Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Additional Sources 

of Fluorinated GHGs 

Page 1 of 442 

6560.50 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 98

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927; FRL- ] 

RIN 2060-AQ00 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Additional Sources 

of Fluorinated GHGs 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing a regulation to require 

monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from 

additional sources of fluorinated greenhouse gases, 

including electronics manufacturing, fluorinated gas 

production, electrical equipment use, electrical equipment 

manufacture or refurbishment, as well as importers and 

exporters of pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams. 

This rule requires monitoring and reporting of greenhouse 

gases for these source categories only for sources with 

carbon dioxide equivalent emissions, imports, or exports 

above certain threshold levels. This rule does not require 

control of greenhouse gases. 

DATES: The final rule is effective on [INSERT THE 

DATE 30 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 
Page 2 of 442 

REGISTER]. The incorporation by reference of certain 

publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director 

of the Federal Register as of [INSERT THE DATE 30 DAYS 

AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

ADDRESSES: EPA established a single docket under 

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927 for this rule. All 

documents in the docket are listed on the 

www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly available, e.g., 

confidential business information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is 

not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available 

only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA’s Docket Center, 

Public Reading Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004. This Docket 

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

through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and 

the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742. 

FOR FURTHER GENERAL INFORMATION CONTACT: Carole Cook, 

Climate Change Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs 
Page 3 of 442 

(MC-6207J), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number: (202) 343-9263; fax number: (202) 343-2342; e-mail 

address: GHGReportingRule@epa.gov. For technical 

information and implementation materials, please go to the 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program website 

www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html. To 

submit a question, select Rule Help Center, followed by 

Contact Us. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulated Entities. The Administrator determined that 

this action is subject to the provisions of Clean Air Act 

(CAA) section 307(d). See CAA section 307(d)(1)(V) (the 

provisions of CAA section 307(d) apply to “such other 

actions as the Administrator may determine.”). This final 

rule affects owners and operators of electronics 

manufacturing facilities, fluorinated gas production 

facilities, electric power systems, and electrical 

equipment manufacturing facilities, as well as importers 

and exporters of pre-charged equipment and closed-cell 

foams. Regulated categories and entities include those 

listed in Table 1 of this preamble. 
Page 4 of 442 

Table 1. Examples of Affected Entities by Category 

Category NAICS Examples of affected facilities 

Electronics 

Manufacturing 

334111 Microcomputers manufacturing 

facilities. 

334413 Semiconductor, photovoltaic (solidstate) device manufacturing 

facilities. 

334419 Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) unit 

screens manufacturing facilities. 

334419 Micro-electro-mechanical systems 

(MEMS) manufacturing facilities. 

Fluorinated Gas 

Production 

325120 Industrial gases manufacturing 

facilities. 

Electrical 

Equipment Use 

221121 Electric bulk power transmission 

and control facilities. 

Electrical 

Equipment 

Manufacture or 

Refurbishment 

33531 Power transmission and distribution 

switchgear and specialty 

transformers manufacturing 

facilities. 

Importers and 

Exporters of 

Pre-charged 

Equipment and 

Closed-Cell 

Foams 

423730 Air-conditioning equipment (except 

room units) merchant wholesalers. 

333415 Air-conditioning equipment (except 

motor vehicle) manufacturing. 

 

336391 Motor vehicle air-conditioning 

manufacturing. 

423620 Air-conditioners, room, merchant 

wholesalers. 

443111 Household appliance stores. 

423730 Automotive air-conditioners 

merchant wholesalers. 

326150 Polyurethane foam products 

manufacturing. 

335313 Circuit breakers, power, 

manufacturing. 

423610 Circuit breakers merchant 

wholesalers. 

Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers 

regarding facilities likely to be affected by this action. 
Page 5 of 442 

Table 1 of this preamble lists the types of facilities that 

EPA is now aware could be potentially affected by the 

reporting requirements. Other types of facilities and 

companies not listed in the table could also be subject to 

reporting requirements. To determine whether you are 

affected by this action, you should carefully examine the 

applicability criteria found in 40 CFR part 98, subpart A 

and the relevant criteria in the subparts related to 

electronics manufacturing facilities, fluorinated gas 

production facilities, electric power transmission or 

distribution facilities, electrical equipment manufacturing 

or refurbishment facilities, and importers and exporters of 

pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams. If you have 

questions regarding the applicability of this action to a 

particular facility, consult the person listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER GENERAL INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

Many facilities that are affected by the final rule 

have greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from multiple source 

categories listed in 40 CFR part 98. Table 2 of this 

preamble has been developed as a guide to help potential 

reporters in the source categories subject to this 

reporting rule identify the source categories (by subpart) 

that they may need to (1) Consider in their facility 

applicability determination, and/or (2) include in their 
Page 6 of 442 

reporting. The table should only be seen as a guide. 

Additional subparts in 40 CFR part 98 may be relevant for a 

given reporter. Similarly, not all listed subparts are 

relevant for all reporters. 

Table 2. Source Categories and Relevant Subparts 

Source category 

(and main applicable 

subpart) 

Subparts recommended for review to 

determine applicability 

Electricity Generation Electrical Equipment Use 

Electronics Manufacturing General Stationary Fuel Combustion 

Fluorinated Gas 

Production 

General Stationary Fuel Combustion 

Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse 

Gases 

Electrical Equipment Use General Stationary Fuel Combustion 

Imports and Exports of 

Fluorinated GHGs Inside 

Pre-charged Equipment and 

Closed-Cell Foams 

Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse 

Gases 

Sulfur Hexafluoride and PFCs from 

Electrical Equipment Manufacture and 

Refurbishment 

Electrical Equipment 

Manufacture or 

Refurbishment 

General Stationary Fuel Combustion 

Imports and Exports of Fluorinated 

GHGs Inside Pre-charged Equipment and 

Closed-Cell Foams 

Judicial Review. 

Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this 

final rule is available only by filing a petition for 

review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit by [INSERT THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE 

OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Under CAA section 

307(d)(7)(B), only an objection to this final rule that was 

raised with reasonable specificity during the period for 

public comment can be raised during judicial review. This 

section also provides a mechanism for EPA to convene a 
Page 7 of 442 

proceeding for reconsideration, “[i]f the person raising an 

objection can demonstrate to EPA that it was impracticable 

to raise such objection within [the period for public 

comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after 

the period for public comment (but within the time 

specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of 

central relevance to the outcome of this rule.” Any person 

seeking to make such a demonstration to EPA should submit a 

Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the 

Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Room 3000, 

Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20004, with a copy to the person listed in 

the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and 

the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law 

Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC 20004. Note, under CAA section 

307(b)(2), the requirements established by this final rule 

may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal 

proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements. 

Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms 

and abbreviations are used in this document. 

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials 

BAMM Best Available Monitoring Methods 
Page 8 of 442 

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CARB California Air Resources Board 

CBI confidential business information 

CFC chlorofluorocarbon 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

CO2e CO2-equivalent 

DE destruction efficiency 

DRE destruction or removal efficiency 

ECD electron capture detector 

EFC emission factor for the valve-hose combination 

EIA Economic Impact Analysis 

EO Executive Order 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

F-GHG fluorinated greenhouse gas 

FTIR fourier transform infrared (spectroscopy) 

FID flame ionization detector 

GC gas chromatography 

GHG greenhouse gas 

GWP global warming potential 

HAP hazardous air pollutant(s) 

HCFC hydrochlorofluorocarbon 

HFC hydrofluorocarbon 

HFE hydrofluoroether 

HTF heat transfer fluid 

IBR incorporation by reference 

ICR information collection request 

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

kg kilograms 

LCD liquid crystal displays 

LED light-emitting diode 

MEMS micro-electro-mechanical systems 

MMTCO2e million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent 
Page 9 of 442 

MRR mandatory greenhouse gas reporting rule 

MS mass spectrometry 

MVAC motor vehicle air conditioner 

N2O nitrous oxide 

NACAA National Association of Clean Air Agencies 

NAICS North American Industry Classification System 

NERC North American Energy Reliability Corporation 

NESHAP National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants 

NF3 nitrogen trifluoride 

NMR nuclear magnetic resonance 

NRECA National Rural Electric Cooperative Association 

NSPS New Source Performance Standards 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

of 1995 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PFC perfluorocarbon 

POHC principal organic hazardous constituent 

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

PSEF process-vent-specific emission factor 

PV photovoltaic cells 

QA quality assurance 

QA/QC quality assurance/quality control 

QMS Quadrapole Mass Spectroscopy 

R&D research and development 

RF radio frequency 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RGGI Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative 

RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis 

RPS remote plasma source 

SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 

Act 

SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

SF6 sulfur hexafluoride 

TCR The Climate Registry 

TSD technical support document 
Page 10 of 442 

U.S. United States 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

VOC volatile organic compound(s) 

WCI Western Climate Initiative 

Table of Contents

I. Background 

A. Organization of this Preamble 

B. Background on the Final Rule 

C. Legal Authority 

II. Requirements for Specific Source Categories 

A. Overview of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program 

B. Overview of Confidentiality Determination for Data 

Elements in the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rules 

C. Summary of Changes to the General Provisions of the 

General Provisions of 40 CFR Part 98 Related to the 

Addition of Subparts I, L, DD, QQ, and SS 

D. Electronics Manufacturing (Subpart I) 

E. Fluorinated Gas Production (Subpart L) 

F. Electrical Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use 

(Subpart DD) 

G. Importers and Exporters of Fluorinated GHGs Inside Precharged Equipment or Closed-cell Foams (Subpart QQ) 

H. Electrical Equipment Manufacture or Refurbishment 

(Subpart SS) 

III. Economic Impacts of the Final Rule 

A. How were compliance costs estimated? 

B. What are the costs of the rule? 

C. What are the economic impacts of the rule? 

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

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

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks 
Page 11 of 442 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly 

Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act 

I. Background 

A. Organization of this Preamble

This preamble is broken into several large sections, 

as detailed in the Table of Contents. The paragraphs below 

describe the layout of the preamble and provide a brief 

summary of each section. 

The first section of this preamble contains the basic 

background information about the origin of this rule, 

including a brief discussion of the rationale for revising 

the initially proposed requirements for subparts L, DD, and 

SS. This section also discusses EPA’s use of our legal 

authority under the CAA to collect the required data, and 

the benefits of collecting the data. 

The second section of this preamble provides a brief 

summary of the key design elements for each subpart. For 

each subpart, this section includes (1) The definition of 

the source category, (2) GHGs to report, (3) GHG emission 

calculating and monitoring methods, (4) data reporting 

requirements, and (5) records that must be retained. Each 

subpart also includes a summary of major changes since 
Page 12 of 442 

proposal and a summary of comments and responses. Please 

refer to the specific source category of interest for more 

details. 

The third section provides the summary of the cost 

impacts, economic impacts, and benefits of this rule from 

the Economic Analysis. Finally, the last section discusses 

the various statutory and executive order requirements 

applicable to this rule. 

B. Background on the Final Rule

This action finalizes monitoring and reporting 

requirements for the following five source categories: 

electronics manufacturing, fluorinated gas production, 

electrical equipment use, electrical equipment manufacture 

and refurbishment, and importers and exporters and precharged equipment and closed-cell foams. 

EPA initially proposed reporting requirements for 

electronics, fluorinated GHG production, and electrical 

equipment use on April 12, 2009 (74 FR 16448) as part of a 

larger rulemaking effort to establish a GHG reporting 

program for all sectors of the economy. In that proposal, 

EPA also requested comment on requiring reporting of the 

quantities of fluorinated GHGs imported and exported inside 

pre-charged equipment and foams. However, EPA did not 

include requirements for these source categories in the 
Page 13 of 442 

Final Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule (Part 98) (40 CFR part 

98), which was signed by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson on 

September 22, 2009 and published in the Federal Register on 

October 30, 2009 (74 FR 56260). 

EPA deferred action on these source categories because 

EPA received a number of lengthy, detailed comments 

regarding the proposed requirements for these source 

categories. These comments, which are described in more 

detail in the discussions of the individual source 

categories in the April 12, 2010 proposed rule, raised 

concerns about the costs and technical feasibility of 

implementing subparts I and L as initially proposed, 

requested clarification of how “facility” should be 

interpreted under subpart DD, and both favored and opposed 

a requirement to report fluorinated GHGs contained in 

imported and exported pre-charged equipment and closed-cell 

foams. 

EPA recognized the concerns raised by stakeholders, 

and decided to re-propose significant pieces of these 

subparts. The revised proposed rule was published in the 

Federal Register on April 12, 2010. A public hearing on 

the proposed rule was held on April 20, 2010 in Washington, 

DC, and the 60-day public comment period ended on June 11, 

2010. 
Page 14 of 442 

For subparts I and L this rule incorporates a number 

of technical changes including, but not limited to, the 

addition of different methodologies that provide improved 

emissions coverage at a lower cost burden to facilities as 

compared to the initial April 2009 proposal. Where aspects 

of the initial proposals for subparts I and L are retained 

in this rule, such as in the basic mass-balance methodology 

for subpart L (as an option for some facilities) and in 

many of the equations for subpart I, this rule adds more 

flexibility in how and how frequently the underlying data 

are gathered. In addition, EPA is requiring facilities to 

report emissions from manufacture or refurbishment of 

electrical equipment and to report the quantities of 

fluorinated GHGs imported and exported inside pre-charged 

equipment and foams. 

We have concluded that the monitoring approaches 

required in this rule, which combine direct measurement and 

facility-specific calculations, effectively balance 

accuracy and costs, and that they are warranted because the 

resulting data will enable EPA to analyze and develop a 

range of potential CAA GHG policies and programs. A 

consistent and accurate data set is crucial to serve this 

intended purpose. 
Page 15 of 442 

Under this rule, facilities and suppliers will begin 

data collection in 2011 following the methods outlined in 

this rule and will submit data to EPA by March 31, 2012. 

EPA is allowing facilities and suppliers to use the Best 

Available Monitoring Methods (BAMM) through June 30, 2011 

without submitting a petition to EPA. EPA is also allowing 

facilities to request an extension for the use of BAMM 

beyond the initial 6-month period. For details on BAMM 

extension requests, including their due dates and required 

contents, refer to the Monitoring and QA/QC Requirements 

section of each subpart and to the preamble discussions for 

subparts I and L. 

C. Legal Authority 

EPA is finalizing requirements for five source 

categories (electronics manufacturing, production of 

fluorinated gases, use of electrical transmission and 

distribution equipment, manufacture or refurbishment of 

electrical equipment, and imports and exports of precharges equipment and closed cell-foams) under its existing 

CAA authority; specifically, authorities provided in CAA 

section 114. As discussed in detail in Sections I.C and 

II.Q of the preamble to the 2009 final rule (74 FR 56260, 

October 30, 2009), CAA section 114(a)(1) provides EPA with 

broad authority to require emissions sources, persons 
Page 16 of 442 

subject to the CAA, manufacturers of process or control 

equipment, or persons whom the Administrator believes may 

have necessary information to monitor and report emissions 

and provide such other information the Administrator 

requests for the purposes of carrying out any provision of 

the CAA. Further information is available in “Mandatory 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA’s Response to Public 

Comments, Legal Issues” (available in EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508) 

II. Requirements for Specific Source Categories 

A. Overview of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program

On October 30, 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) published a rule for the mandatory reporting 

of greenhouse gases (GHG) (also referred to as 40 CFR part 

98) from large GHG emissions sources in the United States. 

Implementation of 40 CFR Part 98 is referred to as the 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP). 

The rule requires reporting of GHG emissions and 

supply from certain sectors of the economy, and apply to 

certain downstream facilities that emit GHGs, as well as to 

certain upstream suppliers of fossil fuels and industrial 

GHGs. The regulations require annual reporting of GHGs 

including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide 

(N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), 
Page 17 of 442 

sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and other fluorinated compounds 

(e.g., hydrofluoroethers (HFEs)). 

Part 98 regulations require only that source 

categories subject to the rule monitor and report GHGs in 

accordance with the methods specified in the individual 

subparts. In this action, EPA is adding five source 

categories to part 98. For a list of the specific GHGs to 

be reported and the GHG calculation procedures, monitoring, 

missing data procedures, recordkeeping, and reporting 

required for facilities subject to subparts I, L, DD, QQ, 

and SS see the relevant subpart description below. 

B. Overview of Confidentiality Determination for Data 

Elements in the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rules

This action does not address whether data reported 

under subparts I, L, DD, QQ, or SS will be treated as 

confidential business information (CBI). EPA published a 

proposed confidentiality determination on July 7, 2010 (75 

FR 39094) which addressed this issue. In that action, EPA 

proposed which specific data elements would be treated as 

CBI and which data elements must be available to the public 

under CAA section 114. EPA has received several comments 

on the proposal, and is in the process of considering these 

comments. A final determination will be issued before any 
Page 18 of 442 

data is released, and the final determination will include 

all of the data elements under these subparts. 

C. Summary of Changes to the General Provisions of the 

General Provisions of 40 CFR Part 98 Related to the 

Addition of Subparts I, L, DD, QQ, and SS

Changes to Applicability. We are making changes to 40 

CFR 98.3(c)(5) to be consistent with previous revisions 

that were made on July 12, 2010. On July 12, 2010 (75 FR 

39736), we made a number of conforming changes to the 

General Provisions (subpart A to part 98) to accommodate 

the addition of new source categories that were being added 

to Part 98. In the July 12, 2010 notice, we added Tables 

A-3 through A-5 to replace the list of source categories 

and supplier categories in 40 CFR 98.2(a)(1), (a)(2), and 

(a)(4), respectively. Under this revised approach, as new 

subparts are adopted, a new row is added to the appropriate 

table for the year in which reporting is required to 

commence for the new source category or supplier category. 

As a conforming change, the text of 40 CFR 98.3(c)(4) was 

reworded to refer to “Table A-3 and Table A-4” instead of 

“subparts C-JJ.” 

In this action, we are amending Tables A-3, A-4, and 

A-5 to subpart A to add entries for five subparts: DD, SS, 

I, L, and QQ. Because we are now adding a new supplier 
Page 19 of 442 

category to the reporting requirements, we are also making 

a conforming change to 40 CFR 98.3(c)(5)(i) and (ii) to 

replace the reference to "subparts KK through PP" with a 

reference to "Table A-5." This conforming change does not 

alter any reporting requirements. 

The following source categories have been added to the 

list of source categories in Table A-3 to subpart A because 

they have a production capacity or gas consumption 

threshold rather than a CO2e emission threshold. 

• Electric power transmission or distribution facilities 

that include the total nameplate capacity located 

within the facility, when added to the total nameplate 

capacity of SF6 and PFC containing equipment that is 

not located within the facility but is under common 

ownership or control, exceeds 17,820 pounds of sulfur 

hexafluoride (SF6)or perfluorocarbons (PFCs) (subpart 

DD). 

• Electric power equipment manufacturing or refurbishing 

facilities with total annual SF6 and PFC purchases 

(combined) that exceed 23,000 pounds per year (subpart 

SS). 

The following source categories are subject to the 

rule if facility emissions are equal to or greater than 

25,000 metric tons CO2e per year. Therefore, these source 

categories have been added to the list of emission 

threshold source categories referenced in Table A-4 to 

subpart A. 

• Fluorinated gas production facilities whose emissions 

would exceed 25,000 mtCO2e in the absence of control 

technologies (subpart L). 
Page 20 of 442 

• Electronics manufacturing facilities whose emissions 

would exceed 25,000 mtCO2e in the absence of control 

technologies (subpart I). 

For all of these facilities, whether they are listed 

in Table A-3 or A-4 to subpart A, the annual GHG report 

must cover stationary fuel combustion sources, 

miscellaneous uses of carbonates, and all applicable source 

categories listed in Table A-3 and Table A-4 to subpart A. 

Importers and exporters of certain types of precharged equipment or closed-cell foam products containing 

fluorinated GHGs, N2O, or CO2 (subpart QQ) have been added 

to Table A-5 to subpart A because they are suppliers of 

GHGs. 

As is true for the source categories covered by the 

final Part 98, a facility or supplier in any of these 

source categories may cease reporting if their emissions 

are less than 25,000 mtCO2e per year for five consecutive 

years or less than 15,000 mtCO2e per year for three 

consecutive years, subject to the procedures at 40 CFR 

98.2(i). 

Reporting CO2e emissions. EPA is adding a paragraph to 

40 CFR 98.3(c)(4) to clarify that facilities that emit 

fluorinated GHGs are required to calculate and report CO2e 

emissions only for those fluorinated GHGs that are listed 

in Table A-1 of this subpart, not for other fluorinated 
Page 21 of 442 

GHGs. However, it is important to note that fluorinated 

GHG emitters are still required to report all fluorinated 

GHGs emitted under 40 CFR 98.3(c)(4)(ii) (in metric tons of 

GHG). This change clarifies that emitters are not required 

to develop GWPs for fluorinated GHGs that are not listed in 

Table A-1 and ensures consistent reporting of such 

fluorinated GHGs among different reporters. The change is 

being made in parallel with a similar change to 40 CFR 

98.3(c)(5) through a separate rulemaking. 

Definitions. EPA is revising one definition in 40 CFR 

part 98 subpart A and is adding a number of definitions 

applicable to specific source categories to the 

corresponding subparts. The definition that is being 

revised in subpart A is the definition of “destruction 

efficiency,” which is being revised to be expressed in tons 

of specific greenhouse gases rather than tons of CO2e. 

This revision and the rationale for it are discussed in 

more detail in Section II.E of this preamble. 

The definitions that are applicable to specific source 

categories are not being added to the definitions section 

in 40 CFR part 98 subpart A because they do not have 

broader applicability to part 98. EPA has sought to avoid 

any conflict between these subpart-specific definitions and 

the definitions in Subpart A. In one instance, for 
Page 22 of 442 

electric power systems, EPA is applying a category-specific 

definition of facility rather than the general definition 

of facility in the General Provisions. The reasons for 

this source-category-specific definition of facility are 

set forth in Section II.G of this preamble. The remaining 

definitions are intended as supplements to the definitions 

section in the General Provisions. EPA does not expect 

these definitions to create conflicts with the General 

Provisions. To the extent regulated entities are in doubt 

as to which definition applies, they should assume that the 

category-specific definitions are controlling. 

Incorporation by Reference (IBR). We are amending 40 

CFR 98.7 (incorporation by reference) to include standard 

methods used in the subparts. In particular, for subpart 

I, we are adding the following three standards: the 2006 

International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative’s Guideline 

for Environmental Characterization of Semiconductor Process 

Equipment (International SEMATECH #06124825A–ENG), the 2001 

International SEMATECH’s Guidelines for Environmental 

Characterization of Semiconductor Equipment (International 

SEMATECH #01104197A-XFR), and EPA’s Protocol for Measuring 

Destruction or Removal Efficiency (DRE) of Fluorinated 

Greenhouse Gas Abatement Equipment in Electronics 

Manufacturing, Version 1, EPA 430-R-10-003. These 
Page 23 of 442 

standards are referenced in 40 CFR 98.94 (Monitoring and 

QA/QC requirements for subpart I), 40 CFR 98.96 (Data 

reporting requirements for subpart I), 40 CFR 98.97 

(Records that must be retained for subpart I), and 98.98 

(Definitions for subpart I). 

In addition, for subpart L, we are revising the 

paragraphs listing several ASME standards and one ASTM 

standard that are already contained in 40 CFR 98.7 to 

indicate that these standards are also referenced by 40 CFR 

98.124 (Monitoring and QA/QC requirements in 40 CFR part 

98, subpart L, fluorinated gas production). We are also 

adding the following seven standards: ASTM D2879-97 

(Reapproved 2007) Standard Test Method for Vapor PressureTemperature Relationship and Initial Decomposition 

Temperature of Liquids by Isoteniscope; ASTM D7359-08 

Standard Test Method for Total Fluorine, Chlorine and 

Sulfur in Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Their Mixtures by 

Oxidative Pyrohydrolytic Combustion followed by Ion 

Chromatography Detection (Combustion Ion ChromatographyCIC); Tracer Gas Protocol for the Determination of 

Volumetric Flow Rate Through the Ring Pipe of the Xact 

Multi-Metals Monitoring System (also known as Other Test 

Method 24); Approved Alternative Method 012: An Alternate 

Procedure for Stack Gas Volumetric Flow Rate Determination 
Page 24 of 442 

(Tracer Gas); the Emission Inventory Improvement Program, 

Volume II: Chapter 16, Methods for Estimating Air 

Emissions from Chemical Manufacturing Facilities; Protocol 

for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates; and EPA’s Protocol 

for Measuring Destruction or Removal Efficiency (DRE) of 

Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Abatement Equipment in 

Electronics Manufacturing, Version 1, EPA 430-R-10-003. 

These are referenced in 40 CFR 98.123 (Calculating GHG 

emissions for subpart L), 40 CFR 98.124 (Monitoring and 

QA/QC requirements for subpart L), and 40 CFR 98.128 

(Definitions for subpart L). 

D. Electronics Manufacturing (Subpart I)

1. Summary of the Final Rule

Source Category Definition. The electronics 

manufacturing source category consists of any of the 

following five production processes. Facilities that use 

these processes include, but are not limited to, those 

facilities that manufacture micro-electro-mechanical 

systems (MEMS), liquid crystal displays (LCDs), 

photovoltaic cells (PV), and semiconductors (including 

light-emitting diodes). 

• Electronics manufacturing production processes in 

which the etching process uses plasma-generated 

fluorine atoms and other reactive fluorine-containing 

fragments, which chemically react with exposed thin-
Page 25 of 442 

films (e.g., dielectric, metals) or substrate (e.g., 

silicon) to selectively remove portions of material. 

• Electronics manufacturing production processes in 

which chambers used for depositing thin films are 

cleaned periodically using plasma-generated fluorine 

atoms and other reactive fluorine-containing 

fragments. 

• Electronics manufacturing production process in which 

wafers are cleaned using plasma generated fluorine 

atoms or other reactive fluorine-containing fragments 

to remove residual material from wafer surfaces, 

including the wafer edge. 

• Electronics manufacturing production processes in 

which the chemical vapor deposition process (CVD) or 

other manufacturing processes use N2O. 

• Production processes which use fluorinated GHGs as 

heat transfer fluids to cool process equipment, to 

control temperature during device testing, to clean 

substrate surfaces and other parts, and for soldering 

(e.g., vapor phase reflow). Heat transfer fluids 

commonly used in electronics manufacturing include 

those sold under the trade names "Galden®" and 

"FluorinertTM." 

Reporting Threshold. Electronics manufacturing 

facilities that meet the applicability criteria in the 

General Provisions (40 CFR 98.2) must report GHG emissions. 

Electronics manufacturing facilities covered by subpart I 

are those that have emissions equal to or greater than 

25,000 mtCO2e. For electronics manufacturing, EPA is 

requiring that uncontrolled emissions be used for purposes 

of determining whether a facility’s emissions are equal to 

or greater than 25,000 mtCO2e.1 Facilities must determine 

 

1

 For purposes of calculating and reporting emissions for this subpart, 

facilities may report controlled emissions if they abide by provisions 

in 40 CFR 98.94(f) of this rule. 
Page 26 of 442 

if they meet the applicability criteria in the General 

Provisions (40 CFR 98.2(a)(2)) by using the methods in 40 

CFR 98.91 and summarized as follows: 

• Semiconductor, MEMS, and LCD manufacturing facilities 

are required to use gas specific emission factors and 

100 percent of annual manufacturing capacity. Because 

heat transfer fluids are widely used in semiconductor 

manufacturing, to account for emissions from heat 

transfer fluids, semiconductor manufacturing 

facilities are required to add 10 percent of total 

clean and etch emissions at a facility to their total 

estimate. For semiconductor and LCD manufacturing 

facilities, the gas specific emission factors are 

consistent with the 2006 IPCC Tier 1 emission factors. 

For MEMS manufacturing facilities, because there is no 

IPCC factor available, the emission factor was 

developed by EPA and is based on the IPCC Tier 2b SF6

emission factor for semiconductors.2 

• PV manufacturing facilities are required to multiply 

annual fluorinated GHG purchases or consumption by the 

gas-appropriate 100-year GWPs (provided in Table A-1 

to subpart A of this part). 

It is important to clarify that these methods for 

determining whether a manufacturer exceeds the threshold 

are different from those used to calculate and report 

annual GHG emissions. The methods for calculating GHG 

emissions and consumption for reporting purposes are 

provided in the following paragraphs. 

GHGs to Report. Each facility must calculate and 

report the following GHG emissions and consumption: 

 

2

 For a more detailed explanation of the MEMS default factor, please 

refer to the Electronics Manufacturing TSD (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927). 
Page 27 of 442 

• Fluorinated GHG emissions from plasma etching, chamber 

cleaning, and wafer cleaning. 

• N2O emissions from chemical vapor deposition and other 

electronics manufacturing processes. 

• Fluorinated GHG emissions from heat transfer fluid 

use. 

• Consumption for all fluorinated GHGs and N2O including 

gases used for manufacturing processes other than 

those listed above. 

• CO2, CH4, and N2O combustion emissions from stationary 

combustion units by following the requirements of 40 

CFR part 98, subpart C (General Stationary Fuel 

Combustion Sources). 

GHG Emissions Calculation and Monitoring. To 

calculate fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions from electronics 

manufacturing, reporters must use the following methods, as 

appropriate for each electronics manufacturing facility 

(depending on the product manufactured, i.e., MEMS, LCD, 

PV, or semiconductors). 

Fluorinated GHG Emissions

All electronics manufacturing facilities are required 

to calculate fluorinated GHG emissions from etch and clean 

processes by estimating emissions of input fluorinated GHGs 

and of by-product fluorinated GHGs. This is done by 

applying utilization factors and by-product formation 

factors (collectively referred to as “emission factors” 

below) to the consumption of each fluorinated GHG by each 

process type, process sub-type or recipe, as appropriate. 

However, the methods prescribed for use by different types 
Page 28 of 442 

of electronics manufacturing facilities differ in the 

values of these emission factors, the level of aggregation 

to which the factors are applied (process type, process 

sub-type, or recipe), and whether defaults or recipespecific factors are applied. This framework is discussed 

in detail in the following paragraphs. 

To calculate and report fluorinated GHG emissions, 

reporters must adhere to the typology shown in Figure 1 of 

this preamble. 

Figure 1. Typology for Calculating Fluorinated GHG 

Emissions from Electronics Manufacturing 

At the top of the typology figure are process types, 

which consist of plasma etching, chamber cleaning, and 

wafer cleaning. The second level in the figure consists of 

process sub-types, which are identified for only the 

chamber cleaning process type. As explained in Section 

II.D.2 of this preamble (Summary of Major Changes Since the 

Proposal) and Section II.D.3 of this preamble (Summary of 

Comments and Responses), EPA is only establishing sub-types 

for the chamber cleaning process type because sufficient 

information was available for these sub-types to establish 
Page 29 of 442 

default emission factors. The three chamber cleaning 

process sub-types are in-situ plasma, remote plasma, and 

in-situ thermal cleans. The bottom of the figure displays 

production process recipes. Definitions are provided in 

the paragraphs below. 

Process Type. EPA is defining a process type as a 

broad group of manufacturing steps used at a facility 

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

device manufacture for which fluorinated GHG emissions and 

fluorinated GHG usages are calculated and reported. The 

process types are plasma etching, chamber cleaning, and 

wafer cleaning.3

Process Sub-type. EPA is defining a process sub-type 

as a set of similar manufacturing steps, more closely 

related within a broad process type. (For clarity, EPA is 

referring to what was previously termed process categories 

in the April 2010 proposed rule (75 FR 18652) as process 

sub-types). 

In situ plasma process sub-type consists of the 

cleaning of thin-film production chambers, after processing 

substrates, with a fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent that is 

 

3

 As defined in the final rule, the plasma etching process type consists 

of any production process using fluorinated GHG reagents to selectively 

remove materials that have been deposited on a substrate during 

electronics manufacturing. Also as defined in the final rule, the 

wafer cleaning process type consists of any production process using 

fluorinated GHG reagents to clean wafers at any step during production. 
Page 30 of 442 

dissociated into its cleaning constituents by a plasma 

generated inside the chamber where the films are produced. 

Remote plasma process sub-type consists of the 

cleaning of thin-film production chambers, after processing 

substrates, with a fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent 

dissociated by a remotely located (e.g., upstream) plasma 

source. 

In situ thermal process sub-type consists of the 

cleaning of thin-film production chambers, after processing 

substrates, with a fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent that is 

thermally dissociated into its cleaning constituents inside 

the chamber where one or more thin films are produced. 

Production Process Recipe (Recipe). EPA has included 

definitions of “individual recipe” and “similar” with 

respect to recipes in this final rule as an aid to 

understanding the portions of the rule where a facility is 

required or allowed to calculate emissions on a recipespecific basis. The final rule uses the term “individual 

recipe” to refer to a specific combination of gases, under 

specific conditions of reactor temperature, pressure, flow, 

radio frequency (RF) power and duration, used repeatedly to 

fabricate a specific feature on a specific film or 

substrate. EPA is also introducing the term “similar,” 

with respect to recipes, to refer to recipes that are 
Page 31 of 442 

composed of the same set of chemicals and have the same 

flow stabilization times and where the documented 

differences, considered separately, in reactor pressure, 

individual gas flow rates, and applied RF power are less 

than or equal to plus or minus 10 percent. For purposes of 

comparing and documenting recipes that are similar, 

facilities may use either the best known method provided by 

an equipment manufacturer or the process of record, for 

which emission factors for either have been measured (see 

the Electronics Manufacturing TSD (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927) 

for supporting information). Generally, where facilities 

develop recipe-specific utilization and by-product 

formation rates, they may apply the utilization and byproduct formation rates developed for an individual recipe 

to any “similar recipe.4” 

Electronics manufacturing facilities must calculate 

and report emissions of each fluorinated GHG used at the 

facility by adhering to typologies discussed and defined 

earlier in this section, as appropriate, and using the 

following methods based on the use of (1) Gas consumption, 

and (2) emission factors for fluorinated-GHG utilization 

and by-product formation rates. Where facilities are 

 

4

 To be included in a set of similar recipes for the purposes of this 

subpart, a recipe must be similar to the recipe in the set for which 

recipe-specific utilization and by-product formation rates have been 

measured. 
Page 32 of 442 

required to estimate and calculate emissions for sub-types 

or recipes, they are also required to report those 

emissions in aggregate by process type. 

The required methods are summarized in Table 3 of this 

preamble. EPA is naming the methodologies described below 

using a format similar to that used in the 2006 IPCC 

Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. While 

EPA’s methodologies may be viewed generally as an extension 

from and building upon the IPCC’s methods, EPA’s approach 

is distinct in terms of its applicability and level of 

detail. 

Table 3. Summary of Final Provisions for Electronics 

Manufacturing Facilities to Estimate and Report Fluorinated 

GHG Emissions from Etching and Cleaning Processes 

Product 

Manufactured 

Manufactured 

Wafer Size 

Annual 

Capacitya

Required 

Methodology 

Optional 

Methodology 

PV, MEMS, LCDs NA NA Modified 

Tier 2b- Use 

EPA default 

emission 

factorsb

 for 

plasma 

etching and 

chamber 

cleaning 

process 

types.c

 

Tier 3 - 

Use recipespecific 

emission 

factors for 

all 

production 

processes 

that use 

fluorinated 

GHGs. 

Semiconductors 300 mm and 

smaller 

Less than 

or equal 

to 10,500 

m2 of 

substrate

Tier 2c - 

Use EPA 

default 

emission 

factors for 

plasma 

etching, 

chamber 

cleaning 

Tier 3 – 

Use recipespecific 

emission 

factors for 

all 

production 

processes 

that use 
Page 33 of 442 

Product 

Manufactured 

Manufactured 

Wafer Size 

Annual 

Capacitya

Required 

Methodology 

Optional 

Methodology 

(including 

in-situ 

plasma 

cleaning, 

remote 

plasma 

cleaning, 

in-situ 

thermal 

cleaning 

sub-types), 

and wafer 

cleaning 

process 

types.c

 

fluorinated 

GHGs. 

Semiconductors 300 mm and 

smaller 

Greater 

than 

10,500 m2 

of 

substrate

Tier 2d - 

Use EPA 

default 

emission 

factors for 

chamber 

cleaning 

(including 

in-situ 

plasma 

cleaning, 

remote 

plasma 

cleaning, 

in-situ 

thermal 

cleaning 

sub-types), 

and wafer 

cleaning 

process 

types, and 

recipespecific 

emission 

factors for 

plasma 

etching.c

Tier 3 - 

Use recipespecific 

emission 

factors for 

all 

production 

processes 

that use 

fluorinated 

GHGs. 

Semiconductors Larger than 

300 mm 

NA Tier 3 – Use 

recipespecific 

emission 

factors for 

all 

None. 
Page 34 of 442 

Product 

Manufactured 

Manufactured 

Wafer Size 

Annual 

Capacitya

Required 

Methodology 

Optional 

Methodology 

production 

processes 

that use 

fluorinated 

GHG. a

 Manufacturing capacity is 100 percent of annual manufacturing capacity 

of a facility as determined by summing the area of maximum designed 

substrate starts of a facility per month over the reporting period. 

b

 These emission factors are consistent with emission factors published 

in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. 

c

 Where default emission factors are not provided in Tables I-3, I-4, I5, I-6, or I-7 for a particular fluorinated GHG and process type or 

sub-type combination, a facility must either use utilization and byproduct formation rates of 0 or use directly measured recipe-specific 

emission factors using the procedures of this subpart. 

Gas Consumption

Electronics manufacturing facilities must use the 

following methods to calculate and apportion fluorinated 

GHG consumption: 

• Total annual gas consumption, for all fluorinated GHGs 

and N2O used at a facility, calculated using the 

facility’s purchase records, disbursements, gas 

container inventories, and gas- and facility-specific 

heel factors. 

• Total annual gas consumption apportioning factors 

developed using facility-specific engineering models 

based on quantifiable metrics (i.e., a metric that is 

proportional to gas usage) of fluorinated GHG-using 

activity. Facilities must document these models in 

their site GHG Monitoring Plans (as required under 40 

CFR 98.3) and verify them. At a minimum, facilities 

must verify and document the information listed in 40 

CFR 98.94(c) and 40 CFR 98.97(c), respectively. This 

information must be updated each reporting year. 

Fluorinated GHG Utilization and By-Product Formation Rates 

(Emission Factors)
Page 35 of 442 

Electronics manufacturing facilities must use the 

following methods for applying (and in some cases, 

developing) fluorinated GHG emission factors, as 

appropriate. Where a facility uses less than 50 kg of a 

fluorinated GHG in one reporting year, rather than 

calculate emissions using an emission factor, they may 

report the emissions of that gas as equal to consumption. 

Facilities that Manufacture MEMS, LCDs, and PV

Facilities that manufacture MEMS, LCDs, and PV are 

required to calculate and report their fluorinated GHG 

emissions from two process types: plasma etching and 

chamber cleaning. These facilities are required to use 

default emission factors presented in Tables I-5, I-6, or 

I-7 to subpart I for MEMS, LCDs, PV, respectively. EPA is 

using the term “Modified Tier 2b Method” to refer to this 

methodology. 

A facility may use directly measured recipe-specific 

emission factors in lieu of defaults for all production 

processes that use fluorinated GHGs only if the recipespecific emission factors are measured using the 2006 ISMI 

Guidelines, International SEMATECH #06124825A-ENG, with 

limited exceptions.5 The facility must develop recipe-

 

5

 EPA is permitting facilities to use emission factors measured using 

the 2001 ISMI Guidelines, International SEMATECH #01104197A-XFR, 
Page 36 of 442 

specific factors for each individual recipe except that a 

factor developed for one individual recipe may be applied 

to similar recipes. In a given reporting year, a facility 

must develop new recipe-specific emission factors only for 

recipes which are not similar to any recipe used in a 

previous reporting year. Facilities that choose the 

recipe-specific approach must also aggregate the recipespecific emissions and report the total emissions by 

process type (plasma etching and chamber cleaning). In 

addition, where a facility reports using recipe-specific 

emission factors, they are required to report the film or 

substrate that was etched/cleaned and the feature type that 

was etched. 

A facility that is using a method based on default 

emission factors, but uses a fluorinated GHG for a 

particular process type for which default emission factors 

are not provided in Tables I-5, I-6, or I-7, must either 

use utilization and by-product formation rates of 0 or, in 

that particular instance, use directly measured recipespecific emission factors measured using the 2006 ISMI 

Guidelines, International SEMATECH #06124825A-ENG, with 

limited exceptions.6 The facility must develop and report 

 

provided the emissions factors were measured prior to January 1, 2007. 

Documentation for the measurements is required. 

6

 See footnote 5. 
Page 37 of 442 

the recipe-specific emission factors using the same 

procedures as discussed in the paragraph above. 

With the exception of where default emission factors 

are not provided in Tables I-5, I-6, or I-7 for a 

particular process type, EPA is prohibiting a facility from 

creating and using a hybrid method to ensure consistent 

methods of calculating and reporting emissions. This means 

that a single facility must choose between using only 

default emission factors or using recipe-specific emission 

factors for all process types; hybrid methods using both 

default emission factors and recipe-specific factors within 

the same reporting year are not permitted. This 

restriction will enable EPA to analyze emissions and trends 

using a consistent set of data. 

Facilities that Manufacture Semiconductors 

EPA is requiring facilities that manufacture 

semiconductors to use a method to calculate and report 

their fluorinated GHG emissions which varies depending on 

the size of wafers that the facility is manufacturing 

(i.e., whether the facility manufactures wafers measuring 

300 mm and less or greater than 300 mm). This distinction 

was proposed in the April 2010 proposed rule (75 FR 18652). 

For facilities that manufacture wafers measuring 300 mm and 

less, EPA is requiring the use of one of two following 
Page 38 of 442 

methods for calculating and reporting emissions, depending 

on the facility’s manufacturing capacity: (1) A method for 

facilities that have an annual manufacturing capacity that 

is less than or equal to 10,500 m2 of substrate, and (2) a 

method for those that have an annual manufacturing capacity 

greater than 10,500 m2 of substrate. A facility’s 

manufacturing capacity (as calculated using Equation I-5 of 

subpart I) is 100 percent of the maximum designed substrate 

starts, expressed as surface area, for the reporting year. 

This distinction in manufacturing capacity was part of 

EPA’s initial April 2009 proposed rule (74 FR 16448). 

Semiconductor Manufacturing Facilities that Fabricate 

Devices on Wafers Measuring 300 mm or less in Diameter and 

that Have an Annual Manufacturing Capacity of Less than or 

Equal to 10,500 m2 of Substrate 

Semiconductor manufacturing facilities that fabricate 

devices on wafers measuring 300 mm or less in diameter and 

that have an annual manufacturing capacity of less than or 

equal to 10,500 m2

 of substrate7 must calculate and report 

their fluorinated GHG emissions using the following five 

process types and sub-types, and the corresponding default 

 

7 As calculated in Equation I-5 of subpart I, manufacturing capacity is 

100 percent of annual manufacturing capacity of a facility as 

determined by summing the area of maximum designed substrate starts of 

a facility per month over the reporting period. 
Page 39 of 442 

emission factors presented in Tables I-3 and I-4 to subpart 

I: 

• Plasma etching process type. 

• Chamber cleaning process type which includes the 

following three process sub-types: 

– in-situ plasma chamber cleaning process sub-type. 

– Remote plasma chamber cleaning process sub-type. 

– In-situ thermal chamber cleaning process sub-type. 

• Wafer cleaning process type. 

Default emission factors are differentiated by 150/200 

mm and 300 mm wafer technologies. The default emission 

factors were developed using the data provided in Table 5 

of the report Draft Emission Factors for Refined 

Semiconductor Manufacturing Process Categories (EPA-HQ-OAR2009-0927-0073). EPA is using the term “Tier 2c Method” to 

refer to this methodology. 

A facility may use directly measured recipe-specific 

emission factors for each individual recipe or recipe that 

is not a similar recipe in lieu of defaults only if the 

recipe-specific emission factors are measured using the 

2006 ISMI Guidelines, International SEMATECH #06124825AENG, with limited exceptions.8 The facility must develop 

recipe-specific factors for each individual recipe except 

that factors developed for one individual recipe may be 

applied to similar recipes. In a given reporting year, a 

 

8

 See footnote 5. 
Page 40 of 442 

facility must develop recipe-specific emission factors only 

for new recipes which are not similar to any recipe used in 

a previous reporting year. Facilities that choose the 

recipe-specific approach must also aggregate the recipespecific emissions and report the total emissions by 

process type (plasma etching, chamber cleaning, and wafer 

cleaning). In addition, where a facility reports using 

recipe-specific emission factors, they are required to 

report the film or substrate that was etched/cleaned and 

the feature type that was etched. 

A facility that is using a method based on default 

emission factors, but uses a fluorinated GHG for a 

particular process type or sub-type for which default 

emission factors are not provided in Tables I-3 and I-4, 

must either use utilization and by-product formation rates 

of 0 or, in that particular instance, use directly measured 

recipe-specific emission factors measured using the 2006 

ISMI Guidelines, International SEMATECH #06124825A-ENG, 

with limited exceptions.9 The facility must develop and 

report the recipe-specific emission factors using the same 

procedures as discussed in the paragraph above. 

With the exception of where default emission factors 

are not provided in the Tables I-3 and I-4 for a particular 

 

9

 See footnote 5. 
Page 41 of 442 

process type or sub-type, a facility must use either 

default emission factors only, or recipe-specific emission 

factors only for all process types and sub-types; creating 

and using a hybrid method is not permitted for the reasons 

discussed earlier in this section. 

Semiconductor Manufacturing Facilities that Fabricate 

Devices on Wafers Measuring 300 mm or less in Diameter and 

that Have an Annual Manufacturing Capacity of Greater Than 

10,500 m2 of Substrate 

Semiconductor manufacturing facilities that fabricate 

devices on wafers measuring 300 mm or less in diameter and 

that have an annual manufacturing capacity greater than 

10,500 m2

 of substrate (the “largest” semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities)10 must calculate and report their 

emissions using a combination of default emission factors 

and directly measured recipe-specific emission factors. 

For the following four process types and sub-types, 

facilities must calculate emissions using only the default 

emission factors in Tables I-3 and I-4 of subpart I: 

• Chamber cleaning process type: 

– In-situ plasma chamber cleaning process sub-type. 

– Remote plasma chamber cleaning process sub-type. 

 

10 EPA estimates that the largest semiconductor facilities comprise 29 

facilities out of 175 total semiconductor facilities. See the 

Electronics Manufacturing TSD available in the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-

0927) for EPA’s analysis. 
Page 42 of 442 

– In-situ thermal chamber cleaning process sub-type. 

• Wafer cleaning process type. 

Default emission factors are differentiated by 150/200 

mm and 300 mm wafer technologies. These emission factors, 

which are the same emission factors as specified for the 

Tier 2c method, were developed using the data provided in 

Table 5 of the report Draft Emission Factors for Refined 

Semiconductor Manufacturing Process Categories (EPA-HQ-OAR2009-0927-0073). EPA is using the term “Tier 2d Method” to 

refer to this methodology. 

For the plasma etching process type, facilities must 

calculate emissions using only directly measured recipespecific emission factors. The facility must develop 

recipe-specific factors for each individual recipe except 

that factors developed for one individual recipe may be 

applied to similar recipes. In a given reporting year, a 

facility must develop new recipe-specific emission factors 

only for recipes which are not similar to any recipe used 

in a previous reporting year. Plasma etching recipespecific emission factors must be measured using the 2006 

ISMI Guidelines, International SEMATECH #06124825A-ENG, 

with limited exemptions.11 Facilities must also aggregate 

the recipe-specific emissions and report the total 

 

11 See footnote 5. 
Page 43 of 442 

emissions by plasma etching process type. In addition, the 

facility is required to report the film or substrate that 

was etched/cleaned and the feature type that was etched for 

recipes used. 

A facility also has the option of using directly 

measured recipe-specific emission factors in lieu of 

default emission factors for the chamber and wafer cleaning 

process types, but only if the recipe-specific factors are 

measured using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines, International 

SEMATECH #06124825A-ENG, with limited exceptions.12 The 

facility must develop recipe-specific factors for each 

individual recipe except that factors developed for one 

individual recipe may be applied to similar recipes. In a 

given reporting year, a facility must develop new recipespecific emission factors only for recipes which are not 

similar to any recipe used in a previous reporting year. 

Facilities that choose the recipe-specific approach for the 

chamber and wafer cleaning process types must also 

aggregate the recipe-specific emissions and report the 

total emissions by those process types. In addition, where 

a facility reports using recipe-specific emission factors, 

they are required to report the film or substrate that was 

etched/cleaned and the feature type that was etched. 

 

12 See footnote 5. 
Page 44 of 442 

A facility that is using a method based on default 

emission factors, but uses a fluorinated GHG for a 

particular process type or sub-type for which default 

emission factors are not provided in Tables I-3 and I-4, 

must either use utilization and by-product formation rates 

of 0 or, in that particular instance, use directly measured 

recipe-specific emission factors measured using the 2006 

ISMI Guidelines, International SEMATECH #06124825A-ENG, 

with limited exceptions.13 The facility must develop and 

report the recipe-specific emission factors using the same 

procedures as discussed in the paragraph above. 

With the exception of where default emission factors 

are not provided in the Tables I-3 and I-4 for a particular 

process type or sub-type, a hybrid method using both 

default emission factors and recipe-specific factors for 

the chamber cleaning and wafer cleaning process types 

within the same reporting year is not permitted for reasons 

discussed earlier in this section. 

Semiconductor Facilities that Fabricate Devices on Wafers 

Measuring Greater than 300 mm in Diameter

Semiconductor manufacturing facilities that fabricate 

devices on wafers measuring greater than 300 mm in 

diameter, regardless of capacity, must calculate and report 

 

13 See footnote 5. 
Page 45 of 442 

all of their emissions from processes that use fluorinated 

GHGs (including plasma etching, chamber cleaning, and 

wafer cleaning process types) using directly measured 

recipe-specific emission factors (i.e., an approach 

consistent with the 2006 IPCC Tier 3 methodology). EPA is 

using the term “Tier 3 Method” to refer to this 

methodology. In a given reporting year, a facility must 

develop new recipe-specific emission factors only for 

recipes which are not similar to any recipe used in a 

previous reporting year. Emission factors must be measured 

using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines, International SEMATECH 

#06124825A-ENG, with limited exceptions.14 Facilities must 

also aggregate the recipe-specific emissions and report the 

total emissions by process type (plasma etching, chamber 

cleaning, and wafer cleaning). In addition, each facility 

is required to report the film or substrate that was 

etched/cleaned and the feature type that was etched for 

recipes used. 

N2O Emissions: Electronics manufacturing facilities 

must calculate emissions of N2O using: 

• Requirements for calculating and apportioning gas 

consumption as outlined above for “Fluorinated GHG 

Emissions.” 

• Production process emission factors for chemical vapor 

deposition and other electronics manufacturing 

 

14 See footnote 5. 
Page 46 of 442 

processes using either defaults provided in Table I-8 

to subpart I or facility-specific N2O emission factors 

based on facility measurements of N2O. Emission 

factors must be measured using the 2006 ISMI 

Guidelines, International SEMATECH #06124825A-ENG, 

with limited exceptions.15 Where a facility uses less 

than 50 kg of N2O in one reporting year, rather than 

calculate emissions using an emission factor, they may 

report the emissions as equal to consumption. 

Heat Transfer Fluid Emissions: Electronics 

manufacturing facilities must calculate and report 

emissions from heat transfer fluids using a mass balance 

approach. 

Reporting Controlled Emissions from Abatement Systems:

Electronics manufacturing facilities that wish to calculate 

and report controlled fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions from 

the use of abatement systems must certify that their 

abatement systems are installed, operated, and maintained 

in accordance with the manufacturers’ specifications, as 

well as account for uptime of abatement systems.16 

Facilities must calculate controlled emissions from 

abatement systems using either: 

• Destruction or removal efficiencies based on a default 

value of 60 percent. This approach requires 

certification that the abatement system is 

specifically designed for fluorinated GHG and N2O 

abatement. A facility must support its certification 

that the abatement system is specifically designed for 

 

15 See footnote 5. 16 In the final rule, EPA is defining controlled emissions as the 

quantity of emissions that are released to the atmosphere after 

application of an emission control device (e.g., abatement system). 
Page 47 of 442 

fluorinated GHG and N2O abatement by documenting the 

suppliers specifications; or 

• Directly measured destruction or removal efficiencies 

measured in accordance with EPA’s Protocol for 

Measuring Destruction or Removal Efficiency of 

Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Abatement Equipment in 

Electronics Manufacturing (EPA’s DRE Protocol), 

Version 1, EPA 430-R-10-003. These destruction or 

removal efficiencies must be measured at a frequency 

specified by EPA’s random sampling abatement system 

testing program (RSASTP). 

Best Available Monitoring Methods. EPA is allowing 

electronics manufacturing facilities to use Best Available 

Monitoring Methods (BAMM) through June 30, 2011 for this 

source category without submitting a request. The owner or 

operator must use the calculation methodologies and 

equations in the Calculating GHG Emissions section of 

subpart I (40 CFR 98.93), but may use BAMM for any 

parameter for which it is not reasonably feasible to 

acquire, install, or operate a required piece of monitoring 

equipment in a facility, or to procure measurement services 

from necessary providers. EPA is allowing facilities to 

use BAMM for 6 months based on EPA’s experience 

implementing the Final MRR issued in October 2009 and 

because it has determined that some electronics 

manufacturing facilities may need additional time to comply 

with the requirements in the final rule. 

Facilities wishing to extend the use of BAMM beyond 

the initial 6-month period, but no later than December 31, 
Page 48 of 442 

2011, must submit a petition to EPA by February 28, 2011. 

Requests for BAMM extensions must include detailed 

explanations and supporting documentation to describe why 

it is not reasonably feasible for the facility to comply 

with the required provisions. In general, extension 

requests must include detailed descriptions and evidence 

that it is not reasonably feasible to acquire, install, or 

operate a required piece of monitoring equipment in a 

facility, or to procure necessary measurement services from 

providers by July 1, 2011. 

Where a facility is required to estimate emissions 

using recipe-specific utilization and by-product formation 

rates for the plasma etching process type (i.e., the Tier 

2d method) and they are unable to develop those factors, 

EPA is requiring the facility to provide reasons why it is 

not reasonably feasible to obtain, install, or operate the 

needed equipment, or to procure necessary measurement 

services, before December 31, 2011 (in lieu of July 1, 

2011) because recipe-specific emission factors may be 

measured at any time during the reporting year. These 

facilities must submit a petition to EPA by June 30, 2011. 

BAMM extension requests must also document the 

facility’s efforts to comply with the requirements and 
Page 49 of 442 

explain the best available monitoring method that the 

facility will use, should EPA approve the request. 

EPA is requiring that if a facility is allowed to use 

BAMM in 2011 the facility must recalculate and resubmit 

2011 emissions with their report for the 2012 reporting 

year (to be submitted in 2013). For example, such a 

facility having been granted BAMM may use a default etch 

emission factor to calculate and report its 2011 emissions. 

This facility must then recalculate and report its 2011 

emissions with its 2012 report. Where a facility is 

allowed to use BAMM for apportioning gas consumption it is 

not required to verify its 2011 engineering model with its 

recalculated report. 

EPA does not anticipate approving the use of BAMM 

beyond December 31, 2011; however, EPA reserves the right 

to approve any such requests submitted by June 30, 2011 for 

unique and extreme circumstances which include safety, 

technical infeasibility, or inconsistency with other local, 

State or Federal regulations. Facilities requesting BAMM 

past December 31, 2011 would have to submit similar 

documentation to support the request as was required for 

BAMM requests in 2011. In addition, these facilities would 

be required to describe the unique and extreme 

circumstances which necessitate the extended use of BAMM. 
Page 50 of 442 

Facilities allowed to use BAMM through 2012 would be 

required to recalculate and resubmit their 2012 emissions. 

The recalculated emissions must be reported with the 2013 

report (submitted in 2014). Where a facility is allowed to 

use BAMM for apportioning gas consumption it is not 

required to verify its 2012 engineering model with its 

recalculated report. 

Data Reporting. In addition to the information 

required to be reported by the General Provisions (40 CFR 

98.3(c)), reporters must annually submit additional data 

used to calculate GHG emissions and consumption. A list of 

the specific data to be reported for this source category 

is contained in 40 CFR 98.96. 

Recordkeeping. In addition to the records required by 

the General Provisions (40 CFR 98.3(g)), reporters must 

keep records of additional data used to calculate GHG 

emissions and consumption. A list of specific records that 

must be retained for this source category is included in 40 

CFR 98.97. 

2. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal

The major changes in this rule since the April 2010 

proposal are identified in the following list. The 

rationales for these, and the identification of and 

rationale for other significant changes to the proposed 
Page 51 of 442 

rule can be found below or in “Mandatory Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments, Subpart 

I: Electronics Manufacturing” (available in the docket, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927). Relevant comments on EPA’s initial 

April 2009 proposal for electronics manufacturing are 

included below or in the Response to Comment Document. In 

addition to the changes identified below, EPA reorganized 

sections of the proposed regulatory text and made editorial 

changes to improve clarity and readability. 

Definition of the source category: 

• EPA has clarified that semiconductors include, among 

others, light-emitting diodes (LEDs). As explained in 

more detail in “Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting 

Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments, Subpart I: 

Electronics Manufacturing,” (available in the docket, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927), LEDs are a semiconductor light 

source. When a LED is switched on, electrons are able 

to recombine with holes within the device, releasing 

energy in the form of light whose color is governed by 

the nature of the semiconductor. Many LEDs are 

manufactured on a wafer (usually different than 

silicon) using methods that are similar to the 

manufacture of integrated circuits. 

Reporting threshold:

• EPA has clarified what manufacturing capacity of a 

facility means by providing a new equation (Equation 

I-5 of this rule) in the final rule that specifies 

manufacturing capacity is 100 percent of annual 

manufacturing capacity of a facility as determined by 

summing the area of maximum designed substrate starts 

of a facility per month over the reporting period. 

EPA has also provided a definition of maximum designed 

substrate starts. 
Page 52 of 442 

Calculating GHG emissions: 

• EPA has revised the requirements for semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities that fabricate devices on 

wafers measuring 300 mm or less in diameter to 

calculate and report fluorinated GHG emissions from 

etching and cleaning process types. In the final 

rule, EPA is requiring these facilities to use one of 

two different methodologies, depending on the 

manufacturing capacity of the facility. 

• EPA has modified the requirement for semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities that fabricate devices on 

wafers measuring 300 mm or less in diameter to require 

those facilities that have an annual manufacturing 

capacity of less than or equal to 10,500 m2

 of 

substrate to calculate and report fluorinated GHG 

emissions based on five process types and sub-types, 

as opposed to nine emitting process sub-types as 

proposed in the April 2010 rule. These facilities 

must calculate and report fluorinated GHG emissions 

from the etching process type, the chamber cleaning 

process type and its associated sub-types (in-situ 

plasma, remote plasma, in-situ thermal), and the wafer 

cleaning process type. The five process types and 

sub-types are differentiated by two wafer technologies 

(150/200 mm and 300 mm wafer size). EPA is using the 

term “Tier 2c” to refer to this methodology. EPA is 

combining default emission factors for 150 mm and 200 

mm wafer technologies because EPA did not have 

sufficient measured emissions data to establish 

different factors for these two technologies. For 

each of these process types and associated sub-types, 

EPA provides default emission factors accounting for 

(1) The mass fraction of the input gas that is 

utilized during manufacturing (i.e., not emitted from 

the process type or sub-type) and (2) the mass of each 

reportable fluorinated GHG by-product formed as a 

fraction of the mass of the fluorinated GHG input gas 

with the largest mass flow used. 

• EPA has added provisions to require the largest 

semiconductor facilities (defined as facilities with 

annual capacities of greater than 10,500 m2 of 

substrate) to calculate and report their emissions 

from the plasma etching process type using directly 

measured recipe-specific emission factors, while using 

EPA’s default emission factors for chamber cleaning 
Page 53 of 442 

sub-types, and for the wafer cleaning process type. 

EPA is using the term “Tier 2d” to refer to this 

hybrid methodology. All emission factors (utilization 

and by-product formation rates) for the etch processes 

are required to be measured using the 2006 ISMI 

Guidelines, with limited exceptions.17 

The requirement for semiconductor manufacturing 

facilities to calculate their emissions using processspecific process utilization and by-product formation rates 

(i.e., recipe-specific emission factors) was originally 

proposed in EPA’s initial April 2009 proposal (74 FR 

16448). In that proposed rule, EPA proposed to require the 

large semiconductor manufacturing facilities to calculate 

and report emissions from all fluorinated GHG using 

processes using such an approach. Further, in EPA’s April 

2010 proposal (75 FR 18652), EPA proposed, as an 

alternative to the Refined Method, to require all 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities to estimate and 

report using recipe-specific emission factors.18 

• EPA clarified the requirement for recipe-specific 

measurements to facilitate the implementation of the 

Tier 2d and Tier 3 methods. EPA provided definitions 

of “individual recipe” and “similar” with respect to 

recipes. For recipe-specific emission factors, rather 

than requiring each and every individual recipe to be 

measured, EPA is permitting a facility to apply one 

measured recipe-specific emission factor to a group of 

“similar recipes.” In a given reporting year, a 

 

17 See footnote 5. 18 EPA’s “Refined Method” as proposed in April 2010 (75 FR 18652) is 

based on nine process sub-types under the etching, chamber cleaning, 

and wafer cleaning process types (four etching process sub-types, three 

chamber cleaning process sub-types, and two wafer cleaning process subtypes) and EPA-published default emission factors. 
Page 54 of 442 

facility must develop new recipe-specific emission 

factors only for recipes which are not similar to any 

recipe used in a previous reporting year. In 

addition, where a facility reports using recipespecific emission factors, EPA is requiring that they 

report the film or substrate that was etched/cleaned 

and the feature type that was etched. 

Monitoring and QA/QC requirements: 

• EPA has modified the procedures by which facilities 

must develop gas consumption apportioning factors. In 

the final rule, facilities must apportion gas 

consumption using facility-specific engineering models 

based on quantifiable metrics of activity. Facilities 

must verify these models as specified by EPA in 40 CFR 

98.96(c) and document them in their site GHG 

Monitoring Plans (as required under 40 CFR 98.3). EPA 

will permit the use of facility-specific gas 

apportionment models based on quantifiable metrics, 

such as wafer pass or wafer starts, provided the 

facility documents and verifies the model. As part of 

these new requirements, EPA has added definitions for 

actual gas consumption, modeled gas consumption, 

repeatable, and wafer starts. Further, EPA has 

clarified that all electronics manufacturing 

facilities must apportion consumption of fluorinated 

GHGs and N2O used at a facility using the apportioning 

methods outlined in the final rule. 

