6560.50

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 98

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927; FRL-9130-7]

RIN 2060-AQ00

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Additional Sources 

of Fluorinated GHGs

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed Rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is revising and supplementing its 

initial proposed actions to require reporting of 

fluorinated greenhouse gas (fluorinated GHG) emissions from 

certain source categories. Specifically, EPA is revising 

and supplementing its initial proposal to require reporting 

of fluorinated GHG emissions from electronics 

manufacturing, production of fluorinated gases, and use of 

electrical transmission and distribution equipment. EPA is 

also proposing to require such reporting from manufacture 

or refurbishment of electrical equipment and import and 

export of pre-charged equipment and closed cell foams. 

This proposed rule would not require control of greenhouse 

gases; rather it would require only that sources above 

certain threshold levels monitor and report emissions. 

Formatted: English (US)

Author

Author

Formatted: English (US)

Author

Formatted: Line spacing: double

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Space After: 0 pt, Line

spacing: double

Author

Formatted: English (US)

Author

Formatted: English (US)

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Line spacing: double

Author

Author

Deleted: Parts xx

Deleted: 

Deleted: 

Deleted: A079

Deleted: 

Deleted: F-
DATES: Comments must be received on or before [INSERT 

THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER]. There will be a public hearing from 9:00 am to 

12:00 noon on April 20, 2010 at 1310 L St NW, Room 152, 

Washington, DC 20005.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket 

ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927 by one of the following methods:

Χ Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments.

Χ E-mail: GHGReportingFGHG@epa.gov.

Χ Fax: (202) 566–1741.

Χ Mail: EPA Docket Center, Attention Docket OAR-2009-

0927, Mail code 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460.

Χ Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public 

Reading Room, Room 3334, EPA West Building, Attention 

Docket OAR-2009-0927, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available online at 

http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal 

information provided, unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit 

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Deleted: on [insert date]in [

Deleted: ]. It will begin at [9:00 

am – 4:00 pm] local time. The 

incorporation by reference of 

certain publications listed in the 

proposed supplemental rule is 

approved by the Director of Federal 

Register as of [INSERT THE DATE 60 

DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER].

Deleted: • 

Deleted: • 

Deleted: a-and-r-Docket

Deleted: • 

Deleted: • 

Deleted: Environmental Protection 

Agency,

Deleted: (EPA/DC), Mailcode 6102T

Deleted: ID No.EPA-HQDeleted: • 

Deleted: Room 3334, 

... [1]

... [10]

... [4]

... [12]

... [11]

... [2]

... [6]

... [3]

... [13]

... [7]

... [14]

... [8]

... [5]

... [15]

... [9]

... [16]
information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous 

access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to 

EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov your 

e-mail address will be automatically captured and included

as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket 

and made available on the Internet. If you submit an 

electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and 

cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able 

to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and 

be free of any defects or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 

http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the 

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

CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 

statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 

material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 

Formatted: Underline

Author

Formatted: Underline

Author

Formatted: Underline

Author

Formatted: Underline

Author

Formatted: Underline

Author
Publicly available docket materials are available either 

electronically in http:// www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at EPA’s Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West

Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20004. This Docket Facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number 

for the Air Docket is (202) 566–1742.

FOR FURTHER GENERAL INFORMATION CONTACT: Carole Cook, 

Climate Change Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs 

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

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

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

address: GHGReportingRule@epa.gov. For technical 

information contact the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule email: ghgmrr@epa.gov. To obtain information about the 

public hearings or to register to speak at the hearings, 

please go to http://www.epa.gov/ climatechange/emissions/ 

ghgrulemaking.html. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Additional Information on Submitting Comments: To 

expedite review of your comments by Agency staff, you are 

encouraged to send a separate copy of your comments, in 

Formatted: Underline

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Underline

Author

Formatted: Underline

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: ___GHG PARAGRAPH

Author

Deleted: the Air

Deleted: , EPA/DC

Deleted: , Room [insert room]

Deleted: .
addition to the copy you submit to the official docket, to 

Carole Cook, U.S. EPA, Office of Atmospheric Programs, 

Climate Change Division, Mail Code 6207–J, Washington, DC, 

20460, telephone (202) 343–9263, e-mail 

GHGReportingRule@epa.gov.

As indicated above, although EPA previously proposed a 

version of some parts of this rule, that proposal has not 

become final. This proposal partly supplements and partly 

replaces that initial proposal. Comments on the initial 

proposal will be considered only to the extent they remain 

relevant. To ensure that their comments on newly proposed 

or re-proposed provisions are considered, parties should 

submit or re-submit them at this time. 

Regulated Entities. The Administrator determined that 

this action is subject to the provisions of Clean Air Act 

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

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

as the Administrator may determine.”). This is a proposed 

regulation. If finalized, these regulations would affect

owners or operators of electronics manufacturing 

facilities, fluorinated gas production facilities, electric 

power systems, and electrical equipment manufacturing 

facilities, as well as importers and exporters of precharged equipment and closed-cell foams. Regulated 

Formatted: Font:Not Bold, Underline

Author
categories and entities would include those listed in 

Table 1 of this preamble:

Table 1. Examples of Affected Entities by Category

Category NAICS Examples of affected facilities

Electronics 

Manufacturing

334111 Microcomputers manufacturing 

facilities.

334413 Semiconductor, photovoltaic (solidstate) device manufacturing 

facilities.

334419 LCD unit screens manufacturing 

facilities.

334419 MEMS manufacturing facilities.

Fluorinated GHG 

Production

325120 Industrial gases manufacturing 

facilities.

Electrical 

Equipment Use

221121 Electric bulk power transmission 

and control facilities.

Electrical 

Equipment 

Manufacture or 

Refurbishment

33531 Power transmission and 

distribution switchgear and 

specialty transformers 

manufacturing facilities 

Importers and 

Exporters of 

Pre-charged 

Equipment and 

Closed-Cell 

Foams

423730 Air-conditioning equipment (except 

room units) merchant wholesalers 

333415 Air-conditioning equipment (except 

motor vehicle) manufacturing

423620 Air-conditioners, room, merchant 

wholesalers

443111 Household Appliance Stores

326150 Polyurethane foam products 

manufacturing

335313 Circuit breakers, power, 

manufacturing

423610 Circuit breakers merchant 

wholesalers

Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers 

regarding facilities likely to be affected by this action. 

Author

Formatted Table

Author

Deleted: Table 
Table 1 lists the types of facilities that EPA is now aware 

could be potentially affected by the reporting 

requirements. Other types of facilities and companies not 

listed in the table could also be subject to reporting 

requirements. To determine whether you are affected by 

this action, you should carefully examine the applicability 

criteria found in 40 CFR part 98, subpart A and the 

relevant criteria in the proposed subparts related to 

electronics manufacturing facilities, fluorinated gas 

production facilities, electrical equipment use, electrical 

equipment manufacturing or refurbishment facilities, and 

importers and exporters of pre-charged equipment and 

closed-cell foams. If you have questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a particular facility, 

consult the person listed in the preceding “FOR FURTHER 

INFORMATION CONTACT” section. 

Many facilities that would be affected by the proposed 

rule have GHG emissions from multiple source categories 

listed in 40 CFR part 98 or in this proposed rule. Table 2 

of this preamble has been developed as a guide to help 

potential reporters in the source categories subject to the 

proposed rule identify the source categories (by subpart) 

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

applicability determination, and/or (2) include in their 
reporting. The table should only be seen as a guide. 

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

given reporter. Similarly, not all listed subparts are 

relevant for all reporters. 

Table 2. Source Categories and Relevant Subparts 

Source category

(and main applicable 

subpart)

Subparts recommended for review to

determine applicability

Electricity Generation Electrical Equipment Use

Electronics Manufacturing General Stationary Fuel Combustion 

Fluorinated GHG 

Production

General Stationary Fuel Combustion

Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse 

Gases

Electrical Equipment Use General Stationary Fuel Combustion 

Imports and Exports of 

Fluorinated GHGs Inside 

Pre-charged Equipment and 

Closed-Cell Foams

Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse 

Gases

Sulfur Hexafluoride and PFCs from 

Electrical Equipment Manufacture and 

Refurbishment

Electrical Equipment 

Manufacture or 

Refurbishment

General Stationary Fuel Combustion

Imports and Exports of Fluorinated 

GHGs Inside Pre-charged Equipment and 

Closed-Cell Foams 

Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms 

and abbreviations are used in this document.

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

BAMM Best Available Monitoring Methods

CAA Clean Air Act

CARB California Air Resources Board

CBI confidential business information

CFC chlorofluorocarbon

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CO2 carbon dioxide

CO2e CO2-equivalent

EIA Economic Impact Analysis

EO Executive Order

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Formatted Table

Author

Author

Formatted: Font:Not Bold

Author

Deleted: 
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

F-GHG fluorinated greenhouse gas

FTIR fourier transform infrared (spectroscopy)

FID flame ionization detector

GC gas chromatography

GHG greenhouse gas

GWP global warming potential

HCFC hydrochlorofluorocarbon

HFC hydrofluorocarbon

HFE hydrofluoroether

HTF heat transfer fluid

ICR information collection request

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

kg kilograms

LCD liquid crystal displays

MEMS microelectromechanical devices

MMTCO2e million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent 

MRR mandatory greenhouse gas reporting rule

MS mass spectrometry

N2O nitrous oxide

NACAA National Association of Clean Air Agencies

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

NERC North American Energy Reliability Corporation

NESHAP National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants

NF3 nitrogen trifluoride

NMR nuclear magnetic resonance

NSPS New Source Performance Standards

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PFC perfluorocarbon

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

PV photovoltaic cells

QA quality assurance

QA/QC quality assurance/quality control

R&D research and development 

Author

Deleted: microelectricomechanical
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act

RGGI Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative

RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis

SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction

SF6 sulfur hexafluoride

TCR The Climate Registry

TSD technical support document

U.S. United States

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

VOC volatile organic compound(s)

WCI Western Climate Initiative

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. Background

A. Organization of This Preamble

B. Background on the Proposed Rule

C. Legal Authority

D. Relationship to other Federal, State and Regional 

Programs

II. Summary of and Rationale for the Reporting, 

Recordkeeping and Verification Requirements for Specific 

Source Categories

A. Electronics Manufacturing

B. Fluorinated Gas Production

C. Electric Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use

D. Imports and Exports of Fluorinated GHGs inside precharged equipment and closed-cell foams

E. Electrical Equipment Manufacture or Refurbishment

F. Subpart A Revisions

III. Economic Impacts on the Rule

A. How were compliance costs estimated?

B. What are the costs of the rule?

C. What are the economic impacts of the rule?

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

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

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

Formatted

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Deleted: this

Deleted: 

Deleted: 

Deleted: 

Deleted: 

Deleted: 

Deleted: 

Deleted: 

Deleted: 

Deleted: Electrical

Deleted: Pre

Deleted: Equipment and Closed Cell 

Foams 

Deleted: of Electrical Equipment

... [34]

... [32]

... [17]

... [24]

... [20]

... [39]

... [25]

... [21]

... [33]

... [27]

... [22]

... [35]

... [28]

... [23]

... [36]

... [29]

... [37]

... [30]

... [38]

... [18]

... [31]

... [19]

... [26]
B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly 

Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations

I. Background

A. Organization of This Preamble

This preamble is broken into several large sections, 

as detailed above in the Table of Contents. The paragraphs 

below describe the layout of the preamble and provide a 

brief summary of each section. 

The first section of this preamble contains the basic 

background information about the origin of this proposed 

rule, including a brief discussion of the initial proposed 

requirements for electronics, fluorinated gas production, 

and use of electrical transmission and distribution 

equipment. This section also discusses EPA’s use of our 

legal authority under the CAA to collect the proposed data, 

and the benefits of collecting the data. 

The second section of this preamble provides a brief 

summary of, and rationale for, the key design elements on 

Formatted: Font:Not Bold, Font color:

Auto, Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Author

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: 

Deleted: Clean Air Act
which EPA is seeking comment today for each subpart. 

Depending on the subpart, this section may include EPA’s 

rationale for (i) the definition of the source category 

(ii) selection of reporting threshold, (iii) selection of 

proposed reporting and monitoring methods, (iv) selection 

of procedures for estimating missing data, (v) selection of 

data reporting requirements, and (vi) selection of records 

that must be retained. EPA describes the proposed options 

for each design element, as well as the other options 

considered. Throughout this discussion, EPA highlights 

specific issues on which we solicit comment. Please refer 

to the specific source category of interest for more 

details.

The third section provides the summary of the cost 

impacts, economic impacts, and benefits of this proposed 

rule from the Economic Analysis. Finally, the last section 

discusses the various statutory and executive order 

requirements applicable to this proposed rulemaking.

B. Background on the Proposed Rule

The Final Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule (Final MRR), 

(40 CFR part 98) was signed by EPA Administrator Lisa 

Jackson on September 22, 2009 and published in the Federal 

Register on October 30, 2009 (74 FR 56260). The Final MRR, 

which became effective on December 29, 2009, included 

Author

Author

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: “

Deleted: ”
reporting of GHGs from the facilities and suppliers that 

EPA determined should be included to appropriately respond 

to the direction in the 2008 Consolidated Appropriations 

Act1. These source categories capture approximately 85 

percent of U.S. GHG emissions through reporting by direct 

emitters as well as suppliers of fossil fuels and 

industrial gases. 

In the April 2009 proposed mandatory GHG reporting 

rule, the electronics, fluorinated GHG production, and 

electrical equipment use source categories were included as 

subparts I, L, and DD. In addition, EPA requested comment 

on requiring reporting under subpart OO of the quantities 

of fluorinated GHGs imported and exported inside precharged equipment and foams. EPA received a number of 

lengthy, detailed comments regarding proposed subparts I 

and L, several comments regarding the definition of 

“facility” under subpart DD, and several comments regarding 

a reporting requirement for imports and exports of 

fluorinated GHGs contained inside pre-charged equipment and 

foams. These comments, which are described in more detail 

in the discussions of the individual source categories 

below, raised concerns about the costs and technical 

feasibility of implementing subparts I and L as initially 

 

1 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110–161, 121 Stat. 

1844, 2128. 

Author

Deleted: F-
proposed, requested clarification of how “facility” should 

be interpreted under subpart DD, and both favored and 

opposed a requirement to report imports of fluorinated GHGs 

contained in imported and exported pre-charged equipment 

and closed-cell foams. 

EPA recognized the concerns raised by stakeholders, 

and decided not to finalize subparts I, L, and DD with the 

Final MRR, but instead to re-propose significant pieces of 

these subparts. For subparts I and L this proposal 

incorporates a number of changes including, but not limited 

to, the addition of different methodologies that provide 

improved emissions coverage at a lower cost burden to 

facilities as compared to the initial proposal. Where 

aspects of the initial proposals for subparts I and L are 

retained in this proposal, such as in the basic massbalance methodology for subpart L (as an option for some 

facilities) and in many of the equations for subpart I, 

today’s proposal adds more flexibility in how and how 

frequently the underlying data are gathered. In addition, 

EPA is proposing requirements to report emissions from 

manufacture or refurbishment of electrical equipment and to 

report the quantities of fluorinated GHGs imported and 

exported inside pre-charged equipment and foams. 

Author

Deleted: F-
We believe the monitoring approaches proposed in this 

action, which combine direct measurement and facilityspecific calculations, effectively balance accuracy and 

costs, and that they are warranted even though the rule 

does not contain any emissions reduction requirements. As 

we stated in the Final MRR, the data collected by the rule 

are expected to be used in analyzing and developing a range 

of potential CAA GHG policies and programs. A consistent 

and accurate data set is crucial to serve this intended 

purpose. 

Under this proposed rule, facilities not already 

reporting but required to report under this rule would 

begin data collection in 2011 following the methods 

outlined in the proposed rule and would submit data to EPA 

by March 31, 2012. As is the case under the Final MRR, 

facilities would have the option to use Best Available 

Monitoring Methods (BAMM) for the first quarter of the 

first reporting year for the source categories included in 

this proposed rule. Thus, for these source categories, 

facilities could use BAMM through March 31, 2011.

C. Legal Authority

EPA is proposing this rule under its existing CAA 

authority, specifically authorities provided in CAA section 

114. As discussed further below and in “Mandatory 

Author

Author

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: of the CAA

Deleted: ‘‘
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA’s Response to Public 

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

EPA is not citing the FY 2008 Consolidated Appropriations 

Act as the statutory basis for this action. While that law 

required that EPA spend no less than $3.5 million on a rule 

requiring the mandatory reporting of GHG emissions, it is 

the CAA, not the Appropriations Act, that EPA is citing as 

the authority to gather the information proposed by this 

rule. 

As stated in the Final MRR, CAA section 114 provides 

EPA broad authority to require the information proposed by 

this rule because such data would inform and are relevant 

to EPA’s carrying out a wide variety of CAA provisions. As 

discussed in the initial proposed rule (74 FR 16448, April 

10, 2009), CAA section 114(a)(1) authorizes the 

Administrator to require emissions sources, persons subject 

to the CAA, or persons whom the Administrator believes may 

have necessary information to monitor and report emissions 

and provide such other information the Administrator 

requests for the purposes of carrying out any provision of 

the CAA. EPA notes that while climate change legislation 

approved by the U.S. House of Representatives, and pending 

in the U.S. Senate, would provide EPA additional authority 

for a GHG registry similar to this proposed rule, and would 

Author

Author

Author

Deleted: ’ (

Deleted: -XXXX

Deleted: of the CAA 
do so for purposes of that pending legislation, this 

proposed rule is authorized by, and the information being 

gathered by this proposed rule is relevant to implementing, 

the existing CAA. EPA expects, however, that the 

information collected by this proposed rule would also 

prove useful to legislative efforts to address GHG 

emissions. 

For further information about EPA’s legal authority, 

see the proposed and Final MRR.

D. Relationship to other Federal, State and Regional 

Programs 

In developing this proposed rule, EPA reviewed 

monitoring methods included in international guidance 

(e.g., Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), as well 

as Federal voluntary programs (e.g., EPA PFC 

Reduction/Climate Partnership for the Semiconductor 

Industry and the U.S. Department of Energy Voluntary 

Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program (1605(b) of the 

Energy Policy Act), corporate protocols (e.g., World 

Resources Institute and World Business Council for 

Sustainable Development GHG Protocol) and industry guidance 

(e.g., 2006 ISMI Guideline for Environmental 

Characterization of Semiconductor Process Equipment). 

Author

Author

Formatted: _Level 2-GHG Preamble

Author

Author

Formatted: ___GHG PARAGRAPH

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: final

Deleted: 

Deleted: 

Deleted: Semicondcutor
EPA also reviewed State reporting programs (e.g.,

California and New Mexico) and Regional partnerships (e.g.,

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, Western Climate 

Initiative, The Climate Registry). These are important 

programs that not only led the way in reporting of GHG 

emissions before the Federal government acted but also 

assist in quantifying the GHG reductions achieved by 

various policies. Many of these programs collect different 

or additional data as compared to this proposed rule. For 

example, State programs may establish lower thresholds for 

reporting, request information on areas not addressed in 

EPA’s reporting rule, or include different data elements to 

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

discussion on the relationship of this proposed rule to 

other programs, please refer to the preamble to the Final 

MRR. 

II. Summary of and Rationale for the Reporting, 

Recordkeeping and Verification Requirements for Specific 

Source Categories 

A. Electronics Manufacturing

1. Overview of Reporting Requirements

Electronics manufacturing includes, but is not limited 

to, the manufacture of semiconductors, liquid crystal 

displays (LCDs), micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS), 

and photovoltaic cells (PV). The electronics industry uses 

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: _Level 3-GHG Preamble

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: ___GHG PARAGRAPH,

Indent: First line: 0"

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: 

Deleted: 

Deleted: 

Deleted: electrico
multiple long-lived fluorinated greenhouse gases 

(fluorinated GHGs) such as perfluorocarbons (PFCs), 

hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and 

nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), as well as nitrous oxide (N2O). 

