s proposed amendments to subpart I and 

intends to address them and publish the final amendments in 2013. The proposed amendments 

would become effective on January 1, 2014 and facilities would be required to follow one of the 

new methods to estimate emissions beginning in 2014. The first reports of emissions estimated 

using the new methods would be submitted in 2015. However, for the reports for emissions in 

2012 and 2013 that are submitted in 2013 and 2014, respectively, reporters would be expected to 

calculate emissions and other relevant data using the existing requirements under part 98.
2-2

Given the extent of the proposed changes, the EPA has determined that it is not feasible 

for sources to implement these changes for the data collected in 2013 and reported in 2014. 

Although the proposed revisions are expected to reduce compliance costs by changing and 

replacing existing calculation methods and regulatory requirements, time is nonetheless needed 

because these changes would greatly affect how emissions are calculated and the type of data 

that would be reported. For example, the EPA is proposing to give facilities the option of using a 

new stack testing method to measure and calculate facility F-GHG emissions, to revise process 

categories and associated emission factors, and to remove existing methods to calculate 

emissions using recipe-specific emission factors. Because of the potential change in data 

collection requirements compared to those established by the December 1, 2010 final subpart I 

rule, the EPA does not anticipate that facilities would have enough time to schedule stack tests, 

revise their current tracking and monitoring methods, or revise the data collection methods for 

the 2013 reporting year.

Furthermore, because the proposed rule may not be finalized until the second half of 

2013, reporters using the current methods in subpart I would continue to use these methods for 

collecting data and calculating emissions until the end of 2013. Reporters would need to select 

new calculation methods based on the revisions that the EPA finalizes from today’s action after 

the effective date of the final rule (expected January 1, 2014).

2.2 Legal Authority

The EPA is proposing rule amendments to Part 98 under its existing CAA authority, 

specifically authorities provided in CAA section 114. As stated in the preamble to the 2009 final 

rule (74 FR 56260, October 30, 2009) and the Response to Comments on the Proposed Rule, 

Volume 9, Legal Issues, CAA section 114 provides the EPA broad authority to obtain the 

information in Part 98, including subpart I, because such data would inform and are relevant to 

the EPA’s carrying out a wide variety of CAA provisions. As discussed in the preamble to the 

initial Part 98 proposal (74 FR 16448, April 10, 2009), CAA section 114(a)(1) authorizes the 

Administrator to require emissions sources, persons subject to the CAA, manufacturers of 

control or process equipment, or persons whom the Administrator believes may have necessary

information to monitor and report emissions and provide such other information the 

Administrator requests for the purposes of carrying out any provision of the CAA.

In addition, the EPA is proposing confidentiality determinations for proposed data 

elements in subpart I, under its authorities provided in sections 114, 301 and 307 of the CAA. As 

mentioned above, CAA section 114 provides the EPA authority to obtain the information in Part 
2-3

98, including those in subpart I. Section 114(c) requires that the EPA make publicly available 

information obtained under section 114 except for information (excluding emission data) that 

qualify for confidential treatment.

The Administrator has determined that this action (proposed amendments and 

confidentiality determinations) is subject to the provisions of section 307(d) of the CAA.

2.3 Existing Reporting Programs

In addition to the federal GHGRP (40 CFR part 98), a number of voluntary and 

mandatory GHG programs already exist or are being developed at the state, regional, and federal 

levels. These programs have different scopes and purposes. Many focus on GHG emission 

reduction, whereas others are purely reporting programs. In addition to the GHG programs, other 

federal emission reporting programs and emission inventories are relevant to the GHG reporting 

rule. For example, since 1996, the EPA has operated a domestic voluntary partnership with the 

semiconductor industry aimed at reducing PFC emissions. As part of the partnership, a third 

party compiles data from participating semiconductor companies and submits an aggregate (not 

company-specific) annual PFC emissions report.

In developing the GHGRP, the EPA carefully reviewed the existing reporting programs, 

particularly with respect to emissions sources covered, thresholds, monitoring methods, 

frequency of reporting and verification. States may have, or intend to develop, reporting 

programs that are broader in scope or are more aggressive in implementation because those 

programs are either components of established reduction programs (e.g., cap and trade) or are 

being used to design and inform measures that reduced GHGs indirectly (e.g., energy efficiency). 

Where possible, the EPA built upon concepts in existing federal and state programs in 

developing the GHGRP. For a full summary of the reporting programs reviewed in the 

development of the mandatory reporting rule please see the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508).
3-1

SECTION 3

DEVELOPMENT OF SUBPART I

This section provides additional details about the development of subpart I in response to 

the Petition for Reconsideration and SIA’s May 26, 2011 letter supporting the development of 

the rule changes to provide flexibility that were finalized September 27, 2011. This section also 

provides a brief description of the affected entities and proposed changes in response to the 

Petition for Reconsideration and the proposed CBI determinations for emissions data.

3.1 Affected Entities

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 F-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 currently subject to subpart I, that is those that emit equal to or greater 

than 25,000 metric tons of CO2e per year from electronics manufacturing processes such as 

plasma etching, thin film deposition, chamber cleaning, and heat transfer fluid use. The proposed 

rule would (1) amend monitoring and calculation methodologies in Subpart I, (2) propose 

confidentiality determinations for the reporting of the new and revised data elements, and 

(3) amend subpart A, General Provisions, to reflect proposed changes to the reporting 

requirements in subpart I. For the purposes of this EIA, we will be examining only (1) above, 

because (2) and (3) will not significantly impact compliance costs.

Table 3-1 lists the types of entities that potentially could be affected by the reporting 

requirements under the subpart covered by this rule. However, this list is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding facilities likely to be affected by this 

action. Other types of facilities not listed in the table could also be subject to reporting 

requirements. To determine whether an entity is affected by this action, one should carefully 

examine the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR part 98, Subpart A as well as 40 CFR part 98, 

subpart I.
3-2

Table 3-1. Examples of Affected Entities by Category

Category NAICS Examples of Affected Facilities

Electronics 

Manufacturing 

334111 Microcomputers manufacturing facilities. 

334413 Semiconductor, photovoltaic (solid-state) device manufacturing 

facilities. 

334419 Liquid crystal display unit screens manufacturing facilities.

334419 Micro-electro-mechanical systems manufacturing facilities.

3.2 Summary of Major Changes—Petition of Reconsideration

Following consideration of the issues raised in the Petition for Reconsideration and data 

presented by stakeholders, the EPA is proposing certain amendments to subpart I. These 

amendments would revise certain calculation methods, modify data reporting requirements, 

clarify terms and definitions, and provide technical corrections. Table 3-2 presents a summary of 

the outstanding issues raised by petitioners and the corresponding proposed change to the rule. 

Section III.B of the preamble to the proposed rule provides further detail including the EPA’s 

rationale for each proposed change. Table 3-3 presents a summary of the existing and proposed

reporting methods. In addition to the monitoring amendments proposed in rule, the EPA 

proposes CBI determinations for the new data elements that would be added or significantly

revised by the proposed subpart I amendments (see Tables 3-2 and 3-3). The EPA currently plans 

to finalize these determinations after considering on public comment and concurrent with its 

finalization of the rule amendments to subpart I described above.
3-3

Table 3-2. Summary Table: Proposed Changes Based on Petition for Reconsideration and 

Petitioner’s May 26, 2011 letter 

Technical Issue Proposed Changes to Rule

Rows 2 and 12 apply to semiconductor facilities only. All other rows apply to all electronics manufacturing 

facilities. 

1. Addition of an emission estimation method 

as an alternative to recipe-specific emission 

factors. (See Section III.B.1)

Revising 40 CFR 98.93 to provide an option for using stack 

testing as an alternative method for determining fab-level 

emission factors for determining fab-level F-GHG emissions for 

all electronics manufacturing facilities. 

Revising 40 CFR 98.94 to 98.98 to include the monitoring 

methods, QA/QC, missing data, reporting, recordkeeping, and 

definition requirements for the stack testing alternative.

2. Revision of default gas utilization rates 

and by-product formation rates for the 

plasma etch process type for semiconductor 

manufacturing. (See Section III.B.2)

Revise 40 CFR 98.92(a) and 40 CFR 98.93(a)(2) and (a)(4) to 

combine wafer cleaning and plasma etch emission processes and 

associated gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates. 

Revise Tables I–3 and I–4 for semiconductor manufacturing with 

new gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates based on 

gas type and process type or sub-type using additional data 

submitted by the Petitioner.

3. Removing recipe-specific emission 

factors: Requirements for (1) largest 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities 

(defined as those facilities with annual 

manufacturing capacity of greater than 

10,500 m2of substrate) to use recipe-specific 

gas utilization rates and by-product formation 

rates to estimate emissions from plasma etch 

processes; and (2) semiconductor facilities 

using wafers greater than 300 mm diameter 

to estimate all of their emissions from 

processes that use fluorinated GHGs using 

recipe-specific gas utilization rates and byproduct formation rates. (See Section III.B.3)

Revising 40 CFR 98.93, 98.94, 98.96, and 98.97 to remove 

provisions to use recipe-specific gas utilization rates and byproduct formation rates and to combine the wafer cleaning 

process type with the plasma etch process type. Under this 

proposal, all semiconductor manufacturing facilities, regardless 

of manufacturing capacity, would have the option to use default 

gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates to estimate 

emissions from the plasma etching/wafer cleaning process type 

and from the following three subtypes of the chamber cleaning 

process type: in-situ plasma chamber cleaning, remote plasma 

chamber cleaning, and in-situ thermal chamber cleaning.