• EPA has revised the requirement to recalculate gasand facility-specific heel factors. EPA is requiring 

facilities to recalculate gas- and facility-specific 

heel factors if the trigger point for change out used 

to establish a gas- and facility-specific heel factor 

differs by more than 5 percent, expressed as a percent 

of the previously used trigger point for change out. 

To clarify requirements to develop gas- and facilityspecific heel factors, EPA has added a definition for 

trigger point for change out. 

EPA made this revision in response to comments 

received on its proposal. EPA agrees with commenters that 

asserted the proposed requirement to recalculate the heel 

factor when the percentage change from the original trigger 
Page 55 of 442 

point exceeded 1 percent was too burdensome. Please refer 

to “Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response 

to Public Comments, Subpart I: Electronics Manufacturing” 

(available in the docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927) for 

additional information on EPA’s rationale. 

• EPA has added equations specifying how to calculate 

uptime and how to account for uptime in DREs for 

abatement systems where a facility is calculating and 

reporting controlled emissions. EPA has also modified 

how uptime is calculated by defining an “operational 

mode” for abatement systems and removing the reference 

to SEMI Standard E-10-0304E

, Specification for 

Definition and Measurement of Equipment Reliability, 

Availability, and Maintainability. 

• EPA has modified the Best Available Monitoring Methods 

(BAMM) provisions for subpart I to allow electronics 

manufacturing facilities to use BAMM through June 30, 

2011 without submitting a request to EPA. Facilities 

wishing to extend the use of BAMM beyond the initial 

6-month period, but no later than December 31, 2011, 

must submit a petition to EPA by February 28, 2011 (or 

June 30, 2011 where a facility is requesting the use 

of BAMM for recipe-specific emission factors for the 

plasma etching process type). EPA anticipates 

facilities will need to use best available monitoring 

methods only under limited circumstances. See Section 

II.D.1 of this preamble for additional information 

about the BAMM provisions. 

Based on comments received on EPA’s proposed rules 

(i.e., EPA’s April 2009 and April 2010 proposed rules for 

electronics manufacturing) regarding the complexities 

perceived in implementing the methods contained in the 

final rule, EPA has concluded that some electronics 

manufacturing facilities may need additional time to fully 

meet the requirements finalized in this rule. However, EPA 
Page 56 of 442 

expects all electronics manufacturing facilities will be 

prepared to fully comply with this rule’s requirements no 

later than year-end 2011. Therefore, extension of BAMM 

provisions beyond 2011 would only be granted in unique and 

extreme circumstances which include safety, technical 

infeasibility, or inconsistency with other local, State or 

Federal regulations. For a more detailed discussion on 

EPA’s rationale, see “Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting 

Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments, Subpart I: 

Electronics Manufacturing” (available in the docket, EPAHQ-OAR- 2009-0927). 

3. Summary of Comments and Responses

This section contains a brief summary of major 

comments and responses. A large number of comments were 

received on this subpart covering numerous topics. 

Responses to additional significant comments received can 

be found in “Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: 

EPA's Response to Public Comments, Subpart I: Electronics 

Manufacturing” (available in the docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-

0927). 

Comment: EPA received a broad range of comments 

stating that the initial and revised methodologies for 

calculating GHG emissions in subpart I were overly 

burdensome and costly. For example, with respect to EPA’s 
Page 57 of 442 

revised proposal (75 FR 18652, April 2010), commenters 

asserted that the requirements for apportioning of gas 

usage without the use of “engineering judgment” would 

require the development of complex software systems and 

monitoring of activity data at a level of detail that would 

be costly and time-intensive. In another example, in 

regards to EPA’s initial proposal (74 FR 16448, April 

2009), commenters argued that the direct measurement 

requirement would result in high costs associated with the 

development of process-specific gas utilization and byproduct formation factors for the largest semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities. 

Response: EPA considered all of these comments, and 

evaluated alternative methods for calculating GHG emissions 

for electronics manufacturing, controlled and uncontrolled. 

EPA considered alternative methods that would result in 

reduced burden on industry while maintaining or improving 

the quality and breadth of reported data. EPA also 

considered the gaps in the available emission factor 

knowledge base and has implemented a method to gain 

additional data to improve EPA’s efforts to characterize 

the sector’s GHG emissions. 

EPA has made every effort to reduce burden to the 

industry while maintaining requirements that it has 
Page 58 of 442 

determined are necessary to obtain facility-specific 

emission estimates. For example, based on comments 

received, EPA has revised the gas apportioning method to 

allow for the use of quantifiable metrics other than wafer 

passes. In the final rule, facilities will be allowed to 

develop apportioning factors based on other quantifiable 

metrics provided the method is described in writing, is 

repeatable, and is verified through comparison with actual 

gas consumption. This approach provides facilities 

flexibility in the choice of apportioning methods and 

assures a high degree of data quality. Additional details 

on the gas apportioning method are described in this 

Section II.D.3 (Summary of Comments and Responses) of the 

preamble. 

As another means to reduce burden to the industry, EPA 

is only requiring the largest semiconductor manufacturing 

facilities to calculate and report emissions using directly 

measured recipe-specific emission factors, ensuring that 

burden is commensurate with potential to emit. The largest 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities account for nearly 

two-thirds of uncontrolled emissions while accounting for 

less than 20 percent of all facilities expected to report 

under subpart I. In addition, the largest semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities are only required to directly 
Page 59 of 442 

measure etch process emissions. Etch processes are the 

least understood of the electronics manufacturing processes 

in terms of GHG emissions, and EPA lacks sufficient data to 

establish default emission factors for multiple etch 

processes. Lastly, in the final rule, EPA is also allowing 

the use of “similar recipe” emission factors to reduce the 

number and burden of direct measurements required. 

Additional details on steps taken to reduce the burden 

are described in this section II.D.3 (Summary of Comments 

and Responses) and in “Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting 

Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments, Subpart I: 

Electronics Manufacturing” (available in the docket, EPAHQ-OAR-2009-0927). 

In general, while commenters asserted that EPA’s 

proposed requirements were too burdensome and costly, 

comments lacked sufficient quantitative detail or 

substantiation. However, in response to concerns that EPA 

did not fully account for compliance costs in its economic 

analysis, EPA did update its costs estimates to reflect the 

costs associated with the requirements finalized in the 

rule. EPA has concluded that its final cost estimates 

appropriately account for the compliance burden under this 

rule. For details on how EPA developed its final costs for 

this rule, please see Sections 4 & 5 of the Economic Impact 
Page 60 of 442 

Analysis (EIA) (available in the docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-

0927). 

Method for Calculating GHG Emissions 

Comment: While some commenters supported EPA’s intent 

for the Refined Method to gather representative and 

accurate facility level emissions estimates, they argued 

that the Refined Method itself was not supported for 

several reasons.19 Commenters asserted that the Refined 

Method stemmed from a technically flawed uncertainty 

analysis and apparent misunderstandings of current process 

realities. Commenters also stated that extending the 2006 

IPCC Tier 2b etch category (“process type”) from one to 

four refined categories (“sub-types”) was not justified 

given the limited data available for developing emissions 

factors. Several commenters suggested that etch emission 

factors could be developed through another process (i.e., 

not part of the rule) such as through the existing 

Memorandum of Understanding between EPA and the 

semiconductor industry.20 As an alternative to EPA’s 

Refined Method, many commenters suggested an “Alternative 

 

19 See footnote 18. 20 Since 1996, EPA has maintained a partnership with the U.S. 

semiconductor industry, EPA’s PFC Reduction/Climate Partnership with 

the Semiconductor Industry. As part of the Partnership, semiconductor 

facilities have committed to reduce fluorinated GHG emissions by at 

least 10 percent below the industry’s 1995 baseline level by year-end 

2010. 
Page 61 of 442 

Refined Method,” that they argued would achieve greater 

accuracy than the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b method and would avoid 

uncertainty issues created by EPA’s Refined Method. 

The “Alternative Refined Method,” as described in 

comments, would be comprised of five process types and subtypes, which include: the three chamber clean sub-types 

(remote plasma clean, in-situ plasma clean, and in-situ 

thermal clean), the wafer cleaning process type, and one 

process type for all etch processes. Commenters suggested 

that this method would be superior to EPA's proposed 

Refined Method in terms of accuracy and cost. 

One commenter stated that the use of EPA’s Refined 

Method to estimate emissions would result in less accurate 

emission data as compared to the 2006 IPCC Tier 3 Method. 

This commenter encouraged EPA to require the use of the 

2006 IPCC Tier 3 method for all semiconductor facilities 

given the need for accurate data and the significant 

emissions from this sector, but argued that at a minimum 

EPA should rely on Tier 3 estimation for “large 

facilities,” as it did in its initial proposal. 

Response: In general, EPA agrees with commenters that 

stated the available data as of the proposal was sufficient 

to establish default emissions factors for multiple chamber 

clean process sub-types, but insufficient to support 
Page 62 of 442 

establishing default emission factors for multiple etch 

process sub-types. EPA did not receive enough additional 

data during the comment period to address this 

insufficiency.21 Accordingly, EPA is not establishing 

default emissions factors for etch sub-types in this final 

rule. EPA also agrees with the commenter that stated an 

estimation approach based on the IPCC Tier 3 method would 

result in the most accurate data. However, EPA is mindful 

of the burden that would be imposed by requiring all 

covered facilities to use an approach based on the 2006 

IPCC Tier 3 method for all emissions. 

In this final rule, EPA is requiring semiconductor 

facilities to calculate and report fluorinated emissions by 

adhering to one of three different emission estimation 

methodologies, depending on the wafer size manufactured and 

the facility’s manufacturing capacity.22 These requirements 

are presented in section II.D.1 (Summary of the Final Rule) 

of this preamble and summarized in Table 3 of this 

 

21 In its proposed rule (75 FR 18652, April 2010), for each emission 

factor for the nine proposed process categories, EPA published a range 

of values. EPA proposed a range of values because it had not received 

sufficient data to select a specific value within each range. Based on 

additional information received after publication of the proposed rule, 

EPA published a Notice of Data Availability where it made available to 

the public draft default emission factors for semiconductor 

manufacturing refined process categories (75 FR 26904, May 2010). As 

of publication of this final rule, EPA has not received additional data 

(i.e., utilization and by-product formation rates). 

22 As calculated in Equation I-5 of this rule, manufacturing capacity is 

100 percent of annual manufacturing capacity of a facility as 

determined by summing the area of maximum designed substrate starts of 

a facility per month over the reporting period. 
Page 63 of 442 

preamble. EPA has determined that the requirements in the 

final rule effectively balance EPA’s objectives with an 

appropriate level of burden to industry. 

In response to comments received on EPA’s proposed 

methodology for semiconductor manufacturing facilities, EPA 

undertook another analysis to evaluate the uncertainty 

associated with emission estimation methods. Specific 

information on the analysis can be found in the Electronics 

Manufacturing TSD (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927). In summary, 

results from this exercise showed (a) emissions estimated 

with a Tier 2b method are understated, (b) more facilitylevel, emissions-relevant information would permit an 

uncertainty analysis to be performed with more meaningful 

and robust results, and (c) moving from the use of a 

default factor(s) for etch sub-types to the use of recipespecific measurements appears to increase certainty in 

emission calculations. These results support the 

methodology finalized in the final rule. 

Given the current lack of available facility-level gas 

usage and emission information for etching in particular, 

and EPA’s need for increased accuracy in emission estimates 

relative to the 2006 Tier 2b method, EPA is requiring that 

the largest semiconductor facilities estimate and report 

recipe-specific emission factors for all etch processes. 
Page 64 of 442 

EPA views the generation of such data as essential to 

improving future efforts to characterize this sector’s GHG 

emissions. 

While EPA recognizes that more than half of the gas 

consumed in semiconductor manufacturing is for chamber 

cleaning, EPA also recognizes that most of the variability 

in gas consumption, and hence emissions, across many 

facilities is found for recipes used under the plasma etch 

process type. Etch recipes utilize many gases 

(approximately six or more either alone or in combination) 

with varying GWPs. Process recipes vary between facilities 

because they are a crucial part of company competitiveness 

and innovation. 

While EPA is finalizing the Tier 2c method for some 

semiconductor facilities (i.e., not the largest 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities) and has determined 

that it is an improvement over the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b 

method, EPA maintains that estimating emissions based on 

process sub-types for etch with robust default factors 

would result in more accurate facility-level emission 

estimates as compared to estimating emissions using a 

single broad etch process type. To this end, in future 

years, EPA may evaluate the recipe-specific emission 

factors received through this final rule to determine 
Page 65 of 442 

whether a sufficiently robust data set exists to establish 

default emission factors for plasma etching process subtypes. In the future, EPA may consider requiring the 

semiconductor facilities that will be using a default 

emission factor for the etch process type under this final 

rule to estimate and report emissions using an approach 

based on multiple etch and chamber clean process sub-types 

similar to the Refined Method EPA proposed in April 2010. 

EPA is requiring only the largest facilities to report 

recipe-specific emission factors for etching processes, 

rather than requiring all semiconductor facilities to 

report all etch processes regardless of capacity, or 

requiring the largest facilities to report all process 

emissions using recipe-specific emission factors, because 

EPA has concluded that this approach minimizes burden to 

industry. Further, this requirement ensures that the 

burden associated with reporting is proportional to the 

magnitude of a facility’s potential emissions. 

EPA selected 10,500 m2

 of substrate as the threshold 

for large facilities because facilities above this 

threshold are expected to account for nearly two-thirds of 

uncontrolled emissions while accounting for less than 20 

percent of all facilities expected to report under subpart 

I. Based on EPA’s analysis, the expected number of the 
Page 66 of 442 

“largest” facilities is 29 of the 175 total facilities. 

EPA originally proposed this distinction (i.e., facilities 

with an annual manufacturing capacity of greater than 

10,500 m2) in its initial proposal for semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities (75 FR 18652, April 2009). In 

response to EPA’s proposal, some commenters stated that in 

the semiconductor industry, “large” facilities do not 

inherently have higher emissions of fluorinated GHGs. 

These commenters noted that beginning with the second 

generation of 200 mm facilities, transitions to NF3 remote 

cleans and deployment of point of use abatement resulted in 

significantly lower emissions as compared to older 

facilities. In response, while EPA acknowledges 

qualitative reports on second generation 200 mm wafer 

facilities adopting NF3 remote plasma cleans and point of 

use abatement systems as presented in comments, it is 

unaware of published studies that quantitatively document 

the market penetration of either NF3 remote plasma source 

(RPS) or point of use fluorinated GHG abatement systems in 

those facilities. 

In the final rule, EPA is also clarifying what meets 

the requirement for recipe-specific measurements to 

facilitate implementation of the Tier 2d and Tier 3 

methods. EPA recognizes a facility may employ potentially 
Page 67 of 442 

hundreds of recipes. Therefore, as a means to reduce 

burden for facilities that are required or elect to develop 

recipe-specific measurements, EPA is permitting a facility 

to apply the same emission factor to a group of “similar 

recipes.” In this regard, once a facility develops a 

recipe-specific emission factor for an individual recipe, 

it may apply that emission factor to recipes that are 

similar. This provision allows a facility to measure fewer 

manufacturing processes to develop the emission factors 

required for Tier 2d and Tier 3, thereby reducing burden in 

comparison to a more stringent approach which would require 

measurements for each and every individual recipe used at a 

facility. As another means to reduce burden EPA is 

clarifying that in a given reporting year, a facility must 

develop new recipe-specific emission factors only for 

recipes which are not similar to any recipe used in a 

previous reporting year. 

EPA is defining an individual recipe as a specific 

combination of gases, under specific conditions of reactor 

temperature, pressure, flow, RF power, and duration, used 

repeatedly to fabricate a specific feature on a specific 

film or substrate. EPA is defining similar, with respect 

to recipes, as those recipes that are composed of the same 

set of chemicals and have the same flow stabilization times 
Page 68 of 442 

and where the documented differences, considered 

separately, in reactor pressure, individual gas flow rates, 

and applied RF power are less than or equal to plus or 

minus 10 percent. For purposes of comparing and 

documenting recipes that are similar, facilities may use 

either the best known method provided by an equipment 

manufacturer or the process of record, for which emission 

factors for either have been measured (see the Electronics 

Manufacturing TSD for supporting information). 

Monitoring and QA/QC Requirements

Comment: Many commenters voiced concerns regarding 

the burden associated with EPA’s proposed requirement to 

measure DRE of abatement equipment in accordance with EPA’s 

DRE Protocol, (EPA 430-R-10-003). Some commenters also 

argued the required frequency of measurements in the 

proposed random sampling abatement system testing program 

(RSASTP) is overly burdensome and unnecessary. 

With respect to EPA’s requirement to measure DRE in 

accordance with EPA’s Protocol, commenters noted few 

facilities have characterized the DRE of installed 

abatement systems using EPA’s DRE Protocol because the 

Protocol was published in 2010. One commenter requested 

that EPA permit the use of measurements made prior to the 

publication of EPA's DRE Protocol as long as the facility 
Page 69 of 442 

can demonstrate the measurements were based on test methods 

substantially similar to those outlined in EPA's Protocol. 

In addition to providing comments on the required use of 

the DRE Protocol, commenters also requested that EPA allow 

the use of CF4 as a tracer to determine dilution when an 

abatement system is in “low fire” and that EPA permit the 

use of a Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) 

without the additional use of Quadrapole Mass Spectroscopy 

(QMS). 

In regards to EPA’s proposed RSASTP, many commenters 

asserted that the burden placed on facilities to comply 

with the RSASTP is not necessary. One commenter noted that 

that RSASTAP is an excessive burden as large facilities may 

have hundreds of abatement systems. Further, commenters 

argued that new abatement systems should not be required to 

be tested as long as the facility has installed, operated, 

and maintained the equipment properly. Some commenters 

asserted that testing should be required only for new 

models of abatement systems that are not simply a variant 

of an existing system used at a facility. Other commenters 

also suggested alternative testing regimes to the RSASTP 

that would place most of the DRE measurement burden in the 

early years of testing. 
Page 70 of 442 

Response: In general, EPA does not agree with 

commenters and is finalizing the requirements for 

measurement of abatement DRE using EPA's DRE Protocol and 

for the testing frequency described in the RSASTP. 

EPA is finalizing the requirement that facilities 

measure abatement system DREs in accordance with EPA’s DRE 

Protocol because it will ensure that measured DREs are 

accurate through properly accounting for dilution and by 

meeting EPA’s established performance standard (as 

specified in EPA’s DRE Protocol). EPA’s DRE Protocol is 

the only protocol (i.e., standard measurement method, not 

guideline) that exists to date for measuring DREs of 

abatement equipment used in electronics manufacturing. 

EPA’s DRE Protocol is reliable because it was based upon 

and validated by actual experience and data collection in 

fully operational manufacturing facilities during multiple 

measurement studies performed by EPA in collaboration with 

industry.23 EPA’s DRE Protocol has been through two public 

peer review processes over the course of two years and is 

 

23 For more information about the three studies, please see the 

following reports: Developing a Reliable Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas (FGHG) Destruction or Removal Efficiency (DRE) Measurement Method for 

Electronics Manufacturing: A Cooperative Evaluation with IBM (EPA 430-

R-10-004); Developing a Reliable Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas (F-GHG) 

Destruction or Removal Efficiency (DRE) Measurement Method for 

Electronics Manufacturing: A Cooperative Evaluation with NEC 

Electronics, Inc. (EPA 430-R-10-005); and Developing a Reliable 

Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas (F-GHG) Destruction or Removal Efficiency 

(DRE) Measurement Method for Electronics Manufacturing: A Cooperative 

Evaluation with Qimonda (EPA 430-R-08-017). 
Page 71 of 442 

based on input from national and international industry 

experts. For documentation of the comments received during 

these peer reviews, and EPA’s response, please refer to the 

docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927). 

It is important to clarify that EPA is not 

specifically prohibiting the use of previously measured 

DREs; a facility may use previously measured DREs provided 

the facility can demonstrate that the measurements were 

made in accordance with EPA’s DRE Protocol. EPA’s DRE 

Protocol permits flexibility in measurement practices 

provided the measurements achieve a performance standard 

that, among other things, ensures dilution is properly 

measured. 

EPA does not wholly prohibit the use of CF4 as a tracer 

in the DRE Protocol. Specifically, with respect to 

measuring systems that do not abate CF4 and/or SF6, EPA’s DRE 

Protocol states, “In such systems, CF4 or SF6 can be used in 

place of an inert gas since their DREs are zero percent. 

Table 2 of the Protocol provides a list of acceptable gases 

for measuring total abatement system flows, along with 

their use conditions.” As discussed in this excerpt, EPA’s 

DRE Protocol does not permit the use of either CF4 or SF6 as 

tracer gases in abatement systems designed to abate these 

gases. Additionally, EPA prohibits use of CF4 as a tracer 
Page 72 of 442 

in fluorinated GHG abatement systems operating in “low 

fire” because reviewers of early drafts of EPA’s DRE 

Protocol made repeated claims that one could not be certain 

some abatement was not occurring. 

EPA does not agree with commenters who suggested that 

the use of only an FTIR and not a QMS to measure dilution, 

and hence DREs, should always be permitted. The DRE 

Protocol permits the use of an FTIR in place of a QMS when 

tracer gases, such as CF4 and SF6, are used in place of an 

inert gas to measure dilution (provided the abatement 

system which is being tested does not abate the tracer gas 

(CF4 or SF6)). The DRE Protocol does not permit, however, 

the use of an FTIR in place of a QMS for measuring dilution 

with tracers that are inert because while a method that 

uses FTIR-measurable gases may become available, EPA is not 

aware of robust measurements that demonstrate such a 

method. 

With respect to EPA’s requirement to measure DREs with 

the frequency prescribed in the RSASTP, EPA does not agree 

with commenters who suggested the RSASTP is burdensome and 

unnecessary. Commenters did not provide EPA sufficient 

information or data to support their claim that the RSASTP 

is unnecessary. As described below, the RSASTP provides a 

much less burdensome device measurement scheme when 
Page 73 of 442 

compared to requiring a facility to test all abatement 

systems used annually, but still allows EPA to ensure a 

facility has measured DREs accurately and at least once 

every five years. 

EPA considered commenters’ concerns about the RSASTP 

and EPA does not agree with commenters who state that new 

abatement systems should not be required to be tested as 

long as the facility has installed, operated, and 

maintained the equipment properly. Abatement manufacturer 

specified installation, operation and maintenance practices 

are based upon the testing and development of abatement 

systems in controlled settings. When using these systems 

in actual facility settings, ensuring the proper 

installation, operation, and maintenance of abatement 

systems may not always be a means to guarantee that the 

abatement system will run exactly as abatement 

manufacturers intended, or that the manufacturer supplied 

DRE will be achieved. However, EPA is maintaining the 

requirement for facilities to properly install, operate, 

and maintain abatement systems according to system 

manufacturer specifications. This practice is expected to 

reduce the likelihood of inaccurate estimations of DREs. 

Even if abatement systems rely on the same operating 

principle (e.g., thermal oxidation) and are used to abate 
Page 74 of 442 

the same gases, their performance can vary depending on 

their operation and maintenance. Thus, maintenance that is 

adequate for abatement systems in some applications may not 

be adequate for abatement systems in others (e.g., those 

that handle high volumes of etched or cleaned material, 

which can be deposited inside abatement equipment and clog 

lines). 

EPA has concluded that there is a need for gradually 

testing all of the abatement systems within a class, and 

for retesting individual abatement systems over time. As 

EPA stated in the preamble to the April 2010 proposed rule 

(75 FR 18652), some fluorinated GHGs, such as CF4, are 

harder to destroy than others; thus, the performance of 

abatement systems with one fluorinated GHG cannot 

necessarily be assumed to apply to other fluorinated GHGs. 

It is well known across the industry that abatement system 

performance varies greatly depending on a variety of 

abatement device and process parameters such as 

temperature, flow and exhaust composition.24 As stated by 

many commenters, facilities develop and ultimately use new 

processes potentially every year, and the parameters of 

 

24 Beu, L. (2005). “Reduction of Perfluorocarbon (PFC) Emissions: 2005 

State-of-the-Technology Report”, TT#0510469AENG, International SEMATECH 

Manufacturing Initiative (ISMI), December 2005. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/highgwp/semiconductorpfc/documents/final_tt_report.pdf. 
Page 75 of 442 

these processes vary. To this end, by requiring the 

gradual testing and retesting of abatement systems over 

time through the RSASTP, EPA can ensure properly measured 

DREs and DRE class averages used at a facility will 

accurately reflect controlled emissions. In addition, 

through the use of the RSASTP, EPA is reducing burden, for 

instance, for facilities that continually modify their 

processes. EPA is basing the RSASTP around classes defined 

as abatement systems grouped by manufacturer model 

number(s) and by the gas which the system is used to abate; 

varying process parameters, such as flows, temperature and 

exhaust composition do not factor into the requirements of 

the RSASTP. 

Comment: In general, most commenters supported the 

inclusion of a default DRE value, but opposed EPA’s 

proposed default DRE value of 60 percent. Commenters 

argued EPA’s proposed default DRE factor of 60 percent was 

unreasonably low, in part because the 60 percent default 

factor was based on CF4 destruction data and therefore, 

should not be applied to other fluorinated GHGs. 

Commenters noted that CF4 is the most stable compound and 

the most difficult among all fluorinated GHG to destroy 

and, as a result, it should be addressed separately to 

avoid significantly overestimating emissions. Further, one 
Page 76 of 442 

commenter asserted that the unreasonably low value for the 

default DRE penalizes semiconductor manufacturers who have 

operated voluntarily and in good faith under EPA’s MOU and 

other GHG reduction programs to install and maintain 

control devices.25 

As an alternative, commenters recommend that IPCC 

and/or abatement system manufacturer default DREs should be 

permitted, and potentially discounted by 10 percent to 

account for differences between field and lab certification 

conditions. Commenters also suggested that EPA provide 

additional default factors for C2F6 and other fluorinated 

GHGs that are easier to abate than CF4. 

One commenter opposed EPA’s default DRE value and 

asserted that default DREs should not be permitted at all 

because a default DRE does not capture the potentially high 

variability in DREs across different systems and across 

similar systems installed at different facilities. In 

addition, the commenter noted that EPA’s default value was 

based on only 11 actual measured DRE values. The commenter 

encouraged EPA to require only direct measurement of DREs 

in accordance with EPA’s DRE Protocol and disallow any 

application of a default DRE. 

 

25 See footnote 20. 
Page 77 of 442 

Response: EPA disagrees with commenters that asserted 

EPA should permit electronics manufacturing facilities to 

report controlled emissions from abatement systems using 

2006 IPCC default factors or the manufacturer’s DRE values, 

with or without applying a 10 percent discount. As EPA 

stated in the proposal, EPA is not permitting the use of 

the IPCC 2006 default factors or the manufacturer’s DRE 

values because once installed, abatement equipment may fail 

to achieve the IPCC 2006 default or supplier’s claimed DRE. 

DRE performance claimed by equipment suppliers and upon 

which the 2006 IPCC default factors were based may have 

been incorrectly measured due to a failure to account for 

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

a factor of up to 10 (Burton, 2007). This understanding is 

supported by industry assessments as presented in Beu, 

2005. As EPA stated in the proposal, the 60 percent 

default DRE value was calculated using data from 

measurements assured to properly account for the effects of 

dilution. In addition, the tested systems were properly 

installed, operated, and maintained. 

EPA is including the option for facilities to use a 

default DRE in the final rule to permit those facilities 

that have fluorinated GHG and N2O abatement systems to 

calculate and report controlled emissions using an approach 
Page 78 of 442 

that is less burdensome than directly measuring abatement 

systems in accordance with EPA’s DRE Protocol. The default 

DRE is based on EPA's practical experience measuring the 

performance of abatement systems during the development of 

the DRE Protocol.26 Further, for a facility to use the 

default DRE, they are required to certify that their 

abatement systems are installed, operated, and maintained 

in accordance with the manufacturers’ specifications, and 

provide certification that the abatement system is 

specifically designed for fluorinated GHG and N2O. 

EPA is proud of its extensive collaboration with the 

semiconductor industry via the PFC Reduction/Climate 

Partnership for the Semiconductor Industry.27 EPA and its 

Partners have investigated the origins and magnitude of GHG 

emissions as well as technologies to minimize this 

pollution. EPA does not agree with one commenter’s claim 

that the 60 percent default DRE penalizes Partner’s 

facilities. One of many important lessons learned by the 

Partnership concerns the challenge of properly measuring 

and maintaining fluorinated GHG abatement system 

performance. As discussed above, the 60 percent default 

DRE value is based upon EPA’s technical experience studying 

 

26 See footnote 23. 27 www.epa.gov/semiconductor-pfc/ 
Page 79 of 442 

abatement systems, properly installed, operated and 

measured in actual production settings. 

Further, EPA does not agree with commenters’ 

suggestion to apply a 10 percent discount to the 

manufacturer’s DRE values to account for differences 

between field and lab certification conditions. The 10 

percent discount appears arbitrary and was not accompanied 

by any empirical data. To this end, EPA is not permitting 

electronics manufacturing facilities to apply a 10 percent 

discount to manufacturers’ DRE values. 

EPA agrees with commenters, in principle, that default 

DRE values could be developed for specific fluorinated 

GHGs, for example those that are easier to abate than CF4. 

However, EPA does not have sufficient DRE data for other 

fluorinated GHGs that were measured using EPA’s DRE 

Protocol and thus assured to properly account for the 

effects of dilution. Further, commenters did not provide 

any such data in their comments to the proposed rule. In 

future years, EPA may consider establishing default DRE 

values for other fluorinated GHGs and N2O using data 

received from DRE measurements made in accordance with 

EPA’s DRE Protocol. 

Comment: Most commenters opposed EPA’s proposed 

procedures to account for abatement system uptime. 
Page 80 of 442 

Although several commenters agreed that accounting for 

uptime of abatement systems used at a facility is 

reasonable, some commenters asserted that EPA’s proposed 

procedures may not reflect actual practices at most 

facilities. 

In some cases, commenters stated that tools and 

abatement systems are interlocked (i.e., a tool can not be 

operated if an abatement device is not operating). As an 

alternative, commenters suggested that EPA allow facilities 

to monitor uptime by documenting where abatement systems 

and production tools are interlocked and recording 

instances when abatement systems fail. 

One commenter asserted that EPA’s inclusion, in the 

uptime calculation procedures, of SEMI Standard E-10-0304E, 

Specification for Definition and Measurement of Equipment 

Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability was 

incorrect. The commenter noted that the SEMI Standard E10-0304E

 does not include the concept of co-dependent uptime 

of different equipment in any of its metrics. As a result, 

the commenter urged EPA to remove the reference to the SEMI 

standard and to define the appropriate calculation and its 

individual terms in the regulation unless EPA determines 

that one of the SEMI E-10-0304E

 formulas may in fact be 

used. 
Page 81 of 442 

Response: EPA took into consideration all concerns 

from commenters about the methods by which EPA proposed to 

calculate uptime of abatement systems. In response, EPA 

has modified the procedures required for monitoring and 

accounting for uptime by removing reference to SEMI E-10-

0304E

 because EPA agrees with the commenter that SEMI E-10-

0304E does not fit appropriately in this rule. To this end, 

the final rule allows a facility to calculate an abatement 

system’s uptime by taking the ratio of (1) The total time 

during which the abatement system is in an operational mode 

with fluorinated GHGs or N2O flowing through production 

process tool(s) connected to that abatement system, to (2) 

the total time during which fluorinated GHGs or N2O are 

flowing through production process tool(s) connected to 

that abatement system. Further, EPA has defined 

operational mode as the time in which an abatement system 

is being operated within the range of parameters as 

specified in the operations manual provided by the system 

manufacturer. For clarification purposes, EPA has also 

added a discrete equation for calculating uptime into this 

rule. Lastly, also for clarification, EPA has added an 

equation that provides direction for facilities to account 

for uptime in overall facility emissions calculations. 
Page 82 of 442 

With respect to the commenter who suggested that EPA 

allow facilities to monitor and track uptime by documenting 

that tools are interlocked and instances in which abatement 

systems have failed, EPA appreciates the comment, but is 

not modifying the uptime requirements as suggested by the 

commenter. EPA expects facilities with interlocked 

abatement systems should be able to easily monitor and 

account for uptime of abatement systems using the methods 

provided in this rule. Also, EPA is not permitting 

facilities to use the method suggested by the commenter as 

this would allow the use of multiple methods to monitor and 

account for uptime. Where feasible, EPA would like to 

ensure that facilities are using consistent methods as part 

of estimating emissions because these methods will create a 

consistent basis on which to compare industry emissions and 

will also reduce EPA’s administrative burden. Lastly, EPA 

is requiring detailed monitoring and reporting of uptime 

because this information will allow EPA to carry out 

emissions verification to ensure the consistency and 

accuracy of data collected under this rule. 

Comment: Many commenters expressed concern with EPA’s 

proposed method to apportion gas consumption to the nine 

sub-types of the Refined Method (previously referred to as 

refined process categories in the April 2010 proposal) for 
Page 83 of 442 

semiconductor facilities using a quantifiable metric. 

According to commenters, the proposed method of 

apportioning gas to the nine process sub-types of the 

Refined Method using a facility-specific engineering model 

based on wafer passes is overly burdensome and not 

currently feasible. More specifically, commenters asserted 

that because many facilities do not currently track wafer 

passes, to do so would impose a burden in the form of 

capital costs for the software needed to collect these 

data. Some commenters argued that it is not feasible to 

apportion gas to the nine proposed process sub-types solely 

based on wafer pass information. For example, one 

commenter noted that when one recipe is used to etch 

multiple films in one wafer pass, emissions from the use of 

that one recipe would fall under multiple process sub-types 

for etch (which were based on film type). The commenter 

further stated that because tools do not, and can not, 

track how much of each gas in the recipe was specifically 

used for each film etched in that one wafer pass, it is not 

feasible in this situation to apportion gas based on wafer 

pass. 

In most cases, commenters provided alternative methods 

for apportioning gas consumption. For example, some 

commenters suggested more flexible methods in which the 
Page 84 of 442 

apportioning is based on at least one quantifiable 

indicator and engineering knowledge. Commenters also 

asserted that apportionment should be determined by the 

facility and that EPA should not prescribe specific 

quantifiable indicators for apportioning gas consumption in 

the final rule. 

Response: EPA appreciates the concerns raised by 

commenters about EPA’s proposed method to apportion 

facility gas consumption. EPA is sensitive to the burden 

imposed by the rule and seeks to minimize it when possible 

without compromising the accuracy of reported emission 

estimates. 

Apportioning gas consumption to process types, process 

sub-types, or recipes, as defined in 40 CFR 98.98, 

regardless of the type of electronics manufacturing 

facility, is an essential part of the emission estimation 

methodology required by EPA in this subpart. Apportionment 

is required because emission factors are for specific 

process types, process sub-types, or recipes, and are based 

on knowledge of the amount of gas consumed. Requiring 

facilities to apportion gas consumption based on a metric 

that is quantifiable and measurable (a metric that is 

proportional to gas usage) is necessary for EPA to ensure 
Page 85 of 442 

that methods by which gas is apportioned, and hence 

emissions are estimated, are verifiable and accurate. 

In the final rule, to effectively balance commenters’ 

concerns about burden and feasibility with EPA’s 

objectives, EPA has decided to permit the use of facilityspecific engineering models based on a quantifiable metric 

selected by the facility, (such as wafer passes or wafer 

starts) to apportion gas consumption. Under this final 

requirement, to develop apportioning factors, facilities 

must develop an engineering model that utilizes measureable 

process information.28 EPA is not specifying the 

quantifiable metric that must be used in these models; 

rather EPA is allowing reporters the flexibility to select 

the most appropriate quantifiable metric on which to base 

the facility-specific engineering model, provided model 

documentation and verification requirements as described 

below are met. 

Documentation: As part of recordkeeping requirements, 

EPA is requiring facilities to document, in their site GHG 

monitoring plans (as required under 40 CFR 98.3), specific 

information about their facility-specific engineering 

model, including definitions of variables, derivations of 

 

28 An apportioning factor denotes the amount of a specific gas consumed 

during a specific manufacturing process relative to the total amount of 

that gas used during all processes at the facility. 
Page 86 of 442 

equations and formulas, and example calculations to ensure 

apportioning factors are repeatable. This information must 

be updated annually in the facility’s site GHG monitoring 

plan. EPA is requiring this documentation as a means to 

verify that facility-specific engineering models are 

developed and then verified and documented each year for 

each facility, and that the apportioning factors developed 

from these models are based on a quantifiable metric. EPA 

is requiring facilities to update model documentation and 

verification each year to account for changes to tools or 

process at a facility between reporting periods. 

Verification: EPA is requiring facilities to verify 

their engineering models used to apportion gas consumption 

by demonstrating that the results from the model are 

repeatable29 and by comparing the difference between modeled 

gas usage and actual gas usage. EPA is requiring this 

comparison to be made yearly for two different gases, one 

corresponding to the gas used in the largest quantity for 

etching on a mass basis, and one used in the largest 

quantity for chamber cleaning on a mass basis during a 

reporting period, based on the total amount of gas usage 

measured by a facility. EPA would consider a model as 

 

29 Repeatable means that the variables used in the formulas for the 

facility’s engineering model for gas apportioning factors are based on 

observable and measurable quantities that govern gas consumption rather 

than engineering judgment about those quantities or gas consumption. 
Page 87 of 442 

verified when the apportioned plasma etching gas usage as 

modeled differs from the actual gas usage by less than or 

equal to 5 percent relative to actual gas consumption , 

reported to one significant figure using standard rounding 

conventions. This verification requirement only applies to 

the comparison for the plasma etching gas, and does not 

have to be completed for the comparison for the chamber 

cleaning gas. 

EPA selected a verification standard of 5 percent as a 

means for a facility to demonstrate to EPA that the 

uncertainty in modeled estimates of gas usage does not 

appreciably affect the uncertainty in that facility’s 

reported emissions.30 EPA is focusing the verification of 

facility-specific engineering models on etching because 

information received in comments31 on the proposed rule and 

from Partner reports from EPA’s PFC Reduction/Climate 

Partnership for the Semiconductor Industry show that 

reportable gases used for etching rank second and third in 

total quantities of usage industry-wide, and have the 

highest emission factors, which together make gas usage for 

 

30 Please refer to the Electronics Manufacturing TSD (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-

0927) for more details on the verification metric. 

31 Refer to comment number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-0131. 
Page 88 of 442 

etching process types a significant contributor to total 

facility emissions.32 

To reduce burden associated with verification, in the 

final rule, EPA is requiring that gas usage data for 

verification purposes be collected only for a single 30-day 

period of operation during which the capacity utilization 

equals or exceeds 60 percent of the design capacity. EPA 

selected a 30-day period for model verification to minimize 

disruptions to normal manufacturing operations while, at 

the same time, establishing a time period that is 

sufficiently long and a utilization that is sufficiently 

high to be representative of facility operations. 

E. Fluorinated Gas Production (Subpart L)

1. Summary of Final Rule

Source Category Definition. 

• The fluorinated gas production source category 

consists of processes that manufacture a fluorinated 

gas from any raw material or feedstock chemical, 

except for processes that generate HFC-23 during the 

production of HCFC-22. Producing a fluorinated gas 

includes the following: 

– Producing a fluorinated GHG as defined at 40 CFR 

98.410(b). 

– The manufacture of a chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) or 

hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) from any raw material 

or feedstock chemical, including the manufacture of 

a CFC or HCFC as an isolated intermediate for use in 

 

32 Although EPA understands that chamber cleaning processes require the 

largest quantities of gas usage, the emission factors for chamber 

cleaning are low compared to etching emission factors. 
Page 89 of 442 

a process that will result in its transformation 

either at or outside of the production facility. 

• Producing a fluorinated gas does not include the 

following: 

– The reuse or recycling of a fluorinated gas. 

– The creation of HFC-23 during the production of 

HCFC-22. 

– The creation of intermediates that are created and 

transformed in a single process with no storage of 

the intermediates. 

– The creation of fluorinated GHGs that are released 

or destroyed at the production facility before the 

production measurement at 40 CFR 98.414(a). 

However, although such release and destruction do 

not themselves constitute fluorinated gas 

production, they must be reported when they occur 

during fluorinated gas production. 

Reporters must submit annual GHG reports for 

facilities that meet applicability criteria in the (General 

Provisions (40 CFR 98.2)). 

GHGs to Report. For facilities that meet the source 

category definition, report the following: 

• CO2, CH4, and N2O combustion emissions from each 

stationary combustion unit 

• The total mass of fluorinated GHG emitted from: 

– Each fluorinated gas production process and all 

fluorinated gas production processes combined. 

– Each fluorinated gas transformation process that is 

not part of a fluorinated gas production process and 

all such fluorinated gas transformation processes 

combined. 

– Each fluorinated gas destruction process that is not 

part of a fluorinated gas production process or a 

fluorinated gas transformation process and all such 

fluorinated gas destruction processes combined. 

– Venting of residual fluorinated GHGs in containers 

(e.g., returned heels). 
Page 90 of 442 

GHG Emission Calculation and Monitoring. Reporters 

must calculate F-GHG emissions for each process as follows: 

• Initial Scoping Test. Perform an initial scoping test 

under 40 CFR 98.124(a) to identify all fluorinated 

GHGs that occur in the process. The deadline for 

completing the scoping test is February 29, 2012. 

• Estimating emissions. There are two methods for 

estimating fluorinated GHG emissions from fluorinated 

gas production and transformation processes: the mass 

balance method and the emission factor method. 

• Mass balance method. 

– Accuracy and Precision Requirements. Before using 

the mass-balance approach to estimate emissions from 

a process, you must ensure that the process and the 

equipment and methods used to measure it meet either 

the error limits specified at 40 CFR 98.123(b) or 

the requirements specified at 40 CFR 98.124(b)(8). 

• Error limits. Based on one of the approaches 

described in the rule, determine the absolute 

error and the relative error of using the mass 

balance method to estimate emissions from the 

process. If these calculations show that use of 

the mass-balance approach to estimate emissions 

from the process will result in an absolute error 

less than or equal to 3,000 metric tons CO2e per 

year or a relative error less than or equal to 30 

percent of the estimated emissions, then you may 

use the mass-balance approach to estimate 

emissions from the process. Otherwise, you must 

either comply with the alternative to the error 

limits or use the emission factor (or emission 

calculation factor) method. 

• Alternative to error limits. You must ensure that 

the process, and the equipment and methods used 

to measure it, meet the following requirements: 

• The process must have a total annual 

throughput of 500,000 mtCO2e or less, where the 

throughput is defined as the sum of the CO2-

weighted masses of the fluorinated GHG 

reactants, products, and by-products. 
Page 91 of 442 

• You must measure the masses and concentrations 

identified in the rule at least weekly, and 

you must calculate emissions at least weekly. 

• You must measure the masses identified in the 

rule with an accuracy and precision of ±0.2 

percent of full scale or better. 

• You must measure the concentrations identified 

in the rule using analytical methods with an 

accuracy and precision of ±10 percent or 

better. 

– Mass-balance calculation. To perform the mass 

balance calculation, you must track and measure the 

fluorine-containing compounds that are added to or 

removed from the process, including reactants, byproducts and products, to determine the emissions in 

terms of fluorine. (Alternatively, you may track 

the flows of another element, such as carbon, as 

long as this element is contained in all of the 

fluorinated GHGs fed into or generated by the 

process.) To track the fluorine removed from the 

process and destroyed or recaptured, you must either 

speciate the contents of the streams removed from 

the process or you must use analytical methods that 

measure the total fluorine in these streams. 

– To characterize emissions (i.e., divide them among 

reactants, products, and by-products), you must 

either assume that all emissions consist of the 

fluorinated GHG that has the highest GWP among the 

fluorinated GHGs that occur in more than trace 

concentrations in the process, or you must possess 

emission characterization measurements. For process 

vents that emit more than 25,000 mtCO2e per year, 

these measurements must include sampling and 

analysis of emitted streams. For other process 

vents, these measurements may also include previous 

measurements, provided the measurements are 

representative of the current operating conditions 

of the process, or bench-scale or pilot-scale test 

measurements representative of the process operating 

conditions. 

• Emission factor (and emission calculation factor) 

methods. 

– For each continuous process vent, perform a 

preliminary estimate of emissions, considering any 

controls, using one of the methods outlined below. 
Page 92 of 442 

For any continuous process vent with estimated 

emissions greater than or equal to 10,000 mtCO2e, 

you must conduct emissions testing to develop an 

emission factor. For any batch process vent, and 

for any continuous process vent with estimated 

emissions less than 10,000 mtCO2e, you have the 

option to use engineering calculations or 

assessments to develop an emission calculation 

factor. 

– In the preliminary estimate, account for the 

demonstrated destruction efficiency and expected 

downtime of the destruction device, if applicable. 

Both the expected downtime of the device and the 

expected activity level for the process must be 

based on typical recent values unless there is a 

compelling reason to adopt a different value. If 

there is such a reason (e.g., introduction of 

controls for a previously uncontrolled vent), it 

must be documented in the facility’s GHG Monitoring 

Plan. If your process vent emits one or more 

fluorinated GHGs whose GWPs are not listed in Table 

A-1 to subpart A, you may use a default global 

warming potential (GWP) of 2,000 for these 

fluorinated GHGs, or you may request to use 

provisional GWPs for these fluorinated GHGs if: 

• The fluorinated GHGs are emitted in quantities 

that, with a default GWP of 2,000, result in 

total calculated annual emissions equal to or 

greater than 10,000 mtCO2e for the vent, and 

• You possess data and analysis that indicate that 

the fluorinated GHGs have GWPs that would result 

in total calculated annual emissions less than 

10,000 mtCO2e for the vent. 

– For the preliminary estimate, facilities may use the 

following methods: 

• Facilities may use the Emissions Inventory 

Improvement Process, Volume II: Chapter 16, 

Methods for Estimating Air Emissions from 

Chemical Manufacturing Facilities. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, August 2007. 

• Facilities may determine the uncontrolled 

fluorinated GHG emissions from any process vent 

within the process using the procedures specified 

in 40 CFR 63.1257(d)(2)(i), “National Emission 

Standards for Pharmaceutical Production,” except 
Page 93 of 442 

as specified in 40 CFR 98.123, paragraphs 

(b)(1)(i)(B)(1) through (b)(1)(i)(B)(4). 

• Facilities may use commercial software products 

that follow chemical engineering principles, 

including the calculation methodologies in 40 CFR 

98.123, paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(A) and (B). 

• Facilities may use previous test results, bench 

scale, or pilot-scale data, provided they are 

representative of the current process operating 

conditions. 

• Facilities may use design analysis based on 

chemical engineering principles, measurable 

process parameters, or physical or chemical laws 

or properties. 

• Facilities may use maximum flow rate, fluorinated 

GHG emission rate, concentration, or other 

relevant parameters specified or implied within a 

permit limit applicable to the process vent. 

– Emission and emission calculation factors for 

continuous processes: For continuous process vents 

with emissions, considering controls, that are 

greater than or equal to 10,000 mtCO2e, conduct 

emissions testing to determine the site-specific, 

process vent-specific emissions factor. 

• If the vent is controlled and annual emissions 

bypassing, i.e., not venting to, the control 

device are less than 10,000 mtCO2e, then you may 

conduct emissions testing after the control 

device. 

• Otherwise, conduct emissions testing before the 

control device. You may conduct emissions 

testing for fluorinated GHG following an acid gas 

scrubber, if there is no appreciable fluorinated 

GHG reduction occurring. 

– For batch process vents and for continuous process 

vents with annual emissions of less than 10,000 

mtCO2e, either conduct emissions testing or use one 

of the engineering calculation or assessment methods 

outlined above (except the approach based on maximum 

flow rates, concentrations, etc.) to develop the 

site-specific, process-vent specific emission 

calculation factor. If and when emissions from a 

continuous process vent meet or exceed 10,000 mtCO2e 

(e.g., due to activity increases, process changes, 
Page 94 of 442 

or destruction device malfunctions), you must 

conduct emissions testing and develop an emission 

factor for the vent by the end of the following 

year. 

– Emission and emission calculation factors for batch 

processes: For process vents from batch processes, 

either perform emissions testing as described above 

or use one of the engineering calculation or 

assessment methods outlined above (except the 

approach based on maximum flow rates, 

concentrations, etc.) to develop the site-specific, 

process-vent specific emission calculation factor. 

– All processes: Determine the emissions factor or 

the emissions calculation factor using the 

fluorinated GHG emission rate and the process 

activity rate. 

– The deadline for completing development of emission 

factors and emission calculation factors is February 

29, 2012. 

– Estimate annual fluorinated GHG emissions from each 

process vent using the emission factor or the 

emission calculation factor and the actual activity 

data along with the use and uptime of the 

destruction device. 

– Sum the fluorinated GHG emission for all vents in 

the process. 

– If using the emission factor or emission calculation 

factor approach, estimate emissions from equipment 

leaks using EPA's Protocol for Equipment Leak 

Emission Estimates (EPA-453/R-95-017). The 

equipment leak emission estimates may include use of 

Method 21 for appropriate fluorinated GHGs. 

Alternatively, use a site-specific leak detection 

method that you have validated for the fluorinated 

GHGs (or their surrogates) that occur in the 

process. 

• To establish the destruction efficiency, conduct a 

performance test or use the destruction efficiency 

determined during a previous performance test that 

meets the rule requirements. For certain difficultto-destroy fluorinated GHGs such as CF4, SF6, and 

saturated PFCs other than CF4, a destruction efficiency 

must be developed specifically for that compound or 

for a more difficult-to-destroy surrogate (e.g., CF4
Page 95 of 442 

may be used as a surrogate for SF6). For other 

fluorinated GHGs, the destruction efficiency may be 

developed using any Class 1 compound on the Thermal 

Stability Rankings List. 

• For destruction processes, estimate emissions using 

the calculation methods in the rule. 

• To estimate emissions from venting of container heels 

in cases where the heels are not recaptured or 

destroyed, either: 

– Weigh each container upon its return to the facility 

and before venting or 

– Develop a representative heel factor for each 

fluorinated GHG and container size and type and 

multiply it by the number of containers of that gas 

and size and type vented annually. 

• Request to use a GWP other than 2,000 for fluorinated 

GHGs whose GWPs are not listed in Table A-1 to subpart 

A. As noted above, for purposes of the preliminary 

emissions estimate under the emission factor approach, 

facilities may request to use a GWP other than 2,000 

for fluorinated GHGs that do not have GWPs listed in 

Table A-1 to subpart A. Facilities must submit this 

request by February 28, 2011. 

– For each fluorinated GHG that does not have a GWP 

listed in Table A-1 to subpart A and that 

constitutes more than one percent by mass of the 

stream emitted from the vent, the facility must 

provide the identity of the fluorinated GHG 

(including its chemical formula), the estimated GWP 

of the fluorinated GHG, the data and analysis that 

supports the facility’s estimate of the GWP of the 

fluorinated GHG, and the engineering calculations or 

assessments and underlying data that demonstrate 

that the process vent is calculated to emit less 

than 10,000 mtCO2e only when the proposed 

provisional GWPs, not the default GWP of 2,000, are 

used for fluorinated GHGs whose GWPs are not listed 

in Table A-1 to subpart A. 

– If EPA makes a preliminary determination that the 

request is complete, that it substantiates each of 

the provisional GWPs, and that it demonstrates that 

the process vent is calculated to emit less than 

10,000 mtCO2e only when the provisional GWPs, not 

the default GWP of 2,000, are used for fluorinated 
Page 96 of 442 

GHGs whose GWPs are not listed in Table A-1 to 

subpart A, then EPA will publish a notice including 

a summary of the data and analysis supporting the 

GWPs. If, after review of public comment on the 

notice, EPA finalizes its preliminary determination, 

then EPA will permit the facility to use the 

provisional GWPs for the preliminary emissions 

calculations. 

• Best available monitoring methods (BAMM). We are 

allowing facilities to use Best Available Monitoring 

Methods (BAMM) for any parameter that cannot 

reasonably be measured according to the monitoring and 

QA/QC requirements of subpart L. The owner or 

operator must use the calculation methodologies and 

equations in the “Calculating GHG emissions” section 

of subpart L, but may use the best available 

monitoring method for any parameter for which it is 

not reasonably feasible to achieve the following by 

either July 1, 2011 or March 1, 2012 (these dates are 

discussed further below): 

– Acquire, install, or operate a required piece of 

monitoring equipment. 

– Procure services from necessary providers (e.g., 

contractors specializing in stack testing to support 

the development of emission factors). 

– Gain physical access to make required measurements 

(e.g., because a measurement requires the 

installation of a port and it is unsafe to install 

the port during process operation). 

• BAMM Deadlines. Facilities may use BAMM to estimate 

emissions that occur through June 30, 2011 without 

submitting a request to EPA. 

• Facilities wishing to use BAMM to estimate emissions 

that occur throughout 2011 for parameters other than 

scoping tests, emission factors, and emission 

characterizations must submit a request to EPA by 

February 28, 2011. 

• Facilities wishing to use BAMM to estimate emissions 

that occur throughout 2011 (or in unique or extreme 

circumstances, until after that date) for scoping 

tests, emission factors, and emission 

characterizations must submit a petition to EPA by 

June 30, 2011. 
Page 97 of 442 

• Contents of BAMM Extension Requests. Requests for 

BAMM extensions must include detailed explanations and 

supporting documentation to describe why it is not 

reasonably feasible for the facility to comply with 

the applicable monitoring requirements. In general, 

extension requests must include detailed descriptions 

and evidence that it is not reasonably feasible for 

the facility to acquire, install, or operate a 

required piece of monitoring equipment, to procure 

services from necessary providers, or to gain physical 

access to make required measurements in a facility 

before July 1, 2011 (for parameters other than scoping 

tests, emission factors, and emission 

characterizations) or March 1, 2012 (for scoping 

tests, emission factors, and emission 

characterizations). BAMM extension requests must also 

document the facility’s efforts to comply with the 

requirements and explain the BAMM that the facility 

will use, should EPA approve the request. EPA does 

not anticipate approving the use of BAMM beyond 

December 31, 2011; however, EPA reserves the right to 

approve any such requests submitted by June 30, 2011 

under unique and extreme circumstances which include 

safety, technical infeasibility, or inconsistency with 

other local, State or Federal regulations. Facilities 

requesting BAMM past December 31, 2011 would have to 

submit documentation to support the request similar to 

that required for BAMM requests in 2011. In addition, 

these facilities would be required to describe the 

unique and extreme circumstances which necessitate the 

extended BAMM. 

• We anticipate that facilities will need to use best 

available monitoring methods only under limited 

circumstances. 

• BAMM for facilities pursuing the emission factor 

approach. For facilities pursuing the emission factor 

approach for a given process, we expect that most 

activity data is already monitored using measurement 

devices with an accuracy and precision of ±1 percent 

of full scale or better. However, where this is not 

the case and where it is not reasonably feasible to 

acquire, install, or operate the measurement device by 

January 1, 2011 (or July 1, 2011), the facility would 

use the currently installed device (or would request 

to use it) through June 30, 2011 (or December 31, 

2011). 
Page 98 of 442 

• Facilities already have until February 29, 2012 to 

develop emission factors and emission 

characterizations; thus, they would not need to use 

BAMM for these parameters unless they could not 

complete stack testing and parameter development until 

after that date. In this case, if the request for 

extended BAMM were granted, the facility would have 

until February 28, 2013 to complete emissions testing 

and develop the emission factor or emission 

characterization for the affected vent and process. 

In the meantime, the facility would use an emission 

calculation factor or emission characterization 

developed through engineering calculations or 

assessments to estimate 2011 emissions. As a 

condition for any approval of 12-month BAMM during the 

development of emission factors and emission 

characterizations, we are requiring facilities to 

recalculate and re-submit their 2011 emission 

estimates for the affected processes to reflect the 

scoping tests, emission factors, and emission 

characterizations that they complete or develop for 

those processes after February 29, 2012. 

• We do not expect facilities to require BAMM for 

estimating emissions from equipment leaks because we 

are already providing a great deal of flexibility in 

how such leaks may be estimated, including allowing 

the use of default emission factors. 

• BAMM for facilities pursuing the mass-balance 

approach. For facilities using the mass-balance 

approach for a given process, we anticipate that the 

main reason for using BAMM will be an inability to 

meet the error limit due to an inability to acquire, 

install, or operate measurement devices with 

sufficient accuracies and precisions by January 1, 

2011. In such cases, facilities will have a choice 

regarding the monitoring method they select to 

estimate emissions from the process under the BAMM 

provisions. They may use engineering calculations or 

assessments to develop emission calculation factors, 

or they may apply the mass-balance equations to the 

data they acquire using their current measurement 

devices. Before pursuing the latter method, 

facilities must estimate the relative and absolute 

errors that would be associated with using the massbalance method to estimate emissions based on their 

current monitoring data. We anticipate approving the 
Page 99 of 442 

use of BAMM with the mass-balance method only if those 

errors are less than 50 percent or less than 2,500 

mtCO2e for 6 months of emissions from the process, 

respectively. If facilities cannot meet these error 

limits, they should use engineering calculations or 

assessments as their BAMM. 

• BAMM for facilities pursuing either approach. 

Facilities requesting BAMM while they prepare to 

implement either the emission-factor or the massbalance approach must explain and document why it is 

not reasonably feasible for them to apply the other 

approach to estimate emissions from the relevant 

process. Thus, facilities requesting BAMM until 

January 1, 2012 while they prepare to implement the 

mass-balance approach must explain and document why it 

is not reasonably feasible for them to apply the 

emission factor approach by July 1, 2011, and vice 

versa. 

• Destruction efficiencies. We do not anticipate 

approving the use of BAMM for destruction efficiencies 

for two reasons. First, facilities have the option of 

not reflecting, in their reporting, the destruction of 

fluorinated GHGs for which destruction efficiencies 

have not been demonstrated. Second, it would be 

difficult to select or justify the selection of a 

provisional destruction efficiency value if the 

destruction efficiency had not been measured for the 

fluorinated GHG at issue (or for a fluorinated GHG 

that is more difficult to destroy according to the 

hierarchy laid out at §98.124(g)(1)). 

Data Reporting. In addition to the information 

required to be reported by the General Provisions (40 CFR 

98.3(c)), reporters must submit additional data that are 

used to calculate GHG emissions. A list of the specific 

data to be reported for this source category is contained 

in 40 CFR 98.126. 

Recordkeeping. In addition to the records required by 

the General Provisions (40 CFR 98.3(g)), reporters must 
Page 100 of 442 

keep records of additional data used to calculate GHG 

emissions. A list of specific records that must be 

retained for this source category is included in §98.127. 

1. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal

The major changes since proposal are identified in the 

following list. The rationale for these and any other 

significant changes can be found below or in “Mandatory 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA’s Response to Public 

Comments, Subpart L: Fluorinated Gas Production 

Processes.” 

• We are adding a number of clarifications to assist 

reporters in determining when and how the initial 

scoping test must be performed. Specifically, the 

initial scoping test applicability criteria are 

applied on a process vent basis rather than a process 

basis; facilities may conduct sampling and analysis on 

process vents or on process streams; and testing 

methods specific to stack testing do not have to be 

used. Other validated industry sampling analysis 

standards may be used. 

• We have added more flexibility and robustness to the 

mass-balance approach by: 

– Allowing use of the mass-balance approach with 

processes that do not produce fluorinated GHGs but 

may nevertheless emit them (e.g., processes that 

transform fluorinated GHGs). The mass-balance 

equations no longer assume that the mass that is 

lost from the process is emitted in the form of the 

product; instead, the equations express losses as 

emissions of fluorine. To divide emissions among 

reactants, products, and by-products, facilities 

either must assume that all emissions consist of the 

fluorinated GHG that has the highest GWP among the 

fluorinated GHGs that occur in more than trace 

concentrations in the process, or they must use 

emission characterization measurements. 
Page 101 of 442 

– Incorporating process variability into the error 

calculation. 

– Providing an alternative to the error limits for 

facilities that do not wish to calculate these 

limits. 

• We have added more flexibility to the emission factor 

approach by: 

– Allowing the use of engineering calculations or 

assessments to develop emission calculation factors 

for all batch process vents, regardless of 

emissions. 

– Changing the method for determining whether the 

emissions of a continuous process vent fall below 

the 10,000 mtCO2e cutoff that allows the use of 

engineering calculations rather than stack testing. 

First, we are allowing the use of controlled rather 

than uncontrolled emissions in this determination 

and are consequently eliminating the separate 

exemption for vents that are 99.9 percent 

controlled. Second, where one or more fluorinated 

GHGs emitted from the vent do not have a GWP listed 

in Table A-1 to subpart A, we are allowing the use 

of a default GWP of 2,000 for these GHGs in the 

determination rather than setting a cutoff of one 

ton of chemical. We are also allowing facilities to 

request to use a provisional GWP where the facility 

believes that the fluorinated GHG’s GWP is less than 

2,000 and where the difference would reduce the 

calculated vent emissions from above the 10,000 

mtCO2e cutoff to below it. 

– Providing an additional two months (until February 

29, 2012) to develop emission factors, emission 

calculation factors, emission characterizations, and 

destruction efficiencies. 

– Allowing emissions testing after the control device 

if the vent is controlled and annual emissions 

bypassing (i.e., not vented to) the control device 

are less than 10,000 mtCO2e. This change is 

expected to reduce the number of situations in which 

testing of hazardous streams on the inlet side to 

the control device may be required, to limit the 

number of potential sampling ports that may need to 

be installed, and to increase the number of 
Page 102 of 442 

situations in which testing of outlet emissions only 

will be required, i.e., without need for additional 

destruction efficiency testing. 

– For vents from continuous processes with emissions 

over 10,000 mtCO2e, summed across operating 

scenarios, requiring testing of only the largestemitting operating scenario and any other operating 

scenario that (1) emits more than 10,000 mtCO2e 

through the vent, and (2) has an emission 

calculation factor that differs by 15 percent or 

more from the emission calculation factor of the 

tested operating scenario. (In the proposed rule, 

stack testing would have been required for each 

operating scenario.) 

– Expanding the set of test methods that can be used 

for emissions testing. We are allowing industry 

standard sampling and analytical methods that have 

been validated using EPA Method 301 or other 

validation methods. 

– Expanding the set of methods that can be used for 

quantifying emissions from equipment leaks. We are 

now allowing use of the default average emission 

factor approach in EPA's Protocol for Equipment 

Leaks and are allowing facilities to implement their 

own methods for detecting and quantifying 

fluorinated GHG emissions from equipment leaks. 

Site-specific leak detection methods must be 

validated and both the methods and their validation 

must be documented in the facility’s GHG Monitoring 

Plan. 

– For purposes of quantifying emissions from equipment 

leaks, defining “in fluorinated GHG service” as 

containing or contacting a feedstock, by-product, or 

product that contains 5 percent or more total 

fluorinated GHG by weight. 

• We are adding a requirement to monitor and report 

fluorinated GHG emissions from containers when the 

residual fluorinated GHG (heel) is vented to the 

atmosphere rather than recaptured and reused or 

destroyed. As discussed in the proposed rule and in 

the technical support document, venting of residual 

gas from containers can have a significant impact on 

the overall emission rate of a fluorinated GHG 

production facility. Estimating such emissions is 
Page 103 of 442 

straightforward and is not expected to impose a 

significant burden on facilities. 