This proposed rule would apply to electronics manufacturing 

facilities where emissions from electronics manufacturing 

processes such as plasma etching, chemical vapor 

deposition, chamber cleaning, and heat transfer fluid use 

as well as stationary fuel combustion units equal or exceed 

25,000 metric tons of CO2e per year.3 In this action, we 

are proposing methods to estimate emissions from cleaning 

and etching for semiconductor, LCD, MEMS, and PV 

manufacture and also methods for estimating N2O emissions 

from chemical vapor deposition and other manufacturing 

processes such as chamber cleaning. We are also clarifying 

methods for estimating emissions from heat transfer fluids. 

And lastly, we are proposing methods for reporting 

controlled emissions from abatement systems. 

2. Major Changes Since Initial Rule Proposed

In the initial proposal for electronics manufacturing, 

we included the following provisions for reporting 

 

3

 As discussed further below, EPA is proposing that uncontrolled 

emissions be used for purposes of determining whether a facility’s 

emissions are equal to or greater than 25,000 mtCO2e. 

Formatted: English (US), Check spelling

and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: English (US), Check spelling

and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: _Level 3-GHG Preamble

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: ___GHG PARAGRAPH,

Indent: First line: 0"

Author

Deleted: 2.

Deleted: 

Deleted: 
emissions from electronics manufacture: (1) a capacitybased threshold for semiconductors, LCDs, and MEMS 

facilities and an emissions-based threshold for PV 

facilities; (2) methods for estimating fluorinated GHG 

emissions from etching and cleaning; (3) methods for 

estimating N2O emissions during etching and cleaning; (4) 

methods for verifying destruction or removal efficiency 

(DRE) of abatement systems; and (5) methods for estimating 

emissions from heat transfer fluids. 

As noted in the preamble to the Final MRR, we received 

a number of lengthy, detailed comments regarding the 

electronics manufacturing subpart. In total, we received 

comments from approximately 10 entities on the proposed 

rule regarding electronics manufacture. The commenters 

generally opposed the proposed reporting requirements for 

large semiconductor facilities and stated that excessive 

monitoring and reporting were required. For example, 

commenters asserted that they do not currently collect the 

data required to report using an IPCC Tier 3 approach, and 

that to collect such data would entail significant burden 

and capital costs. In most cases, commenters provided 

alternative approaches to each of the reporting 

requirements.

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: Preamble
We have carefully reviewed the comments, issues, and 

suggestions raised by stakeholders regarding electronics 

manufacturing. In response, we are revising our initial 

proposal and are proposing the following reporting 

provisions for electronics manufacture: (1) a single 

emissions-based reporting threshold for all semiconductor, 

LCD, MEMS, and PV facilities; (2) modified methods for 

estimating emissions from cleaning and etching activities 

for semiconductor facilities and other electronics 

facilities including those that manufacture LCDs, MEMS, and 

PVs; (3) modified methods for estimating facility N2O 

emissions; (4) clarified methods for estimating emissions 

from heat transfer fluids; and (5) revised methods for 

reporting controlled emissions from abatement systems.

In the paragraphs below, we summarize the main 

provisions included in the initial proposal for reporting 

emissions from electronics manufacturing and we briefly 

summarize the major changes that are being proposed today. 

For more detailed information on the initial proposal, see 

the electronics manufacturing section of EPA’s proposed MRR

(74 FR 16448, April 10, 2009). 

Reporting Threshold. In the initial proposal, we 

proposed a capacity-based threshold, requiring those 

facilities with emissions equal to or greater than the 

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: _Level 4-GHG Preamble

Author

Formatted: Font:Not Italic, Underline

Author

Author

Author

Deleted: rule on the Mandatory 

Reporting of Greenhouse Gases

Deleted: 

Deleted: 

Deleted: a capacity of 1,080 m2

silicon or greater
thresholds to report their GHG emissions. We proposed 

production capacity-based thresholds of 1,080 m2, 1,020 m2, 

and 236,000 m2 of substrate for semiconductor, MEMS, and LCD 

manufacturing facilities, respectively. The capacity-based 

threshold proposed were equivalent to 25,000 mtCO2e using 

the IPCC 2006 Tier 1 default factors and assumed no 

abatement. Where IPCC 2006 Tier 1 default emission factors 

were unavailable (i.e., MEMS), the emission factor was 

estimated based on relevant IPCC Tier 1 emission factors 

for semiconductor production. Due to a lack of information 

on use and emissions of fluorinated GHGs for PV 

manufacture, we proposed an emissions-based threshold of 

25,000 mtCO2e for those facilities. We proposed to use a 

capacity-based threshold based on the published capacities 

of facilities, as opposed to an emissions-based threshold, 

where possible, because we believed that it simplified the 

applicability determination. 

Several commenters stated that the proposed capacitybased threshold created ambiguity. For example, one 

commenter noted that it was unclear how production capacity 

was defined as actual manufacturing levels could fluctuate 

year by year. In response to these comments, we are now 

proposing a single emissions-based threshold equal to or 

greater than 25,000 metric tons of CO2e per year for 

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: ___GHG PARAGRAPH,

Indent: First line: 0"

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: The

Deleted: 

Deleted: threshold of

Deleted: 080

Deleted: silicon, which is 

Deleted: assuming

Deleted: , was applicable to 

semiconductor, MEMS, and LCD 

manufacturers

Deleted: and stated that 
electronics manufacturing facilities. We have concluded 

that a single emissions-based threshold will simplify the 

applicability determination and that by applying the method 

for determining whether the threshold is met, a facility 

will be able to quickly determine whether they must report 

under this rule. 

Estimating Emissions from Cleaning and Etching

Processes. With respect to estimating emissions from 

chamber cleaning and etching, in our initial proposal, we 

outlined two different methods; one method for relatively 

large semiconductor facilities, and another method for all 

other semiconductor facilities and LCD, MEMS, and PV 

facilities required to report. We defined large 

semiconductor facilities as those facilities with annual 

capacities of greater than 10,500 m2 silicon (equivalent to 

29 out of 175 total semiconductor manufacturing 

facilities). For large semiconductor facilities we 

proposed an approach based on the IPCC Tier 3 method that 

required the use of company-specific data for (1) gas 

consumption, (2) gas utilization4, (3) by-product 

 

4 For purposes of electronics manufacturing, we are using the term “gas 

utilization” to describe the fraction of input N2O or fluorinated GHG 

converted to other substances during the etching, deposition, and/or 

chamber/wafer cleaning processes. Gas utilization is expressed as a 

rate or factor for specific manufacturing processes. “Utilization” 

should not be confused with “use;” “use” refers to gas consumption or 

Author

Formatted: Font:Not Italic, Underline

Author

Author

Formatted: Font:Not Italic, Underline

Author

Author

Formatted: _Level 4-GHG Preamble,

Indent: First line: 0", Space After: 0 pt

Author

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: 

Deleted: 

Deleted: smaller
formation5

, and (4) DRE for all emissions abatement 

processes at the facility. As we stated in the initial 

proposal, we had concluded that large semiconductor 

facilities were already using Tier 3 methods and/or had the 

necessary data readily available either in-house or from 

suppliers to apply the highest Tier method. For smaller 

semiconductor facilities and LCD, MEMS, and PV facilities, 

we proposed an approach based on the IPCC Tier 2b method, 

which required using default emission factors for process 

utilization, by-product formation, and site-specific DRE 

measurements. 

Comments received in response to our initial proposal 

stated that the 2006 IPCC Tier 3 method would be overly 

burdensome for semiconductor manufacturers and that 

process-specific emission factors do not exist for many 

tools and processes. The commenters noted that most 

semiconductor facilities do not track gas consumption by 

tool or process-type and that currently, only one large 

semiconductor company uses the Tier 3 method. Generally, 

commenters requested the use of the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b 

method. 

 

the quantity of gas fed into process at an electronics manufacturing 

facility.

5

 For purposes of electronics manufacturing, “by-product formation” is 

the quantity of fluorinated GHGs created during electronics 

manufacturing processes. Fluorinated GHG by-products may also be 

formed by abatement devices.

Author

Author

Formatted: Underline

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: ___GHG PARAGRAPH,

Indent: First line: 0", Space After: 0 pt

Author

Deleted: DREs 

Deleted: approach, which provides 

IPCC 2b
In response to these comments, we are now proposing 

the use of a “Refined Method” for estimating these 

emissions from semiconductor facilities. Our revised 

methodology includes a simpler approach to estimating 

emissions from cleaning and etching as compared to the Tier 

3 method that was initially proposed for larger

semiconductor facilities. To this end, we estimate that 

our proposed methodology will result in a reduction in 

burden compared to the Tier 3 method for those facilities 

previously defined as large semiconductor facilities, and 

an improvement in accuracy of the emissions estimate as 

compared to the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b method. Furthermore, 

since we anticipate that all semiconductor facilities 

already have, or have ready access to, the information 

required by this proposed methodology, we are also 

proposing to require all semiconductor facilities required 

to report to estimate emissions using the Refined Method. 

We have concluded the method we are proposing is the most 

appropriate method taking into account both the cost to the 

reporter as well as accuracy of emissions achieved.

For LCD, MEMS, and PV facilities, in this action we 

are proposing to require an approach based on a slightly 

modified 2006 IPCC Tier 2b method which would include (1) 

gas-and facility-specific heel factors (consistent with the 

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: large
requirements we are proposing for semiconductor 

facilities), (2) gas consumption apportioned to 2006 IPCC 

Tier 2b process categories (i.e. clean and etch), (3) 

default factors consistent with the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b 

factors, and (4) methods for reporting controlled emissions 

from abatement systems (as proposed below). The main 

difference between the method proposed in this revised 

proposal and in the initial proposal is the addition of a 

gas-and facility-specific heel factor to determine overall 

gas consumption. We did not receive any comments on the 

Tier 2b method that we proposed for LCD, MEMS, and PV 

facilities in our initial proposal. We are proposing to 

add the requirement of gas-and-facility specific heel 

factors based on comments received from semiconductor 

facilities in response to the initial proposal. It is our 

understanding that LCD, MEMS, and PV facilities have the 

data required to develop a gas-and-facility specific heel 

factors and that it can be implemented with minimal burden.

Estimating Facility N2O Emissions. In our initial 

proposal, our approach required that facilities estimate 

annual N2O emissions using a simple mass-balance method. 

This method assumed that all N2O consumed is emitted (i.e., 

not converted or destroyed). We also requested comment on 

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Font:Not Italic, Underline

Author

Formatted: _Level 4-GHG Preamble,

Indent: First line: 0", Space After: 0 pt

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: 
utilization factors for N2O as well as on data on N2O byproduct formation. 

In response to our initial proposal, we received 

comments that clarified that N2O is used primarily in the 

chemical vapor deposition process. Commenters opposed our 

proposed method for estimating N2O emissions, which assumed 

100 percent N2O used is emitted, and asserted that 

semiconductor facilities should be permitted to use 

measured N2O emission factors where these factors were 

measured using methods consistent with the December 2006 

International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative’s Guideline 

for Environmental Characterization of Semiconductor Process 

Equipment (2006 ISMI Guidelines). Commenters also noted 

that facilities that have not developed N2O emission factors 

should be allowed to use a default emission factor of 60

percent, reflecting N2O utilization of 40 percent.6 Lastly, 

commenters asserted that those companies that have a 

measured DRE for N2O abatement be allowed to apply these 

DREs in the emission estimates.

We are now proposing two methods for estimating N2O 

emissions from electronics manufacturing: one for 

estimating N2O emissions from chemical vapor deposition and 

 

6

 The 40% utilization rate (60% emission factor) was identified based on 

a survey of industry conducted by ISMI and provided in comments in 

response to the initial proposal. 

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: ___GHG PARAGRAPH,

Indent: First line: 0", Space After: 0 pt

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: % 

Deleted: %

Deleted: %
another for estimating N2O emissions from all other 

manufacturing processes such as chamber cleaning. 

Reporting Controlled Emissions from Abatement Systems.

The emissions estimation method originally proposed 

accounted for destruction by abatement systems only if 

facilities verified the performance of their systems using 

one of two methods. In particular, we proposed to require 

that the DRE be verified by either (1) measurement by the 

facility using the methods described in EPA’s Protocol for 

Measuring Destruction or Removal Efficiency of Fluorinated 

Greenhouse Gas Abatement Equipment in Electronics 

Manufacturing (EPA’s DRE Protocol), or (2) purchase by the 

facility of abatement systems that were tested by a third 

party using a standard protocol such as EPA’s DRE Protocol. 

We also proposed to require that facilities use the 

systems within the manufacturer’s specified system 

lifetime, operate the system within the manufacturer 

specific limits for the gas mix and exhaust flow rate 

intended for the fluorinated GHG destruction, and maintain 

the equipment according to the manufacturer’s guidelines. 

In response to the initial proposal, commenters were 

generally opposed to EPA’s initial approach for measuring 

DRE, noting that according the Results of the ISMI ESH 

Technology Center Greenhouse Gas Facility Survey, less than 

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: _Level 4-GHG Preamble,

Space After: 0 pt

Author

Formatted: Font:Not Italic, Underline

Author

Formatted: Font:Not Italic, Underline

Author

Author

Formatted: ___GHG PARAGRAPH,

Indent: First line: 0", Space After: 0 pt

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Font:Not Italic, Underline

Author

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: 

Deleted: For the use of devices to 

abate fluorinated GHG emissions, 

the

Deleted: according to 

Deleted: In addition, if facilities 

chose not to verify the performance 

of their abatement equipment using 

methods provided, only uncontrolled 

emissions could be reported.

Deleted: it was overly burdensome to 

measure every fluorinated GHG

abatement device in each fab and 

that generally, facilities use the 

IPCC default factors or 

manufacturer-supplied measurements. 

Commenters also noted that 

Deleted: that 
one percent of installed abatement systems have been 

properly tested using the draft EPA Protocol and that 

generally, facilities use the IPCC default factors or 

manufacturer-supplied measurements. In addition, 

commenters were also opposed to EPA’s proposed requirement 

that facilities rely on manufacturer-specified system 

lifetime as properly maintained and serviced abatement 

systems can last beyond the manufactures’ specified 

lifetime. For purposes of this reporting rule, we are now 

proposing that facilities that wish to document and report 

fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions reflecting the use of 

abatement systems adhere to a method that would require (1) 

documentation to certify that the abatement device is 

installed, operated, and maintained according to 

manufacturers’ specifications, (2) accounting for the 

system’s uptime, and (3) either certification that the 

abatement system is specifically designed for fluorinated 

GHG and N2O abatement and the use of EPA default DRE value, 

or directly and properly measured DRE (i.e., in accordance 

with EPA DRE Protocol) confirming abatement system’s 

performance.

Estimating Emissions from Heat Transfer Fluids. To 

estimate the emissions from heat transfer fluids we 

proposed to require that electronics manufacturers use the 

Author

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Font:Not Italic, Underline

Author

Formatted: _Level 4-GHG Preamble,

Indent: First line: 0", Space After: 0 pt

Author

Deleted: vendor

Deleted: are typically able to 

effectively abate PFC emissions for 

much longer than the vendorDeleted: system

Deleted: assuming proper operation 

and maintenance.

Deleted: 

Deleted: 
2006 IPCC Tier 2 approach, which is based on a mass-balance 

method. As we stated in the initial proposal, the 2006 

IPCC Tier 2 approach uses company-specific data and 

accounts for differences among facilities’ heat transfer 

fluids, leak rates, and service practices.

In comments we received on our initial proposal, it 

was noted that our proposed method for estimating emissions 

from heat transfer fluids would require companies to 

compile a detailed inventory of all fluorinated heat 

transfer equipment and its nameplate capacity. Comments 

stated that such a mass balance approach would be overly 

burdensome. 

In evaluating these comments, we believe that there 

was some confusion regarding our intended method. As a 

result, we are not changing the broad outlines of our 

initial proposal, but we are clarifying required data 

elements. 

3. Definition of the Source Category

The electronics industry uses multiple long-lived 

fluorinated GHGs such as PFCs, HFCs, SF6, and NF3, as well 

as N2O, during manufacturing of semiconductors, LCDs, MEMS, 

and PV. We understand that there are other electronics 

manufacturers such as those facilities that manufacture 

light-emitting diodes (LEDs) and disk readers that use 

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: ___GHG PARAGRAPH,

Indent: First line: 0", Space After: 0 pt

Author

Author

Formatted: _Level 3-GHG Preamble,

Space After: 0 pt

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: ___GHG PARAGRAPH,

Indent: First line: 0", Space After: 0 pt

Author

Deleted: 
fluorinated GHGs in similar manufacturing processes as 

semiconductors. As a result, we are seeking information on 

fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions associated with the 

manufacture of these products and also comment on whether 

to include them as part of the electronics manufacturing 

source category. It is our intent to include these other 

sources as part of the electronics manufacturing source 

category in the final rule where their emissions meet or 

exceed our proposed threshold of 25,000 mtCO2e. 

Fluorinated GHGs are used for plasma etching of 

silicon materials, cleaning deposition tool chambers, and 

wafer cleaning. N2O is also used in depositing certain 

films and chamber cleaning. Additionally, electronics 

manufacturing employs fluorinated GHGs (typically liquids 

at ambient temperature) as heat transfer fluids. The most 

common fluorinated GHGs in use for these purposes are CHF3

(HFC-23), CF4, C2F6, NF3, SF6 and FluorinertTM and Galden® 

heat transfer fluids; other compounds such as 

perfluoropropane (C3F8) and perfluorocyclobutane (c-C4F8) are 

also used in smaller quantities (EPA, 2008a). Table 3 of 

this preamble presents fluorinated GHGs typically used 

during manufacture of electronics devices.

Table 3. Examples of Fluorinated GHGs Used by the 

Electronics Industry

Product Type Fluorinated GHGs Used During Manufacture

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Don't keep with next

Author

Author

Formatted Table

Author

Deleted: IDeleted: 

Deleted: I-
Electronics (e.g., 

Semiconductor, 

MEMS, LCD, PV)

CF4, C2F6, C3F8, c-C4F8, c-C4F8O, C4F6, C5F8, 

CHF3, CH2F2, NF3, SF6, and Heat Transfer Fluids 

(CF3-(O-CF(CF3)-CF2)n-(O-CF2)m-O-CF3, 

CnF2n+2, CnF2n+1(O)CmF2m+1, CnF2nO, 

(CnF2n+1)3N)a

a IPCC Guidelines do not specify the fluorinated GHGs used for MEMS

production. Literature reviews revealed that among others CF4, SF6, and 

the Bosch process (consisting of alternating steps of SF6 and c-C4F8) are 

used to manufacture MEMS. For further information, see the Electronics 

Manufacturing TSD in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-

0927). 

Description of Electronics Manufacturing Processes and 

Activities. Fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions result from 

the following electronics processes and activities: 

(1) Plasma etching;

(2) Chemical vapor deposition; 

(3) Chamber cleaning;

(4) Wafer cleaning; and 

(5) Heat transfer fluid use.

Plasma etching, essential to fabricating intricate, 

nanometer size features in contemporary electronic devices, 

is the removal of solid material from a substrate surface 

with gaseous reactants, in plasma, to produce gaseous 

products, which are then pumped away and disposed. Unless 

abated, unreacted fluorinated reactants or fluorinated GHG 

by-products from etching are emitted into the atmosphere. 

Typical fluorinated GHG etching reagents, used either 

individually or in combination, are CF4, CHF3, C2F6 and cC4F8 for silicon dioxide and nitride films; CF4, NF3 and SF6

for polysilicon films; and CHF3 for aluminum and SF6 for 

Formatted: Don't keep with next

Author

Formatted: _Table-preamble

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Font:Not Italic

Author

Formatted: Normal

Author

Formatted: Font:Not Italic, Underline,

Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: ___GHG PARAGRAPH

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Deleted: MEMs

Deleted: MEMs

Deleted: 
tungsten films. A typical fluorinated GHG by-product from 

etching processes is CF4; in some instances C2F6 may also be 

formed. 

Deposition is a fundamental step in the fabrication of 

a variety of electronic devices. During deposition, layers 

of dielectric, barrier, or electrically conductive films 

are deposited or grown on a wafer or other substrate. 