4. Calculation for determining manufacturing 

capacity. (See Section III.B.4)

Revising the terminology and definition of maximum designed 

substrate starts in 40 CFR 98.98 to be maximum substrate starts, 

meaning for the purposes of Equation I-5 in subpart I, the 

maximum quantity of substrates, expressed as surface area, that 

could be started each month in a reporting year based on the 

equipment installed in that facility and assuming that the 

equipment were fully utilized. Manufacturing equipment would 

be considered installed when it is on the manufacturing floor and 

connected to the required utilities.

5. Reporting provisions for facilities that 

have integrated production and research and 

development (R&D) activities. (See Section 

III.B.5)

Facilities would be allowed to report integrated production and 

R&D emissions and, if doing so, would be required to provide an 

estimate of the fraction of total emissions from their R&D 

activities under 40 CFR 98.96.

(continued)
3-4

Table 3-2. Summary Table: Proposed Changes Based on Petition for Reconsideration and 

Petitioner’s May 26, 2011 letter (continued)

Technical Issue Proposed Changes to Rule

6. Requirements for the accuracy and 

precision of the equipment measuring gas 

consumption. (See Section III.B.6)

Removing the requirement for one percent of full-scale accuracy 

for “all flow meters, weigh scales, pressure gauges and 

thermometers...” in 40 CFR 98.93(i) and referencing the 

calibration accuracy requirements in 40 CFR 98.3(i) for all 

measurement devices used to measure quantities that are 

monitored in subpart I.

7. Provisions for re-calculating the facilitywide gas specific heel factor and handling 

exceptional circumstances. (See Section 

III.B.7)

Revising the criteria for an “exceptional circumstance” in 40 

CFR 98.94(b)(4) from 20 percent of the original trigger point for 

change out to 50 percent for small cylinders (containing less than 

9.08 kilograms (20 pounds) of gas). For large containers, the 

“exceptional circumstance” would remain as a change out point 

that differs by 20 percent of the trigger point used to calculate the 

gas specific heel factor. Clarifying the requirements for 

recalculating the facility-wide heel factor.

8. Requirements for verifying the model used 

to apportion gas consumption. (See Section 

III.B.8)

Revising 40 CFR 98.94(c) to allow for development of 

apportioning factors by using direct measurements using gas flow

meters or weigh scales, to measure process sub-type, process 

type, stack system, or fab-specific input gas consumption. 

Revising 40 CFR 98.94(c)(2)(i) to allow reporters to select a 

period of the reporting year and its duration that is representative 

of normal operations for the model verification. The 

representative period would be at least 30 days in duration, and 

may be as long as one year. The model would be verified using 

the F-GHG used in the greatest quantity, and would be corrected 

if it does not meet the verification requirements. A facility would 

be able to use two F-GHG for model verification if they both 

meet the criteria and if at least one of them is used in the greatest 

quantity.

Increasing the maximum allowed difference between the 

modeled and actual gas consumption in the verification process 

from 5 percent to 20 percent.

9. Provisions for calculating N2O emissions. 

(See Section III.B.9)

Revising 40 CFR 98.93(b), 40 CFR 98.96(c)(3) and 40 CFR 

98.96(k) to clarify that facilities must calculate annual fab-level 

N2O emissions from the chemical vapor deposition (CVD) 

process type and from the aggregate of other electronics 

manufacturing production processes using default emission 

factors (facilities are not required to report emissions from each 

CVD process and from each other N2O using process).

10. Provisions for reporting controlled 

emissions from abatement systems. (See 

Section III.B.10)

Revising 40 CFR 98.94(f) to allow facilities to use either revised 

default destruction or removal efficiency (DRE) values or to 

establish a site-specific DRE value for each combination of input 

gas or by-product gas and process type or sub-type using directly 

measured DREs. Providing alternative methods for a facility to 

directly measure DRE.

(continued)
3-5

Table 3-2. Summary Table: Proposed Changes Based on Petition for Reconsideration and 

Petitioner’s May 26, 2011 letter (continued)

Technical Issue Proposed Changes to Rule

11. Provisions for determining and 

calculating abatement system uptime. (See 

Section III.B.11)

Revising Equation I-15 to allow reporters to calculate the average 

uptime for the group of systems for each combination of input 

gas or by-product gas and process type or sub-type, using the 

same process categories in which F-GHG use and emissions are 

calculated. Abatement system uptime monitoring and calculation 

would be simplified by assuming that connected process tools 

operate with F-GHGs or N2O flowing continuously once they are 

installed; this would apply for all methods (both default emission 

factors and stack testing).

12. Absence of a method for updating gas 

utilization rates and by-product formation 

rates and DRE values for semiconductor 

manufacturing. (See Section III.B.12)

Revising the data reporting requirements in 40 CFR 98.96 to 

require certain semiconductor manufacturing facilities to provide 

a report to the EPA every 3 years covering technology changes at 

the facility that may affect gas utilization rates and by-product 

formation rates or DRE values.
3-6

Table 3-3. Summary Table: Methods for Electronics Manufacturing Facilities 

Type of Electronics 

Manufacturing 

Facility

Required Reporting 

Method as Finalized 

in December 2010 

(75 FR 74775)

Optional 

Reporting 

Method as 

Finalized in 

December 2010 

(75 FR 74775)

Revised Reporting 

Method as 

Proposed Today 

(XX, 2012)

Optional 

Reporting 

Method as 

Proposed 

Today (XX, 

2012)

Semiconductor 

Manufacturing 

Facilities that Fabricate 

Devices on Wafers 

Measuring 300 mm or 

Less in Diameter and 

That Have an Annual 

Manufacturing 

Capacity of Less Than 

or Equal to 10,500m2 

of Substrate 

Use EPA default 

emission factors for 5 

process types or 

subtypes—plasma 

etching, chamber 

cleaning (including insitu plasma chamber 

cleaning, remote 

plasma chamber 

cleaning, in-situ 

thermal chamber 

cleaning), and wafer 

cleaning 

Use recipespecific emission 

factors for all 

production 

processes that use 

F-GHGs

Use EPA default 

emission factors for 4 

process types or 

subtypes—plasma 

etching/wafer 

cleaning and chamber 

cleaning (including 

in-situ plasma 

chamber cleaning, 

remote plasma 

chamber cleaning, insitu thermal chamber 

cleaning)

Stack testing 

Semiconductor 

Manufacturing 

Facilities that Fabricate 

Devices on Wafers 

Measuring 300 mm or 

Less in Diameter and 

That Have an Annual 

Manufacturing 

Capacity of Greater 

Than 10,500m2 of 

Substrate 

Use EPA default 

emission factors for 

chamber cleaning 

(including in-situ 

plasma chamber 

cleaning, remote 

plasma chamber 

cleaning, in-situ 

thermal chamber 

cleaning), wafer 

cleaning, and recipespecific emission 

factors for plasma 

etching*

PV, MEMS, and LCD 

Manufacturing 

Facilities 

Use EPA default EFs 

for plasma etching and 

chamber cleaning

Use EPA default EFs 

for plasma etching 

and chamber cleaning 

*Pursuant to a September 2011 final rule (76 FR 59542), through 2013 the largest semiconductor manufacturing facilities 

(defined as those facilities that fabricate devices on wafers measuring 300 mm or less in diameter and that have an annual 

manufacturing capacity of greater than 10,500 m

2 of substrate) may estimate emissions from the plasma etching process type 

using default EFs already included in subpart I.
4-1

SECTION 4

ENGINEERING COST ANALYSIS

4.1 Introduction

In November 2010 the EPA generated a subpart I engineering cost analysis detailing 

methods for compliance for subpart I

1

. In September 2011, the EPA finalized changes that would 

temporarily allow the largest semiconductor facilities to estimate emissions from the plasma 

etching process type using the default emission factor method already included in the December 

2010 rule. Given that the September 2011 amendments are temporary and will expire on 

December 31, 2013, requirements finalized in the December 2010 rulemaking serve as the 

baseline for this analysis. That is, the December 2010 final rule represents compliance 

requirements that would be effective in the absence of today’s proposal. Accordingly, the costs 

estimated from December 2010 serve as the baseline comparison for this economic analysis.

In today’s rulemaking, the EPA has proposed revisions to subpart I based on industry

comments, the petition for reconsideration and associated efforts (see Section 3, Table 3-2 for a 

detailed summary of the proposed changes). Most notably, the EPA is proposing to remove the 

requirements for the largest semiconductor manufacturing facilities to develop and use recipespecific factors to estimate emissions from etch processes. As indicated in the 2010 cost analysis, 

the average first year cost for a facility to comply with the recipe-specific method was $45,598

higher than complying with the default emission factor method (in 2006 dollars). Removal of 

this requirement therefore significantly decreases the estimated compliance costs.

In addition, today’s rulemaking proposes two options: a method based on default 

emissions factors and process categories (the default emission factor method) for semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities, which has been modified from the previous subpart I rule, and a new, 

optional, stack testing method, which would apply to all facilities covered under subpart I. The 

EPA estimated costs for each affected industrial facility to comply with today’s proposed rule by

completing the default emission factor method.

The EPA also conducted a sensitivity analysis to estimate the costs for a scenario in 

which facilities chose to use the optional stack testing method instead of the default emission 

factor method. The 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.

 

1

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads10/F-gas_EIA.pdf
4-2

Overall, the EPA’s analysis shows that the proposed changes would reduce the national 

burden and that this reduction is driven largely by three items: the default emission factor option 

is updated to include 4 categories instead of 5 (see Table 3-2, item 2), the recipe-specific 

emission factor option is removed (Table 3-2, item 3), and the optional stack testing method is 

introduced (Table 3-2, item 1). All of these options are discussed in greater detail in this 

engineering cost analysis.

The engineering cost estimates presented do not include Items 4 through 11 in Table 3-2 

because these items are primarily technical clarifications, corrections, and removal of 

requirements. Accordingly, these proposed changes would not result in significant cost impacts 

and on balance, would either maintain or reduce the overall burden to facilities.