• We are adding a one-time requirement to report 

existing data and analysis regarding the formation of 

products of incomplete combustion (PICs) that are 

fluorinated GHGs during the destruction of fluorinated 

gases. Studies of high-energy processes in the 

electronics industry indicate that PFC PICs may form 

in significant quantities during the destruction of 

fluorinated GHGs. Once formed, such PICs are likely 

to be very difficult to destroy. We considered 

requiring regular reporting of fluorinated GHG PIC 

generation and emissions under this rule, but we 

concluded that more information on the nature and 

magnitude of such emissions was needed to determine 

whether and how to craft reporting requirements. The 

one-time reporting requirement regarding PICs is 

intended to begin addressing this need. 

• To clarify that PICs are excluded from reporting under 

this rule (except for the one-time reporting 

requirement), we are amending the definition of 

destruction efficiency in subpart A to express it in 

terms of the tons of a particular GHG that is fed into 

and exhausted from the device, rather than in terms of 

the tons of CO2e of all GHGs fed into and exhausted 

from the device. We are also deleting the phrase 

“including GHGs formed during the destruction process” 

from the definition of the quantity exhausted from the 

device. 

• We are modifying the proposed BAMM provision to allow 

fluorinated gas production facilities to use BAMM to 

estimate emissions through June 30, 2011 without 

submitting a request to EPA. In the proposal, 

facilities would have been allowed to use BAMM to 

estimate emissions only through March 31, 2011 without 

submitting a request. We are also reserving the right 

to allow, in extremely limited circumstances, 

facilities to use BAMM to estimate 2012 emissions. We 

are allowing facilities to use BAMM for 6 months 

rather than three and are potentially allowing the use 

of BAMM beyond 2011 based on comments received on the 

April 12, 2010 proposed rule and our experience 

implementing the final reporting rule issued in 

October 2009. For a more detailed discussion on EPA’s 

rationale, see “Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting 

Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments, Subpart L: 
Page 104 of 442 

Fluorinated Gas Production” (available in the docket, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927). 

2. Summary of Comments and Responses

This section contains a brief summary of major 

comments and responses. A number of comments on 

fluorinated GHG production were received covering numerous 

topics. Responses to additional significant comments 

received can be found in “Mandatory Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments, Subpart 

L: Fluorinated Gas Production Processes.” 

Monitoring and QA/QC Requirements

Comment: A number of commenters argued against 

requiring emission testing of vents from batch processes, 

stating that the episodic and variable nature of batch 

emissions make them extremely difficult to measure 

accurately and inexpensively. These commenters noted that 

both the flow rates and fluorinated GHG concentrations in 

batch emissions can change rapidly, making them difficult 

to characterize and quantify correctly, and that vents 

often consist of small diameter process piping where 

traditional gas flow measurement devices are not effective. 

Commenters specifically cited depressurizations and vapor 

displacements as batch events whose emissions are hard to 

measure because they are characterized by varying and very 

low flows, respectively. They also observed that batch 
Page 105 of 442 

processes can last for days, meaning that it could take 

weeks to complete three test cycles, or even one year or 

more if the process is run infrequently. The commenters 

concluded that due to these concerns, other regulations 

that required estimation of emissions from batch processes 

allowed estimates to be based on a broad range of 

engineering calculations and assessments, which yield 

accurate emission estimates for batch processes. They 

recommended that EPA provide similar flexibility for batch 

processes in subpart L. Rather than requiring stack 

testing for high-emitting batch process vents, one 

commenter suggested that EPA require the verification of 

emission calculations using “stack gas measurements that 

characterize the major emission events.” 

Response: In response to comments describing the 

technical issues associated with emission testing for batch 

processes, we have revised the requirements for estimating 

fluorinated GHG emissions from batch processes. In the 

final rule, facilities with batch process vents are 

required to develop emission calculation factors rather 

than conduct emission testing. As several commenters noted, 

there are several difficulties associated with conducting 

emissions testing for batch processes. Many batch 

processes have short to moderate batch lengths, short 
Page 106 of 442 

emission episode periods, low flow rates, and intermittent 

flow rates, and these characteristics make emissions from 

batch processes difficult to measure accurately. It is 

generally accepted that emission calculations for batch 

processes yield reasonably accurate results. As commenters 

noted, the precedent in other rules for batch processes in 

the chemical manufacturing industry is to conduct emission 

calculations. Emission calculations are required for batch 

processes in the Pharmaceutical NESHAP and in the 

Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP, and emission calculations for 

batch processes are also laid out for industry in the 

Emissions Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP) guidance and 

in the Batch CTG document. The Pharmaceutical NESHAP and 

Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP do not require emissions 

testing to determine the emission rates for individual 

process vents from batch processes under these rules. 

(However, emissions testing to demonstrate the control 

efficiency achieved by an add-on air pollution control 

device on batch processes is conducted, based on the worsecase scenario). 

We considered requiring field verification of emission 

estimates for the largest batch emission episodes, but 

determined that we did not have enough information to 

finalize a requirement that could be consistently applied 
Page 107 of 442 

across different processes and facilities. Follow-up 

discussions with the commenter that suggested the 

verification testing (as an alternative to full emissions 

testing) indicated that the methods used to verify 

emissions would almost certainly vary from process to 

process and would be difficult to prescribe. Moreover, it 

was unclear what the criteria for a successful verification 

would be, and how a facility would address an unsuccessful 

verification. For example, if measurements indicated that 

emissions from a particular episode were significantly 

lower than expected based on engineering calculations, the 

discrepancy could be due either to a process-wide 

overestimate of emissions (perhaps due to overestimated byproduct generation rates) or to a misallocation of 

emissions among emission episodes. Different responses 

would be appropriate for addressing these two 

possibilities. Thus, although we strongly encourage 

facilities to test large emissions from batch processes 

where feasible, we are not requiring that they do so in 

this final rule. 

Comment: Several commenters stated that the proposed 

Process Vent Threshold was too stringent, particularly in 

conjunction with a default GWP of 10,000 for compounds not 

listed in Table A-1 to subpart A. One commenter stated 
Page 108 of 442 

that by assigning this default GWP to all unknown 

fluorinated organic compounds, an emphasis is being placed 

on compounds that are not the focus of the rule. Another 

commenter noted that since many of their compounds are not 

included in Table A-1 to subpart A, they will not be able 

to use the 10,000 mtCO2e threshold. Several commenters 

requested that they be allowed to develop and use their own 

GWPs for compounds that are not listed in Table A-1 to 

subpart A, following the general guidance presented in 

various IPCC reports. 

Multiple commenters expressed concern regarding the 

proposed control efficiency (or destruction efficiency) 

criterion of 99.9 percent for allowing use of engineering 

calculations and assessments. These commenters requested 

that EPA allow post-control efficiencies for vents that are 

controlled by DRE less than 99.9 percent. Additionally, 

the commenter noted that when a very low concentration of 

the analyte of interest is present in a stream, a 99.9 

percent DE may not be achievable. 

One commenter recommended that EPA modify the 

threshold to reflect a sum of controlled and uncontrolled 

emissions to allow for situations when a destruction device 

is not in use. One commenter suggested that EPA establish 

a schedule that would require larger sources (greater than 
Page 109 of 442 

50,000 or 100,000-mtCO2/year) to report for the first two 

years, with smaller sources tested in subsequent years as 

technologies improve. Another commenter requested that EPA 

implement the 10,000 mtCO2e threshold and that it be applied 

as an additive threshold amongst all portions of a facility 

that are covered under Part 98. This commenter also noted 

that the 10,000 mtCO2e threshold is in accord with the 

requirements of many States and the Western Climate 

Initiative. 

Response: EPA appreciates the comments and has 

modified the method for determining whether the emissions 

of a process vent fall below the 10,000 mtCO2e cutoff below 

which the facility may use engineering calculations rather 

than stack testing to estimate emissions. As noted in the 

response to the previous comment, we are allowing 

facilities to use engineering calculations and assessments 

to estimate emissions from all batch processes, regardless 

of emissions; thus, facilities must perform the 

determination only for continuous process vents. 

First, we are allowing the use of controlled rather 

than uncontrolled emissions in the determination and are 

consequently eliminating the separate exemption for vents 

that are 99.9 percent controlled. Second, where one or 

more fluorinated GHGs emitted from the vent do not have a 
Page 110 of 442 

GWP listed in Table A-1 to subpart A, we are allowing the 

use of a default GWP of 2,000 for these GHGs in the 

determination rather than setting a cutoff of one ton of 

chemical. Third, where facilities believe that the default 

GWP overestimates the actual GWP and where use of the 

estimated actual GWP would lower the calculated emissions 

from the vent from above the 10,000 mtCO2e cutoff to below 

it, we are allowing facilities to request to use a GWP 

other than 2,000. 

We believe that this revised approach allows 

reasonable flexibility and ensures that the rigor of 

emission calculations is proportional to the likely 

magnitude of the emissions. While the proposed rule would 

have permitted the use of engineering calculations and 

assessments to estimate emissions from vents that were 

always 99.9 percent controlled, they would have required 

stack testing for vents controlled below the 99.9 percent 

level, even if the emissions from these vents were 

considerably below 10,000 mtCO2e. This final rule 

establishes a more consistent approach to accounting for 

destruction by permitting the use of engineering 

calculations and assessments where controlled emissions 

fall below 10,000 mtCO2e. 
Page 111 of 442 

This final rule also allows for a more sophisticated 

treatment of fluorinated GHGs whose GWPs are not listed in 

Table A-1 to subpart A. Under the proposed rule, 

facilities would have been required to perform stack 

testing on fluorinated GHG streams that exceeded one ton 

and that included any fluorinated GHG that did not have a 

GWP listed in table A-1 to subpart A, even if this 

fluorinated GHG made up a small fraction of the stream. 

Implicitly, this assigned a GWP of 10,000 not only to the 

GHG without a GWP in table A-1 to subpart A, but to the 

rest of the stream. Assigning a default GWP of 2,000 to 

GHGs without GWPs in table A-1 to subpart A allows streams 

to be evaluated based on a reasonable estimate of the total 

CO2e rather than just on total F-GHG tonnage.33 The 2,000 

value was selected based on an evaluation of all the known 

GWPs for fluorocarbon F-GHGs as listed in Table A-1 to 

subpart A.34 It is intended to be a short-term default 

 

33 This would avoid problematic situations that could arise if 

facilities simply switched to a 5-ton cut-off whenever part of an 

emissions stream lacked a GWP. One of these would be having to use 

stack testing on a 6-ton vent stream that consisted mostly (e.g., 98%) 

of a fluorinated GHG with a GWP of 50, but consisted slightly (e.g., 

2%) of a fluorinated GHG with an unknown GWP. Another problematic 

situation would be NOT having to use stack testing on a 4-ton vent 

stream that consisted mostly (98%) of a fluorinated GHG with a GWP of 

3000, but slightly (2%) of a fluorinated GHG with an unknown GWP. 

34 The average for all of the fluorocarbons in this list was 2,300. For 

purposes of estimating the GWPs of fluorocarbons that do not appear in 

Table 1, this average may actually be high because it includes the GWPs 

of PFCs, which have an average GWP of about 7,600. EPA believes that 

most PFCs whose vapor pressures qualify them as fluorinated GHGs 

already have their GWPs listed in Table A-1. The average GWP of the 
Page 112 of 442 

value. In the long run, EPA intends to establish a broader 

program for evaluating the GWPs of fluorinated GHGs. 

However, such a program will not be established in time to 

evaluate all of the GWPs that must be evaluated for 

purposes of determining whether or not to perform stack 

testing on process vents. 

The option to request to use a provisional GWP 

addresses situations where the GWP of 2,000 would 

significantly overestimate the CO2e emissions from a 

process vent and inappropriately trigger stack testing. In 

general, we expect such situations to be rare. 

Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that 

the analytical methods as proposed were too limited or 

prescriptive. They argued that the set of proposed 

methods, analytical technologies, and detectors may not be 

appropriate for all fluorinated compounds. Commenters 

specifically observed that the prescribed detectors (e.g., 

ECD) do not work well with all fluorinated compounds. 

Commenters also expressed concern that the proposed rule 

did not address the need to adapt the methods to 

accommodate site-specific issues or safety concerns. The 

commenters recommended that EPA increase the flexibility in 

 

fluorocarbons other than the PFCs is approximately 1,600. (HFCs have 

an average GWP of about 2,000, while HFEs have an average GWP of about 

1,200 to 1,400). 
Page 113 of 442 

the testing section, include the same level of flexibility 

as was proposed for subpart OO, allow more methods as 

alternatives for use in analysis, and rely heavily on the 

facility GHG Monitoring Plan. 

Response: EPA agrees that additional flexibility is 

appropriate and is allowing facilities to use alternative 

test methods and procedures to identify and quantify 

fluorinated GHGs in process and emissions streams. These 

alternative methods and procedures must be validated and 

documented in the facility’s GHG Monitoring Plan. EPA has 

concluded that this change will provide the flexibility 

necessary to allow facilities to develop and apply new 

analytical procedures that may be required to identify and 

quantify all of the fluorinated GHGs in process and 

emissions streams. At the same time, the quality 

assurance, validation, and documentation requirements for 

analytical procedures will assure that facilities are able 

to obtain and report accurate emissions measurements. 

Comment: Several commenters requested clarification 

of or changes to the error test that facilities must 

perform before applying the mass-balance approach to 

estimate emissions from a process. Some commenters 

requested that EPA establish an error limit in terms of the 

quantity of reactants fed into the process, an option on 
Page 114 of 442 

which EPA had requested comment. These commenters were 

concerned that the error limit that was presented in the 

proposed regulatory text, which would require the error to 

fall below either 30 percent of emissions or 3,000 mtCO2e, 

would disadvantage fluorinated GHG production processes 

with low emissions for which facilities might prefer to use 

the mass-balance approach. 

Response: EPA has carefully evaluated various options 

to ensure that emissions estimates developed using the 

mass-balance approach are reasonably accurate while 

avoiding placing a burden on facilities with low emissions. 

In our deliberations, we have considered the fact that for 

processes that do not pass the error test for the massbalance approach, facilities may use the site-specific, 

process-vent-specific emission factor approach (PSEF), 

which is expected to have a relative error of less than 30 

percent. The availability of the PSEF approach argues 

against allowing use of the mass-balance approach where 

relative and absolute errors are large. 

The approach that EPA proposed, which would require 

the error to fall below either 30 percent of emissions or 

3,000 mtCO2e, limits the relative error of large emissions 

and the absolute error of small emissions. We anticipate 

that processes that have large throughputs, moderate to 
Page 115 of 442 

large emission rates (2 percent), and measurements with 

good precisions and accuracies will pass this error test, 

because the error will fall under 30 percent of emissions. 

EPA also anticipates that processes that have small to 

medium throughputs, small to medium emission rates, and 

measurements with moderate to good precisions and 

accuracies will pass the error test, because the error will 

fall either under 30 percent of emissions or under 3,000 

mtCO2e. However, processes with large throughputs and small 

emission rates may not pass the error test even if their 

measurements are highly accurate and precise, because the 

error will exceed both 3,000 mtCO2e and 30 percent of 

emissions. 

The last set of processes described might be able to 

use the mass-balance approach if the error test were 

applied to the ratio of the absolute error (numerator) and 

the reactants or products of the process (denominator). In 

this case, the quantity to which the error test was applied 

would remain constant regardless of the emission rate 

rather than increasing as emissions decreased. However, 

while such an approach would maintain the mass-balance 

approach as an option for large processes with small 

emission rates, it would do so at the cost of reducing the 

precision and accuracy of the resulting emission estimates 
Page 116 of 442 

well below what could be achieved using the emission factor 

approach. For example, consider a process producing 10 

million mtCO2e of product (well within the range for HFCs) 

and emitting one percent of this, or 100,000 mtCO2e. If 

error was limited to 0.6 percent of the fluorinated GHG 

product,35 the error of the emissions estimate for this 

process could be 60 percent, or 60,000mtCO2e. Using the 

emission factor approach, the error of the emissions 

estimate would be half this, 30,000 mtCO2e. Thus, EPA is 

not adopting the alternative error test. Instead, EPA is 

adopting the error test that was proposed. 

Comment: One commenter stated that the relative error 

associated with each measurement is not necessarily known. 

This commenter also requested clarification on when the 

error test must take place and how multiple measurements 

should be handled in the test. The commenter noted that 

over the reporting year, at least 12 measurements would be 

made of masses and concentrations. If facilities waited 

until the end of the year to perform the error test and 

then found that the process “failed” it, they would not 

have time to pursue the alternative of developing and 

applying process-specific emission factors. 

 

35 The 0.6 percent fraction was selected as an example because it 

equates to a 30 percent error for emissions of two percent of 

production. 
Page 117 of 442 

Response: EPA agrees that there may be multiple 

sources of error in the mass and concentration measurements 

used to estimate emissions under the mass balance approach. 

However, while some of these sources of error may not be 

known or easily quantifiable, the most important sources of 

error can be assessed and quantified. These include the 

error of the measurement devices and the variability of the 

process. In general, facilities would be expected to know 

the accuracies and precisions of their devices (e.g., 

flowmeters) for measuring mass and their analytical methods 

for measuring concentrations. Facilities would also be 

expected to know how variable their process is and, in 

general, what drives that variability (e.g., catalyst age). 

Since mass measurements are cumulative (that is, the 

monthly estimates of mass flowing into or out of the 

process should be totals for the month), process 

variability will generally have much more of an impact on 

the accuracy and precision of the concentration 

measurements than on those of the mass measurements. 

If a facility has a record of concentration 

measurements that are representative of the current process 

(including its full variability) and analytical methods, 

then these concentration measurements may be used to assess 

the variability of the process. The variability in these 
Page 118 of 442 

measurements will also capture the random error 

(imprecision) of the analytical method. (The variability 

will not capture the systematic error or inaccuracy of the 

method, but this is generally expected to be smaller than 

the error associated with process variability.) To 

incorporate this variability into the error calculation, 

facilities must consider the fact that at least 12 

concentration measurements would be taken over the course 

of the year.36 As explained further in the revised 

technical support document, this can be accomplished using 

the student’s t distribution. 

If a facility does not have a record of concentration 

measurements that capture the variability of the process, 

the facility can assess this variability by either (1) 

relying on engineering calculations, or (2) taking several 

measurements over the first month or two of the reporting 

year. The facility can then incorporate the results of 

these measurements into the mass-balance error calculation. 

Since these two methods for assessing variability may be 

less reliable than long-term monitoring, the facility may 

 

36 Facilities are required to time their monthly (or more frequent) 

concentration measurements so that they obtain a representative set of 

these measurements over the course of the year. For example, if the 

catalyst is renewed on the first of every month, facilities should take 

measurements at the beginning, middle, and end of the month, even if 

this means that three weeks or five weeks rather than one month may 

elapse between measurements. 
Page 119 of 442 

wish to pursue the process-vent-specific emission factor 

approach if the results show that the process barely passes 

the error test. 

Comment: Commenters also addressed the issue of the 

use of surrogates in determining destruction efficiency. 

They noted that in the destruction and removal efficiency 

(DRE) testing that is performed at hazardous waste 

combustors pursuant to 40 CFR 63.1219, facilities are 

allowed to test any principal organic hazardous constituent 

(POHC) within a thermal stability class to establish the 

DRE of all the other POHCs in that class. The commenters 

argued that EPA should take a similar approach in the 

requirements for determining the destruction efficiency 

(DE) for fluorinated GHGs, clarifying that Class 1 POHCs, 

such as naphthalene, are acceptable surrogates. 

Response: We understand that in the destruction and 

removal efficiency (DRE) testing that is performed at 

hazardous waste combustors pursuant to part 63, subpart 

EEE, facilities that demonstrate 99.99 percent DRE for a 

POHC within a thermal stability class are allowed to assume 

that 99.99 percent DRE would also be achieved for the other 

compounds in that class and for compounds in other thermal 

stability classes with lower thermal stability rankings. 

This approach is based on the general conclusion that, for 
Page 120 of 442 

POHCs that are in the same class and that occur in 

significant volumes, differences in DREs tend to be small, 

and that compounds in other thermal stability classes with 

lower stability rankings are easier to destroy. 

However, it would be a misapplication of the thermal 

stability index to conclude that a combustor that has 

demonstrated 99.99 percent DRE for any Class 1 compound37

would also achieve 99.99 percent DRE for SF6, a Class 1 

compound, and for perfluoromethane (CF4). While achieving 

99.99 percent DRE for SF6 ensures 99.99 percent DRE for 

other Class 1 compounds, the converse may not be true. As 

discussed below, SF6 is substantially more thermally stable 

than other Class 1 compounds (and CF4 is substantially more 

thermally stable than SF6). Note that this does not 

undermine EPA’s policy of assuming for purposes of the 

hazardous waste combustion standards that achieving 99.99 

percent DRE for a Class 1 compound ensures 99.99 percent 

DRE for other Class 1 compounds (and, therefore, for all 

POHCs). Given that SF6 is nontoxic and is not a RCRA Part 

261, Appendix VIII organic compound for which 99.99 percent 

DRE would be required under the hazardous waste combustion 

standards, the fact that demonstrating 99.99 percent DRE 

 

37 Class 1 is the group of POHCs and surrogates with the highest thermal 

stability, meaning they are the most difficult compounds to destroy. 
Page 121 of 442 

for other Class 1 compounds may not ensure 99.99 percent 

DRE for SF6 is irrelevant to that policy. 

The theoretical considerations that support the 

conclusion that fluorinated GHGs are extremely thermally 

stable relate to the high energies of the C-F and S-F 

bonds. These energies make it difficult to break the bonds 

through reaction with oxygen, hydrogen, or the hydroxyl 

radical, the typical means of destroying other class 1 

compounds. Essentially, the only path available to destroy 

these fully fluorinated compounds in hazardous waste 

combustors or thermal oxidizers is through thermal 

decomposition at very high temperatures.38 These 

temperatures are significantly higher than those required 

for the thermal decomposition of most other class 1 

compounds. For SF6, the thermal stability index indicates 

that the temperature to achieve 99 percent destruction with 

a two-second residence time is 1,090°C; for CF4, we project 

that the temperature would be on the order of 1,380°C.39 

 

38W. Tsang et al make this case for perfluoromethane in Tsang, W., 

Burgess Jr., D. R., and Babushok, V. (1998) “On the Incinerability of 

Highly Fluorinated Organic Compounds,” Combustion Science and 

Technology, 139:1, 385-402. An analogous argument can be made for 

sulfur hexafluoride. 

39 SF6 temperature is from Appendix VIII ranking of POHCs; CF4

temperature is estimated based on the rate constant provided in Tsang, 

p. 393. 
Page 122 of 442 

Researchers have suggested that CF4 may break down only in 

the flame zone.40 

Experimental evidence supports the idea that SF6 and 

CF4 are difficult to destroy. Due in part to the 

theoretical considerations outlined above, several studies 

have evaluated the use of SF6 as a possible surrogate for 

POHCs in evaluating DREs. Most studies have verified that 

the DRE measured for SF6 is likely to be lower than that for 

POHCs, i.e., that it is likely to yield a conservative 

estimate of the DREs for POHCs under most conditions. In 

one experiment at a full-scale hazardous waste incinerator, 

the investigators found that even at high-temperature 

conditions, SF6 had a DRE that led to emissions 

approximately an order of magnitude higher than those of 

other POHCs, including both class 1 and class 2 compounds. 

At lower-temperature conditions, SF6 had a DRE that was over 

100 times lower than those of other POHCs.41 As noted 

above, CF4 is even more difficult to destroy than SF6. This 

has been confirmed in testing of point-of-use thermal 

abatement devices used in electronics manufacturing, which 

destroyed CF4 with an efficiency that was significantly 

 

40 Tsang, p. 387. 41 A. Trenholm, C. Lee, and H. Jermyn, “Full-Scale POHC Incinerability 

Ranking and Surrogate Testing,” 17th Annual RREL Hazardous Waste 

Research Symposium, EPA Office of Research and Development, EPA/600/9-

91/002 April, 1991, pp. 79-88. 
Page 123 of 442 

lower (sometimes orders of magnitude lower) than the 

efficiency with which they destroyed SF6.42 

Sulfur hexafluoride is ranked fourth in the POHC 

Thermal Stability Index; CF4 is not ranked. Three compounds 

are ranked higher than SF6 (i.e., ranked as having higher 

thermal stability). Hydrogen cyanide and cyanogen are 

ranked first and second in the thermal stability Index, but 

these POHCs are rarely present at levels that qualify them 

as POHCs. Benzene is ranked third, but it frequently 

occurs as a product of incomplete combustion (PIC) and is 

therefore rarely selected as a POHC for DRE testing. For 

these reasons, the compounds above SF6 in the Index have not 

been used to measure the performance of most hazardous 

waste combustors.43,44 However, at fluorinated gas 

production sites that vent SF6, CF4, or other 

 

42 USEPA, “Developing a Reliable Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas (F-GHG) 

Destruction or Removal Efficiency (DRE) Measurement Method for 

Electronics Manufacturing: A Cooperative Evaluation with Qimonda,” 

March 2008, EPA 430-R-08-017; USEPA, “Developing a Reliable Fluorinated 

Greenhouse Gas (F-GHG) Destruction or Removal Efficiency (DRE) 

Measurement Method for Electronics Manufacturing: A Cooperative 

Evaluation with IBM,” June 2009, EPA 430-R-10-004; and USEPA, 

“Developing a Reliable Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas (F-GHG) Destruction 

or Removal Efficiency (DRE) Measurement Method for Electronics 

Manufacturing: A Cooperative Evaluation with NEC Electronics, Inc.,” 

December 2008, EPA 430-R-10-005. 

43 Nonetheless, if a combustor has demonstrated 99.995 DRE for any of 

these three compounds, it is reasonable to assume that it would also 

achieve 99.99% DRE for SF6. 44 If hydrogen cyanide or cyanogens were present in a hazardous waste at 

levels high enough to consider them as principal organic hazardous 

compounds (POHCs), the regulatory authority would likely ensue that 

they were tested as POHCs given that they are substantially more 

thermally stable than other Class 1 compounds. 
Page 124 of 442 

perfluorocarbons to destruction devices, these high-GWP 

compounds have the potential to profoundly affect the 

actual, CO2-weighted destruction efficiencies of those 

devices. The long atmospheric lifetimes of CF4 (50,000 

years) and SF6 (3,000 years) amplify the desirability of 

accurate measurements of their destruction. Thus, using 

these compounds themselves to measure their DEs, rather 

than compounds that may overestimate their DEs (and 

underestimate their emissions) by an order of magnitude or 

more, is critical. 

Other fluorinated compounds are not likely to be as 

stable as CF4 and SF6 because they can be dissociated at C-H 

and C-C bonds (which are weaker than C-F and S-F bonds). 

Nevertheless, higher molecular weight perfluorocarbons such 

as C2F6 are still expected to be relatively difficult to 

incinerate.45 As is true for CF4, the mechanism of 

destruction is expected to be thermal decomposition rather 

than attack by radicals, although the decomposition 

temperature will be lower than for CF4 due to the fact that 

the C-C bond is weaker than the C-F bond. 

For these reasons, EPA is requiring that facilities 

that destroy CF4, SF6, and other PFCs test the DE of their 

destruction devices with the most difficult-to-destroy 

 

45 Tsang, p. 401. 
Page 125 of 442 

compound in this set that they actually destroy. (This 

requirement applies if the facility wishes to reflect the 

destruction in its emissions estimates; the facility has 

the option of forgoing testing if it does not wish to 

reflect the destruction.) Specifically, facilities that 

destroy CF4 must test the DE of their destruction device 

with CF4 to be able to apply an efficiency to this compound. 

Facilities that destroy SF6 must test the DE of their 

destruction device with SF6 or CF4 to be able to apply an 

efficiency to this compound. Facilities that destroy 

higher molecular weight PFCs must test the DE of their 

destruction device with the lowest molecular weight 

saturated PFC that they destroy, a lower molecular weight 

saturated PFC, or SF6 to apply an efficiency to these 

compounds. Facilities that destroy other fluorinated GHGs, 

such as HFCs, may test the DE of their destruction device 

using any class 1 compound in the POHC Thermal Stability 

Index.

Comment: Commenters stated that the methods proposed 

for detecting and quantifying equipment leaks are 

burdensome and as currently written, are inappropriate for 

many fluorinated GHGs. The commenters noted that, in their 

experience in monitoring emissions of VOCs or HAP from 

equipment leaks, such leaks typically make up only a small 
Page 126 of 442 

percentage of facility emissions. Several commenters noted 

that the proposed methods are drawn from EPA’s Protocol for 

Equipment Leak Estimates and would be used in conjunction 

with Method 21. Method 21 was developed to detect and 

quantify emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 

from various sources. The technologies that are commonly 

used for quantifying leaks of VOCs do not detect many 

fluorinated GHGs at the sensitivity required by Method 21, 

and detectors that are capable of quantifying leaks of a 

range of these fluorinated GHGs do not meet all of the 

specifications for detectors set forth in Method 21, 

including, for example, probe diameter and sampling rate. 

Several commenters requested that EPA allow the use of 

alternative methods to detect and quantify fluorinated GHG 

equipment leaks. Some of these alternatives addressed the 

inability of Method-21-compliant technology to detect 

fluorinated GHGs. Others addressed the cost of screening 

large equipment sets for leaks, and some addressed both. 

The alternative methods included alternative detection 

technologies that did not meet all of the specifications of 

Method 21, any EPA monitoring approach in use in 

regulations, soap bubble testing either as a screening 

approach to be followed up with leak quantification or as a 

leak designator in itself, pressure and vacuum tests on 
Page 127 of 442 

batch process equipment, various sampling regimens, and 

alternative equipment counting approaches (for example, 

approaches that focus on rotating but not static 

equipment). One commenter suggested that EPA permit 

monitoring of room exhaust to quantify leaks from process 

equipment inside the room where the facility successfully 

completes an EPA Method 204 capture efficiency 

demonstration. Commenters requested that EPA allow 

facilities to establish and modify their own methods to 

provide appropriate equipment leak estimates for 

fluorinated GHG emissions, provided the methodology is 

documented in the GHG Monitoring Plan. 

Response: EPA agrees that it is appropriate to give 

facilities flexibility in designing and conducting their 

leak monitoring. In this final rule, we are expanding the 

set of methods that can be used for quantifying emissions 

from equipment leaks. We are now allowing use of the 

default Average Emission Factor approach in EPA's Protocol 

for Equipment Leak Estimates and are allowing facilities to 

implement their own methods for detecting and quantifying 

fluorinated GHG emissions from equipment leaks. Sitespecific leak detection methods must be validated, e.g., 

through comparison with other methods, and both the methods 
Page 128 of 442 

and their validation must be documented in the facility’s 

GHG Monitoring Plan. 

Three considerations have persuaded us to allow this 

flexibility. First, the equipment and methods for 

detecting and quantifying emissions of fluorinated GHGs 

from equipment leaks have not advanced as far as those for 

monitoring emissions of VOC from equipment leaks. While 

some fluorinated GHGs can be detected using instruments 

that meet EPA Method 21 specifications, many others cannot. 

Although instruments for detecting leaks of HFCs and SF6

from air-conditioning, refrigeration, and electrical 

equipment have existed for some time, most of these 

instruments do not quantify emissions and/or detect only 

one or two gases. In many cases, therefore, these 

instruments are not capable of quantifying emissions of the 

broad range of fluorinated GHGs that can leak from process 

equipment in fluorinated gas production facilities. For 

some fluorinated GHGs, the only instruments that are 

capable of detecting and quantifying emissions do not meet 

all of the Method 21 specifications or reach their maximum 

(“peg”) at relatively low concentrations. Thus, EPA is 

permitting use of monitoring equipment that departs from 

Method 21 specifications. 
Page 129 of 442 

Second, information submitted by several fluorinated 

gas producers indicates that equipment leaks account for a 

very small share of facility-wide fluorinated GHG 

emissions. Although this generalization is largely based 

on experience with VOCs and HAP, two fluorinated gas 

producers have surveyed at least some of their process 

equipment with detectors sensitive to fluorinated GHGs and 

have found a similar, very low, level of emissions. 

Consequently, if some leak quantification methods used to 

monitor equipment leak emissions under this rule, despite 

initial validation efforts, are later found to have 

relatively poor precisions or accuracies, these errors are 

unlikely to have had a large impact on facility emissions 

estimates in the meantime. The potential costs of 

experimentation in this area are relatively low. 

Third, the goal of this rule is to quantify 

fluorinated GHG emissions from leaks rather than to 

regulate them. Hence, leak quantification approaches that 

yield unbiased, if imprecise, estimates are preferable to 

approaches that yield biased (e.g., conservatively high) 

estimates (e.g., the Average Emission Factor Approach). 

Also, approaches that quantify leaks without locating them 

(i.e., the room exhaust test suggested by one commenter) 

are acceptable in this context. 
Page 130 of 442 

One area where we are setting a quantitative 

monitoring standard is in sampling fractions and 

frequencies. In addition to requiring the sampled 

equipment to be representative of the equipment used in the 

process (e.g., in terms of proportions of rotating 

equipment, etc.), we are requiring that at least one third 

of the equipment for each process be monitored each year. 

(There is an exception for equipment that is difficult-tomonitor and unsafe-to-monitor.) This requirement sets a 

consistent standard across facilities and ensures that all 

equipment is sampled over a three-year period. 

One option that we considered and rejected was to 

require facilities to use the Average Emission Factor 

Approach in the Protocol for Equipment Leak Estimates.46 

This approach requires facilities to count the number of 

pieces of equipment of each type in a process and multiply 

the number of each type by a default emission factor. 

Fluorinated gas producers noted that this approach tends to 

grossly overestimate emissions from leaks, e.g., by a 

factor of 100 to 1000. As noted above, unbiased estimates, 

even if they are imprecise, are preferable to extremely 

conservative estimates in the context of a reporting rule. 

Thus, although we are giving facilities the option to use 

 

46 This approach was not proposed but is less burdensome than the other 

three methods in the Protocol, which were proposed. 
Page 131 of 442 

the Average Emission Factor Approach (which may be 

desirable in a facility for which even this approach will 

yield an equipment leak estimate that is a tiny percentage 

of overall facility emissions), we are not requiring it. 

We are requiring facilities to include brief 

descriptions of their leak detection methods in their 

annual GHG report. After facilities have gained experience 

designing and implementing leak detection approaches, we 

may revisit this issue to identify the approaches that are 

most effective. 

F. Electrical Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use 

(Subpart DD)

1. Summary of the Final Rule

Source Category Definition. The electrical 

transmission and distribution equipment use source category 

consists of all electric transmission and distribution 

equipment and servicing inventory insulated with or 

containing SF6 or PFCs used within electric power systems. 

Such equipment includes all gas-insulated substations, 

circuit breakers, switchgear (including both closedpressure and hermetically sealed-pressure equipment) 

electric power transformers, gas-insulated lines containing 

SF6 or PFCs, and new equipment owned but not yet installed. 
Page 132 of 442 

Servicing inventory includes pressurized cylinders, gas 

carts, and other containers of SF6 or PFC. 

Reporting Threshold. EPA is finalizing a reporting 

threshold based on nameplate capacity of equipment. 

Electric power systems must report if the total nameplate 

capacity of SF6 and PFC containing equipment located within 

the facility, when added to the total nameplate capacity of 

SF6 and PFC containing equipment that is not located within 

the facility but is under common ownership or control, 

exceeds 17,820 pounds. Hermetically sealed-pressure 

equipment is excluded from the reporting threshold. 

Electricity generating units that have SF6 and PFC 

containing equipment onsite do not need to report GHG 

emissions from this source category unless the total 

nameplate capacity of SF6 and PFC containing equipment 

located within the Subpart D facility exceeds 17,820 

pounds. 

GHGs to Report. Electrical Equipment Users must 

report the total SF6 and PFC emissions (including emissions 

from fugitive equipment leaks, installation, servicing, 

equipment decommissioning and disposal, and from storage 

cylinders) resulting from the transmission and distribution 

equipment and servicing inventory listed in §98.300(a). 

For equipment installation, you must report emissions from 
Page 133 of 442 

new equipment or equipment being installed at your facility 

once the title to the equipment is transferred to the 

electric power transmission or distribution entity. 

GHG Emissions Calculation and Monitoring. Reporters 

must calculate emissions using the following system-level 

mass-balance approach: 

• User Emissions = Decrease in SF6 Inventory + 

Acquisitions of SF6 + Disbursements of SF6 - Net 

Increase in Total Nameplate Capacity of Equipment 

Where: 

– Decrease in SF6 Inventory is pounds of SF6 stored in 

containers (but not in equipment) at the beginning 

of the year minus pounds of SF6 stored in containers 

(but not in equipment) at the end of the year. 

– Acquisitions of SF6 is pounds of SF6 purchased from 

chemical producers or distributors in bulk + pounds 

of SF6 purchased from equipment manufacturers or 

distributors with or inside of equipment, including 

hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear + pounds of 

SF6 returned to site after off-site recycling. 

– Disbursements of SF6 is pounds of SF6 in bulk and 

contained in equipment that is sold to other 

entities + pounds of SF6 returned to suppliers + 

pounds of SF6 sent off-site for recycling + pounds 

of SF6 sent off-site for destruction. 

– Net Increase in Total Nameplate Capacity of 

Equipment is the nameplate capacity of new 

equipment, in pounds, including hermetically sealedpressure switchgear, in pounds, minus nameplate 

capacity of retiring equipment, in pounds, including 

hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear. (Note that 

nameplate capacity refers to the full and proper 

charge of equipment rather than to the actual 

charge, which may reflect leakage.) 

The same method must be used to estimate emissions of 

PFCs. 
Page 134 of 442 

Data Reporting. In addition to the information 

required to be reported by the General Provisions (40 CFR 

98.3(c)) and summarized in Section II.A of this preamble, 

reporters must submit additional data that are used to 

calculate GHG emissions. A list of the specific data to be 

reported for this source category is contained in §98.306. 

Recordkeeping. In addition to the records required by 

the General Provisions (40 CFR 98.3(g)) and summarized in 

Section II.A of this preamble, reporters must keep records 

of additional data used to calculate GHG emissions. A list 

of specific records that must be retained for this source 

category is included in 40 CFR 98.307. 

2. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal

Major changes in this source category since proposal 

are identified in the following list. The rationale for 

these and other additional significant changes can be found 

below or in “Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: 

EPA's Response to Public Comments, Electric Transmission 

and Distribution Equipment Use—2009 proposal” and 

“Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response 

to Public Comments, Electric Transmission and Distribution 

Equipment Use—2010 proposal.” 

• We are providing a definition of facility for subpart 

DD that is based on the system-wide physical 

collection of transmission and distribution equipment 
Page 135 of 442 

between the point at which electricity is obtained by 

an electric power system and the point at which 

electricity is provided to the customer or another 

electric power transmission or distribution entity not 

under common ownership. 

• We are clarifying that the term operator, when applied 

to this source category, does not include entities 

whose sole responsibility is to balance load or 

otherwise address electricity flow. As specified in 

the General Provisions for part 98, the term Operator

does include any other person who operates or 

supervises an electric power transmission or 

distribution facility. 

• We are requiring scales to be accurate within +/- 2 

pounds of true weight. This absolute accuracy 

requirement is less stringent than the 1 percent 

relative accuracy requirement that was originally 

proposed. 

• We are requiring scales to be recalibrated at the 

frequency recommended by the manufacturer rather than 

annually as originally proposed. 

3. Summary of Comments and Responses

This section contains a brief summary of major 

comments and responses. A large number of comments on this 

subpart were received covering numerous topics. Responses 

to significant comments received can be found in “Mandatory 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public 

Comments, Subpart DD: Electrical Transmission and 

distribution Equipment Use” (available in the docket, EPAHQ-OAR-2009-0927). 

Definition of Source Category.

Comment: Nearly all commenters stated that the 

proposed definition of an electric power transmission and 
Page 136 of 442 

distribution facility was generally appropriate and 

consistent with current industry practice of system-wide 

servicing equipment and tracking data. Several commenters 

suggested that the definition of a facility for this 

subpart could be further modified to more clearly define 

where an electric power systems begins and ends as well as 

who is responsible for reporting emissions that occur from 

electrical equipment that might be owned and serviced by 

multiple entities. 

A few commenters recommended that the term “facility” 

for this source category be defined on the basis of 

corporate-level ownership. These commenters stated that a 

corporate-based facility boundary would help ensure that 

potential emitters of SF6 are covered by the rule (by their 

aggregate emissions falling above the threshold) and ensure 

more accurate emissions reporting while minimizing the 

burden on owners and operators of electric power systems in 

figuring out how to define facility boundaries. One 

commenter stated that a corporate-level facility definition 

would allow the most accurate and quickest determination of 

whether an entity is above the reporting threshold by 

enabling the entity to review the service and maintenance 

records for equipment that it owns. This commenter also 

expressed concern over who should be considered an operator 
Page 137 of 442 

of an electric power transmission and distribution 

facility, stating that the “operation” of an electric 

system relates to entities that coordinate operations 

across company lines to ensure reliability, balance load, 

and address congestion through generation dispatch and 

system planning. 

Two additional commenters from the electric power 

industry were supportive of defining the boundaries of a 

facility on the basis of equipment operation and thought 

this would be the most straightforward method for 

determining which equipment to include in their emission 

estimates. 

Response: In developing the proposed definition of a 

facility for this source category, EPA carefully considered 

definitions based on numerous concepts, including 

corporate-level ownership as well as equipment collectively 

operated by a single entity. 

A definition of a facility that mandated corporatelevel boundaries was not considered optimal in the context 

of the facility definition for this source category. 

First, there are many non-corporate entities in the 

electric power industry, including municipalities and 

federal government agencies, that do not fit into a 

corporate-based definition of a facility. 
Page 138 of 442 

Second, a corporate-based facility definition is not 

well-suited to cases where there are multiple owners and 

operators of equipment that is interconnected or located 

within the same substation. The monitoring methods for 

subpart DD are designed to measure system-wide emissions 

from groups of equipment and SF6 storage stocks that are 

serviced and maintained together rather than emissions from 

individual pieces of equipment or individual cylinders. 

Some commenters expressed that they service and maintain 

equipment that they do not own using their centralized SF6

gas stocks, which are also used to service equipment they 

do own. In this example, a facility definition based on 

corporate ownership would require emissions for a few 

pieces of the equipment to be estimated separately from the 

rest of the equipment, which would not be a good fit with 

the system-wide mass-balance monitoring methods required by 

subpart DD. 

Instead, EPA has defined facility for this source 

category to mean the electric power system, which comprises 

all electric transmission and distribution equipment 

insulated with or containing SF6 or PFCs which is linked 

through electric power transmission or distribution lines, 

functions as an integrated unit, is owned, serviced, or 

maintained by a single electric power transmission or 
Page 139 of 442 

distribution entity (or multiple entities with a common 

owner), and is located between: (1) the point(s) at which 

electric energy is obtained by the facility from an 

electricity generating unit or a different electric power 

transmission or distribution entity that does not have a 

common owner and (2) the point(s) at which the customer(s) 

or another electric power transmission or distribution 

entity that does not have a common owner receives the 

electric energy. The facility also includes all servicing 

inventory for this equipment that contains SF6 or PFCs. 

In addition, EPA has defined Electric Power 

Transmission or Distribution Entity as any entity that 

transmits, distributes, or supplies electricity to a 

consumer or other user, including any company, electric 

cooperative, public electric supply corporation, a similar 

Federal department (including the Bureau of Reclamation or 

the Corps of Engineers), a municipally owned electric 

department offering service to the public, an electric 

public utility district, or a jointly owned electric supply 

project. 

Per the General Provisions (40 CFR 98.2 - 98.4) 

summarized in Section II.A of this preamble, although the 

reporting requirements are applicable to both the owners 

and operators of a facility, each facility must have one 
Page 140 of 442 

and only one designated representative who will be 

responsible for certifying, signing, and submitting GHG 

emissions reports to EPA. The designated representative is 

to be selected by an agreement binding on the owners and 

operators of the facility. Since the definition of 

operator in the General Provisions (40 CFR 98.6) is 

ambiguous in the context of the electric transmission and 

distribution equipment use source category, EPA has 

provided a clarification of operator for this source 

category, which is the following: “Operator excludes 

entities whose sole responsibility is to ensure 

reliability, balance load or otherwise address electricity 

flow.” 

Definition of Source Category.

Comment: EPA received comments stating that 

electrical generating units (EGUs)(Subpart D) should not be 

required to report SF6 emissions from electrical equipment 

located within the boundary of their generating facilities 

as part of the EGUs’ facility emission reports. This 

comment is in reference to the requirement in 40 CFR 

98.2(a)(1) requirement that reports for facilities that 

contain any source category (as defined in subparts C 

through JJ) must cover all source categories and GHGs for 

which calculation methodologies are provided in those 
Page 141 of 442 

subparts. Commenters noted that since the mass-balance 

monitoring methods in subpart DD are designed to monitor 

emissions at the system-wide level, it would be very 

difficult and time-consuming for an integrated electric 

power entity that operates electrical equipment at both 

generation facilities and across transmission and 

distribution systems (using the same SF6 gas stocks) to 

estimate emissions only for the generation facilities. 

Furthermore, commenters noted that since the definition of 

an electric power system for subpart DD is already 

inclusive of any equipment operated by the electric power 

system at a generation facility, there could be doublecounting of emissions for both the electric power system 

and the electricity generation facility. 

Response: EPA considered the potential for doublecounting emissions from Subpart D electricity generating 

units and Subpart DD electrical transmission and 

distribution equipment use as well as the challenge of 

estimating SF6 emissions solely from an electricity 

generating unit that is part of a larger integrated 

electric power system. EPA is confirming that an 

electricity generating unit would be required to report 

emissions associated with the Electric Transmission and 

Distribution Equipment Use source category, but only if SF6
Page 142 of 442 

and PFC-insulated equipment within the Subpart D facility 

exceeded the reporting threshold for Subpart DD. EPA 

expects that in general, the Subpart DD facility will not 

independently meet this threshold and thus is unlikely to 

incur the reporting obligation. Therefore, EPA does not 

anticipate double counting as a significant issue for 

electricity generating units covered by other subparts and 

Subparts DD Electrical Transmission and Distribution 

Equipment Use. 

Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.

Comment: Several commenters were critical of the 

requirement for weighing SF6 cylinders each time they enter 

and leave storage (40 CFR 98.306(b)(2)). Commenters noted 

the high burden associated with such frequent weighing of 

cylinders and also the lack of a perceived benefit since 

the cylinders already must be weighed at the beginning and 

end of each year for the beginning and end-of-year storage 

inventory. 

Response: EPA agrees that the benefit of weighing SF6

gas cylinders as they enter and leave inventory does not 

justify the costs of performing this activity. EPA has 

removed this requirement from 40 CFR 98.306 (b)(2) and 

clarified that the QA/QC requirements for scale accuracy 

and calibration apply to cylinders returned to the gas 
Page 143 of 442 

supplier and cylinders weighed at the beginning and end of 

each year for the beginning and end-of-year storage 

inventory. 

Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.

Comment: Commenters generally expressed agreement 

that it was excessively burdensome to require scales used 

to weigh cylinders to be accurate and precise to within 1 

percent of the true weight and to be recalibrated at least 

annually or at the minimum frequency specified by the 

manufacturer, whichever is more frequent (40 CFR 

98.304(b)). Numerous commenters stated that the 

recalibration frequency specified by the manufacturer would 

be sufficient, thereby making the annual recalibration 

minimum unnecessary. Some commenters also stated that 

purchasing 1 percent accuracy scales would be expensive. 

One commenter suggested requiring scales with accuracies of 

+/- 2 pounds of full scale, which provides an accuracy 

within or close to 1 percent for the cylinder weights 

typically measured by electric power entities (i.e., 

between 105 and 225 pounds including tare weight). 

Response: The 1 percent accuracy requirement was 

proposed by EPA because the mass-balance method for 

measuring emissions requires accurate inputs, and the 

overall uncertainty of the emission estimate rises as the 
Page 144 of 442 

potential inaccuracy of each input increases. However, EPA 

also recognizes that the price of scales does increase as 

the accuracy of the scale increases and that many 

facilities containing electrical transmission and 

distribution equipment use do not currently use scales that 

are accurate to within 1 percent of the true weight. 

In order to balance the reporting burden with the need 

for accurate mass-balance inputs, this final rule requires 

the accuracy and precision of scales used to weigh 

cylinders to be based on pounds, specifically, to be within 

2 pounds of true weight. In addition, scale recalibration 

is required in accordance with manufacturer specifications, 

with no requirement that scale recalibration occur at least 

annually. As discussed further in EPA’s Response to Public 

Comments for Subpart DD, EPA believes these adjustments 

still provide data of sufficient accuracy and certainty. 

Data Reporting Requirements.

Comment: EPA received many comments regarding the 

inclusion of sealed-pressure equipment—which is not 

intended to leak during its lifetime—into the facility-wide 

nameplate capacity estimates that must be reported to EPA 

under 40 CFR 98.306(a). Commenters recommended either (1) 

A minimum threshold be established to exclude sealedpressure electrical equipment from the nameplate capacity 
Page 145 of 442 

estimation or (2) alternative methods should be allowed for 

estimating the nameplate capacity of sealed-pressure 

equipment (rather than performing a bottom-up inventory of 

the equipment). The most commonly cited rationale for 

these recommendations was the high burden associated with 

determining the nameplate capacity for each piece of 

sealed-pressure equipment within electric power systems, 

which can contain thousands of pieces of sealed-pressure 

equipment. Most commenters correctly acknowledged that 

even if a minimum threshold was established for reporting 

total facility-wide nameplate capacity, emissions from 

sealed-pressure equipment would still be captured in the 

mass-balance monitoring methods in 40 CFR 98.304, and 

therefore establishing a minimum threshold for the 

nameplate capacity inventory would not exclude sealedpressure equipment from reported emissions. 

Response: EPA agrees that the burden associated with 

performing a bottom-up assessment to determine the 

nameplate capacity of each piece of sealed-pressure 

equipment within an electric power transmission and 

distribution facility is unnecessarily high when compared 

to the benefits of performing such an assessment. As a 

result, EPA has excluded sealed-pressure equipment from the 

data reporting requirement for total facility-wide 
Page 146 of 442 

nameplate capacity existing as of the beginning of the 

year. (Sealed-pressure equipment is also excluded in the 

determination of the reporting threshold.) 

However, the potential for emissions from sealedpressure equipment due to catastrophic events or equipment 

disposal still makes it important to document emissions 

from sealed-pressure equipment, especially for facilities 

that specialize in electricity distribution. EPA has 

clarified that SF6 arriving inside newly acquired sealedpressure equipment must still be considered as part of the 

SF6 acquisitions input of the mass-balance equation, and 

sealed-pressure equipment that is new or retired must still 

be considered as a change to the nameplate capacity in the 

mass-balance equation. This will ensure that emissions 

from sealed-pressure equipment are still included in the 

overall emissions estimate. 

Since sealed-pressure equipment is no longer required 

to be included in the total facility-wide nameplate 

capacity estimate, EPA is including distribution miles in 

40 CFR 98.306 Data Reporting Requirements because 

distribution miles provide an approximate indication of how 

much sealed-pressure equipment is within an electric power 

transmission and distribution system. 
Page 147 of 442 

G. Importers and Exporters of Fluorinated GHGs Inside Precharged Equipment or Closed-cell Foams (Subpart QQ)

1. Summary of the Final Rule

Source Category Definition. This source category 

consists of any entity that is importing or exporting precharged equipment that contains a fluorinated GHG and also 

consists of any entity that is importing or exporting 

closed-cell foams that contain a fluorinated GHG. 

Any importer or exporter of fluorinated GHGs contained 

in pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams that meets 

the applicability criteria in the General Provisions (40 

CFR 98.2(a)(4)) must report their GHG emissions. 

GHGs to Report. Importers and exporters of 

fluorinated GHGs inside pre-charged equipment and closedcell foam report the quantity of each fluorinated GHG 

contained in pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams 

imported or exported during the calendar year. For 

importers and exporters of closed-cell foams that are not 

the manufacturers of the foams and do not know the identity 

and mass of the fluorinated GHG within the closed-cell 

foams, the report may be limited to the mass in CO2e of the 

fluorinated GHGs imported or exported in closed-cell foams. 

GHG Emissions Calculation and Monitoring. The total 

mass of each fluorinated GHG imported and exported inside 
Page 148 of 442 

equipment or foams must be estimated by multiplying the 

mass of flourinated GHG per unit of equipment or foam type 

by the number of units of equipment or foam type imported 

or exported annually, as presented in Equation QQ-1 in 40 

CFR 98.433. For importers and exporters of closed-cell 

foams that do not know the identity and mass of the 

fluorinated GHG within the closed-cell foams, the mass in 

CO2e of the fluorinated GHGs must be estimated by 

multiplying the mass in CO2e of flourinated GHGs per unit of 

equipment or foam type by the number of units of equipment 

or foam type imported or exported annually, as presented in 

Equation QQ-2 in 40 CFR 98.433. 

Data Reporting. In addition to the information 

required to be reported by the General Provisions (40 CFR 

98.3(c)), reporters must submit additional data that are 

used to calculate GHG emissions. A list of the specific 

data to be reported for this source category is contained 

in 40 CFR 98.436. 

Recordkeeping. In addition to the records required by 

the General Provisions (40 CFR 98.3(g)), reporters must 

keep records of additional data used to calculate GHG 

emissions. A list of specific records that must be 

retained for this source category is included under 40 CFR 

98.437. 
Page 149 of 442 

2. Summary of Major Changes since Proposal

The major changes in this rule since the April 2010 

proposal are identified in the following list. The 

rationale for these and any other significant changes to 

the proposed rule can be found below or in “Mandatory 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public 

Comments, Subpart QQ: Importers and Exporters of 

Fluorinated GHGs Inside Pre-charged Equipment or Closedcell Foams (available in the docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927). 

EPA has revised the reporting requirements for closedcell foams such that, in cases where the importer or 

exporter does not know the identity and amount of 

fluorinated GHGs inside the closed-cell foam, they can 

report the amount of fluorinated GHGS imported or exported 

on a Co2e basis, based on information from the manufacturer. 

EPA has revised the definition of closed-cell foams to 

exclude packaging foam. 

EPA has revised the requirements for importers such 

that the port of entry and country of origin are no longer 

listed under data reporting requirements. These two data 

elements are now listed under recordkeeping requirements. 

EPA has revised the requirement for exporters such 

that the port of exit and countries to which items were 

exported are no longer listed under data reporting 
Page 150 of 442 

requirements. These are two data elements are now listed 

under recordkeeping requirements. 

EPA has clarified that importers and exporters must 

report the number of pieces of pre-charge equipment and 

closed-cell foam imported with each unique combination of 

charge size and charge type. Importers and exporters 

cannot report the average charge size or most common 

fluorinated GHG used for a particular type of equipment. 

3. Summary of Comments and Responses

This section contains a brief summary of major 

comments and responses. A number of comments on this 

subpart were received covering numerous topics. Responses 

to additional significant comments received can be found in 

“Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response 

to Public Comments, Subpart QQ: Importers and Exporters of 

Fluorinated GHGs Inside Pre-charged Equipment or Closedcell Foams” (available in the docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-

0927). 

Comment: Commenters stated that data on fluorinated 

GHGs contained in pre-charged equipment or closed-cell 

foams does not constitute emissions data and is thus 

outside EPA’s authority to collect under this rulemaking. 

Commenters also stated that any emissions from these 

equipment types would depend upon “the ultimate end-use and 
Page 151 of 442 

disposal” of the equipment, activities beyond the 

reporter’s control. 

Response: In this final rule, EPA is issuing 

reporting requirements for importers and exporters of 

fluorinated GHGs inside pre-charged equipment or closedcell foams. EPA notes that this source category is added 

as a supplier source category under 98.2(4). 

As discussed in the preamble to the October 2009 Final 

Part 98 (74 FR 56260), that rule (as well as this action) 

responds to a specific request from Congress to collect 

data on GHG emissions from both upstream production and 

downstream sources, as appropriate. Therefore, EPA has 

developed reporting requirements for direct emitters of 

GHGs as well as for suppliers of fuels and industrial 

gases. For fluorinated GHGs in particular, the US supply 

is impacted by the production, import, and export of 

fluorinated GHGs in bulk as well as by the import and 

export of fluorinated GHGs in pre-charged equipment or 

closed-cell foams. EPA has already finalized reporting 

requirements for suppliers of industrial gases (40 CFR 98 

Subpart OO) which include importers and exporters of 

fluorinated GHGs in bulk. This action supplements EPA’s 

previous action by requiring reporting from importers and 
Page 152 of 442 

exporters of fluorinated GHGs in equipment and closed-cell 

foams. 

In many cases, the fluorinated GHGs contained in 

equipment and closed-cell foams are ultimately emitted by a 

large number of small sources. To cover these direct 

emissions would require reporting by hundreds of thousands 

of small entities, such as individual homes with leaking 

air conditioning units. To avoid this impact, the rule 

does not include all of those emitters but instead requires 

reporting by importers and exporters of fluorinated GHGs in 

equipment and closed-cell foams. For further discussion of 

the need for upstream reporting, see the preamble to the 

October 2009 Final Part 98 (74 FR 56271). 

EPA has the legal authority to collect data from 

suppliers, including importers and exporters of fluorinated 

GHGS contained in equipment and closed-cell foams. Section 

114 of the CAA authorizes EPA to gather information from 

any person who is subject to a requirement of the CAA 

(other than engine manufacturers) or who may have 

information the Administrator believes is necessary for 

purposes of CAA section 114(a) (which in turn references 

carrying out any provision of the CAA). Information from 

suppliers of industrial greenhouse gases is relevant to 

understanding the quantities and types of gases being 
Page 153 of 442 

supplied to the economy, in particular those that could be 

emitted downstream, which will aid in evaluating action 

under CAA section 111, as well as various sections of title 

VI (e.g., CAA sections 609 and 612) that address 

substitutes to ozone depleting substances. A complete 

discussion of these issues, including a discussion of EPA’s 

legal basis for collecting information from upstream 

reporters, can be found in Section I.C of the preamble to 

the October 2009 Final Part 98 (74 FR 56271) and Volume 9 

of the Response to Comments to the Mandatory Reporting of 

Greenhouse Gases Rule (HQ–OAR–2008–0508). 

EPA notes that some commenters appear to associate 

comments on whether EPA has authority to collect subpart QQ 

data, comments on whether subpart QQ data is “emission 

data,” and comments on whether data collected under QQ 

should be protected as CBI. EPA’s authority to collect 

subpart QQ data is addressed above. This action does not 

address whether data reported under this subpart are 

“emission data” or whether these data will be treated as 

confidential business information (CBI). EPA published a 

proposed confidentiality determination on July 7, 2010 (75 

FR 39094) which addressed these issues. See Section II.B 

of this preamble for more information. 
Page 154 of 442 

Comment: Some commenters stated that this subpart is 

a minor source of GHG emissions. These commenters stated 

that the quantities of fluorinated GHGs inside individual 

pieces of equipment are small, ranging from ounces to 

pounds, and that emissions from such equipment are ”de 

minimis” because the systems are hermetically sealed. 

Response: In this final rule, EPA is issuing 

reporting requirements for importers and exporters of 

fluorinated GHGs inside pre-charged equipment or closedcell foams. Despite small charge sizes, the quantities of 

fluorinated GHGs imported in pre-charged equipment and 

closed-cell foams are significant because of the high GWP 

(up to 12,000) of these refrigerants. EPA estimates that 

approximately 22 MMTCO2e are imported by entities subject to 

this subpart, which together comprise the eleventh most 

significant source of GHGs (in carbon dioxide equivalent 

terms) covered under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. 

(More information on these estimates can be found in 

subpart QQ TSD, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927). Imports of 

fluorinated GHGs from entities subject to this subpart are 

estimated to account for seven to 10 percent of the U.S. 

fluorinated GHG supply, while exports are estimated to 

account for one to two percent. 
Page 155 of 442 

A portion of fluorinated GHGs consumed in the U.S. are 

eventually emitted into the atmosphere, as these gases leak 

from the equipment or are vented during service and 

disposal events. By accounting for all chemical flows into 

and out of the U.S., including in pre-charged equipment or 

closed-cell foams, EPA’s approach results in an estimate of 

consumption and ultimately emissions that is more accurate 

than are estimates that do not account for these flows. As 

commenters note, these equipment are purchased and used by 

a diffuse variety of entities. Upstream data gathering is 

thus the most effective and accurate method to obtain this 

important data. For further discussion of the need for 

upstream reporting, see the preamble to the October 2009 

Final Part 98 (74 FR 56271). 

Comment: EPA received comments from an association 

representing some motor vehicle manufacturers concerning 

the reporting of fluorinated GHGs contained in motor 

vehicle air conditioners (MVACs). The commenter 

recommended delaying the reporting requirements for MVACs 

or exempting them altogether. The commenter noted that the 

Final Rule on Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (75 

FR 25324) (light duty vehicle rule) includes incentives for 

low-GWP refrigerants. The commenter also noted that 
Page 156 of 442 

manufacturers are contemplating the use of lower GWP 

refrigerants in MVACs due to the ability to voluntarily 

generate credits under the light duty vehicle rule and EU 

regulations. Commenters stated that exempting or delaying 

the applicability of the reporting requirements would 

conserve public resources and harmonize existing 

incentives. The commenter also stated that EPA should 

modify reporting requirements for MVAC imports and exports 

to allow reporting of data by model year, that reporting of 

certain data elements would require reconfiguration of 

existing systems, and that these particular reporting 

requirements should be developed off-line for verification 

purposes. 

Response: In this final rule, EPA is not exempting 

importers and exporters of MVACs or delaying the 

applicability of the reporting requirements to them. MVACs 

are a significant source of fluorinated GHGs; EPA estimates 

that currently approximately 18 percent of fluorinated GHGs 

(in carbon dioxide equivalent terms) imported under this 

subpart are contained within MVACs. EPA recognizes there 

is significant interest and research into new low-GWP 

refrigerants; however, the timing and the extent of the 

MVAC market to make such a transition are uncertain. Under 

CAA section 612, EPA has proposed to find the low-GWP 
Page 157 of 442 

refrigerant HFO-1234yf acceptable, subject to use 

conditions, in MVACs (75 FR 53445); however, this rule has 

not been finalized. In addition, although the light duty 

vehicle rule allows automakers to earn additional leakage 

credits if they use a low GWP refrigerant, EPA actually 

predicted that automakers would meet the standards in the 

Model Year 2012 through 2016 timeframe by reducing 

refrigerant leakage, not by switching to lower-GWP 

alternatives (see the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 

Final Rule on Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472). Based on these factors, EPA 

concluded there is not sufficient evidence that the 

transition to low GWP refrigerants in MVACs is underway 

such that the importers and exporters of MVACs should be 

exempt or that the reporting requirements should be 

delayed. 