Chemical vapor deposition enables the deposition of 

dielectric or metal films. During the chemical vapor 

deposition process, gases that contain atoms of the 

material to be deposited react on the wafer surface to form 

a thin film of solid material. Films deposited by chemical 

vapor deposition may be silicon oxide, single-layer crystal 

epitaxial silicon, amorphous silicon, silicon nitride, 

dielectric anti-reflective coatings, low k dielectric, 

aluminum, titanium, titanium nitride, polysilicon, 

tungsten, refractory metals or silicides. Nitrous oxide 

may be the oxidizer of choice during deposition of silicon 

oxide films. 

Chambers used for depositing polysilicon, dielectric 

and metal films are cleaned periodically using fluorinated 

GHGs, N2O, and other gases. During the cleaning cycle, the 

gas is converted to fluorine atoms in plasma, which etches 

away residual silicon-containing material from chamber 
walls, electrodes, and chamber hardware. Undissociated 

fluorinated gases and other fluorinated and non-fluorinated 

products pass from the chamber to waste streams and, unless 

emissions control systems are employed, into the 

atmosphere. 

Typical fluorinated GHGs used for chamber cleaning are 

NF3, C2F6 and C3F8. N2O may also be used to reduce particle 

formation during chamber cleaning. As with etching films, 

fluorinated GHG by-products may be formed during chamber 

cleaning, typically CF4.

During wafer processing, any residual photoresist 

material can be removed through an ashing process, which 

consists of placing partially processed wafers in an oxygen 

plasma to which CF4 may be added. The edges of wafers (the 

bevel) may require additional cleaning to remove yieldreducing residual material. Bevel cleaning may also use a 

plasma process with fluorinated gas chemistry. In both of 

these wafer cleaning processes, unused fluorinated GHGs are 

emitted unless abated. 

Fluorinated GHG liquids (at ambient temperature) such 

as fully fluorinated linear, branched or cyclic alkanes, 

ethers, tertiary amines and aminoethers, and mixtures 

thereof are used as heat transfer fluids at several 

semiconductor facilities to cool process equipment, control 
temperature during device testing, and solder semiconductor 

devices to circuit boards. The fluorinated heat transfer 

fluid’s high vapor pressures can lead to evaporative losses 

during use.7 

Our understanding is that heat transfer fluids are 

widely used within semiconductor manufacturing. We are 

seeking comment on the extent of use and annual replacement 

quantities of heat transfer fluids in other electronics 

sectors, such as their use for cooling or cleaning during 

LCD manufacture.

Total U.S. Emissions From Electronics Manufacturing.

Emissions of fluorinated GHGs from 216 electronics 

facilities were estimated to be 6.1 million metric tons CO2e 

in 2006. Below is a breakdown of emissions by electronics 

product type.

Semiconductors. Emissions of fluorinated GHGs, 

including heat transfer fluids, from 175 semiconductor 

facilities were estimated to be 5.9 million metric tons CO2e 

in 2006. Of the total estimated semiconductor emissions, 

5.4 million metric tons CO2e are from etching/chamber 

cleaning and 0.5 million metric tons CO2e are from heat 

transfer fluid usage. 

 

7

 Electronics Manufacturing TSD (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927); 2006 IPCC 

Guidelines.

Formatted: Font:Not Italic, Underline,

Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Underline, Check spelling and

grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Font:Not Italic, Underline

Author

Author

Deleted: -XX
MEMS. Emissions of fluorinated GHGs from 12 MEMS 

facilities were estimated to be 0.1 million metric tons CO2e 

in 2006. 

LCDs. Emissions of fluorinated GHGs from 9 LCD 

facilities were estimated to be 0.02 million metric tons 

CO2e in 2006. 

PV. Emissions of fluorinated GHGs from 20 PV 

facilities were estimated to be 0.07 million metric tons 

CO2e in 2006. We request comment on the number and capacity 

of PV facilities that employ thin film technologies (i.e., 

amorphous silicon) and other PV manufacturing facilities in 

the United States using fluorinated GHGs.

For additional background information on the 

electronics industry, refer to the Electronics 

Manufacturing Technical Support Document (TSD) in the 

docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927).

4. Threshold for Reporting

For facilities that manufacture semiconductors, LCD, 

MEMS, and PV, we are proposing an emissions-based threshold 

of 25,000 mtCO2e. Consistent with other sections of the 

Final MRR, EPA is proposing that for the purposes of 

determining whether a facility emits amounts equal to or 

greater than 25,000 mtCO2e, a facility must include 

emissions from all source categories for which methods are 

Formatted: Font:Not Italic, Underline

Author

Formatted: Font:Not Italic, Underline

Author

Formatted: Font:Not Italic, Underline

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: _Level 3-GHG Preamble

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: ___GHG PARAGRAPH,

Indent: First line: 0"

Author

Deleted: .S.

Deleted: 

Deleted: -XX

Deleted: 
provided in the rule. For purposes of the threshold 

determination under subpart I, we are proposing two 

different methods, depending on whether the facility 

manufacturers semiconductors, MEMS, LCDs or PVs (see 

proposed section 98.91). It is important to note that 

these methods are only for determining whether a facility 

exceeds the threshold; the proposed methods required for 

monitoring and reporting emissions data are presented in 

section 5 below. 

To determine whether a manufacturer falls above or 

below the proposed 25,000 mtCO2e threshold, we are proposing 

that semiconductor, MEMS, and LCD facilities use gas 

specific emission factors assuming 100 percent

manufacturing capacity to calculate annual metric tons of 

emissions in CO2 equivalents. Because we understand that 

heat transfer fluids are widely used within semiconductor 

manufacturing, we are proposing that semiconductor 

manufacturers add 10 percent of total clean and etch 

emissions at a facility to their estimate. For 

applicability purposes, we propose that manufacturing 

capacity means the facility’s full planned design capacity. 

The gas specific emission factors we are proposing to 

use for threshold applicability for semiconductors and LCD 

facilities are consistent with the 2006 IPCC Tier 1 

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: ___GHG PARAGRAPH,

Indent: First line: 0"

Author

Deleted: in §

Deleted: %

Deleted: %
emission factors. For MEMS, because there are no IPCC 

factors available, we are assuming that SF6 accounts for 100

percent of the sector’s total emissions. The emission 

factor we are proposing for threshold applicability is 

based on the assumption that the MEMS SF6 emission factor is 

equivalent to the IPCC Tier 1 SF6 emission factor for 

semiconductors, scaled up by a factor of 5.8 

We are proposing that PV facilities multiply annual 

fluorinated GHG purchases or consumption by the gasappropriate 100-year GWPs, as defined in Table A-1 of 

subpart A of part 98, to calculate annual metric tons of 

emissions in CO2 equivalents. None of these calculations 

would account for emission abatement systems. 

We are proposing to require an emissions estimating 

method that does not account for destruction by abatement 

systems because actual emissions from facilities employing 

abatement systems may exceed estimates when based on the 

manufacturers’ rated DREs of the equipment and may 

therefore exceed the 25,000 mtCO2e threshold without the 

knowledge of the facility operators. When abatement 

equipment is used, electronics manufacturers often estimate 

their emissions using the manufacturer-supplied DRE for the 

system. However, an abatement system may fail to achieve 

 

8

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

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

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Deleted: %

Deleted: Subpart

Deleted: Part

Deleted: technologies

Deleted: -XX).
its rated DRE either because it was not installed properly, 

is not being properly operated and maintained, or because 

the DRE value itself was incorrectly measured due to a 

failure to properly account for the effects of dilution. 

For example, reported DREs for CF4 can be overstated by as 

much as a factor of 20 to 50, and the corresponding figure 

for C2F6 can be overstated by a factor of up to 10 because 

of failure to properly account for dilution (Burton, 2007). 

In our analysis of the emissions thresholds, we 

considered thresholds of 1,000 mtCO2e, 10,000 mtCO2e, 25,000 

mtCO2e, and 100,000 mtCO2e per year. To estimate the number 

of semiconductor facilities that would have to report under 

each of the various thresholds, we estimated emissions for 

each facility in the U.S. by using IPCC Tier 1 emission 

factors. These emissions estimates were then evaluated to 

determine how many facilities would meet the various 

thresholds. To estimate the collective emissions from the 

facilities that would have to report under the various 

thresholds, we used information from EPA’s PFC 

Reduction/Climate Partnership for Semiconductors and the 

EPA PFC Emissions Vintaging Model. 

To estimate the number of LCD and PV facilities that 

would have to report under the various thresholds, as well 

as the collective emissions from these facilities, we used 

Author

Formatted: Font color: Black, Check

spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Font color: Black, Check

spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: Our analysis used 
IPCC Tier 1 emission factors. Because IPCC emission 

factors for MEMS are not available, the number of 

facilities that would have to report and the collective 

emissions from these facilities were determined using an 

emission factor based on a relevant IPCC Tier 1 emission 

factor for semiconductor production.9 All of our analyses 

assumed no abatement. 

Table 4 of this preamble shows emissions and 

facilities that would be captured by the respective 

emissions thresholds. 

Table 4. Threshold Analysis for Electronics Industry

Emission Emissions Covered Facilities Covered

Threshold 

Level 

metric tons 

CO2e/yr

Total 

National 

Emissions

Total 

Number of 

Facilities

metric 

tons 

CO2e/yr Percent Facilities Percent

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

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

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

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

We selected the 25,000 mtCO2e per year threshold 

because it maximizes emissions reporting, while excluding 

small facilities that do not contribute significantly to 

the overall GHG emissions. 

Table 5 of this preamble shows the estimated emissions 

and number of facilities that would report for each type of 

source under the proposed emissions-based thresholds. 

 

9

 For a more detailed explanation of MEMS default emission factor, 

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

0927). 

Formatted: Font color: Black, Check

spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: ___GHG PARAGRAPH,

Indent: First line: 0"

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Keep with next

Author

Formatted: Line spacing: single, Keep

with next

Author

Formatted Table

Author

Formatted: English (US)

Author

Formatted: Line spacing: single, Keep

with next

Author

Formatted: Line spacing: single

Author

Formatted: Line spacing: single

Author

Formatted: Line spacing: single

Author

Formatted: Normal

Author

Author

Deleted: IDeleted: 

Deleted: IDeleted: I-
Table 5. Summary of Rule Applicability under the Proposed 

Thresholds.

Emissions Covered

Facilities 

Covered

Emissions 

Source Threshold

Total 

National 

Facilities

Total 

Emissions 

of Source 

(metric 

tons CO2e)

metric tons 

CO2e/yr

Percent FacilitiesPercent

Semiconductors25,000 Mt 

CO2 Eq. 175 5,741,676 5,492,066 96% 91 52%

MEMS

25,000 Mt 

CO2 Eq. 12 146,115 96,164 66% 2 17%

LCD

25,000 Mt 

CO2 Eq. 9 23,632 0 0% 0 0%

PV

25,000 Mt 

CO2 Eq. 20 73,039 34,340 47% 1 5%

The proposed emissions-based thresholds are estimated 

to include approximately 50 percent of semiconductor 

facilities and between approximately 5 percent and 17 

percent of the facilities manufacturing PV and MEMS,

respectively. At the same time, the thresholds are 

expected to cover nearly 96 percent of fluorinated GHG 

emissions from semiconductor facilities, 66 percent of 

fluorinated GHG emissions from facilities manufacturing 

MEMS, and 47 percent of fluorinated GHG emissions from 

facilities manufacturing PV. Combined, these emissions are 

estimated to account for close to 94 percent of fluorinated 

GHG emissions from the electronics industry as a whole.

Based on our current analysis, facilities

manufacturing LCDs are not expected to meet the proposed 

threshold. In addition, only 2 MEMS facilities and 1 PV 

facility are expected to be covered. The data and 

information that we currently have on MEMS, LCD, and PV 

Author

Author

Formatted: Centered, Line spacing:

Author

Formatted: Centered, Line spacing:

Author

Formatted Table

Author

Formatted: English (US)

Author

Formatted: Centered, Line spacing:

Author

Formatted: English (US)

Author

Formatted: Centered, Line spacing:

Author

Formatted: English (US)

Author

Formatted: English (US)

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: IDeleted: Emissions Source

Deleted: facilties

Deleted: facilites

Deleted: one

... [40]
manufacturing, however, is limited and incomplete. We are 

including these sectors because they have similar 

fluorinated GHG and N2O use and manufacturing processes as 

those of semiconductor manufacturing and they are high 

growth sectors. We estimate that emissions from MEMS, LCD, 

and PV may be higher than our data show currently and we 

expect them to increase in the future. 

For additional background information on the threshold 

analysis, refer to the Electronics Manufacturing TSD. For 

specific information on costs, including unamortized first 

year capital expenditures, please refer to the EIA and the 

EIA cost appendix.

5. Selection of Proposed Monitoring Methods 

We are proposing methods to monitor and estimate 

fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions from semiconductor, LCD, 

MEMS, and PV manufacture. The proposed methods discussed

below include the following: (a) estimating emissions from 

cleaning and etching processes; (b) estimating facility N2O 

emissions; (c) estimating emissions from heat transfer 

fluids; and (d) reporting controlled emissions from 

abatement equipment. The methods described and proposed in 

this section are for estimating emissions that would be 

required to be reported under this subpart (see proposed 

sections 98.93 and 98.94). It is important to note that 

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Deleted: N20

Deleted: semicondcutor

Deleted: emisisons

Deleted: (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-XX)

Deleted: section XXXX of 

Deleted: RIA

Deleted: RIA

Deleted: 

Deleted: i

Deleted: (ii

Deleted: iii

Deleted: iv

Deleted: in §

Deleted: §

... [49]

... [41]

... [50]

... [52]

... [51]

... [44]

... [43]

... [46]

... [45]

... [54]

... [53]

... [42]

... [55]

... [48]

... [47]

... [56]
these methods differ from those proposed in the section 

above which are for determining applicability of the 

subpart. 

a. Methods for Estimating Emissions from Cleaning and 

Etching Processes 

We are proposing different methods for estimating 

fluorinated GHG emissions from etching and cleaning based 

on whether the facility is a semiconductor manufacturer or 

an LCD, MEMS, or PV manufacturer. 

Method for Semiconductor Facilities. Under this 

proposal, all semiconductor manufacturers that have 

emissions equal to or greater than 25,000 mtCO2e would be 

required to estimate and report emissions from etching and 

cleaning using one of two approaches. First, we are 

proposing an approach, hereinafter referred to as the 

“Refined Method,” that is based on: 

(1) Gas consumption as calculated using the 

facility’s purchase records, inventory, and gas-and 

facility-specific heel factors, 

(2) Facility-specific methods for apportioning gas 

consumption by process category10 using indicators of GHGusing activity (e.g., wafer passes),

 

10 For purposes of electronic manufacturing, “process category” is a set 

of similar manufacturing steps, performed for the same purpose, 

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

Author

Formatted: _Level 4-GHG Preamble,

Space After: 0 pt

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: ___GHG PARAGRAPH,

Indent: First line: 0"

Author

Author

Formatted: Font:Not Italic

Author

Author

Formatted: Font:Not Italic, Underline

Author

Formatted: _Level 4-GHG Preamble,

Indent: First line: 0", Space After: 0 pt

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: ___GHG PARAGRAPH,

Indent: First line: 0", Space After: 0 pt

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Deleted: 

(i).

Deleted: 

Deleted: 

Deleted: gas

Deleted: facility

Deleted: .
(3) Emission factors for utilization and by-product 

formation rates based on refined process categories (e.g., 

categories with more specificity than the simpler cleaning 

and etching categories listed in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines), 

and 

(4) Methods for reporting controlled emissions (as 

proposed below). 

Alternatively, we are proposing to permit those 

facilities that have monitoring infrastructure or the 

necessary data to estimate emissions obtained through 

recipe-specific measurements to report their emissions 

using their data by following an approach consistent with 

the 2006 IPCC Tier 3 method. In addition, for those 

semiconductor manufacturers that fabricate electronic 

devices on wafers of measuring greater than 300 mm in 

diameter, we are proposing to require that they estimate 

and report their emissions using recipe-specific 

measurements and follow an approach consistent with the 

IPCC Tier 3 method. Each of these approaches is discussed 

below. 

Refined Method.

The Refined Method would apply to all covered 

semiconductor facilities and would not make a distinction 

 manufacture for which fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions and fluorinated 

GHG and N2O usages are calculated and reported.

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: _Level 4-GHG Preamble,

Space After: 0 pt

Author

Formatted: Underline

Author

Formatted: Underline

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: ___GHG PARAGRAPH,

Indent: First line: 0", Space After: 0 pt

Author

Deleted: emission

Deleted: methods

Deleted: 450 mm or larger

Deleted: 
between relatively large and other facilities. In the 

paragraphs below, we discuss in detail each one of the 

components we are proposing to require under this approach.

Gas consumption as calculated using the facility’s 

purchase records, inventory, and gas-and facility-specific 

heel factors. Notwithstanding the definition of “heel” in 

subpart A of this rule11, we are proposing that for purposes 

of electronics manufacturing that a heel means, “the amount 

of gas that remains in a gas cylinder or container after it

is discharged or off-loaded (this may vary by cylinder or 

container type and facility).” We are not planning to use 

the subpart A definition because it contains a default 

value of 10 percent. In this action, we are proposing to 

require facilities to calculate gas-and facility-specific 

heel factors rather than using a default value.

As part of determining each facility’s overall usage 

of each gas for a reporting period, we are proposing that a 

facility use their purchase records, inventory, and gasand facility-specific heel factors. More specifically, for 

each cylinder/container type for each gas used, we are 

proposing that semiconductor facilities be required to base 

their heel factors on the residual weight or pressure of 

 

11 Pursuant to subpart A of the Final MRR, “heel” means the amount of 

gas that remains in a shipping container after it is discharged or offloaded (that is no more than ten percent of the volume of the 

container). 

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Deleted: smaller

Deleted: 

Deleted: %

Deleted: 
the gas cylinder or container that a facility uses to 

change out that cylinder/container. This is common 

practice in the industry and is typically referred to as 

the “trigger point for change out.” These points, one for 

each gas and cylinder/container type, together with the 

initial container mass or pressure, are used to calculate 

the unused gas for each container, which when expressed as 

a fraction of the initial amount in the container is the 

“heel” (or unused fraction of the container). This gasand facility-specific heel factor would then be applied to 

each container for that gas to determine the net amount of 

that gas used at a facility. In cases where the “trigger 

point for change out” used at a facility differs by more 

than one percentage point from that used to calculate the 

previous gas-specific heel factor, we propose that the gasand facility-specific heel factor must be recalculated. 

Currently most semiconductor facilities rely upon the 

IPCC default heel factor of 10 percent and apply that value 

to each cylinder/container. Based on information provided 

in an industry study of facility-specific, gas-specific 

heel factors, the heel factor in a given facility for 

individual cylinders/containers can vary from 3 percent to 

25 percent. Given this variation, we conclude that gas-and 

facility-specific heel factors would provide improved 

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: % 

Deleted: %

Deleted: %
accuracy in emissions estimates over the use of the IPCC 

default heel factor.

We understand that there are exceptional circumstances 

when facilities do not always change cylinders/containers 

exactly when they reach the targeted residual weight or 

pressure. In those instances, which we expect are 

infrequent, we are proposing that the cylinder/container 

must be weighed or the pressure measured using a pressure 

gauge; as opposed to using the facility-wide gas-specific 

heel factor as part of determining the net amount of gas 

used at a facility. We are proposing to define an 

exceptional circumstance as one which the 

cylinder/container is changed at a residual mass or 

pressure that differs by more than 20 percent from the 

“trigger point for change out.” We request comment on the 

frequency of these exceptional circumstances and also the 

percentage difference (i.e. 20 percent) for which we are 

proposing to require that the exceptional 

cylinder/container be weighed or the pressure measured. 

When taking an annual inventory, we understand that 

multiple cylinders/containers are in service. We request 

comment on the significance of accounting for the quantity 

of fluorinated GHGs or N2O remaining in cylinders/containers 

in service at the end of the reporting period. We also 

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: gage
request comment and detailed information on other methods 

and technologies (i.e. other than purchase records) that 

facilities may be using for determining annual gas 

consumption (e.g., recorded data from an automated gas 

inventory system).