The engineering cost estimates presented also do not include item 12, which adds a 

requirement for certain semiconductor facilities to submit an additional report to the EPA every

three years. This report would be optional for all facilities with F-GHG and N2O emissions 

below 40,000 metric tons of CO2e per year. It is estimated that only a few facilities (those with 

F-GHG and N2O emissions over 40,000 metric tons of CO2e per year) would need to file this 

report, and it would only require approximately 20 hours of additional industrial 

engineer/technician time. The EPA does not, however, have data available to develop a precise 

estimate of the number of facilities who would be required to submit the additional report every

three years. Given that the EPA does not expect this requirement to significantly affect the 

compliance costs either on a per facility or a national basis, and the lack of robust data to 

estimate the number of affected facilities, these estimates are not included in the cost analysis.

4.2 Overview of Cost Analysis

The costs of complying with the changes proposed in today’s rule would vary from one 

facility to another, depending on the types of emissions, the number of affected sources at the 

facility, existing monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting activities at the facility, etc. In 

general, the compliance costs for affected facilities are the costs to monitor, record, and report 

F-GHG and N2O emissions. These costs include labor costs for performing the monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting activities necessary to comply with the proposed rule as well as 

capital and operating and maintenance costs. All costs referred to in this section are reported in 

2011 dollars, and the costs from the 2010 cost analysis (which were provided in 2006 dollars) 
4-3

have been converted up to 2011 dollars in order to facilitate a direct comparison of the costs 

from the 2010 and 2012 cost analyses.

2

For both the proposed option and the sensitivity analysis, we provide a general overview 

of baseline reporting (if data are available) as well as labor costs (i.e., the cost of labor by facility 

staff to meet the information collection requirements of the proposed rule). Capital costs and 

operating and maintenance costs (e.g., the cost of purchasing and installing monitoring 

equipment or contractor costs associated with providing the required information) are not 

discussed since we do not anticipate that capital or operating and maintenance costs will be 

incurred when complying with the default emission factor method or the optional stack method. 

Additional details of the data, methods, and assumptions underlying the costs are documented in 

following memos, which can be found in the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028): Technical 

Support for Accounting for Destruction or Removal Efficiency for Electronics Manufacturing 

Facilities under subpart I, Technical Support for Modifications to the Fluorinated Greenhouse 

Gas Emission Estimation Method Option for Semiconductor Facilities under subpart I, Technical 

Support for the Stack Test Option for Estimating Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from 

Electronics Manufacturing Facilities under Subpart I, Technical Support for Other Technical 

Issues Addressed in Revisions to subpart I. The memos also include technical information on the 

assumptions and methods used to develop the proposed changes to subpart I covered by this 

analysis.

4.2.1 Baseline Reporting

To complete this analysis, the EPA is assuming that facilities are already in compliance 

with the existing subpart I requirements, as specified in the December 2010 rule. This EIA 

presents comprehensive costs for compliance with all of the subpart I requirements that would be 

in effect if today’s proposal were finalized. The EIA also aggregates these costs to the national 

level and compares them to the national costs of the 2010 promulgated rule.

4.2.2 Reporting Costs

The EPA used the spreadsheets developed in conjunction with the initial economic 

evaluation for subpart I from 2010 to analyze today’s proposed changes to subpart I. The 

template included three tables: analysis of reporting thresholds, analysis of monitoring and 

reporting options, and unit costs for monitoring and reporting. Key variables and data fields were 

 

2

For today’s EIA, the costs for the 2010 and 2012 analyses used the labor rates shown in Table 4-1 and capital costs 

were converted to 2011 dollars using a conversion factor of 1.09, the GDP Deflator from the St. Louis Federal 

Reserve Bank. 
4-4

clearly defined to ensure that costs developed for each subpart used a standard set of methods 

and assumptions.

Labor Costs. The costs of complying with and administering this rule 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;

 reporting (private): staff hours to gather and process available data and report it to the 

EPA through electronic systems; and

 assuring and releasing data (public): staff hours to quality assure, analyze, and release 

reports.

Staff activities and associated labor costs may vary over time. Thus, we develop and 

present cost estimates for reporting under the proposed revisions in the first year and the second 

year.

Loaded hourly labor rates (also referred to as “wage rates”) were developed for several 

labor categories to represent the employer costs to use an hour of employees’ time in each of the 

manufacturing sector labor categories used in this analysis. The labor categories correspond to 

the job responsibilities of the personnel that are likely to be involved in GHG emissions 

monitoring activities at the manufacturing facility level to comply with the rulemaking.

For purposes of this study, the EPA adopted the methodology used by Cody Rice (2002) 

to calculate the wage rates for the EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Program. Thus, the

wage rates calculated for different labor categories included the employer costs for employee 

compensation (comprising the basic wages and the corresponding benefits) and the overhead 

costs to the employer.

3

For each labor category, the following formula was used to calculate the wage rates:

Loaded Hourly Labor Rate ($/hr.) = Basic Wages ($/hr.) *

(1 + Benefits Loading Factor + Overhead Loading Factor). (4.1)

 

3

For each employee, the employer also incurs overhead costs (comprising the rental costs of the office space, 

computer hardware and software, telecommunication and other equipment, organizational support, etc.) required 

for and used by the employee to effectively fulfill his/her job responsibilities. These costs are over and above the 

employee compensation costs.
4-5

The benefits loading factor corresponds to the relative share of benefits compensation in 

the total employee compensation (comprising basic wages and benefits). This factor, which 

reflects data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) Employer Costs for Employee 

Compensation (ECEC) indices, varies by labor category (0.37 to 0.50). The overhead loading 

factor (0.17) corresponds to the share of overhead costs to the employer relative to the total 

employee compensation. For purposes of this analysis, we have adopted the same overhead 

loading factor that Cody Rice (2002) used in her wage rate calculations. Thus, the overhead 

loading factor that we used in the wage rate calculations remains the same for all labor categories 

and across all industry types within the manufacturing sector.

The loaded labor rates for the four labor categories that are used in the cost analysis are 

reported in Table 4-1 below and are also reported in the appropriate sectors labor cost tables in 

the following sections.

Table 4-1. Labor Categories and Hourly Rates (in $2011)

Labor Category Description Loaded Hourly Rate ($/hour)

Legal Oversees legal aspects of company reports and datareporting forms.$109.94/hour

Managerial Oversees work at a high level and is the final 

authority on all reporting requirements.

$77.23/hour

Technical Conducts monitoring of emissions sources, checks for

accuracy, performs measurements.

$59.12/hour

Clerical Assists with documentation and recording information $31.35/hour

Capital and O&M Costs. This includes the cost of purchasing and installing monitoring 

equipment or contractor costs associated with providing the required information. However, no 

capital costs are associated with complying with the proposed subpart I.

Other Recordkeeping and Reporting. Reporting costs totaling $3,152 per facility and 

recordkeeping costs totaling $1,824 were included in the default emission factor method for 

today’s rule. These costs are in accord with the costs that were proposed in 2010, and were 

adjusted to reflect the distinction between fabs and facilities, which is discussed in more detail in 

Section 4.3.1. Although some minor modifications to recordkeeping and reporting have been 

included in the proposed rule, such as moving some abatement system requirements to 

recordkeeping and removing some abatement system requirements altogether, the EPA assumed 

that the cost impacts from these changes would be negligible when compared to the cost of the 
4-6

overall method used. For the new (optional) stack testing method, a reporting cost of $536 and a 

recordkeeping cost of $1,822 were included. These costs are discussed further in Sections 4.3.2 

and 4.3.4.

4.3 Cost Analysis for Subpart I—Electronics Manufacturers

The remainder of Section 4 provides the cost data associated with today’s subpart I 

proposal, specifically the data and background information needed to understand the engineering 

costs analysis conducted for each source and the reporting option selection. The data are the 

basis for the economic impact analysis described in detail in Section 5 of this document.

4.3.1 Model Facility Development

This analysis is based on the costs of monitoring F-GHG and N2O emissions from

electronics manufacturing facilities. The analysis for the original subpart I proposal (2010) 

corresponded to “fabs”

4

as opposed to facilities. In that analysis, the breakdown of fab categories 

was provided as follows: non-semiconductor electronics (3 fabs), large semiconductor (29 fabs),

and non-large semiconductor (62 fabs) for a total of 94 fabs. The non-semiconductor electronics 

category includes facilities that manufacture micro-electromechanical systems, liquid crystal 

displays, and photovoltaics.

In today’s proposed rule, the EPA has proposed to amend subpart I to remove the 

distinction between large and non-large semiconductor facilities. Therefore, the breakdown of 

facility categories is as follows, on a facility basis: 3 non-semiconductor electronics facilities and 

67 semiconductor facilities. This analysis assumes that each non-semiconductor facility, as listed 

in the 2010 rule, contains a single fab, and that each semiconductor facility, as listed in the 2010 

rule, contains an average of 1.36 fabs, which changes the 2010 cost analysis total of 94 fabs to 70

facilities total, including both semiconductor and non-semiconductor facilities, for today’s 

analysis. Note that the default emissions factor method is being modified for semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities only, and therefore today’s updated analysis of that method focuses on 

semiconductor facilities. The calculations associated with the default emission factor method for 

MEMS, PV, and LCD facilities are unchanged in this rule. The new, optional stack testing 

method applies to all facilities covered under subpart I.