Reporting imports and exports of MVACs on a model year 

basis would be inconsistent with the reporting requirements 

for all other subparts under 40 CFR Part 98 where EPA is 

collecting information on a calendar year basis. EPA plans 

to use data collected under Part 98 to support analyses of 

various GHG policy options; therefore, EPA requires the 

data on a calendar year basis to allow meaningful 
Page 158 of 442 

comparison of data across and within subparts. Model year 

reporting for new vehicle and engine manufacturers was 

included under the Final Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse 

Gases Rule, but those reporting requirements were not 

developed to fit into Part 98. Instead, they were created 

to fit into the existing reporting framework for longestablished EPA vehicle and engine programs as discussed in 

Section V.QQ of the preamble to the April 2009 Mandatory 

Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Proposed Rule (74 FR 16586). 

The data collected under subpart QQ of part 98 is needed on 

a calendar year basis, in particular, because EPA intends 

to analyze and compare the data on imports and exports of 

fluorinated GHGs in MVACs with data on fluorinated GHGs 

imported and exported in other types of pre-charged 

equipment and closed-cell foams. EPA also intends to 

compare this data with data on fluorinated GHGs collected 

under other subparts, all of which is collected on a 

calendar year basis. 

In developing these requirements, EPA recognized that 

some reporting requirements may require the reconfiguration 

of existing tracking systems or the development of new 

tracking systems. In fact, EPA included the development of 

tracking system as an implementation cost in the “Economic 

Impact Analysis for the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse 
Page 159 of 442 

Gas Emissions F-Gases: Subparts I, L, QQ, SS Draft Report” 

(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927). EPA did not receive any comments 

related to these implementation costs for subpart QQ 

developed under the Economic Impact Analysis. This 

commenter, in particular, did not provide specific 

information related to the burden of reporting data on a 

calendar year basis. Therefore, given the utility of the 

data and the need for meaningful annual analysis, EPA is 

finalizing the requirement to report the imports and 

exports of fluorinated GHGs within pre-charged equipment or 

closed-cell foams on an annual basis. 

Finally, the commenter suggested that the port of 

entry (or exit), the country from which (or to which) items 

were shipped, and the date of import (or export) could be 

developed off-line for verification purposes. These three 

reporting requirements are similar to those for importers 

and exporters of industrial gases under 40 CFR subpart OO, 

which involves imports and exports of bulk chemicals. 

However this subpart involves more detailed reporting 

requirements regarding the contents of each particular 

shipment (such as the number of units, charge size, and 

charge type) and not just the amount of the particular 

industrial gas imported and exported. Some types of 

equipment, such as refrigerators, may hold a refrigerant 
Page 160 of 442 

charge of fluorinated GHGs and include fluorinated GHG 

within the closed-cell foams, which will further complicate 

reporting on this shipment. Given these additional 

reporting requirements under this subpart, EPA agrees that 

the port of entry (or exit) and the country from which (or 

to which) items were shipped can be maintained as records 

and has therefore moved these two items to record keeping 

requirements. However, EPA is maintaining the date of 

import (or export) as a reporting requirement as the date 

of import (or export) is necessary for verification 

activities. EPA can use the date of import or export in 

combination with other information to conduct verification 

activities. For example, EPA can crosswalk information 

collected under this rule with records maintained by U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection to ensure importers and 

exporters are properly reporting imports and exports of 

pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams. 

Comment: EPA received comments regarding the 

calculation of fluorinated GHGs within closed-cell foams. 

One commenter stated that fluorinated GHGs are emitted from 

closed-cell foams at varying rates, and therefore, the best 

way to determine the amount of fluorinated GHGs contained 

in closed-cell foams is to require reporting on the total 

amount of fluorinated GHGs consumed by the foreign 
Page 161 of 442 

manufacture at the point of manufacture. One commenter 

stated that the proposed reporting requirements would 

result in a cumbersome process between appliance 

manufacturers and foam suppliers where the foam suppliers 

would be required to disclose proprietary information on 

the closed-cell foam composition to equipment 

manufacturers. The commenter stated that EPA should 

therefore allow reporting on a C02e basis. 

Response: EPA has finalized the requirement to report 

only the amount of fluorinated GHGs imported or exported 

within closed-cell foams. EPA has added an alternative 

reporting method for instances when the type and mass of 

fluorinated GHGs within the closed-cell foams are not known 

by the importers and exporters. 

The intent of this rule is to better understand U.S. 

GHG emissions in order to inform policy decisions. This 

rule does not attempt to quantify emissions that occur 

during the production of materials that are eventually 

imported into the U.S, such as emissions that occur during 

the manufacture of closed-cell foams. Therefore, EPA is 

finalizing the requirement to report only the amount of 

fluorinated GHGs contained in the closed-cell foams that 

are imported or exported, not the total amount of 

fluorinated GHGs consumed during the manufacture of these 
Page 162 of 442 

products. EPA notes that the identity and mass of the 

fluorinated GHGs within closed-cell foams impact the foams’ 

ability to insulate and that these parameters are known to 

the entities that manufacture and market these products. 

EPA recognizes the unique situation that may arise 

when an importer of closed-cell foams is not the same 

entity that manufactured the closed-cell foam. In such 

cases, the importer may not know the mass and identity of 

the fluorinated GHG within the closed-cell foam. 

Therefore, EPA has added an alternative reporting provision 

that allows reporting by CO2e basis for closed-cell foams 

under these circumstances. 

EPA is requiring importers and exporters to report the 

identity and mass of the fluorinated GHG within closed-cell 

foams when it is known. This is consistent with EPA’s 

approach for pre-charged equipment, where EPA requires 

importers and exporters to report the identity and amount 

of fluorinated GHGs within equipment. EPA will use this 

information to better understand the types and amounts of 

fluorinated GHGs imported and exported into the U.S. This 

information will support analysis under this subpart as 

well as analysis across subparts, particularly subparts 

that collect data on fluorinated GHGs. 
Page 163 of 442 

For importers and exporters that are unable to obtain 

detailed information on the closed-cell foams from the 

manufacturer, EPA is requiring that the importers and 

exporters identify the foam manufacturer and to certify 

that they were unable to obtain this information from them. 

These importers and exporters are also required to document 

the communications with the foam manufacturer and retain 

the information in their records. When verifying data 

collected under this rule, EPA may contact foam 

manufacturers independently to obtain more detailed 

information on the identity and mass of the fluorinated 

GHGs contained within these closed-cell foams. 

Further discussion of issues related reporting 

requirements for closed-cell foams can be found in the 

“Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response 

to Public Comments, Subpart QQ: Importers and Exporters of 

Fluorinated GHGs Inside Pre-charged Equipment or Closedcell Foams” (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927). 

Comment: EPA also received comments as to whether 

packaging foams would be included under this subpart. 

Response: EPA has excluded packaging foam from this 

subpart. EPA’s original analysis of this source category 

identified only imports and exports of closed-cell foams 

used to insulate, such as closed-cell foams used in 
Page 164 of 442 

refrigeration equipment, as a significant source of 

fluorinated GHGs. In subsequent conversation with 

industry, EPA learned that closed-cell foams can sometimes 

be used in general packaging. EPA never intended to 

include these sources. Packaging foams are widely used 

when shipping materials, and EPA anticipates it would be 

too burdensome for entities to ascertain the type of 

packaging foam and the blowing agent used in that foam when 

shipping materials, particularly as the packaging foam is 

incidental to the items being imported or exported. 

Therefore, EPA has clarified the definition of closed-cell 

foams to explicitly exclude packaging foam. 

H. Electrical Equipment Manufacture or Refurbishment 

(Subpart SS) 

1. Summary of the Final Rule

Source Category Definition. This source category 

consists of electrical equipment manufacturers and 

refurbishers of SF6 or PFC-insulated closed-pressure 

equipment and sealed-pressure equipment including gasinsulated substations, circuit breakers and other 

switchgear, gas-insulated lines, or power transformers 

containing sulfur-hexafluoride (SF6) or perfluorocarbons 

(PFCs). 
Page 165 of 442 

Reporting Threshold. Reporters must submit annual GHG 

reports for facilities that meet the applicability criteria 

in the General Provisions of 40 CFR 98.2(a)(1). Facilities 

undertaking electrical equipment manufacturing and 

refurbishing are covered by this rule if total annual 

purchases of SF6 and PFCs exceed 23,000 pounds. 

GHGs to Report. For electrical equipment 

manufacturers and refurbishers of SF6 or PFC-insulated 

closed-pressure equipment and sealed-pressure equipment, 

report the following emissions: 

• SF6 and PFC emissions from electrical equipment 

manufacturing. 

• SF6 and PFC emissions from electrical equipment 

refurbishing. 

• SF6 and PFCs emissions from electrical equipment 

testing. 

• SF6 and PFCs emissions from electrical equipment 

decommissioning and disposal. 

• SF6 and PFCs emissions from storage cylinders and other 

containers. 

• SF6 and PFC emissions from electrical equipment 

installation that occurs before title to the equipment 

is transferred to the customer. 

In addition, report GHG emissions for other source 

categories at the facility for which calculation methods 

are provided in the rule, as applicable. For example, 

report CO2, N2O and CH4 combustion-related emissions from 

each stationary combustion unit on site under 40 CFR part 

98, subpart C (General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources). 
Page 166 of 442 

GHG Emissions Calculation and Monitoring. Reporters 

must calculate SF6 and PFC emissions using a mass-balance 

approach, which includes the following inputs (For brevity, 

the inputs refer only to SF6; however, the method also 

applies PFCs): 

• The decrease in SF6 Inventory must be determined by 

subtracting SF6, in pounds, stored in containers at the 

end of the year from SF6, in pounds, stored in 

containers at the beginning of the year. 

• Acquisitions of SF6 must be determined by summing 

pounds of SF6 purchased from chemical producers or 

distributors in bulk, pounds of SF6 returned by 

equipment users or distributors with or inside 

equipment, and pounds of SF6 returned to site after 

off-site recycling. 

• Disbursements of SF6 must be determined by summing 

pounds of SF6 contained in new equipment delivered to 

customers, pounds of SF6 delivered to equipment users 

in containers, pounds of SF6 returned to suppliers, 

pounds of SF6 sent off-site for recycling, and pounds 

of SF6 sent off-site for destruction. 

Reporters also must calculate SF6 and PFC emissions 

from the equipment being installed on the electric power 

system’s premises when the installation occurs before the 

title to the equipment is transferred to the electric power 

entity. Reporters may use a mass-balance approach or an 

engineering calculation to estimate installation losses. 

Data Reporting. In addition to the information 

required to be reported by the General Provisions (40 CFR 

98.3(c)) and summarized in Section II.A of this preamble, 

reporters must submit additional data that are used to 
Page 167 of 442 

calculate GHG emissions. A list of the specific data to be 

reported for this source category is contained in 40 CFR 

98.456. 

Recordkeeping. In addition to the records required by 

the General Provisions (40 CFR 98.3(g)) and summarized in 

Section II.A of this preamble, reporters must keep records 

of additional data used to calculate GHG emissions. A list 

of specific records that must be retained for this source 

category is included in 40 CFR 98.457. 

2. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal

The major changes in this rule since the proposal are 

identified in the following list. The rationale for 

additional significant changes to subpart SS can be found 

below or in “Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: 

EPA's Response to Public Comments, Subpart SS: Sulfur 

Hexafluoride and Perfluorocarbons from Electrical Equipment 

Manufacture or Refurbishment.” 

This section contains a brief summary of major 

comments and responses. A small number of comments were 

received on this subpart which covered several topics. 

Responses to additional significant comments received can 

be found in “Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: 

EPA's Response to Public Comments, Subpart SS: Sulfur 

Hexafluoride and Perfluorocarbons from Electrical Equipment 
Page 168 of 442 

Manufacture or Refurbishment” (available in the docket, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927). 

• EPA is modifying the accuracy and precision 

requirements for scales and flowmeters used to measure 

mass for the mass-balance equation. Specifically, 

rather than requiring flowmeters and scales to have an 

accuracy and precision of ±1 percent of the true mass 

or weight, we are requiring them to have an accuracy 

and precision of ±1 percent of either full scale (for 

flowmeters) or the maximum weight of the containers 

typically weighed on the scale (for scales). For 

scales that are used to weigh cylinders containing 115 

pounds of gas when full, this equates to ±1 percent of 

the sum of 115 pounds and approximately 120 pounds 

tare, or slightly more than ±2 pounds. This absolute 

accuracy requirement, expressed as a percentage of the 

filled weight of the container that is weighed on the 

scale, is less stringent than the 1 percent (of true 

weight) relative accuracy requirement in the proposed 

rule. 

• To reduce burden and increase flexibility, EPA is 

allowing use of a calculated emission factor for 

determining emissions downstream of the flow meter 

measuring the mass of SF6 being transferred from the 

storage container to the equipment being filled. A 

value must be determined for each combination of hose 

and valve of a given sized diameter. The calculated 

emission factor must be multiplied by the number of 

annual fill operations that uses the hose and valve 

combination. The calculation must be performed 

annually to account for changes to the specifications 

of the valves or hoses that may occur throughout the 

year. 

• To increase flexibility, EPA is providing an 

additional option for determining the mass of SF6 or 

the PFCs disbursed to customers in new equipment. EPA 

is allowing the equipment’s nameplate capacity or, in 

cases where equipment is shipped with a partial 

charge, the equipment’s partial shipping charge to be 

assumed as equal to the disbursement. A sufficiently 

precise estimate of the nameplate capacity for each 

make and model of equipment must be determined through 

a number of measurements. The number of measurements 

required must be calculated to achieve a precision of 
Page 169 of 442 

one percent of the true mean, using a 95 percent 

confidence interval. 

• To improve data accuracy, the quantity of gas charged 

into delivered equipment and added during installation 

by the manufacturer must be certified by the 

manufacturer and expressed in pounds of SF6 or PFC. 

• To clarify the reporting boundary between subparts DD 

and SS, EPA is requiring electrical equipment 

manufacturers to estimate and report the annual SF6 and 

PFC emissions from the equipment being installed on 

the electric power system’s premises until the title 

of the equipment has transferred to the electric power 

transmission or distribution entity. An equipment 

installation mass balance equation must be used. 

3. Summary of Comments and Responses

This section contains a brief summary of major 

comments and responses. A small number of comments which 

covered several topics were received on this subpart. 

Responses to additional significant comments received can 

be found in Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's 

Response to Public Comments, Subpart SS: Electrical 

Equipment Manufacture or Refurbishment (available in the 

docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927). 

Selection of Reporting Threshold.

Comment: EPA received comment that gas cylinders 

which are sealed and unused should not count toward the 

reporting threshold. These cylinders are purchased by the 

electrical equipment manufacturer for shipment to 

customers. According to the commenter, since these 

cylinders are never opened and their seals remain intact, 
Page 170 of 442 

no leakages can occur. The commenter explained that the 10 

percent leak rate used to determine the threshold is based 

upon losses during testing, manufacturing, and 

commissioning. Activities such as storage should not count 

toward the leak rate. 

Response: EPA disagrees that sealed and unused 

cylinders should not count toward the reporting threshold. 

EPA recognizes that sealed cylinders are unlikely to be a 

major source of emissions and that it has been the standard 

practice by some manufacturers to deliver sealed cylinders 

with new equipment. However, EPA is concerned that not 

including these cylinders could introduce complications in 

tracking gas in cylinders and other containers because of 

the need to differentiate those cylinders that are sealed 

and destined for the customer and those cylinders that are 

sealed and destined for use by the electrical equipment 

manufacturer. Further it would be virtually impossible for 

an audit of threshold and cylinder record keeping 

requirements to distinguish the different use of cylinders 

at the beginning and end of the year. Therefore, EPA is 

finalizing the requirement that sealed and unused cylinders 

count toward the determination of the reporting threshold. 

Monitoring and QA/QC Requirements.
Page 171 of 442 

Comment: EPA received comment that measuring residual 

gas amounts to within 1 percent of accuracy is not 

attainable in practice. Scales currently in use have an 

accuracy of ± 2 pounds; a 1 percent measurement of “new or 

residual gas amounts” would require a scale with an 

accuracy of ±0.1 pounds, or 200 times more precise than 

currently in use. The commenter suggested that the 

required accuracy be no stricter than 10 percent for 

residual gas amounts. 

Response: EPA has reviewed this commenter’s concern 

as well as similar concerns of several commenters on the 

accuracy requirement of scales for Subpart DD, Electric 

Transmission and Distribution Equipment Uses. 

After further evaluation of the types of scales 

available, the range of accuracies and precisions, and the 

effect of those accuracies and precisions on the accuracy 

and precision of facility-level emissions estimates, we 

have eased the requirements for scale accuracy and 

precision. As noted above, we proposed that scales be 

accurate and precise to within ±1 percent of the true mass 

or weight or better. When the mass being weighed on the 

scale is small, as is the case for the residual gas being 

returned to the supplier, this requires a very good 

absolute precision and accuracy, e.g., better than ±0.1 
Page 172 of 442 

pounds. EPA conducted an analysis that examined the impact 

of different scale accuracies on the relative uncertainty 

of emission estimates from two hypothetical electrical 

equipment manufacturer facilities; the findings indicate 

that the incremental increase in relative uncertainty from 

a requirement of ± 1 percent of true mass or weight scale 

accuracy to ± 2 pounds scale accuracy was not enough to 

justify a more stringent accuracy of 1 percent and its 

associated burden. 

This final rule requires the accuracy and precision of 

scales used to weigh cylinders to be ±1 percent of full 

scale or better of the filled weight (gas plus tare) of the 

containers of SF6 or PFCs that are weighed on the scale. 

This absolute error would be allowed for container heels as 

well as for the full container. For scales that are 

generally used to weigh cylinders containing 115 pounds of 

gas when full, this equates to ±1 percent of the sum of 115 

pounds and approximately 120 pounds tare, or slightly more 

than ± 2 pounds. EPA concluded this change will lower the 

burden on reporters without significant compromise to data 

quality. 

Comment: EPA received comment regarding the 

administrative burden of the proposed method to determine 

emissions downstream of the flowmeter measuring the mass of 
Page 173 of 442 

SF6 (or PFC) being transferred from the storage container to 

the equipment being filled. The commenter asserted that 

accurately determining emissions downstream of the 

flowmeter (to subtract from the disbursement total) could 

require an inordinate administrative burden associated with 

recording the numerous parameters for individual fill 

operations. The commenter suggested that the entity be 

explicitly permitted to apply a statistical calculation to 

a subset of individual fill operations, such as a midpoint 

or average loss rates, to use as the loss rates associated 

with all fill operations. The statistical calculation 

would be based on the factors outlined in the proposed 

rule, but the proposed approach would relieve the burden of 

rerecording the measurements for each individual operation. 

Response: EPA recognizes that developing a 

representative loss factor that can be used for all filling 

events is more practical than performing measurements for 

each individual fill operation. EPA agrees with the 

commenters that direct measurement is unnecessarily 

burdensome. Consequently, rather than requiring actual 

measurements as proposed, EPA is allowing reporters to 

account for variability in the diameters and fittings of 

hoses supplied by various manufacturers and applied under 

varying conditions and requiring an emission factor be 
Page 174 of 442 

calculated for each hose and valve, or fitting, 

combination. For each hose-valve combination, the 

calculated emission factor must be multiplied by the number 

of annual fill operations that use that hose-valve 

arrangement. The calculation must be recalculated annually 

to account for changes to the specifications of the valves 

or hoses that may occur throughout the year. In addition, 

EPA is requiring electrical equipment manufacturers to 

account for SF6 or PFC emissions that occur as a result of 

unexpected events or accidental losses, such as a 

malfunctioning hose or leak in the flow line, during the 

filling of equipment or containers for disbursement. If 

there is a sudden rise in the quantity of SF6 or PFC gas 

that is needed to fill a certain make and model to its 

shipping charge, or nameplate capacity, this may be 

indicative of a leak in the lines. It is good practice to 

note unusual changes to the quantities used to fill 

equipment. 

Comment: Several entities provided comment as to 

whether manufacturers should be required to certify to 

equipment users the actual quantity of SF6 or PFCs charged 

into equipment at the manufacturing facility as well as the 

actual quantity of SF6 or PFCs charged into equipment at 

installation. In general, users of electric power 
Page 175 of 442 

equipment supported both certifying requirements as they 

would provide more accurate acquisitions inputs needed for 

the mass-balance method required for estimating emissions 

from electric power equipment use. 

Response: EPA had requested comment on whether 

manufacturers should be required to certify the actual 

quantity (mass) of SF6 or PFCs charged into equipment at 

installation. EPA concludes that the electrical equipment 

manufacturer should certify the quantity of gas provided in 

delivered equipment as it represents two inputs to two mass 

balance equations—the disbursements input (i.e., sales of 

SF6 to other entities, including gas in equipment that is 

sold) of the mass-balance equation used by manufacturers 

and the acquisitions input (i.e., gas with or alongside 

equipment) of the mass-balance equation used by electric 

power systems. Additionally, EPA concludes that the 

electrical equipment manufacturer should certify the 

quantity of gas charged into the equipment at installation 

as it represents the acquisition input to the electric 

power systems’ mass balance equation. The validity of the 

mass-balance approach is dependent on precise inputs, 

consequently, inaccuracies of even two or three percent 

could lead to unacceptably large inaccuracies in emissions 

estimates. The final rule includes a requirement for 
Page 176 of 442 

electrical equipment manufacturers to maintain such 

certifications as records and to express the quantity in 

pounds of SF6 or PFC gas. Electrical equipment 

manufacturers should provide copies of the certifications 

to electric power systems upon request. 

Installation of Electrical Equipment at Electric Power 

Systems. 

Comment: EPA received comments from electric power 

systems and electrical equipment manufacturers regarding 

whether the manufacturer should be responsible for 

emissions during installation or whether those emissions 

should become the customer’s responsibility. Equipment 

manufacturers and electric power systems commented that the 

reporting requirement should be the responsibility of the 

electric power system at the point in time when the 

equipment title is transferred. 

Response: EPA recognizes that some equipment, namely 

gas insulated substations, is typically manufactured by the 

manufacturer onsite and can take several months to complete 

assembly, inspection, and final acceptance and 

commissioning. For these projects, gas accounting is best 

done by the manufacturer that is assembling the equipment 

and handling the gas that will be installed into the 

equipment. Based on EPA’s review of these comments, the 
Page 177 of 442 

final rule specifies that the responsibility of reporting 

emissions from installation practices is dependent upon the 

point at which the title is transferred to the electric 

power transmission or distribution entity. In instances 

when the title to the equipment has not yet been 

transferred even though the equipment is at the electric 

power transmission or distribution facility, the equipment 

manufacturer must estimate and report emissions from 

equipment installation using the equipment installation 

mass balance equation or an engineering calculation. In 

instances when the title of the equipment has been 

transferred to the electric power transmission or 

distribution facility, the electric power transmission or 

distribution facility must estimate and report emissions 

during installation by accounting for the amount of gas 

inside the equipment, upon the date of the title transfer 

to the electric power transmission or distribution entity, 

in the mass balance acquisition input. If the title is 

transferred to the electric power transmission or 

distribution entity and the installation is conducted by a 

third party, the electric power transmission or 

distribution facility would be required to report emissions 

during installation. The role and responsibility of 

reporters with respect to use of contractors or third 
Page 178 of 442 

parties is elaborated in more detail in the Response to 

Comment Document for this subpart. 

III. Economic Impacts of the Final Rule 

This section of the preamble examines the costs and 

economic impacts of this rule and the estimated economic 

impacts of the rule on affected entities, including 

estimated impacts on small entities. Complete detail of 

the economic impacts of the rule can be found in the text 

of the economic impact analysis (EIA) in the docket for 

this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927). 

A number of comments on economic impacts of the rule 

were received regarding the estimation of compliance costs 

for subparts covered by the rule. A summary of burden 

related comments can be found in the preamble for each 

subpart. Complete responses to significant comments 

received can be found in “Mandatory Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments, 

Additional Sources of Fluorinated GHGs (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-

0927). 

A. How were compliance costs estimated?

1. Summary of Method Used to Estimate Compliance Costs 

EPA used available industry and EPA data to 

characterize conditions at affected sources. Incremental 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting activities were 
Page 179 of 442 

then identified for each type of facility and the 

associated costs were estimated. The annual costs are 

reported in 2006$. EPA’s estimated costs of compliance are 

discussed below and in greater detail in Section 4 of the 

economic impact analysis (EIA). 

Labor Costs. The vast majority of the reporting costs 

include the time of managers, technical, and administrative 

staff in both the private sector and the public sector. 

Staff hours are estimated for activities, including: 

• Monitoring (private): staff hours to operate and 

maintain emissions monitoring systems. 

• Recordkeeping and Reporting (private): staff hours to 

gather and process available data and report it to EPA 

through electronic systems. 

• Assuring and releasing data (public): staff hours to 

quality assure, analyze, and release reports. 

Staff activities and associated labor costs will 

potentially vary over time. Thus, cost estimates are 

developed for start-up and first-time reporting, and 

subsequent reporting. Wage rates to monetize staff time 

are obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 

Equipment Costs. Equipment costs include both the 

initial purchase price and any facility modification that 

may be required. Based on expert judgment, the engineering 

costs analyses annualized capital equipment costs with 

appropriate lifetime and interest rate assumptions. One-
Page 180 of 442 

time capital costs are amortized over a 10-year cost 

recovery period at a rate of 7 percent. 

B. What are the costs of the rule?

1. Summary of Costs

The total annualized costs incurred under the 

fluorinated GHG reporting rule will be approximately $6.8 

million in the first year and $7.4 million in subsequent 

years ($2006). This includes a public sector burden 

estimate of $384,000 for program implementation and 

verification activities. Table 12 of this preamble shows 

the first year and subsequent year costs by subpart. In 

addition, it presents the cost per ton reported, and the 

relative share of the total cost represented by each 

subpart. 

Table 12. National Annualized Mandatory Reporting Costs 

Estimates (2008$): Subparts I, L, OO and SS 

First Year Subsequent Years 

Subpart 

Millions

2006$ $/ton Share

Millions 

2006$ $/ton Share

Subpart I - 

Electronics 

Industry $2.9 $0.33 38% $5.4 $0.33 76%

Subpart L - 

Fluorinated Gas 

Production $3.0 $0.28 40% $0.2 $0.02 2%

Subpart DD – 

Electric 

Transmission and 

Distribution 

Equipment Use $0.6 $0.19 7% $0.6 $0.05 8%
Page 181 of 442 

First Year Subsequent Years 

Subpart 

Millions

2006$ $/ton Share

Millions 

2006$ $/ton Share

Subpart QQ - 

Imports and 

Exports of 

Fluorinated GHGs $0.7 $0.03 9% $0.6 $0.02 9%

Subpart SS - 

Electrical 

Equipment 

Manufacture and 

Refurbishment and 

Manufacturing of 

Electrical 

Components $0.02 $0.01 0.3% $0.02 $0.01 0%

Private Sector, 

Total $7.2 95% $6.8 95%

Public Sector, 

Total $0.4 5% $0.4 5%

Total $7.6 100% $7.2 100%

C. What are the economic impacts of the rule?

1. Summary of Economic Impacts

EPA prepared an economic analysis to evaluate the 

impacts of this rule on affected industries. To estimate 

the economic impacts, EPA first conducted a screening 

assessment, comparing the estimated total annualized 

compliance costs by industry, where industry is defined in 

terms of North American Industry Classification System 

(NAICS) code, with industry average revenues. Average 

cost-to-sales ratios for establishments in affected NAICS 

codes are typically less than 2 percent. 

These low average cost-to-sales ratios indicate that 

the rule is unlikely to result in significant changes in 
Page 182 of 442 

firms’ production decisions or other behavioral changes, 

and thus unlikely to result in significant changes in 

prices or quantities in affected markets. Thus, EPA 

followed its Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses 

(EPA, 2002, p.124-125) and used the engineering cost 

estimates to measure the social cost of the rule, rather 

than modeling market responses and using the resulting 

measures of social cost. Table 13 of this preamble 

summarizes cost-to-sales ratios for affected industries. 

Table 13. Estimated Cost-To-Sales Ratios for Affected 

Entities (First Year, 2006$) 

2007 NAICS NAICS Description 

Subpart

Average 

Cost Per 

Entity 

($/ 

entity) 

All 

Enterprises 

334413 

Semiconductor and Related 

Device Manufacturing 

I 

(Semis

) $19,980 0.03%

334413 

Semiconductor and Related 

Device Manufacturing 

I (NonSemis) $16,046 0.02%

334119 

Other Computer Peripheral 

Equipment Manufacturing 

I (NonSemis) $16,046 0.06%

325120 Industrial Gas Manufacturing L 

$127,145 1.08%

221121 Electrical Power Systems DD $2,213 0.00%

326140 

Polystyrene Foam Product 

Manufacturing QQ $3,364 0.03%

326150 

Urethane and Other Foam Product 

(except Polystyrene) 

Manufacturing QQ $3,364 0.03%

333415 

Air-Conditioning and Warm Air 

Heating Equipment 

and Commercial and Industrial 

Refrigeration 

Equipment Manufacturing QQ $3,364 0.01%

335313 

Switchgear and Switchboard 

Apparatus Manufacturing QQ $3,364 0.02%
Page 183 of 442 

2007 NAICS NAICS Description 

Subpart

Average 

Cost Per 

Entity 

($/ 

entity) 

All 

Enterprises 

336391 

Motor Vehicle Air-Conditioning 

Manufacturing QQ $3,364 0.01%

423610 

Electrical Apparatus and 

Equipment, Wiring Supplies, 

and Related Equipment Merchant 

Wholesalers QQ $3,364 0.05%

423620 

Electrical and Electronic 

Appliance, Television, and 

Radio Set Merchant Wholesalers QQ $3,364 0.02%

423720 

Plumbing and Heating Equipment 

and Supplies 

(Hydronics) Merchant 

Wholesalers QQ $3,364 0.05%

423730 

Warm Air Heating and AirConditioning Equipment 

and Supplies Merchant 

Wholesalers QQ $3,364 0.07%

423740 

Refrigeration Equipment and 

Supplies Merchant 

Wholesalers QQ $3,364 0.09%

443111 Household Appliance Stores QQ $3,364 0.24%

443112 

Radio, Television and Other 

Electronics Stores QQ $3,364 0.14%

422610 

Plastics Materials and Basic 

Forms and Shapes 

Merchant Wholesalers QQ $3,364 0.03%

33361 

Engine, Turbine, and Power 

Transmission Equipment 

Manufacturing SS $2,213 0.00%

33531 

Electrical Equipment 

Manufacturing SS $2,213 0.02%

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

1. Summary of Impacts on Small Businesses

As required by the RFA and Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), EPA assessed the 

potential impacts of the rule on small entities (small 

businesses, governments, and non-profit organizations). 
Page 184 of 442 

(See Section IV.C of this preamble for definitions of small 

entities.) 

EPA conducted a screening assessment comparing 

compliance costs for affected industry sectors to industryspecific receipts data for establishments owned by small 

businesses. This ratio constitutes a “sales” test that 

computes the annualized compliance costs of this rule as a 

percentage of sales and determines whether the ratio 

exceeds some level (e.g., 1 percent or 3 percent). 

The cost-to-sales ratios were constructed at the 

establishment level (average reporting program costs per 

establishment/average establishment receipts) for several 

business size ranges. This allowed EPA to account for 

receipt differences between establishments owned by large 

and small businesses and differences in small business 

definitions across affected industries. The results of the 

screening assessment are shown in Table 14 of this 

preamble. 

As shown, the cost-to-sales ratios are typically less 

than 1 percent for establishments owned by small businesses 

that EPA considers most likely to be covered by the 

reporting program (e.g., establishments owned by businesses 

with 20 or more employees). 
Page 185 of 442 

Table 14. Estimated Cost-To-Sales Ratios by Industry and 

Enterprise Size (First Year,2006$)a

Owned by Enterprises with: 

NAICS NAICS Description

Subpart 

SBA 

Size 

Stand

ard 

(effe

ctive 

March 

11, 

2008) 

Averag

e Cost 

Per 

Entity 

($/ 

entity

) 

All 

Enter

-

prise

s 

1 to 

20 

Emplo

yees 

20 to 

99 

Emplo

yees 

100 to 499 

Employees 

500 to 

749 

Employ

ees 

750 to 

999 

Employees 

1,000 to 

1,499 

Employees 

334413 

Semiconductor and 

Related Device 

Manufacturing 

I 

(Se

mis

) 500

$19,98

0 0.03% 1.16% 0.22% 0.07% 0.04% 0.01% 0.02%

334413 

Semiconductor and 

Related Device 

Manufacturing 

I 

(No

nSem

is) 500

$16,04

6 0.02% 0.94% 0.18% 0.05% 0.04% 0.01% 0.02%

334119 

Other Computer 

Peripheral 

Equipment 

Manufacturing 

I 

(No

nSem

is) 500

$16,04

6 0.06% 0.92% 0.14% 0.04% 0.02% 0.04% 0.01%

325120 

Industrial Gas 

Manufacturing L 1,000

$127,1

45

1.08%

23.30

% 0.78% 3.20% NA NA NA

221121 

Electrical Power 

Systems DD 

< 4 

Milli

on 

MWh $2,213 0.00% 0.10% 0.01% 0.01% NA NA NA

326140 

Polystyrene Foam 

Product 

Manufacturing QQ 500 $3,364 0.03% 0.25% 0.06% 0.04% NA NA 0.01%

326150 

Urethane and 

Other Foam 

Product (except 

Polystyrene) 

Manufacturing QQ 500 $3,364 0.03% 0.19% 0.05% 0.02% 0.02% NA NA

333415 

Air-Conditioning 

and Warm Air 

Heating 

Equipment 

and Commercial 

and Industrial 

Refrigeration 

Equipment 

Manufacturing QQ 750 $3,364 0.01% 0.22% 0.04% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01%

335313 

Switchgear and 

Switchboard 

Apparatus 

Manufacturing QQ 750 $3,364 0.02% 0.24% 0.05% 0.02% NA NA NA

336391 

Motor Vehicle 

Air-Conditioning 

Manufacturing QQ 750 $3,364 0.01% 0.33% 0.07% NA NA NA NA

423610 

Electrical 

Apparatus and 

Equipment, 

Wiring Supplies, 

and Related 

Equipment 

Merchant 

Wholesalers QQ 100 $3,364 0.05% 0.10% 0.03% 0.03% 0.05% 0.03% 0.03%
Page 186 of 442 

Owned by Enterprises with: 

NAICS NAICS Description

Subpart 

SBA 

Size 

Stand

ard 

(effe

ctive 

March 

11, 

2008) 

Averag

e Cost 

Per 

Entity 

($/ 

entity

) 

All 

Enter

-

prise

s 

1 to 

20 

Emplo

yees 

20 to 

99 

Emplo

yees 

100 to 499 

Employees 

500 to 

749 

Employ

ees 

750 to 

999 

Employees 

1,000 to 

1,499 

Employees 

423620 

Electrical and 

Electronic 

Appliance, 

Television, and 

Radio Set 

Merchant 

Wholesalers QQ 100 $3,364 0.02% 0.07% 0.02% 0.01% 0.00% 0.01% 0.01%

423720 

Plumbing and 

Heating 

Equipment and 

Supplies 

(Hydronics) 

Merchant 

Wholesalers QQ 100 $3,364 0.05% 0.10% 0.02% 0.03% 0.06% 0.03% 0.09%

423730 

Warm Air Heating 

and AirConditioning 

Equipment 

and Supplies 

Merchant 

Wholesalers QQ 100 $3,364 0.07% 0.13% 0.05% 0.06% 0.10% 0.03% NA

423740 

Refrigeration 

Equipment and 

Supplies 

Merchant 

Wholesalers QQ 100 $3,364 0.09% 0.16% 0.05% 0.10% 0.08% 0.04% NA

443111 

Household 

Appliance Stores QQ $9 M $3,364 0.24% 0.42% 0.09% 0.07% NA NA NA

443112 

Radio, Television 

and Other 

Electronics 

Stores QQ $9 M $3,364 0.14% 0.53% 0.15% 0.23% NA NA NA

422610 

Plastics 

Materials and 

Basic Forms and 

Shapes 

Merchant 

Wholesalers QQ 100 $3,364 0.03% 0.09% 0.03% 0.02% 0.01% 0.01% 0.05%

33361 

Engine, Turbine, 

and Power 

Transmission 

Equipment 

Manufacturing SS 

500 -

1,000 $2,213 0.00% 0.17% 0.03% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01%

33531 

Electrical 

Equipment 

Manufacturing SS 

750 -

1,000 $2,213 0.02% 0.19% 0.04% 0.01% 0.01% 0.00% 0.01%

334413 

Semiconductor and 

Related Device 

Manufacturing 

I 

(Se

mis

) 500

$19,98

0 0.03% 1.16% 0.22% 0.07% 0.04% 0.01% 0.02%
Page 187 of 442 

a

 The Census Bureau defines an enterprise as a business organization 

consisting of one or more domestic establishments that were specified 

under common ownership or control. The enterprise and the 

establishment are the same for single-establishment firms. Each 

multi-establishment company forms one enterprise—the enterprise 

employment and annual payroll are summed from the associated 

establishments. Enterprise size designations are determined by the 

summed employment of all associated establishments. Since the SBA’s 

business size definitions (http://www.sba.gov/size) apply to an 

establishment’s ultimate parent company, we assume in this analysis 

that the Census Bureau definition of enterprise is consistent with the 

concept of ultimate parent company that is typically used for Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) screening 

analyses. 

b The 2002 SUSB data uses 1997 NAICS codes. For this industry, the 

relevant code is NAICS 422610. 

EPA acknowledges that several enterprise categories 

have ratios that exceed this threshold (e.g., enterprise 

with one to 20 employees). The Industrial Gas 

Manufacturing industry (NAICS 325120) has sales test 

results over 1 percent for all enterprises and for most 

size categories. The following enterprise categories have 

sales test results over 1 percent and for entities with 

less than 20 employees: Industrial Gas Manufacturing 

(325120) and Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing 

(334413). 

EPA took a more detailed look at the categories noted 

above as having sales test ratios above 1 percent. EPA 

collected information on the entities likely to be covered 

by the rule as part of the expert sub-group process. 

Industrial Gas Manufacturing (325120). Subpart L 

covers facilities included in NAICS codes for Industrial 
Page 188 of 442 

Gas Manufacturing (NAICS 325120). Within this subpart, EPA 

identified 13 ultimate parent company names covered by this 

action. Using publicly available sources (e.g., 

Hoovers.com), we collected parent company sales and 

employment data and found that only one company could be 

classified as a small entity. Using the cost data for a 

representative entity (see Section 4 of the EIA), EPA 

determined the small entity's cost-to-sales ratio is below 

one percent. 

Electronic Computer Manufacturing (334111) and 

Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing (334413). 

Data on the number of electronics facilities comes from the 

World Fab Watch and the Flat Panel Display Fabs on Disk 

datasets. The census data categories cover more 

establishments than just those facilities covered in the 

rule. Subpart I covers facilities included in NAICS codes 

for Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing (334413) 

and Other Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing 

(334119). The World Fab Watch dataset includes 216 

facilities (94 of which exceed the 25,000 ton threshold), 

while the sum of the two NAICS codes include 1,903 

establishments. Covered facilities with emissions greater 

than 25,000 mtCO2e per year are unlikely to be included in 

the 1 to 20 employee size category. Emissions are roughly 
Page 189 of 442 

proportional to production, and establishments with 1 to 20 

employees total only 1.6 percent of total receipts, while 

the threshold excludes 6 percent of industry emissions from 

the least-emitting facilities. 

Although this rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 

EPA nonetheless took several steps to reduce the impact of 

this rule on small entities. The first and most important 

step is the establishment of reporting thresholds. As 

described in Sections II.D through II.H of this preamble, 

these thresholds exclude hundreds of small entities from 

the reporting requirements. In addition, EPA is allowing 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities whose emissions 

exceed the reporting threshold but whose capacity is equal 

to or less than 10,500 m2 of substrate to use default 

emission factors for their etch processes rather than 

measuring those factors. Moreover, EPA is requiring annual 

reporting instead of more frequent reporting. 

In addition to the public hearing that EPA held, EPA 

has an open door policy, similar to the outreach conducted 

during the development of the proposed and final Part 98. 

Details of these meetings are available in the docket (EPAHQ-OAR-2009-0927). 

E. What are the benefits of the rule for society?
Page 190 of 442 

1. Benefits of the rule for society

EPA examined the potential benefits of the Fluorinated 

GHG Reporting Rule. EPA’s previous analysis of the GHG 

reporting rule discussed the benefits of a reporting system 

with respect to policy making relevance, transparency 

issues, and market efficiency. Instead of a quantitative 

analysis of the benefits, EPA conducted a systematic 

literature review of existing studies including government, 

consulting, and scholarly reports. 

A mandatory reporting system will benefit the public 

by increased transparency of facility emissions data. 

Transparent, public data on emissions allows for 

accountability of polluters to the public stakeholders who 

bear the cost of the pollution. Citizens, community 

groups, and labor unions have made use of data from 

Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers to negotiate 

directly with polluters to lower emissions, circumventing 

greater government regulation. Publicly available 

emissions data also will allow individuals to alter their 

consumption habits based on the GHG emissions of producers. 

The greatest benefit of mandatory reporting of 

industry GHG emissions to government will be realized in 

developing future GHG policies. 
Page 191 of 442 

Benefits to industry of GHG emissions monitoring 

include the value of having independent, verifiable data to 

present to the public to demonstrate appropriate 

environmental stewardship, and a better understanding of 

their emission levels and sources to identify opportunities 

to reduce emissions. Such monitoring allows for inclusion 

of standardized GHG data into environmental management 

systems, providing the necessary information to achieve and 

disseminate their environmental achievements. 

Standardization will also be a benefit to industry: 

once facilities invest in the institutional knowledge and 

systems to report emissions, the cost of monitoring should 

fall and the accuracy of the accounting should improve. A 

standardized reporting program will also allow for 

facilities to benchmark themselves against similar 

facilities to understand better their relative standing 

within their industry. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 

1993), this action is a "significant regulatory action” 

because it may raise novel legal or policy issues arising 

out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the 

principles set forth in the Executive Order. Accordingly, 
Page 192 of 442 

EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866 and any 

changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this action. 

EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs 

associated with this action. This analysis is contained in 

the Economic Impact Analysis (EIA), Economic Impact 

Analysis for the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions F-Gases Subparts I, L, DD, QQ, and SS (EPA-HQOAR-2009-0927). A copy of the analysis is available in the 

docket for this action and the analysis is briefly 

summarized here. In this report, EPA has identified the 

regulatory options considered, their costs, the emissions 

that will likely be reported under each option, and 

explained the selection of the option chosen for the rule. 

Overall, EPA has concluded that the costs of the F-Gases 

Rule are outweighed by the potential benefits of more 

comprehensive information about GHG emissions. The total 

annualized cost of the rule will be approximately $7.6 

million (in 2006$) during the first year of the program and 

$7.2 million in subsequent years (including $0.4 million of 

programmatic costs to the Agency). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act
Page 193 of 442 

The information collection requirements in this rule 

have been submitted for approval to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 

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

Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been assigned 

EPA ICR number 2373.02. 

EPA has identified the following goals of the 

mandatory GHG reporting system: 

• Obtain data that is of sufficient quality that it can 

be used to analyze and inform the development of a 

range of future climate change policies and potential 

regulations. 

• Balance the rule’s coverage to maximize the amount of 

emissions reported while excluding small emitters. 

• Create reporting requirements that are, to the extent 

possible and appropriate, consistent with existing GHG 

reporting programs in order to reduce reporting burden 

for all parties involved. 

The information from fluorinated GHG facilities will 

allow EPA to make well-informed decisions about whether and 

how to use the CAA to regulate these facilities and 

encourage voluntary reductions. Because EPA does not yet 

know the specific policies that will be adopted, the data 

reported through the mandatory reporting system should be 

of sufficient quality to inform policy and program 

development. Also, consistent with the Appropriations Act, 

the reporting rule covers a broad range of sectors of the 

economy. 
Page 194 of 442 

This information collection is mandatory and will be 

carried out under CAA section 114. Information identified 

and marked as Confidential Business Information (CBI) will 

not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set 

forth in 40 CFR Part 2. However, emission information 

collected under CAA section 114 generally cannot be claimed 

as CBI and will be made public.47

The projected cost and hour respondent burden in the 

ICR, averaged over the first three years after 

promulgation, is $6.91 million and 77,613 hours per year. 

The estimated average burden per response is 186.2 hours; 

the frequency of response is annual for all respondents 

that must comply with the rule’s reporting requirements; 

and the estimated average number of likely respondents per 

year is 417. The cost burden to respondents resulting from 

the collection of information includes the total capital 

and start-up cost annualized over the equipment’s expected 

useful life (averaging $2.70 million per year) a total 

operation and maintenance component (averaging $120 per 

 

47 Although CBI determinations are usually made on a case-by-case basis, 

EPA has issued guidance in an earlier Federal Register notice on what 

constitutes emission data that cannot be considered CBI (956 FR 7042 – 

7043, February 21, 1991). As discussed in Section II.B of this 

preamble, EPA has initiated a separate notice and comment process to 

make CBI determinations for the data collected under this rule. See 75 

FR 39094. 
Page 195 of 442 

year), and a labor cost component (averaging $4.20 million 

per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR Part 1320.3(b). 

These cost numbers differ from those shown elsewhere 

in the EIA because ICR costs represent the average cost 

over the first three years of the rule, but costs are 

reported elsewhere in the EIA for the first year of the 

rule. Also, the total cost estimate of the rule in the EIA 

includes the cost to the Agency to administer the program. 

The ICR differentiates between respondent burden and cost 

to the Agency, estimated to be $384,000. 

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is 

not required to respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 

The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are 

listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is approved by OMB, 

the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR 

part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control 

number for the approved information collection requirements 

contained in the final rule 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 

notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless 
Page 196 of 442 

the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts of the 

Fluorinated GHG Reporting Rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as a small business as defined by the 

Small Business Administration’s regulations at 13 CFR 

121.201; according to these size standards, criteria for 

determining if ultimate parent companies owning affected 

facilities are categorized as small vary by NAICS. Table 

15 of this preamble presents small business criteria for 

affected NAICS. 

Table 15. Small Business Criteria for affected NAICS 

2007 

 NAICS NAICS Description Subpart

SBA Size 

Standard 

(effective 

August 22, 2008)

334413 

Semiconductor and Related Device 

Manufacturing I 500

334119 

Other Computer Peripheral Equipment 

Manufacturing I 1,000

325120 Industrial Gas Manufacturing L 1,000

221121 Electrical Power Systems DD 

< 4 Million 

MWh

326140 Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing QQ 500

326150 

Urethane and Other Foam Product (except 

Polystyrene) 

Manufacturing QQ 500

333415 

Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating 

Equipment 

and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration 

Equipment Manufacturing QQ 750

335313 

Switchgear and Switchboard Apparatus 

Manufacturing QQ 750

336391 Motor Vehicle Air-Conditioning Manufacturing QQ 750

423610 

Electrical Apparatus and Equipment, Wiring 

Supplies, 

and Related Equipment Merchant Wholesalers QQ 100
Page 197 of 442 

423620 

Electrical and Electronic Appliance, 

Television, and 

Radio Set Merchant Wholesalers QQ 100

423720 

Plumbing and Heating Equipment and Supplies 

(Hydronics) Merchant Wholesalers QQ 100

423730 

Warm Air Heating and Air-Conditioning 

Equipment 

and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers QQ 100

423740 

Refrigeration Equipment and Supplies Merchant

Wholesalers QQ 100

443111 Household Appliance Stores QQ $9 M

443112 

Radio, Television and Other Electronics 

Stores QQ $9 M

422610 

Plastics Materials and Basic Forms and Shapes

Merchant Wholesalers QQ 100

33361 

Engine, Turbine, and Power Transmission 

Equipment Manufacturing SS 500 - 1,000

33531 Electrical Equipment Manufacturing SS 750 - 1,000

EPA assessed the potential impacts of this rule on 

small entities using a sales test, defined as the ratio of 

total annualized compliance costs to firm sales. Details 

are provided in Section 5.3 of the EIA. These sales tests 

compare the average establishment’s total annualized 

mandatory reporting costs to the average establishment 

receipts for enterprises within several employment 

categories48. The average entity costs used to compute the 

sales test are the same across all of these enterprise size 

categories. As a result, the sales test will overstate the 

cost-to-sales ratio for establishments owned by small 

businesses, because the reporting costs are likely lower 

than average entity estimates provided by the engineering 

cost analysis. 

 

48For the one to 20 employee category, we exclude SUSB data for 

enterprises with zero employees. These enterprises did not operate the 

entire year. 
Page 198 of 442 

The results of the screening analysis show that for 

most NAICS, the costs are estimated to be less than 1 

percent of sales in all firm size categories. For two 

NAICS, however, some size categories (especially those with 

1-20 employees) show costs exceeding 1 percent of sales. 

These sectors are Industrial Gas Manufacturing (NAICS 

325120) and Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing 

(NAICS 334413). A more careful examination of impacts on 

small firms in these NAICS codes was conducted. 

Analysis of firms in NAICS 334413 shows that firms 

with fewer than 20 employees produce less than 2 percent of 

output; firms below the 25,000 Mt CO2e threshold release 

approximately 6 percent of emissions. Because emissions 

and production levels are highly correlated, firms fewer 

than 20 employees are generally not expected to be affected 

by the final rule; if they are, their costs are likely to 

be lower than the overall average costs used in the 

screening analysis. Thus, EPA does not expect the final 

rule to impose significant costs to a substantial number of 

small entities in NAICS 334413. 

Subpart L covers facilities included in NAICS codes 

for Industrial Gas Manufacturing (NAICS 325120). Within 

this subpart, EPA identified 13 ultimate parent company 

names covered by the final rule. Using publicly available 
Page 199 of 442 

sources (such as Hoovers.com), EPA collected parent company 

sales and employment data and found that only one company 

could be classified as a small entity. Using the cost data 

for a representative entity (see Section 4 of the EIA), EPA 

determined the small entity’s cost-to-sales ratio is below 

1 percent. 

After considering the economic impacts of this action 

on small entities, I therefore certify that this rule will 

not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Although this rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 

the Agency nonetheless tried to reduce the impact of this 

rule on small entities, including seeking input from a wide 

range of private- and public-sector stakeholders. When 

developing the rule, the Agency took special steps to 

ensure that the burdens imposed on small entities were 

minimal. The Agency conducted several meetings with 

industry trade associations to discuss regulatory options 

and the corresponding burden on industry, such as 

recordkeeping and reporting. The Agency investigated 

alternative thresholds and analyzed the marginal costs 

associated with requiring smaller entities with lower 

emissions to report. 
Page 200 of 442 

Through comprehensive outreach activities after 

proposal of the rule, EPA held meetings and/or conference 

calls with representatives of the primary audience groups. 

After proposal, EPA posted a general fact sheet for the 

rule, information sheets for every source category, and an 

FAQ document. We continued to meet with stakeholders and 

entered documentation of all meetings into the docket. One 

public hearing was held on April 12, 2010, which included 

three speakers from industry and one non-governmental 

environmental group. In addition, 20 outreach meetings 

were held. We considered public comments in developing the 

final rule. 

During rule implementation, EPA will maintain an “open 

door” policy for stakeholders to ask questions about rule 

or provide suggestions to EPA about the types of compliance 

assistance that would be useful to small businesses. EPA 

intends to develop a range of compliance assistance tools 

and materials and conduct extensive outreach for the final 

rule. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA), P.L. 104-4, establishes requirements for federal 

agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions 

on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private 
Page 201 of 442 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must 

prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for final rules with “federal mandates” that may 

result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more in any one year. 

This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may 

result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, 

local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the 

private sector in any one year. Overall, EPA estimates 

that the total annualized costs of this rule are 

approximately $7.6 million in the first year, and $7.2 

million per year in subsequent years. Thus, this rule is 

not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of 

UMRA. 

This rule is also not subject to the requirements of 

section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments. Facilities subject to the rule include 

electronics manufacturers, fluorinated gas producers, 

electric power systems, electrical equipment manufacturers 

and refurbishers, as well as importers and exporters of 

pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams. None of the 
Page 202 of 442 

facilities currently known to undertake these activities 

are owned by small government.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

 This action does not have federalism implications. 

It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national government and the 

States, or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 

specified in Executive Order 13132. This regulation 

applies to electronics manufacturing, fluorinated gas 

production, electrical equipment use, electrical equipment 

manufacture or refurbishment, as well as importers and 

exporters of pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams. 

Few State or local government facilities will be affected. 

This regulation also does not limit the power of States or 

localities to collect GHG data and/or regulate GHG 

emissions. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to 

this action. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments

Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951, 

November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by Tribal 
Page 203 of 442 

officials in the development of regulatory policies that 

have Tribal implications.” 

This action does not have Tribal implications, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 

9, 2000). This regulation applies to facilities that 

manufacture electronic devices, produce fluorinated gases, 

use electrical equipment in electric power systems, import 

or export fluorinated GHGs inside pre-charged equipment and 

closed-cell foams, or manufacture electrical equipment. 

The only facilities among these that might be owned by 

Tribal governments are facilities that use electrical 

equipment in electric power systems. EPA contacted the 

National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) and 

asked whether any electric power systems owned or operated 

by Tribal governments were likely to exceed the threshold 

for reporting emissions from electrical equipment use. 

NRECA stated that they did not expect any Tribally-owned or 

operated electric power systems would trip the threshold. 

(There are a small number of distribution cooperatives 

owned by tribes but no transmission or generation.) Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. 

Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this 

rule, EPA sought opportunities to provide information to 

Tribal governments and representatives during development 
Page 204 of 442 

of the MRR rule. In consultation with EPA’s American 

Indian Environment Office, EPA’s outreach plan included 

tribes. During the proposal phase, EPA staff provided 

information to tribes through conference calls with 

multiple Indian working groups and organizations at EPA 

that interact with tribes and through individual calls with 

two Tribal board members of TCR. In addition, EPA prepared 

a short article on the GHG reporting rule that appeared on 

the front page of a Tribal newsletter—Tribal Air News—that 

was distributed to EPA/OAQPS’s network of Tribal 

organizations. EPA gave a presentation on various climate 

efforts, including Part 98, at the National Tribal 

Conference on Environmental Management in June, 2008. In 

addition, EPA had copies of a short information sheet 

distributed at a meeting of the National Tribal Caucus. 

EPA participated in a conference call with Tribal air 

coordinators in April 2009 and prepared a guidance sheet 

for Tribal governments on the proposal. It was posted on 

the MRR website and published in the Tribal Air Newsletter. 

For a complete list of Tribal contacts, see the “Summary of 

EPA Outreach Activities for Developing the Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Rule,” in the Docket for the initial proposed 

Part 98 (April, 2009) (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-055). 
Page 205 of 442 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 F.R. 19885, 

April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This 

action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it 

does not establish an environmental standard intended to 

mitigate health or safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly 

Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not a “significant energy action” as 

defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 

2001) because it is not likely to have a significant 

adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. Further, we have concluded that this rule is not 

likely to have any adverse energy effects. This rule 

relates to monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping at 

facilities that manufacture, sell, use, import, or export 

fluorinated GHG related products and does not impact energy 

supply, distribution or use. Therefore, we conclude that 

this rule is not likely to have any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use. 
Page 206 of 442 

I. National Technology Transfer and 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 EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so 

would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business practices) that are 

developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through 

OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. 

This rule involves technical standards. EPA will use 

voluntary consensus standards from at least three different 

voluntary consensus standards bodies, including the 

following: ASTM, ASME, and International SEMATECH 

Manufacturing Initiative. These voluntary consensus 

standards will help facilities monitor, report, and keep 

records of GHG emissions. No new test methods were 

developed for this rule. Instead, from existing rules for 

source categories and voluntary greenhouse gas programs, 

EPA identified existing means of monitoring, reporting, and 

keeping records of greenhouse gas emissions. The existing 
Page 207 of 442 

methods (voluntary consensus standards) include a broad 

range of measurement techniques, such as methods to measure 

gas or liquid flow and methods to identify the contents of 

vented or exhausted streams. The test methods are 

incorporated by reference into the rule and are available 

as specified in 40 CFR 98.7. 

By incorporating voluntary consensus standards into 

this rule, EPA is both meeting the requirements of the 

NTTAA and presenting multiple options and flexibility in 

complying with this rule. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) 

establishes Federal executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to 

the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their mission by 

identifying and addressing, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies, and 

activities on minority populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 
Page 208 of 442 

EPA has determined that this rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not affect the level of protection provided 

to human health or the environment. This rule does not 

affect the level of protection provided to human health or 

the environment because it is a rule addressing information 

collection and reporting procedures. 

K. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as 

added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 

Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take 

effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule 

report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of 

the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United 

States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 

House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of 

the U.S. prior to publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days 

after it is published in the Federal Register. This action 

is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This 

rule will be effective [INSERT THE DATE 30 DAYS AFTER THE 

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
Page 209 of 442 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 98

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and 

procedure, Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, 

Suppliers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: 

 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 
Page 210 of 442 

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, 

chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 98—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 98 continues to 

read as follows: 

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

Subpart A-[Amended] 

2. Section 98.3 is amended as follows: 

a. By adding paragraph (c)(4)(v). 

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

§98.3 What are the general monitoring, reporting, and 

recordkeeping and verification requirements of this part?

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(v) When applying paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section 

to fluorinated GHGs, calculate and report CO2e for only 

those fluorinated GHGs listed in Table A-1 of this subpart. 

(5) * * * 

(i) Total quantity of GHG aggregated for all GHG from 

all applicable supply categories in Table A-5 of this 

subpart and expressed in metric tons of CO2e calculated 

using Equation A-1 of this subpart. 
Page 211 of 442 

(ii) Quantity of each GHG from each applicable supply 

category in Table A-5 of this subpart, expressed in metric 

tons of each GHG. For fluorinated GHG, report emissions of 

all fluorinated GHG, including those not listed in Table A1 of this subpart. 

* * * * * 

3. Section 98.6 is amended by revising the definition 

of “Destruction efficiency” to read as follows: 

§98.6 Definitions.

* * * * * 

Destruction efficiency means the efficiency with which 

a destruction device reduces the mass of a greenhouse gas 

fed into the device. Destruction efficiency, or flaring 

destruction efficiency, refers to the fraction of the gas 

that leaves the flare partially or fully oxidized. The 

destruction efficiency is expressed in Equation A-2 of this 

section:

 

iIN

iOUT

tGHG

tGHG DE 1−= (Eq. A-2) 

Where: 

DE = Destruction Efficiency 

tGHGiIN = The mass of GHG i fed into the destruction 

device 
Page 212 of 442 

tGHGiOUT = The mass of GHG i exhausted from the 

destruction device 

* * * * * 

4. Section 98.7 is amended as follows: 

a. By revising paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(8) and 

paragraph (e)(30). 

b. By adding paragraph (e)(46) and (e)(47). 

c. By adding paragraphs (m)(3) through (m)(7). 

d. By adding paragraph (n). 

§98.7 What standardized methods are incorporated by 

reference into this part?

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) ASME MFC-3M–2004 Measurement of Fluid Flow in 

Pipes Using Orifice, Nozzle, and Venturi, incorporation by 

reference (IBR) approved for §98.34(b), §98.124(m)(1), 

§98.244(b), §98.254(c), §98.324(e), §98.344(c), §98.354(d), 

§98.354(h), and §98.364(e). 

(2) ASME MFC-4M–1986 (Reaffirmed 1997) Measurement of 

Gas Flow by Turbine Meters, IBR approved for §98.34(b), 

§98.124(m)(2), §98.244(b), §98.254(c), §98.324(e), 

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

(3) ASME MFC-5M–1985 (Reaffirmed 1994) Measurement of 

Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits Using Transit-Time 
Page 213 of 442 

Ultrasonic Flowmeters, IBR approved for §98.34(b), 

§98.124(m)(3), §98.244(b), and §98.354(d). 

(4) ASME MFC-6M–1998 Measurement of Fluid Flow in 

Pipes Using Vortex Flowmeters, IBR approved for §98.34(b), 

§98.124(m)(4), §98.244(b), §98.254(c), §98.324(e), 

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

(5) ASME MFC-7M–1987 (Reaffirmed 1992) Measurement of 

Gas Flow by Means of Critical Flow Venturi Nozzles, IBR 

approved for §98.34(b), §98.124(m)(5), §98.244(b), 

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

§98.364(e). 

(6) ASME MFC-9M–1988 (Reaffirmed 2001) Measurement of 

Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits by Weighing Method, IBR 

approved for §98.34(b), §98.124(m)(6), and §98.244(b). 

(7) ASME MFC-11M-2006 Measurement of Fluid Flow by 

Means of Coriolis Mass Flowmeters, IBR approved for 

§98.124(m)(7), §98.244(b), §98.254(c), §98.324(e), 

§98.344(c), and §98.354(h). 

(8) ASME MFC-14M-2003 Measurement of Fluid Flow Using 

Small Bore Precision Orifice Meters, IBR approved for 

§98.124(m)(8), §98.244(b), §98.254(c), §98.324(e), 

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

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 
Page 214 of 442 

* * * * * 

(30) ASTM D6348-03 Standard Test Method for 

Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct 

Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy 

(ASTM D6348), IBR approved for §98.54(b), §98.124(e)(2), 

and §98.224(b). 

* * * * * 

(46) ASTM D2879-97 (Reapproved 2007) Standard Test 

Method for Vapor Pressure-Temperature Relationship and 

Initial Decomposition Temperature of Liquids by 

Isoteniscope (ASTM D2879), approved May 1, 2007, IBR 

approved for §98.128. 

(47) ASTM D7359-08 Standard Test Method for Total 

Fluorine, Chlorine and Sulfur in Aromatic Hydrocarbons and 

Their Mixtures by Oxidative Pyrohydrolytic Combustion 

followed by Ion Chromatography Detection (Combustion Ion 

Chromatography-CIC) (ASTM D7359), approved October 15, 

2008, IBR approved for §98.124(e)(2). 

* * * * * 

(m) * * * 

(3) Protocol for Measuring Destruction or Removal 

Efficiency (DRE) of Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Abatement 

Equipment in Electronics Manufacturing, Version 1, EPA-430-

R-10-003, March 2010 (EPA 430-R-10-003), 
Page 215 of 442 

http://www.epa.gov/semiconductorpfc/documents/dre_protocol.pdf, IBR approved for 

§98.94(f)(4)(i), §98.94(g)(3), §98.97(d)(4), §98.98, and 

§98.124(e)(2). 

(4) Emissions Inventory Improvement Program, Volume 

II: Chapter 16, Methods for Estimating Air Emissions from 

Chemical Manufacturing Facilities, August 2007, Final, 

http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eiip/techreport/volume02/index.

html, IBR approved for §98.123(c)(1)(i)(A). 