We are proposing that all flowmeters, weigh scales, 

pressure gauges, and thermometers used to measure 

quantities that are monitored or used in calculations in 

this proposal have an accuracy and precision of 1 percent 

of full scale or better. We request comment on this 

requirement including alternative accuracy and precision 

requirements and detailed information about why particular 

instruments can not meet the proposed 1 percent standard. 

Apportioning gas consumption to process categories. 

Estimating facility emissions requires apportioning annual 

facility-wide gas consumption across a facility’s emitting 

process categories by way of applying facility-specific 

apportioning factors. A facility’s uncontrolled emissions 

are the product of that apportioned gas consumption and the 

corresponding emission factor. To determine the share of 

each gas used by each process category, we are proposing to 

require that semiconductor facilities use a quantifiable 

indicator (or metric) of gas usage activity. More 

specifically, we are proposing facilities track wafer 

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Line spacing: double

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: ___GHG PARAGRAPH

Author

Deleted: .
passes as an indicator of activity with which to apportion 

the facility’s gas consumption. Wafer passes is a count of 

the number of times a silicon wafer is processed for a 

specific process category. The total number of wafer 

passes over a reporting year is the number of wafer passes 

per tool times the number of operational process tools 

during the reporting year. 

To illustrate a case where wafer passes is used as a 

facility-specific engineering model, consider a facility 

that uses NF3 for chamber cleaning with remote plasma 

systems and for etching polysilicon and oxide films. With 

knowledge of the NF3-specfic heel and the number of NF3

containers used, the facility knows the amount of NF3

consumed. To estimate emissions, the facility must now 

apportion NF3 usage between the chamber cleaning and oxide 

and polysilicon etching processes. To do this it might use 

the total number of wafer passes through each and every NF3-

cleaning system together with the time and nominal (not 

measured actual) gas flow rate for each and every NF3-

cleaning system and the corresponding figures for oxide and 

polysilicon etch processes to arrive at the proportion of 

NF3 used for cleaning chambers and etching oxide and 

polysilicon films. Once developed, these apportioning 

factors would be used to estimate NF3 gas usage for the 
cleaning and etching process categories proposed in our 

method. This example is illustrated further in Table 6 of 

this preamble. 

Table 6. Illustrative Calculation for NF3 Example at One 

Facility

Gas Type – Annual 

Usage, kg. Process Category

Apportioning 

Factor

Process category 

gas usage, kg.

RPS Chamber 

Cleaning

82% 46,202

Polysilicon Etch 17% 9,561

NF3 – 56,286 kg

Oxide Etch 1% 523

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

We request comment on using wafer passes as an 

appropriate quantifiable indicator of activity, and on our 

description and example of how it would be used. 

We recognize that facilities may use other types of 

quantifiable indicators of gas-usage activity data to 

develop facility-specific engineering models to estimate 

gas consumption. We may include additional indicators as 

options in the final rule if they are quantifiable and if 

we receive adequate information regarding how they were 

developed and how they are used, including descriptions, 

examples, and any additional information that may be 

necessary to understand how such indicators of activity 

would be developed and used in a facility-specific 

engineering model to apportion annual facility-wide gas 

usage across a facility’s emitting process categories. The 

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Font:11 pt

Author

Formatted: Centered

Author

Formatted Table

Author

Formatted: Centered, Tabs:Not at 0.5"

Author

Formatted: Font:11 pt

Author

Formatted: Centered

Author

Formatted: Centered

Author

Formatted: Centered

Author

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Space

After: 0 pt

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: ___GHG PARAGRAPH,

Indent: First line: 0", Space After: 0 pt

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: IDeleted: I-
use of engineering judgment, for example, is not based on a 

quantitative metric and would not be considered an 

acceptable quantifiable indicator of gas usage. We also 

request comment on the use of a representative sampling 

method for tracking activity indicators such as wafer 

passes that may be used in the engineering model.

In many cases, EPA anticipates that the development of 

apportioning factors will result in a facility-wide 

consumption estimates that are independent of the estimates 

calculated using purchase records, inventory, and facilityspecific heel factors. In such cases, we propose that 

facilities report these consumption estimates. 

Emission factors for refined process categories. We 

are proposing that semiconductor facilities estimate their 

emissions using a specific set of process categories. Our 

proposed method would simplify the reporting requirements 

as compared to the 2006 IPCC Tier 3 method by lowering the 

number of emitting process categories from up to 455 per 

facility down to a fixed figure of approximately nine. Our 

goal in establishing the process categories is to account 

for most of the variability in emission factors across 

processes while limiting the total number of process 

categories whose gas usage must be tracked by semiconductor 

facilities. 

Author

Author

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5", Space

After: 0 pt, Line spacing: double

Author

Author

Author

Deleted: are required to 

Deleted: 

Deleted: or less

Deleted: 
Under this approach, we are proposing to require 

reporting of fluorinated GHG emissions for the following 

nine emitting process categories: four subcategories for 

wafer patterning (etching), three subcategories for chamber 

cleaning, and two subcategories for wafer cleaning. The 

nine process categories we are proposing account for 

distinct and widely-used manufacturing activities during 

production of discrete, logic and memory devices. We 

anticipate that these nine categories effectively capture 

current and projected processes and the differences in 

emission factors across various semiconductor manufacturing 

technologies.

Our proposed definitions of these nine emitting 

categories are:

Wafer patterning subcategories:

Oxide etch means any process using fluorinated GHG 

reagents to selectively remove SiO2, SiOx-based or fully 

organic-based thin-film material that has been deposited on 

a wafer during semiconductor device manufacturing.

Nitride etch means any process using fluorinated GHG 

reagents to selectively remove SiN, SiON, Si3N4, SiC, SiCO, 

SiCN, etc. (represented by the general chemical formula, 

SiwOxNyXz where w,x,y and z are zero or integers and X can be 

Formatted: Space After: 0 pt, Line

spacing: double

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: ___GHG PARAGRAPH,

Indent: First line: 0"

Author

Author

Formatted: Font:Not Italic, Underline,

Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Underline, Check spelling and

grammar

Author

Formatted: Font:Not Italic, Underline,

Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Font:Not Italic, Underline,

Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: 
some other element such as carbon) that has been deposited 

on a wafer during semiconductor manufacturing.

Silicon etch also often called polysilicon etch means 

any process using fluorinated GHG reagents to selectively 

remove silicon during semiconductor manufacturing.

Metal etch means any process using fluorinated GHG 

reagents associated with removing metal films (such as 

aluminum or tungsten) that have been deposited on a wafer 

during semiconductor manufacturing.

Chamber cleaning subcategories:

In situ plasma means cleaning thin-film production 

chambers, after processing one or more wafers, with a 

fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent that is dissociated into 

its cleaning constituents by a plasma generated inside the 

chamber where the film was produced.

Remote plasma system means cleaning thin-film 

production chambers, after processing one or more wafers, 

with a fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent dissociated by a 

remotely located (e.g., upstream) plasma source.

In situ thermal means cleaning thin-film production 

chambers, after processing one or more wafers, with a 

fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent that is thermally 

dissociated into its cleaning constituents inside the 

Formatted: Font:Not Italic, Underline,

Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Font:Not Italic, Underline,

Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Font:Not Italic, Underline,

Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Font:Not Italic, Underline,

Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Font:Not Italic, Underline,

Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Font:Not Italic, Underline,

Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: .
chamber where the thin-film (or thin films) was (were) 

produced.

Wafer cleaning subcategories:

Bevel cleaning means any process using fluorinated GHG 

reagents with plasma to clean the edges of wafers during 

semiconductor manufacture.

Ashing means any process using fluorinated GHG 

reagents with plasma to remove photoresist materials during 

wafer manufacture.

We request comment on the nine process categories we 

are proposing, their definitions as specified above, and 

whether they clearly define a specific process without 

ambiguity. In addition we request comment on whether the 

categories should be further refined to better capture the 

variability in emission rates among fluorinated GHG using 

manufacturing activities (e.g., whether any additional 

categories should be added or whether the proposed 

categories should be combined, and the definition of those 

categories).

Under this approach of defining a specific set of 

process categories, we are also considering additional 

patterning and chamber cleaning subcategories. The 

alternative patterning subcategories, which may replace or 

complement the four thin-film based subcategories defined 

Author

Formatted: Font:Not Italic, Underline,

Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Font:Not Italic, Underline,

Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: .
previously, are: contact etch, self-alignment contact etch, 

gate etch, deep trench etch, isolation trench etch, through 

silicon vias and regular vias. Each of these subcategories 

represents a specific feature achieved through etching 

(instead of subcategories based on the type of thin film 

etched).

Alternative chamber cleaning categories may 

distinguish between the types of films being removed from 

the chamber during cleaning. These might include 

distinguishing between chambers coated with tungsten and 

silicon-based films, or distinguishing between thin-film 

deposition equipment manufacturers. We request comment on 

these additional process categories and whether or not we 

should include alternative process categories in addition 

to the nine process categories that we are proposing. We 

also request comment on other methods of categorizing 

processes and detailed information on those categories. 

We are proposing nine process categories 

differentiated by production technology generation (i.e., 

wafer size). For each of the proposed nine process 

categories, we are proposing to establish a default 

emission factor within a range of values presented in 

Tables I-6, I-7, I-8 of subpart I. Within each process 

category, factors account for (1) the mass fraction of the 

Formatted: Line spacing: double

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: For each of the 

Deleted: described above

Deleted: that
input gas that is utilized during (i.e., not emitted from) 

the process and (2) the mass of each fluorinated GHG byproduct formed as a fraction of the mass of the dominant 

fluorinated GHG input gas used. 13 EPA is proposing a range 

of values for each default emission factor because the 

Agency has not yet received sufficient data to select a 

specific value within each range. 

To develop the proposed ranges for each emission 

factor, EPA requested from semiconductor device 

manufacturers and equipment suppliers, information on 

utilization and by-product formation rates and details on 

the associated measurement approach (e.g., measured in 

accordance with the 2006 ISMI Guidelines). EPA evaluated 

the data received as well as the standard deviations 

provided in Table 6.9 from Chapter 3 of the 2006 IPCC 

Guidelines. For additional information on how the ranges 

were developed, please refer to the Electronics 

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

In a final rule, EPA intends to publish default 

emission factors for gas utilization and by-product 

formation rates for each process category, differentiating 

 

13 In the case of mixtures of fluorinated GHGs, the “dominant” 

fluorinated GHG constitutes the largest mass of gas used for that 

process. 

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Space After: 0 pt, Line

spacing: double

Author

Author

Author

Deleted: .12 The process category 

factors distinguish wafer sizes: 

emission factors are grouped by 150 

mm, 200 mm and 300 mm wafer sizes 

for each process category 

Deleted: gas conversion

Deleted: increased with newer 

generations of tools. We developed 

the factors using a method of 

aggregation similar to the 2006 

IPCC factor development 

methodology. The document that 

describes the process for the 2006 

IPCC factor development is 

available for review in the Air 

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927. 

Please

Deleted: -XX for a detailed 

explanation and background 

information on how the emission 

factors were collected and 

developed for the Refined Method.

Deleted: the creation of the IPCC 

factors, insufficient information 

was available to weigh each process 

category (etch and clean categories 

for the IPCC Tier 2b method) by an 

estimate of its use across the 

industry. For the emission factors 

for the nine process categories, we 

request comment on using a 

weighting scheme and detailed 

information on how it would be 

developed and implemented. 

We request
amongst 150 mm, 200 mm and 300 mm wafer technology to the 

extent feasible. To this end, EPA requests additional 

utilization and by-product formation rates and supporting 

information on how they were developed. More specifically, 

EPA requests emission factors and by-product formation 

rates and information including but not limited to the 

specific measurement method used (e.g., measurement using 

the 2006 ISMI Guidelines), the date of measurement, 

achievement of fluorine mass balance, associated standard 

deviations of measured factors, the relevant emissions 

process types and categories (for the patterning/etching 

process type noting both film type and etched feature where 

applicable), substrate size (i.e., 150 mm, 200 mm, or 300 

mm), the number of wafers used in the measurement study, 

and the equipment manufacturer name and model number where 

not considered confidential. 

Using additional data received, EPA intends to develop 

default emission factors for each process category using a 

method of aggregation similar to the 2006 IPCC factor 

development methodology.14 Where available emission factor 

data are very limited or produce highly uncertain average 

factors, EPA may develop emissions factors that are 

 

14 For additional information on the 2006 IPCC factor development 

methodology, see Emission Factors for Semiconductor Manufacturing: 

Sources, Methods, and Results (February 2006) available in the docket 

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

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Deleted: measured (i.e., whether they 

were measured 

Deleted: ) to further support

Deleted: development

Deleted: emission factors. In a 

final rule, we may use

Deleted: additional data to further 

refine
conservative and less likely to underestimate actual 

emissions. If additional data are received in a timely 

fashion, EPA may develop draft emission factors prior to 

issuance of the final rule and will determine an 

appropriate way to promptly and clearly inform the 

regulated community. We welcome comments on such draft 

emission factors, recognizing that depending on when the 

emission factors are made available, such comments could be 

submitted after the close of the formal comment period. 

We will make every effort to consider such comments, 

including late comments, to the extent practicable in the 

development of the final rule.

In developing emission factors for the final rule, EPA 

is also considering developing weighted average emission 

factors, for each wafer technology, with the weights based 

on the market penetration rates of process recipes used in 

current device manufacturing practices.15 Such weighted 

emission factors, if possible, may better represent actual 

emissions from installed manufacturing equipment and 

operating processes. We request comment on using a 

weighting scheme and detailed information on how it would 

be developed and implemented.

 

15 Note, in the creation of the IPCC factors, sufficient information was

not available to weigh each general process type (i.e., etch and clean 

categories for the IPCC Tier 2b method). 

Formatted: ___GHG PARAGRAPH Char,

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: ___GHG PARAGRAPH Char,

Author

Deleted: . 

Deleted: are 
The uncertainties associated with the 2006 IPCC Tier 

2b method are associated with aggregating, for each gas, 

all usage into just two process categories (i.e., etching 

and chamber cleaning) and all wafer technologies (i.e., 150 

mm, 200 mm, and 300 mm wafer sizes) into one, and giving 

equal weights to all process recipes. A method based on 

refined processes categories keeps those processes 

separate, which reflects actual device manufacturing 

practices and as a result, produces a more representative 

and accurate emissions estimate. 

As an alternative, we are also considering an approach 

where each facility would develop for themselves or acquire 

from process equipment manufacturers emission factors 

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

the nine process categories. Under this approach, we would 

require the gas utilization and by-product formation rates 

to be developed using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines. Facilities 

would be required to construct and apply averages for each 

process category. One advantage of this approach is that 

these facility-specific emission factors would be expected 

to be more representative of the particular processes at 

that facility than the default emission factors. On the 

other hand, we estimate the burden associated with each 

facility developing its own emission factors would be 

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: ___GHG PARAGRAPH,

Indent: First line: 0", Space After: 0 pt

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: alternate

Deleted: International SEMATCH 

Manufacturing Initiative’s 

Guideline for Environmental 

Characterization of Semiconductor 

Process Equipment
greater compared to using the factors published by EPA. We 

request comment on this approach. 

We recognize that given the dynamic manufacturing 

processes by the industry, updates to the process 

categories and emission factors may be necessary. We 

request comment on the frequency with which those should be 

updated.

We estimate that our Refined Method will result in a 

reduction in burden for the large semiconductor facilities 

(annual capacities greater than 10,000 m2 silicon) and an 

increase in accuracy as compared to the IPCC Tier 2b 

method. We estimate the uncertainty from using a set of 

refined process categories to be roughly one-half the 

uncertainty of the Tier 2b method, assuming similar methods 

for apportioning gas usage for each method. For the Tier 

2b method the fluorinated GHG consuming processes used 

during semiconductor production are collapsed into just two 

categories, resulting in considerable variability for each 

category. For the Refined Method there are nine 

fluorinated GHG-using categories, resulting in less 

variability, on average, per category. Please refer to the 

Electronics Manufacturing TSD for a more detailed 

discussion of our uncertainty analysis. 

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: as many as 

Deleted: (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-XX) 

Deleted: 
For the relatively smaller semiconductor facilities 

(annual production of less than 10,500 m2 of silicon) we 

estimate an increase in burden as compared to our initial 

proposal where we required the use of the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b 

method; however, we anticipate that these facilities have 

the necessary data available to comply. The increase in 

burden for estimating emissions using the Refined Method, 

as opposed to the IPCC Tier 2b method, can be attributed to 

the increased level of effort to distinguish between nine 

refined process categories in comparison to two broad clean 

and etch categories, respectively. 

Recipe-specific measurements. As an alternative to 

the Refined Method where EPA default factors would be used, 

we are also proposing to permit those facilities that have 

monitoring infrastructure or the necessary data to estimate 

emissions obtained through recipe-specific measurements to 

report their emissions using their data (see proposed 

sections in 98.93 98.94(d)). This approach, consistent 

with the 2006 IPCC Tier 3 method, is based on (1) gas 

consumption as calculated using the facility’s purchase 

records, inventory, and gas-and facility-specific heel 

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

for apportioning gas consumption by individual process 

using indicators of GHG-using activity, (3) recipe-specific 

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: 

Deleted: §

Deleted: (a)(1) and §

Deleted: would require companyspecific data
gas utilization and by-product formation factors, and also 

(4) methods for reporting controlled emissions from 

abatement devices (as proposed below). Under this 

approach, gas utilization and by-product formation rates 

would be required to be developed using the 2006 ISMI 

Guidelines for all fluorinated GHG-using process types at 

that facility.

According to information provided by one of the 

commenters in response to our initial proposal, only one 

company currently estimates their emissions using an 

approach consistent with the Tier 3 method. Nevertheless, 

if a facility is using a method that provides more accurate 

data, then we believe that they should be permitted to use 

such method. We request comment on the number of companies 

that are currently or expecting to in the near future, 

report their emissions using this method.

We are also proposing to require semiconductor 

manufacturers that fabricate devices on wafers measuring 

larger than 300 mm in diameter to estimate their emissions 

based on an approach consistent with the IPCC Tier 3 method 

and gas-and facility-specific heel factors for estimating 

and reporting GHG emissions. Under this approach, gas 

utilization and by-product formation rates would be 

required to be developed using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines for 

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Underline, Check spelling and

grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: 3

Deleted: electronic 

Deleted: of 

Deleted: 450 mm or larger 
all fluorinated GHG using process types at that facility. 

We understand the industry’s conversion to 450 mm is 

expected to begin in 2011 or shortly thereafter. We are 

proposing this requirement because we estimate that this 

method that uses recipe-specific gas utilization and byproduct formation factors results in the most accurate 

facility-specific emission estimate. By including this 

requirement for only the 450 mm or larger wafers in this 

proposal, we anticipate a reduction in burden as compared 

to requiring existing large semiconductor facilities to 

estimate their emissions using an approach consistent with 

the IPCC Tier 3 method for the smaller sized wafers as well 

(i.e. 300 mm and smaller). We anticipate a reduction in 

burden because emission factors (i.e. gas utilization and 

by-product formation rates) can be developed over a number 

of years as semiconductor manufacturers begin to transition 

to 450 mm tools and develop the estimating and reporting 

infrastructure. The commissioning process for new tools is 

an ideal opportunity for emission factor development and/or 

verification. We request comment on requiring 

semiconductor manufacturers that fabricate electronic 

devices on wafers of diameter 450 mm or larger to estimate 

their emissions based on an approach consistent with the 

IPCC Tier 3 method.

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author
During the development of this proposal, the 2006 

International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative's Guideline 

for Environmental Characterization of Semiconductor Process 

Equipment was revised and republished (December 2009). We 

request comment on requiring the use of the revised version 

of the ISMI Guidelines to measure emission factors as 

opposed to the 2006 version of the ISMI Guidelines, and 

also information on emission factors (including utilization 

by-product formation rates) measured using the revised ISMI 

Guidelines.