These methods being proposed today include the default emission factor method and the 

stack testing method. The EPA has included the most cost effective option—the default emission 

factor method—in its estimate of the total costs of the proposed rule, based on the assumption 

 

4 As stated in the proposed rule, “fab” means the portion of an electronics manufacturing facility located in a 

separate physical structure that began manufacturing on a certain date.
4-7

that facilities will choose the lowest cost monitoring option. However, some facilities have 

expressed a preference for an alternative, i.e., the stack method. When examining the first two 

years of costs (as is done in this analysis), the stack testing method appears more costly than 

default approach. However, the potential level of heterogeneity in the industry makes it difficult 

to estimate how many stack tests and retests a given facility may need per year. Additionally, the 

EPA is proposing provisions for facilities to use the same results from their periodic stack testing 

for up to five years if they meet certain criteria, which would temporarily remove the costs 

associated with conducting annual testing. Therefore, the EPA recognizes that it may be more 

cost-effective for some facilities to use the stack method instead. Therefore, the EPA has 

conducted a sensitivity analysis that assumes some facilities use the stack testing method. The 

EPA does not have tailored estimates that represent the costs to use the stack testing method at 

these particular facilities and used the compliance cost for a “model” facility. As a result, the 

EPA expects that the sensitivity analysis estimates may be notably higher than the costs that

would be incurred by facilities that choose to implement this approach.

4.3.2 Determination of Cost Elements

The total costs associated with complying with the proposed rulemaking by completing 

the default emissions factor method for semiconductor manufacturing facilities were broken into 

monitoring costs and reporting costs, which are described below. The sensitivity analysis for the 

stack testing method is also presented below. The non-semiconductor costs remain the same 

from the 2010 cost analysis.5

4.3.2.1 Monitoring Costs

Two types of monitoring costs were identified:

 collection of activity data for estimating F-GHG and N2O emissions 

 annual costs to monitor controlled emissions from abatement systems

Collection of activity data for estimating F-GHG and N2O emissions. Semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities using the “default emission factor method” would be required to use an 

approach for estimating emissions which includes the following components: (1) gas 

consumption as calculated using the facility’s purchase records, inventory, and gas-and facilityspecific heel factors, (2) facility specific methods for apportioning gas usage (3) default emission 

 

5 EPA originally estimated the labor cost for non-semiconductors to be $16,046, which was in $2006, then adjusted 

it to $2011 for consistency with today’s analysis. The cost in $2011 is $17,208. EPA determined that nonsemiconductor facilities would not incur capital costs when complying with the 2010 rule.
4-8

factors (including factors for by-products) based on four process categories, and (4) either default 

DRE values or properly measured DRE values, where appropriate.

Some facilities may choose to use the “stack testing method” to comply with today’s

proposed revisions to subpart I. These facilities are required to estimate emissions using (1) gas 

consumption as calculated using the facility’s purchase records, inventory, and gas-and facilityspecific heel factors, (2) facility specific methods for apportioning gas usage for fluorinated 

GHGs, (3) updated default emissions factors for select stack systems that meet certain criteria to 

exempt them from testing, and (4) either EPA published default DRE value or properly measured 

DRE, where appropriate.

Annual costs to monitor controlled emissions from abatement systems. In the proposed 

rule, a number of abatement system requirements would be moved from reporting to 

recordkeeping. In addition, some abatement system requirements are being removed from 

subpart I altogether. Also, facilities that report abatement would now provide an effective DRE 

value. Facility costs incurred for assuring abatement systems are properly installed, operated, 

maintained, and reported, and accounting for uptime have been included in this cost analysis.

6

Subpart I currently requires facilities to use EPA published DRE default values or use 

properly measured DRE values if facilities choose to account for abatement system DRE, which 

is optional; today’s proposal would give facilities the option to use additional methods to 

properly measure DRE. Since DRE testing is optional, the EPA’s estimated costs for performing 

DRE testing was not included for any facility category in this cost analysis.

4.3.2.2 Reporting Costs

Two types of reporting costs were identified:

 reporting F-GHG emission estimate 

 reporting heat transfer fluid emissions estimate

Reporting F-GHG emission estimate. Today’s proposal would require electronics 

manufacturing facilities to complete and submit facility-specific annual reports. Costs associated 

with reporting activity data were included for all compliance options. The EPA has not 

accounted for any change in reporting costs with respect to abatement systems, but, as noted 

 

6

Facility costs incurred for assuring abatement systems are properly installed, operated, maintained, and reported, 

and accounting for uptime are based on 32 technical labor hours. This cost is only included for large 

semiconductor facilities based on SIA’s comments that 29 facilities would incur abatement compliance costs.
4-9

earlier, the EPA is proposing to move some abatement system reporting requirements to 

recordkeeping and removing some requirements altogether.

It is assumed there are no other costs associated with using default DRE values, other 

than those mentioned above. Facilities have the option to confirm abatement through direct DRE 

measurement. The reporting costs associated with DRE testing are not included because such 

reporting is optional.

Reporting heat transfer fluid emissions estimate. Electronics manufacturing facilities are 

required to complete and submit data-reporting forms about emissions from heat transfer fluids. 

Although not all facilities use heat transfer fluids, the EPA does not have an estimate of the 

number that do so. Therefore, the EPA assumed for purposes of the cost analysis that all facilities 

will need to report heat transfer fluid emissions.

4.3.3 Proportion of Facilities in the Different Model Facility Levels

For the electronics manufacturing industry, 70 facilities (which represent 94 out of 175 

fabs) in the United States exceed the 25,000 mtCO2e threshold and account for 96 percent of 

total domestic semiconductor emissions.7 The number of each type of fab that the EPA estimates 

will meet the 25,000 mtCO2e threshold and required to report is identified in Table 4-2. These 

values have not changed substantially since the original subpart I rule was finalized and serve as 

the starting point for analyzing the cost impact of the proposed changes.

Table 4-2. Number of Representative Affected Fabs Used in the Cost Analysis

Number of Representative Entities

Threshold

Semiconductors

(All) MEMS

Liquid Crystal

Display Photovoltaics

1,000 134 10 5 16

10,000 108 4 1 1

25,000 91 2 0 1

100,000 55 0 0 0

 

7This corresponds to 67 semiconductor facilities and 3 non-semiconductor facilities (see Section 4.3.1).
4-10

4.3.4 Assigning Costs to Cost Elements

The EPA used the four labor categories (legal, managerial, technical and clerical) and 

associated labor rates to assign costs to each of the cost elements (see Table 4-1). The EPA 

assigned responsibilities to each labor category to estimate labor hours.

4.3.4.1 Determining Labor Categories

To evaluate labor costs, it was not only necessary to determine the amount of time 

required for all of the tasks associated with monitoring, but also to determine who will perform 

each task.

4.3.4.2 Allocate Responsibilities and Estimate Labor Hours

The primary cost analysis assumes that all semiconductor manufacturing facilities report 

fluorinated greenhouse gas emissions using the default emission factor method. The sensitivity

analysis assumes that some facilities will use an alternative and optional compliance method, the 

stack testing method.

Default Emission Factor Method

This section identifies the costs associated with complying with the rulemaking using the 

default emission factor method for semiconductor manufacturing facilities. Compliance costs for 

this option include only labor costs and do not require any non-labor (capital and O&M) costs. A

semiconductor facility that utilizes the default emission factor method will complete testing for 

four process types or subtypes—the plasma etching/wafer cleaning process type and chamber 

cleaning process type which includes three sub-types: in-situ plasma chamber cleaning, remote 

plasma chamber cleaning, and in-situ thermal chamber cleaning. The planning and quality

assurance/quality control (QA/QC) costs are zero because the primary effort required by this 

proposed rule of calculating emissions is captured in the cost category of “sampling and 

analysis.” Additionally, the requirements for reporting the emissions will also include the 

generation of the majority of the records that must be maintained, so no additional recordkeeping 

costs were included. The total first year cost for the default emission factor method is $18,130 per 

facility and includes only labor costs. Table 4-3 summarizes the labor costs associated with 

complying with the default emission factor method.
4-11

Table 4-3. Subpart I—Default Emission Factor Labor Costs (2011 dollars)

Activity

Labor Hours and Labor Rates 

Labor Cost per 

Year per 

Reporting 

Unit/Facility

Legal

Industrial 

Manager

Industrial 

Engineer/ 

Technician Administrative

$109. 94 $77.23 $59.12 $31.35

First 

Year

Second 

Year

First 

Year

Second 

Year

First 

Year

Second 

Year

First 

Year

Second 

Year

First 

Year

Second 

Year

Planning $0 $0

QA/QC $0 $0

Recordkeeping 2.39 2.39 24.7 24.7 5.70 5.70 $1,824 $1,824

Sampling 4.96 4.96 213.43 213.43 4.89 4.89 $13,154 $13,154

Reporting 0.26 0.26 14.26 14.26 28.82 28.82 10.14 10.14 $3,152 $3,152

Total 0.26 0.26 21.61 21.61 266.95 266.95 20.73 20.73 $18,130 $18,130

Out of the 67 semiconductor facilities that are above the GHGRP threshold, 21 of these 

facilities would have to comply with the recipe-specific emissions factor method (referred to as 

the “Tier 2d method” in the 2010 EIA) beginning in 2014 if the EPA does not promulgate the 

proposed removal of the recipe-specific method. The EPA estimated the labor cost of the recipespecific method to be $23,153 per facility and the capital cost to be $40,575 per facility for the 

first year.

8 The estimated cost for the default emission factor method under the 2010 rule totaled 

$21,418 per facility and included only labor costs.