(5) Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates, 

EPA-453/R-95-017, November 1995 (EPA-453/R-95-017), 

http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/efdocs/equiplks.pdf, IBR 

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

§98.123(d)(1)(iii), and §98.124(f)(2). 

(6) Tracer Gas Protocol for the Determination of 

Volumetric Flow Rate Through the Ring Pipe of the Xact 

Multi-Metals Monitoring System, also known as Other Test 

Method 24, (Tracer Gas Protocol), Eli Lilly and Company 

Tippecanoe Laboratories, September 2006, 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/prelim/otm24.pdf, IBR approved 

for §98.124(e)(1)(ii). 

(7) Approved Alternative Method 012: An Alternate 

Procedure for Stack Gas Volumetric Flow Rate Determination 

(Tracer Gas) (ALT-012), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Page 216 of 442 

Agency Emission Measurement Center, May 23, 1994, 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/approalt/alt-012.pdf, IBR 

approved for §98.124(e)(1)(ii). 

* * * * * 

(n) The following material is available from the 

International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative, 2706 

Montopolis Drive, Austin, Texas 78741, (512) 356-3500, 

http://ismi.sematech.org

(1) Guideline for Environmental Characterization of 

Semiconductor Process Equipment, International SEMATECH 

Manufacturing Initiative Technology Transfer #06124825AENG, December 22, 2006 (International SEMATECH #06124825AENG), IBR approved for §98.94(d), §98.94(d)(1), §98.94(e), 

§98.94(e)(1), §98.94(g)(1), §98.96(f)(4), and §98.97(b)(1). 

(2) Guidelines for Environmental Characterization of 

Semiconductor Equipment, International SEMATECH Technology 

Transfer #01104197A-XFR, December 4, 2001 (International 

SEMATECH #01104197A-XFR), IBR approved for §98.94(d), 

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

§98.96(f)(4), and §98.97(b)(1). 

* * * * * 

 5. Table A-3 to subpart A is amended by adding 

entries for “Electrical Transmission and Distribution 
Page 217 of 442 

Equipment Use” and “Electrical Transmission Distribution 

Equipment Manufacture or Refurbishment” to read as follows: 

Table A-3 to Subpart A—Source Category List for §98.2(a)(1) 

Source Categoriesa Applicable in 2010 and Future Years

* * * * * * *

Additional Source Categoriesa Applicable in 2011 and Future 

Years

* * * * * * *

Electrical transmission and distribution equipment use (subpart 

DD). 

Electrical transmission and distribution equipment manufacture 

or refurbishment (subpart SS). 

a Source categories are defined in each applicable subpart. 

6. Table A-4 to subpart A is amended by adding 

entries for “Electronics manufacturing” and “Fluorinated 

gas production” to read as follows: 

Table A-4 to Subpart A—Source Category List for §98.2(a)(2) 

Source Categoriesa Applicable in 2010 and Future Years

* * * * * * *

Additional Source Categoriesa Applicable in 2011 and Future 

Years

* * * * * * *

Electronics manufacturing (subpart I)

Fluorinated gas production (subpart L)

a Source categories are defined in each applicable subpart. 

7. Table A-5 to subpart A is amended by adding 

entries for “Importers and exporters of fluorinated 
Page 218 of 442 

greenhouse gases contained in pre-charged equipment or 

closed-cell foams” to read as follows: 

Table A-5 to Subpart A—Supplier Category List for 

§98.2(a)(4) 

Supplier Categoriesa Applicable in 2010 and Future Years

* * * * * * * 

Additional Supplier Categoriesa Applicable in 2011 and Future 

Years

* * * * * * * 

Importers and exporters of fluorinated greenhouse gases 

contained in pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams 

(subpart QQ): 

(A) Importers of an annual quantity of fluorinated 

greenhouse gases contained in pre-charged equipment or closedcell foams that is equivalent to 25,000 metric tons CO2e or 

more. 

(B) Exporters of an annual quantity of fluorinated 

greenhouse gases contained in pre-charged equipment or closedcell foams that is equivalent to 25,000 metric tons CO2e or 

more.

a Source categories are defined in each applicable subpart. 

8. Add subpart I to read as follows: 

Subpart I—Electronics Manufacturing 

Sec. 

98.90 Definition of the source category. 

98.91 Reporting threshold. 

98.92 GHGs to report. 

98.93 Calculating GHG emissions. 

98.94 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements. 

98.95 Procedures for estimating missing data. 

98.96 Data reporting requirements. 

98.97 Records that must be retained. 

98.98 Definitions. 
Page 219 of 442 

Tables

Table I-1 to Subpart I of Part 98—Default Emission Factors 

for Threshold Applicability Determination 

Table I-2 to Subpart I of Part 98—Examples of Fluorinated 

GHGs Used by the Electronics Industry 

Table I-3 to Subpart I of Part 98—Default Emission Factors 

(1-Uij) for Gas Utilization Rates (Uij) and By-Product 

Formation Rates (Bijk) for Semiconductor Manufacturing for 

150 mm and 200 mm Wafer Sizes 

Table I-4 to Subpart I of Part 98—Default Emission Factors 

(1-Uij) for Gas Utilization Rates (Uij) and By-Product 

Formation Rates (Bijk) for Semiconductor Manufacturing for 

300 mm Wafer Size 

Table I-5 to Subpart I of Part 98—Default Emission Factors 

(1-Uij) for Gas Utilization Rates (Uij) and By-Product 

Formation Rates (Bijk) for MEMS Manufacturing 

Table I-6 to Subpart I of Part 98—Default Emission Factors 

(1-Uij) for Gas Utilization Rates (Uij) and By-Product 

Formation Rates (Bijk) for LCD Manufacturing 

Table I-7 to Subpart I of Part 98—Default Emission Factors 

(1-Uij) for Gas Utilization Rates (Uij) and By-Product 

Formation Rates (Bijk) for PV Manufacturing 

Table I-8 to Subpart I of Part 98— Default Emission Factors 

(1-UN2O,j) for N2O Utilization (UN2O,j) 

Subpart I—Electronics Manufacturing 

§98.90 Definition of the source category.

(a) The electronics manufacturing source category 

consists of any of the production processes listed in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) of this section that use 

fluorinated GHGs or N2O. Facilities that may use these 

processes include, but are not limited to, facilities that 

manufacture micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS), liquid 

crystal displays (LCDs), photovoltaic cells (PV), and 

semiconductors (including light-emitting diodes (LEDs)). 
Page 220 of 442 

(1) Any electronics production process in which the 

etching process uses plasma-generated fluorine atoms and 

other reactive fluorine-containing fragments, that 

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

metals) or substrate (e.g., silicon) to selectively remove 

portions of material. 

(2) Any electronics production process in which 

chambers used for depositing thin films are cleaned 

periodically using plasma-generated fluorine atoms and 

other reactive fluorine-containing fragments. 

(3) Any electronics production process in which 

wafers are cleaned using plasma generated fluorine atoms or 

other reactive fluorine-containing fragments to remove 

residual material from wafer surfaces, including the wafer 

edge. 

(4) Any electronics production process in which the 

chemical vapor deposition (CVD) process or other 

manufacturing processes use N2O. 

(5) Any electronics manufacturing production process 

in which fluorinated GHGs are used as heat transfer fluids 

to cool process equipment, to control temperature during 

device testing, to clean substrate surfaces and other 

parts, and for soldering (e.g., vapor phase reflow). 

§98.91 Reporting threshold.
Page 221 of 442 

(a) You must report GHG emissions under this subpart 

if electronics manufacturing production processes, as 

defined in §98.90, are performed at your facility and your 

facility meets the requirements of either §98.2(a)(1) or 

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

comparison to the 25,000 metric ton CO2e per year emission 

threshold in §98.2(a)(2), follow the requirements of 

§98.2(b), with one exception. Rather than using the 

calculation methodologies in §98.93 to calculate emissions 

from electronics manufacturing production processes, 

calculate emissions of each fluorinated GHG from 

electronics manufacturing production processes by using 

paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of this section, as 

appropriate, and then sum the emissions of each fluorinated 

GHG by using paragraph (a)(4) of this section. 

(1) If you manufacture semiconductors or MEMS you 

must calculate annual production process emissions of each 

input gas i for threshold applicability purposes using the 

default emission factors shown in Table I-1 to this subpart 

and Equation I-1 of this subpart. 

i = S i GWPi 0.001**EF*E (Eq. I-1) 

Where: 

Ei = Annual production process emissions of input 

gas i for threshold applicability purposes 

(metric tons CO2e). 
Page 222 of 442 

S = 100 percent of annual manufacturing capacity 

of a facility as calculated using Equation I-5 

of this subpart (m2). 

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

). 

GWPi = Gas-appropriate GWP as provided in Table A-1 

to subpart A of this part. 

0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons. 

i = Input gas. 

(2) If you manufacture LCDs, you must calculate 

annual production process emissions of each input gas i for 

threshold applicability purposes using the default emission 

factors shown in Table I-1 to this subpart and Equation I-2 

of this subpart. 

i = S i *EF*E GWPi

*0.000001 (Eq. I-2) 

Where: 

Ei = Annual production process emissions of input 

gas i for threshold applicability purposes 

(metric tons Co2e). 

S = 100 percent of annual manufacturing capacity 

of a facility as calculated using Equation I-5 

of this subpart (m2

). 

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

). 

GWPi = Gas-appropriate GWP as provided in Table A-1 

to subpart A of this part. 

0.000001 = Conversion factor from g to metric tons. 

i = Input gas. 

(3) If you manufacture PVs, you must calculate annual 

production process emissions of each input gas i for 

threshold applicability purposes using gas-appropriate GWP 
Page 223 of 442 

values shown in Table A-1 to subpart A of this part and 

Equation I-3 of this subpart. 

i = i GWPC i 001.0**E (Eq. I-3) 

Where: 

Ei = Annual production process emissions of input 

gas i for threshold applicability purposes 

(metric tons Co2e). 

Ci = Annual fluorinated GHG (input gas i) purchases 

or consumption (kg). Only gases used in PV 

manufacturing that have listed GWP values in 

Table A-1 to subpart A of this part must be 

considered for threshold applicability 

purposes. 

GWPi = Gas-appropriate GWP as provided in Table A-1 

to subpart A of this part. 

0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons. 

i = Input gas. 

(4) You must calculate total annual production 

process emissions for threshold applicability purposes 

using Equation I-4 of this subpart. 

= ∑

i

T δ *E Ei (Eq. I-4) 

Where: 

ET = Annual production process emissions of all 

fluorinated GHGs for threshold applicability 

purposes (metric tons Co2e). 

δ = Factor accounting for heat transfer fluid 

emissions, estimated as 10 percent of total 

annual production process emissions at a 

semiconductor facility. Set equal to 1.1 when 

Equation I-4 of this subpart is used to calculate 

total annual production process emissions from 
Page 224 of 442 

semiconductor manufacturing. Set equal to 1 when 

Equation I-4 of this subpart is used to calculat

total annual production process e

e 

missions from 

Ei = 

ted in Equations I-1, I-2 or 

Input gas. 

(b) You must calculate annual manufacturing capacity 

of a facility using Equation I-5 of this subpart. 

 (Eq. I-5) 

Where: 

S = nual manufacturing capacity of 

2

Wx = starts of a facility 

2 per month). 

Month. 

§98.92 GHGs to report.

MEMS, LCD, or PV manufacturing. 

Annual production process emissions of input gas

i for threshold applicability purposes (metric 

tons Co2e), as calcula

I-3 of this subpart. 

i = 

= ∑

12

S xWx

100 percent of an

a facility (m ). 

Maximum designed substrate 

in month x (m

x = 

(a) You must report emissions of fluorinated GHGs (as 

defined in §98.6) and N2O. The fluorinated GHGs that are 

emitted from electronics manufacturing production processes 

include, but are not limited to, those listed in Table I-2 

to this subpart. You must individually report, as 

appropriate: 

(1) Fluorinated GHGs emitted from plasma etching. 

(2) Fluorinated GHGs emitted from chamber cleaning. 
Page 225 of 442 

(3) Fluorinated GHGs emitted from wafer cleaning. 

(4) N2O emitted from chemical vapor deposition and 

other

use. 

ng 

listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) of this section. 

ort 

llowing the 

rt. 

§98.9

 electronics manufacturing processes. 

(5) Fluorinated GHGs emitted from heat transfer fluid 

(6) All fluorinated GHGs and N2O consumed, includi

gases used in manufacturing processes other than those 

(b) CO2, CH4, and N2O combustion emissions from each 

stationary combustion unit. You must calculate and rep

these emissions under subpart C of this part (General 

Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources) by fo

requirements of subpart C of this pa

3 Calculating GHG emissions.

(a) You must calculate total annual facility-leve

emissions of each fluorinated GHG used in electronics 

manufacturing production processes at your facility, for

each process type, using Equations I-6 and I-7 of this 

subpart according to the procedures in paragraphs (a)(1), 

(a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5), or (a)(6) of this sectio

as appropriate. Facilities to which the procedures in 

paragraphs (a)(1) of this section or (a)(2) of this section

apply may elect to use the procedures in paragraph (a)(3) 

as an alternative. If your facility uses less than 5

l 

n, 

0 kg 
Page 226 of 442 

of a fluorinated GHG in one reporting year, you may 

calculate emissions as equal to your facility’s annual 

consumption for that specific gas as calculated in Equation

I-11 of this subpart. Where your facility is required to 

perform calculations using default emission factors f

gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates 

according to the procedures in paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2) 

of this section, and default values are not availab

particular input gas and process type or sub-type 

combination in Tables I-3, I-4, I-5, I-6, or I-7, you must 

or 

le for a 

follow the procedures in paragraph (a)(6) of this section. 

 (Eq. I-6) 

i

Eij = 

process 

N = 

bpart, N = 1. 

j = Recipe, process sub-type, or process 

type. 

∑=

=

N

j

ocesstypeEi Eij

1

Pr

Where: 

ProcesstypeE = Annual emissions of input gas i from 

the processes type (metric tons). 

Annual emissions of input gas i from 

recipe, process sub-type, or 

type j as calculated in Equation I-8 of 

this subpart (metric tons). 

The total number of recipes or process 

sub-types j that depends on the 

electronics manufacturing facility and 

emission calculation methodology. If 

Eij is calculated for a process type j 

in Equation I-8 of this su

i = Input gas. 
Page 227 of 442 

 (Eq. I-7) 

Where: 

ProcesstypeBEk = k 

BEijk = 

I-9 of 

N = 

dology. If 

. 

= Recipe, process sub-type, or process 

k = By-product gas. 

 shown 

in Table I-5, I-6, or I-7 of this subpart, as appropriate, 

s 

ded in 

∑∑=

=

N

j i

ocesstypeBEk BEijk

1

Pr

Annual emissions of by-product gas

from the processes type (metric tons).

Annual emissions of by-product gas k 

formed from input gas i used for 

recipe, process sub-type, or process 

type j as calculated in Equation 

this subpart (metric tons). 

The total number of recipes or process 

sub-types j that depends on the 

electronics manufacturing facility and 

emission calculation metho

BEkij is calculated for a process type j 

in Equation I-9 of this subpart, N = 1

i = Input gas. 

j 

type. 

(1) If you manufacture MEMS, LCDs, or PVs, you must, 

except as provided in §98.93(a)(3), calculate annual 

facility-level emissions of each fluorinated GHG used for 

the plasma etching and chamber cleaning process types using 

default utilization and by-product formation rates as

and by using Equations I-8 and I-9 of this subpart. 

(2) If you manufacture semiconductors on wafer

measuring 300 mm or less in diameter, except as provi
Page 228 of 442 

§98.9

, 

500 m2

 of substrate, you must 

adhere to the procedures in paragraphs (a)(i)(A) through 

rmation rates as shown in Table I-3 or I-4 of 

this subpart, and by using Equations I-8 and I-9 of this 

t formation 

rates as shown in Table I-3 or I-4 of this subpart, and by 

cleaning process type using default utilization and by3(a)(3), you must adhere to the procedures in 

paragraphs (a)(2)(i) or (a)(2)(ii) of this section. 

(i) If your facility has an annual manufacturing 

capacity, as calculated using Equation I-5 of this subpart

of less than or equal to 10,

(a)(i)(C) of this section. 

(A) You must calculate annual facility-level 

emissions of each fluorinated GHG used for the plasma 

etching process type using default utilization and byproduct fo

subpart. 

(B) You must calculate annual facility-level 

emissions of each fluorinated GHG used for each of the 

process sub-types associated with the chamber cleaning 

process type, including in-situ plasma chamber clean, 

remote plasma chamber clean, and in-situ thermal chamber 

clean, using default utilization and by-produc

using Equations I-8 and I-9 of this subpart. 

(C) You must calculate annual facility-level 

emissions of each fluorinated GHG used for the wafer 
Page 229 of 442 

product formation rates as shown in Table I-3 or I-4 of 

this subpart and by using Equations I-8 and I-9 of this 

subpa

ing 

aragraphs (a)(ii)(A) through 

(a)(i

and 

or 

e 

n a previous reporting 

year,

rt. 

(ii) If your facility has an annual manufactur

capacity of greater than 10,500 m2 of substrate, as 

calculated using Equation I-5 of this subpart, you must 

adhere to the procedures in p

i)(C) of this section. 

(A) You must calculate annual facility-level 

emissions of each fluorinated GHG used for the plasma 

etching process type using recipe-specific utilization 

by-product formation rates determined as specified in 

§98.94(d), and by using Equations I-8 and I-9 of this 

subpart. You must develop recipe-specific utilization and

by-product formation rates for each individual recipe 

set of similar recipes as defined in §98.98. Recipespecific utilization and by-product formation rates must b

developed each reporting year only for recipes which are

not similar to any recipe used i

 as defined in §98.98. 

(B) You must calculate annual facility-level 

emissions of each fluorinated GHG used for each of the 

process sub-types associated with the chamber cleaning 

process type, including in-situ plasma chamber clean, 
Page 230 of 442 

remote plasma chamber clean, and in-situ thermal chamber 

clean, using default utilization and by-product formation 

rates as shown in Table I-3 or I-4 to this subpart, and by 

using

rt, and by using Equations I-8 and I-9 of this 

subpa

u must 

 by 

st 

ic 

 in a previous reporting 

year, as defined in §98.98. 

 Equations I-8 and I-9 of this subpart. 

(C) You must calculate annual facility-level 

emissions of each fluorinated GHG used for the wafer 

cleaning process type using default utilization and byproduct formation rates as shown in Table I-3 or I-4 to 

this subpa

rt. 

(3) If you do not adhere to procedures as specified 

in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section, yo

calculate annual facility-level emissions of each 

fluorinated GHG for all fluorinated GHG-emitting production 

processes using recipe-specific utilization and by-product 

formation rates determined as specified in §98.94(d) and

using Equations I-8 and I-9 of this subpart. You mu

develop recipe-specific utilization and by-product 

formation rates for each individual recipe or set of 

similar recipes as defined in §98.98. Recipe-specif

utilization and by-product formation rates must be 

developed each reporting year only for recipes which are

not similar to any recipe used
Page 231 of 442 

(4) If you manufacture semiconductors on wafers 

measuring greater than 300 mm in diameter, you must 

calculate annual facility-level emissions of each 

fluorinated GHG used for all fluorinated GHG emitting 

production processes using recipe-specific utilization and 

by-product formation rates as specified in §98.94(d), and 

by using Equations I-8 and I-9 of this subpart. You must 

develop recipe-specific utilization and by-product 

formation rates for each individual recipe or set of 

similar recipes as defined in §98.98. Recipe-specific 

utilization and by-product formation rates must be 

developed each reporting year only for recipes that are not 

similar to any recipe used in a previous reporting year, as 

defined in §98.98. 

(5) To be included in a set of similar recipes for 

the purposes of this subpart, a recipe must be similar to 

the recipe in the set for which recipe-specific utilization 

and by-product formation rates have been measured. 

(6) Where your facility is required to perform 

calculations using default emission factors for gas 

utilization rates and by-product formation rates according 

to the procedures in paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this 

section, and default values are not available for a 

particular input gas and process type or sub-type 
Page 232 of 442 

combination in Tables I-3, I-4, I-5, I-6, or I-7, you must 

follow the procedures in either paragraph (a)(6)(i) or 

(a)(6)(ii) of this section and use Equations I-8 and I-9 of 

this subpart. 

(i) You must use utilization and by-product formation 

rates of 0. 

(ii) You must develop recipe-specific utilization and 

by-product formation rates determined as specified in 

§98.94(d) for each individual recipe or set of similar 

recipes as defined in §98.98. Recipe-specific utilization 

and by-product formation rates must be developed each 

reporting year only for recipes that are not similar to any 

recipe used in a previous reporting year, as defined in 

§98.98. 

Cijij *E (1 ij *)U (1−−= ijij *)d*a 0.001 (Eq. I-8) 

Where: 

Eij = Annual emissions of input gas i from recipe, 

process sub-type, or process type j (metric 

tons). 

Cij = Amount of input gas i consumed for recipe, 

process sub-type, or process type j, as 

calculated in Equation I-13 of this subpart 

(kg). 

Uij = Process utilization rate for input gas i for 

recipe, process sub-type, or process type j 

(expressed as a decimal fraction). 
Page 233 of 442 

aij = Fraction of input gas i used in recipe, 

process sub-type, or process type j with 

abatement systems(expressed as a decimal 

fraction). 

dij = Fraction of input gas i destroyed or removed 

in abatement systems connected to process 

tools where recipe, process sub-type, or 

process type j is used, as calculated in 

Equation I-14 of this subpart (expressed as a 

decimal fraction). 

0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons. 

i = Input gas. 

j = Recipe, process sub-type, or process type. 

ijk = ijijk − daCBBE jkij 001.0*)*1(** (Eq. I-9) 

Where: 

BEijk = Annual emissions of by-product gas k formed 

from input gas i from recipe, process subtype, or process type j (metric tons). 

Bijk = By-product formation rate of gas k created as 

a by-product per amount of input gas i (kg) 

consumed by recipe, process sub-type, or 

process type j (kg). 

Cij = Amount of input gas i consumed for recipe, 

process sub-type, or process type j, as 

calculated in Equation I-13 of this subpart 

(kg)). 

aij = Fraction of input gas i used for recipe, 

process sub-type, or process type j with 

abatement systems (expressed as a decimal 

fraction). 

djk = Fraction of by-product gas k destroyed or 

removed in abatement systems connected to 

process tools where recipe, process sub-type, 

or process type j is used, as calculated in 

Equation I-14 of this subpart (expressed as a 

decimal fraction). 

0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons. 
Page 234 of 442 

i = Input gas. 

j = Recipe, process sub-type, or process type. 

k = By-product gas. 

(b) You must calculate annual facility-level N2O 

emissions from each chemical vapor deposition process and 

other electronics manufacturing production processes using 

Equation I-10 of this subpart and the methods in paragraphs 

(b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section. If your facility uses 

less than 50 kg of N2O in one reporting year, you may 

calculate emissions as equal to your facility’s annual 

consumption for N2O as calculated in Equation I-11 of this 

subpart. 

(1) You must use a factor for N2O utilization for 

chemical vapor deposition processes pursuant to either 

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

(i) You must develop a facility-specific N2O 

utilization factor averaged over all N2O-using chemical 

vapor deposition processes determined as specified in 

§98.94(e). 

(ii) If you do not use a facility-specific N2O 

utilization factor for chemical vapor deposition processes, 

you must use the default utilization factor as shown in 

Table I-8 to this subpart for N2O from chemical vapor 

deposition processes. 
Page 235 of 442 

(2) You must use a factor for N2O utilization for 

other manufacturing processes pursuant to either paragraph 

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

(i) You must develop a facility-specific N2O 

utilization factor averaged over all N2O-using electronics 

manufacturing production processes other than chemical 

vapor deposition processes determined as specified in 

§98.94(e). 

(ii) If you do not use a facility-specific N2O 

utilization factor for manufacturing production processes 

other than chemical vapor deposition, you must use the 

default utilization factor in as shown in Table I-8 to this 

subpart for N2O from manufacturing production processes 

other than chemical vapor deposition. 

O)E(N j C ,N jO * (1 ,N jO *)U (1 ,N jO ,N jO *)d*a 0.001 (Eq. I-10) 2 2 2 2 2 = − −

Where: 

E(N2O)j = Annual emissions of N2O for N2O-using process j 

(metric tons). 

CN2O,j = Amount of N2O consumed for N2O-using process j, 

as calculated in Equation I-13 of this subpart 

and apportioned to N2O process j (kg). 

UN2O,j = Process utilization factor for N2O-using 

process j (expressed as a decimal fraction). 

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

with abatement systems (expressed as a decimal 

fraction). 

dN2O,j = Fraction of N2O for N2O-using process j 

destroyed or removed in abatement systems 
Page 236 of 442 

connected to process tools where process j is 

used, as calculated in Equation I-14 of this 

subpart (expressed as a decimal fraction). 

0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons. 

j = Type of N2O-using process, either chemical 

vapor deposition or other N2O-using 

manufacturing processes. 

(c) You must calculate total annual input gas i 

consumption for each fluorinated GHG and N2O using Equation 

I-11 of this subpart. Pursuant to §98.92(a)(6), for all 

fluorinated GHGs and N2O used at your facility for which you 

do not calculate emissions using Equations I-6, I-7, I-8, 

I-9, and I-10 of this subpart, calculate consumption of 

these fluorinated GHGs and N2O using Equation I-11 of this 

subpart. 

 Ci = (IBi – IEi + Ai – Di) (Eq. I-11) 

Where: 

Ci = Annual consumption of input gas i (kg per year). 

IBi = Inventory of input gas i stored in containers at 

the beginning of the reporting year, including 

heels (kg). For containers in service at the 

beginning of a reporting year, account for the 

quantity in these containers as if they were 

full.

IEi = Inventory of input gas i stored in containers at 

the end of the reporting year, including heels 

(kg). For containers in service at the end of a 

reporting year, account for the quantity in 

these containers as if they were full. 

Ai = Acquisitions of input gas i during the year 

through purchases or other transactions, 
Page 237 of 442 

including heels in containers returned to the 

electronics manufacturing facility (kg). 

Di = Disbursements of input gas i through sales or 

other transactions during the year, including 

heels in containers returned by the electronics 

manufacturing facility to the chemical supplier, 

as calculated using Equation I-12 of this 

subpart (kg). 

i = Input gas. 

(d) You must calculate disbursements of input gas i 

using facility-wide gas-specific heel factors, as 

determined in §98.94(b), and by using Equation I-12 of this 

subpart. 

( ) i (Eq. I-12) 

M

l

i = ∑ ililil + XFNhD =1

**

Where: 

Di = Disbursements of input gas i through sales or 

other transactions during the reporting year, 

including heels in containers returned by the 

electronics manufacturing facility to the gas 

distributor (kg). 

hil = Facility-wide gas-specific heel factor for input 

gas i and container size and type l (expressed 

as a decimal fraction), as determined in 

§98.94(b). If your facility uses less than 50 

kg of a fluorinated GHG or N2O in one reporting 

year, you may assume that any hil for that 

fluorinated GHG or N2O is equal to zero. 

Nil = Number of containers of size and type l returned 

to the gas distributor containing the standard 

heel of input gas i. 

Fil = Full capacity of containers of size and type l 

containing input gas i (kg). 

Xi = Disbursements under exceptional circumstances of 

input gas i through sales or other transactions 
Page 238 of 442 

during the year (kg). These include returns of 

containers whose contents have been weighed due 

to an exceptional circumstance as specified in 

§98.94(b)(4). 

i = Input gas. 

l = Size and type of gas container. 

M = The total number of different sized container 

types. If only one size and container type is 

used for an input gas i, M=1. 

(e) You must calculate the amount of input gas i 

consumed for each individual recipe (including those in a 

set of similar recipes) process sub-type, or process type 

j, using Equation I-13 of this subpart. 

 Cij = fij * Ci (Eq. I-13) 

Where: 

Ci,j = The annual amount of input gas i consumed for 

recipe, process sub-type, or process type j 

(kg). 

fi,j = Recipe-specific, process sub-type-specific, or 

process type-specific input gas i apportioning 

factor (expressed as a decimal fraction), as 

determined in accordance with §98.94(c). 

Ci = Annual consumption of input gas i as calculated 

using Equation I-11 of this subpart (kg). 

i = Input gas. 

j = Recipe, process sub-type, or process type. 

(f) If you report controlled emissions pursuant to 

§98.94(f), you must calculate the fraction of input gas i 

destroyed in abatement systems for each individual recipe 

(including those in a set of similar recipes) process sub-
Page 239 of 442 

type, or process type j by using Equation I-14 of this 

subpart. 

∑

∑

=

p

ijp

p

pijpijp

ji C

udC

d

**

, (Eq. I-14) 

Where: 

dij = Fraction of input gas i destroyed or removed 

in abatement systems connected to process 

tools where recipe, process sub-type, or 

process type j is used (expressed as a decimal 

fraction). 

Cijp = The amount of input gas i consumed for recipe, 

process sub-type, or process type j fed into 

abatement system p (kg). 

dijp = Destruction or removal efficiency for input 

gas i in abatement system p connected to 

process tools where recipe, process sub-type, 

or process type j is used (expressed as a 

decimal fraction). This is zero unless the 

facility adheres to requirements in §98.94(f). 

up = The uptime of abatement system p as calculated 

in Equation I-15 of this subpart (expressed as 

a decimal fraction). 

i = Input gas. 

j = Recipe, process sub-type, or process type. 

p = Abatement system. 

(g) If you report controlled emissions pursuant to 

§98.94(f), you must calculate the uptime by using Equation 

I-15 of this subpart. 

p

p

p T

t

u = (Eq. I-15) 
Page 240 of 442 

Where: 

up = The uptime of abatement system p (expressed as a 

decimal fraction). 

tp = The total time in which abatement system p is in 

an operational mode when fluorinated GHGs or N2O 

are flowing through production process tool(s) 

connected to abatement system p (hours). 

Tp = Total time in which fluorinated GHGs or N2O are 

flowing through production process tool(s) 

connected to abatement system p (hours). 

p = Abatement system. 

(h) If you use fluorinated heat transfer fluids, you 

must report the annual emissions of fluorinated GHG heat 

transfer fluids using the mass balance approach described 

in Equation I-16 of this subpart. 

EHi = (* −−+−+ DIRNPIdensity iiEiiiiBi 001.0*) (Eq. I-16) 

Where: 

EHi = Emissions of fluorinated GHG heat transfer 

fluid i, (metric tons/year). 

Densityi = Density of fluorinated heat transfer fluid i 

(kg/l). 

IiB = Inventory of fluorinated heat transfer fluid i 

in containers other than equipment at the 

beginning of the reporting year (in stock or 

storage) (l). The inventory at the beginning 

of the reporting year must be the same as the 

inventory at the end of the previous reporting 

year. 

Pi = Acquisitions of fluorinated heat transfer 

fluid i during the reporting year (l), 

including amounts purchased from chemical 

suppliers, amounts purchased from equipment 

suppliers with or inside of equipment, and 
Page 241 of 442 

amounts returned to the facility after offsite recycling. 

Ni = Total nameplate capacity (full and proper 

charge) of equipment that uses fluorinated 

heat transfer fluid i and that is newly 

installed during the reporting year (l). 

Ri = Total nameplate capacity (full and proper 

charge) of equipment that uses fluorinated 

heat transfer fluid i and that is removed from 

service during the reporting year (l). 

IiE = Inventory of fluorinated heat transfer fluid i 

in containers other than equipment at the end 

of the reporting year (in stock or 

storage)(l). 

Di = Disbursements of fluorinated heat transfer 

fluid i during the reporting year, including 

amounts returned to chemical suppliers, sold 

with or inside of equipment, and sent off-site 

for verifiable recycling or destruction (l). 

Disbursements should include only amounts that 

are properly stored and transported so as to 

prevent emissions in transit. 

0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons. 

i = Heat transfer fluid. 

§98.94 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements. 

 (a) For calendar year 2011 monitoring, you may 

follow the provisions in paragraphs (a)(1) - (a)(3) of this 

section for best available monitoring methods. 

(1) Best available monitoring methods. From January 

1, 2011 through June 30, 2011, owners or operators may use 

best available monitoring methods for any parameter that 

cannot reasonably be measured according to the monitoring 

and QA/QC requirements of this subpart. The owner or 
Page 242 of 442 

operator must use the calculation methodologies and 

equations in §98.93, but may use the best available 

monitoring method for any parameter for which it is not 

reasonably feasible to acquire, install, or operate a 

required piece of monitoring equipment in a facility, or to 

procure necessary measurement services by January 1, 2011. 

Starting no later than July 1, 2011, the owner or operator 

must discontinue using best available monitoring methods 

and begin following all applicable monitoring and QA/QC 

requirements of this part, except as provided in paragraphs 

(a)(2), (a)(3), or (a)(4) of this section. Best available 

monitoring methods means any of the following methods 

specified in this paragraph: 

(i) Monitoring methods currently used by the facility 

that do not meet the specifications of this subpart. 

(ii) Supplier data. 

(iii) Engineering calculations. 

(iv) Other company records. 

(2) Requests for extension of the use of best 

available monitoring methods in 2011 for parameters other 

than recipe- specific utilization and by-product formation 

rates for the plasma etching process type. With respect to 

any provision of this subpart except §98.93(a)(2)(ii)(A), 

the owner or operator may submit a request to the 
Page 243 of 442 

Administrator under this paragraph (a)(2) to use one or 

more best available monitoring methods to estimate 

emissions that occur between July 1, 2011 and December 31, 

2011. 

(i) Timing of request. The extension request must be 

submitted to EPA no later than February 28, 2011. 

(ii) Content of request. Requests must contain the 

following information: 

(A) A list of specific items of monitoring 

instrumentation and measuring services for which the 

request is being made and the locations where each piece of 

monitoring instrumentation will be installed and where each 

measurement service will be provided. 

(B) Identification of the specific rule requirements 

for which the instrumentation or measurement service is 

needed. 

(C) A description of the reasons why the needed 

equipment could not be obtained, installed, or operated or 

why the needed measurement service could not be provided 

before July 1, 2011. 

 (D) If the reason for the extension is that the 

equipment cannot be purchased, delivered, or installed 

before July 1, 2011, include supporting documentation such 

as the date the monitoring equipment was ordered, 
Page 244 of 442 

investigation of alternative suppliers, and the dates by 

which alternative vendors promised delivery or 

installation, backorder notices or unexpected delays, 

descriptions of actions taken to expedite delivery or 

installation, and the current expected date of delivery or 

installation. 

(E) If the reason for the extension is that service 

providers were unable to provide necessary measurement 

services, include supporting documentation demonstrating 

that these services could not be acquired before July 1, 

2011. This documentation must include written 

correspondence to and from at least three service providers 

stating that they will not be available to provide the 

necessary services before July 1, 2011. 

 (F) A detailed description of the specific best 

available monitoring methods that the facility will use in 

place of the required methods. 

(G) A description of the specific actions the owner 

or operator will take to comply with monitoring 

requirements by January 1, 2012. 

(iii) Approval criteria. To obtain approval, the 

owner or operator must demonstrate to the Administrator’s 

satisfaction that by July 1, 2011, it is not reasonably 

feasible to acquire, install, or operate the required piece 
Page 245 of 442 

of monitoring equipment, or procure necessary measurement 

services to comply with the requirements of this subpart. 

As a condition for allowing the use of best available 

monitoring methods through December 31, 2011, facilities 

must recalculate and resubmit their 2011 estimated 

emissions using the requirements of this subpart. Where a 

facility is allowed to use best available monitoring 

methods for apportioning gas consumption under §98.94(c), 

it is not required to verify its 2011 engineering model 

with its recalculated report. The facility’s recalculated 

emissions must be reported with its report for the 2012 

reporting year (to be submitted in 2013) unless the 

facility receives an additional extension under paragraph 

(a)(4) of this section. 

(3) Requests for extension of the use of best 

available monitoring methods in 2011 for recipe-specific 

utilization and by-product formation rates for the plasma 

etching process type under §98.93(a)(2)(ii)(A). The owner 

or operator may submit a request to the Administrator under 

this paragraph (a)(3) to use one or more best available 

monitoring methods to estimate emissions that occur between 

July 1, 2011 and December 31, 2011 for recipe-specific 

utilization and by-product formation rates for the etching 

process type under §98.93(a)(2)(ii)(A). 
Page 246 of 442 

(i) Timing of request. The extension request must be 

submitted to EPA no later than June 30, 2011. 

(ii) Content of request. Requests must contain the 

following information: 

(A) The information outlined in paragraphs 

(a)(2)(ii)(A) through (F) of this section, substituting 

December 31, 2011 for July 1, 2011. 

(B) A description of the specific actions the owner 

or operator will take to comply with monitoring 

requirements by January 1, 2012. 

(iii) Approval criteria. To obtain approval, the 

owner or operator must demonstrate to the Administrator’s 

satisfaction that by December 31, 2011 it is not reasonably 

feasible to acquire, install, or operate the required piece 

of monitoring equipment or procure necessary measurement 

services to comply with the requirements of this subpart. 

As a condition for allowing the use of best available 

monitoring methods through December 31, 2011, facilities 

must recalculate and resubmit their 2011 estimated 

emissions using the requirements of this subpart. The 

facility’s recalculated emissions must be reported with its 

report for the 2012 reporting year (to be submitted in 

2013) unless the facility receives an additional extension 

under paragraph (a)(4) of this section. 
Page 247 of 442 

(4) Requests for extension of the use of best 

available monitoring methods beyond 2011. EPA does not 

anticipate approving the use of best available monitoring 

methods beyond December 31, 2011; however, EPA reserves the 

right to approve any such requests submitted for unique and 

extreme circumstances, which include safety, technical 

infeasibility, or inconsistency with other local, State or 

Federal regulations. 

(i) Timing of request. The extension request must be 

submitted to EPA no later than June 30, 2011. 

(ii) Content of request. Requests must contain the 

following information: 

(A) A list of parameters for which the owner or 

operator is seeking use of best available monitoring 

methods beyond 2011. 

(B) A description of the specific rule requirements 

that the owner or operator cannot meet, including a 

detailed explanation as to why the requirements can not be 

met. 

(C) Detailed description of the unique circumstances 

necessitating an extension, including specific data 

collection issues that do not meet safety regulations, 

technical infeasibility, or specific laws or regulations 

that conflict with data collection. 
Page 248 of 442 

(D) A detailed explanation and supporting 

documentation of how and when the owner or operator will 

receive the required data and/or services to comply with 

the reporting requirements of this subpart in the future. 

(E) A detailed description of the specific best 

available monitoring methods that the facility will use in 

place of the required methods. 

(F) The Administrator reserves the right to require 

that the owner or operator provide additional 

documentation. 

(iii) Approval criteria. To obtain approval, the 

owner or operator must demonstrate to the Administrator’s 

satisfaction that by December 31, 2011 (or in the case of 

facilities that are required to calculate and report 

emissions in accordance with §98.93(a)(2)(ii)(A), December 

31, 2012), it is not reasonably feasible to acquire, 

install, or operate the required piece of monitoring 

equipment according to the requirements of this subpart. 

As a condition for allowing the use of best available 

monitoring methods through December 31, 2012, facilities 

must recalculate and resubmit their 2012 estimated 

emissions using the requirements of this subpart. Where a 

facility is allowed to use best available monitoring 

methods for apportioning gas consumption under §98.94(c), 
Page 249 of 442 

it is not required to verify its 2012 engineering model 

with its recalculated report. The facility’s recalculated 

emissions must be reported with its report for the 2013 

reporting year (to be submitted in 2014). 

(b) For purposes of Equation I-12 of this subpart, 

you must estimate facility-wide gas-specific heel factors 

for each container type for each gas used, except for 

fluorinated GHGs or N2O which your facility uses in 

quantities less than 50 kg in one reporting year, according 

to the procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of 

this section. 

(1) Base your facility-wide gas-specific heel factors 

on the trigger point for change out of a container for each 

container size and type for each gas used. Facility-wide 

gas-specific heel factors must be expressed as the ratio of 

the trigger point for change out, in terms of mass, to the 

initial mass in the container, as determined by paragraphs 

(b)(2) and (b)(3) of this section. 

(2) The trigger points for change out you use to 

calculate facility-wide gas-specific heel factors in 

§98.94(b)(1) must be determined by monitoring the mass or 

the pressure of your containers. If you monitor the 

pressure, convert the pressure to mass using the ideal gas 

law, as displayed in Equation I-17 of this subpart, with 
Page 250 of 442 

the appropriate Z value selected based upon the properties 

of the gas. 

 pV=ZnRT (Eq. I-17) 

Where: 

p = Absolute pressure of the gas (Pa). 

V = Volume of the gas (m3). 

Z = Compressibility factor. 

n = Amount of substance of the gas (moles). 

R = Gas constant (8.314 Joule/Kelvin mole). 

T = Absolute temperature (K). 

(3) The initial mass you use to calculate a facilitywide gas-specific heel factor in §98.94(b)(1) may be based 

on the weight of the gas provided to you in gas supplier 

documents; however, you remain responsible for the accuracy 

of these masses and weights under this subpart. 

(4) If a container is changed in an exceptional 

circumstance, you must weigh that container or measure the 

pressure of that container with a pressure gauge, in place 

of using a heel factor to determine the residual weight of 

gas. An exceptional circumstance is a change out point 

that differs by more than 20 percent from the trigger point 

for change out used to calculate your facility-wide gasspecific heel factor for that gas and container type. When 

using mass-based trigger points for change out, you must 
Page 251 of 442 

determine if an exceptional circumstance has occurred based 

on the net weight of gas in the container, excluding the 

tare weight of the container. 

(5) You must re-calculate a facility-wide gasspecific heel factor if you use a trigger point for change 

out for a gas and container type that differs by more than 

5 percent from the previously used trigger point for change 

out for that gas and container type. 

(c) You must develop apportioning factors for 

fluorinated GHG and N2O consumption to use in Equation I-13 

of this subpart for each input gas i, as appropriate, using 

a facility-specific engineering model that is documented in 

your site GHG Monitoring Plan as required under 

§98.3(g)(5). This model must be based on a quantifiable 

metric, such as wafer passes or wafer starts. To verify 

your model, you must demonstrate its precision and accuracy 

by adhering to the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) and 

(c)(2) of this section. 

(1) You must demonstrate that the fluorinated GHG and 

N2O apportioning factors are developed using calculations 

that are repeatable, as defined in §98.98. 

(2) You must demonstrate the accuracy of your 

facility-specific model by comparing the actual amount of 

input gas i consumed and the modeled amount of input gas i 
Page 252 of 442 

consumed for the plasma etching and chamber cleaning 

process types, as follows: 

(i) You must analyze at least a 30-day period of 

operation during which the capacity utilization equals or 

exceeds 60 percent of its design capacity. In the event 

your facility operates below 60 percent of its design 

capacity during the reporting year, you must use the period 

during which the facility experiences its highest 30-day 

average utilization for model verification. 

(ii) You must compare the actual gas consumed of 

input gas i to the modeled gas consumed of input gas i for 

one fluorinated GHG reported under this subpart under the 

plasma etching process type and the chamber cleaning 

process type. You must certify that the fluorinated GHGs 

selected for comparison correspond to the largest 

quantities, on a mass basis, of fluorinated GHGs used at 

your facility during the reporting year for the plasma 

etching process type and the chamber cleaning process type. 

(iii) You must demonstrate that the comparison 

performed for the largest quantity of gas, on a mass basis, 

consumed under the plasma etching process type in paragraph 

(c)(2)(ii) of this section, does not result in a difference 

between the actual and modeled gas consumption that exceeds 

five percent relative to actual gas consumption, reported 
Page 253 of 442 

to one significant figure using standard rounding 

conventions. 

(d) If you use factors for fluorinated GHG process 

utilization and by-product formation rates other than the 

defaults provided in Tables I-3, I-4, I-5, I-6, and I-7 to 

this subpart, you must use utilization and by-product 

formation rates that are developed with measurements made 

using the International SEMATECH #06124825A-ENG 

(incorporated by reference, see §98.7). You may use 

recipe-specific utilization and by-product formation rates 

that were measured using the International SEMATECH 

#01104197A-XFR (incorporated by reference, see §98.7) 

provided the measurements were made prior to January 1, 

2007. You may use recipe-specific utilization and byproduct formation rates measured by a third party, such as 

a manufacturing equipment supplier, if the conditions in 

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

(1) The third party has measured recipe-specific 

utilization and by-product formation rates using the 

International SEMATECH #06124825A-ENG (incorporated by 

reference, see §98.7,) or the International SEMATECH 

#01104197A-XFR (incorporated by reference, see §98.7) 

provided the measurements were made prior to January 1, 

2007. 
Page 254 of 442 

(2) Measurements made by a third party to develop 

recipe-specific utilization and by-product formation rates 

must have been made for recipes that are similar recipes to 

those used at your facility, as defined in §98.98. 

(e) If you use N2O utilization factors other than the 

defaults provided in Table I-8 to this subpart, you must 

use factors developed with measurements made using the 

International SEMATECH #06124825A-ENG (incorporated by 

reference, see §98.7). You may use measurements made using 

the International SEMATECH #01104197A-XFR (incorporated by 

reference, see §98.7) provided the measurements were made 

prior to January 1, 2007. You may use N2O utilization 

factors measured by a third party, such as a manufacturing 

equipment supplier, if the conditions in paragraphs (e)(1) 

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

(1) The third party has measured N2O utilization 

factors using the International SEMATECH #06124825A-ENG 

(incorporated by reference, see §98.7,) or the 

International SEMATECH #01104197A-XFR (incorporated by 

reference, see §98.7) provided the measurements were made 

prior to January 1, 2007. 

(2) The conditions under which the measurements were 

made are representative of your facility’s N2O emitting 

production processes. 
Page 255 of 442 

(f) If your facility employs abatement systems and 

you wish to reflect emission reductions due to these 

systems in calculations in §98.93, you must adhere to the 

procedures in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section. 

If you use the default destruction or removal efficiency of 

60 percent, you must adhere to procedures in paragraph 

(f)(3) of this section. If you use either a properly 

measured destruction or removal efficiency as defined in 

§98.98, or a class average of properly measured destruction 

or removal efficiencies during a reporting year, you must 

adhere to procedures in paragraph (f)(4) of this section. 

(1) You must certify and document that the abatement 

systems are properly installed, operated, and maintained 

according to manufacturers’ specifications by adhering to 

the procedures in paragraphs (1)(i) and (1)(ii) of this 

section. 

(i) You must certify and document proper installation 

by verifying your systems were installed in accordance with 

the manufacturers' specifications. 

(ii) You must certify and document your systems are 

operated and maintained in accordance with the 

manufacturers’ specifications. 

(2) You must calculate and report the uptime of 

abatement systems using Equation I-15 of this subpart. 
Page 256 of 442 

(3) To report emissions using the default destruction 

or removal efficiency of 60 percent, you must certify and 

document that the abatement systems at your facility are 

specifically designed for fluorinated GHG and N2O abatement. 

(4) If you do not use the default destruction or 

removal efficiency value to calculate and report controlled 

emissions, you must use either a properly measured 

destruction or removal efficiency, or a class average of 

properly measured destruction or removal efficiencies, 

determined in accordance with procedures in paragraphs 

(f)(4)(i) through (f)(4)(v) of this section. 

(i) A properly measured destruction or removal 

efficiency value must be determined in accordance with EPA 

430-R-10-003 (incorporated by reference, see §98.7). 

(ii) You must annually select and properly measure 

the destruction or removal efficiency for a random sample 

of abatement systems to include in a random sampling 

abatement system testing program (RSASTP) in accordance 

with procedures in paragraphs (f)(4)(ii)(A) and 

(f)(4)(ii)(B) of this section. 

(A) Each reporting year for each abatement system 

class a random sample of three or 20 percent of installed 

abatement systems, whichever is greater, must be tested. 

If 20 percent of the total number of abatement systems in 
Page 257 of 442 

each class does not equate to a whole number, the number of 

systems to be tested must be determined by rounding up to 

the nearest integer. 

(B) You must select the random sample each reporting 

year for the RSASTP without repetition of previouslymeasured systems in the sample, until all systems in each 

class are properly measured in a 5-year period. 

(iii) If you have measured the destruction or removal 

efficiency of a particular abatement system during the 

previous 2-year period, you must calculate emissions from 

that system using the most recently measured destruction or 

removal efficiency for that particular system. 

(iv) If the destruction or removal efficiency of an 

individual abatement system has not been properly measured 

during the previous 2-year period, you may use a simple 

average of the properly measured destruction or removal 

efficiencies for systems of that class, in accordance with 

the RSASTP. Your facility must maintain or exceed the 

RSASTP schedule if you wish to apply class average 

destruction or removal efficiency factors to abatement 

systems that have not yet been properly measured. 

(v) If your facility uses redundant abatement 

systems, you may account for the total abatement system 
Page 258 of 442 

uptime calculated for a specific exhaust stream during the 

reporting year. 

(g) You must adhere to the QA/QC procedures of this 

paragraph when calculating fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions 

from electronics manufacturing production processes: 

(1) Follow the QA/QC procedures in the International 

SEMATECH #06124825A-ENG (incorporated by reference, see 

§98.7) when measuring and calculating facility-specific, 

recipe-specific fluorinated GHG and N2O utilization and byproduct formation rates. 

(2) Where you use facility-specific, recipe-specific 

fluorinated GHG and N2O utilization and by-product formation 

rates measured prior to January 1, 2007, verify that the 

QA/QC procedures in the International SEMATECH #01104197AXFR (incorporated by reference, see §98.7) were followed 

during measurement and calculation of the factors. 

(3) Follow the QA/QC procedures in accordance with 

those in EPA 430-R-10-003 (incorporated by reference, see 

§98.7) when calculating abatement systems destruction or 

removal efficiencies. 

(4) Demonstrate that as part of normal facility 

operations the inventory of gas stored in containers at the 

beginning of the reporting year is the same as the 
Page 259 of 442 

inventory of gas stored in containers at the end of the 

previous reporting year. 

(h) You must adhere to the QA/QC procedures of this 

paragraph (h) when calculating annual gas consumption for 

each fluorinated GHG and N2O used at your facility and 

fluorinated GHG emissions from heat transfer fluid use. 

(1) Review all inputs to Equations I-11 and I-16 of 

this subpart to ensure that all inputs and outputs are 

accounted for. 

(2) Do not enter negative inputs into the mass 

balance Equations I-11 and I-16 of this subpart and ensure 

that no negative emissions are calculated. 

(3) Ensure that the inventory at the beginning of one 

reporting year is identical to the inventory reported at 

the end of the previous reporting year. 

(4) Ensure that the total quantity of gas i in 

containers in service at the end of a reporting year is 

accounted for as if the in-service containers were full for 

Equation I-11 of this subpart. Ensure also that the same 

quantity is accounted for in the inventory of input gas i 

stored in containers at the beginning of the subsequent 

reporting year. 

(i) All flowmeters, weigh scales, pressure gauges, 

and thermometers used to measure quantities that are 
Page 260 of 442 

monitored under this section or used in calculations under 

§98.93 must have an accuracy and precision of one percent 

of full scale or better. 

§98.95 Procedures for estimating missing data.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this 

section, a complete record of all measured parameters used 

in the fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions calculations in 

§98.93 and §98.94 is required. 

(b) If you use heat transfer fluids at your facility 

and are missing data for one or more of the parameters in 

Equation I-16 of this subpart, you must estimate heat 

transfer fluid emissions using the arithmetic average of 

the emission rates for the reporting year immediately 

preceding the period of missing data and the months 

immediately following the period of missing data. 

Alternatively, you may estimate missing information using 

records from the heat transfer fluid supplier. You must 

document the method used and values used for all missing 

data values. 

§98.96 Data reporting requirements. 

In addition to the information required by §98.3(c), 

you must include in each annual report the following 

information for each electronics manufacturing facility: 
Page 261 of 442 

(a) Annual manufacturing capacity of your facility as 

determined in Equation I-5 of this subpart. 

(b) For facilities that manufacture semiconductors, 

the diameter of wafers manufactured at your facility (mm). 

(c) Annual emissions of: 

(1) Each fluorinated GHG emitted from each process 

type for which your facility is required to calculate 

emissions as calculated in Equations I-6 and I-7 of this 

subpart. 

(2) Each fluorinated GHG emitted from each individual 

recipe (including those in a set of similar recipes), or 

process sub-type as calculated in Equations I-8 and I-9 of 

this subpart, as applicable. 

(3) N2O emitted from each chemical vapor deposition 

process and from other N2O-using manufacturing processes as 

calculated in Equation I-10 of this subpart. 

(4) Each heat transfer fluid emitted as calculated in 

Equation 1-16 of this subpart. 

(d) The method of emissions calculation used in 

§98.93. 

(e) Annual production in terms of substrate surface 

area (e.g., silicon, PV-cell, glass). 

(f) When you use factors for fluorinated GHG process 

utilization and by-product formation rates other than the 
Page 262 of 442 

defaults provided in Tables I-3, I-4, I-5, I-6, and I-7 to 

this subpart and/or N2O utilization factors other than the 

defaults provided in Table I-8 to this subpart, you must 

report the following, as applicable: 

(1) The recipe-specific utilization and by-product 

formation rates for each individual recipe (or set of 

similar recipes) and/or facility-specific N2O utilization 

factors. 

(2) For recipe-specific utilization and by-product 

formation rates, the film or substrate that was 

etched/cleaned and the feature type that was etched, as 

applicable. 

(3) Certification that the recipes included in a set 

of similar recipes are similar, as defined in §98.98. 

(4) Certification that the measurements for all 

reported recipe-specific utilization and by-product 

formation rates and/or facility-specific N2O utilization 

factors were made using the International SEMATECH 

#06124825A-ENG (incorporated by reference, see §98.7), or 

the International SEMATECH #01104197A-XFR (incorporated by 

reference, see §98.7) if measurements were made prior to 

January 1, 2007. 
Page 263 of 442 

(5) Source of the recipe-specific utilization and byproduct formation rates and/or facility-specific-N2O 

utilization factors. 

(6) Certification that the conditions under which the 

measurements were made for facility-specific N2O utilization 

factors are representative of your facility’s N2O emitting 

production processes. 

(g) Annual gas consumption for each fluorinated GHG 

and N2O as calculated in Equation I-11 of this subpart, 

including where your facility used less than 50 kg of a 

particular fluorinated GHG or N2O during the reporting year. 

For all fluorinated GHGs and N2O used at your facility for 

which you have not calculated emissions using Equations I6, I-7, I-8, I-9, and I-10 of this subpart, the chemical 

name of the GHG used, the annual consumption of the gas, 

and a brief description of its use. 

(h) All inputs used to calculate gas consumption in 

Equation I-11 of this subpart, for each fluorinated GHG and 

N2O used. 

(i) Disbursements for each fluorinated GHG and N2O 

during the reporting year, as calculated using Equation I12 of this subpart. 

(j) All inputs used to calculate disbursements for 

each fluorinated GHG and N2O used in Equation I-12 of this 
Page 264 of 442 

subpart, including all facility-wide gas-specific heel 

factors used for each fluorinated GHG and N2O. If your 

facility used less than 50 kg of a particular fluorinated 

GHG during the reporting year, facility-wide gas-specific 

heel factors do not need to be reported for those gases. 

(k) Annual amount of each fluorinated GHG consumed 

for each recipe, process sub-type, or process type, as 

appropriate, and the annual amount of N2O consumed for each 

chemical vapor deposition and other electronics 

manufacturing production processes, as calculated using 

Equation I-13 of this subpart. 

(l) All apportioning factors used to apportion 

fluorinated GHG and N2O consumption. 

(m) For the facility-specific apportioning model used 

to apportion fluorinated GHG and N2O consumption under 

§98.94(c), the following information to determine it is 

verified in accordance with procedures in §98.94(c)(1) and 

(2): 

(i) Identification of the quantifiable metric used in 

your facility-specific engineering model to apportion gas 

consumption. 

(ii) The start and end dates selected under 

§98.94(c)(2)(i). 
Page 265 of 442 

(iii) Certification that the gases you selected under 

§98.94(c)(2)(ii) correspond to the largest quantities 

consumed on a mass basis, at your facility in the reporting 

year for the plasma etching process type and the chamber 

cleaning process type. 

(iv) The result of the calculation comparing the 

actual and modeled gas consumption under §98.94(c)(2)(iii). 

(n) Fraction of each fluorinated GHG or N2O fed into a 

recipe, process sub-type, or process type that is fed into 

tools connected to abatement systems. 

(o) Fraction of each fluorinated GHG or N2O destroyed 

or removed in abatement systems connected to process tools 

where recipe, process sub-type, or process type j is used, 

as well as all inputs and calculations used to determine 

the inputs for Equation I-14 of this subpart. 

(p) Inventory and description of all abatement 

systems through which fluorinated GHGs or N2O flow at your 

facility, including the number of devices of each 

manufacturer, model numbers, manufacturer claimed 

fluorinated GHG and N2O destruction or removal efficiencies, 

if any, and records of destruction or removal efficiency 

measurements over their in-use lives. The inventory of 

abatement systems must describe the tools with model 
Page 266 of 442 

numbers and the recipe(s), process sub-type, or process 

type for which these systems treat exhaust. 

(q) For each abatement system through which 

fluorinated GHGs or N2O flow at your facility, for which you 

are reporting controlled emissions, the following: 

(1) Certification that each abatement system has been 

installed, maintained, and operated in accordance with 

manufacturers’ specifications. 

(2) All inputs and results of calculations made 

accounting for the uptime of abatement systems used during 

the reporting year, in accordance with Equations I-14 and 

I-15 of this subpart. 

(3) The default destruction or removal efficiency 

value or properly measured destruction or removal 

efficiencies for each abatement system used in the 

reporting year. 

(4) Where the default destruction or removal 

efficiency value is used to report controlled emissions, 

certification that the abatement systems for which 

emissions are being reported were specifically designed for 

fluorinated GHG and N2O abatement. You must support this 

certification by providing abatement system supplier 

documentation stating that the system was designed for 

fluorinated GHG and N2O abatement. 
Page 267 of 442 

(5) Where properly measured destruction or removal 

efficiencies or class averages of destruction or removal 

efficiencies are used, the following must also be reported: 

(i) A description of the class, including the 

abatement system manufacturer and model number and the 

fluorinated GHG(s) and N2O in the effluent stream. 

(ii) The total number of systems in that class for 

the reporting year. 

(iii) The total number of systems for which 

destruction or removal efficiency was properly measured in 

that class for the reporting year. 

(iv) A description of the calculation used to 

determine the class average, including all inputs to the 

calculation. 

(v) A description of the method used for randomly 

selecting class members for testing. 

(r) For heat transfer fluid emissions, inputs to the 

heat transfer fluid mass balance equation, Equation I-16 of 

this subpart, for each fluorinated GHG used. 

(s) Where missing data procedures were used to 

estimate inputs into the heat transfer fluid mass balance 

equation under §98.95(b), the number of times missing data 

procedures were followed in the reporting year, the method 
Page 268 of 442 

used to estimate the missing data, and the estimates of 

those data. 

 (t) A brief description of each “best available 

monitoring method” used according to §98.94(a), the 

parameter measured or estimated using the method, and the 

time period during which the “best available monitoring 

method” was used. 

§98.97 Records that must be retained. 

In addition to the information required by §98.3(g), 

you must retain the following records: 

(a) All data used and copies of calculations made as 

part of estimating gas consumption and emissions, including 

all spreadsheets. 

(b) Documentation for the values used for fluorinated 

GHG and N2O utilization and by-product formation rates. If 

you use facility-specific and recipe-specific utilization 

and by-product formation rates, the following records must 

also be retained, as applicable: 

(1) Complete documentation and final report for 

measurements for recipe-specific utilization and by-product 

formation rates demonstrating that the values were measured 

using International SEMATECH #06124825A-ENG (incorporated 

by reference, see §98.7) or, if the measurements were made 
Page 269 of 442 

prior to January 1, 2007, International SEMATECH 

#01104197A-XFR (incorporated by reference, see §98.7). 

(2) Documentation that recipe-specific utilization 

and by-product formation rates developed for your facility 

are measured for recipes that are similar to those used at 

your facility, as defined in §98.98. The documentation 

must include, at a minimum, recorded to the appropriate 

number of significant figures, reactor pressure, flow 

rates, chemical composition, applied RF power, direct 

current (DC) bias, temperature, flow stabilization time, 

and duration. 

(3) Documentation that your facility’s N2O 

measurements are representative of the N2O emitting 

processes at your facility. 

(4) The date and results of the initial and any 

subsequent tests to determine utilization and by-product 

formation rates. 

(c) Documentation for the facility-specific 

engineering model used to apportion fluorinated GHG and N2O 

consumption. This documentation must be part of your site 

GHG Monitoring Plan as required under §98.3(g)(5). At a 

minimum, you must retain the following: 

(1) A clear, detailed description of the facilityspecific model, including how it was developed; the 
Page 270 of 442 

quantifiable metric used in the model; all sources of 

information, equations, and formulas, each with clear 

definitions of terms and variables; and a clear record of 

any changes made to the model while it was used to 

apportion fluorinated GHG and N2O consumption across 

individual recipes (including those in a set of similar 

recipes), process sub-types, and/or process types. 

(2) Sample calculations used for developing a recipespecific, process sub-type-specific, or process typespecific gas apportioning factors (fij) for the two 

fluorinated GHGs used at your facility in the largest 

quantities, on a mass basis, during the reporting year. 

(d) For each abatement system through which 

fluorinated GHGs or N2O flow at your facility, for which you 

are reporting controlled emissions, the following: 

(1) Documentation to certify the abatement system is 

installed, maintained, and operated in accordance with 

manufacturers’ specifications. 

(2) Abatement system calibration and maintenance 

records. 

(3) Where the default destruction or removal 

efficiency value is used, documentation from the abatement 

system supplier describing the equipment’s designed purpose 
Page 271 of 442 

and emission control capabilities for fluorinated GHG and 

N2O. 

(4) Where properly measured DRE is used to report 

emissions, dated certification by the technician who made 

the measurement that the destruction or removal efficiency 

is calculated in accordance with methods in EPA 430-R-10-

003 (incorporated by reference, see §98.7), complete 

documentation of the results of any initial and subsequent 

tests, and the final report as specified in EPA 430-R-10-

003 (incorporated by reference, see §98.7). 

(e) Purchase records for gas purchased. 

(f) Invoices for gas purchases and sales. 

(g) Documents and records used to monitor and 

calculate abatement system uptime. 

(h) GHG Monitoring Plans, as described in 

§98.3(g)(5), must be completed by April 1, 2011. You must 

update your GHG Monitoring Plan to comply with §98.94(c) 

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

§98.98 Definitions.

Except as provided in this section, all of the terms 

used in this subpart have the same meaning given in the 

Clean Air Act and subpart A of this part. If a conflict 

exists between a definition provided in this subpart and a 

definition provided in subpart A, the definition in this 
Page 272 of 442 

subpart takes precedence for the reporting requirements in 

this subpart. 