Method for LCD, MEMS, and PV Facilities. In this 

action for LCD, MEMS, and PV facilities, we are proposing 

an approach based on a slightly modified 2006 IPCC Tier 2b 

method which would include (1) gas consumption calculated 

using the facility’s purchase records, inventory, and gasand facility-specific heel factors (as described above for 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities), (2) gas 

consumption apportioned to 2006 IPCC Tier 2b broad process 

categories, clean and etch, (3) default emission factors 

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

methods for reporting controlled emissions from abatement 

equipment (as proposed below). 

The method proposed to develop the gas-and facilityspecific heel factors for LCD, MEMS, and PV facilities is 

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Font:(Default) Courier New,

Font color: Auto, Check spelling and

Author

Formatted: Font color: Auto, Check

spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Font color: Auto, Check

spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Font color: Auto, Check

spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Font color: Auto, Check

spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Font:(Default) Courier New,

Font color: Auto, Check spelling and

Author

Author

Formatted: Font:Not Italic, Underline

Author

Formatted: Font:Not Italic

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Underline, Check spelling and

grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: 

Deleted: 
the same as proposed for semiconductor facilities including 

the provisions for exceptional circumstances. Although we 

don’t have complete information on how LCD, MEMS, and PV 

facilities are currently estimating their emissions from 

manufacture and how they are currently accounting for 

heels, their gas use and manufacturing processes are 

similar to that of semiconductor manufacturing. As a 

result, we have concluded these facilities have the data 

required to develop a gas-and facility-specific heel 

factors and this method can be implemented with minimal 

burden. Similar to the semiconductor manufacturing case, 

the use of a gas-and facility-specific heel factor is 

expected to result in improved accuracy when compared to 

the IPCC’s 10 percent default factor. We request comment 

on our proposal to require LCD, MEMS, and PV facilities to 

use gas-and facility-specific heel factors and our 

understanding that these facilities have the data to 

develop such a factor with minimal burden. 

Under this approach consistent with the 2006 IPCC Tier 

2b method, we propose that LCD, MEMS, and PV manufacturing 

facilities use the calculated mass of gas consumed and 

apportion this amount to the simplified process categories 

(i.e. etch and chemical vapor deposition chamber cleaning.) 

The associated emission factors including utilization and 

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: %
by-product formation rates, would then be used to calculate 

uncontrolled fluorinated GHG emissions. The emission 

factors being proposed are consistent with the 2006 IPCC 

default values. For MEMS manufacturing, where an IPCC 

default value does not exist, we propose the use of factors 

consistent with the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b factors for 

semiconductor manufacturing. We selected these factors 

because we understand MEMS manufacturing is silicon waferbased and uses processes similar to those found in 

semiconductor manufacturing. 

Additionally, we are proposing that LCD, MEMS, and PV 

manufacturing facilities abide by the requirements proposed 

for reporting controlled emissions from abatement systems 

as proposed below. 

We are requesting information on emissions and 

emission factors from LCD, MEMS, and PV manufacturing. We 

are requesting such information as a means to verify that 

the Tier 2b emission factors for each of the manufacturing 

types are reflective of current fluorinated GHG emitting 

processes. Based on new information we receive, we may 

consider updating the emission factors in the final rule. 

We expect that LCD, MEMS, and PV manufacturers may 

also use engineering models and quantifiable indicators 

(e.g., substrate-area based) of manufacturing activity for 

Formatted: ___GHG PARAGRAPH,

Indent: First line: 0"

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: substrate-based
apportioning gas consumption by process category similar to 

the approach described for semiconductors above (e.g.,

wafer passes). We request detailed information on those 

indicators, how they were developed, and how they are used 

in a facility-specific engineering model to apportion 

annual facility-wide gas usage across a facility’s emitting 

process categories.

We request comment on permitting those LCD, MEMS, and 

PV manufacturing facilities that have monitoring 

infrastructure or the necessary data to estimate emissions 

obtained through recipe-specific measurements to report 

their emissions using their data by following an approach 

consistent with the 2006 IPCC Tier 3 method.

Review of Existing Reporting Programs and 

Methodologies and Consideration of Alternative Methods. 

EPA considered various methods for estimating 

emissions from etching and cleaning processes for 

electronics manufacturing facilities including the 2006 

IPCC Tier 1, 2a, 2b, and Tier 3 method as well as a Tier 

2b/3 hybrid which would apply Tier 3 to the most heavily 

used fluorinated GHGs in all facilities. For a detailed 

description of our evaluation of these options, please see 

the Electronics Manufacturing section of the initial 

Mandatory Reporting Rule (74 FR 16499). 

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Font:Not Italic, Underline,

Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Font:Not Italic, Underline,

Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Underline, Check spelling and

grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: .

Deleted: Additionally, we are 

proposing that 

Deleted: abide by 

Deleted: requirements proposed for 

reporting controlled

Deleted: from abatement systems as 

proposed below. 

Deleted: 
For this proposal, to estimate emissions from all 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities, we are also 

considering the alternative of a modified Tier 2b method 

(our preferred option for other electronics manufacturers) 

which would require the use of the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b 

default factors and gas- and facility-specific data on 

heels and gas use by process category. This approach would

be based on a modified version of the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b 

method for estimating emissions and would require 

semiconductor facilities to report emissions using (1) gas 

consumption as calculated using the facility’s purchase 

records, inventory, and gas-and facility-specific heel 

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

for apportioning gas usage by process category using 

indicators of activity (as described above, e.g., wafer 

pass), (3) IPCC Tier 2b emission factors, and (4) methods 

for reporting controlled emissions using our proposed 

approach discussed below. We request comment on this 

approach. 

As an alternative to the Refined Method, we are also 

considering requiring all semiconductor manufacturing 

facilities to estimate their emissions using an approach 

consistent with the IPCC Tier 3 method based on (1) gas 

consumption as calculated using the facility’s purchase 

Author

Formatted: ___GHG PARAGRAPH

Author

Deleted: .
records, inventory, and gas-and facility-specific heel 

factors, (2) facility-specific methods for apportioning gas 

consumption by individual process using indicators of GHGusing activity, (3) recipe-specific gas utilization and byproduct formation factors, and also (4) methods for 

reporting controlled emissions from abatement devices (as 

proposed below). Under this approach, facilities would be 

required to develop gas utilization and by-product 

formation rates using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines for all 

fluorinated GHG-using process types at that facility. We 

request comment on this approach. 

Another option we are considering is to evaluate 

emissions from electronics manufacturing using continuous 

emission monitoring system(s) (CEMS). Under this approach, 

facilities would be required to install and operate CEMS to 

measure process emissions. A typical electronics 

manufacturing facility may have many individual process 

tools that influence emissions. Process tool exhaust is 

managed within the facility using stainless steel plumbing 

and ductwork. Due to the complexity of the manufacturing 

layout, CEMS would be attached either to every tool or to 

one or more final exhaust points (e.g., scrubber stacks). 

One possible option is to use Fourier Transform Infrared 

Spectrometers (FTIRs) in scrubber stacks to measure 

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author
facility emissions. FTIR spectroscopy is presently used to 

conduct short-term fluorinated GHG emission measurements 

from single tools. EPA requests comment on the use of CEMS 

at electronics manufacturing facilities. We also request 

data and other information evaluating the use of CEMS in 

electronics facilities to determine fluorinated GHG and N2O 

emissions. 

(b) Method for Estimating N2O Emissions

We are proposing that electronics manufacturers 

estimate N2O emissions from chemical vapor deposition 

processes and all other electronics manufacturing processes 

such as chamber cleaning, and that they estimate those 

emissions using the following proposed methods. 

To estimate N2O emissions from chemical vapor 

deposition we are proposing the use of a facility-specific 

emission factor based on facility measurements of N2O 

utilization for chemical vapor deposition, using 2006 ISMI 

Guidelines. Under this approach, we propose to permit the 

facility to apply the average N2O utilization emission 

factor to all N2O using chemical vapor deposition recipes. 

In cases where a facility has not developed a facilityspecific N2O utilization factor for chemical vapor 

deposition processes, we are proposing a default value in 

the range of 0 to 40 percent. We are taking comment on 

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: _Level 4-GHG Preamble,

Space After: 0 pt

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: ___GHG PARAGRAPH,

Indent: First line: 0", Space After: 0 pt

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: 

Deleted: 

(ii).

Deleted: emissions

Deleted: at a facility

Deleted: ~

Deleted: %

Deleted: %

Deleted: a 
this range due to a lack of information for N2O utilization 

for chemical vapor deposition processes. 

In comments received in response to our initial 

proposal, industry provided information to support a N2O 

utilization factor of 40 percent, primarily in 300 mm 

chemical vapor deposition processes. Taking the industryprovided 40 percent utilization into account, we propose to 

select a N2O utilization factor in the range from 0 to 40

percent. In the industry’s survey, the measured 

utilization factors are largely from newer 300 mm 

manufacturing equipment. We do not expect these data 

fairly represent the entire population of all N2O processes 

and installed equipment, many of which are older tools. In 

addition, the industry comments did not fully identify the 

specific processes from which the average N2O utilization 

factor was calculated. For these reasons, and because we 

understand that N2O is most commonly used for chemical vapor 

deposition as opposed to other processes, we are proposing 

to establish a default value within a range of values with 

40 percent as the upper bound and 0 percent as the lower 

bound to be conservative, reducing potential for 

underestimating emissions.

To estimate N2O emissions from all other manufacturing 

processes (e.g., chamber cleaning), we are proposing either 

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Author

Author

Deleted: a 

Deleted: %

Deleted: %

Deleted: ~

Deleted: %

Deleted: %

Deleted: some of 

Deleted: data used by 

Deleted: to develop this default was 

Deleted: distinguished by process 

Deleted: uses of

Deleted: %

Deleted: ~

Deleted: %

Deleted: underestimation. We request 

comment on values within the range 

we are proposing and also 

additional information on N2O 

utilization from chemical vapor 

deposition processes

... [58]

... [64]

... [59]

... [66]

... [61]

... [60]

... [67]

... [62]

... [69]

... [65]

... [63]

... [70]

... [57]

... [71]

... [68]

... [72]
a facility-specific utilization factor based on 

measurements using 2006 ISMI Guidelines, or applying a 

default utilization factor of 0 percent which assumes N2O is 

not converted or destroyed during the manufacturing 

process. We are proposing this method due to a lack of 

information regarding other processes for which N2O is used 

and N2O utilization data in those processes. 

We request comment on values within the range that we 

are proposing to estimate N2O emissions from chemical vapor 

deposition processes and our approach for estimating N2O 

emissions form all other manufacturing processes. We also 

request additional information on N2O uses and N2O 

utilization in electronics manufacturing processes. More 

specifically, we request N2O emission factors and detailed 

supporting information including but not limited to the 

specific measurement method used, date of measurement, 

standard deviation of measured factors, identification of 

manufacturing process or process category, substrate size, 

and equipment manufacturer name and model number where not 

considered confidential.

In addition, we request comment on using wafer passes 

or other appropriate quantifiable indictors of activity for 

apportioning N2O consumption to chemical vapor deposition 

and other manufacturing processes.

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Deleted: facility 

Deleted: %

Deleted: that use N2O and N2O 

utilization during those processes. 

Additionally
We are proposing that as part of determining annual 

facility N2O emissions, if a facility employs abatement 

systems and it wishes to report N2O emission reductions due 

to these systems it must adhere to the methods for 

reporting controlled emissions included in this proposal.

(c) Method for Estimating Emissions of Heat Transfer 

Fluids 

To estimate the emissions of heat transfer fluids, we 

propose that electronics manufacturers use the 2006 IPCC 

Tier 2b approach, which is a mass-balance approach. We are 

not changing the broad outlines of our initial proposal; 

however, we are clarifying required data elements.

In evaluating the comments we received, we understand 

that there was some confusion regarding our intended 

method. The proposed method required data on the total 

nameplate capacity16 of equipment that “is installed during 

the reporting year.” We intended “installed during the 

reporting year” to mean newly installed during the period, 

not in place from the beginning of that period. To 

eliminate confusion, we are clarifying that facilities are 

required to provide the total nameplate capacity (charge) 

 

16 Nameplate capacity means the full and proper charge of gas specified 

by the equipment manufacturer to achieve the equipment’s specified 

performance. The nameplate capacity is typically indicated on the 

equipment’s nameplate; it is not necessarily the actual charge, which 

may be influenced by leakage and other emissions.

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: ___GHG PARAGRAPH,

Indent: First line: 0", Space After: 0 pt

Author

Author

Formatted: _Level 4-GHG Preamble,

Space After: 0 pt

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: ___GHG PARAGRAPH,

Indent: First line: 0", Space After: 0 pt

Author

Deleted: 

(iii).
of equipment that is “newly installed” during the reporting 

year. We anticipate that facilities will find it 

straightforward to track the nameplate capacities of 

equipment that is newly installed or retired during the 

reporting year. 

In addition, we are also clarifying that a facility 

may only subtract the amount of fluorinated heat transfer 

fluids sent off site if the heat transfer fluids are 

properly recovered, stored, and sent off site for 

verifiable recycling or destruction during the reporting 

year. We are adding this clarification because we 

understand that facilities may be recovering, storing, and 

removing from their facility, fluorinated heat transfer 

fluids in a manner that does not effectively prevent the 

substance(s) from evaporating to the atmosphere. In such 

cases, the users of the chemicals would be required to 

account for these emissions using the mass-balance 

calculation provided.

As we stated in our initial proposal, in developing 

our proposal for estimating heat transfer fluid emissions, 

we reviewed both the IPCC Tier 1 and IPCC Tier 2 

approaches. The Tier 1 approach for heat transfer fluid 

emissions is based on the utilization capacity of the 

semiconductor facility multiplied by a default emission 

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: current 
factor. Although the Tier 1 approach has the advantages of 

simplicity, it is less accurate than the Tier 2 approach 

according to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. The IPCC Tier 2 

approach uses company-specific data and accounts for 

differences among facilities’ heat transfer fluids (which 

vary in their GWPs), leak rates, and service practices. It 

has an uncertainty on the order of ±20 percent at the 95 

percent confidence interval according to the 2006 IPCC 

Guidelines. 

(d) Method for Reporting Controlled Emissions from 

Abatement Systems

For this proposed rule, we are defining DRE as the 

efficiency of a control system designed to destroy or 

remove fluorinated GHGs, N2O, or both. The DRE is equal to 

one minus the ratio of the mass of all relevant GHGs 

exiting the emission abatement system to the mass of GHGs 

entering the emission abatement system. When fluorinated 

GHGs are formed in an abatement system, DRE is expressed as 

one minus the ratio of amounts of exiting GHGs to the 

amounts entering the system in units of CO2-equivalents. In 

addition, we are clarifying facilities may account for all 

abatement systems (e.g., multi-chamber POU, central 

devices) provided that they abide by the requirements 

below.

Author

Formatted: _Level 4-GHG Preamble,

Space After: 0 pt

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: ___GHG PARAGRAPH,

Indent: First line: 0"

Author

Deleted: 

(iv).
We are proposing to use the term destruction or 

removal efficiency (DRE) as opposed to “destruction 

efficiency” or “destruction,” terms that are already 

defined in subpart A of the Final MRR. We are proposing to 

use DRE because it is the term generally used by the 

electronics manufacturing industry. Furthermore, in 

addition to capturing the destruction of materials in the

exhaust, the term also captures materials in the exhaust 

that are recycled or captured for reuse.

For purposes of this reporting rule, we propose that 

facilities that wish to document and report fluorinated GHG 

and N2O emissions reflecting the use of abatement systems 

adhere to a method that would require: (1) documentation to 

certify that the abatement system is installed, operated, 

and maintained in accordance with manufacturers’ 

specifications, (2) accounting for the system’s uptime17, 

and (3) either certification that the abatement system is 

specifically designed for fluorinated GHG and N2O abatement 

and the use of an EPA default DRE value, or direct, proper 

DRE measurement to confirm the performance of the abatement 

system. Proper DRE measurement means measured in 

accordance with EPA’s Protocol for Measuring Destruction or 

 

17 Uptime means the total time during the reporting year when the 

abatement system for which controlled emissions will be reported was 

properly installed, operated, and maintained. 
Removal Efficiency of Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Abatement 

Equipment in Electronics Manufacturing (EPA’s DRE 

Protocol). EPA’s DRE Protocol is available for review in 

the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927). Our proposed approach 

is depicted as a decision tree in Figure 1 of this 

preamble.

The proposed approach requires annual certification to 

ensure that abatement systems for which controlled 

emissions are reported are installed, operating, and 

maintained according to manufacturers’ specifications. Our 

approach would also require that any DRE used in reporting 

emissions be based on an EPA default DRE value or on recent 

on-site measurements and actual uptime of the system, 

accounting for system redundancy. When process tools are 

equipped with multiple abatement systems designed for 

fluorinated GHGs and N2O, the facility may account for the 

combined uptime for the specific calculation of controlled 

emissions. Each one of these components is discussed in 

detail in the paragraphs below. We anticipate this method 

for reporting controlled emissions will ensure that 

abatement systems have been properly installed, operated 

and maintained during each reporting period and that best 

available measured DRE values are used to estimate and 

report emissions. 

Author

Formatted: Font color: Auto, Check

spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Font:Not Bold, Font color:

Black, Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: Air Docket ID No. 

Deleted: XX. 
Figure 1. DRE Verification Decision Tree.

Notes:

DRED EPA default DRE

DRER DRE used when reporting emissions

DREM Properly measured DRE

<DREc> Class average DRE

RSASTP Random sampling abatement system testing program

Author

Author

Formatted: Keep with next

Author

Formatted: Font:Bold

Author

Formatted: Font:Bold

Author

Deleted: 

Page Break

Deleted: XX
Proper Installation, Operation, and Maintenance. We 

are proposing that all facilities that use abatement 

systems and would like to reflect these emissions 

reductions in their annual emissions estimations be 

required to document and certify the abatement equipment's 

proper installation, operation, and maintenance. There are 

many manufacturers, and for each manufacturer multiple 

models, that are marketed as fluorinated GHG-destruction 

capable (Beu, 2005). While some abatement systems may be 

capable of destroying some fluorinated GHGs, they may not 

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

processes can constitute 10 percent – 20 percent (by 

volume) of fluorinated GHG exhaust composition (EPA, 2006). 

It appears that this variability may be partially 

attributable to installation as well as operating and 

maintenance practices although variations in how 

destruction is measured may also contribute to this 

variability (Beu, 2005). Evidence indicates abatement 

devices must be properly installed to ensure achievement of 

the manufacturer’s design goals. For this reason, we 

propose devices be installed in accordance with 

manufacturers’ specifications.

In terms of operation and maintenance, we also propose 

to require that abatement systems be operated and 

Formatted: Font:Not Italic, Underline

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: ___GHG PARAGRAPH,

Indent: First line: 0", Space After: 0 pt

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: %

Deleted: %
maintained in accordance with the manufacturers’ 

specifications. It is well known across the industry that 

abatement system performance varies greatly depending on a 

variety of abatement device and process parameters such as 

temperature, flow and exhaust composition (Beu, 2005, EPA 

2006, 2007)). Our proposed requirement that abatement 

systems be operated and maintained in accordance with 

manufacturers’ specifications is intended to ensure best 

performance. 

We understand that many times a facility may have an 

independent quality assurance expert certify the 

installation, operation, and maintenance of abatement 

equipment. We are considering the inclusion in the final 

rule, a requirement for annual, on-site independent 

inspections of abatement system installation, operation, 

and maintenance, which could include a review of records 

and physical inspection of installed equipment. We request 

comment on whether to require an independent quality 

assurance audit/inspection for abatement system 

installation, operation, and maintenance. 

Accounting for Abatement System Uptime. We are 

proposing that facilities account for abatement systems’ 

uptime to report controlled emissions. Uptime is the total 

time during the reporting year when the abatement systems 

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Font:Not Italic, Underline

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: ___GHG PARAGRAPH,

Indent: First line: 0", Space After: 0 pt

Author

Deleted: maintanece

Deleted: 

Deleted: 

Deleted: 
for which controlled emissions are being reporting was 

properly installed, operated, and maintained. Uptime is 

calculated as the sum of time during the reporting period 

that an abatement system is in a standby, productive, and 

engineering state as described in SEMI Standard E10-0304, 

Specification for Definition and Measurement of Equipment 

Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability (2004). 