9 Under today’s proposal, all semiconductor 

facilities, including those previously required to use the recipe-specific method, may comply

with subpart I by using the default emission factor method, which reduces national costs in the 

first year by $1,108,830. The cost-savings on a facility-specific basis depends on which method 

the facility would use in the absence of today’s proposal. The 21 facilities that EPA estimates

would have used the recipe-specific method would each save $45,598 in the first year, which 

represents the difference between the 2010 cost of $63,728 for the recipe-specific method and 

the 2012 cost of $18,130 for the default emission factor method. The 46 facilities that would 

have used the default emission factor method would save $3,288 in the first year, which 

represents the difference between the 2010 cost of $21,418 and the 2012 cost of $18,130 for the 

 

8 EPA originally estimated the labor cost to be $21,588 and the capital cost to be $34,151, which was in $2006, then 

adjusted it to $2011 for consistency with today’s analysis.

9 EPA originally estimated the labor cost to be $19,980, which was in $2006, then adjusted it to $2011 for 

consistency with today’s analysis. EPA determined that facilities would not incur capital costs when complying 

with the default emission factor method.
4-12

default emission factor method. The national cost savings increases to $4,709,815 in the second 

year because the capital cost for the recipe-specific method in the current subpart I increases 

significantly in the second year, while the proposed changes do not vary from year-to-year.

Labor hours for the default emission factor option in today’s proposed rule were 

estimated using methods from the 2010 rulemaking cost analysis for semiconductor facilities and 

industry comments. Based on its experience with semiconductor facilities voluntarily reporting

emission via its sector partnership and consideration of industry comments, the EPA continued to 

use the IPCC’s Tier 2b method to estimate the labor hours borne by semiconductor facilities, and 

modified the hours to represent 4 process categories, as reflected in today’s proposed rule. We 

have presented the labor costs as first year and second year costs for consistency with previous 

GHGRP estimates.

As shown in Table 4-3 above, first year sampling and analysis costs include 213.43 hours 

for the industrial engineer/technician, 4.89 administrative hours and 4.96 management hours. 

These costs apply to both the first and second year.

Table 4-3 also shows that first year reporting costs were estimated to include 28.82 

industrial engineer/technician hours, 0.26 legal hours, 14.26 management hours and 10.14 

administrative hours to compile and report data annually. First year recordkeeping costs were 

estimated to include 24.7 industrial engineer/technician hours, 2.39 management hours and 5.7 

administrative hours. Both recordkeeping and reporting costs remain unchanged in the second 

year.

Optional Stack Testing Method

This section identifies the costs associated with complying with the rulemaking using the 

stack testing method, which is an option for all facilities covered under subpart I. Compliance

costs for this option include only labor costs and do not require any non-labor (capital and O&M) 

costs. For purposes of the cost analysis, the EPA assumed that a facility that utilizes the stack 

method will have a total of six stack systems. Initially, all six of these systems will be analyzed 

using a modified version of 2006 IPCC Tier 2a method. Based on the results of the initial Tier 2a 

analysis, the EPA approximates that only one of the stack systems would be eligible to use the 

modified Tier 2a analysis, while the remaining five stack systems would need to complete stack 

testing. Additionally, the EPA assumed that 25 percent of the stacks requiring testing would need 

to be retested in order to comply with the rule. The total first year cost for the stack testing

method is $101,808 in labor costs. Table 4-4 below summarizes the labor costs associated with 
4-13

complying with the optional stack testing method. Labor hours for the optional stack testing 

method are broken into two parts, the modified Tier 2a analysis and the stack systems test. The 

labor hours required for the modified Tier 2a analysis were estimated using corresponding 

default emission factor method option in the December 2010 rule for non-large semiconductor 

facilities.

For each of the six stack systems, first year Tier 2a costs include 48.91 hours for the 

industrial engineer/technician, 2.46 administrative hours and 2.50 management hours. This 

comes to a total of 293.46 hours for the industrial engineer/technician, 14.76 administrative 

hours and 15 management hours. These costs are included under “sampling” in Table 4-4 and 

apply to both the first and second year.

Table 4-4. Subpart I—Optional Stack Testing Method Labor Costs (2011 dollars)

Activity

Labor Hours and Labor Rates 

Labor Cost per 

Year per Reporting

Unit/Facility

Legal

Industrial 

Manager

Industrial 

Engineer/ 

Technician Administrative

$109. 94 $77.23 $59.12 $31.35

First 

Year

Second 

Year

First 

Year

Second 

Year

First 

Year

Second 

Year

First 

Year

Second 

Year

First 

Year

Second 

Year

Planning 1.80 1.80 37.60 37.60 19.00 19.00 $2,958 $2,958

QA/QC $0 $0

Recordkeeping 2.39 2.39 24.65 24.65 5.73 5.73 $1,822 $1,822

Sampling 54.85 54.85 1510.41 1510.41 94.48 94.48 $96,493 $96,493

Reporting 0.70 0.70 7.25 7.25 1.69 1.69 $536 $536

Total 0 0 59.75 59.75 1579.91 1579.91 120.90 120.90 $101,808 $101,808

Stack testing labor hours were estimated for each of the five stack systems that would be 

required to complete testing, along with the 25% of stack systems that would need to be retested. 

For each stack systems, first year costs include 194.71 hours for the industrial 

engineer/technician, 12.76 administrative hours and 6.38 management hours. In total, this comes 

to 1,216.94 hours for the industrial engineer/technician, 79.75 administrative hours and 39.88

management hours at each facility. These costs apply to both the first and second year.
4-14

As shown in Table 4-4, recordkeeping costs were estimated on an annual basis, requiring 

24.65 industrial engineer/technician hours, 2.39 management hours and 5.73 administrative 

hours to compile and store data, and costing $1,822. Labor requirements for preparing the annual 

report included 7.25 industrial engineer/technician hours, 0.7 management hours, and 1.69 

administrative hours to prepare the annual report, at a cost of $536. These costs remain 

unchanged in the second year.

Initial planning and quality assurance/quality control costs were estimated for the time 

needed to review the rule, make arrangements for stack system testing and prepare required 

initial notifications and records. These planning hours include resolving questions, reviewing 

drawings, conducting source inspections, defining constraints, writing the engineering report and 

onetime costs for equipment leak measurement, such as walk-down and field verification, 

populating software and initial monitoring setup costs. Table 4-4 shows that the planning labor 

includes 1.8 hours for the industrial manager, 37.6 hours for the industrial engineer/technician, 

and 19 administrative hours, totaling $2,958. These costs remain unchanged in the second year.
5-1

SECTION 5

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

The EPA has prepared an EIA to provide decision makers with a measure of the social 

costs of using resources to comply with the proposed GHG reporting requirements. As noted in 

the EPA’s (2010) Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses, several tools are available to 

estimate social costs and range from simple direct compliance cost methods to the development 

of a more complex market analysis that estimates market changes (e.g., price and consumption) 

and economic welfare changes (e.g., changes in consumer and producer surplus). Given data 

limitations and the size and scope of the proposed rule, the EPA has used the direct compliance 

cost method as a measure of social costs. In addition, the EIA briefly reviews the qualitative 

benefits of this proposed rule based on previous experience with emission inventory programs.

5.1 Change in National Cost Estimates

As shown in Table 5-1, the total national costs for the primary analysis are estimated to 

be $1.7 million in the first year and $1.7 million in the second year (2011$). In comparison to the 

original EIA national cost estimates for subpart I, these cost estimates reflect a 38 percent and 73

percent reduction in burden for the first and second years of reporting.

Table 5-1. National Cost Estimates

EIA Estimate December, 2010 EIA Estimate June, 2012

Subpart

First Year

Millions 2011$

Second Year

Millions 2011$

First Year

Millions 2011$

Second Year

Millions 2011$

Subpart I—Electronics Industry

NAICS 334111, 334413, 334419

$2.4 $6.0 $1.3 $1.3

Private Sector, Total $2.4 $6.0 $1.3 $1.3

Public Sector, Total $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4

Total $2.8 $6.4 $1.7 $1.7

5.2 Economic Impact Analysis

The EPA assessed how the regulatory program may influence the profitability of

companies by comparing the monitoring program costs to total sales (i.e., a “sales” test). The 

techniques and data we use are identical to the GHGRP and focus on small entities. We provide

additional details of the analysis below.
5-2

5.2.1 Overall Method of Assessing Economic Impacts

To assess the possible economic impacts associated with the proposed rule, the EPA 

compared per-facility compliance costs to facility sales for facilities of various sizes. Data on 

sales revenues for facilities of various sizes was obtained from the Census Bureau’s Statistics of 

U.S. Businesses (SUSB) database for 2007, the latest year for which data are available. SUSB 

provides establishment-level information on revenues by enterprise size every five years; the 

EPA is assuming that “enterprise” corresponds to firm or company, and “establishment”

corresponds to facility. Facility-level costs of complying with the rule are compared to average 

sales revenues for the facilities owned by companies of various sizes in the tables below. As 

noted above, the focus of our analysis is impacts to small entities.

5.2.2 Assessing Economic Impacts on Small Entities

The first step in this assessment was to determine whether the proposed rule will have a 

significant impact on a substantial number of small entities (SISNOSE). To make this 

determination, the EPA used a screening analysis that allows us to indicate whether the EPA can 

certify the rule as not having a SISNOSE. The elements of this analysis included

 identifying affected entities,

 selecting and describing the measures and economic impact thresholds used in the 

analysis, and

 determining SISNOSE certification category.

5.2.2.1 Identify Affected Entities

The industry subpart covered by the proposed rule was identified during the development 

of the cost analysis for the reporting rule. The SUSB data provide national information on the 

distribution of economic variables by industry and size. These data were developed in 

cooperation with, and partially funded by, the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) (SBA, 2008a). The data include the number of establishments (Table 5-2), 

and receipts (Table 5-3) and present information on all entities in an industry covered by the rule; 

however, many of these entities would not be expected to report under the GHGRP because they

would fall below the 25,000 MtCO2e threshold. SUSB also provides these data by enterprise 

employment size. The census definitions in this data set are as follows:
5-3

Table 5-2. Number of Establishments by Affected Industry and EnterpriseaSize: 2007

2007 

NAICS

NAICS 

Description

SBA Size 

Standard 

(effective 

August 22, 

2008)

Total 

Establishments

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

500 967 500 178 108 6 14 22

334419 Other Electronic 

Component

Manufacturing

500 1,324 704 360 128 21 13 16

334111 Microcomputers 

manufacturing 

facilities.