Abatement system means a device or equipment that 

destroys or removes fluorinated GHGs and N2O in waste 

streams from one or more electronics manufacturing 

production processes. 

Actual gas consumption means the quantity of gas used 

during wafer/substrate processing over some period based on 

a measured change in gas container weight or gas container 

pressure or on a measured volume of gas. 

By-product formation means the creation of fluorinated 

GHGs during electronics manufacturing production processes 

or the creation of fluorinated GHGs by an abatement system. 

By-product formation is the ratio of the mass of the byproduct formed to the mass flow of the input gas, where, 

for multi-fluorinated-GHG recipes, the denominator 

corresponds to the fluorinated GHG with the largest mass 

flow. 

Chamber cleaning is a process type that consists of 

the process sub-types defined in paragraphs (1) through (3) 

of this definition. 

(1) In situ plasma process sub-type consists of the 

cleaning of thin-film production chambers, after processing 

substrates, with a fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent that is 
Page 273 of 442 

dissociated into its cleaning constituents by a plasma 

generated inside the chamber where the film is produced. 

(2) Remote plasma process sub-type consists of the 

cleaning of thin-film production chambers, after processing 

substrates, with a fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent 

dissociated by a remotely located plasma source. 

(3) In situ thermal process sub-type consists of the 

cleaning of thin-film production chambers, after processing 

substrates, with a fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent that is 

thermally dissociated into its cleaning constituents inside 

the chamber where thin films are produced. 

Class means a category of abatement systems grouped by 

manufacturer model number(s) and by the gas that the system 

abates, including N2O and carbon tetrafluoride (CF4) direct 

emissions and by-product formation, and all other 

fluorinated GHG direct emissions and by-product formation. 

Classes may also include any other abatement systems for 

which the reporting facility wishes to report controlled 

emissions provided that class is identified. 

Controlled emissions means the quantity of emissions 

that are released to the atmosphere after application of an 

emission control device (e.g., abatement system). 

Destruction or removal efficiency (DRE) means the 

efficiency of an abatement system to destroy or remove 
Page 274 of 442 

fluorinated GHGs, N2O, or both. The destruction or removal 

efficiency is equal to one minus the ratio of the mass of 

all relevant GHGs exiting the abatement system to the mass 

of GHG entering the abatement system. When GHGs are formed 

in an abatement system, destruction or removal efficiency 

is expressed as one minus the ratio of amounts of exiting 

GHGs to the amounts entering the system in units of CO2-

equivalents (CO2e). 

Gas utilization means the fraction of input N2O or 

fluorinated GHG converted to other substances during the 

etching, deposition, and/or wafer and chamber cleaning 

processes. Gas utilization is expressed as a rate or 

factor for specific electronics manufacturing recipes, 

process sub-types, or process types. 

Heat transfer fluids are fluorinated GHGs used for 

temperature control, device testing, and soldering in 

certain types of electronic manufacturing production 

processes. Heat transfer fluids used in the electronics 

sector include perfluoropolyethers, perfluoroalkanes, 

perfluoroethers, tertiary perfluoroamines, and 

perfluorocyclic ethers. Electronics manufacturers may also 

use these same fluorinated chemicals to clean substrate 

surfaces and other parts. 
Page 275 of 442 

Heel means the amount of gas that remains in a gas 

container after it is discharged or off-loaded; heel may 

vary by container type. 

Individual recipe means a specific combination of 

gases, under specific conditions of reactor temperature, 

pressure, flow, radio frequency (RF) power and duration, 

used repeatedly to fabricate a specific feature on a 

specific film or substrate. 

Maximum designed substrate starts means the maximum 

quantity of substrates, expressed as surface area, that 

could be started each month during a reporting year if the 

facility were fully equipped as defined in the facility 

design specifications and if the equipment were fully 

utilized. It denotes 100 percent of annual manufacturing 

capacity of a facility. 

Modeled gas consumed means the quantity of gas used 

during wafer/substrate processing over some period based on 

a verified facility-specific engineering model used to 

apportion gas consumption. 

Nameplate capacity means the full and proper charge of 

chemical specified by the equipment manufacturer to achieve 

the equipment’s specified performance. The nameplate 

capacity is typically indicated on the equipment’s 
Page 276 of 442 

nameplate; it is not necessarily the actual charge, which 

may be influenced by leakage and other emissions. 

Operational mode means the time in which an abatement 

system is being operated within the range of parameters as 

specified in the operations manual provided by the system 

manufacturer. 

Plasma etching is a process type that consists of any 

production process using fluorinated GHG reagents to 

selectively remove materials from a substrate during 

electronics manufacturing. The materials removed may 

include SiO2, SiOx-based or fully organic-based thin-film 

material, SiN, SiON, Si3N4, SiC, SiCO, SiCN, etc. 

(represented by the general chemical formula, SiwOxNyXz where 

w,x,y and z are zero or integers and X may be some other 

element such as carbon), substrate, or metal films (such 

as aluminum or tungsten). 

Process sub-type is a set of similar manufacturing 

steps, more closely related within a broad process type. 

For example, the chamber cleaning process type includes insitu plasma chamber cleaning, remote plasma chamber 

cleaning, and in-situ thermal chamber cleaning sub-types. 

Process types are broad groups of manufacturing steps 

used at a facility associated with substrate (e.g., wafer) 

processing during device manufacture for which fluorinated 
Page 277 of 442 

GHG emissions and fluorinated GHG usages are calculated and 

reported. The process types are Plasma etching, Chamber 

cleaning, and Wafer cleaning. 

 Properly measured destruction or removal efficiency 

means destruction or removal efficiencies measured in 

accordance with EPA 430-R-10-003 (incorporated by 

reference, see §98.7). 

The Random Sampling Abatement System Testing Program 

(RSASTP) means the required frequency for measuring the 

destruction or removal efficiencies of abatement systems in 

order to apply properly measured destruction or removal 

efficiencies to report controlled emissions. 

Redundant abatement systems means a system that is 

specifically designed, installed and operated for the 

purpose of destroying fluorinated GHGs and N2O gases. A 

redundant abatement system is used as a backup to the main 

fluorinated GHGs and N2O abatement system during those times 

when the main system is not functioning or operating in 

accordance with design and operating specifications. 

Repeatable means that the variables used in the 

formulas for the facility’s engineering model for gas 

apportioning factors are based on observable and measurable 

quantities that govern gas consumption rather than 
Page 278 of 442 

engineering judgment about those quantities or gas 

consumption. 

Similar, with respect to recipes, means those recipes 

that are composed of the same set of chemicals and have the 

same flow stabilization times and where the documented 

differences, considered separately, in reactor pressure, 

individual gas flow rates, and applied radio frequency (RF) 

power are less than or equal to plus or minus 10 percent. 

For purposes of comparing and documenting recipes that are 

similar, facilities may use either the best known method 

provided by an equipment manufacturer or the process of 

record, for which emission factors for either have been 

measured. 

Trigger point for change out means the residual weight 

or pressure of a gas container type that a facility uses to 

change out that gas container. 

Uptime means the ratio of the total time during which 

the abatement system is in an operational mode with 

fluorinated GHGs or N2O flowing through production process 

tool(s) connected to that abatement system, to the total 

time during which fluorinated GHGs or N2O are flowing 

through production process tool(s) connected to that 

abatement system. 
Page 279 of 442 

Wafer cleaning is a process type that consists of any 

production process using fluorinated GHG reagents to clean 

wafers at any step during production. 

Wafer passes is a count of the number of times a wafer 

substrate is processed in a specific process recipe, subtype, or type. The total number of wafer passes over a 

reporting year is the number of wafer passes per tool 

multiplied by the number of operational process tools in 

use during the reporting year. 

Wafer starts means the number of fresh wafers that are 

introduced into the fabrication sequence each month. It 

includes test wafers, which means wafers that are exposed 

to all of the conditions of process characterization, 

including but not limited to actual etch conditions or 

actual film deposition conditions. 

Table I-1 to Subpart I of Part 98—Default Emission Factors 

for Threshold Applicability Determination 

Emission Factors EFi

Product Type CF4 C2F6 CHF3 C3F8 NF3 SF6

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

LCD 

(g/m2) 0.50 NA NA NA 0.90 4.00 

MEMS 

(kg/m2) NA NA NA NA NA 1.02 

Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available 

information. 

Table I-2 to Subpart I of Part 98—Examples of Fluorinated 

GHGs Used by the Electronics Industry 

Product Type Fluorinated GHGs Used During Manufacture 
Page 280 of 442 

Electronics CF4, C2F6, C3F8, c-C4F8, c-C4F8O, C4F6, C5F8, 

CHF3, CH2F2, NF3, SF6, and HTFs (CF3-(O-CF(CF3)-

CF2)n-(O-CF2)m-O-CF3, CnF2n+2, CnF2n+1(O)CmF2m+1, 

CnF2nO, (CnF2n+1)3N) 

Table I-3 to Subpart I of Part 98-Default Emission Factors 

(1-Uij) for Gas Utilization Rates (Uij) and By-Product 

Formation Rates (Bijk) for Semiconductor Manufacturing for 

150mm and 200 mm Wafer Sizes 

Process Gas i 

Process Type/Subtype 

CF

4

C2

F6

CHF

3

CH2

F2

C3

F8

cC4F

8 NF3

SF

6

C4

F6

C5

F8

C4F

8O 

Plasma Etching 

 1-Ui

0.

69 

0.

56 

0.3

8 

0.0

93 NA 

0.2

5 

0.03

8 

0.

20 

0.

14 NA NA 

 BCF4 NA 

0.

23 

0.0

26 

0.0

21 NA 

0.1

9 

0.00

40 NA 

0.

13 NA NA 

 BC2F6 NA NA NA NA NA 

0.0

84 NA NA 

0.

12 NA NA 

 BC3F8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

Chamber Cleaning 

In situ plasma cleaning 

 1-Ui

0.

92 

0.

55 NA NA 

0.

40 

0.1

0 0.18 NA NA NA 

0.1

4 

 BCF4 NA 

0.

19 NA NA 

0.

20 

0.1

1 

0.01

1 NA NA NA 

0.1

3 

 BC2F6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

0.0

30 

 BC3F8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

Remote plasma cleaning 

 1-Ui NA NA NA NA NA NA 

0.01

8 NA NA NA NA 

 BCF4 NA NA NA NA NA NA 

0.00

47 NA NA NA NA 

 BC2F6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

 BC3F8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

In situ thermal cleaning 

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

 BCF4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

 BC2F6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

 BC3F8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

Wafer Cleaning 

 1-Ui

0.

77 NA NA 

0.2

4 NA NA 0.23 

0.

20 NA NA NA 

 BCF4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

 BC2F6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 
Page 281 of 442 

Process Gas i 

Process Type/Subtype 

CF

4

C2

F6

CHF

3

CH2

F2

C3

F8

cC4F

8 NF3

SF

6

C4

F6

C5

F8

C4F

8O 

 BC3F8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

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

Table I-4 to Subpart I of Part 98-Default Emission Factors 

(1-Uij) for Gas Utilization Rates (Uij) and By-Product 

Formation Rates (Bijk) for Semiconductor Manufacturing for 

300 mm Wafer Size 

Process Gas i 

Process 

Type/Sub-type 

CF

4

C2

F6

CHF

3

CH2F

2

C3F

8

cC4F

8 NF3

SF

6

C4

F6

C5

F8

C4F

8O 

Plasma Etching 

 1-Ui

0.

80 

0.

80 0.48 0.14 NA 

0.2

9 0.32 

0.

37 

0.

09 NA NA 

 BCF4 NA NA 

0.00

18 

0.001

1 NA 

0.0

79 NA NA 

0.

27 NA NA 

 BC2F6 NA NA 

0.00

11 NA NA 

0.1

2 NA NA 

0.

29 NA NA 

 BC3F8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

Chamber Cleaning 

In situ plasma cleaning 

 1-Ui NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.23 NA NA NA NA 

 BCF4 NA NA NA NA NA NA 

0.00

46 NA NA NA NA 

 BC2F6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

 BC3F8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

Remote Plasma Cleaning

 1-Ui NA NA NA NA 

0.0

63 NA 

0.01

8 NA NA NA NA 

 BCF4 NA NA NA NA NA NA 

0.04

0 NA NA NA NA 

 BC2F6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

 BC3F8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

In Situ Thermal Cleaning

 1-Ui NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.28 NA NA NA NA 

 BCF4 NA NA NA NA NA NA 

0.01

0 NA NA NA NA 

 BC2F6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

 BC3F8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

Wafer Cleaning 

 1-Ui

0.

77 NA NA 0.24 NA NA 0.23 

0.

20 NA NA NA 

 BCF4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 
Page 282 of 442 

Process Gas i 

Process 

Type/Sub-type 

CF

4

C2

F6

CHF

3

CH2F

2

C3F

8

cC4F

8 NF3

SF

6

C4

F6

C5

F8

C4F

8O 

 BC2F6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

 BC3F8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

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

Table I-5 to Subpart I of Part 98—Default Emission Factors 

(1-Uij) for Gas Utilization Rates (Uij) and By-Product 

Formation Rates (Bijk) for MEMS Manufacturing 

Process Gas i 

Process 

Type 

Factors CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2

C3F

8

cC4F8

NF3

Remot

e 

NF3 SF6

C4F6 a

C5F8 aC4F8O a

Etch 1-Ui

0.

7 

0.410.41 0.06 1NA 0.21NA 0.2 0.

2 

0.1 0.2 NA 

Etch BCF4

NA 0.410.07 10.08 1NA 0.2 NA NA NA 0.310.2 NA 

Etch 

BC2F6

NA NA NA NA NA 0.2 NA NA NA 0.210.2 NA 

CVD 1-Ui

0.

9 

0.6 NA NA 0.4 0.1 0.02 0.2 NA NA 0.1 0.1 

CVD BCF4

NA 0.1 NA NA 0.1 0.1 0.022 0.12NA NA 0.1 0.1 

CVD BC3F8

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.4 

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

1

 Estimate includes multi-gas etch processes. 

2

 Estimate reflects presence of low-k, carbide and multi-gas etch 

processes that may contain a C-containing fluorinated GHG 

additive. 

Table I-6 to Subpart I of Part 98—Default Emission Factors 

(1-Uij) for Gas Utilization Rates (Uij) and By-Product 

Formation Rates (Bijk) for LCD Manufacturing 

Process Gas i Process 

Type 

Factors CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C3F8 c-C4F8

NF3

Remote NF3 SF6

Etch 1-Ui

0.6 NA 0.2 NA NA 0.1 NA NA 0.3 

Etch BCF4

NA NA 0.07 NA NA 0.009 NA NA NA 

Etch BCHF3

NA NA NA NA NA 0.02 NA NA NA 

Etch BC2F6

NA NA 0.05 NA NA NA NA NA NA 

CVD 1-Ui

NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.03 0.3 0.9 

Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available 

information. 
Page 283 of 442 

Table I-7 to Subpart I of Part 98—Default Emission Factors 

(1-Uij) for Gas Utilization Rates (Uij) and By-Product 

Formation Rates (Bijk) for PV Manufacturing 

Process Process Gas i 

Type 

Factors CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C3F8

cC4F8

NF3

Remote NF3 SF6

Etch 1-Ui 0.7 0.4 0.4 NA NA 0.2 NA NA 0.4 

Etch BCF4 NA 0.2 NA NA NA 0.1 NA NA NA 

Etch BC2F6 NA NA NA NA NA 0.1 NA NA NA 

CVD 1-Ui NA 0.6 NA NA 0.1 0.1 NA 0.3 0.4 

CVD BCF4 NA 0.2 NA NA 0.2 0.1 NA NA NA 

Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available 

information. 

Table I-8 to Subpart I of Part 98-Default Emission Factors 

(1-UN2O,j) for N2O Utilization (UN2O,j) 

Process Type Factors N2O 

CVD 1-Ui 0.8 

Other Manufacturing Process 1-Ui 1.0 

9. Add subpart L to read as follows: 

Subpart L-Fluorinated Gas Production 

Sec. 

98.120 Definition of the source category. 

98.121 Reporting threshold. 

98.122 GHGs to report. 

98.123 Calculating GHG emissions. 

98.124 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements. 

98.125 Procedures for estimating missing data. 

98.126 Data reporting requirements. 

98.127 Records that must be retained. 

98.128 Definitions. 

Subpart L-Fluorinated Gas Production 

§98.120 Definition of the source category.
Page 284 of 442 

(a) The fluorinated gas production source category 

consists of processes that produce a fluorinated gas from 

any raw material or feedstock chemical, except for 

processes that generate HFC-23 during the production of 

HCFC-22. 

(b) To produce a fluorinated gas means to manufacture 

a fluorinated gas from any raw material or feedstock 

chemical. Producing a fluorinated gas includes producing a 

fluorinated GHG as defined at §98.410(b). Producing a 

fluorinated gas also includes the manufacture of a 

chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) or hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) 

from any raw material or feedstock chemical, including 

manufacture of a CFC or HCFC as an isolated intermediate 

for use in a process that will result in the transformation 

of the CFC or HCFC either at or outside of the production 

facility. Producing a fluorinated gas does not include the 

reuse or recycling of a fluorinated gas, the creation of 

HFC-23 during the production of HCFC-22, the creation of 

intermediates that are created and transformed in a single 

process with no storage of the intermediates, or the 

creation of fluorinated GHGs that are released or destroyed 

at the production facility before the production 

measurement in §98.414(a). 

§98.121 Reporting threshold.
Page 285 of 442 

You must report GHG emissions under this subpart if 

your facility contains a fluorinated gas production process 

that generates or emits fluorinated GHG and the facility 

meets the requirements of either §98.2(a)(1) or (a)(2). To 

calculate GHG emissions for comparison to the 25,000 metric 

ton CO2e per year emission threshold in §98.2(a)(2), 

calculate process emissions from fluorinated gas production 

using uncontrolled GHG emissions. 

§98.122 GHGs to report.

(a) You must report CO2, CH4, and N2O combustion 

emissions from each stationary combustion unit. You must 

calculate and report these emissions under subpart C of 

this part (General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources) by 

following the requirements of subpart C. 

(b) You must report under subpart O of this part 

(HCFC-22 Production and HFC-23 Destruction) the emissions 

of HFC-23 from HCFC-22 production processes and HFC-23 

destruction processes. Do not report the generation and 

emissions of HFC-23 from HCFC-22 production under this 

subpart. 

(c) You must report the total mass of each 

fluorinated GHG emitted from: 

(1) Each fluorinated gas production process and all 

fluorinated gas production processes combined. 
Page 286 of 442 

(2) Each fluorinated gas transformation process that 

is not part of a fluorinated gas production process and all 

such fluorinated gas transformation processes combined, 

except report separately fluorinated GHG emissions from 

transformation processes where a fluorinated GHG reactant 

is produced at another facility. 

(3) Each fluorinated gas destruction process that is 

not part of a fluorinated gas production process or a 

fluorinated gas transformation process and all such 

fluorinated gas destruction processes combined. 

(4) Venting of residual fluorinated GHGs from 

containers returned from the field. 

§98.123 Calculating GHG emissions.

For fluorinated gas production and transformation 

processes, you must calculate the fluorinated GHG emissions 

from each process using either the mass balance method 

specified in paragraph (b) of this section or the emission 

factor or emission calculation factor method specified in 

paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this section, as 

appropriate. For destruction processes that destroy 

fluorinated GHGs that were previously “produced” as defined 

at §98.410(b), you must calculate emissions using the 

procedures in paragraph (f) of this section. For venting 

of residual gas from containers (e.g., cylinder heels), you 
Page 287 of 442 

must calculate emissions using the procedures in paragraph 

(g) of this section. 

(a) Default GWP value. In paragraphs (b)(1) and 

(c)(1) of this section and in §98.124(b)(8) and (c)(2), use 

a GWP of 2,000 for fluorinated GHGs that do not have GWPs 

listed in Table A-1 to subpart A of this part, except as 

provided in paragraph §98.123(c)(1)(vi). Do not report CO2e 

emissions under §98.3(c)(4) for fluorinated GHGs that do 

not have GWPs listed in Table A-1 to subpart A of this 

part. 

(b) Mass balance method. Before using the mass 

balance approach to estimate your fluorinated GHG emissions 

from a process, you must ensure that the process and the 

equipment and methods used to measure it meet either the 

error limits described in this paragraph and calculated 

under paragraph (b)(1) of this section or the requirements 

specified in paragraph §98.124(b)(8). If you choose to 

calculate the error limits, you must estimate the absolute 

and relative errors associated with using the mass balance 

approach on that process using Equations L-1 through L-4 of 

this section in conjunction with Equations L-5 through L-10 

of this section. You may use the mass-balance approach to 

estimate emissions from the process if this calculation 

results in an absolute error of less than or equal to 3,000 
Page 288 of 442 

metric tons CO2e per year or a relative error of less than 

or equal to 30 percent of the estimated CO2e fluorinated GHG 

emissions. If you do not meet either of the error limits 

or the requirements of paragraph §98.124(b)(8), you must 

use the emission factor approach detailed in paragraphs 

(c), (d), and (e) of this section to estimate emissions 

from the process. 

(1) Error calculation. To perform the calculation, 

you must first calculate the absolute and relative errors 

associated with the quantities calculated using either 

Equations L-7 through L-10 of this section or Equation L-17 

of this section. Alternatively, you may estimate these 

errors based on the variability of previous process 

measurements (e.g., the variability of measurements of 

stream concentrations), provided these measurements are 

representative of the current process and current 

measurement devices and techniques. Once errors have been 

calculated for the quantities in these equations, those 

errors must be used to calculate the errors in Equations L6 and L-5 of this section. You may ignore the errors 

associated with Equations L-11, L-12, and L-13 of this 

section. 

(i) Where the measured quantity is a mass, the error 

in the mass must be equated to the accuracy or precision 
Page 289 of 442 

(whichever is larger) of the flowmeter, scale, or 

combination of volumetric and density measurements at the 

flow rate or mass measured. 

(ii) Where the measured quantity is a concentration 

of a stream component, the error of the concentration must 

be equated to the accuracy or precision (whichever is 

larger) with which you estimate the mean concentration of 

that stream component, accounting for the variability of 

the process, the frequency of the measurements, and the 

accuracy or precision (whichever is larger) of the 

analytical technique used to measure the concentration at 

the concentration measured. If the variability of process 

measurements is used to estimate the error, this 

variability shall be assumed to account both for the 

variability of the process and the precision of the 

analytical technique. Use standard statistical techniques 

such as the student’s t distribution to estimate the error 

of the mean of the concentration measurements as a function 

of process variability and frequency of measurement. 

(iii) Equation L-1 of this section provides the 

general formula for calculating the absolute errors of sums 

and differences where the sum, S, is the summation of 

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

 eSA = [(a*ea)2

 + ((b*eb)2 + (c*ec)2 ]1/2 (Eq. L-1)
Page 290 of 442 

Where: 

eSA = Absolute error of the sum, expressed as one half of 

a 95 percent confidence interval. 

ea = Relative error of a, expressed as one half of a 95 

percent confidence interval. 

eb = Relative error of b, expressed as one half of a 95 

percent confidence interval. 

ec = Relative error of c, expressed as one half of a 95 

percent confidence interval. 

(iv) Equation L-2 of this section provides the 

general formula for calculating the relative errors of sums 

and differences: 

( cba )

e

e sA

SR ++ = (Eq. L-2) 

Where: 

eSR = Relative error of the sum, expressed as one half of 

a 95 percent confidence interval. 

eSA = Absolute error of the sum, expressed as one half of 

a 95 percent confidence interval. 

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

(v) Equation L-3 of this section provides the general 

formula for calculating the absolute errors of products 

(e.g., flow rates of GHGs calculated as the product of the 

flow rate of the stream and the concentration of the GHG in 

the stream), where the product, P, is the result of 

multiplying the variables measured, a, b, c, etc. (e.g., P 

= a*b*c): 
Page 291 of 442 

 ePA = (a*b*c)(ea

2

 + eb

2

 + ec

2

)1/2 (Eq. L-3) 

Where: 

ePA = Absolute error of the product, expressed as one 

half of a 95 percent confidence interval. 

ea = Relative error of a, expressed as one half of a 

95 percent confidence interval. 

eb = Relative error of b, expressed as one half of a 

95 percent confidence interval. 

ec = Relative error of c, expressed as one half of a 

95 percent confidence interval. 

(vi) Equation L-4 of this section provides the 

general formula for calculating the relative errors of 

products: 

( cba )

e

e PA

PR ** = (Eq. L-4) 

Where: 

ePR = Relative error of the product, expressed as one 

half of a 95 percent confidence interval. 

ePA = Absolute error of the product, expressed as one 

half of a 95 percent confidence interval. 

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

(vii) Calculate the absolute error of the emissions 

estimate in terms of CO2e by performing a preliminary 

estimate of the annual CO2e emissions of the process using 

the method in paragraph (b)(1)(viii) of this section. 

Multiply this result by the relative error calculated for 
Page 292 of 442 

the mass of fluorine emitted from the process in Equation 

L-6 of this section. 

(viii) To estimate the annual CO2e emissions of the 

process for use in the error estimate, apply the methods 

set forth in paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(7) and (b)(9) 

through (b)(16) of this section to representative process 

measurements. If these process measurements represent less 

than one year of typical process activity, adjust the 

estimated emissions to account for one year of typical 

process activity. To estimate the terms FERd, FEP, and FEBk

for use in the error estimate for Equations L-11, L-12, and 

L-13 of this section, you must either use emission testing, 

monitoring of emitted streams, and/or engineering 

calculations or assessments, or in the alternative assume 

that all fluorine is emitted in the form of the fluorinated 

GHG that has the highest GWP among the fluorinated GHGs 

that occur in more than trace concentrations in the 

process. To convert the fluorinated GHG emissions to CO2e, 

use Equation A-1 of §98.2. For fluorinated GHGs whose GWPs 

are not listed in Table A-1 to subpart A of this part, use 

a default GWP of 2,000. 

(2) The total mass of each fluorinated GHG emitted 

annually from each fluorinated gas production and each 
Page 293 of 442 

fluorinated GHG transformation process must be estimated by 

using Equation L-5 of this section. 

( ) (Eq. L-5) 

1

FGHGfPp FGHGfBp

n

p

EFGHGf E FGHGfRp E − E −

=

= ∑ − + +

Where: 

EFGHGf = Total mass of each fluorinated GHG f emitted 

annually from production or transformation 

process i(metric tons). 

ERp-FGHGf = Total mass of fluorinated GHG reactant f 

emitted from production process i over the 

period p (metric tons, calculated in 

Equation L-11 of this section). 

EPp-FGHGf = Total mass of the fluorinated GHG product f 

emitted from production process i over the 

period p (metric tons, calculated in 

Equation L-12 of this section). 

EBp-FGHGf = Total mass of fluorinated GHG by-product f 

emitted from production process i over the 

period p (metric tons, calculated in 

Equation L-13 of this section). 

n = Number of concentration and flow measurement 

periods for the year. 

(3) The total mass of fluorine emitted from process i 

over the period p must be estimated at least monthly by 

calculating the difference between the total mass of 

fluorine in the reactant(s) (or inputs, for processes that 

do not involve a chemical reaction) and the total mass of 

fluorine in the product (or outputs, for processes that do 

not involve a chemical reaction), accounting for the total 

mass of fluorine in any destroyed or recaptured streams 

that contain reactants, products, or by-products (or inputs 
Page 294 of 442 

or outputs). This calculation must be performed using 

Equation L-6 of this section. An element other than 

fluorine may be used in the mass-balance equation, provided 

the element occurs in all of the fluorinated GHGs fed into 

or generated by the process. In this case, the mass 

fractions of the element in the reactants, products, and 

by-products must be calculated as appropriate for that 

element. 

Rd DP (Eq. L-6) 

v

F ∑( d ) −∗−∗= FMFFPMFFRE

1

Where: 

EF = Total mass of fluorine emitted from process i over 

the period p (metric tons). 

Rd = Total mass of the fluorine-containing reactant d 

that is fed into process i over the period p (metric 

tons). 

P = Total mass of the fluorine-containing product 

produced by process i over the period p (metric 

tons). 

MFFRd = Mass fraction of fluorine in reactant d, calculated 

in Equation L-14 of this section. 

MFFP = Mass fraction of fluorine in the product, calculated 

in Equation L-15 of this section. 

FD = Total mass of fluorine in destroyed or recaptured 

streams from process i containing fluorinecontaining reactants, products, and by-products, 

calculated in Equation L-7 of this section. 

v = Number of fluorine-containing reactants fed into 

process i. 

(4) The mass of total fluorine in destroyed or 

recaptured streams containing fluorine-containing 

reactants, products, and by-products must be estimated at 
Page 295 of 442 

least monthly using Equation L-7 of this section unless you 

use the alternative approach provided in paragraph (b)(15) 

of this section. 

 (Eq. L-7) ∑ ∑∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ = == = = = ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛ +

⎥

⎥

⎦

⎤

⎢

⎢

⎣

⎡

⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛ = + +

v

d

q

j

dj Rd

u

k

Bk

q

j

x

l

P kj kl

q

j

D j MFFPF MFFBB MFFR 1 11 1 1 1

* * *

Where: 

FD = Total mass of fluorine in destroyed or 

recaptured streams from process i containing 

fluorine-containing reactants, products, and byproducts over the period p. 

Pj = Mass of the fluorine-containing product removed 

from process i in stream j and destroyed over 

the period p (calculated in Equation L-8 or L-9 

of this section). 

Bkj = Mass of fluorine-containing by-product k removed 

from process i in stream j and destroyed over 

the period p (calculated in Equation L-8 or L-9 

of this section). 

Bkl = Mass of fluorine-containing by-product k removed 

from process i in stream l and recaptured over 

the period p. 

Rdj = Mass of fluorine-containing reactant d removed 

from process i in stream j and destroyed over 

the period p (calculated in Equation L-8 or L-9 

of this section). 

MFFRd = Mass fraction of fluorine in reactant d, 

calculated in Equation L-14 of this section. 

MFFP = Mass fraction of fluorine in the product, 

calculated in Equation L-15 of this section. 

MFFBk = Mass fraction of fluorine in by-product k, 

calculated in Equation L-16 of this section. 

q = Number of streams destroyed in process i. 

x = Number of streams recaptured in process i. 

u = Number of fluorine-containing by-products 

generated in process i. 

v = Number of fluorine-containing reactants fed into 

process i. 
Page 296 of 442 

(5) The mass of each fluorinated GHG removed from 

process i in stream j and destroyed over the period p 

(i.e., Pj, Bkj, or Rdj, as applicable) must be estimated by 

applying the destruction efficiency of the device that has 

been demonstrated for the fluorinated GHG f to fluorinated 

GHG f using Equation L-8 of this section: 

M FGHGfj = FGHGf FGHGfj** ScDE j (Eq. L-8) 

Where: 

MFGHGfj = Mass of fluorinated GHG f removed from process i 

in stream j and destroyed over the period p. 

(This may be Pj, Bkj, or Rdj, as applicable.) 

DEFGHGf = Destruction efficiency of the device that has 

been demonstrated for fluorinated GHG f in 

stream j (fraction). 

CFGHGfj = Concentration (mass fraction) of fluorinated GHG 

f in stream j removed from process i and fed 

into the destruction device over the period p. 

If this concentration is only a trace 

concentration, cF-GHGfj is equal to zero. 

Sj = Mass removed in stream j from process i and fed 

into the destruction device over the period p 

(metric tons). 

(6) The mass of each fluorine-containing compound 

that is not a fluorinated GHG and that is removed from 

process i in stream j and destroyed over the period p 

(i.e., Pj, Bkj, or Rdj, as applicable) must be estimated 

using Equation L-9 of this section. 

FCgj = FCgj

* ScM j (Eq. L-9) 

Where: 
Page 297 of 442 

MFCgj = Mass of non-fluorinated-GHG fluorine-containing 

compound g removed from process i in stream j 

and destroyed over the period p. (This may be 

Pj, Bkj, or Rdj, as applicable). 

cFCgj = Concentration (mass fraction) of nonfluorinated-GHG fluorine-containing compound g 

in stream j removed from process i and fed into 

the destruction device over the period p. If 

this concentration is only a trace 

concentration, cFCgj is equal to zero. 

Sj = Mass removed in stream j from process i and fed 

into the destruction device over the period p 

(metric tons). 

(7) The mass of fluorine-containing by-product k 

removed from process i in stream l and recaptured over the 

period p must be estimated using Equation L-10 of this 

section: 

= * ScB lBklkl (Eq. L-10) 

Where: 

Bkl = Mass of fluorine-containing by-product k removed 

from process i in stream l and recaptured over the 

period p (metric tons). 

cBkl = Concentration (mass fraction) of fluorine-containing 

by-product k in stream l removed from process i and 

recaptured over the period p. If this concentration 

is only a trace concentration, cBkl is equal to zero. 

Sl = Mass removed in stream l from process i and 

recaptured over the period p (metric tons). 

(8) To estimate the terms FERd, FEP, and FEBk for 

Equations L-11, L-12, and L-13 of this section, you must 

assume that the total mass of fluorine emitted, EF, 

estimated in Equation L-6 of this section, occurs in the 

form of the fluorinated GHG that has the highest GWP among 
Page 298 of 442 

the fluorinated GHGs that occur in more than trace 

concentrations in the process unless you possess emission 

characterization measurements showing otherwise. These 

emission characterization measurements must meet the 

requirements in paragraph (8)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this 

section, as appropriate. The sum of the terms must equal 1. 

You must document the data and calculations that are used 

to speciate individual compounds and to estimate FERd, FEP, 

and FEBk. Exclude from your calculations the fluorine 

included in FD. For example, exclude fluorine-containing 

compounds that are not fluorinated GHGs and that result 

from the destruction of fluorinated GHGs by any destruction 

devices (e.g., the mass of HF created by combustion of an 

HFC). However, include emissions of fluorinated GHGs that 

survive the destruction process. 

(i) If the calculations under paragraph (b)(1)(viii) 

of this section, or any subsequent measurements and 

calculations under this subpart, indicate that the process 

emits 25,000 metric tons CO2e or more, estimate the 

emissions from each process vent, considering controls, 

using the methods in §98.123(c)(1). You must characterize 

the emissions of any process vent that emits 25,000 metric 

tons CO2e or more as specified in §98.124(b)(4). 
Page 299 of 442 

(ii) For other vents, including vents from processes 

that emit less than 25,000 metric tons CO2e, you must 

characterize emissions as specified in §98.124(b)(5). 

(iii) For fluorine emissions that are not accounted 

for by vent estimates, you must characterize emissions as 

specified in §98.124(b)(6). 

 (9) The total mass of fluorine-containing reactant d 

emitted must be estimated at least monthly based on the 

total fluorine emitted and the fraction that consists of 

fluorine-containing reactants using Equation L-11 of this 

section. If the fluorine-containing reactant d is a nonGHG, you may assume that FERd is zero. 

⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ ∗+∗+∗

=

∑ ∑ = =

− v

d

u

k

d Rd P k Bk

Fd

ipR

FER MFF MFFFEP FEB MFF

EFER

E

1 1

*

(Eq. L-11) 

Where: 

ER-ip = Total mass of fluorine-containing reactant d that 

is emitted from process i over the period p 

(metric tons). 

FERd = The fraction of the mass emitted that consists of 

the fluorine-containing reactant d. 

EF = Total mass of fluorine emissions from process i 

over the period p (metric tons), calculated in 

Equation L-6 of this section. 

FEP = The fraction of the mass emitted that consists of 

the fluorine-containing product. 

FEBk = The fraction of the mass emitted that consists of 

fluorine-containing by-product k. 

MFFRd = Mass fraction of fluorine in reactant d, 

calculated in Equation L-14 of this section. 
Page 300 of 442 

MFFP = Mass fraction of fluorine in the product, 

calculated in Equation L-15 of this section. 

MFFBk = Mass fraction of fluorine in by-product k, 

calculation in Equation L-16 of this section. 

u = Number of fluorine-containing by-products 

generated in process i. 

v = Number of fluorine-containing reactants fed into 

process i. 

(10) The total mass of fluorine-containing product emitted 

must be estimated at least monthly based on the total 

fluorine emitted and the fraction that consists of 

fluorine-containing products using Equation L-12 of this 

section. If the fluorine-containing product is a non-GHG, 

you may assume that FEP is zero. 

⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ ∗+∗+∗

=

∑ ∑ = =

− v

d

u

k

d Rd P k Bk

F

ipP

FER MFF MFFFEP FEB MFF

EFEP

E

1 1

*

(Eq. L-12) 

Where: 

EP-ip = Total mass of fluorine-containing product 

emitted from process i over the period p (metric 

tons). 

FEP = The fraction of the mass emitted that consists 

of the fluorine-containing product. 

EF = Total mass of fluorine emissions from process i 

over the period p (metric tons), calculated in 

Equation L-6 of this section. 

FERd = The fraction of the mass emitted that consists 

of fluorine-containing reactant d. 

FEBk = The fraction of the mass emitted that consists 

of fluorine-containing by-product k. 

MFFRd = Mass fraction of fluorine in reactant d, 

calculated in Equation L-14 of this section. 

MFFP = Mass fraction of fluorine in the product, 

calculated in Equation L-15 of this section. 

MFFBk = Mass fraction of fluorine in by-product k, 

calculation in Equation L-16 of this section. 

u = Number of fluorine-containing by-products 

generated in process i. 

v = Number of fluorine-containing reactants fed into 

process i. 
Page 301 of 442 

(11) The total mass of fluorine-containing by-product 

k emitted must be estimated at least monthly based on the 

total fluorine emitted and the fraction that consists of 

fluorine-containing by-products using Equation L-13 of this 

section. If fluorine-containing by-product k is a non-GHG, 

you may assume that FEBk is zero. 

⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛

+ +

=

∑ ∑=

− u

k

Rd P k Bk

v

d

Fk

ipBk

FER MFF MFFFEP FEB MFF

EFEB E

1 1

* * *

* (Eq. L-13) 

Where: 

EBk-ip = Total mass of fluorine-containing by-product k 

emitted from process i over the period p (metric 

tons). 

FEBk = The fraction of the mass emitted that consists 

of fluorine-containing by-product k. 

FERd = The fraction of the mass emitted that consists 

of fluorine-containing reactant d. 

FEP = The fraction of the mass emitted that consists 

of the fluorine-containing product. 

EF = Total mass of fluorine emissions from process i 

over the period p (metric tons), calculated in 

Equation L-6 of this section. 

MFFRd = Mass fraction of fluorine in reactant d, 

calculated in Equation L-14 of this section. 

MFFP = Mass fraction of fluorine in the product, 

calculated in Equation L-15 of this section. 

MFFBk = Mass fraction of fluorine in by-product k, 

calculation in Equation L-16 of this section. 

u = Number of fluorine-containing by-products 

generated in process i. 

v = Number of fluorine-containing reactants fed into 

process i. 
Page 302 of 442 

(12) The mass fraction of fluorine in reactant d must 

be estimated using Equation L-14 of this section: 

Rd

F

Rd Rd MW

AW

MFF = MF * (Eq. L-14) 

Where: 

MFFRd = Mass fraction of fluorine in reactant d 

(fraction). 

MFRd = Moles fluorine per mole of reactant d. 

AWF = Atomic weight of fluorine. 

MWRd = Molecular weight of reactant d. 

(13) The mass fraction of fluorine in the product 

must be estimated using Equation L-15 of this section: 

P

F

P P MW

AW

MFF = MF * (Eq. L-15) 

Where: 

MFFP = Mass fraction of fluorine in the product 

(fraction). 

MFP = Moles fluorine per mole of product. 

AWF = Atomic weight of fluorine. 

MWP = Molecular weight of the product produced. 

(14) The mass fraction of fluorine in by-product k 

must be estimated using Equation L-16 of this section: 

Bk

F

Bk Bk MW

AW

MFF = MF * (Eq. L-16) 

Where: 
Page 303 of 442 

MFFBk = Mass fraction of fluorine in the product 

(fraction). 

MFBk = Moles fluorine per mole of by-product k. 

AWF = Atomic weight of fluorine. 

MWBk = Molecular weight of by-product k. 

(15) Alternative for determining the mass of fluorine 

destroyed or recaptured. As an alternative to using 

Equation L-7 of this section as provided in paragraph 

(b)(4) of this section, you may estimate the total mass of 

fluorine in destroyed or recaptured streams containing 

fluorine-containing compounds (including all fluorinecontaining reactants, products, and by-products) must be 

estimated at least monthly using Equation L-17 of this 

section. 

∑ ∑ (Eq. L-17) = =

= +

x

l

lTFl

q

j

D avgj jTFj ScScDEF

1 1

** *

Where: 

FD = Total mass of fluorine in destroyed or 

recaptured streams from process i containing 

fluorine-containing reactants, products, and byproducts. 

DEavgj = Weighted average destruction efficiency of the 

destruction device for the fluorine-containing 

compounds identified in destroyed stream j under 

§98.124(b)(4)(ii) and (5)(ii)(calculated in 

Equation L-18 of this section)(fraction). 

cTFj = Concentration (mass fraction) of total fluorine 

in stream j removed from process i and fed into 

the destruction device over the period p. If 

this concentration is only a trace 

concentration, cTFj is equal to zero. 
Page 304 of 442 

Sj = Mass removed in stream j from process i and fed 

into the destruction device over the period p 

(metric tons). 

cTFl = Concentration (mass fraction) of total fluorine 

in stream l removed from process i and 

recaptured over the period p. If this 

concentration is only a trace concentration, cBkl

is equal to zero. 

Sl = Mass removed in stream l from process i and 

recaptured over the period p. 

q = Number of streams destroyed in process i. 

x = Number of streams recaptured in process i. 

(16) Weighted average destruction efficiency. For 

purposes of Equation L-17 of this section, calculate the 

weighted average destruction efficiency applicable to a 

destroyed stream using Equation L-18 of this section. 

∑ ∑

∑ ∑

= =

= =

+

+

= w

f

y

g

FGHGf j FGHGf jFCg g

y

g

jFCg g

w

f

FGHGf FGHGf j FGHGf

avgj

MFFSc MFFSc

MFFScDE MFFSc

DE

1 1

1 1

** **

*** **

 (Eq. L-18) 

Where: 

DEavgj = Weighted average destruction efficiency of the 

destruction device for the fluorine-containing 

compounds identified in destroyed stream j under 

98.124(b)(4)(ii) or (b)(5)(ii), as appropriate. 

DEFGHGf = Destruction efficiency of the device that has 

been demonstrated for fluorinated GHG f in 

stream j (fraction). 

cFGHGfj = Concentration (mass fraction) of fluorinated GHG 

f in stream j removed from process i and fed 

into the destruction device over the period p. 

If this concentration is only a trace 

concentration, cF-GHGfj is equal to zero. 

cFCgj = Concentration (mass fraction) of nonfluorinated-GHG fluorine-containing compound g 

in stream j removed from process i and fed into 

the destruction device over the period p. If 
Page 305 of 442 

this concentration is only a trace 

concentration, cFCgj is equal to zero. 

Sj = Mass removed in stream j from process i and fed 

into the destruction device over the period p 

(metric tons). 

MFFFGHGf = Mass fraction of fluorine in fluorinated GHG f, 

calculated in Equation L-14, L-15, or L-16 of 

this section, as appropriate. 

MFFFCg = Mass fraction of fluorine in non-fluorinated-GHG 

fluorine-containing compound g, calculated in 

Equation L-14, L-15, or L-16 of this section, as 

appropriate. 

w = Number of fluorinated GHGs in destroyed stream 

j. 

y = Number of non-fluorinated-GHG fluorine-containing 

compounds in destroyed stream j. 

(c) Emission factor and emission calculation factor 

methods. To use the method in this paragraph for 

continuous processes, you must first make a preliminary 

estimate of the emissions from each individual continuous 

process vent under paragraph (c)(1) of this section. If 

your continuous process operates under different conditions 

as part of normal operations, you must also define the 

different operating scenarios and make a preliminary 

estimate of the emissions from the vent for each operating 

scenario. Then, compare the preliminary estimate for each 

continuous process vent (summed across operating scenarios) 

to the criteria in paragraph (c)(2) of this section to 

determine whether the process vent meets the criteria for 

using the emission factor method described in paragraph 

(c)(3) of this section or whether the process vent meets 
Page 306 of 442 

the criteria for using the emission calculation factor 

method described in paragraph (c)(4) of this section. For 

continuous process vents that meet the criteria for using 

the emission factor method described in paragraph (c)(3) of 

this section and that have more than one operating 

scenario, compare the preliminary estimate for each 

operating scenario to the criteria in (c)(3)(ii) to 

determine whether an emission factor must be developed for 

that operating scenario. 

(1) Preliminary estimate of emissions by process 

vent. You must estimate the annual CO2e emissions of 

fluorinated GHGs for each process vent within each 

operating scenario of a continuous process using the 

approaches specified in paragraph (c)(1)(i) or (c)(1)(ii) 

of this section, accounting for any controls as specified 

in paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section. You must 

determine emissions of fluorinated GHGs by process vent by 

using existing or new measurements and/or calculations 

based on chemical engineering principles and chemical 

property data or by conducting an engineering assessment. 

You must document all data, assumptions, and procedures 

used in the calculations or engineering assessment and keep 

a record of the emissions determination as required by 

§98.127(a). 
Page 307 of 442 

(i) Engineering calculations. For process vent 

emission calculations, you may use paragraph (c)(1)(i)(A), 

(B), or (C) of this section. 

(A) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Emission 

Inventory Improvement Program, Volume II: Chapter 16, 

Methods for Estimating Air Emissions from Chemical 

Manufacturing Facilities, August 2007, Final (incorporated 

by reference, see §98.7). 

(B) You may determine the fluorinated GHG emissions 

from any process vent within the process using the 

procedures specified in §63.1257(d)(2)(i) and (d)(3)(i)(B) 

of this chapter, except as specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1)(i)(B)(1) through (c)(1)(i)(B)(4) of this section. 

For those processes that are subject to 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart GGG of this chapter and already complying with 40 

CFR §63.1257(d)(2)(i) or (d)(3)(i)(B) of this chapter, you 

may continue to comply with those paragraphs without the 

exceptions listed in paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(B)(1) through 

(c)(1)(i)(B)(4) of this section; in addition, those 

processes subject to part 63, subpart GGG of this chapter 

may use the definition of process condenser from §63.1251 

of this chapter. For the purposes of this subpart, use of 

the term “HAP” in §63.1257(d)(2)(i) of this chapter means 

“fluorinated GHG”. 
Page 308 of 442 

(1) To calculate emissions caused by the heating of a 

vessel without a process condenser to a temperature lower 

than the boiling point, you must use the procedures in 

§63.1257(d)(2)(i)(C)(3) of this chapter. 

(2) To calculate emissions from depressurization of a 

vessel without a process condenser, you must use the 

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

(3) To calculate emissions from vacuum systems, the 

terms used in Equation 33 to §63.1257(d)(2)(i)(E) of this 

chapter are defined as follows: 

(i) Psystem = Absolute pressure of the receiving 

vessel. 

(ii) Pi= Partial pressure of the fluorinated GHG 

determined at the exit temperature and exit pressure 

conditions of the condenser or at the conditions of the 

dedicated receiver. 

(iii) Pj= Partial pressure of condensables (including 

fluorinated GHG) determined at the exit temperature and 

exit pressure conditions of the condenser or at the 

conditions of the dedicated receiver. 

(iv) MWFluorinated GHG= Molecular weight of the 

fluorinated GHG determined at the exit temperature and exit 

pressure conditions of the condenser or at the conditions 

of the dedicated receiver. 
Page 309 of 442 

(4) To calculate uncontrolled emissions when a vessel 

is equipped with a process condenser, you must use the 

procedures in §63.1257(d)(3)(i)(B) of this chapter, except 

as follows: 

(i) You must determine the flowrate of gas (or volume 

of gas), partial pressures of condensables, temperature 

(T), and fluorinated GHG molecular weight (MWFluorinated GHG) at 

the exit temperature and exit pressure conditions of the 

condenser or at the conditions of the dedicated receiver. 

(ii) You must assume that all of the components 

contained in the condenser exit vent stream are in 

equilibrium with the same components in the exit condensate 

stream (except for noncondensables). 

(iii) You must perform a material balance for each 

component, if the condensate receiver composition is not 

known. 

(iv) For the emissions from gas evolution, the term 

for time, t, must be used in Equation 12 to 

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

(v) Emissions from empty vessel purging must be 

calculated using Equation 36 to §63.1257(d)(2)(i)(H) of 

this chapter and the exit temperature and exit pressure 

conditions of the condenser or the conditions of the 

dedicated receiver. 
Page 310 of 442 

(C) Commercial software products that follow chemical 

engineering principles (e.g., including the calculation 

methodologies in paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(A) and (B) of this 

section). 

(ii) Engineering assessments. For process vent 

emissions determinations, you may conduct an engineering 

assessment to calculate uncontrolled emissions. An 

engineering assessment includes, but is not limited to, the 

following: 

(A) Previous test results, provided the tests are 

representative of current operating practices of the 

process. 

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

representative of the process operating conditions. 

(C) Maximum flow rate, fluorinated GHG emission rate, 

concentration, or other relevant parameters specified or 

implied within a permit limit applicable to the process 

vent. 

(D) Design analysis based on chemical engineering 

principles, measureable process parameters, or physical or 

chemical laws or properties. 

(iii) Emission controls for the preliminary estimate. 

If the process vent is vented to a destruction device, you 

may reflect the impact of the destruction device on 
Page 311 of 442 

emissions. In your emissions estimate, account for the 

following: 

(A) The destruction efficiencies of the device that 

have been demonstrated for the fluorinated GHGs in the vent 

stream for periods when the process vent is vented to the 

destruction device. 

(B) Any periods when the process vent is not vented 

to the destruction device. 

(iv) Use of typical recent values. In the 

calculations in paragraphs (c)(1)(i), (c)(1)(ii), and 

(c)(1)(iii) of this section, the values used for the 

expected process activity and for the expected fraction of 

that activity whose emissions will be vented to the 

properly functioning destruction device must be based on 

typical recent values for the process unless there is a 

compelling reason to adopt a new value (e.g., installation 

of a control device for a previously uncontrolled process). 

If there is such a reason, it must be documented in the 

facility’s GHG Monitoring Plan. 

(v) GWPs. To convert the fluorinated GHG emissions 

to CO2e, use Equation A-1 of §98.2. For fluorinated GHGs 

whose GWPs are not listed in Table A-1 to subpart A of this 

part, use a default GWP of 2,000 unless you submit a 

request to use other GWPs for those fluorinated GHGs in 
Page 312 of 442 

that process under paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of this section and 

we approve that request. 

(vi) Request to use a GWP other than 2,000 for 

fluorinated GHGs whose GWPs are not listed in Table A-1 to 

subpart A of this part. If your process vent emits one or 

more fluorinated GHGs whose GWPs are not listed in Table A1 to subpart A of this part, that are emitted in quantities 

that, with a default GWP of 2,000, result in total 

calculated annual emissions equal to or greater than 10,000 

metric tons CO2e for the vent, and that you believe have 

GWPs that would result in total calculated annual emissions 

less than 10,000 metric tons CO2e for the vent, you may 

submit a request to use provisional GWPs for these 

fluorinated GHGs for purposes of the calculations in 

paragraphs (c)(1) of this section. The request must be 

submitted by February 28, 2011 for a completeness 

determination and review by EPA. 

(A) Contents of the request. You must include the 

following information in the request for each fluorinated 

GHG that does not have a GWP listed in Table A-1 to subpart 

A of this part and that constitutes more than one percent 

by mass of the stream emitted from the vent: 

(1) The identity of the fluorinated GHG, including 

its chemical formula and, if available, CAS number. 
Page 313 of 442 

(2) The estimated GWP of the fluorinated GHG. 

(3) The data and analysis that supports your estimate 

of the GWP of the fluorinated GHG, including: 

(i) Data and analysis related to the low-pressure gas 

phase infrared absorption spectrum of the fluorinated GHG. 

(ii) Data and analysis related to the estimated 

atmospheric lifetime of the fluorinated GHG (reaction 

mechanisms and rates, including e.g., photolysis and 

reaction with atmospheric components such as OH, O3, CO, and 

water). 

(iii) The radiative transfer analysis that integrates 

the lifetime and infrared absorption spectrum data to 

calculate the GWP. 

(iv) Any published or unpublished studies of the GWP 

of the gas. 

(4) The engineering calculations or assessments and 

underlying data that demonstrate that the process vent is 

calculated to emit less than 10,000 metric tons CO2e of this 

and other fluorinated GHGs only when the proposed 

provisional GWPs, not the default GWP of 2,000, are used 

for fluorinated GHGs whose GWPs are not listed in Table A-1 

to subpart A of this part. 

(B) Review and completeness determination by EPA. If 

EPA makes a preliminary determination that the request is 
Page 314 of 442 

complete, that it substantiates each of the provisional 

GWPs, and that it demonstrates that the process vent is 

calculated to emit less than 10,000 metric tons CO2e of this 

and other fluorinated GHGs only when the provisional GWPs, 

not the default GWP of 2,000, are used for fluorinated GHGs 

whose GWPs are not listed in Table A-1 to subpart A of this 

part, then EPA will publish a notice including the data and 

analysis submitted under paragraphs (c)(1)(vi)(A)(1) 

through (3) of this section. If, after review of public 

comment on the notice, EPA finalizes its preliminary 

determination, then EPA will permit the facility to use the 

provisional GWPs for the calculations in paragraph (c)(1) 

of this section unless and until EPA determines that one or 

more of the provisional GWPs is in error and provides 

reasonable notice to the facility. 

(2) Method selection criteria. 

(i) If the calculations under paragraph (c)(1) of 

this section, as well as any subsequent measurements and 

calculations under this subpart, indicate that the 

continuous process vent has fluorinated GHG emissions of 

less than 10,000 metric ton CO2e per year, summed across all 

operating scenarios, then you may comply with either 

paragraph (c)(3) of this section (Emission Factor approach) 
Page 315 of 442 

or paragraph (c)(4) of this section (Emission Calculation 

Factor approach). 

(ii) If the continuous process vent does not meet the 

criteria in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section, then you 

must comply with the emission factor method specified in 

paragraph (c)(3) (Emission Factor approach) of this 

section. 

(A) You must conduct emission testing for processvent-specific emission factor development on the 

uncontrolled vent unless the calculations you performed 

under paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section indicate that 

the uncontrolled fluorinated GHG emissions that occur 

during periods when the process vent is not vented to the 

properly functioning destruction device are less than 

10,000 metric tons CO2e per year. In this case, you may 

conduct emission testing after the destruction device to 

develop a process-vent-specific emission factor. If you do 

so, you must develop and apply an emission calculation 

factor under paragraph (c)(4) to estimate emissions during 

any periods when the process vent is not vented to the 

properly functioning destruction device. 

(B) Regardless of the level of uncontrolled 

emissions, the emission testing for process-vent-specific 

emission factor development may be conducted on the outlet 
Page 316 of 442 

side of a wet scrubber in place for acid gas reduction, if 

one is in place, as long as there is no appreciable 

reduction in the fluorinated GHG. 

 (iii) For batch process vents, you must comply with 

either paragraph (c)(3) of this section (Emission Factor 

approach) or paragraph (c)(4) of this section (Emission 

Calculation Factor approach). 

(3) Process-vent-specific emission factor method. 

For each process vent, conduct an emission test and measure 

fluorinated GHG emissions from the process and measure the 

process activity, such as the feed rate, production rate, 

or other process activity rate, during the test as 

described in this paragraph (c)(3). Conduct the emission 

test according to the procedures in §98.124. All emissions 

test data and procedures used in developing emission 

factors must be documented according to §98.127. If more 

than one operating scenario applies to the process that 

contains the subject process vent, you must comply with 

either paragraph (3)(i) or paragraph (3)(ii) of this 

section. 

(i) Conduct a separate emissions test for operation 

under each operating scenario. 

(ii) Conduct an emissions test for the operating 

scenario that is expected to have the largest emissions in 
Page 317 of 442 

terms of CO2e (considering both activity levels and emission 

calculation factors) on an annual basis. Also conduct an 

emissions test for each additional operating scenario that 

is estimated to emit 10,000 metric tons CO2e or more 

annually from the vent and whose emission calculation 

factor differs by 15 percent or more from the emission 

calculation factor of the operating scenario that is 

expected to have the largest emissions (or of another 

operating scenario for which emission testing is 

performed). For any other operating scenarios, adjust the 

process-vent specific emission factor developed for the 

operating scenario that is expected to have the largest 

emissions (or for another operating scenario for which 

emission testing is performed) using the approach in 

paragraph (c)(3)(viii) of this section. 

(iii) You must measure the process activity, such as 

the process feed rate, process production rate, or other 

process activity rate, as applicable, during the emission 

test and calculate the rate for the test period, in kg (or 

another appropriate metric) per hour. 

(iv) For continuous processes, you must calculate the 

hourly emission rate of each fluorinated GHG using Equation 

L-19 of this section and determine the hourly emission rate 

of each fluorinated GHG per process vent for the test run. 
Page 318 of 442 

1

60 *

10

1 * 1 ***

106 3 SV QMW C

E PV

PV

ContPV = (Eq. L-19) 

Where: 

EContPV = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from process 

vent v from process i during the emission test 

during test run r (kg/hr). 

CPV = Concentration of fluorinated GHG f during test 

run r of the emission test (ppmv). 

MW = Molecular weight of fluorinated GHG f (g/gmole). 

QPV = Flow rate of the process vent stream during 

test run r of the emission test (m3

/min). 

SV = Standard molar volume of gas (0.0240 m3

/g-mole 

at 68°F and 1 atm). 

1/103 = Conversion factor (1 kilogram/1,000 grams). 

60/1 = Conversion factor (60 minutes/1 hour). 

(v) You must calculate a site-specific, process-ventspecific emission factor for each fluorinated GHG for each 

process vent, in kg of fluorinated GHG per process activity 

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

Equation L-20 of this section. For continuous processes, 

divide the hourly fluorinated GHG emission rate during the 

test by the hourly process activity rate during the test 

runs. 

r

Activity

E

EF

r

EmissionTest

PV

PV

∑ ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

= 1

 (Eq. L-20) 

Where: 
Page 319 of 442 

EFPV = Average emission factor for 

fluorinated GHG f emitted from process 

vent v during process i (e.g., kg 

emitted/kg activity). 

EPV = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from 

process vent v from process i during 

the emission test during test run r, 

for either continuous or batch (kg 

emitted/hr for continuous, kg 

emitted/batch for batch). 

ActivityEmissionTest = Process feed, process production, or 

other process activity rate during the 

emission test during test run r (e.g., 

kg product/hr). 

r = Number of test runs performed during 

the emission test. 

(vi) If you conducted emissions testing on the 

controlled vent (i.e., after the destruction device), you 

must calculate the emissions of each fluorinated GHG for 

the process vent using Equation L-21 of this section. You 

must also develop a process-vent-specific emission 

calculation factor based on paragraph (c)(4) of this 

section for the periods when the process vent is not 

venting to the destruction device. 

PV = EFE −CPV

* ActivityC + ECF −UPV* ActivityU (Eq. L-21) 

Where: 

EPV = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from 

process vent v from process i, for the year 

(kg). 

EFPV-C = Average emission factor for fluorinated GHG 

f emitted from process vent v during 
Page 320 of 442 

process i based on testing after the 

destruction device (kg 

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

product). 

ActivityC = Total process feed, process production, or 

other process activity during the year for 

which emissions are vented to the properly 

functioning destruction device (i.e., 

controlled). 

ECFPV-U = Emission calculation factor for fluorinated 

GHG f emitted from process vent v during 

process i during periods when the process 

vent is not vented to the properly 

functioning destruction device (kg 

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

product). 

ActivityU = Total process feed, process production, or 

other process activity during the year for 

which the process vent is not vented to the 

properly functioning destruction device 

(e.g., kg product) 

(vii) If you conducted emissions testing on the 

uncontrolled vent, apply the destruction efficiencies of 

the device that have been demonstrated for the fluorinated 

GHGs in the vent stream to the fluorinated GHG emissions 

for the process vent, using Equation L-22 of this section. 

You may apply the destruction efficiency only to the 

portion of the process activity during which emissions are 

vented to the properly functioning destruction device 

(i.e., controlled). 

PV = EFE −UPV

* ( ) ActivityU + ActivityC − DE)1(* (Eq. L-22) 

Where: 
Page 321 of 442 

EPV = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from 

process vent v from process i, for the 

year, considering destruction efficiency 

(kg). 

EFPV-U = Emission factor (uncontrolled) for 

fluorinated GHG f emitted from process vent 

v during process i (kg emitted/kg product). 

ActivityU = Total process feed, process production, or 

other process activity during the year for 

which the process vent is not vented to the 

properly functioning destruction device 

(e.g., kg product). 

ActivityC = Total process feed, process production, or 

other process activity during the year for 

which the process vent is vented to the 

properly functioning destruction device 

(e.g., kg product). 

DE = Demonstrated destruction efficiency of the 

destruction device (weight fraction). 

(viii) Adjusted process-vent-specific emission 

factors for other operating scenarios. For process vents 

from processes with multiple operating scenarios, use 

Equation L-23 of this section to develop an adjusted 

process-vent-specific emission factor for each operating 

scenario from which the vent is estimated to emit less than 

10,000 metric tons CO2e annually or whose emission 

calculation factor differs by less than 15 percent from the 

emission calculation factor of the operating scenario that 

is expected to have the largest emissions (or of another 

operating scenario for which emission testing is 

performed). 
Page 322 of 442 

PV

T

UT

PVadj EF

ECF

ECF

EF = * (Eq. L-23) 

Where: 

EFPVadj = Adjusted process-vent-specific emission factor 

for an untested operating scenario. 

ECFUT = Emission calculation factor for the untested 

operating scenario developed under paragraph 

(c)(4) of this section. 

ECFT = Emission calculation for the tested operating 

scenario developed under paragraph (c)(4) of this 

section. 

EFPV = Process vent specific emission factor for the 

tested operating scenario. 

(ix) Sum the emissions of each fluorinated GHG from 

all process vents in the process for the year to estimate 

the total process vent emissions of each fluorinated GHG 

from the process, using Equation L-24 of this section. 

= ∑ (Eq. L-24) 

v

Pfi EE PV

1

Where: 

EPfi = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from 

process vents for process i, for the year 

(kg). 

EPV = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from 

process vent v from process i, for the year, 

considering destruction efficiency (kg). 

v = Number of process vents in process i. 
Page 323 of 442 

(4) Process-vent-specific emission calculation factor 

method. For each process vent within an operating 

scenario, determine fluorinated GHG emissions by 

calculations and determine the process activity rate, such 

as the feed rate, production rate, or other process 

activity rate, associated with the emission rate. 