Abatement system uptime is expressed as the sum of an 

abatement system’s operational productive, standby, and 

engineering times divided by the total operations time of 

its associated manufacturing tool. For example, the time 

during which a system is in by-pass mode, undergoing 

maintenance, or not operating with O2-flow (in the case of a 

CF4 combustion system) is not included in uptime. An 

exception to this is time during which exhaust flows are 

passed through a redundant abatement system that is in the 

same abatement system class (discussed below) as the 

primary abatement system. Such time may be included in the 

uptime of the primary system. 

We are proposing this requirement because we 

anticipate accounting for uptime (i.e., tracking incidents 

when abatement systems may be “bypassed” or otherwise not 

in service) will produce a more accurate emissions 

estimate. We request comment on our proposal to account 
for and report the uptime of abatement systems. We also 

request detailed information on how uptime may be monitored 

and calculated. 

EPA Default DRE Value. In addition to certifying that 

an abatement system is installed, operated, and maintained 

according to manufacturers’ specifications, and accounting 

for the system’s uptime, the first approach we are 

proposing includes the following two key elements: (1) 

certification that the abatement system is specifically 

designed for fluorinated GHG and N2O abatement, and (2) an 

EPA default DRE value. By applying the EPA default DRE 

value, the facility is not required to measure the DRE of 

their abatement system(s). We are proposing the use of a 

default DRE value of 60 percent if the facility certifies 

that the abatement systems for which this value is applied 

are specifically designed for fluorinated GHG and N2O 

abatement. 

To develop the default DRE of 60 percent, we reviewed 

the individual DREs measured under our in-fab DRE 

measurement program and selected those that constituted 

discrete values18 for systems that had been properly 

installed, operated and maintained. Of the data from the 

DRE measurement program, those that met the stated criteria 

 

18 Using data available from the in-fab DRE measurement program, we 

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

Author

Author

Formatted: Font:Not Italic, Underline

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: 

Deleted: %

Deleted: %
were values for CF4. We calculated the mean and the lower 

one sided tolerance interval of the (CF4) DRE data set. 

This yielded an understated, default DRE, reducing the 

likelihood that the DRE of any particular system will be 

either overestimated or greatly underestimated. For 

additional information on how the EPA default DRE was 

developed, please refer to the Electronics Manufacturing 

TSD. 

While we are now proposing the use of an EPA default 

DRE value, consistent with our initial proposal we are not 

planning to permit use of the 2006 IPCC default factors or 

the manufacturer’s DRE values. We are not permitting their 

use because once installed, abatement equipment may fail to 

achieve the default or a supplier’s claimed DRE. DRE 

performance claimed by equipment suppliers and upon which 

the 2006 IPCC default factors were based may have been 

incorrectly measured due to a failure to account for the 

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

factor of 20 to 50 and C2F6 can be off by a factor of up to 

10 [Burton, 2007].) This understanding is supported by 

industry assessments as presented in Beu, 2005.

We are permitting the use of our default DRE value 

because we estimate that it strikes an appropriate balance 

between being conservative and being representative where 

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-XX)

Deleted: for two reasons. First, 

the 

Deleted: may not be properly operated

Deleted: maintained. Second, the DRE 

itself
equipment is properly operated and maintained. Our default 

DRE value was calculated using data from measurements 

assured to properly account for the effects of dilution. 

In addition, the tested systems were properly installed, 

operated, and maintained.

We request comment on our proposed default DRE value, 

and additional data and supporting documentation on DREs 

from studies that have been conducted on properly 

installed, operated, and maintained abatement systems and 

consistent with EPA’s DRE Protocol.

Proper Measurement of the Abatement DRE. The second 

proposed approach for quantifying, documenting, and 

reporting controlled emissions from abatement systems, 

described below, would require proper measurement of the 

abatement system DRE in addition to documentation to 

certify that the abatement system is installed, operated, 

and maintained in accordance with manufacturers’ 

specifications, and accounting for uptime.

Consistent with our initial proposal, this second 

proposed method permits facilities to account for 

destruction if the abatement system performance is measured 

and verified using EPA’s DRE Protocol. To measure DRE, we 

propose requiring facilities to conduct annual sampling 

through a random sampling abatement system testing program 

Author

Formatted: Font:Not Italic, Underline

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: 
(RSASTP), spanning all abatement classes using the methods 

outlined in EPA’s DRE Protocol. “Class” refers to a 

category of abatement systems grouped by manufacturer model 

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

including N2O and CF4 direct and by-product formation, and 

all other fluorinated GHG gas direct and by-product 

formation.19 “Classes” may also include any other abatement 

systems for which the reporting facility wishes to report 

controlled emissions provided that class is identified. For 

each class, the representative or average DRE factors would 

then be applied to the yet unmeasured abatement devices of 

that class. 

An annual representative sample as part of the RSASTP 

would consist of three or 20 percent of installed abatement 

systems, whichever is greater, for each class each year, 

measuring the DRE for a different three or 20 percent set 

of systems each year. Where 20 percent of total abatement 

systems do not equal a whole number, the number of systems 

to be tested would be rounded up to the nearest integer 

(e.g., 16 abatement devices, 20 percent of which equals 

3.2; therefore, four abatement systems would be measured 

each year). Using the RSASTP and our rounding convention, 

 

19 CF4 is a very stable chemical and especially difficult to effectively 

destroy. It may be used as an input gas and generated as a byproduct 

of other fluorinated GHG process reactions. 

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: entity 

Deleted: 

Deleted: %

Deleted: %

Deleted: %

Deleted: did

Deleted: %
all systems in each class would be tested within a fiveyear period. EPA is seeking comment on the required 

frequency of abatement system performance measurement. 

When reporting controlled emissions from 

manufacturing, we propose that the facility either use the 

measured DRE or, in those instances where an individual 

abatement system has not yet undergone proper DRE testing, 

a simple average of the measured DREs for systems of that 

class would be used. If redundant abatement systems were 

used during periods of maintenance or repair, then we 

propose that the measured or average DRE for that system’s 

class would be used. In any of these cases, the DRE used 

to report emissions would be adjusted to account for the 

actual uptime of the system. For example, if the uptime 

for a device is 98 percent over the reporting period, then 

the measured DRE (or class average of measured DREs when a 

system has not yet been measured) would be multiplied by 

0.98. 

Under the RSASTP, all systems in each class would be 

tested within a five-year period, after which the process 

would be repeated as long as controlled emissions were 

reported. There are two reasons for requiring the DRE to 

be measured for each abatement device over a time period 

and by specific class. Some fluorinated GHGs, particularly 

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: ___GHG PARAGRAPH,

Indent: First line: 0", Space After: 0 pt

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: %

Deleted: multipled

Deleted: flurinated GHGs
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.21 Second, even if abatement systems rely on the same 

operating principle (e.g., thermal oxidation) and are used 

on the same gases, their performance can vary depending on 

their operation and maintenance.22 Moreover, maintenance 

that is adequate for abatement systems in some applications 

may not be adequate for abatement systems in others (e.g., 

those that handle high volumes of etched or cleaned 

material, which can be deposited inside abatement equipment 

and clog lines). This argues for gradually testing all of 

the abatement systems within a class, and for retesting 

individual abatement systems over time.

We request comment on the method proposed for proper 

measurement of DRE at a facility and the proposed RSASTP

for abatement systems by class. 

 

21 There are many manufacturers, and for each manufacturer many models, 

that are marketed as fluorinated GHGs-destruction capable (Beu, 2005). 

While some abatement devices may be capable of destroying some 

fluorinated GHGs, they may not be effective in abating CF4 (Beu, 2005), 

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

fluorinated GHGs exhaust composition (EPA, 2006). 22 Some variability in performance may be partially attributable to 

installation as well as operating and maintenance practices although 

variations in how destruction is measured may also contribute to this 

variability (Beu, 2005).

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: flurinated GHG 

Deleted: 20.

Deleted: devices 

Deleted: devices 

Deleted: RASP
6. Selection of Procedures for Estimating Missing Data

In general, it is not expected that data to estimate 

emissions from electronics manufacturing would be missing; 

gas consumption data and indicators of activity data (e.g.,

wafer passes) is collected as business as usual. For this 

reason, we are not proposing procedures for estimating 

missing data from emissions from cleaning, etching or 

deposition processes. Because our proposal includes an EPA 

default DRE value for estimating and reporting controlled 

emissions, we propose that no missing data procedures would 

apply. 

When estimating heat transfer fluid emissions during 

electronics manufacture, the use of the mass-balance 

approach requires facilities to correct records for all 

inputs. Should the facility be missing records for a given 

input, heat transfer fluid emissions may be estimated using 

the arithmetic average of the emission rates for the year 

immediately preceding the period of missing data and the 

months immediately following the period of missing data. 

Alternatively it may be possible that the heat transfer 

fluid supplier has information in their records for the 

facility. 

7. Selection of Data Reporting Requirements

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Normal, Indent: First line:

0.5", Line spacing: double

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: .

Deleted: semiconductor

Deleted: 
We are proposing that owners and operators be required 

to report fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions for the facility 

for each electronics manufacturing process as well as all 

heat transfer fluid use. In addition, facilities would be 

required to report the following: method used to calculate 

emissions; factors used for gas utilization and by-product 

formation rates and the source for each factor for each 

fluorinated GHG and N2O; production in terms of substrate 

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

fluorinated GHG and N2O, annual gas consumed during the 

reporting year and gas-and facility-specific heel factors 

used; the apportioning factors used, a description of the 

engineering model used for apportioning gas usage, and 

facility-wide consumption estimates based upon development 

of the apportioning factors, independent of the consumption 

value calculated using purchase records; fraction of each 

gas fed into each process type that is fed into tools with 

abatement systems; descriptions and information about 

abatement systems through which fluorinated GHGs and N2O 

flow; inputs in the mass-balance equation (for heat 

transfer fluid emissions); and example calculations. Where 

process categories defined in the Refined Method and/or 

default gas utilization and by-product formation rates are 

not used, we propose that facilities provide descriptions 

Author

Deleted: all plasma etching, chemical 

vapor deposition, chamber cleaning, 

and wafer cleaning processes 
of individual processes or processes categories used to 

estimate emissions consistent with the IPCC Tier 3 method. 

For each abatement system for which a facility is 

reporting controlled emissions, we propose that facilities 

be required to report the following: certification that the 

abatement device is installed, operated, and maintained 

according to manufacturers’ specifications; the uptime and 

the calculations to determine uptime for that reporting 

year; the DRE used (i.e. either the EPA default DRE value 

or a properly measured DRE); and documentation for the EPA 

default DRE value or a properly measured DRE. 

These data form the basis of the calculations and are 

needed for us to understand the reported emissions and 

verify their reasonableness. 

8. Selection of Records That Must Be Retained

We propose that facilities keep records of data used 

to estimate emissions, records supporting values used to 

estimate emissions, purchase records, and invoices for gas 

purchases and sales. For those facilities that use 

facility-specific, recipe- specific gas utilization and byproduction formation rates, we are proposing that the 

following records be maintained: documentation that the 

rates were measured using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines, 

documentation that the measurements made are representative 

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: ___GHG PARAGRAPH

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Style _Level 4-GHG Preamble

Char1 + Auto, Check spelling and

Author

Formatted: Style _Level 4-GHG Preamble

Char1 + Auto, Check spelling and

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: ___GHG PARAGRAPH

Author

Deleted: required 

Deleted: to use

Deleted: 
of fluorinated GHG and N2O emitting processes at the 

facility, and the date and results of the initial and any 

subsequent tests to determine process tool gas utilization 

and by-product formation rates. 

For those facilities that are reporting controlled 

emissions, we propose that the following records be kept: 

documentation to certify that each abatement device used at 

the facility is installed, maintained, and operated in 

accordance with manufacturers’ specifications; records of 

the uptime and the calculations to determine uptime; 

abatement system calibration and maintenance records; 

documentation for the EPA default DRE value or a properly 

measured DRE. 

These records consist of values that are directly used 

to calculate the emissions that are reported and are 

necessary to enable verification that the GHG emissions 

monitoring and calculations are done correctly.

B. Fluorinated Gas Production

1. Overview of Reporting Requirements

Under this proposal, subpart L would require 

facilities that produce fluorinated gases to report their 

fluorinated GHG emissions from fluorinated gas production

and transformation and from fluorinated GHG destruction. 

Fluorinated gases include fluorinated GHGs (HFCs, PFCs, SF6, 

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: __GHG PARAGRAPH

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar,

Subscript

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: required 

Deleted: to use either

Deleted: 

Deleted: , 

Deleted: ,
NF3, HFEs, etc.), CFCs, and HCFCs. Certain emissions 

subject to other subparts or authorities are excluded from 

this subpart. Specifically, emissions of HFC-23 from HCFC22 production are addressed under subpart O and are 

therefore excluded from this subpart. Similarly, as 

discussed in the Final MRR, emissions of ozone depleting 

substances (e.g., CFCs and HCFCs) are subject to Title VI 

of the CAA and are therefore excluded from this subpart. 

Under this proposed rule, facilities would be required 

to estimate their emissions from fluorinated GHG production 

processes using either a mass-balance approach or an 

approach based on measured (or in some cases, calculated) 

emission factors. Facilities would be required to estimate 

their emissions from CFC and HCFC production processes and 

from fluorinated gas transformation processes using an 

emission-factor-based approach. Consistent with the Final 

MRR, this proposal would establish an annual frequency for 

reporting and would include provisions to ensure the 

accuracy of emissions data through monitoring, reporting, 

and recordkeeping requirements. Reporting would be at the 

facility level. 

2. Summary of Major Changes Since Initial Proposal

In the April 2009 proposed mandatory GHG reporting 

rule (74 FR 16448; April 10, 2009), the fluorinated GHG 

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar,

Subscript

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: __GHG PARAGRAPH

Author

Deleted: Clean Air Act

Deleted: 
production source category was included as proposed subpart 

L. That initial proposal would have required reporting 

from facilities emitting more than 25,000 mtCO2e from 

fluorinated GHG production and other source categories 

(e.g., stationary combustion). We proposed monitoring 

based on a daily mass-balance or yield approach that 

included measurements of the reactants and the fluorinated 

GHG product and byproducts. Under that approach, 

facilities would have had to calculate the difference 

between the expected production of each fluorinated GHG 

based on the consumption of reactants and the measured 

production of that fluorinated GHG, accounting for yield 

losses related to byproducts and wastes and accounting for 

streams that were recaptured and destroyed. Facilities 

would have been required to measure the various inputs and 

outputs daily using scales and flow meters with an accuracy 

and precision of 0.2 percent of full scale, and to measure 

concentrations in streams using methods with an accuracy 

and precision of 5 percent. (For more detailed information 

on the initial proposal, see the fluorinated gas production 

section of the April 10, 2009 proposed rule.)

We received numerous comments on the proposed 

approach. Commenters stated that there may be significant 

uncertainty associated with the mass-balance approach, that 

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: 
EPA’s stated accuracy and precision requirement of 0.2 

percent for flow meters and weigh equipment was costly and 

not technically achievable for many streams, that daily 

calculations were excessive and likely to introduce errors, 

that it was sometimes impracticable to perform a massbalance for more than one reactant, and that the massbalance approach was not appropriate for batch processes. 

Commenters also suggested alternatives to the massbalance approach. Several commenters focused on the use of 

site-specific or process-specific emission factors. These 

commenters noted that many facilities in this source 

category already measure emissions during performance 

testing to verify compliance with their emission limits 

under other EPA regulations. Commenters also noted that 

some fluorinated GHG producers currently estimate their 

emissions of fluorinated GHG using the emission factor 

approach and that this approach is both more cost effective 

and more accurate than the mass-balance approach. One 

commenter using the emission factor approach stated that 

the estimated uncertainty of its overall fluorinated GHG 

emissions estimate was 13 percent (expressed as one 

standard deviation) and that the uncertainty associated 

with the estimates that it would develop using the proposed 

mass-balance approach would be significantly higher. 

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: 
Commenters suggested both emissions testing and chemical 

engineering calculations as appropriate techniques to 

develop site-specific emissions factors. 

Partly in response to the comments received on the 

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

today’s proposed subpart L rule incorporates a number of 

changes compared to the original proposal, including but 

not limited to:

Χ Inclusion of additional emission estimation 

methodologies, including process-specific, sitespecific emission factors, which allow facilities to 

estimate emissions using methods that may already be 

in place;

Χ Revisions to the mass-balance approach, including 

provisions to allow monthly rather than daily 

monitoring; greater flexibility in the accuracy and 

precision of flowmeters, weigh scales, and 

concentration measurements (as long the final estimate 

meets an overall accuracy and precision requirement); 

and the use of one rather than two reactants in the 

mass-balance equation;

Χ Inclusion of fluorinated GHGs emitted as a by-product 

of the production of CFCs and HCFCs, and

Χ Inclusion of fluorinated GHGs emitted as a feedstock 

or by-product of transformation processes that are not 

intended to produce any fluorinated gases (when those 

transformation processes are co-located with 

fluorinated gas production processes). 

3. Definition of Source Category 

This source category covers emissions of fluorinated 

GHGs that occur during the production of fluorinated gases, 

where fluorinated gases include fluorinated GHGs (HFCs, 

PFCs, SF6, NF3, and fluorinated ethers, among others), CFCs, 

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: _Bullet-GHG Preamble, No

bullets or numbering

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: use of 

Deleted: use of 

Deleted: mandatory GHG reporting rule
and HCFCs (except HCFC-22)23. It also covers emissions of 

fluorinated GHGs from transformation and destruction 

processes that occur at fluorinated gas production 

facilities. EPA estimates that total emissions from this 

source category were 10.6 million metric tons of CO2e in 

2006.

Emissions from fluorinated gas production facilities 

can occur from vents, from leaks at flanges and connections 

in the production line, and from control devices (e.g.,

thermal oxidizers). Undesired by-products may be 

deliberately vented, and some product (or reactant) may be 

vented at the same time due to imperfect separation of byproducts, products, and reactants. Emissions can also 

occur during occasional service work on the production 

equipment, during blending and recycling of fluorinated 

GHGs, and during the evacuation and filling of tanks or 

 

23 In the April 2009 proposal, EPA requested comment on whether 

emissions of fluorinated GHGs from CFC and HCFC production processes 

should be subject to the subpart L reporting requirements. While no 

public comments were received on this topic, EPA has determined that 

HFCs and PFCs are likely to be generated during the production of 

several CFCs and HCFCs, and that the quantities generated may be 

significant. According to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and fluorinated gas 

producers, production of CFCs and HCFCs can generate and emit 

fluorinated GHGs such as various HFCs and some PFCs. (These HFCs 

exclude HFC-23 generated during HCFC-22 production , which is already 

covered under Subpart O). These emissions are by-product emissions 

that occur due to the chemical similarities between HFCs, PFCs, HCFCs, 

and CFCs and the common use of halogen replacement chemistry to produce 

them. HFC-23 generated during HCFC-22 production is already covered 

under Subpart O. 
other containers that are distributed by the producer 

(e.g., on trucks and railcars).

Fluorinated GHG Emissions from Fluorinated GHG

Production. Emissions that occur during fluorinated GHG 

production include fluorinated GHG products that are 

emitted before the production measurement and fluorinated 

GHG byproducts that are generated and emitted either 

without or despite recapture or destruction.24 These 

emissions are not counted as “mass produced” under the 

final requirements for suppliers of industrial GHGs in 40 

CFR part 98, subpart OO (74 FR 56260; October 30, 2009). 