1,000 439 320 57 20 8 NA 2

a The Census Bureau defines an enterprise as a business organization consisting of one or more domestic establishments that were specified under common

ownership or control. The enterprise and the establishment are the same for single-establishment firms. Each multi-establishment company forms one

enterprise—the enterprise employment and annual payroll are summed from the associated establishments. Enterprise size designations are determined by the

summed employment of all associated establishments.

Since the SBA’s business size definitions (http://www.sba.gov/size) apply to an establishment’s ultimate parent company, we assume in this analysis that the 

enterprise definition above is consistent with the concept of ultimate parent company that is typically used for Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act (SBREFA) screening analyses

NA: Not available. SUSB did not report this data for disclosure or other reasons.
5-4

Table 5-3. Receipts by Affected Industry and EnterpriseaSize: 2007 (Thousands of 2011$)

b

2007 

NAICS

NAICS 

Description

SBA Size 

Standard 

(effective 

August 22, 

2008)

Total 

Establishments

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

500 $70,605,539 $684,174 $2,143,996 $2,467,038 $368,840 $3,509,352 $4,338,009

334419 Other Electronic 

Component

Manufacturing

500 $11,931,310 $713,260 $2,411,763 $2,689,181 $1,099,350 $463,265 $541,380

334111 Microcomputers 

manufacturing 

facilities.

1,000 $32,493,695 $260,154 $521,157 $1,573,064 NA NA NA

a The Census Bureau defines an enterprise as a business organization consisting of one or more domestic establishments that were specified under common

ownership or control. The enterprise and the establishment are the same for single-establishment firms. Each multi-establishment company forms one

enterprise—the enterprise employment and annual payroll are summed from the associated establishments. Enterprise size designations are determined by the

summed employment of all associated establishments.

b Receipts have been converted from 2007 dollars to 2011 dollars.

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.

NA: Not available. SUSB did not report this data for disclosure or other reasons.
5-5

 establishment: An establishment is a single physical location where business is 

conducted or where services or industrial operations are performed.

 employment: Paid employment consists of full- and part-time employees, including 

salaried officers and executives of corporations, who were on the payroll in the pay

period including March 12, 2007. Included are employees on sick leave, holidays, and 

vacations; not included are proprietors and partners of unincorporated businesses.

 receipts: Receipts (net of taxes) are defined as the revenue for goods produced, 

distributed, or services provided, including revenue earned from premiums, 

commissions and fees, rents, interest, dividends, and royalties. Receipts exclude all 

revenue collected for local, state, and federal taxes.

 enterprise: An enterprise is 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.

Because the SBA’s business size definitions (SBA, 2008b) 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 and the terms are used 

interchangeably. We also report the SBA size standard(s) for each industry group in order to 

facilitate comparisons and different thresholds.

5.2.2.2 Develop Small Entity Economic Impact Measures

The analysis generated a set of sales tests (represented as cost-to-receipt ratios)

10 for 

NAICS codes associated with the subpart I. Although the appropriate SBA size definition should 

be applied at the parent company (enterprise) level, data limitations allowed us only to compute 

and compare ratios for a model establishment for six enterprise size ranges (i.e., all categories, 

enterprises with 1 to 20 employees, 20 to 99 employees, 100 to 499 employees, 500 to 999 

employees, and 1,000 to 1,499 employees). This approach allows us to account for differences in 

establishment receipts between large and small enterprises and differences in small business 

definitions across affected industries. It is also a conservative approach, because an 

 

10 The following metrics for other small entity economic impact measures (if applicable) would potentially include

 Small governments (if applicable): “Revenue” test; annualized compliance cost as a percentage of annual 

government revenues

 Small non-profits (if applicable): “Expenditure” test; annualized compliance cost as a percentage of annual 

operating expenses
5-6

establishment’s parent company (the “enterprise”) may have other economic resources that could 

be used to cover the costs of the reporting program.

The primary analysis uses sales tests to examine the average establishment’s total 

annualized mandatory reporting costs using the proposed default emission factor calculation 

method to the average establishment receipts for enterprises within several employment 

categories

11 (Tables 5-4 and 5-5). 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.

The sensitivity analysis uses sales tests to examine the average establishment’s total 

annualized mandatory reporting costs using the proposed stack testing method to the average 

establishment receipts for enterprises within several employment categories

12 (Tables 5-6 and 

5-7). 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.

5.2.2.3 Results of Screening Analysis

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 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 governmental jurisdictions, and small not-for-profit enterprises.

For the purposes of assessing the impacts of the rule on small entities, we defined a small 

entity as (1) a small business, as defined by SBA’s regulations at 13 CFR Part 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or 

special district with a population of less than 50,000; or (3) a small organization that is any notfor-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

 

11 For the one to 20 employee category, we exclude SUSB data for enterprises with zero employees. These 

enterprises did not operate the entire year.

12 For the one to 20 employee category, we exclude SUSB data for enterprises with zero employees. These 

enterprises did not operate the entire year.
5-7

Table 5-4. Primary Analysis: Establishment Sales Tests by Industry and EnterpriseaSize: Default Factor First Year Costs

2007 

NAICS NAICS Description

SBA Size 

Standard 

(effective 

August 22, 

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

500 $18,130 0.02% 1.25% 0.14% 0.07% 0.03% 0.01% 0.01%

334419 Other Electronic 

Component

Manufacturing

500 $18,130 0.20% 1.79% 0.27% 0.09% 0.03% 0.05% 0.05%

334111 Microcomputers 

manufacturing 

facilities.

1,000 $18,130 0.02% 2.10% 0.19% 0.02% NA NA NA

a The Census Bureau defines an enterprise as a business organization consisting of one or more domestic establishments that were specified under common

ownership or control. The enterprise and the establishment are the same for single-establishment firms. Each multi-establishment company forms one

enterprise—the enterprise employment and annual payroll are summed from the associated establishments. Enterprise size designations are determined by the

summed employment of all associated establishments.

Since the SBA’s business size definitions (http://www.sba.gov/size) apply to an establishment’s ultimate parent company, we assume in this analysis that the 

enterprise definition above is consistent with the concept of ultimate parent company that is typically used for Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act (SBREFA) screening analyses

NA: Not available. SUSB did not report this data for disclosure or other reasons.
5-8

Table 5-5. Primary Analysis: Establishment Sales Tests by Industry and EnterpriseaSize: Default Factor Second Year Costs

2007 

NAICS NAICS Description

SBA Size 

Standard 

(effective 

August 22, 

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

500 $18,130 0.02% 1.25% 0.14% 0.07% 0.03% 0.01% 0.01%

334419 Other Electronic 

Component

Manufacturing

500 $18,130 0.20% 1.79% 0.27% 0.09% 0.03% 0.05% 0.05%

334111 Microcomputers 

manufacturing 

facilities.

1,000 $18,130 0.02% 2.10% 0.19% 0.02% NA NA NA

a The Census Bureau defines an enterprise as a business organization consisting of one or more domestic establishments that were specified under common

ownership or control. The enterprise and the establishment are the same for single-establishment firms. Each multi-establishment company forms one

enterprise—the enterprise employment and annual payroll are summed from the associated establishments. Enterprise size designations are determined by the

summed employment of all associated establishments.

Since the SBA’s business size definitions (http://www.sba.gov/size) apply to an establishment’s ultimate parent company, we assume in this analysis that the 

enterprise definition above is consistent with the concept of ultimate parent company that is typically used for Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act (SBREFA) screening analyses

NA: Not available. SUSB did not report this data for disclosure or other reasons.
5-9

Table 5-6. Sensitivity Analysis: Establishment Sales Tests by Industry and EnterpriseaSize: Stack Testing First Year Costs

2007 

NAICS NAICS Description

SBA Size 

Standard 

(effective 

August 22, 

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

500 $101,808 0.13% 7.02% 0.80% 0.42% 0.16% 0.04% 0.05%

334419 Other Electronic 

Component

Manufacturing

500 $101,808 1.13% 10.05% 1.52% 0.48% 0.19% 0.29% 0.30%

334111 Microcomputers 

manufacturing 

facilities.

1,000 $101,808 0.13% 11.81% 1.05% 0.12% NA NA NA

a The Census Bureau defines an enterprise as a business organization consisting of one or more domestic establishments that were specified under common

ownership or control. The enterprise and the establishment are the same for single-establishment firms. Each multi-establishment company forms one

enterprise—the enterprise employment and annual payroll are summed from the associated establishments. Enterprise size designations are determined by the

summed employment of all associated establishments.

Since the SBA’s business size definitions (http://www.sba.gov/size) apply to an establishment’s ultimate parent company, we assume in this analysis that the 

enterprise definition above is consistent with the concept of ultimate parent company that is typically used for Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act (SBREFA) screening analyses

NA: Not available. SUSB did not report this data for disclosure or other reasons.
5-10

Table 5-7. Sensitivity Analysis: Establishment Sales Tests by Industry and EnterpriseaSize: Stack Testing Second Year 

Costs

2007 

NAICS NAICS Description

SBA Size 

Standard 

(effective 

August 22, 

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

500 $101,808 0.13% 7.02% 0.80% 0.42% 0.16% 0.04% 0.05%

334419 Other Electronic 

Component

Manufacturing

500 $101,808 1.13% 10.05% 1.52% 0.48% 0.19% 0.29% 0.30%

334111 Microcomputers 

manufacturing 

facilities.