(i) You must either calculate uncontrolled emissions 

of fluorinated GHG by individual process vent, EPV, using 

measurements and/or calculations based on chemical 

engineering principles and chemical property data or 

alternatively conduct an engineering assessment, using the 

procedures in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section, 

except paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(C) of this section. The 

procedures in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section 

may be applied either to batch process vents or to 

continuous process vents. The uncontrolled emissions must 

be based on a typical batch or production rate under a 

defined operating scenario. The methods, data, and 

assumptions used to estimate emissions for each operating 

scenario must be selected to yield a best estimate 

(expected value) of emissions rather than an upper- or 

lower-bound estimate of emissions for that operating 

scenario. The process activity rate associated with the 

uncontrolled emissions must be determined. All data, 
Page 324 of 442 

assumptions, and procedures used in the calculations or 

engineering assessment must be documented according to 

§98.127. 

(ii) You must calculate a site-specific, processvent-specific emission calculation factor for each process 

vent and each fluorinated GHG, in kg of fluorinated GHG per 

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

applicable, using Equation L-25 of this section. 

vepresentati

PV

PV Activity

E

ECF

Re

= (Eq. L-25) 

Where: 

ECFPV = Emission calculation factor for 

fluorinated GHG f emitted from 

process vent v during process i (kg 

emitted/kg product). 

EPV = Average mass of fluorinated GHG f 

emitted, based on calculations, from 

process vent v from process i during 

the period or batch for which 

emissions were calculated, for either 

continuous or batch (kg emitted/hr 

for continuous, kg emitted/batch for 

batch). 

ActivityRepresentative = Process feed, process production, or 

other process activity rate 

corresponding to average mass of 

emissions based on calculations 

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

kg product/batch for batch). 

(iii) You must calculate emissions of each 

fluorinated GHG for the process vent for the year by 
Page 325 of 442 

multiplying the process-vent-specific emission calculation 

factor by the total process activity, as applicable, for 

the year, using Equation L-26 of this section. 

PV = ECFE PV

* Activity (Eq. L-26) 

Where: 

EPV = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from 

process vent v from process i, for the year 

(kg). 

ECFPV = Emission calculation factor for fluorinated 

GHG f emitted from process vent v during 

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

emitted/kg product). 

Activity = Process feed, process production, or other 

process activity during the year. 

(iv) If the process vent is vented to a destruction 

device, apply the demonstrated destruction efficiency of 

the device to the fluorinated GHG emissions for the process 

vent, using Equation L-27 of this section. Apply the 

destruction efficiency only to the portion of the process 

activity that is vented to the properly functioning 

destruction device (i.e., controlled). 

PV = ECFE PV

* ( ) ActivityU + ActivityC − DE)1(* (Eq. L-27) 

Where: 

EPV = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from 

process vent v from process i, for the year 

considering destruction efficiency (kg). 

ECFPV = Emission calculation factor for fluorinated 

GHG f emitted from process vent v during 

process i (kg emitted/kg product). 
Page 326 of 442 

ActivityU = Total process feed, process production, or 

other process activity during the year for 

which the process vent is not vented to the 

properly functioning destruction device 

(e.g., kg product). 

ActivityC = Total process feed, process production, or 

other process activity during the year for 

which the process vent is vented to the 

properly functioning destruction device 

(e.g., kg product). 

DE = Demonstrated destruction efficiency of the 

destruction device (weight fraction). 

(v) Sum the emissions of each fluorinated GHG from 

all process vents for the process for the year to estimate 

the total process vent emissions of each fluorinated GHG 

from the process, using Equation L-28 of this section. 

= ∑ (Eq. L-28) 

v

Pfi EE PV

1

Where: 

EPfi = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from 

process vents for process i, for the year 

(kg). 

EPV = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from 

process vent v from process i, for the year, 

considering destruction efficiency (kg). 

v = Number of process vents in process i. 

(d) Calculate fluorinated GHG emissions for equipment 

leaks (EL). If you comply with paragraph (c) of this 

section, you must calculate the fluorinated GHG emissions 

from pieces of equipment associated with processes covered 

under this subpart and in fluorinated GHG service. If you 

conduct monitoring of equipment in fluorinated GHG service, 
Page 327 of 442 

monitoring must be conducted for those in light liquid and 

in gas and vapor service. If you conduct monitoring of 

equipment in fluorinated GHG service, you may exclude from 

monitoring each piece of equipment that is difficult-tomonitor, that is unsafe-to-monitor, that is insulated, or 

that is in heavy liquid service; you may exclude from 

monitoring each pump with dual mechanical seals, agitator 

with dual mechanical seals, pump with no external shaft, 

agitator with no external shaft; you may exclude from 

monitoring each pressure relief device in gas and vapor 

service with upstream rupture disk, each sampling 

connection system with closed-loop or closed-purge systems, 

and any pieces of equipment where leaks are routed through 

a closed vent system to a destruction device. You must 

estimate emissions using another approach for those pieces 

of equipment excluded from monitoring. Equipment that is 

in fluorinated GHG service for less than 300 hr/yr; 

equipment that is in vacuum service; pressure relief 

devices that are in light liquid service; and 

instrumentation systems are exempted from these 

requirements. 

(1) The emissions from equipment leaks must be 

calculated using any of the procedures in paragraphs 

(d)(1)(i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) of this section. 
Page 328 of 442 

(i) Use of Average Emission Factor Approach in EPA 

Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates. The 

emissions from equipment leaks may be calculated using the 

default Average Emission Factor Approach in EPA-453/R-95-

017 (incorporated by reference, see §98.7). 

(ii) Use of Other Approaches in EPA Protocol for 

Equipment Leak Emission Estimates in conjunction with EPA 

Method 21 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. The emissions 

from equipment leaks may be calculated using one of the 

following methods in EPA-453/R-95-017 (incorporated by 

reference, see §98.7): the Screening Ranges Approach; EPA's 

Correlation Approach; or the Unit-Specific Correlation 

Approach. If you determine that EPA Method 21 at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-7 is appropriate for monitoring a 

fluorinated GHG, and if you calibrate your instrument with 

a compound different from one or more of the fluorinated 

GHGs or surrogates to be measured, you must develop 

response factors for each fluorinated GHG or for each 

surrogate to be measured using EPA Method 21 at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-7. For each fluorinated GHG measured, the 

response factor must be less than 10. The response factor 

is the ratio of the known concentration of a fluorinated 

GHG to the observed meter reading when measured using an 

instrument calibrated with the reference compound. 
Page 329 of 442 

(iii) Use of Other Approaches in EPA Protocol for 

Equipment Leak Emission Estimates in conjunction with sitespecific leak monitoring methods. The emissions from 

equipment leaks may be calculated using one of the 

following methods in EPA-453/R-95-017 (incorporated by 

reference, see §98.7): the Screening Ranges Approach; EPA's 

Correlation Approach; or the Unit-Specific Correlation 

Approach. You may develop a site-specific leak monitoring 

method appropriate for monitoring fluorinated GHGs to use 

along with these three approaches. The site-specific leak 

monitoring method must meet the requirements in 

§98.124(f)(1). 

(iv) Use of site-specific leak monitoring methods. 

The emissions from equipment leaks may be calculated using 

a site-specific leak monitoring method. The site-specific 

leak monitoring method must meet the requirements in 

§98.124(f)(1). 

(2) You must collect information on the number of 

each type of equipment; the service of each piece of 

equipment (gas, light liquid, heavy liquid); the 

concentration of each fluorinated GHG in the stream; and 

the time period each piece of equipment was in service. 

Depending on which approach you follow, you may be required 

to collect information for equipment on the associated 
Page 330 of 442 

screening data concentrations for greater than or equal to 

10,000 ppmv and associated screening data concentrations 

for less than 10,000 ppmv; associated actual screening data 

concentrations; or associated screening data and leak rate 

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

correlation. 

(3) Calculate and sum the emissions of each 

fluorinated GHG in metric tons per year for equipment 

pieces for each process, EELf, annually. You must include 

and estimate emissions for types of equipment that are 

excluded from monitoring, including difficult-to-monitor, 

unsafe-to-monitor, insulated, in heavy liquid service 

pieces of equipment, and pumps with dual mechanical seals, 

agitators with dual mechanical seals, pumps with no 

external shaft, agitators with no external shaft, pressure 

relief devices in gas and vapor service with upstream 

rupture disk, sampling connection systems with closed-loop 

or closed purge systems, and pieces of equipment where 

leaks are routed through a closed vent system to a 

destruction device. 

(e) Calculate total fluorinated GHG emissions for 

each process and for production or transformation processes 

at the facility. 
Page 331 of 442 

(i) Estimate annually the total mass of each 

fluorinated GHG emitted from each process, including 

emissions from process vents in either paragraph (c)(3) or 

(c)(4) of this section, as appropriate, and from equipment 

leaks in paragraph (d), using Equation L-29 of this 

section. 

Pfii += EEE ELfi (Eq. L-29) 

Where: 

Ei = Total mass of each fluorinated GHG f emitted 

from process i, annual basis (kg/year). 

EPfi = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from all 

process vents in process i, annually (kg/year, 

calculated in Equation L-24 or L-28 of this 

section, as appropriate). 

EELfi = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from 

equipment leaks for pieces of equipment for 

process i, annually (kg/year, calculated in 

paragraph (d)(3) of this section). 

(ii) Estimate annually the total mass of each 

fluorinated GHG emitted from each type of production or 

transformation process at the facility using Equation L-30 

of this section. Develop separate totals for fluorinated 

gas production processes, transformation processes that 

transform fluorinated gases produced at the facility, and 

transformation processes that transform fluorinated gases 

produced at another facility. 
Page 332 of 442 

001.0* (Eq. L-30) 

1

∑=

=

z

i

EE i

Where: 

E = Total mass of each fluorinated GHG f emitted 

from all fluorinated gas production processes, 

all transformation processes that transform 

fluorinated gases produced at the facility, or 

all transformation processes that transform 

fluorinated gases produced at another 

facility, as appropriate (metric tons). 

Ei = Total mass of each fluorinated GHG f emitted 

from each production or transformation 

process, annual basis (kg/year, calculated in 

Equation L-29 of this section). 

0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons. 

z = Total number of fluorinated gas production 

processes, fluorinated gas transformation 

processes that transform fluorinated gases 

produced at the facility, or transformation 

processes that transform fluorinated gases 

produced at another facility, as appropriate. 

(f) Calculate fluorinated GHG emissions from 

destruction of fluorinated GHGs that were previously 

“produced”. Estimate annually the total mass of 

fluorinated GHGs emitted from destruction of fluorinated 

GHGs that were previously “produced” as defined at 

§98.410(b) using Equation L-31 of this section: 

D REE D −= DE)1(* (Eq. L-31) 

Where: 
Page 333 of 442 

ED = The mass of fluorinated GHGs emitted annually 

from destruction of fluorinated GHGs that were 

previously “produced” as defined at §98.410(b) 

(metric tons). 

RED = The mass of fluorinated GHGs that were previously 

“produced” as defined at §98.410(b) and that are 

fed annually into the destruction device (metric 

tons). 

DE = Destruction efficiency of the destruction device 

(fraction). 

(g) Emissions from venting of residual fluorinated 

GHGs in containers. If you vent residual fluorinated GHGs 

from containers, you must either measure the residual 

fluorinated GHGs vented from each container or develop a 

heel factor for each combination of fluorinated GHG, 

container size, and container type that you vent. You do 

not need to estimate de minimis emissions associated with 

good-faith attempts to recycle or recover residual 

fluorinated GHGs in or from containers. 

(1) Measuring contents of each container. If you 

weigh or otherwise measure the contents of each container 

before venting the residual fluorinated GHGs, use Equation 

L-32 of this section to calculate annual emissions of each 

fluorinated GHG from venting of residual fluorinated GHG 

from containers. Convert pressures to masses as directed 

in paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this section. 

−= ∑∑ (Eq. L-32) 

n

Efj

n

Cf Bfj HHE

1 1
Page 334 of 442 

Where: 

ECf = Total mass of each fluorinated GHG f emitted from 

the facility through venting of residual fluorinated 

GHG from containers, annual basis (kg/year). 

HBfj = Mass of residual fluorinated GHG f in container j 

when received by facility. 

HEfj = Mass of residual fluorinated GHG f in container j 

after evacuation by facility. (Facility may equate 

to zero.) 

n = Number of vented containers for each fluorinated GHG 

f. 

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

heel factors to estimate emissions of residual fluorinated 

GHGs vented from containers, you must develop these factors 

based on representative samples of the containers received 

by your facility from fluorinated GHG users. 

(i) Sample size. For each combination of fluorinated 

GHG, container size, and container type that you vent, 

select a representative sample of containers that reflects 

the full range of quantities of residual gas returned in 

that container size and type. This sample must reflect the 

full range of the industries and a broad range of the 

customers that use and return the fluorinated GHG, 

container size, and container type. The minimum sample 

size for each combination of fluorinated GHG, container 

size, and container type must be 30, unless this is greater 

than the number of containers returned within that 
Page 335 of 442 

combination annually, in which case the contents of every 

container returned must be measured. 

(ii) Measurement of residual gas. The residual 

weight or pressure you use for paragraph (g)(1) of this 

section must be determined by monitoring the mass or the 

pressure of your cylinders/containers according to 

§98.124(k). If you monitor the pressure, convert the 

pressure to mass using the ideal gas law, as displayed in 

Equation L-33 of this section, with an appropriately 

selected Z value. 

 pV=ZnRT (Eq. L-33) 

Where: 

p = Absolute pressure of the gas (Pa) 

V = Volume of the gas (m3) 

Z = Compressibility factor 

n = Amount of substance of the gas (moles) 

R = Gas constant (8.314 Joule/Kelvin mole) 

T = Absolute temperature (K) 

(iii) Heel factor calculation. To determine the heel 

factor hfj for each combination of fluorinated GHG, 

container size, and container type, use paragraph (g)(1) of 

this section to calculate the total heel emissions for each 

sample selected under paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this section. 

Divide this total by the number of containers in the 
Page 336 of 442 

sample. Divide the result by the full capacity (the mass 

of the contents of a full container) of that combination of 

fluorinated GHG, container size, and container type. The 

heel factor is expressed as a fraction of the full 

capacity. 

(iv) Calculate annual fluorinated GHG emissions from 

venting of residual fluorinated GHG from containers using 

Equation L-34 of this section. 

∑ (Eq. L-34) =

=

n

j

Cf FNhE fjfjfj

1

**

Where: 

ECf = Total mass of each fluorinated GHG f emitted 

from the facility through venting of residual 

fluorinated GHG from containers, annual basis 

(kg/year). 

hfj = Facility-wide gas-specific heel factor for 

fluorinated GHG f (fraction) and container 

size and type j, as determined in paragraph 

(g)(2)(iii) of this section. 

Nfj = Number of containers of size and type j 

returned to the fluorinated gas production 

facility. 

Ffj = Full capacity of containers of size and type j 

containing fluorinated GHG f (kg). 

n = Number of combinations of container sizes and 

types for fluorinated GHG f. 

§98.124 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.

(a) Initial scoping test to identify fluorinated 

GHGs. You must conduct an initial scoping test to identify 

all fluorinated GHGs that may be generated from processes 
Page 337 of 442 

that are subject to this subpart and that have at least one 

process vent with uncontrolled emissions of 1.0 metric ton 

or more of fluorinated GHGs per year based on the 

preliminary estimate of emissions in §98.123(c)(1). You 

are not required to quantify emissions under this initial 

scoping test. Only fluorinated GHG products and byproducts that occur in greater than trace concentrations in 

at least one stream must be identified under this 

paragraph. 

(1) Procedure. To conduct the scoping test, select 

the stream(s) (including process streams or destroyed 

streams) or process vent(s) that would be expected to 

individually or collectively contain all of the fluorinated 

GHG by-products of the process at their maximum 

concentrations and sample and analyze the contents of these 

selected streams or vents. (For example, if fluorinated 

GHG by-products are separated into one low-boiling-point 

and one high-boiling-point stream, sample and analyze both 

of these streams.) Alternatively, you may sample and 

analyze streams where fluorinated GHG by-products occur at 

less than their maximum concentrations, but you must ensure 

that the sensitivity of the analysis is sufficient to 

compensate for the expected difference in concentration. 

For example, if you sample and analyze streams where 
Page 338 of 442 

fluorinated GHG by-products are expected to occur at one 

half their maximum concentrations elsewhere in the process, 

you must ensure that the sensitivity of the analysis is 

sufficient to detect fluorinated GHG by-products that occur 

at concentrations of 0.05 percent or higher. You do not 

have to sample and analyze every stream or process vent, 

i.e., you do not have to sample and analyze a stream or 

process vent that contains only fluorinated GHGs that are 

contained in other streams or process vents that are being 

sampled and analyzed. Initial scoping analysis must be 

conducted according to the procedures in paragraph (e) of 

this section. 

(2) Previous measurements. If you have conducted 

testing of streams (including process streams or destroyed 

streams) or process vents less than 10 years before [INSERT 

DATE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], 

and the testing meets the requirements in paragraph (a)(1) 

of this section, you may use the previous testing to 

satisfy this requirement. 

(b) Mass balance monitoring. If you determine 

fluorinated GHG emissions from any process using the mass 

balance method under §98.123(b), you must estimate the 

total mass of each fluorinated GHG emitted from that 

process at least monthly. Only streams that contain 
Page 339 of 442 

greater than trace concentrations of fluorine-containing 

reactants, products, or by-products must be monitored under 

this paragraph. If you use an element other than fluorine 

in the mass-balance equation pursuant to §98.123(b)(3), 

substitute that element for fluorine in the monitoring 

requirements of this paragraph. 

(1) Mass measurements. Measure the following masses 

on a monthly or more frequent basis using flowmeters, weigh 

scales, or a combination of volumetric and density 

measurements with accuracies and precisions that allow the 

facility to meet the error criteria in §98.123(b)(1): 

(i) Total mass of each fluorine-containing product 

produced. Account for any used fluorine-containing product 

added into the production process upstream of the output 

measurement as directed at §98.413(b) and §98.414(b). For 

each product, the mass produced used for the mass-balance 

calculation must be the same as the mass produced that is 

reported under subpart OO of this part, where applicable. 

(ii) Total mass of each fluorine-containing reactant 

fed into the process. 

(iii) The mass removed from the process in each 

stream fed into the destruction device. 

(iv) The mass removed from the process in each 

recaptured stream. 
Page 340 of 442 

(2) Concentration measurements for use with 

§98.123(b)(4). If you use §98.123(b)(4) to estimate the 

mass of fluorine in destroyed or recaptured streams, 

measure the following concentrations at least once each 

calendar month during which the process is operating, on a 

schedule to ensure that the measurements are representative 

of the full range of process conditions (e.g., catalyst 

age). Measure more frequently if this is necessary to meet 

the error criteria in §98.123(b)(1). Use equipment and 

methods (e.g., gas chromatography) that comply with 

paragraph (e) of this section and that have an accuracy and 

precision that allow the facility to meet the error 

criteria in §98.123(b)(1). Only fluorine-containing 

reactants, products, and by-products that occur in a stream 

in greater than trace concentrations must be monitored 

under this paragraph. 

(i) The concentration (mass fraction) of the 

fluorine-containing product in each stream that is fed into 

the destruction device. 

(ii) The concentration (mass fraction) of each 

fluorine-containing by-product in each stream that is fed 

into the destruction device. 
Page 341 of 442 

(iii) The concentration (mass fraction) of each 

fluorine-containing reactant in each stream that is fed 

into the destruction device. 

(iv) The concentration (mass fraction) of each 

fluorine-containing by-product in each stream that is 

recaptured (cBkl). 

(3) Concentration measurements for use with 

§98.123(b)(15). If you use §98.123(b)(15) to estimate the 

mass of fluorine in destroyed or recaptured streams, 

measure the concentrations listed in paragraphs (3)(i) and 

(ii) of this section at least once each calendar month 

during which the process is operating, on a schedule to 

ensure that the measurements are representative of the full 

range of process conditions (e.g., catalyst age). Measure 

more frequently if this is necessary to meet the error 

criteria in §98.123(b)(1). Use equipment and methods 

(e.g., gas chromatography) that comply with paragraph (e) 

of this section and that have an accuracy and precision 

that allow the facility to meet the error criteria in 

§98.123(b)(1). Only fluorine-containing reactants, 

products, and by-products that occur in a stream in greater 

than trace concentrations must be monitored under this 

paragraph. 
Page 342 of 442 

(i) The concentration (mass fraction) of total 

fluorine in each stream that is fed into the destruction 

device. 

(ii) The concentration (mass fraction) of total 

fluorine in each stream that is recaptured. 

(4) Emissions characterization: vents emitting 25,000 

metric tons CO2e or more. To characterize emissions from 

any vent emitting 25,000 metric tons CO2e or more, comply 

with paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (b)(4)(iii) of this 

section, as appropriate. Only fluorine-containing 

reactants, products, and by-products that occur in a stream 

in greater than trace concentrations must be monitored 

under this paragraph. 

(i) Uncontrolled emissions. If emissions from the 

vent are not routed through a destruction device, sample 

and analyze emissions at the process vent or stack or 

sample and analyze emitted streams before the process vent. 

If the process has more than one operating scenario, you 

must either perform the emission characterization for each 

operating scenario or perform the emission characterization 

for the operating scenario that is expected to have the 

largest emissions and adjust the emission characterization 

for other scenarios using Equation L-23 of this section. 

To perform the characterization, take three samples under 
Page 343 of 442 

conditions that are representative for the operating 

scenario. Measure the concentration of each fluorinecontaining compound in each sample. Use equipment and 

methods that comply with paragraph (e) of this section. 

Calculate the average concentration of each fluorinecontaining compound across all three samples. 

(ii) Controlled emissions using §98.123(b)(15). If 

you use §98.123(b)(15) to estimate the total mass of 

fluorine in destroyed or recaptured streams, and if the 

emissions from the vent are routed through a destruction 

device, characterize emissions as specified in paragraph 

(b)(4)(i) of this section before the control device. Apply 

the destruction efficiency demonstrated for each 

fluorinated GHG in the destroyed stream to that fluorinated 

GHG. Exclude from the characterization fluorine-containing 

compounds that are not fluorinated GHGs. 

(iii) Controlled emissions using §98.123(b)(4). If 

you use §98.123(b)(4) to estimate the mass of fluorine in 

destroyed or recaptured streams, and if the emissions from 

the vent are routed through a destruction device, 

characterize the vent’s emissions monthly (or more 

frequently) using the monthly (or more frequent) 

measurements under paragraph (b)(2)(i) through (iii) of 

this section. Apply the destruction efficiency 
Page 344 of 442 

demonstrated for each fluorinated GHG in the destroyed 

stream to that fluorinated GHG. Exclude from the 

characterization fluorine-containing compounds that are not 

fluorinated GHGs. 

(5) Emissions characterization: vents emitting less 

than 25,000 metric tons CO2e. To characterize emissions 

from any vent emitting less than 25,000 metric tons CO2e, 

comply with paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (b)(5)(iii) of 

this section, as appropriate. Only fluorine-containing 

reactants, products, and by-products that occur in a stream 

in greater than trace concentrations must be monitored 

under this paragraph. 

(i) Uncontrolled emissions. If emissions from the 

vent are not routed through a destruction device, emission 

measurements must consist of sampling and analysis of 

emissions at the process vent or stack, sampling and 

analysis of emitted streams before the process vent, 

previous test results, provided the tests are 

representative of current operating conditions of the 

process, or bench-scale or pilot-scale test data 

representative of the process operating conditions. 

(ii) Controlled emissions using §98.123(b)(15). If 

you use §98.123(b)(15) to estimate the total mass of 

fluorine in destroyed or recaptured streams, and if the 
Page 345 of 442 

emissions from the vent are routed through a destruction 

device, characterize emissions as specified in paragraph 

(b)(5)(i) of this section before the control device. Apply 

the destruction efficiency demonstrated for each 

fluorinated GHG in the destroyed stream to that fluorinated 

GHG. Exclude from the characterization fluorine-containing 

compounds that are not fluorinated GHGs. 

 (iii) Controlled emissions using §98.123(b)(4). If 

you use §98.123(b)(4) to estimate the mass of fluorine in 

destroyed or recaptured streams, and if the emissions from 

the vent are routed through a destruction device, 

characterize the vent’s emissions monthly (or more 

frequently) using the monthly (or more frequent) 

measurements under paragraph (b)(2)(i) through (iii) of 

this section. Apply the destruction efficiency 

demonstrated for each fluorinated GHG in the destroyed 

stream to that fluorinated GHG. Exclude from the 

characterization fluorine-containing compounds that are not 

fluorinated GHGs. 

(6) Emissions characterization: emissions not 

accounted for by vent estimates. Calculate the weighted 

average emission characterization across the process vents 

before any destruction devices. Apply the weighted average 

emission characterization for all the process vents to any 
Page 346 of 442 

fluorine emissions that are not accounted for by vent 

estimates. 

(7) If any fluorine-containing impurity is fed into a 

process along with a reactant (or other input) in greater 

than trace concentrations, this impurity shall be monitored 

under this section and included in the calculations under 

§98.123 in the same manner as reactants fed into the 

process, fed into the destruction device, recaptured, or 

emitted, except the concentration of the impurity in the 

mass fed into the process shall be measured, and the mass 

of the impurity fed into the process shall be calculated as 

the product of the concentration of the impurity and the 

mass fed into the process. The mass of the reactant fed 

into the process may be reduced to account for the mass of 

the impurity. 

(8) Alternative to error calculation. As an 

alternative to calculating the relative and absolute errors 

associated with the estimate of emissions under §98.123(b), 

you may comply with the precision, accuracy, measurement 

and calculation frequency, and fluorinated GHG throughput 

requirements of paragraph (b)(8)(i) through (b)(8)(iv) of 

this section. 

(i) Mass measurements. Measure the masses specified 

in paragraph (b)(1) of this section using flowmeters, weigh 
Page 347 of 442 

scales, or a combination of volumetric and density 

measurements with accuracies and precisions of ±0.2 percent 

of full scale or better. 

(ii) Concentration measurements. Measure the 

concentrations specified in paragraph (b)(2) or paragraph 

(b)(3) of this section, as applicable, using analytical 

methods with accuracies and precisions of ±10 percent or 

better. 

(iii) Measurement and calculation frequency. Perform 

the mass measurements specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section and the concentration measurements specified in 

paragraph (b)(2) or paragraph (b)(3) of this section, as 

applicable, at least weekly, and calculate emissions at 

least weekly. 

(iv) Fluorinated-GHG throughput limit. You may use 

the alternative to the error calculation specified in 

paragraph (b)(8) of this section only if the total annual 

CO2-equivalent fluorinated GHG throughput of the process is 

500,000 mtCO2e or less. The total throughput is the sum of 

the masses of the fluorinated GHG reactants, products, and 

by-products fed into and generated by the process. To 

convert these masses to CO2e, use Equation A-1 of §98.2. 

For fluorinated GHGs whose GWPs are not listed in Table A-1 

to subpart A of this part, use a default GWP of 2,000. 
Page 348 of 442 

(c) Emission factor testing. If you determine 

fluorinated GHG emissions using the site-specific processvent-specific emission factor, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(8) of this 

section. 

(1) Process vent testing. Conduct an emissions test 

that is based on representative performance of the affected 

process or operating scenario(s) of the process, as 

applicable. Include in the emission test any fluorinated 

greenhouse gas that occurs in more than trace 

concentrations in the vent stream or, where a destruction 

device is used, in the inlet to the destruction device. 

You may include startup and shutdown events if the testing 

is sufficiently long or comprehensive to ensure that such 

events are not overrepresented in the emission factor. 

Malfunction events must not be included in the testing. 

(2) Number of runs. For continuous processes, sample 

the process vent for a minimum of 3 runs of 1 hour each. 

If the RSD of the emission factor calculated based on the 

first 3 runs is greater than or equal to 0.15 for the 

emission factor, continue to sample the process vent for an 

additional 3 runs of 1 hour each. If more than one 

fluorinated GHG is measured, the RSD must be expressed in 

terms of total CO2 equivalents. For fluorinated GHGs whose 
Page 349 of 442 

GWPs are not listed in Table A-1 to subpart A of this part, 

use a default GWP of 2,000 in the RSD calculation. 

(3) Process activity measurements. Determine the 

mass rate of process feed, process production, or other 

process activity as applicable during the test using flow 

meters, weigh scales, or other measurement devices or 

instruments with an accuracy and precision of ±1 percent of 

full scale or better. These devices may be the same plant 

instruments or procedures that are used for accounting 

purposes (such as weigh hoppers, belt weigh feeders, 

combination of volume measurements and bulk density, etc.) 

if these devices or procedures meet the requirement. For 

monitoring ongoing process activity, use flow meters, weigh 

scales, or other measurement devices or instruments with an 

accuracy and precision of ±1 percent of full scale or 

better. 

(4) Sample each process. If process vents from 

separate processes are manifolded together to a common vent 

or to a common destruction device, you must follow 

§98.124(c)(4)(i), (ii), or (iii). 

(i) You may sample emissions from each process in the 

ducts before the emissions are combined. 
Page 350 of 442 

(ii) You may sample in the common duct or at the 

outlet of the destruction device when only one process is 

operating. 

(iii) You may sample the combined emissions and use 

engineering calculations and assessments as specified in 

§98.123(c)(4) to allocate the emissions to each manifolded 

process vent, provided the sum of the calculated 

fluorinated GHG emissions across the individual process 

vents is within 20 percent of the total fluorinated GHG 

emissions measured during the manifolded testing. 

(5) Emission test results. The results of an 

emission test must include the analysis of samples, number 

of test runs, the results of the RSD analysis, the 

analytical method used, determination of emissions, and raw 

data and must identify the process, the operating scenario, 

the process vents tested, and the fluorinated GHGs that 

were included in the test (i.e., the fluorinated GHGs that 

occur in more than trace concentrations in the vent stream 

or, where a destruction device is used, in the inlet to the 

destruction device, and any other fluorinated GHGs included 

in the test). The emissions test report must contain all 

information and data used to derive the process-ventspecific emission factor, as well as key process conditions 

during the test. Key process conditions include those that 
Page 351 of 442 

are normally monitored for process control purposes and may 

include but are not limited to yields, pressures, 

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

columns). 

(7) Emissions testing frequency. You must conduct 

emissions testing to develop the process-vent-specific 

emission factor under paragraph (c)(7)(i) or (ii) of this 

section, whichever occurs first: 

(i) 10-year revision. Conduct an emissions test 

every 10 years. In the calculations under §98.123, apply 

the revised process-vent-specific emission factor to the 

process activity that occurs after the revision. 

(ii) Operating scenario change that affects the 

emission factor. For planned operating scenario changes, 

you must estimate and compare the emission calculation 

factors for the changed operating scenario and for the 

original operating scenario whose process vent specific 

emission factor was measured. Use the calculation methods 

in §98.123(c)(4). If the emission calculation factor for 

the changed operating scenario is 15 percent or more 

different from the emission calculation factor for the 

previous operating scenario (this includes the cumulative 

change in the emission calculation factor since the last 

emissions test), you must conduct an emissions test to 
Page 352 of 442 

update the process-vent-specific emission factor. Conduct 

the test before the February 28 of the year that 

immediately follows the change. In the calculations under 

§98.123, apply the revised process-vent-specific emission 

factor to the process activity that occurs after the 

operating scenario change. 

 (8) Subsequent measurements. If a continuous 

process vent with fluorinated GHG emissions less than 

10,000 metric tons CO2e, per §98.123(c)(2), is later found 

to have fluorinated GHG emissions of 10,000 metric tons CO2e 

or greater, you must conduct the emissions testing for the 

process vent during the following year and develop the 

process-vent-specific emission factor from the emissions 

testing. 

(9) Previous measurements. If you have conducted an 

emissions test less than 10 years before [INSERT DATE 30 

DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and the 

emissions testing meets the requirements in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (8) of this section, you may use the 

previous emissions testing to develop process-vent-specific 

emission factors. For purposes of paragraph (c)(7)(i) of 

this section, the date of the previous emissions test 

rather than [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE 
Page 353 of 442 

FEDERAL REGISTER] shall constitute the beginning of the 10-

year re-measurement cycle. 

(d) Emission calculation factor monitoring. If you 

determine fluorinated GHG emissions using the site-specific 

process-vent-specific emission calculation factor, you must 

meet the requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(4) 

of this section. 

(1) Operating scenario. Perform the emissions 

calculation for the process vent based on representative 

performance of the operating scenario of the affected 

process. If more than one operating scenario applies to 

the process that contains the subject process vent, you 

must conduct a separate emissions calculation for operation 

under each operating scenario. For each continuous process 

vent that contains more than trace concentrations of any 

fluorinated GHG and for each batch process vent that 

contains more than trace concentrations of any fluorinated 

GHG, develop the process-vent-specific emission calculation 

factor for each operating scenario. For continuous process 

vents, determine the emissions based on the process 

activity for the representative performance of the 

operating scenario. For batch process vents, determine 

emissions based on the process activity for each typical 

batch operating scenario. 
Page 354 of 442 

(2) Process activity measurements. Use flow meters, 

weigh scales, or other measurement devices or instruments 

with an accuracy and precision of ±1 percent of full scale 

or better for monitoring ongoing process activity. 

(3) Emission calculation results. The emission 

calculation must be documented by identifying the process, 

the operating scenario, and the process vents. The 

documentation must contain information and data used to 

calculate the process-vent-specific emission calculation 

factor. 

(4) Operating scenario change that affects the 

emission calculation factor. For planned operating 

scenario changes that are expected to change the processvent-specific emission calculation factor, you must conduct 

an emissions calculation to update the process-ventspecific emission calculation factor. In the calculations 

under §98.123, apply the revised emission calculation 

factor to the process activity that occurs after the 

operating scenario change. 

(5) Previous calculations. If you have performed an 

emissions calculation for the process vent and operating 

scenario less than 10 years before [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS 

AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and the 

emissions calculation meets the requirements in paragraphs 
Page 355 of 442 

(d)(1) through (4) of this section and in §98.123(c)(4)(i) 

and (ii), you may use the previous calculation to develop 

the site-specific process-vent-specific emission 

calculation factor. 

(e) Emission and stream testing, including analytical 

methods. Select and document testing and analytical 

methods as follows: 

(1) Sampling and mass measurement for emission 

testing. For emission testing in process vents or at the 

stack, use methods for sampling, measuring volumetric flow 

rates, non-fluorinated-GHG gas analysis, and measuring 

stack gas moisture that have been validated using a 

scientifically sound validation protocol. 

(i) Sample and velocity traverses. Acceptable 

methods include but are not limited to EPA Method 1 or 1A 

in Appendix A-1 of 40 CFR part 60. 

(ii) Velocity and volumetric flow rates. Acceptable 

methods include but are not limited to EPA Method 2, 2A, 

2B, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G in Appendix A-1 of 40 CFR part 60. 

Alternatives that may be used for determining flow rates 

include OTM-24 (incorporated by reference, see §98.7) and 

ALT-012 (incorporated by reference, see §98.7). 
Page 356 of 442 

(iii) Non-fluorinated-GHG gas analysis. Acceptable 

methods include but are not limited to EPA Method 3, 3A, or 

3B in Appendix A-1 of 40 CFR part 60. 

(iv) Stack gas moisture. Acceptable methods include 

but are not limited to EPA Method 4 in Appendix A-1 of 40 

CFR part 60. 

(2) Analytical methods. Use a quality-assured 

analytical measurement technology capable of detecting the 

analyte of interest at the concentration of interest and 

use a procedure validated with the analyte of interest at 

the concentration of interest. Where calibration standards 

for the analyte are not available, a chemically similar 

surrogate may be used. Acceptable analytical measurement 

technologies include but are not limited to gas 

chromatography (GC) with an appropriate detector, infrared 

(IR), fourier transform infrared (FTIR), and nuclear 

magnetic resonance (NMR). Acceptable methods for 

determining fluorinated GHGs include EPA Method 18 in 

appendix A-1 of 40 CFR part 60, EPA Method 320 in appendix 

A of 40 CFR part 63, EPA 430-R-10-003 (incorporated by 

reference, see §98.7), ASTM D6348-03 (incorporated by 

reference, see §98.7), or other analytical methods 

validated using EPA Method 301 at 40 CFR part 63, appendix 

A or some other scientifically sound validation protocol. 
Page 357 of 442 

Acceptable methods for determining total fluorine 

concentrations for fluorine-containing compounds in streams 

for §98.123(b) include EPA Method 13A of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-5 (in some instances), EPA Method 13B of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-5 (in some instances), EPA Method 26 

and EPA Method 26A in appendix A-8 of 40 CFR part 60, EPA 

Method 320 in appendix A of 40 CFR part 63, and ASTM D7359-

08 (incorporated by reference, see §98.7), or other 

analytical methods validated using EPA Method 301 at 40 CFR 

part 63, appendix A or some other scientifically sound 

validation protocol. The validation protocol may include 

analytical technology manufacturer specifications or 

recommendations. 

(3) Documentation in GHG Monitoring Plan. Describe 

the sampling, measurement, and analytical method(s) used 

under paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this section in the 

site GHG Monitoring Plan as required under §98.3(g)(5). 

Identify the methods used to obtain the samples and 

measurements listed under paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through 

(e)(1)(iv) of this section. At a minimum, include in the 

description of the analytical method a description of the 

analytical measurement equipment and procedures, 

quantitative estimates of the method’s accuracy and 

precision for the analytes of interest at the 
Page 358 of 442 

concentrations of interest, as well as a description of how 

these accuracies and precisions were estimated, including 

the validation protocol used. 

(f) Emission monitoring for pieces of equipment. If 

you conduct a site-specific leak detection method or 

monitoring approach for pieces of equipment, follow 

paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this section and follow 

paragraph (f)(3) of this section. 

(1) Site-specific leak detection approach. You may 

develop a site-specific leak detection approach. You must 

validate the leak detection method and describe the method 

and the validation in the GHG Monitoring Plan (for example, 

you could validate by releasing a known rate of fluorinated 

GHG or surrogate), and if it is not possible to validate 

the site-specific leak detection method, then describe any 

efforts that have been undertaken to compare the results of 

the method to those obtained using other means, including 

the results of that comparison. Include in this 

description a detailed description of the method, including 

the procedures and equipment used and any sampling 

strategies. Also include the rationale behind the method, 

including why the method is expected to result in an 

unbiased estimate of emissions from equipment leaks. If 

the method is based on methods that are used to detect or 
Page 359 of 442 

quantify leaks or other emissions in other regulations, 

standards, or guidelines, identify and describe the 

regulations, standards, or guidelines and why their methods 

are applicable to emissions of fluorinated GHGs from leaks. 

Account for possible sources of error in the method, e.g., 

instrument detection limits, measurement biases, and 

sampling biases. For methods based on measuring the 

concentrations of leaked fluorinated GHGs in room air, 

explain how the method accounts for variations in 

concentrations in room air and the possibility that some of 

the mass of fluorinated GHGs emitted may not be accounted 

for in the measurement and/or subsequent estimate. For all 

methods, provide a quantitative estimate of the accuracy 

and precision of the method. 

(2) EPA Method 21 monitoring. If you determine that 

EPA Method 21 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 is 

appropriate for monitoring a fluorinated GHG, conduct the 

screening level concentration measurements using EPA Method 

21 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 to determine the 

screening level concentration data or actual screening 

level concentration data for the Screening Ranges Approach, 

EPA's Correlation Approach, or the Unit-Specific 

Correlation Approach. For the one-time testing to develop 

the Unit-Specific Correlation equations in EPA-453/R-95-017 
Page 360 of 442 

(incorporated by reference, see §98.7), conduct the 

screening level concentration measurements using EPA Method 

21 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 and the bagging 

procedures to measure mass emissions. Concentration 

measurements of bagged samples must be conducted using gas 

chromatography following EPA Method 18 analytical 

procedures or other method according to §98.124(e). Use 

methane or other appropriate compound as the calibration 

gas. 

(3) Frequency of Measurement and Sampling. If you 

estimate emissions based on monitoring of equipment, 

conduct monitoring at least annually. Sample at least onethird of equipment annually (except for equipment that is 

unsafe-to-monitor, difficult-to-monitor, insulated, in 

heavy liquid service, pumps with dual mechanical seals, 

agitators with dual mechanical seals, pumps with no 

external shaft, agitators with no external shaft, pressure 

relief devices in gas and vapor service with an upstream 

rupture disk, sampling connection systems with closed-loop 

or closed purge systems, and pieces of equipment whose 

leaks are routed through a closed vent system to a 

destruction device), changing the sample each year such 

that at the end of three years, all equipment in the 

process has been monitored. If you estimate emissions 
Page 361 of 442 

based on a sample of the equipment in the process, ensure 

that the sample is representative of the equipment in the 

process. 

(g) Destruction device performance testing. If you 

vent or otherwise feed fluorinated GHGs into a destruction 

device and apply the destruction efficiency of the device 

to one or more fluorinated GHGs in §98.123, you must 

conduct emissions testing to determine the destruction 

efficiency for each fluorinated GHG to which you apply the 

destruction efficiency. You must either determine the 

destruction efficiency for the most-difficult-to-destroy 

fluorinated GHG fed into the device (or a surrogate that is 

still more difficult to destroy) and apply that destruction 

efficiency to all the fluorinated GHGs fed into the device 

or alternatively determine different destruction 

efficiencies for different groups of fluorinated GHGs using 

the most-difficult-to-destroy fluorinated GHG of each group 

(or a surrogate that is still more difficult to destroy). 

(1) Destruction efficiency testing. You must sample 

the inlet and outlet of the destruction device for a 

minimum of three runs of 1 hour each to determine the 

destruction efficiency. You must conduct the emissions 

testing using the methods in paragraph (e) of this section. 

To determine the destruction efficiency, emission testing 
Page 362 of 442 

must be conducted when operating at high loads reasonably 

expected to occur (i.e., representative of high total 

fluorinated GHG load that will be sent to the device) and 

when destroying the most-difficult-to-destroy fluorinated 

GHG (or a surrogate that is still more difficult to 

destroy) that is fed into the device from the processes 

subject to this subpart or that belongs to the group of 

fluorinated GHGs for which you wish to establish a DE. If 

the outlet concentration of fluorinated GHG is below the 

detection limit of the method, you may use a concentration 

of one-half the detection limit to estimate the destruction 

efficiency. 

(i) If perfluoromethane (CF4) is vented to the 

destruction device in any stream in more than trace 

concentrations, you must test and determine the destruction 

efficiency achieved specifically for CF4 to take credit for 

the CF4 emissions reduction. 

(ii) If sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is vented to the 

destruction device in any stream in more than trace 

concentrations, you must test and determine the destruction 

efficiency achieved specifically for SF6, or alternatively 

for CF4 as a surrogate, to take credit for the SF6 emissions 

reduction. 
Page 363 of 442 

(iii) If saturated perfluorocarbons other than CF4 are 

vented to the destruction device in any stream in more than 

trace concentrations, you must test and determine the 

destruction efficiency achieved for the lowest molecular 

weight saturated perfluorocarbon vented to the destruction 

device, or alternatively for a lower molecular weight 

saturated PFC or SF6 as a surrogate, to take credit for the 

PFC emission reduction. 

(iv) For all other fluorinated GHGs that are vented 

to the destruction device in any stream in more than trace 

concentrations, you must test and determine the destruction 

efficiency achieved for the most-difficult-to-destroy 

fluorinated GHG or surrogate vented to the destruction 

device (e.g., any Class 1 compound in Table D-l to 

"Guidance on Setting Permit Conditions and Reporting Trial 

Burn Results; Volume II of the Hazardous Waste Incineration 

Guidance Series," Appendix D, January 1989, EPA Publication 

EPA/625/6-89/019). 

(2) Destruction efficiency testing frequency. You 

must conduct emissions testing to determine the destruction 

efficiency as provided in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) or (ii) of 

this section, whichever occurs first: 
Page 364 of 442 

(i) Conduct an emissions test every 10 years. In the 

calculations under §98.123, apply the updated destruction 

efficiency to the destruction that occurs after the test. 

(ii) Destruction device changes that affect the 

destruction efficiency. If you make a change to the 

destruction device that would be expected to affect the 

destruction efficiency, you must conduct an emissions test 

to update the destruction efficiency. Conduct the test 

before the February 28 of the year that immediately follows 

the change. In the calculations under §98.123, apply the 

updated destruction efficiency to the destruction that 

occurs after the change to the device. 

(3) Previous testing. If you have conducted an 

emissions test within the 10 years prior to [INSERT THE 

DATE 30 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER], and the emissions testing meets the requirements 

in paragraph (g)(1) of this section, you may use the 

destruction efficiency determined during this previous 

emissions testing. For purposes of paragraph (2)(i) of this 

section, the date of the previous emissions test rather 

than [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER] shall constitute the beginning of the 

10-year re-measurement cycle. 
Page 365 of 442 

(4) Hazardous Waste Combustor testing. If a 

destruction device used to destroy fluorinated GHG is 

subject to subpart EEE of part 63 of this chapter or any 

portion of parts 260-270 of this chapter, you may apply the 

destruction efficiency specifically determined for CF4, SF6, 

PFCs other than CF4, and all other fluorinated GHGs under 

that test if the testing meets the criteria in paragraph 

(g)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section. 

(h) Mass of previously produced fluorinated GHGs fed 

into destruction device. You must measure the mass of each 

fluorinated GHG that is fed into the destruction device in 

more than trace concentrations and that was previously 

produced as defined at §98.410(b). Such fluorinated GHGs 

include but are not limited to quantities that are shipped 

to the facility by another facility for destruction and 

quantities that are returned to the facility for 

reclamation but are found to be irretrievably contaminated 

and are therefore destroyed. You must use flowmeters, 

weigh scales, or a combination of volumetric and density 

measurements with an accuracy and precision of ±1 percent 

of full scale or better. If the measured mass includes 

more than trace concentrations of materials other than the 

fluorinated GHG being destroyed, you must measure the 

concentration of the fluorinated GHG being destroyed. You 
Page 366 of 442 

must multiply this concentration (mass fraction) by the 

mass measurement to obtain the mass of the fluorinated GHG 

fed into the destruction device. 

(i) Emissions due to malfunctions of destruction 

device. In their estimates of the mass of fluorinated GHG 

destroyed, fluorinated GHG production facilities that 

destroy fluorinated GHGs must account for any temporary 

reductions in the destruction efficiency that result from 

any malfunctions of the destruction device, including 

periods of operation outside of the operating conditions 

defined in State or local permitting requirements and/or 

oxidizer manufacturer specifications. 

(j) Emissions due to process startup, shutdown, or 

malfunctions. Fluorinated GHG production facilities must 

account for fluorinated GHG emissions that occur as a 

result of startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions, either 

recording fluorinated GHG emissions during these events, or 

documenting that these events do not result in significant 

fluorinated GHG emissions. 

(k) Monitoring for venting residual fluorinated GHG 

in containers. Measure the residual fluorinated GHG in 

containers received by the facility either using scales or 

using pressure and temperature measurements. You may use 

pressure and temperature measurements only in cases where 
Page 367 of 442 

no liquid fluorinated GHG is present in the container. 

Scales must have an accuracy and precision of ±1 percent or 

better of the filled weight (gas plus tare) of the 

containers of fluorinated GHGs that are typically weighed 

on the scale. For example, for scales that are generally 

used to weigh cylinders that contain 115 pounds of gas when 

full and that have a tare weight of 115 pounds, this 

equates to ±1 percent of 230 pounds, or ±2.3 pounds. 

Pressure gauges and thermometers used to measure quantities 

that are monitored under this paragraph must have an 

accuracy and precision of ±1 percent of full scale or 

better. 

(l) Initial scoping tests, emissions testing, 

emission factor development, emission calculation factor 

development, emission characterization development, and 

destruction efficiency determinations must be completed by 

February 29, 2012 for processes and operating scenarios 

that operate between [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION 

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] and December 31, 2011. For other 

processes and operating scenarios, initial scoping tests, 

emissions testing, emission factor development, emission 

calculation factor development, emission characterization 

development, and destruction efficiency determinations must 

be complete by February 28 of the year following the year 
Page 368 of 442 

in which the process or operating scenario commences or 

recommences. 

(m) Calibrate all flow meters, weigh scales, and 

combinations of volumetric and density measures using 

monitoring instruments traceable to the International 

System of Units (SI) through the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST) or other recognized 

national measurement institute. Recalibrate all flow 

meters, weigh scales, and combinations of volumetric and 

density measures at the minimum frequency specified by the 

manufacturer. Use any of the following applicable flow 

meter test methods or the calibration procedures specified 

by the flow meter, weigh-scale, or other volumetric or 

density measure manufacturer. 

(1) ASME MFC–3M–2004 Measurement of Fluid Flow in 

Pipes Using Orifice, Nozzle, and Venturi (incorporated by 

reference, see §98.7). 

(2) ASME MFC–4M–1986 (Reaffirmed 1997) Measurement of 

Gas Flow by Turbine Meters (incorporated by reference, see 

§98.7). 

(3) ASME-MFC–5M–1985, (Reaffirmed 1994) Measurement 

of Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits Using Transit-Time 

Ultrasonic Flowmeters (incorporated by reference, see 

§98.7). 
Page 369 of 442 

(4) ASME MFC–6M–1998 Measurement of Fluid Flow in 

Pipes Using Vortex Flowmeters (incorporated by reference, 

see §98.7). 

(5) ASME MFC–7M–1987 (Reaffirmed 1992) Measurement of 

Gas Flow by Means of Critical Flow Venturi Nozzles 

(incorporated by reference, see §98.7). 

(6) ASME MFC–9M–1988 (Reaffirmed 2001) Measurement of 

Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits by Weighing Method 

(incorporated by reference, see §98.7). 

(7) ASME MFC-11M-2006 Measurement of Fluid Flow by 

Means of Coriolis Mass Flowmeters (incorporated by 

reference, see §98.7). 

(8) ASME MFC-14M-2003 Measurement of Fluid Flow Using 

Small Bore Precision Orifice Meters (incorporated by 

reference, see §98.7). 

(n) All analytical equipment used to determine the 

concentration of fluorinated GHGs, including but not 

limited to gas chromatographs and associated detectors, 

infrared (IR), fourier transform infrared (FTIR), and 

nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) devices, must be 

calibrated at a frequency needed to support the type of 

analysis specified in the site GHG Monitoring Plan as 

required under §98.124(e)(3) and 93.3(g)(5). Quality 

assurance samples at the concentrations of concern must be 
Page 370 of 442 

used for the calibration. Such quality assurance samples 

must consist of or be prepared from certified standards of 

the analytes of concern where available; if not available, 

calibration must be performed by a method specified in the 

facility GHG Monitoring Plan. 

(o) Special provisions for estimating 2011 and 

subsequent year emissions. 

(1) Best available monitoring methods. To estimate 

emissions that occur from January 1, 2011 through June 30, 

2011, owners or operators may use best available monitoring 

methods for any parameter that cannot reasonably be 

measured according to the monitoring and QA/QC requirements 

of this subpart. The owner or operator must use the 

calculation methodologies and equations in §98.123, but may 

use the best available monitoring method for any parameter 

for which it is not reasonably feasible to acquire, 

install, or operate a required piece of monitoring 

equipment, to procure measurement services from necessary 

providers, or to gain physical access to make required 

measurements in a facility by January 1, 2011. Starting no 

later than July 1, 2011, the owner or operator must 

discontinue using best available methods and begin 

following all applicable monitoring and QA/QC requirements 

of this part, except as provided in paragraphs (o)(2) 
Page 371 of 442 

through (o)(4) of this section. Best available monitoring 

methods means any of the following methods specified in 

this paragraph: 

(i) Monitoring methods currently used by the facility 

that do not meet the specifications of this subpart. 

(ii) Supplier data. 

(iii) Engineering calculations or assessments. 

(iv) Other company records. 

(2) Requests for extension of the use of best 

available monitoring methods to estimate 2011 emissions: 

parameters other than scoping tests, emission factors, and 

emission characterizations. The owner or operator may 

submit a request to the Administrator to use one or more 

best available monitoring methods for parameters other than 

scoping tests, emission factors, or emission 

characterizations to estimate emissions that occur between 

July 1, 2011 and December 31, 2011. 

(i) Timing of request. The extension request must be 

submitted to EPA no later than February 28, 2011. 

(ii) Content of request. Requests must contain the 

following information: 

(A) A list of specific items of monitoring equipment 

and measurement services for which the request is being 

made and the locations (e.g., processes and vents) where 
Page 372 of 442 

each piece of monitoring equipment will be installed and 

where each measurement service will be provided. 

(B) Identification of the specific rule requirements 

for which the monitoring equipment or measurement service 

is needed. 

(C) A description of the reasons why the needed 

equipment could not be obtained, installed, or operated or 

why the needed measurement service could not be provided 

before July 1, 2011. The owner or operator must consider 

all of the data collection and emission calculation options 

outlined in the rule for a specific emissions source before 

claiming that a specific safety, technical, logistical, or 

legal barrier exists. 

(D) If the reason for the extension is that the 

equipment cannot be purchased, delivered, or installed 

before July 1, 2011, include supporting documentation such 

as the date the monitoring equipment was ordered, 

investigation of alternative suppliers, the dates by which 

alternative vendors promised delivery or installation, 

backorder notices or unexpected delays, descriptions of 

actions taken to expedite delivery or installation, and the 

current expected date of delivery or installation. 

(E) If the reason for the extension is that service 

providers were unable to provide necessary measurement 
Page 373 of 442 

services, include supporting documentation demonstrating 

that these services could not be acquired before July 1, 

2011. This documentation must include written 

correspondence to and from at least two service providers 

stating that they will not be able to provide the necessary 

services before July 1, 2011. 

(F) If the reason for the extension is that the 

process is operating continuously without process shutdown, 

include supporting documentation showing that it is not 

practicable to isolate the process equipment or unit and 

install the measurement device without a full shutdown or a 

hot tap, and that there is no opportunity before July 1, 

2011 to install the device. Include the date of the three 

most recent shutdowns for each relevant process equipment 

or unit, the frequency of shutdowns for each relevant 

process equipment or unit, and the date of the next planned 

process equipment or unit shutdown. 

(G) If the reason for the extension is that access to 

process streams, emissions streams, or destroyed streams, 

as applicable, could not be gained before July 1, 2011 for 

reasons other than the continuous operation of the process 

without shutdown, include illustrative documentation such 

as photographs and engineering diagrams demonstrating that 

access could not be gained. 
Page 374 of 442 

(H) A description of the best available monitoring 

methods that will be used and how their results will be 

applied (i.e., which calculation method will be used) to 

develop the emission estimate. Where the proposed best 

available monitoring method is the use of current 

monitoring data in the mass-balance approach, include the 

estimated relative and absolute errors of the mass-balance 

approach using the current monitoring data. 

(I) A description of the specific actions the owner 

or operator will take to comply with monitoring 

requirements by January 1, 2012. 

(3) Requests for extension of the use of best 

available monitoring methods to estimate 2011 emissions: 

scoping tests, emission factors, and emission 

characterizations. The owner or operator may submit a 

request to the Administrator to use one or more best 

available monitoring methods for scoping tests, emission 

factors, and emission characterizations to estimate 

emissions that occur between July 1, 2011 and December 31, 

2011. 

(i) Timing of request. The extension request must be 

submitted to EPA no later than June 30, 2011. 

(ii) Content of request. Requests must contain the 

information outlined in paragraph (o)(2)(ii) of this 
Page 375 of 442 

section, substituting March 1, 2012 for July 1, 2011 and 

substituting March 1, 2013 for January 1, 2012. 

(iii) Reporting of 2011 emissions using scoping 

tests, emission factors, and emission characterizations 

developed after February 29, 2012. Facilities that are 

approved to use best available monitoring methods in 2011 

for scoping tests, emission factors, or emission 

characterizations for certain processes must submit, by 

March 31, 2013, revised 2011 emission estimates that 

reflect the scoping tests, emission factors, and emission 

characterizations that are measured for those processes 

after February 29, 2012. If the operating scenario for 

2011 is different from all of the operating scenarios for 

which emission factors are developed after February 29, 

2012, use Equation L-23 at §98.123(c)(3)(viii) to adjust 

the emission factor(s) or emission characterizations 

measured for the post-February 29, 2012 operating 

scenario(s) to account for the differences. 

(4) Requests for extension of the use of best 

available monitoring methods to estimate emissions that 

occur after 2011. EPA does not anticipate approving the 

use of best available monitoring methods to estimate 

emissions that occur beyond December 31, 2011; however, EPA 

reserves the right to review requests for unique and 
Page 376 of 442 

extreme circumstances which include safety, technical 

infeasibility, or inconsistency with other local, State or 

Federal regulations. 

(i) Timing of request. The extension request must be 

submitted to EPA no later than June 30, 2011. 

(ii) Content of request. Requests must contain the 

following information: 

(A) The information outlined in paragraph (o)(2)(ii) 

of this section. For scoping tests, emission factors, and 

emission characterizations, substitute March 1, 2013 for 

July 1, 2011 and substitute March 1, 2014 for January 1, 

2012. For other parameters, substitute January 1, 2012 for 

July 1, 2011 and substitute January 1, 2013 for January 1, 

2012. 

(B) A detailed outline of the unique circumstances 

necessitating an extension, including specific data 

collection issues that do not meet safety regulations, 

technical infeasibility or specific laws or regulations 

that conflict with data collection. The owner or operator 

must consider all the data collection and emission 

calculation options outlined in the rule for a specific 

emissions source before claiming that a specific safety, 

technical or legal barrier exists. 
Page 377 of 442 

(C) A detailed explanation and supporting 

documentation of how and when the owner or operator will 

receive the required data and/or services to comply with 

the reporting requirements of this subpart in the future. 

(E) The Administrator reserves the right to require 

that the owner or operator provide additional 

documentation. 

(iii) Reporting of 2011 and subsequent year emissions 

using scoping tests, emission factors, and emission 

characterizations developed after approval to use best 

available monitoring methods expires. Facilities that are 

approved to use best available monitoring methods in 2011 

and subsequent years for scoping tests, emission factors, 

or emission characterizations for certain processes must 

submit, by March 31 of the year that begins one year after 

their approval to use best available monitoring method(s) 

expires, revised emission estimates for 2011 and subsequent 

years that reflect the scoping tests, emission factors, and 

emission characterizations that are measured for those 

processes in 2013 or subsequent years. If the operating 

scenario for 2011 or subsequent years is different from all 

of the operating scenarios for which emission factors or 

emission characterizations are developed in 2013 or 

subsequent years, use Equation L-23 of §98.123(c)(3)(viii) 
Page 378 of 442 

to adjust the emission factor(s) or emission 

characterization(s) measured for the new operating 

scenario(s) to account for the differences. 

(5) Approval criteria. To obtain approval, the owner 

or operator must demonstrate to the Administrator’s 

satisfaction that it is not reasonably feasible to acquire, 

install, or operate the required piece of monitoring 

equipment, to procure measurement services from necessary 

providers, or to gain physical access to make required 

measurements in a facility according to the requirements of 

this subpart by the dates specified in paragraphs (o)(2), 

(3), and (4) of this section for any of the reasons 

described in paragraph (o)(2)(ii) of this section, or, for 

requests under paragraph (o)(4) of this section, any of the 

reasons described in paragraph (o)(4)(ii)(B) of this 

section. 

§98.125 Procedures for estimating missing data.

(a) A complete record of all measured parameters used 

in the GHG emissions calculations in §98.123 is required. 

Therefore, whenever a quality-assured value of a required 

parameter is unavailable, a substitute data value for the 

missing parameter must be used in the calculations as 

specified in the paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. 
Page 379 of 442 

You must document and keep records of the procedures used 

for all such estimates. 

(b) For each missing value of the fluorinated GHG 

concentration or fluorine-containing compound 

concentration, the substitute data value must be the 

arithmetic average of the quality-assured values of that 

parameter immediately preceding and immediately following 

the missing data incident. 

(c) For each missing value of the mass produced, fed 

into the production process, fed into the transformation 

process, or fed into destruction devices, the substitute 

value of that parameter must be a secondary mass 

measurement where such a measurement is available. For 

example, if the mass produced is usually measured with a 

flowmeter at the inlet to the day tank and that flowmeter 

fails to meet an accuracy or precision test, malfunctions, 

or is rendered inoperable, then the mass produced may be 

estimated by calculating the change in volume in the day 

tank and multiplying it by the density of the product. 

Where a secondary mass measurement is not available, the 

substitute value of the parameter must be an estimate based 

on a related parameter. For example, if a flowmeter 

measuring the mass fed into a destruction device is 

rendered inoperable, then the mass fed into the destruction 
Page 380 of 442 

device may be estimated using the production rate and the 

previously observed relationship between the production 

rate and the mass flow rate into the destruction device. 

§98.126 Data reporting requirements.

(a) All facilities. In addition to the information 

required by §98.3(c), you must report the information in 

paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(6) of this section. 

(1) Frequency of reporting under paragraph (a) of 

this section. The information in paragraphs (a)(2), (5), 

and (6) of this section must be reported annually. The 

information in paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) of this section 

must be reported once by March 31, 2012 for each process 

and operating scenarios that operates between [INSERT DATE 

30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] and 

December 31, 2011. For other processes and operating 

scenarios, the information in paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) of 

this section must be reported once by March 31 of the year 

following the year in which the process or operating 

scenario commences or recommences. 

(2) You must report the total mass in metric tons of 

each fluorinated GHG emitted from: 

(i) Each fluorinated gas production process and all 

fluorinated gas production processes combined. 
Page 381 of 442 

(ii) Each fluorinated gas transformation process that 

is not part of a fluorinated gas production process and all 

such fluorinated gas transformation processes combined, 

except report separately fluorinated GHG emissions from 

transformation processes where a fluorinated GHG reactant 

is produced at another facility. 

(iii) Each fluorinated gas destruction process that 

is not part of a fluorinated gas production process or a 

fluorinated gas transformation process and all such 

fluorinated gas destruction processes combined. 

(iv) Venting of residual fluorinated GHGs from 

containers returned from the field. 

(3) The chemical identities of the contents of the 

stream(s) (including process, emissions, and destroyed 

streams) analyzed under the initial scoping test of 

fluorinated GHG at §98.124(a), by process. 

(4) The location and function of the stream(s) 

(including process streams, emissions streams, and 

destroyed streams) that were analyzed under the initial 

scoping test of fluorinated GHG at §98.124(a), by process. 

(5) The method used to determine the mass emissions 

of each fluorinated GHG, i.e., mass balance, process-ventspecific emission factor, or process-vent-specific emission 

calculation factor, for each process and process vent at 
Page 382 of 442 

the facility. For processes for which the process-ventspecific emission factor or process-vent-specific emission 

calculation factor are used, report the method used to 

estimate emissions from equipment leaks. 

(6) The chemical formula and total mass produced of 

the fluorinated gas product in metric tons, by chemical and 

process. 

(b) Reporting for mass balance approach. For 

processes whose emissions are determined using the massbalance approach under §98.123(b), you must report the 

information listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(13) of 

this section for each process on an annual basis. Identify 

and separately report fluorinated GHG emissions from 

transformation processes where the fluorinated GHG 

reactants are produced at another facility. If you use an 

element other than fluorine in the mass-balance equation 

pursuant to §98.123(b)(3), substitute that element for 

fluorine in the reporting requirements of this paragraph. 