Fluorinated GHG emissions from U.S. facilities 

producing fluorinated GHGs are estimated to range from 0.8 

percent to 2 percent of the amount of fluorinated GHG 

produced, depending on the facility. In 2006, 12 U.S. 

facilities produced over 350 million metric tons CO2e of 

HFCs, PFCs, SF6, and NF3, and an additional 6 facilities 

produced approximately 1 million metric tons CO2e of 

fluorinated anesthetics. Based on an emission rate of 1.5 

percent, facilities are estimated to have emitted 

approximately 5.3 million metric tons CO2e of HFCs, PFCs, 

 

24 Byproducts that are emitted or destroyed at the production facility 

are excluded from the Subpart OO definition of “produce a fluorinated 

GHG.” Any HFC-23 generated during the production of HCFC-22 is also 

excluded from this definition, even if the HFC-23 is recaptured. 

However, other fluorinated GHG byproducts that are recaptured for any 

reason are considered to be “produced.” 
SF6, and NF3, and approximately 15,000 metric tons CO2e of 

fluorinated anesthetics. 

Fluorinated GHG Emissions from CFC and HCFC 

Production. Our proposal to include fluorinated GHG 

emissions that occur during CFC and HCFC production 

processes is based on two important considerations. First, 

while the quantity of by-product emissions is uncertain, we 

believe that it is significant and could be similar to 

total estimated emissions from fluorinated GHG production. 

Second, many CFC and HCFC production processes are colocated with fluorinated GHG production facilities, 

allowing for efficiencies in the application of estimation 

methods and monitoring and reporting infrastructures. 

These issues are discussed in more detail in the 

Fluorinated Gas Production Technical Support Document in 

the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927).

Although we do not have precise estimates of the 

magnitude of fluorinated GHG emissions from production of 

CFCs and HCFCs, we estimate that if CFC and HCFC production 

processes emitted fluorinated GHGs equivalent to one 

percent of their CFC and HCFC production (excepting HCFC-22 

production), U.S. emissions from this source would be 5.3 

mtCO2e, the same as from fluorinated GHG production. EPA 

requests comment on the extent to which fluorinated GHGs 

Formatted: Not Highlight

Author

Formatted: Font color: Auto

Author

Formatted: Font color: Auto, Subscript

Author
are generated and emitted during CFC and HCFC production. 

EPA also requests comment on the extent to which 

fluorinated GHGs may be generated and emitted during 

production of other ozone-depleting substances such as 

methyl chloroform and carbon tetrachloride and on whether 

such emissions should be reported under this rule. 

CFCs and HCFCs are often produced at the same 

facilities that produce fluorinated GHGs. In these cases, 

these facilities would need to quantify their fluorinated 

GHG emissions from a few processes in addition to those 

producing fluorinated GHGs. In other cases, CFCs or HCFCs 

are produced at facilities that do not produce fluorinated 

GHGs. In these cases, which EPA estimates include 2 

facilities, the facilities would not have been covered by 

the initially proposed subpart L, but would be covered by 

today’s proposal. This coverage is reflected in the 

threshold analysis discussed below. 

Fluorinated GHG Emissions from Other Processes. 

Facilities producing fluorinated gases would also be 

required to report emissions of fluorinated GHG feedstocks 

that occur during the transformation of these feedstocks 

into other fluorinated substances such as fluoropolymers, 

as well as emissions of fluorinated GHGs that occur during 

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: production 
destruction of fluorinated GHGs that are removed from the 

supply of industrial gases. 

The reasons for requiring reporting of fluorinated GHG 

emissions from transformation processes that are co-located 

with fluorinated gas production processes are similar to 

those for requiring reporting of fluorinated GHG emissions 

from CFC and HCFC production. First, although EPA does not 

have precise estimates of the magnitude of fluorinated GHG 

emissions from transformation processes, discussions with 

fluoropolymer producers indicate that these emissions do 

occur. Second, facilities could apply similar methods and 

monitoring approaches to estimate emissions from both 

fluorinated gas production and fluorinated gas 

transformation. The rationale for requiring reporting of 

emissions from the destruction of fluorinated GHGs that are 

removed from the supply of industrial gases is discussed 

below under Relationship between emissions covered under 

subpart L and those covered under subpart OO.

EPA is also considering requiring reporting of 

fluorinated GHG emissions from two other types of 

processes. The first type includes processes (other than 

CFC and HCFC production processes) in which fluorinated 

GHGs are neither reactants nor products of the process but 

are nevertheless generated as by-products or intermediates. 

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: gases
To the extent that such processes may generate or emit 

significant amounts of fluorinated GHGs, it may be 

appropriate to require reporting of those emissions. This 

would be particularly true if the processes were co-located

with fluorinated GHG production processes, permitting 

effiencies in the application of estimation methods and 

reporting infrastructures. EPA requests comment on 

whether, how often, and where such processes occur (i.e., 

at fluorinated gas production facilities or elsewhere). 

The second type of process includes fluorinated gas 

transformation processes that are not co-located with 

fluorinated gas production facilities. Again, it may be 

appropriate to require reporting of fluorinated GHG 

emissions from such processes if these emissions are 

significant. EPA requests comment on both of these 

options. 

Relationship between emissions covered under subpart L 

and those covered under subpart OO. Subpart L would 

require reporting from many of the same facilities 

(fluorinated GHG producers) that are required to report 

under subpart OO, which contains the industrial gas supply 

reporting provisions of the final MRR. In general, subpart 

OO is intended to capture the quantities of fluorinated 

GHGs that are entering and leaving the U.S. supply of 

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: this option

Deleted: mandatory GHG reporting rule
industrial gases,25 while subpart L is intended to capture 

the quantities of fluorinated GHGs emitted at fluorinated 

gas production facilities. 

There are several areas of possible overlap between 

the emissions that could be reported under this subpart and 

those reported under subpart OO. The areas of overlap all 

concern emissions that occur at the fluorinated GHG 

production facility after (downstream of) the fluorinated 

GHG production measurement. These include emissions from 

Χ fluorinated GHG transformation processes (including 

polymerization), 

Χ destruction of fluorinated GHGs that are removed from 

the supply of industrial gases, 

Χ cylinder filling (if this occurs after the production 

measurement), 

Χ blending of fluorinated GHGs, 

Χ recycling or reclamation of fluorinated GHGs, and 

Χ evacuation of fluorinated GHG heels from returned 

cylinders. 

The MRR is intended to inform a range of possible 

policies for reducing emissions of GHGs, including both 

upstream and downstream approaches. Under a policy that 

focused primarily on supply, the fluorinated GHGs added to 

and subtracted from the gas supply would be tracked, and 

only the on-site emissions that occurred before (upstream 

of) the fluorinated GHG production measurement would need 

 

25 Specifically, subpart OO tracks the quantities of fluorinated GHGs 

that are (1) produced, (2) transformed, (3) destroyed, (4) imported, 

and (5) exported. 

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: F-
to be covered for completeness. On-site emissions that 

occurred after the production measurement would be assumed 

to be captured by the production measurement. Under a 

policy that focused on actual emissions (i.e., “downstream 

coverage”) rather than supply, on-site emissions that 

occurred both before and after the production measurement 

would need to be tracked. 

Maintaining flexibility to adopt either upstream or 

downstream approaches argues for some counting under L of 

emissions that are counted upstream (as supply) under OO.26 

(See the October 30, 2009 Final MRR, 74 FR 56260, for more 

discussion of the rationale for including both upstream and 

downstream emissions under the rule.) As noted above, EPA 

is proposing to require reporting of fluorinated GHG 

emissions from transformation and destruction processes 

that are located at fluorinated gas production facilities. 

However, EPA is also considering requiring reporting of 

fluorinated GHG emissions from the other activities that 

occur at fluorinated GHG production facilities downstream 

 

26 In theory, it might be possible to track emissions from 

transformation and destruction simply using quantities reported under 

OO. However, this would require that (1) fluorinated GHGs that are 

produced only to be transformed or destroyed be tracked separately, (2) 

production, transformation, and destruction be measured to very good 

precision and accuracy (e.g.,, 0.2 percent), and (3) that no byproducts be formed or emitted during these processes. If all of these 

conditions were met, emissions could be equated to the differences 

between production and transformation and production and destruction. 

In practice, however, it would be difficult to meet all of these 

conditions. 

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Author

Deleted: final

Deleted: FDeleted: .,
of the production measurement. EPA requests comment on the 

magnitude of these other on-site emissions and on whether 

or not they should be required to be reported under subpart 

L.

4. Selection of Reporting Threshold

Under today’s proposed rule, owners and operators of 

fluorinated gas production facilities would be required to 

estimate and report GHG emissions if those emissions, 

including both combustion and fluorinated GHG emissions, 

would exceed 25,000 mtCO2e in the absence of control 

technology (e.g., thermal oxidation)27. 

In developing the threshold, we considered multiple 

controlled and uncontrolled emissions thresholds, including 

1,000, 10,000, 25,000, and 100,000 metric tons CO2e. For 

fluorinated GHG production processes (including fluorinated 

anesthetics production processes), uncontrolled (precontrol) emissions were estimated by multiplying a factor 

of 3 percent by the estimated production at each facility. 

For CFC and HCFC production processes (except for HCFC-22 

production processes), uncontrolled emissions were 

 

27 Following the precedents set by other Clean Air Act regulations, EPA 

is using the term “uncontrolled” to describe such emissions. 

Specifically, EPA is proposing to define “uncontrolled fluorinated GHG 

emissions” as a gas stream containing fluorinated GHG which has exited 

the process (or process condenser, where applicable), but which has not 

yet been introduced into an air pollution control device to reduce the 

mass of fluorinated GHGs in the stream. The term does not imply that 

the emissions are never controlled, but is synonymous with “pre-control 

emissions.” 

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: _Level 3-GHG Preamble

Author

Formatted: __GHG PARAGRAPH,

Tabs:Not at 2.63"

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar,

Subscript

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: 
estimated by multiplying a factor of 2 percent by the 

estimated production at each facility. Uncontrolled 

emissions are strongly influenced by by-product generation 

rates, which are known to vary between zero and several 

percent for fluorinated gas production processes; thus, 

these estimates are uncertain. Controlled emissions were 

assumed to be half of uncontrolled emissions at each 

facility. Because EPA has little information on 

combustion-related emissions at fluorinated gas production 

facilities, these emissions were not included in the 

analysis. The results of the analysis for production of 

HFCs, PFCs, SF6, NF3, CFCs, and HCFCs are shown in Tables 7

and 8 of this preamble. 

Table 7. Threshold Analysis for Fluorinated GHG Emissions 

from Production of HFCs, PFCs, SF6, NF3, CFCs, and HCFCs 

(Uncontrolled Emissions)

Emissions Covered

Facilities 

Covered

Threshold 

Level 

(metric 

tons 

CO2e/r)

Total 

National 

Emissions 

(metric 

tons CO2e)

Number of 

Facilities

Metric tons 

CO2e Percent Number Percent

1,000 10,600,000 14 10,600,000 100% 14 100%

10,000 10,600,000 14 10,600,000 100% 14 100%

25,000 10,600,000 14 10,600,000 100% 14 100%

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

Table 8. Threshold Analysis for Fluorinated GHG Emissions 

from Production of HFCs, PFCs, SF6, NF3, CFCs, and HCFCs 

(Controlled Emissions)

Threshold Total Number of Emissions Covered

Facilities 

Covered

Author

Formatted: Font:(Default) Courier New, 9

Author

Formatted: _Table title-GHG Preamble,

Tabs:Not at 2.63"

Author

Author

Formatted: Font:(Default) Courier New, 9

pt, Bold

Author

Formatted: Centered

Author

Formatted Table

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted: _Table title-GHG Preamble,

Tabs:Not at 2.63"

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted: Font:(Default) Courier New, 9

Author

Formatted: Centered

Author

Formatted: Centered

Author

Formatted: Centered

Author

Formatted: Font:(Default) Courier New, 9

Author

Formatted: Centered

Author

Formatted: Table_GHG Rule Char

Author

Formatted: Font:(Default) Courier New, 9

Author

Formatted: Centered

Author

Formatted: Font:(Default) Courier New, 9

pt, Bold

Author

Author

Formatted Table

Author

Deleted: L-1...L-2

Deleted: L-1

Deleted: L-2

... [76]

... [74]

... [73]

... [75]
Level (metric 

tons CO2e/r)

National 

Emissions 

(metric 

tons 

CO2e)

Facilitie

s

Metric 

tons CO2e Percent Number Percent

1,000 10,600,000 14 10,600,000 100% 14 100%

10,000 10,600,000 14 10,600,000 100% 14 100%

25,000 10,600,000 14 10,600,000 100% 14 100%

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

As can be seen from the tables, most HFC, PFC, SF6, 

NF3, CFC, and HCFC production facilities would be covered by 

all the thresholds considered. Although we do not have 

facility-specific production information for producers of 

fluorinated anesthetics, we believe that few or none of 

these facilities are likely to have uncontrolled emissions 

above the proposed threshold. 

EPA is proposing to use a threshold based on 

uncontrolled (pre-control) rather than controlled (postcontrol) emissions to ensure that facilities that generate 

significant quantities fluorinated GHGs fully characterize 

and quantify their emissions, even if they initially 

believe those emissions to be small. Discussions with 

fluorinated gas manufacturers indicate that occasionally, 

fluorinated GHG by-products may be generated and emitted 

from production processes unexpectedly. If these byproducts are relatively difficult to destroy (e.g., CF4), 

facilities’ post-control emissions may be significantly 

Formatted: Font:(Default) Courier New

Author

Formatted: Font:(Default) Courier New,

Subscript

Author

Formatted: Font:(Default) Courier New, 9

pt, Bold

Author

Formatted: Font:(Default) Courier New

Author

Formatted: Font:(Default) Courier New,

Subscript

Author

Formatted: Font:(Default) Courier New, 9

pt, Bold

Author

Formatted: Font:(Default) Courier New, 9

Author

Formatted: Centered

Author

Formatted: Font:(Default) Courier New

Author

Formatted: Font:(Default) Courier New,

Subscript

Author

Formatted: Font:(Default) Courier New, 9

pt, Bold

Author

Formatted: Font:(Default) Courier New, 9

Author

Formatted: Centered

Author

Formatted: Font:(Default) Courier New, 9

Author

Formatted: Centered

Author

Formatted: Font:(Default) Courier New, 9

Author

Formatted: Centered

Author

Formatted: Normal, Tabs:Not at 2.63"

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: ___GHG PARAGRAPH,

Tabs:Not at 2.63"

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: 
higher than expected.28 The initial scoping test described 

in the next section is intended to identify the full range 

of fluorinated GHGs in potentially emitted streams. 

Applying the full methodologies on the basis of the initial 

scoping study will provide EPA and the facilities with 

critical information on the extent to which control 

technologies are actually reducing emissions and therefore 

on the actual emissions from the facility. 

EPA is requesting comment on an alternative approach 

in which all fluorinated gas production facilities, 

regardless of their estimated pre-control emissions, would 

analyze their emissions using the initial scoping test 

discussed in the next section. This approach would ensure 

that facilities understood the identities, and therefore 

the GWPs, of the fluorinated GHGs potentially emitted. EPA 

requests comment on this option, as well as on the option 

of simply eliminating the threshold for fluorinated gas 

production facilities and making this an “all-in” category. 

As is true for the source categories covered by the 

Final MRR, fluorinated GHG production facilities could 

cease reporting if their controlled (post-control)

 

28It is important to note that even if a threshold based on controlled 

emissions were adopted, failure to report as required when a source's 

actual emissions were above that threshold would be a violation of 

these regulations and the Clean Air Act. Lack of test data or other 

errors of omission do not excuse such violations as the Clean Air Act 

is a strict liability statute
emissions were less than 25,000 mtCO2e per year for five 

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

three consecutive years. This approach may be appropriate 

if control technologies are effective and there is no 

evidence of unexpected uncontrolled emissions. However, 

EPA requests comment on an alternative “off-ramp” for this 

source category. Under this alternative approach, the 

25,000 and 15,000 mtCO2e triggers would be based on the 

level of emissions that is estimated before accounting for 

the use of any control technology (e.g., thermal 

oxidation). EPA is requesting comment on this approach 

because emissions can become quite large if the destruction 

device malfunctions, is not operated properly, or is not 

used for some other reason. 

As noted above, EPA estimates that under this 

proposal, all HFC, PFC, SF6, and NF3 production facilities 

would be covered, and few or no anesthetics producing 

facilities would be covered. However, it is possible that 

EPA has underestimated total pre-control emissions from 

anesthetics. In its threshold analysis for fluorinated GHG 

production, EPA has assumed that emissions have GWPs 

similar to those of the product produced. However, 

fluorinated anesthetics are hydrofluoroethers, and other 

HFE production processes of which EPA is aware generate byFormatted: Subscript

Author

Formatted: Subscript

Author

Formatted: Subscript

Author

Author

Deleted: 
products with higher GWPs than the product. EPA requests 

comment on this issue. 

A full discussion of the threshold selection analysis 

is available in the revised Fluorinated Gas Production TSD. 

For specific information on costs, including unamortized 

first year capital expenditures, please refer to the 

Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) for this rulemaking.

5. Selection of Proposed Monitoring Methods

a. Summary of Proposed Monitoring Methods

We are proposing to allow facilities to use either a 

mass-balance approach or a site-specific, process-ventspecific emission factor (PSEF) approach to estimate their 

fluorinated GHG emissions from fluorinated GHG production. 

Facilities would be required to use the PSEF approach to 

estimate their fluorinated GHG emissions from CFC and HCFC 

production or from fluorinated gas transformation. The 

mass-balance approach is similar to that proposed in April, 

2009, but has been modified in some details in response to 

comments. Facilities using either approach would be 

required to perform a one-time scoping test to identify the 

fluorinated GHGs in certain emitted streams and to verify 

the destruction efficiency (DE) of any destruction devices 

every five years. These approaches are discussed in more 

detail below. 

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: ___GHG PARAGRAPH

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: GHG

Deleted: (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-012)

Deleted: EA

Deleted: 
b. Initial Scoping Test of Potentially Emitted 

fluorinated GHGs

In today’s action, we are proposing that facilities 

that produce fluorinated gases perform an initial scoping 

test (proposed 40 CFR part 98.124(a)). The purpose of the 

scoping test is to ensure that all of the fluorinated GHGs 

that occur in emitted streams are properly identified. EPA 

is concerned that without the test, facilities could 

mischaracterize the set of fluorinated GHGs that was 

emitted, leading to inaccurate emissions estimates. We are 

aware that in general, facilities will have already 

identified most if not all of the fluorinated GHGs 

occurring in emitted streams during process design and 

bench and pilot scale testing. However, as noted above, we 

are also aware of situations in which producers have 

analyzed process or emissions streams and found fluorinated 

GHGs that they were not expecting. Such by-product 

fluorinated GHGs can have high GWPs, making their CO2-

equivalent emissions significant. 

Under this requirement, which would be one-time for 

any given process, facilities would be required to sample 

the vent(s) or stream(s) that, alone or together, would be 

expected to contain all the fluorinated GHG by-products of 

the process. Facilities would be required to use EPA 

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Deleted: §

Deleted: survey 

Deleted: survey, efforts to quantify 

emissions 

Deleted: will have already been 

identified 

Deleted: 
Method 18 (GC/ECD, GC/MS), EPA Method 320 (FTIR), or ASTM 

D6348-03 (FTIR) to identify fluorinated GHGs that occur in 

concentrations above 0.1 percent in emitted streams.

For facilities using the mass-balance approach, the 

scoping test could be used to determine whether some 

emissions that are assumed to occur in the form of the 

product are actually occurring as by-products. For 

facilities using the process-vent-specific emission factor 

approach (PSEF), the test would identify by-products to 

measure in subsequent emissions testing to develop emission 

factors.

To avoid the need to survey a large number of 

processes with relatively small fluorinated GHG emissions, 

EPA is proposing to limit the scoping test requirement to 

processes that would emit more than one metric ton per year 

of fluorinated GHGs before the imposition of control 

technologies. We are proposing a limit in tons of 

fluorinated GHGs rather than in tons of CO2e because the 

identities, and therefore the GWPs, of some fluorinated GHG 

constituents of the stream may not be known. Acquiring 

this information is the purpose of the test. We developed 

the one-ton limit by starting with a limit of 10,000 mtCO2e 

for each process and making the reasonably conservative 

assumption that the unknown fluorinated GHG could have a 

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Subscript

Author

Deleted: survey

Deleted: survey

Deleted: survey

Deleted: 

Deleted: survey
GWP of 10,000. For purposes of estimating the mass of 

fluorinated GHG emitted from the process, facilities could 

use the same types of engineering calculations that they 

would use to determine whether process vent testing was 

required under the PSEF approach (described in more detail 

below). They could assume that the mass of carbon, 

fluorine, or another relevant element is emitted in the 

form of fluorinated GHGs that were previously identified in 

bench- or pilot-scale testing. 