1,000 $101,808 0.13% 11.81% 1.05% 0.12% NA NA NA

a The Census Bureau defines an enterprise as a business organization consisting of one or more domestic establishments that were specified under common

ownership or control. The enterprise and the establishment are the same for single-establishment firms. Each multi-establishment company forms one

enterprise—the enterprise employment and annual payroll are summed from the associated establishments. Enterprise size designations are determined by the

summed employment of all associated establishments.

Since the SBA’s business size definitions (http://www.sba.gov/size) apply to an establishment’s ultimate parent company, we assume in this analysis that the 

enterprise definition above is consistent with the concept of ultimate parent company that is typically used for Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act (SBREFA) screening analyses

NA: Not available. SUSB did not report this data for disclosure or other reasons.
5-11

After considering the economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities, the EPA 

has concluded that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. As shown in Tables 5-4 and 5-5, the average ratio of annualized 

reporting program costs to receipts of establishments owned by model small enterprises was 

generally less than 1 percent for industries presumed likely to have small businesses covered by 

the reporting program.

As shown in the sensitivity analysis (Tables 5-6 and 5-7), if enterprises voluntarily chose 

the higher cost stack testing option, several enterprise categories have ratios that exceed 3 

percent of sales (e.g., enterprise with one to 20 employees). Given that this method is voluntary, 

we assume small entities would choose the lower cost method. However, the EPA recognizes 

that some facilities have expressed a preference for the alternative to use the stack systems 

testing method. In some cases the realized cost of the stack systems testing method may be less 

expensive than expressed in this analysis, due to the potential for a facility to become exempt 

from stack testing for up to 5 years if it meets certain criteria after the first several years of 

testing.

Below we take a more detailed look at the enterprise categories noted above as having 

sales test ratios above 1 percent.

5.2.2.4 Threshold-based Analysis of Categories Having Sales Test Ratios Above 1 Percent

Microcomputer Manufacturing (334111), Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing 

(334413), and Other Electronic Component Manufacturing (334419)

Subpart I covers facilities included in NAICS codes for Microcomputer Manufacturing 

(334111), Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing (334413), and Other Electronic 

Component Manufacturing (334419). The census data covers a broader set of establishments 

than the facilities covered in the rule.

13 In addition, preliminary EPA analyses of the relation 

between facility size (proxied by employment) and emissions show emission levels are 

proportional to facility size. As a result, small facilities with 1 to 20 employees are unlikely to 

emit more than 25,000 MtCO2e per year.

As a result of the limitations of the census data, we used secondary data sources to better 

identify the facilities that are likely to be subject to subpart I. The World Fab Watch and the Flat 

Panel Display Fabs on Disk datasets includes a total of 216 facilities potentially subject to 

 

13 The three NAICS codes include a total of 2,730 establishments, many of which do not conduct activities subject to 

subpart I.

.
5-12

subpart I; 70 of these facilities exceed the 25,000 ton threshold. The EPA was able to collect 

sales data for 39 of these facilities. Table 5-8 reports summary statistics for each analysis.

Table 5-8. Secondary Data Analysis: Parent Company Sales Test Ratios

Summary Statistic

Sales Test Ratio

Choose Default Factor

(Primary Analysis)

Sales Test Ratio

Voluntarily Choose Stack Testing

(Sensitivity Analysis)

Number of Affected Facilities 70 70

Number of Affected Facilities with 

Parent Company Sales Data

39 39

Mean 0.11% 0.68%

Median 0.00% 0.01%

Maximum 2.10% 12.50%

Minimum 0.00% 0.00%

Number of facilities with > 1%

sales test ratio

1 5

Number of facilities with > 3%

sales test ratio

0 2

The primary analysis has a mean sales test ratio of 0.1%, while the mean sales test ratio 

for the sensitivity analysis is 0.7%. Both analyses have median sales test ratios of 0.01% or less. 

One facility had a sales test ratio above 1% under the primary analysis and 5 facilities had ratios 

above that threshold under the sensitivity analysis.

5.3 Synopsis of Benefits

Under the GHGRP, the EPA requires the collection and verification of emission data 

from subpart I facilities. This section reviews the benefits of the GHGRP for subpart I facilities 

based on previous experience with emission inventory programs in the United States and abroad.

Recent policy discussions have highlighted potential benefits to society of the mandatory

GHGRP (Pew, 2008). Benefits to the public include: building public confidence through clear 

and transparent emission measures and reports. A GHG reporting system will also have the 

benefit of providing policymakers and analysts with a data set that is comprehensive for the 

electronics industry if reporting is conducted under subpart I and other applicable subparts.

Benefits to the industry include: identifying cost-effective GHG reduction opportunities and 

disclosing information, which provides firms with incentives to reduce emissions voluntarily and 

provides emission data to service industries, such as insurance and financial markets. 
5-13

Availability of emission information to the public, consumers, investors, corporations, and 

government regulators provides a sound basis for future policy analysis, which benefits society 

as a whole. Accurate and transparent information is necessary for the implementation of efficient 

approaches that meet environmental goals with the lowest cost to the economy.
6-1

SECTION 6

STATUTORY AND EXECUTIVE ORDER REVIEWS

This section describes the EPA’s compliance with several applicable executive orders and 

statutes.

6.1 Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 

13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

Under section 3(f)(4) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 

action is not a “significant regulatory action” and is therefore not subject to review under 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). 

In addition, the EPA prepared this EIA, including an analysis of the potential costs 

associated with this action. The costs of the rule are reported in Section 4, and the economic 

impacts are reported in Section 5. The EPA’s cost analysis demonstrates that the proposed 

changes would significantly reduce subpart I compliance costs. Specifically, the proposed 

changes would reduce nationwide compliance costs in the first year by 38 percent ($2.8 million 

to $1.7 million) and by 73 percent in the second year ($6.4 million to $1.7 million). Overall, the 

EPA has concluded that the costs of the F-GHG Reporting Rule under subpart I are outweighed 

by the potential benefits of more comprehensive information about GHG emissions.

6.2 Paperwork Reduction Act

This proposed rule does not increase information collection burden. As previously

mentioned, this proposed rule proposes amended reporting methodologies in subpart I, 

confidentiality determinations for reported data elements, and amendments to subpart A to 

reflect proposed changes to the reporting requirements in subpart I. The Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information collection requirements contained 

in subpart I, under 40 CFR part 98, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0650 for subpart I. The OMB

control numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed at 40 CFR part 9. Additional 

information can be found in the docket (see file “Proposed Amendments and Confidentiality

Determinations for Subpart I Information Collection Burden”). The EPA continues to be 

interested in the potential impacts of this action on the burden associated with the proposed 

amendments and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts. 
6-2

6.3 Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 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.

The first step in this assessment was to determine whether the rule will have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small entities (SISNOSE). To make this determination, the 

EPA used a screening analysis that allows us to indicate whether the EPA can certify the rule as 

not having a SISNOSE. The elements of this analysis included:

 identifying affected sectors and entities,

 selecting and describing the measures and economic impact thresholds used in the 

analysis, and

 determining SISNOSE certification category.

6.3.1 Identify Affected Sectors and Entities

For purposes of assessing the impacts of this re-proposal on small entities, “small entity”

is defined as: (1) a small business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s regulations 

at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, 

town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; or (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and 

is not dominant in its field.

For the 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. Tables 5-2 and 5-3 present 

small business criteria and enterprise size distribution data for affected NAICS.

6.3.2 Develop Small Entity Economic Impact Measures

The ratio of total annualized compliance costs to firm sales (or sales test) is the selected 

impact measure. Details are provided in Section 5.2, and results are presented in Tables 5-4 and 

5-6 for first-year costs and in Tables 5-5 and 5-7 for second year costs. These sales tests examine 
6-3

the average establishment’s total annualized mandatory reporting costs to the average 

establishment receipts for enterprises within several employment categories. 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.

6.3.3 Results of Screening Analysis

After considering the economic impact of the rule on small entities, the EPA has 

concluded that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The average ratio of annualized reporting program costs to revenues for 

F-GHG firms owned by model small enterprises and likely to be affected by the proposed rule 

was generally less than 1 percent. For all three NAICS (334111, 334413, and 334419) covered 

by subpart I, however, some size categories (especially those with 1–20 employees) show costs 

exceeding 1 percent of sales (e.g., those with 1-20 employees had a cost-to-sales ratio of 2.10

percent, 1.79 percent, and 1.25 percent for NAICS 334111, 334419, and 334413, respectively). 

A more careful examination of impacts on small firms in these NAICS codes was conducted.

Analysis of firms in the three NAICS industries covered by subpart I shows that firms 

with fewer than 20 employees produce less than 1.4 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 final rule; if they are, their costs are likely to be lower than the 

overall average costs used in the screening analysis. Thus, the EPA does not expect the proposed

rule to impose significant costs to a substantial number of small entities in NAICS 334111, 

334413, and 334419.

After considering the economic impacts of today’s proposed rule on small entities, the 

EPA certifies that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The small entities directly regulated by this final rule are facilities 

included in NAICS codes for Microcomputer Manufacturing (334111), Semiconductor and 

Related Device Manufacturing, (334413) and Other Electronic Component Manufacturing 

(334419). As shown in Tables 5-13 and 5-14 of the Economic Impact Analysis for the 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Final Rule (74 FR 56260, October 30, 2009) 

available in docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508, the average ratio of annualized reporting 

program costs to receipts of establishments owned by model small enterprises was less than 1 
6-4

percent for industries presumed likely to have small businesses covered by the reporting 

program.

6.4 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, 

requires federal agencies, unless otherwise prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their 

regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Federal agencies 

must also develop a plan to provide notice to small governments that might be significantly or 

uniquely affected by any regulatory requirements. The plan must enable officials of affected 

small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of the EPA 

regulatory proposals with significant federal intergovernmental mandates and must inform, 

educate, and advise small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.