(1) If you calculate the relative and absolute errors 

under 98.123(b)(1), the absolute and relative errors 

calculated under paragraph §98.123(b)(1), as well as the 

data (including quantities and their accuracies and 

precisions) used in these calculations. 
Page 383 of 442 

(2) The balanced chemical equation that describes the 

reaction used to manufacture the fluorinated GHG product 

and each fluorinated GHG transformation product. 

(3) The mass and chemical formula of each fluorinated 

GHG reactant emitted from the process in metric tons. 

(4) The mass and chemical formula of the fluorinated 

GHG product emitted from the process in metric tons. 

(5) The mass and chemical formula of each fluorinated 

GHG by-product emitted from the process in metric tons. 

(6) The mass and chemical formula of each fluorinecontaining reactant that is fed into the process (metric 

tons). 

(7) The mass and chemical formula of each fluorinecontaining product produced by the process (metric tons). 

(8) If you use §98.123(b)(4) to estimate the total 

mass of fluorine in destroyed or recaptured streams, report 

the following. 

(i) The mass and chemical formula of each fluorinecontaining product that is removed from the process and fed 

into the destruction device (metric tons). 

(ii) The mass and chemical formula of each fluorinecontaining by-product that is removed from the process and 

fed into the destruction device (metric tons). 
Page 384 of 442 

(iii) The mass and chemical formula of each fluorinecontaining reactant that is removed from the process and 

fed into the destruction device (metric tons). 

(iv) The mass and chemical formula of each fluorinecontaining by-product that is removed from the process and 

recaptured (metric tons). 

(v) The demonstrated destruction efficiency of the 

destruction device for each fluorinated GHG fed into the 

device from the process in greater than trace 

concentrations (fraction). 

(9) If you use §98.123(b)(15) to estimate the total 

mass of fluorine in destroyed or recaptured streams, report 

the following. 

(i) The mass of fluorine in each stream that is fed 

into the destruction device (metric tons). 

(ii) The mass of fluorine that is recaptured (metric 

tons). 

(iii) The weighted average destruction efficiency of 

the destruction device calculated for each stream under 

§98.123(b)(16). 

(10) The fraction of the mass emitted that consists 

of each fluorine-containing reactant. 

(11) The fraction of the mass emitted that consists 

of the fluorine-containing product. 
Page 385 of 442 

(12) The fraction of the mass emitted that consists 

of each fluorine-containing by-product. 

(13) The method used to estimate the total mass of 

fluorine in destroyed or recaptured streams (specify 

§98.123(b)(4) or (15)). 

(c) Reporting for emission factor and emission 

calculation factor approach. For processes whose emissions 

are determined using the emission factor approach under 

§98.123(c)(3) or the emission calculation factor under 

§98.123(c)(4), you must report the following for each 

process. Fluorinated GHG emissions from transformation 

processes where the fluorinated GHG reactants are produced 

at another facility must be identified and reported 

separately from other fluorinated GHG emissions. 

(1) The identity and quantity of the process activity 

used to estimate emissions (e.g., tons of product produced 

or tons of reactant consumed). 

(2) The site-specific, process-vent-specific emission 

factor(s) or emission calculation factor for each process 

vent. 

(3) The mass of each fluorinated GHG emitted from 

each process vent (metric tons). 

(4) The mass of each fluorinated GHG emitted from 

equipment leaks (metric tons). 
Page 386 of 442 

 (d) Reporting for missing data. Where missing data 

have been estimated pursuant to §98.125, you must report 

the reason the data were missing, the length of time the 

data were missing, the method used to estimate the missing 

data, and the estimates of those data. 

(e) Reporting of destruction device excess emissions 

data. Each fluorinated gas production facility that 

destroys fluorinated GHGs must report the excess emissions 

that result from malfunctions of the destruction device, 

and these excess emissions would be reflected in the 

fluorinated GHG estimates in §98.123(b) and (c). Such 

excess emissions would occur if the destruction efficiency 

was reduced due to the malfunction. 

(f) Reporting of destruction device testing. By 

March 31, 2012 or by March 31 of the year immediately 

following the year in which it begins fluorinated GHG 

destruction, each fluorinated gas production facility that 

destroys fluorinated GHGs must submit a report containing 

the information in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this 

section. This report is one-time unless you make a change 

to the destruction device that would be expected to affect 

its destruction efficiencies. 

(1) Destruction efficiency (DE) of each destruction 

device for each fluorinated GHG whose destruction the 
Page 387 of 442 

facility reflects in §98.123, in accordance with 

§98.124(g)(1)(i) through (iv). 

(2) Chemical identity of the fluorinated GHG(s) used 

in the performance test conducted to determine destruction 

efficiency, including surrogates, and information on why 

the surrogate is sufficient to demonstrate the destruction 

efficiency for each fluorinated GHG, consistent with 

requirements in §98.124(g)(1), vented to the destruction 

device. 

(3) Date of the most recent destruction device test. 

(4) Name of all applicable Federal or State 

regulations that may apply to the destruction process. 

(5) If you make a change to the destruction device 

that would be expected to affect its destruction 

efficiencies, submit a revised report that reflects the 

changes, including the revised destruction efficiencies 

measured for the device under §98.124(g)(2)(ii), by March 

31 of the year that immediately follows the change. 

(g) Reporting for destruction of previously produced 

fluorinated GHGs. Each fluorinated gas production facility 

that destroys fluorinated GHGs must report, separately from 

the fluorinated GHG emissions reported under paragraphs (b) 

or (c) of this section, the following for each previously 

produced fluorinated GHG destroyed: 
Page 388 of 442 

(1) The mass of the fluorinated GHG fed into the 

destruction device. 

(2) The mass of the fluorinated GHG emitted from the 

destruction device. 

(h) Reporting of emissions from venting of residual 

fluorinated GHGs from containers. Each fluorinated gas 

production facility that vents residual fluorinated GHGs 

from containers must report the following for each 

fluorinated GHG vented: 

(1) The mass of the residual fluorinated GHG vented 

from each container size and type annually (tons). 

(2) If applicable, the heel factor calculated for 

each container size and type. 

(i) Reporting of fluorinated GHG products of 

incomplete combustion (PICs) of fluorinated gases. Each 

fluorinated gas production facility that destroys 

fluorinated gases must submit a one-time report by June 30, 

2011, that describes any measurements, research, or 

analysis that it has performed or obtained that relate to 

the formation of products of incomplete combustion that are 

fluorinated GHGs during the destruction of fluorinated 

gases. The report must include the methods and results of 

any measurement or modeling studies, including the products 

of incomplete combustion for which the exhaust stream was 
Page 389 of 442 

analyzed, as well as copies of relevant scientific papers, 

if available, or citations of the papers, if they are not. 

No new testing is required to fulfill this requirement. 

§98.127 Records that must be retained.

In addition to the records required by §98.3(g), you 

must retain the dated records specified in paragraphs (a) 

through (i) of this section, as applicable. 

(a) Process information records. 

(1) Identify all products and processes subject to 

this subpart. Include the unit identification as 

appropriate. 

(2) Monthly and annual records, as applicable, of all 

analyses and calculations conducted as required under 

§98.123, including the data monitored under §98.124, and 

all information reported as required and §98.126. 

(b) Scoping test. Retain records documenting the 

information reported under §98.126(a)(3) and (4). 

(c) Mass-balance method. Retain the following 

records for each process for which the mass-balance method 

was used to estimate emissions. If you use an element other 

than fluorine in the mass-balance equation pursuant to 

§98.123(b)(3), substitute that element for fluorine in the 

recordkeeping requirements of this paragraph. 
Page 390 of 442 

(1) The data and calculations used to estimate the 

absolute and relative errors associated with use of the 

mass-balance approach. 

(2) The data and calculations used to estimate the 

mass of fluorine emitted from the process. 

(3) The data and calculations used to determine the 

fractions of the mass emitted consisting of each reactant 

(FERd), product (FEP), and by-product (FEBk), including the 

preliminary calculations in §98.123(b)(8)(i). 

(d) Emission factor and emission calculation factor 

method. Retain the following records for each process for 

which the emission factor or emission calculation factor 

method was used to estimate emissions. 

(1) Identify all continuous process vents with 

emissions of fluorinated GHGs that are less than 10,000 

metric tons CO2e per year and all continuous process vents 

with emissions of 10,000 metric tons CO2e per year or more. 

Include the data and calculation used to develop the 

preliminary estimate of emissions for each process vent. 

(2) Identify all batch process vents. 

(3) For each vent, identify the method used to 

develop the factor (i.e., emission factor by emissions test 

or emission calculation factor). 
Page 391 of 442 

(4) The emissions test data and reports (see 

§98.124(c)(5)) and the calculations used to determine the 

process-vent-specific emission factor, including the actual 

process-vent-specific emission factor, the average hourly 

emission rate of each fluorinated GHG from the process vent 

during the test and the process feed rate, process 

production rate, or other process activity rate during the 

test. 

(5) The process-vent-specific emission calculation 

factor and the calculations used to determine the processvent-specific emission calculation factor. 

(6) The annual process production quantity or other 

process activity information in the appropriate units, 

along with the dates and time period during which the 

process was operating and dates and time periods the 

process vents are vented to the destruction device. As an 

alternative to date and time periods when process vents are 

vented to the destruction device, a facility may track 

dates and time periods that process vents by-pass the 

destruction device. 

(7) Calculations used to determine annual emissions 

of each fluorinated GHG for each process and the total 

fluorinated GHG emissions for all processes, i.e., total 

for facility. 
Page 392 of 442 

(e) Destruction efficiency testing. A fluorinated 

GHG production facility that destroys fluorinated GHGs and 

reflects this destruction in §98.123 must retain the 

emissions performance testing reports (including revised 

reports) for each destruction device. The emissions 

performance testing report must contain all information and 

data used to derive the destruction efficiency for each 

fluorinated GHG whose destruction the facility reflects in 

§98.123, as well as the key process and device conditions 

during the test. This information includes the following: 

(1) Destruction efficiency (DE) determined for each 

fluorinated GHG whose destruction the facility reflects in 

§98.123, in accordance with §98.124(g)(1)(i) through (iv). 

(2) Chemical identity of the fluorinated GHG(s) used 

in the performance test conducted to determine destruction 

efficiency, including surrogates, and information on why 

the surrogate is sufficient to demonstrate destruction 

efficiency for each fluorinated GHG, consistent with 

requirements in §98.124(g)(1)(i) through (iv), vented to 

the destruction device. 

 (3) Mass flow rate of the stream containing the 

fluorinated GHG(s) or surrogate into the device during the 

test. 
Page 393 of 442 

(4) Concentration (mass fraction) of each fluorinated 

GHG or surrogate in the stream flowing into the device 

during the test. 

(5) Concentration (mass fraction) of each fluorinated 

GHG or surrogate at the outlet of the destruction device 

during the test. 

(6) Mass flow rate at the outlet of the destruction 

device during the test. 

(7) Test methods and analytical methods used to 

determine the mass flow rates and fluorinated GHG (or 

surrogate) concentrations of the streams flowing into and 

out of the destruction device during the test. 

(8) Destruction device conditions that are normally 

monitored for device control, such as temperature, total 

mass flow rates into the device, and CO or O2 levels. 

 (9) Name of all applicable Federal or State 

regulations that may apply to the destruction process. 

 (f) Equipment leak records. If you are subject to 

§98.123(d) of this subpart, you must maintain information 

on the number of each type of equipment; the service of 

each piece of equipment (gas, light liquid, heavy liquid); 

the concentration of each fluorinated GHG in the stream; 

each piece of equipment excluded from monitoring 

requirement; the time period each piece of equipment was in 
Page 394 of 442 

service, and the emission calculations for each fluorinated 

GHG for all processes. Depending on which equipment leak 

monitoring approach you follow, you must maintain 

information for equipment on the associated screening data 

concentrations for greater than or equal to 10,000 ppmv and 

associated screening data concentrations for less than 

10,000 ppmv; associated actual screening data 

concentrations; and associated screening data and leak rate 

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

correlation. If you developed and follow a site-specific 

leak detection approach, provide the records for monitoring 

events and the emissions estimation calculations, as 

appropriate, consistent with the approach for equipment 

leak emission estimation in the site’s GHG Monitoring Plan. 

(g) Container heel records. If you vent residual 

fluorinated GHGs from containers, maintain the following 

records of the measurements and calculations used to 

estimate emissions of residual fluorinated GHGs from 

containers. 

(i) If you measure the contents of each container, 

maintain records of these measurements and the calculations 

used to estimate emissions of each fluorinated GHG from 

each container size and type. 
Page 395 of 442 

(ii) If you develop and apply container heel factors 

to estimate emissions, maintain records of the measurements 

and calculations used to develop the heel factor for each 

fluorinated GHG and each container size and type and of the 

number of containers of each fluorinated GHG and of each 

container size and type returned to your facility. 

(h) Missing data records. Where missing data have 

been estimated pursuant to §98.125, you must record the 

reason the data were missing, the length of time the data 

were missing, the method used to estimate the missing data, 

and the estimates of those data. 

(i) All facilities. Dated records documenting the 

initial and periodic calibration of all analytical 

equipment used to determine the concentration of 

fluorinated GHGs, including but not limited to gas 

chromatographs, gas chromatography-mass spectrometry 

(GC/MS), gas chromatograph-electron capture detector 

(GC/ECD), fourier transform infrared (FTIR), and nuclear 

magnetic resonance (NMR) devices, and all mass measurement 

equipment such as weigh scales, flowmeters, and volumetric 

and density measures used to measure the quantities 

reported under this subpart, including the industry 

standards or manufacturer directions used for calibration 

pursuant to §98.124(e), (f), (g), (m), and (n). 
Page 396 of 442 

(j) GHG Monitoring Plans, as described in 

§98.3(g)(5), must be completed by April 1, 2011. 

§98.128 Definitions.

Except as provided in this section, all of the terms 

used in this subpart have the same meaning given in the 

Clean Air Act and subpart A of this part. If a conflict 

exists between a definition provided in this subpart and a 

definition provided in subpart A, the definition in this 

subpart shall take precedence for the reporting 

requirements in this subpart. 

Batch process or batch operation means a noncontinuous 

operation involving intermittent or discontinuous feed into 

equipment, and, in general, involves the emptying of the 

equipment after the batch operation ceases and prior to 

beginning a new operation. Addition of raw material and 

withdrawal of product do not occur simultaneously in a 

batch operation. 

Batch emission episode means a discrete venting 

episode associated with a vessel in a process; a vessel may 

have more than one batch emission episode. For example, a 

displacement of vapor resulting from the charging of a 

vessel with a feed material will result in a discrete 

emission episode that will last through the duration of the 

charge and will have an average flow rate equal to the rate 
Page 397 of 442 

of the charge. If the vessel is then heated, there will 

also be another discrete emission episode resulting from 

the expulsion of expanded vapor. Other emission episodes 

also may occur from the same vessel and other vessels in 

the process, depending on process operations. 

By-product means a chemical that is produced 

coincidentally during the production of another chemical. 

Completely destroyed means destroyed with a 

destruction efficiency of 99.99 percent or greater. 

Completely recaptured means 99.99 percent or greater 

of each fluorinated GHG is removed from a stream. 

Continuous process or operation means a process where 

the inputs and outputs flow continuously throughout the 

duration of the process. Continuous processes are 

typically steady state. 

Destruction device means any device used to destroy 

fluorinated GHG. 

Destruction process means a process used to destroy 

fluorinated GHG in a destruction device such as a thermal 

incinerator or catalytic oxidizer. 

Difficult-to-monitor means the equipment piece may not 

be monitored without elevating the monitoring personnel 

more than 2 meters (7 feet) above a support surface or it 
Page 398 of 442 

is not accessible in a safe manner when it is in 

fluorinated GHG service. 

Dual mechanical seal pump and dual mechanical seal 

agitator means a pump or agitator equipped with a dual 

mechanical seal system that includes a barrier fluid system 

where the barrier fluid is not in light liquid service; 

each barrier fluid system is equipped with a sensor that 

will detect failure of the seal system, the barrier fluid 

system, or both; and meets the following requirements: 

(1) Each dual mechanical seal system is operated with 

the barrier fluid at a pressure that is at all times 

(except periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction) 

greater than the pump or agitator stuffing box pressure; or 

(2) Equipped with a barrier fluid degassing reservoir 

that is routed to a process or fuel gas system or connected 

by a closed-vent system to a control device; or 

(3) Equipped with a closed-loop system that purges 

the barrier fluid into a process stream. 

Equipment (for the purposes of this subpart only) 

means each pump, compressor, agitator, pressure relief 

device, sampling connection system, open-ended valve or 

line, valve, connector, and instrumentation system in 

fluorinated GHG service for a process subject to this 
Page 399 of 442 

subpart; and any destruction devices or closed-vent systems 

to which processes subject to this subpart are vented. 

Fluorinated gas means any fluorinated GHG, CFC, or 

HCFC. 

In fluorinated GHG service means that a piece of 

equipment either contains or contacts a feedstock, byproduct, or product that is a liquid or gas and contains at 

least 5 percent by weight fluorinated GHG. 

In gas and vapor service means that a piece of 

equipment in regulated material service contains a gas or 

vapor at operating conditions. 

In heavy liquid service means that a piece of 

equipment in regulated material service is not in gas and 

vapor service or in light liquid service. 

In light liquid service means that a piece of 

equipment in regulated material service contains a liquid 

that meets the following conditions: 

(1) The vapor pressure of one or more of the 

compounds is greater than 0.3 kilopascals at 20°C. 

(2) The total concentration of the pure compounds 

constituents having a vapor pressure greater than 0.3 

kilopascals at 20°C is equal to or greater than 20 percent 

by weight of the total process stream. 

(3) The fluid is a liquid at operating conditions. 
Page 400 of 442 

Note to definition of “in light liquid service”: Vapor 

pressures may be determined by standard reference texts or 

ASTM D–2879, (incorporated by reference, see §98.7). 

In vacuum service means that equipment is operating at 

an internal pressure which is at least 5 kilopascals below 

ambient pressure. 

Isolated intermediate means a product of a process 

that is stored before subsequent processing. An isolated 

intermediate is usually a product of chemical synthesis. 

Storage of an isolated intermediate marks the end of a 

process. Storage occurs at any time the intermediate is 

placed in equipment used solely for storage. 

No external shaft pump and No external shaft agitator

means any pump or agitator that is designed with no 

externally actuated shaft penetrating the pump or agitator 

housing. 

Operating scenario means any specific operation of a 

process and includes the information specified in 

paragraphs (1) through (5) of this definition for each 

process. A change or series of changes to any of these 

elements, except for paragraph (4) of this definition, 

constitutes a different operating scenario. 
Page 401 of 442 

(1) A description of the process, the specific 

process equipment used, and the range of operating 

conditions for the process. 

(2) An identification of related process vents, their 

associated emissions episodes and durations, and 

calculations and engineering analyses to show the annual 

uncontrolled fluorinated GHG emissions from the process 

vent. 

(3) The control or destruction devices used, as 

applicable, including a description of operating and/or 

testing conditions for any associated destruction device. 

(4) The process vents (including those from other 

processes) that are simultaneously routed to the control or 

destruction device(s). 

(5) The applicable monitoring requirements and any 

parametric level that assures destruction or removal for 

all emissions routed to the control or destruction device. 

Process means all equipment that collectively 

functions to produce a fluorinated gas product, including 

an isolated intermediate (which is also a fluorinated gas 

product), or to transform a fluorinated gas product. A 

process may consist of one or more unit operations. For 

the purposes of this subpart, process includes any, all, or 

a combination of reaction, recovery, separation, 
Page 402 of 442 

purification, or other activity, operation, manufacture, or 

treatment which are used to produce a fluorinated gas 

product. For a continuous process, cleaning operations 

conducted may be considered part of the process, at the 

discretion of the facility. For a batch process, cleaning 

operations are part of the process. Ancillary activities 

are not considered a process or part of any process under 

this subpart. Ancillary activities include boilers and 

incinerators, chillers and refrigeration systems, and other 

equipment and activities that are not directly involved 

(i.e., they operate within a closed system and materials 

are not combined with process fluids) in the processing of 

raw materials or the manufacturing of a fluorinated gas 

product. 

Process condenser means a condenser whose primary 

purpose is to recover material as an integral part of a 

process. All condensers recovering condensate from a 

process vent at or above the boiling point or all 

condensers in line prior to a vacuum source are considered 

process condensers. Typically, a primary condenser or 

condensers in series are considered to be integral to the 

process if they are capable of and normally used for the 

purpose of recovering chemicals for fuel value (i.e., net 
Page 403 of 442 

positive heating value), use, reuse or for sale for fuel 

value, use, or reuse. 

Process vent (for the purposes of this subpart only) 

means a vent from a process vessel or vents from multiple 

process vessels within a process that are manifolded 

together into a common header, through which a fluorinated 

GHG-containing gas stream is, or has the potential to be, 

released to the atmosphere. Examples of process vents 

include, but are not limited to, vents on condensers used 

for product recovery, bottoms receivers, surge control 

vessels, reactors, filters, centrifuges, and process tanks. 

Process vents do not include vents on storage tanks or 

pieces of equipment. 

Typical batch means a batch process operated within a 

range of operating conditions that are documented in an 

operating scenario. Emissions from a typical batch are 

based on the operating conditions that result in 

representative emissions. The typical batch defines the 

uncontrolled emissions for each emission episode defined 

under the operating scenario. 

Uncontrolled fluorinated GHG emissions means a gas 

stream containing fluorinated GHG which has exited the 

process (or process condenser, where applicable), but which 

has not yet been introduced into a destruction device to 
Page 404 of 442 

reduce the mass of fluorinated GHG in the stream. If the 

emissions from the process are not routed to a destruction 

device, uncontrolled emissions are those fluorinated GHG 

emissions released to the atmosphere. 

Unsafe-to-monitor means that monitoring personnel 

would be exposed to an immediate danger as a consequence of 

monitoring the piece of equipment. Examples of unsafe-tomonitor equipment include, but are not limited to, 

equipment under extreme pressure or heat. 

10. Add subpart DD to read as follows: 

Subpart DD—Electrical Transmission and Distribution 

Equipment Use 

§98.300 Definition of the source category.

(a) The electrical transmission and distribution 

equipment use source category consists of all electric 

transmission and distribution equipment and servicing 

inventory insulated with or containing sulfur hexafluoride 

(SF6) or perfluorocarbons (PFCs) used within an electric 

power system. Electric transmission and distribution 

equipment and servicing inventory includes, but is not 

limited to: 

(1) Gas-insulated substations. 

(2) Circuit breakers. 
Page 405 of 442 

(3) Switchgear, including closed-pressure and 

hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear and gas-insulated 

lines containing SF6 or PFCs. 

(4) Gas containers such as pressurized cylinders. 

(5) Gas carts. 

(6) Electric power transformers. 

(7) Other containers of SF6 or PFC. 

§98.301 Reporting threshold.

(a) You must report GHG emissions from an electric 

power system if the total nameplate capacity of SF6 and PFC 

containing equipment(excluding hermetically sealed-pressure 

equipment) located within the facility, when added to the 

total nameplate capacity of SF6 and PFC containing equipment 

(excluding hermetically sealed-pressure equipment) that is 

not located within the facility but is under common 

ownership or control, exceeds 17,820 pounds and the 

facility meets the requirements of §98.2(a)(1). 

(b) A facility other than an electric power system 

that is subject to this part because of emissions from any 

other source category listed in Table A-3 or A-4 in subpart 

A of this part is not required to report emissions under 

subpart DD of this part unless the total nameplate capacity 

of SF6 and PFC containing equipment located within that 

facility exceeds 17,820 pounds. 
Page 406 of 442 

§98.302 GHGs to report.

You must report total SF6 and PFC emissions from your 

facility (including emissions from fugitive equipment 

leaks, installation, servicing, equipment decommissioning 

and disposal, and from storage cylinders) resulting from 

the transmission and distribution servicing inventory and 

equipment listed in §98.300(a). For acquisitions of 

equipment containing or insulated with SF6 or PFCs, you must 

report emissions from the equipment after the title to the 

equipment is transferred to the electric power transmission 

or distribution entity. 

§98.303 Calculating GHG emissions.

(a) Calculate the annual SF6 and PFC emissions using 

the mass-balance approach in Equation DD-1 of this section: 

User Emissions = (Decrease in SF6 Inventory) + (Acquisitions 

of SF6) – (Disbursements of SF6) – (Net Increase in Total 

Nameplate Capacity of Equipment Operated) 

 (Eq. DD-1) 

Where: 

Decrease in SF6 Inventory = (pounds of SF6 stored in 

containers, but not in 

energized equipment, at the 

beginning of the year) – 

(pounds of SF6 stored in 

containers, but not in 

energized equipment, at the 

end of the year). 

Acquisitions of SF6 = (pounds of SF6 purchased from 

chemical producers or 

distributors in bulk) + 
Page 407 of 442 

(pounds of SF6 purchased from 

equipment manufacturers or 

distributors with or inside 

equipment, including 

hermetically sealed-pressure 

switchgear) + (pounds of SF6

returned to facility after 

off-site recycling). 

Disbursements of SF6 = (pounds of SF6 in bulk and 

contained in equipment that 

is sold to other entities) + 

(pounds of SF6 returned to 

suppliers) + (pounds of SF6

sent off site for recycling) 

+ (pounds of SF6 sent off-site 

for destruction). 

Net Increase in Total Nameplate 

Capacity of Equipment 

Operated = (The Nameplate Capacity of 

new equipment in pounds, 

including hermetically 

sealed-pressure switchgear) – 

(Nameplate Capacity of 

retiring equipment in pounds, 

including hermetically 

sealed-pressure switchgear). 

(Note that Nameplate Capacity 

refers to the full and proper 

charge of equipment rather 

than to the actual charge, 

which may reflect leakage.) 

(b) Use Equation DD-1 of this section to estimate 

emissions of PFCs from power transformers, substituting the 

relevant PFC(s) for SF6 in the equation. 

§98.304 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements. 

(a) For calendar year 2011 monitoring, you may follow 

the provisions of §98.3(d)(1) through (d)(2) for best 

available monitoring methods rather than follow the 
Page 408 of 442 

monitoring requirements of this section. For purposes of 

this subpart, any reference in §98.3(d)(1) through (d)(2) 

to 2010 means 2011, to March 31 means June 30, and to April 

1 means July 1. Any reference to the effective date in 

§98.3(d)(1) through (d)(2) means February 28, 2011. 

(b) You must adhere to the following QA/QC methods 

for reviewing the completeness and accuracy of reporting: 

(1) Review inputs to Equation DD-1 of this section 

to ensure inputs and outputs to the company’s system are 

included. 

(2) Do not enter negative inputs and confirm that 

negative emissions are not calculated. However, the 

Decrease in SF6 Inventory and the Net Increase in Total 

Nameplate Capacity may be calculated as negative numbers. 

(3) Ensure that beginning-of-year inventory matches 

end-of-year inventory from the previous year. 

(4) Ensure that in addition to SF6 purchased from bulk 

gas distributors, SF6 purchased from Original Equipment 

Manufacturers (OEM) and SF6 returned to the facility from 

off-site recycling are also accounted for among the total 

additions. 

(c) Ensure the following QA/QC methods are employed 

throughout the year: 
Page 409 of 442 

(1) Ensure that cylinders returned to the gas 

supplier are consistently weighed on a scale that is 

certified to be accurate and precise to within 2 pounds of 

the scale’s capacity and is periodically recalibrated per 

the manufacturer’s specifications. Either measure residual 

gas (the amount of gas remaining in returned cylinders) or 

have the gas supplier measure it. If the gas supplier 

weighs the residual gas, obtain from the gas supplier a 

detailed monthly accounting, within +/- 2 pounds, of 

residual gas amounts in the cylinders returned to the gas 

supplier. 

(2) Ensure that cylinders weighed for the beginning 

and end of year inventory measurements are weighed on a 

scale that is certified to be accurate to within 2 pounds 

of the scale’s capacity and is periodically recalibrated 

per the manufacturer’s specifications. All scales used to 

measure quantities that are to be reported under §98.306 

must be calibrated using calibration procedures specified 

by the scale manufacturer. Calibration must be performed 

prior to the first reporting year. After the initial 

calibration, recalibration must be performed at the minimum 

frequency specified by the manufacturer. 
Page 410 of 442 

(3) Ensure all substations have provided information 

to the manager compiling the emissions report (if it is not 

already handled through an electronic inventory system). 

(d) GHG Monitoring Plans, as described in §98.3(g)(5), 

must be completed by April 1, 2011. 

§98.305 Procedures for estimating missing data.

A complete record of all measured parameters used in 

the GHG emissions calculations is required. Replace 

missing data, if needed, based on data from equipment with 

a similar nameplate capacity for SF6 and PFC, and from 

similar equipment repair, replacement, and maintenance 

operations. 

§98.306 Data reporting requirements. 

In addition to the information required by §98.3(c), 

each annual report must contain the following information 

for each electric power system, by chemical: 

(a) Nameplate capacity of equipment (pounds) 

containing SF6 and nameplate capacity of equipment (pounds) 

containing each PFC: 

(1) Existing at the beginning of the year (excluding 

hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear). 

(2) New during the year (all SF6-insulated equipment, 

including hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear). 
Page 411 of 442 

(3) Retired during the year (all SF6-insulated 

equipment, including hermetically sealed-pressure 

switchgear). 

(b) Transmission miles (length of lines carrying 

voltages above 35 kilovolt). 

(c) Distribution miles (length of lines carrying 

voltages at or below 35 kilovolt). 

(d) Pounds of SF6 and PFC stored in containers, but 

not in energized equipment, at the beginning of the year. 

(e) Pounds of SF6 and PFC stored in containers, but 

not in energized equipment, at the end of the year. 

(f) Pounds of SF6 and PFC purchased in bulk from 

chemical producers or distributors. 

(g) Pounds of SF6 and PFC purchased from equipment 

manufacturers or distributors with or inside equipment, 

including hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear. 

(h) Pounds of SF6 and PFC returned to facility after 

off-site recycling. 

(i) Pounds of SF6 and PFC in bulk and contained in 

equipment sold to other entities. 

(j) Pounds of SF6 and PFC returned to suppliers. 

(k) Pounds of SF6 and PFC sent off-site for recycling. 

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

destruction. 
Page 412 of 442 

§98.307 Records that must be retained. 

In addition to the information required by §98.3(g), 

you must retain records of the information reported and 

listed in §98.306. 

§98.308 Definitions.

Except as specified in this section, all terms used in 

this subpart have the same meaning given in the Clean Air 

Act and subpart A of this part. 

Facility, with respect to an electric power system, 

means the electric power system as defined in this 

paragraph. An electric power system is comprised of all 

electric transmission and distribution equipment insulated 

with or containing SF6 or PFCs that is linked through 

electric power transmission or distribution lines and 

functions as an integrated unit, that is owned, serviced, 

or maintained by a single electric power transmission or 

distribution entity (or multiple entities with a common 

owner), and that is located between: (1) the point(s) at 

which electric energy is obtained from an electricity 

generating unit or a different electric power transmission 

or distribution entity that does not have a common owner, 

and (2) the point(s) at which any customer or another 

electric power transmission or distribution entity that 

does not have a common owner receives the electric energy. 
Page 413 of 442 

The facility also includes servicing inventory for such 

equipment that contains SF6 or PFCs. 

Electric power transmission or distribution entity

means any entity that transmits, distributes, or supplies 

electricity to a consumer or other user, including any 

company, electric cooperative, public electric supply 

corporation, a similar Federal department (including the 

Bureau of Reclamation or the Corps of Engineers), a 

municipally owned electric department offering service to 

the public, an electric public utility district, or a 

jointly owned electric supply project. 

Operator, for the purposes of this subpart, means any 

person who operates or supervises a facility, excluding a 

person whose sole responsibility is to ensure reliability, 

balance load or otherwise address electricity flow. 

11. Add Subpart QQ to read as follows: 

Subpart QQ—Importers and Exporters of Fluorinated 

Greenhouse Gases Contained in Pre-charged Equipment or 

Closed-cell Foams 

Sec. 

98.430 Definition of the source category. 

98.431 Reporting threshold. 

98.432 GHGs to report. 

98.433 Calculating GHG emissions. 

98.434 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements. 

98.435 Procedures for estimating missing data. 

98.436 Data reporting requirements. 

98.437 Records that must be retained. 
Page 414 of 442 

98.438 Definitions. 

Subpart QQ—Importers and Exporters of Fluorinated 

Greenhouse Gases Contained in Pre-charged Equipment or 

Closed-cell Foams 

§98.430 Definition of the source category.

(a) The source category, importers and exporters of 

fluorinated GHGs contained in pre-charged equipment or 

closed-cell foams, consists of any entity that imports or 

exports pre-charged equipment that contains a fluorinated 

GHG, and any entity that imports or exports closed-cell 

foams that contain a fluorinated GHG. 

§98.431 Reporting threshold.

Any importer or exporter of fluorinated GHGs contained 

in pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams who meets the 

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

GHG contained in the imported or exported pre-charged 

equipment or closed-cell foams. 

§98.432 GHGs to report.

You must report the mass of each fluorinated GHG 

contained in pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams 

that you import or export during the calendar year. For 

imports and exports of closed-cell foams where you do not 

know the identity and mass of the fluorinated GHG, you must 

report the mass of fluorinated GHG in CO2e. 
Page 415 of 442 

§98.433 Calculating GHG contained in pre-charged equipment 

or closed-cell foams.

(a) The total mass of each fluorinated GHG imported 

and exported inside equipment or foams must be estimated 

using Equation QQ-1 of this section: 

= ∑tNSI tt 001.0** (Eq. QQ-1) 

Where: 

I = Total mass of the fluorinated GHG imported or 

exported annually (metric tons). 

t = Equipment/foam type containing the fluorinated 

GHG. 

St = Mass of fluorinated GHG per unit of equipment 

type t or foam type t (charge per piece of 

equipment or cubic foot of foam, kg). 

Nt = Number of units of equipment type t or foam type 

t imported or exported annually (pieces of 

equipment or cubic feet of foam). 

0.001 = Factor converting kg to metric tons. 

(b) When the identity and mass of fluorinated GHGs in 

a closed-cell foam is unknown to the importer or exporter, 

the total mass in CO2e for the fluorinated GHGs imported and 

exported inside closed-cell foams must be estimated using 

Equation QQ-2 of this section: 

= ∑tNSI tt 001.0** (Eq. QQ-2) 

Where: 
Page 416 of 442 

I = Total mass in CO2e of the fluorinated GHGs 

imported or exported in close-cell foams annually 

(metric tons). 

t = Equipment/foam type containing the fluorinated 

GHG. 

St = Mass in CO2e of the fluorinated GHGs per unit of 

equipment type t or foam type t (charge per piece 

of equipment or cubic foot of foam, kg). 

Nt = Number of units of equipment type t or foam type 

t imported or exported annually (pieces of 

equipment or cubic feet of foam). 

0.001 = Factor converting kg to metric tons. 

§98.434 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements. 

(a) For calendar year 2011 monitoring, you may follow 

the provisions of §98.3(d)(1) through (d)(2) for best 

available monitoring methods rather than follow the 

monitoring requirements of this section. For purposes of 

this subpart, any reference in §98.3(d)(1) through (d)(2) 

to the year 2010 means 2011, to March 31 means June 30, and 

to April 1 means July 1. Any reference to the effective 

date or date of promulgation in §98.3(d)(1) through (d)(2) 

means February 28, 2011. 

(b) The inputs to the annual submission must be 

reviewed against the import or export transaction records 

to ensure that the information submitted to EPA is being 

accurately transcribed as the correct chemical or blend in 

the correct pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foam in 
Page 417 of 442 

the correct quantities (metric tons) and units (kg per 

piece of equipment or cubic foot of foam). 

§98.435 Procedures for estimating missing data. 

Procedures for estimating missing data are not 

provided for importers and exporters of fluorinated GHGs 

contained in pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams. A 

complete record of all measured parameters used in tracking 

fluorinated GHGs contained in pre-charged equipment or 

closed-cell foams is required. 

§98.436 Data reporting requirements.

(a) Each importer of fluorinated GHGs contained in 

pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams must submit an 

annual report that summarizes its imports at the corporate 

level, except for transshipments, as specified: 

(1) Total mass in metric tons of each fluorinated GHG 

imported in pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams. 

(2) For each type of pre-charged equipment with a 

unique combination of charge size and charge type, the 

identity of the fluorinated GHG used as a refrigerant or 

electrical insulator, charge size (holding charge, if 

applicable), and number imported. 

(3) For closed-cell foams that are imported inside of 

appliances, the identity of the fluorinated GHG contained 

in the foam in each appliance, the mass of the fluorinated 
Page 418 of 442 

GHG contained in the foam in each appliance, and the number 

of appliances imported with each unique combination of mass 

and identity of fluorinated GHG within the closed-cell 

foams. 

(4) For closed cell-foams that are not imported 

inside of appliances, the identity of the fluorinated GHG 

in the foam, the density of the fluorinated GHG in the foam 

(kg fluorinated GHG/cubic foot), and the volume of foam 

imported (cubic feet) for each type of closed-cell foam 

with a unique combination of fluorinated GHG density and 

identity. 

(5) Dates on which the pre-charged equipment or 

closed-cell foams were imported. 

(6) If the importer does not know the identity and 

mass of the fluorinated GHGs within the closed-cell foam, 

the importer must report the following: 

(i) Total mass in metric tons of CO2e of the 

fluorinated GHGs imported in closed-cell foams. 

(ii) For closed-cell foams that are imported inside 

of appliances, the mass of the fluorinated GHGs in CO2e 

contained in the foam in each appliance and the number of 

appliances imported for each type of appliance. 

(iii) For closed-cell foams that are not imported 

inside of appliances, the mass in CO2e of the fluorinated 
Page 419 of 442 

GHGs in the foam (kg CO2e /cubic foot) and the volume of 

foam imported (cubic feet) for each type of closed-cell 

foam. 

(iv) Dates on which the closed-cell foams were 

imported. 

(v) Name of the foam manufacturer for each type of 

closed-cell foam where the identity and mass of the 

fluorinated GHGs is unknown. 

(vi) Certification that the importer was unable to 

obtain information on the identity and mass of the 

fluorinated GHGs within the closed-cell foam from the 

closed-cell foam manufacturer or manufacturers. 

(b) Each exporter of fluorinated GHGs contained in 

pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams must submit an 

annual report that summarizes its exports at the corporate 

level, except for transshipments, as specified: 

(1) Total mass in metric tons of each fluorinated GHG 

exported in pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams. 

(2) For each type of pre-charged equipment with a 

unique combination of charge size and charge type, the 

identity of the fluorinated GHG used as a refrigerant or 

electrical insulator, charge size (including holding 

charge, if applicable), and number exported. 
Page 420 of 442 

(3) For closed-cell foams that are exported inside of 

appliances, the identity of the fluorinated GHG contained 

in the foam in each appliance, the mass of the fluorinated 

GHG contained in the foam in each appliance, and the number 

of appliances exported with each unique combination of mass 

and identity of fluorinated GHG within the closed-cell 

foams. 

(4) For closed-cell foams that are not exported 

inside of appliances, the identity of the fluorinated GHG 

in the foam, the density of the fluorinated GHG in the foam 

(kg fluorinated GHG/cubic foot), and the volume of foam 

exported (cubic feet) for each type of closed-cell foam 

with a unique combination of fluorinated GHG density and 

identity. 

(5) Dates on which the pre-charged equipment or 

closed-cell foams were exported. 

(6) If the exporter does not know the identity and 

mass of the fluorinated GHG within the closed-cell foam, 

the exporter must report the following: 

(i) Total mass in metric tons of CO2e of the 

fluorinated GHGs exported in closed-cell foams. 

(ii) For closed-cell foams that are exported inside 

of appliances, the mass of the fluorinated GHGs in CO2e 
Page 421 of 442 

contained in the foam in each appliance and the number of 

appliances imported for each type of appliance. 

(iii) For closed-cell foams that are not exported 

inside of appliances, the mass in CO2e of the fluorinated 

GHGs in the foam (kg CO2e /cubic foot) and the volume of 

foam imported (cubic feet) for each type of closed-cell 

foam. 

(iv) Dates on which the closed-cell foams were 

exported. 

(v) Name of the foam manufacturer for each type of 

closed-cell foam where the identity and mass of the 

fluorinated GHGg is unknown. 

(vi) Certification that the exporter was unable to 

obtain information on the identity and mass of the 

fluorinated GHGs within the closed-cell foam from the 

closed-cell foam manufacturer or manufacturers. 

§98.437 Records that must be retained.

(a) In addition to the data required by §98.3(g), 

importers of fluorinated GHGs in pre-charged equipment and 

closed-cell foams must retain the following records 

substantiating each of the imports that they report: 

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

(2) The invoice for the import. 

(3) The U.S. Customs entry form. 
Page 422 of 442 

(4) Ports of entry through which the pre-charged 

equipment or closed-cell foams passed. 

(5) Countries from which the pre-charged equipment or 

closed-cell foams were imported. 

(6) For importers that report the mass of fluorinated 

GHGs within closed-cell foams on a CO2e basis, 

correspondence or other documents that show the importer 

was unable to obtain information on the identity and mass 

of fluorinated GHG within closed-cell foams from the foam 

manufacturer. 

(b) In addition to the data required by §98.3(g), 

exporters of fluorinated GHGs in pre-charged equipment and 

closed-cell foams must retain the following records 

substantiating each of the exports that they report: 

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

(2) The invoice for the export. 

(3) Ports of exit through which the pre-charged 

equipment or closed-cell foams passed. 

(4) Countries to which the pre-charged equipment or 

closed-cell foams were exported. 

(5) For exporters that report the mass of fluorinated 

GHGs within closed-cell foams on a CO2e basis, 

correspondence or other documents that show the exporter 

was unable to obtain information on the identity and mass 
Page 423 of 442 

of fluorinated GHG within closed-cell foams from the foam 

manufacturer. 

(c) For importers and exports of fluorinated GHGs 

inside pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams, the GHG 

Monitoring Plans, as described in §98.3(g)(5), must be 

completed by April 1, 2011. 

(d) Persons who transship pre-charged equipment and 

closed-cell foams containing fluorinated GHGs must maintain 

records that indicated that the pre-charged equipment or 

foam originated in a foreign country and was destined for 

another foreign country and did not enter into commerce in 

the United States. 

§98.438 Definitions.

Except as provided in this section, all of the terms 

used in this subpart have the same meaning given in the 

Clean Air Act and subpart A of this part. If a conflict 

exists between a definition provided in this subpart and a 

definition provided in subpart A, the definition in this 

subpart must take precedence for the reporting requirements 

in this subpart. 

Appliance means any device which contains and uses a 

fluorinated greenhouse gas refrigerant and which is used 

for household or commercial purposes, including any air 

conditioner, refrigerator, chiller, or freezer. 
Page 424 of 442 

Closed-cell foam means any foam product, excluding 

packaging foam, that is constructed with a closed-cell 

structure and a blowing agent containing a fluorinated GHG. 

Closed-cell foams include but are not limited to 

polyurethane (PU) appliance foam, PU continuous and 

discontinuous panel foam, PU one component foam, PU spray 

foam, extruded polystyrene (XPS) boardstock foam, and XPS 

sheet foam. Packaging foam means foam used exclusively 

during shipment or storage to temporarily enclose items. 

Electrical equipment means gas-insulated substations, 

circuit breakers, other switchgear, gas-insulated lines, or 

power transformers. 

Fluorinated GHG refrigerant means, for purposes of 

this subpart, any substance consisting in part or whole of 

a fluorinated greenhouse gas and that is used for heat 

transfer purposes and provides a cooling effect. 

Pre-charged appliance means any appliance charged with 

fluorinated greenhouse gas refrigerant prior to sale or 

distribution or offer for sale or distribution in 

interstate commerce. This includes both appliances that 

contain the full charge necessary for operation and 

appliances that contain a partial “holding” charge of the 

fluorinated greenhouse gas refrigerant (e.g., for shipment 

purposes). 
Page 425 of 442 

Pre-charged appliance component means any portion of 

an appliance, including but not limited to condensers, 

compressors, line sets, and coils, that is charged with 

fluorinated greenhouse gas refrigerant prior to sale or 

distribution or offer for sale or distribution in 

interstate commerce. 

Pre-charged equipment means any pre-charged appliance, 

pre-charged appliance component, pre-charged electrical 

equipment, or pre-charged electrical equipment component. 

Pre-charged electrical equipment means any electrical 

equipment, including but not limited to gas-insulated 

substations, circuit breakers, other switchgear, gasinsulated lines, or power transformers containing a 

fluorinated GHG prior to sale or distribution, or offer for 

sale or distribution in interstate commerce. This includes 

both equipment that contain the full charge necessary for 

operation and equipment that contain a partial “holding” 

charge of the fluorinated GHG (e.g., for shipment 

purposes). 

Pre-charged electrical equipment component means any 

portion of electrical equipment that is charged with SF6 or 

PFCs prior to sale or distribution or offer for sale or 

distribution in interstate commerce. 

12. Add subpart SS to read as follows: 
Page 426 of 442 

Subpart SS—Electrical Equipment Manufacture or 

Refurbishment 

Sec. 

98.450 Definition of the source category. 

98.451 Reporting threshold. 

98.452 GHGs to report. 

98.453 Calculating GHG emissions. 

98.454 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements. 

98.455 Procedures for estimating missing data. 

98.456 Data reporting requirements. 

98.457 Records that must be retained. 

98.458 Definitions. 

Subpart SS—Electrical Equipment Manufacture or 

Refurbishment 

§98.450 Definition of the source category.

The electrical equipment manufacturing or 

refurbishment category consists of processes that 

manufacture or refurbish gas-insulated substations, circuit 

breakers, other switchgear, gas-insulated lines, or power 

transformers (including gas-containing components of such 

equipment) containing sulfur-hexafluoride (SF6) or 

perfluorocarbons (PFCs). The processes include equipment 

testing, installation, manufacturing, decommissioning and 

disposal, refurbishing, and storage in gas cylinders and 

other containers. 

§98.451 Reporting threshold.
Page 427 of 442 

You must report GHG emissions under this subpart if 

your facility contains an electrical equipment 

manufacturing or refurbishing process and the facility 

meets the requirements of §98.2(a)(1). Electrical 

equipment manufacturing and refurbishing facilities covered 

by this rule are those that have total annual purchases of 

SF6 and PFCs that exceed 23,000 pounds. 

§98.452 GHGs to report.

(a) You must report SF6 and PFC emissions at the 

facility level. Annual emissions from the facility must 

include SF6 and PFC emissions from equipment that is 

installed at an off-site electric power transmission or 

distribution location whenever emissions from installation 

activities (e.g., filling) occur before the title to the 

equipment is transferred to the electric power transmission 

or distribution entity. 

(b) You must report CO2, N2O and CH4 emissions from 

each stationary combustion unit. You must calculate and 

report these emissions under subpart C of this part 

(General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources) by following 

the requirements of subpart C of this part. 

§98.453 Calculating GHG emissions.
Page 428 of 442 

(a) For each electrical equipment manufacturer or 

refurbisher, estimate the annual SF6 and PFC emissions using 

the mass-balance approach in Equation SS-1 of this section: 

User Emissions = (Decrease in SF6 Inventory) + (Acquisitions 

of SF6) – (Disbursements of SF6) (Eq. SS-1) 

Where: 

Decrease in SF6 

Inventory = (Pounds of SF6 stored in 

containers at the beginning 

of the year) – (Pounds of SF6

stored in containers at the 

end of the year). 

Acquisitions of SF6 = (Pounds of SF6 purchased from 

chemical producers or 

suppliers in bulk) + (Pounds 

of SF6 returned by equipment 

users) + (Pounds of SF6

returned to site after offsite recycling). 

Disbursements of SF6 = (Pounds of SF6 contained in 

new equipment delivered to 

customers) + (Pounds of SF6

delivered to equipment users 

in containers) + (Pounds of 

SF6 returned to suppliers) + 

(Pounds of SF6 sent off site 

for recycling) + (Pounds of 

SF6 sent off-site for 

destruction). 

(b) Use the mass-balance method in paragraph (a) of 

this section to estimate emissions of PFCs associated with 

the manufacture or refurbishment of power transformers, 

substituting the relevant PFC(s) for SF6 in Equation SS-1 of 

this section. 
Page 429 of 442 

(c) Estimate the disbursements of SF6 or PFCs sent to 

customers in new equipment or cylinders or sent off-site 

for other purposes including for recycling, for destruction 

or to be returned to suppliers using Equation SS-2 of this 

section: 

∑ (Eq. SS-2) =

=

n

p

DGHG Qp

1

Where: 

DGHG = The annual disbursement of SF6 or PFCs sent to 

customers in new equipment or cylinders or sent 

off-site for other purposes including for 

recycling, for destruction or to be returned to 

suppliers. 

Qp = The mass of the SF6 or PFCs charged into equipment 

or containers over the period p sent to customers 

or sent off-site for other purposes including for 

recycling, for destruction or to be returned to 

suppliers. 

n = The number of periods in the year. 

(d) Estimate the mass of SF6 or PFCs disbursed to 

customers in new equipment or cylinders over the period p 

by monitoring the mass flow of the SF6 or PFCs into the new 

equipment or cylinders using a flowmeter or by weighing 

containers before and after gas from containers is used to 

fill equipment or cylinders. 

(e) If the mass of SF6 or the PFC disbursed to 

customers in new equipment or cylinders over the period p 

is estimated by weighing containers before and after gas 
Page 430 of 442 

from containers is used to fill equipment or cylinders, 

estimate this quantity using Equation SS-3 of this section: 

−−= EMMQ LEBp (Eq. SS-3) 

Where: 

Qp = The mass of SF6 or the PFC charged into 

equipment or containers over the period p sent 

to customers or sent off-site for other 

purposes including for recycling, for 

destruction or to be returned to suppliers. 

MB = The mass of the contents of the containers 

used to fill equipment or cylinders at the 

beginning of period p. 

ME = The mass of the contents of the containers 

used to fill equipment or cylinders at the end 

of period p. 

EL = The mass of SF6 or the PFC emitted during the 

period p downstream of the containers used to 

fill equipment or cylinders and in cases where 

a flowmeter is used, downstream of the 

flowmeter during the period p (e.g., emissions 

from hoses or other flow lines that connect 

the container to the equipment or cylinder 

that is being filled). 

(f) If the mass of SF6 or the PFC disbursed to 

customers in new equipment or cylinders over the period p 

is determined using a flowmeter, estimate this quantity 

using Equation SS-4 of this section: 

p −= EMQ Lmr (Eq. SS-4) 

Where: 

Qp = The mass of SF6 or the PFC charged into 

equipment or containers over the period p sent 

to customers or sent off-site for other 
Page 431 of 442 

purposes including for recycling, for 

destruction or to be returned to suppliers. 

Mmr = The mass of the SF6 or the PFC that has flowed 

through the flowmeter during the period p. 

EL = The mass of SF6 or the PFC emitted during the 

period p downstream of the containers used to 

fill equipment or cylinders and in cases where 

a flowmeter is used, downstream of the 

flowmeter during the period p (e.g., emissions 

from hoses or other flow lines that connect 

the container to the equipment that is being 

filled). 

(g) Estimate the mass of SF6 or the PFC emitted during 

the period p downstream of the containers used to fill 

equipment or cylinders (e.g., emissions from hoses or other 

flow lines that connect the container to the equipment or 

cylinder that is being filled) using Equation SS-5 of this 

section: 

Ci Ci (Eq. SS-5) 

n

i

L ∑ ×= EFFE =1

Where: 

EL = The mass of SF6 or the PFC emitted during the 

period p downstream of the containers used to 

fill equipment or cylinders and in cases where a 

flowmeter is used, downstream of the flowmeter 

during the period p (e.g., emissions from hoses 

or other flow lines that connect the container to 

the equipment or cylinder that is being filled) 

FCi = The total number of fill operations over the 

period p for the valve-hose combination Ci. 

EFCi = The emission factor for the valve-hose 

combination Ci. 

n = The number of different valve-hose combinations C 

used during the period p. 
Page 432 of 442 

(h) The mass of SF6 or the PFC disbursed to customers 

in new equipment over the period p must be determined 

either by using the nameplate capacity of the equipment 

or, in cases where equipment is shipped with a partial 

charge, by calculating the partial shipping charge. 

Calculate the partial shipping charge by multiplying the 

nameplate capacity of the equipment by the ratio of the 

densities of the partial charge to the full charge. To 

determine the equipment’s actual nameplate capacity, you 

must measure the nameplate capacities of a representative 

sample of each make and model and take the average for each 

make and model as specified at §98.454(f). 

(i) Estimate the annual SF6 and PFC emissions from the 

equipment that is installed at an off-site electric power 

transmission or distribution location before the title to 

the equipment is transferred by using Equation SS-6 of this 

section: 

F c −+= NMMEI I (Eq. SS-6) 

Where: 

EI = Total annual SF6 or PFC emissions from equipment 

installation at electric transmission or 

distribution facilities. 

MF = The total annual mass of the SF6 or PFCs, in 

pounds, used to fill equipment. 
Page 433 of 442 

MC = The total annual mass of the SF6 or PFCs, in 

pounds, used to charge the equipment prior to 

leaving the electrical equipment manufacturer 

facility. 

NI = The total annual nameplate capacity of the 

equipment, in pounds, installed at electric 

transmission or distribution facilities. 

§98.454 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.

(a) For calendar year 2011 monitoring, you may follow 

the provisions of §98.3(d)(1) through (d)(2) for best 

available monitoring methods rather than follow the 

monitoring requirements of this section. For purposes of 

this subpart, any reference in §98.3(d)(1) through (d)(2) 

to 2010 means 2011, March 31 means June 30, and April 1 

means July 1. Any reference to the effective date in 

§98.3(d)(1) through (d)(2) means February 28, 2011. 

(b) Ensure that all the quantities required by the 

equations of this subpart have been measured using either 

flowmeters with an accuracy and precision of ±1 percent of 

full scale or better or scales with an accuracy and 

precision of ±1 percent of the filled weight (gas plus 

tare) of the containers of SF6 or PFCs that are typically 

weighed on the scale. For scales that are generally used 

to weigh cylinders containing 115 pounds of gas when full, 

this equates to ±1 percent of the sum of 115 pounds and 

approximately 120 pounds tare, or slightly more than ±2 

pounds. Account for the tare weights of the containers. 
Page 434 of 442 

You may accept gas masses or weights provided by the gas 

supplier e.g., for the contents of cylinders containing new 

gas or for the heels remaining in cylinders returned to the 

gas supplier) if the supplier provides documentation 

verifying that accuracy standards are met; however, you 

remain responsible for the accuracy of these masses and 

weights under this subpart. 

(c) All flow meters, weigh scales, and combinations 

of volumetric and density measures that are used to measure 

or calculate quantities under this subpart must be 

calibrated using calibration procedures specified by the 

flowmeter, scale, volumetric or density measure equipment 

manufacturer. Calibration must be performed prior to the 

first reporting year. After the initial calibration, 

recalibration must be performed at the minimum frequency 

specified by the manufacturer. 

(d) For purposes of Equations SS-5 of this subpart, 

the emission factor for the valve-hose combination (EFC) 

must be estimated using measurements and/or engineering 

assessments or calculations based on chemical engineering 

principles or physical or chemical laws or properties. 

Such assessments or calculations may be based on, as 

applicable, the internal volume of hose or line that is 

open to the atmosphere during coupling and decoupling 
Page 435 of 442 

activities, the internal pressure of the hose or line, the 

time the hose or line is open to the atmosphere during 

coupling and decoupling activities, the frequency with 

which the hose or line is purged and the flow rate during 

purges. You must develop a value for EFc (or use an 

industry-developed value) for each combination of hose and 

valve fitting, to use in Equation SS-5 of this subpart. 

The value for EFC must be determined for each combination of 

hose and valve fitting of a given diameter or size. The 

calculation must be recalculated annually to account for 

changes to the specifications of the valves or hoses that 

may occur throughout the year. 

(e) Electrical equipment manufacturers and 

refurbishers must account for SF6 or PFC emissions that 

occur as a result of unexpected events or accidental 

losses, such as a malfunctioning hose or leak in the flow 

line, during the filling of equipment or containers for 

disbursement by including these losses in the estimated 

mass of SF6 or the PFC emitted downstream of the container 

or flowmeter during the period p.

(f) If the mass of SF6 or the PFC disbursed to 

customers in new equipment over the period p is determined 

by assuming that it is equal to the equipment’s nameplate 

capacity or, in cases where equipment is shipped with a 
Page 436 of 442 

partial charge, equal to its partial shipping charge, 

equipment samples for conducting the nameplate capacity 

tests must be selected using the following stratified 

sampling strategy in this paragraph. For each make and 

model, group the measurement conditions to reflect 

predictable variability in the facility’s filling practices 

and conditions (e.g., temperatures at which equipment is 

filled). Then, independently select equipment samples at 

random from each make and model under each group of 

conditions. To account for variability, a certain number 

of these measurements must be performed to develop a robust 

and representative average nameplate capacity (or shipping 

charge) for each make, model, and group of conditions. A 

Student T distribution calculation should be conducted to 

determine how many samples are needed for each make, model, 

and group of conditions as a function of the relative 

standard deviation of the sample measurements. To 

determine a sufficiently precise estimate of the nameplate 

capacity, the number of measurements required must be 

calculated to achieve a precision of one percent of the 

true mean, using a 95 percent confidence interval. To 

estimate the nameplate capacity for a given make and model, 

you must use the lowest mean value among the different 

groups of conditions, or provide justification for the use 
Page 437 of 442 

of a different mean value for the group of conditions that 

represents the typical practices and conditions for that 

make and model. Measurements can be conducted using SF6, 

another gas, or a liquid. Re-measurement of nameplate 

capacities should be conducted every five years to reflect 

cumulative changes in manufacturing methods and conditions 

over time. 

(g) Ensure the following QA/QC methods are employed 

throughout the year: 

(1) Procedures are in place and followed to track and 

weigh all cylinders or other containers at the beginning 

and end of the year. 

(h) You must adhere to the following QA/QC methods 

for reviewing the completeness and accuracy of reporting: 

(1) Review inputs to Equation SS-1 of this subpart to 

ensure inputs and outputs to the company’s system are 

included. 

(2) Do not enter negative inputs and confirm that 

negative emissions are not calculated. However, the 

decrease in SF6 inventory may be calculated as negative. 

(3) Ensure that beginning-of-year inventory matches 

end-of-year inventory from the previous year. 

(4) Ensure that in addition to SF6 purchased from bulk 

gas distributors, SF6 returned from equipment users with or 
Page 438 of 442 

inside equipment and SF6 returned from off-site recycling 

are also accounted for among the total additions. 

(i) GHG Monitoring Plans, as described in §98.3(g)(5), 

must be completed by April 1, 2011. 

§98.455 Procedures for estimating missing data.

A complete record of all measured parameters used in 

the GHG emissions calculations is required. Replace 

missing data, if needed, based on data from similar 

manufacturing operations, and from similar equipment 

testing and decommissioning activities for which data are 

available. 

§98.456 Data reporting requirements. 

In addition to the information required by §98.3(c), 

each annual report must contain the following information 

for each chemical at the facility level: 

(a) Pounds of SF6 and PFCs stored in containers at the 

beginning of the year. 

(b) Pounds of SF6 and PFCs stored in containers at the 

end of the year. 

(c) Pounds of SF6 and PFCs purchased in bulk. 

(d) Pounds of SF6 and PFCs returned by equipment users 

with or inside equipment. 

(e) Pounds of SF6 and PFCs returned to site from off 

site after recycling. 
Page 439 of 442 

(f) Pounds of SF6 and PFCs inside new equipment 

delivered to customers. 

(g) Pounds of SF6 and PFCs delivered to equipment 

users in containers. 

(h) Pounds of SF6 and PFCs returned to suppliers. 

(i) Pounds of SF6 and PFCs sent off site for 

destruction. 

(j) Pounds of SF6 and PFCs sent off site to be 

recycled. 

(k) The nameplate capacity of the equipment, in 

pounds, delivered to customers with SF6 or PFCs inside, if 

different from the quantity in paragraph (f) of this 

section. 

(l) A description of the engineering methods and 

calculations used to determine emissions from hoses or 

other flow lines that connect the container to the 

equipment that is being filled. 

(m) The values for EFC for each hose and valve 

combination and the associated valve fitting sizes and hose 

diameters. 

(n) The total number of fill operations for each hose 

and valve combination, or, FCi of Equation SS-5 of this 

subpart. 
Page 440 of 442 

(o) The mean value for each make, model, and group of 

conditions if the mass of SF6 or the PFC disbursed to 

customers in new equipment over the period p is determined 

by assuming that it is equal to the equipment’s nameplate 

capacity or, in cases where equipment is shipped with a 

partial charge, equal to its partial shipping charge. 

(p) The number of samples and the upper and lower 

bounds on the 95 percent confidence interval for each make, 

model, and group of conditions if the mass of SF6 or the PFC 

disbursed to customers in new equipment over the period p 

is determined by assuming that it is equal to the 

equipment’s nameplate capacity or, in cases where equipment 

is shipped with a partial charge, equal to its partial 

shipping charge 

(q) Pounds of SF6 and PFCs used to fill equipment at 

off-site electric power transmission or distribution 

locations, or MF, of Equation SS-6 of this subpart. 

(r) Pounds of SF6 and PFCs used to charge the 

equipment prior to leaving the electrical equipment 

manufacturer or refurbishment facility, or MC, of Equation 

SS-6 of this subpart. 

(s) The nameplate capacity of the equipment, in 

pounds, installed at off-site electric power transmission 
Page 441 of 442 

or distribution locations used to determine emissions from 

installation, or NI, of Equation SS-6 of this subpart. 

 (t) For any missing data, you must report the reason 

the data were missing, the parameters for which the data 

were missing, the substitute parameters used to estimate 

emissions in their absence, and the quantity of emissions 

thereby estimated. 

§98.457 Records that must be retained. 

In addition to the information required by §98.3(g), 

you must retain the following records: 

(a) All information reported and listed in §98.456. 

(b) Accuracy certifications and calibration records 

for all scales and monitoring equipment, including the 

method or manufacturer’s specification used for 

calibration. 

(c) Certifications of the quantity of gas, in pounds, 

charged into equipment at the electrical equipment 

manufacturer or refurbishment facility as well as the 

actual quantity of gas, in pounds, charged into equipment 

at installation. 

(d) Check-out and weigh-in sheets and procedures for 

cylinders. 

(e) Residual gas amounts, in pounds, in cylinders 

sent back to suppliers. 
Page 442 of 442 

(f) Invoices for gas purchases and sales. 

§98.458 Definitions.

All terms used in this subpart have the same meaning 

given in the CAA and subpart A of this part.