This proposed rule proposes to (1) amend monitoring and calculation methodologies in 

subpart I; (2) assign subpart I data reporting elements into CBI data categories; and (3) amend 

subpart A to reflect proposed changes to the reporting requirements in subpart I. 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. In 

some cases, the EPA has increased flexibility in the selection of methods used for calculating and 

reporting GHGs. Also in this proposed rule, the EPA is revising specific provisions to provide 

clarity on what is to be reported. These revisions do not add additional burden on reporters but 

offer flexibility. As part of the process of finalization of the subpart I rule, the EPA undertook 

specific steps to evaluate the effect of those final rules on small entities. Based on the proposed 

amendments to subpart I provisions, burden will stay the same or decrease, therefore the EPA’s 

determination finding of no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 

entities has not changed. Thus, this proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 

202 or 205 of the UMRA. This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of 

UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments. However, in developing Part 98, the EPA consulted with small governments 

pursuant to a plan established under section 203 of the UMRA to address impacts of regulatory

requirements in the rule that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. For a 

summary of the EPA’s consultations with state and/or local officials or other representatives of 

state and/or local governments in developing Part 98, see Section VIII.D of the preamble to the 

final rule (74 FR 56370, October 30, 2009).
6-5

6.5 Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This proposed rule 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. However, for a more detailed discussion about how Part 98 

relates to existing state programs, please see Section II of the preamble to the final rule (74 FR 

56266, October 30, 2009).This proposed rule, which is proposing amended calculation and 

reporting methodologies in subpart I, proposing new confidentiality determinations for data 

elements required under subpart I, and proposing amendments to subpart A to reflect proposed 

changes to the reporting requirements in subpart I, would only apply to certain electronics 

manufacturers. No state or local government facilities are known to be engaged in the activities 

that would be affected by the provisions in this proposed rule. This proposed rule 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 proposed rule.

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with the EPA policy to promote 

communications between the EPA and state and local governments, the EPA specifically solicits 

comment on this proposed rule from state and local officials. For a summary of the EPA’s 

consultation with state and local organizations and representatives in developing Part 98, see 

Section VIII.E of the preamble to the final rule (74 FR 56371, October 30, 2009).

6.6 Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments

This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 

13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed rule proposes to (1) amend monitoring 

and calculation methodologies in subpart I; (2) assign subpart I data reporting elements into CBI 

data categories; and (3) amend subpart A to reflect proposed changes to the reporting 

requirements in subpart I. This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). No tribal facilities are known to be 

engaged in the activities affected by this action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to 

this proposed rule. For a summary of the EPA’s consultations with tribal governments and 

representatives, see Section VIII.F of the preamble to the final rule (74 FR 56371, October 30, 

2009). The EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action from tribal 

officials.
6-6

6.7 Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health and 

Safety Risks

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying 

only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This 

proposed rule, which is proposing to (1) amend monitoring and calculation methodologies in 

subpart I; (2) assign non-input subpart I data reporting elements into CBI data categories; and 

(3) determine the treatment of inputs to emission equations data elements, is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to 

mitigate health or safety risks.

6.8 Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use

This proposed rule, which proposes to (1) amend monitoring and calculation 

methodologies in subpart I, (2) assign subpart I data reporting elements into CBI data categories, 

and (3) amend subpart A to reflect proposed changes to the reporting requirements in subpart I, 

is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

6.9 National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary

consensus standards (VCS) 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 VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, 

through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.

This proposed rule, which is proposing to amend monitoring and calculation 

methodologies in subpart I, involves technical standards. The EPA is proposing to include a 

stack testing option that would involve using the following EPA reference methods:

 Method 1 or 1A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1, to select sampling port locations 

and the number of traverse points in the exhaust stacks.

 Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1 and A-2, to 

determine gas velocity and volumetric flow rate in the exhaust stacks.
6-7

 Method 3, 3A, or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2, to determine the gas 

molecular weight of the exhaust using the same sampling site and at the same time as 

the F-GHG sampling is performed.

 Method 4 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3, to measure gas moisture content in the 

exhaust stacks.

 Method 301 at 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, to perform field validations of alternative 

methods of measuring F-GHG emissions and abatement system DRE.

 Method 320 at 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, to measure the concentration of F-GHG 

in the stack exhaust.

Consistent with the NTTAA, the EPA conducted searches to identify VCS in addition to 

these EPA methods. The EPA conducted searches for VCS from at least three different voluntary

consensus standards bodies, including the following: ASTM, ASME, and International 

SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative (ISMI). No applicable VCS were identified for EPA 

Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, or 2G. The method, ASME PTC 19.10–1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas 

Analyses, is not cited in this proposed rule for its manual method for measuring the oxygen, 

carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide content of the exhaust gas. ASME PTC 19.10–1981 is an 

acceptable alternative to EPA Methods 3A and 3B for the manual procedures only, and not the 

instrumental procedures. The VCS ASTM D6348–03 (2010), Determination of Gaseous 

Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy, has been 

reviewed by the EPA as a potential alternative to EPA Method 320. All data and information the 

EPA has received in support of the stack testing method used EPA Method 320. Since this 

industry contains specialized gases in low concentrations, the EPA would prefer to have 

supporting data prior to approving another test method. Because of this, the EPA is not 

proposing this standard as an acceptable alternative for EPA Method 320 in this proposed rule. 

We note that reporters have the option to obtain approval for this method under the procedures 

outlines in 98.94(k). 

The EPA is proposing to revise the current subpart I provisions for determining 

abatement system DRE to incorporate language based on methods adapted from the ISMI 2009 

Guideline for Environmental Characterization of Semiconductor Process Equipment—Revision 

2. The EPA is proposing to incorporate applicable portions of the ISMI 2009 Guideline into the 

rule in proposed Appendix A to subpart I. The EPA is not proposing to incorporate by reference 

the entire ISMI 2009 Guideline because the ISMI 2009 Guidelines have not been subject to the 

same level of peer review and validation as other alternative standards (e.g., ASTM or ASME 

standards). Therefore, The EPA is proposing to incorporate only those portions of the 2009 ISMI
6-8

Guideline that the EPA has determined are needed to provide flexibility and reduce burden in 

subpart I.

The EPA identified no other VCS that were potentially applicable for subpart I in lieu of 

EPA reference methods. Therefore, the EPA does not intend to adopt other standards for this 

purpose. For the methods required or referenced by the proposed rules, a source may apply to the 

EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in 

place of any required testing methods, performance specifications or procedures, as specified in 

proposed 40 CFR part 98, subpart I.

6.10 Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive 

policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by

identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and lowincome populations in the United States.

This proposed rule is proposing to (1) amend monitoring and calculation methodologies 

in subpart I; (2) assign subpart I data reporting elements into CBI data categories; and (3) amend 

subpart A to reflect proposed changes to the reporting requirements in subpart I. The 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 

addresses only reporting and recordkeeping procedures.
6-1

SECTION 7

CONCLUSIONS

This proposed rule would amend the reporting requirements of fluorinated greenhouse 

gas (F-GHG) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from electronics manufacturing facilities. These 

F-GHG and N2O source categories are covered under subpart I of the GHGRP.

7.1 Summary

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 proposed rule affects entities in the electronics industry covered by 

NAICS codes 334111 (Microcomputer Manufacturing), 334413 (Semiconductor and Related 

Device Manufacturing), and 334419 (Other Electronic Component Manufacturing). The 

electronics industry uses multiple long-lived F-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 

currently subject to subpart I, that is those that that emit equal to or greater than 25,000 metric 

tons of CO2e per year from electronics manufacturing processes such as plasma etching, thin 

film deposition, chamber cleaning, and heat transfer fluid use. The proposed rule would 

(1) amend monitoring and calculation methodologies in subpart I, (2) propose confidentiality 

determinations for the reporting of the new and revised data elements, and (3) amend subpart A, 

General Provisions, to reflect proposed changes to the reporting requirements in subpart I.

7.2 Estimated Costs and Impacts of the GHG Reporting Program

The EPA’s cost analysis demonstrates that the proposed changes would significantly

reduce Subpart I compliance costs. Specifically, the proposed changes would reduce nationwide 

compliance costs in the first year by 38 percent ($2.8 million to $1.7 million) and by 73 percent 

in the second year ($6.4 million to $1.7 million). The national costs are distributed to several 

economic sectors and represent less than 0.01% of 2008 gross domestic product. The EPA has

concluded that the proposed rule will not have a significant macroeconomic impact on the 

national economy or on small entities within those sectors.
6-1

SECTION 8

REFERENCES

Pew Center on Global Climate Change. 2008. “Greenhouse Gas Reporting and Disclosure: Key

Elements of a Perspective U.S. Program.” Innovative Policy Solutions to Climate 

Change. In Brief, No. 3. Arlington, VA: Pew Center on Global Climate Change. 

Available at <http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/policy_inbrief_ghg.pdf>.

Rice, C. 2002. Wage Rates for Economic Analysis of the Toxics Release Inventory Program.

Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and 

Policy Analysis Branch, June 10, 2002.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. Guidelines for Preparing Economic 

Analyses. EPA 240-R-00-003. Washington, DC: EPA. Available at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/pages/guidelines.html>.

U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). 2008a. Firm Size Data from the Statistics of U.S. 

Businesses: U.S. Detail Employment Sizes: 2002. Available at 

<http://www.sba.gov/content/small-business-size-standards>.

U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). 2008b. Table of Small Business Size Standards 

Matched to North American Industry Classification System Codes. Effective 

August 22, 2008. Available at <http://www.sba.gov/content/summary-size-standardsindustry>.