We are proposing that the one-metric-ton trigger be 

applied to emissions before rather than after control 

because some byproducts, particularly CF4, are very 

difficult to destroy. If these by-products occurred 

unexpectedly in a stream and if the trigger were applied to 

emissions after control, the facility would underestimate 

controlled emissions. Consequently, the facility could 

fail to undertake the scoping test when it was actually 

appropriate and could overlook the occurrence and emissions 

of the by-products.29 We are proposing that facilities test 

the streams before the control device because emissions 

 

29 For example, suppose that a facility believed that all of the 

fluorinated GHG by-products from a certain process consisted of HFCs, 

which its destruction device destroyed with a destruction efficiency of 

99.9 percent, but that one of these by-products was actually CF4, which 

the destruction device destroyed with an efficiency of only 50 percent. 

In this case, the facility could underestimate its fluorinated GHG 

emissions by more than an order of magnitude, neither seeking nor 

finding the CF4 that it was actually emitting.

Author

Author

Author

Deleted: survey

Deleted: FDeleted: F-
streams are often diluted during destruction processes 

(e.g., due to fuel and air feeds), which would make it more 

difficult to detect and identify fluorinated GHGs that 

survived the destruction process. However, we request 

comment on this requirement as well as on the scoping test

requirement as a whole. 

c. Mass-balance Approach

We are proposing that facilities producing fluorinated 

GHGs have the option of monitoring emissions using the 

mass-balance approach. In this approach, facilities would 

calculate the difference between the expected production of 

each fluorinated GHG based on the consumption of reactants 

and the measured production of that fluorinated GHG, 

accounting for yield losses related to byproducts 

(including intermediates permanently removed from the 

process) and wastes. Yield losses that could not be 

accounted for would be attributed to emissions of the 

fluorinated GHG product. This calculation could be 

performed for any fluorine- or carbon-containing reactant 

(e.g., HF or hydrocarbon) to estimate emissions of the 

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

balance may be based on a carbon balance or a fluorine 

balance). If fluorinated GHG byproducts were produced and 

were not completely recaptured or completely destroyed, 

Author

Author

Author

Author

Deleted: survey

Deleted: 

Deleted: Balance 

Deleted: 
facilities would also estimate emissions of each 

fluorinated GHG by-product.

Because the mass-balance approach assumes that losses 

from the process are emissions of the product, EPA believes 

that the mass-balance approach would only be appropriate 

for estimating emissions from fluorinated GHG production, 

not production of CFCs, HCFCs, or polymers. (In the last 

three situations, the product is not a fluorinated GHG.) 

However, EPA requests comment on this issue. 

To be eligible to use the mass-balance approach, 

facilities would have to demonstrate that their planned 

measurements could meet a statistical error limit required 

in the rule (described below). If the facility could not 

demonstrate that it could meet the error limit, it would 

have to improve the accuracy and/or precision of its 

monitoring and measurement devices or opt to use another 

monitoring approach offered in the rule.

To carry out the mass-balance approach, the facility 

would choose a reactant for yield calculation purposes. 

The facility would then weigh or meter the mass of that 

reactant fed into the process, any primary fluorinated GHG 

produced by the process, the mass of the reactant 

permanently removed from the process (i.e., sent to the 

thermal oxidizer or other equipment, not immediately 

Author

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: 
recycled back into the process), any fluorinated GHG 

byproducts generated, and any streams that contain the 

product or fluorinated GHG byproducts and that are 

recaptured or destroyed. These measurements would be 

tracked monthly or more frequently and consolidated and 

recorded on a monthly basis. If monitored streams 

(including relevant process streams, emissions streams, and 

destroyed streams) included more than one component 

(product, byproducts, or other materials) in more than 

trace concentrations,30 the facility would be required to 

monitor concentrations of products and byproducts in these 

streams. Finally, the facility would be required to 

perform monthly mass-balance calculations for each product 

produced. 

Statistical Error Estimate. To estimate the 

statistical error associated with use of the mass-balance 

approach, facilities would be required to use error 

propagation, considering the accuracy and precision of 

their measurements and the calculation methods of the massbalance approach. This approach is described in more 

detail in the TSD for this proposal. Under this approach, 

EPA would not specify precision and accuracy requirements 

for individual mass or concentration measurements. 

 

30 EPA is proposing to define “trace concentration” as any concentration 

less than 0.1 percent by mass of the stream.

Author

Author

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-XXX)

Deleted: process 
Instead, EPA would require that the error associated with 

the overall estimate of fluorinated GHG emissions fall 

under 30 percent (relative error) or under 3,000 mtCO2e 

(absolute error). (Both errors are expressed as halves of 

95 percent confidence intervals; for normal distributions, 

this is quite close to two standard deviations). 

Facilities could achieve this level of precision however 

they chose.

We are proposing to require the error estimate to 

ensure that the use of the mass-balance approach yields 

accurate emission estimates. As observed by several groups 

that commented on the initial proposal, the mass-balance 

approach can result in large errors if measurements of the 

flow of fluorinated GHGs in one or more streams have 

significant errors31. We recognize that the proposed 

approach requires facilities to calculate the overall error 

of their own estimates, which adds complication and 

introduces opportunities for mistakes. We therefore plan 

 

31 The mass-balance approach works by subtracting the masses of process

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

relatively small share of these masses become a large share of the 

difference between them. Errors are particularly a concern for streams 

where the fluorinated GHG is only one component of the total flow, and 

where, therefore, fluorinated GHG concentrations must be measured. In 

general, the accuracy and precision of concentration measurements is 

expected to be approximately +/- 10 percent, although this can be as 

low as five percent and as high as 20 percent, depending on the 

circumstances. If this 10 percent error applies to a stream that 

constitutes a significant input or (more likely) output of the process, 

it can lead to an emissions estimate with a high relative error. 

Author

Formatted: Subscript

Author

Author

Author

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: process 

Deleted: FDeleted: F-
to develop a calculation tool that would permit reporters 

to develop an error estimate, reducing both their burden 

and the likelihood of errors. 

We are proposing a maximum relative error of 30 

percent because this error is comparable to that cited by 

the facility that has used an emission factor approach to 

estimate its fluorinated GHG emissions.32 It is also 

comparable to the error that EPA calculates for a facility 

with an emission rate of two percent and with good 

precisions and accuracies for its mass flow measurements 

(+/-0.2 percent) and for its concentration measurement (+/-

10 percent) of a waste stream constituting five percent of 

the process’s fluorinated GHG output flow. 

For facilities whose emissions constitute a very small 

share of their inputs and outputs (e.g., one percent or 

less), a relative error of 30 percent will be very 

difficult to achieve using a mass-balance approach. At the 

same time, the absolute error of such a facility’s estimate 

may be smaller than the absolute error of a facility that 

meets the relative error test but that has a higher 

emission rate. EPA is therefore proposing a maximum 

permissible absolute error of 3,000 mtCO2e for facilities 

 

32 A 13 percent error expressed as a standard deviation translates into 

a 26 percent error expressed as one half of a 95 percent confidence 

interval. 

Formatted: Subscript

Author
whose estimates have relative errors greater than 30 

percent. This absolute error is equivalent to 30 percent 

of the 10,000 mtCO2e threshold that is used elsewhere in the 

subpart to establish requirements for different sources 

(e.g., process vents). Under this approach, processes 

whose emissions were lower than 10,000 mtCO2e could have 

relative errors higher than 30 percent so long as they met 

the limit on absolute error. This approach avoids 

penalizing processes and facilities with low emissions. 

EPA requests comment on the absolute error limit of 3,000 

mtCO2e. EPA is also considering a higher limit, e.g., 5,000 

mtCO2e.

Another approach that would avoid penalizing 

facilities with low emission rates would be to express the 

maximum relative error as a fraction of the total mass of 

reactants fed into (or consumed by) the process. For a 

given process, this mass would remain relatively constant 

regardless of the emission rate. For the model facility 

described above, with errors of 0.2 percent in its mass 

flow measurements and of 10 percent in its concentration 

measurements, the error of the emissions estimate relative 

to the total mass of reactants is about 0.3 percent. One 

advantage of this approach compared to the absolute limit 

is that this approach limits the relative errors for 

Formatted: Subscript

Author

Formatted: Subscript

Author

Formatted: Subscript

Author
processes with small throughputs, while the absolute limit 

could permit very large relative errors for processes with 

small throughputs. EPA requests comment on this approach. 

In developing the approach to specifying maximum 

absolute and/or relative errors for the overall emissions 

estimate, we considered the alternative of specifying the 

maximum allowable errors (precisions and accuracies) of the 

individual measurements that feed into the mass-balance 

equation. This is the approach that EPA took in the 

initial proposal. This approach limits error, but it also 

limits flexibility, a concern raised by several commenters. 

Even a facility with a relatively large error in one stream 

may be able to bring the total error of its emissions 

estimate to a tolerable level by improving the accuracy and 

precision of other measurements that are used in the massbalance equation, such as the mass flows of reactants and 

products. Nevertheless, EPA requests comment on the option 

of reverting to specific tolerances for individual 

measurements that feed into the mass-balance equation, as 

originally proposed.

Choice of Reactant Whose Yield Is Measured. EPA is 

today proposing to allow facilities to estimate emissions 

under the mass-balance approach using one of the reactants 
rather than both as originally proposed.33 Some fluorinated 

GHG producers noted that, for various reasons, it is 

sometimes considerably more difficult to track the yields 

of some reactants than others (e.g., HF vs. an organic 

feedstock). EPA notes that facilities estimating their 

emissions based on the yield of one reactant would still 

need to be able to demonstrate that their estimate passed 

the statistical error test discussed above. EPA requests 

comment on this approach. 

Frequency of Measurement and Calculation. In today’s 

proposed rule, EPA is proposing to require that facilities 

using the mass-balance approach measure and calculate their 

emissions monthly. A number of fluorocarbon producers who 

commented on the initial proposal noted that daily 

measurements were burdensome and led to large errors in the 

estimates of daily emissions. They observed that many 

streams contain acidic and reactive constituents such as 

HF, and that sampling from these streams can create safety 

hazards. They also noted that daily yield measurements can 

vary significantly (sometimes exceeding 100 percent) for 

 

33 Under the initial proposed rule, facilities would have been required 

to perform the mass-balance calculations for each reactant (e.g.,, both 

HF and the chlorocarbon or hydrocarbon) and to take the average of the 

two results as the emissions estimate. This would be expected to lead 

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

uncertainty) if the uncertainties in both yield calculations were 

similar.

Author

Author

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: process 

Deleted: .,
three reasons. First, when continuous processes are first 

started, there is a lag time between the time the reactants 

are fed into the process and the time products emerge. 

Second, even after the process has been running for a 

while, the quantity of material in the process can vary 

based on weather, changes in production rates, and other 

conditions. Third, the relatively large errors in 

measurements of in-process product holding tanks (e.g.,

based on sight-glass readings) have a significant impact on 

daily mass balances. Over time, all of these effects smooth 

out, making longer term mass balances far more reliable 

than daily mass balances.

EPA has carefully considered these comments. The goal 

of the rule is to gather information on annual, not daily,

emissions. The advantage of more frequent measurements and 

calculations is that, where mass flows and concentrations 

are variable, more frequent measurements and calculations 

will lead to more accurate and precise estimates than less 

frequent measurements and calculations. However, in this 

case the disadvantages of daily measurement and calculation 

appear to outweigh the advantages. EPA believes that 

monthly mass-balance calculations will lead to acceptably 

accurate estimates at reasonable cost. Nevertheless, EPA 

requests comment on whether the variability of the mass 

Author

Author

Author

Deleted: -

Deleted: -

Deleted: -
flows or concentrations in some production processes may be 

sufficiently large to justify more frequent measurement and 

calculation, e.g., weekly. 

EPA also requests comment on whether annual or less 

frequent characterizations of fluorinated GHG 

concentrations in some streams should be permitted under 

the mass-balance approach. Some fluorinated GHG producers 

have stated that it is difficult to measure fluorinated GHG 

concentrations in some streams. In some cases, this is 

because waste streams contain hydrofluoric acid (HF), 

which, due to its acidity and reactivity, can damage 

sampling and analytical equipment. As discussed in the 

TSD, there may be technical solutions to this problem. To 

the extent that these approaches could be relatively 

difficult or expensive to implement, however, it might be 

appropriate to permit very infrequent measurements. The 

disadvantage of this approach is that it might lead to 

large errors, particularly for processes that vary over 

time. A series of measurements might be required to (l) 

reduce the error and (2) quantify the error for purposes of 

the statistical error test. Such measurements would be 

analogous to those used to develop emission factors.

Reactant and Byproduct Emissions. EPA recognizes that 

the proposed mass-balance approach would assume that all 

Author

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: Technical Support Document
yield losses that are not accounted for are attributable to 

emissions of the fluorinated GHG product. In some cases, 

the losses may be untracked emissions (or other losses) of 

reactants or fluorinated by-products. In general, EPA 

understands that reactant flows are measured at the inlet 

to the reactor; thus, any losses of reactant that occur 

between the point of measurement and the reactor are likely 

to be small. However, reactants that are recovered from 

the process, whether they are recycled back into it or 

removed permanently, may experience some losses that the 

proposed method does not account for.

Fluorocarbon by-products, according to the IPCC 

Guidelines, generally have “radiative forcing properties 

similar to those of the desired fluorochemical.” However, 

EPA is aware of at least one facility where byproducts 

often have much larger GWPs than the products. In this 

case, assuming by-product emissions are product emissions 

would lead to large errors in estimating overall 

fluorinated GHG emissions. EPA believes that the initial 

scoping test of emitted streams that is discussed above 

would help to determine whether this was an issue for a 

given process.34 If it was, then the facility could elect 

 

34 For example, if the survey indicated that attributing all unaccounted 

for losses to product emissions would lead to more than a ten percent 
to pursue the PSEF approach rather than the mass-balance 

approach for that process, or, if the facility was still 

interested in pursuing the mass-balance approach, it could 

perform more emissions testing to develop a robust breakout among the fluorinated GHGs assumed to be emitted under 

the mass-balance approach. Such emissions testing would be 

similar to that performed for the PSEF approach below, 

except it would focus on the partitioning of emissions 

among the various fluorinated GHGs. This approach is 

discussed in more detail in the TSD. EPA requests comment 

on this and other possible approaches for distinguishing 

between emissions of fluorinated GHG products and emissions 

of fluorinated by-products under the mass-balance approach.

Alternative approach based on measurements of balanced 

element (e.g., total fluorine). EPA is considering an 

alternative to the mass-balance approach described above in 

which facilities would not be required to speciate their 

streams (including relevant process streams, destroyed 

streams, and emitted streams) monthly. Instead, they could 

make monthly measurements of the total fluorine (or other 

element of interest other than carbon) in the streams, 

e.g., by burning them. This approach, which is described 

in more detail in the TSD, could be particularly useful for 

 

error in the CO2e emitted, the facility could be required to adjust its 

emissions estimate to account for by-product losses.

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Subscript

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: (e.g., by increasing 

calculated by-product emissions by 

some percentage)

Deleted: by-product 

Deleted: measure 

Deleted: by-product 

Deleted: (An initial survey of the 

fluorinated GHGs in the stream 

would still be required to ensure 

that emissions were properly 

allocated among by-products.) 

Deleted: Technical Support Document
processes with multiple by-products. Facilities would 

still be required to perform an initial survey of the 

fluorinated GHGs in the stream(s) to identify the 

fluorinated GHG constituents. In addition, as discussed 

above, it may be appropriate to require facilities to 

perform emissions testing to ensure that emissions are 

properly allocated among the product and various byproducts. However, facilities would perform this testing 

relatively infrequently (e.g., every five years) rather 

than monthly. One potential concern regarding this variant 

of the mass-balance approach is the potential difficulty of 

performing analysis of combustion products that are likely 

to include HF and HCl. It may be appropriate to require 

facilities to validate this approach against the massbalance method described above. EPA requests comment on 

this approach. 

d. Process-Specific Emission Factor Approach 

EPA is proposing an additional monitoring approach 

based on site-specific, process-specific emissions factors. 

This approach includes either calculation or measurement of 

process vent emission factors depending on the size and 

fate of the emissions from the vent. Under this approach, 

facilities would develop preliminary emissions estimates to 

determine the level of annual uncontrolled emissions from 

Author

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: emissions
each process vent in processes subject to this subpart. 

For process vents with uncontrolled emissions of less than 

10,000 mtCO2e (or less than 1 metric ton for emissions that 

include a fluorinated GHG whose GWP does not appear in 

Table A-1 of subpart A), facilities could conduct either 

engineering calculations or emissions testing to develop 

emission factors. Facilities could also conduct either 

engineering calculations or emissions testing to develop

emission factors for emissions that were vented to a 

destruction device demonstrated to achieve a destruction 

efficiency of 99.9 percent (for fluorinated GHGs), as long 

as equipment or procedures35 were in place to ensure that 

uncontrolled emissions did not occur. For other vented 

emissions, facilities would be required to conduct 

emissions testing to determine the process vent emission 

factor. 

To estimate annual fluorinated GHG emissions from each 

vent, facilities would multiply each emission factor by the 

appropriate activity data and account for the use (and 

uptime) of destruction devices. The fluorinated GHG 

emissions for all vents at the facility would be summed to 

 

35 Such equipment or procedures could include, for example, holding tank 

capacity, monitoring of by-pass streams, or compulsory process 

shutdowns in the event the destruction device remains off line.

Author

Formatted: Subscript

Author

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: Subpart
obtain the total emissions from process vents for the 

facility as a whole.

To ensure that the emissions estimate encompassed all 

sources of emissions within the processes that would be 

subject to this subpart, facilities using the emission 

factor approach would also be required to estimate 

emissions from equipment leaks.36 Leaks would be monitored 

annually using EPA Method 21 and the Protocol for Equipment 

Leak Estimates U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

Publication No. EPA-453/R-95-017, November 1995.

EPA is proposing less demanding measurement 

requirements for small and destroyed emission streams to 

ensure that the effort and resources expended to measure 

emissions are commensurate with the size of those 

emissions. This principle has been adopted both for other 

source categories in the MRR and for numerous other EPA 

programs. However, EPA is requesting comment on some 

aspects of its proposed approaches. 

 

36 As noted above, process vents are only one of the sources of 

emissions from production, transformation, and destruction processes. 

Another source is equipment leaks, specifically, leaks from piping and 

connections. The mass-balance approach does not need to be 

supplemented with equipment leak assessment because it accounts for all 

emissions between the measurements of inputs and outputs, whether these 

emissions occur from vents or leaks. (This assumes that the production 

measurement used to estimate and report emissions under the massbalance approach is the same as that used to report additions to the 

industrial gas supply. EPA is proposing that these two measurements be 

identical.) 

Formatted: Font:Not Italic, Underline

Author

Author

Author

Author

Deleted: (

Deleted: )

Deleted: GHG Reporting Rule
First, we request comment on the appropriateness of 

the CO2e cutoff below which calculations are permitted. One 

potential concern associated with this approach is that 

10,000 mtCO2e equates to relatively low mass emissions of 

fluorinated GHGs with high GWPs. For example, 10,000 mtCO2e 

equates to 923 pounds of SF6 and 1,282 pounds of NF3. Our 

understanding is that SF6 can be detected at extremely low 

emission rates and concentrations, but we request comment 

on whether emissions of other high-GWP compounds at this 

level may be difficult to detect. An option on which we are 

requesting comment is to relax the CO2e emissions cutoff and 

to include an unweighted emissions cutoff (i.e., in tons of 

fluorinated GHG) along with it. For example, for process 

vents with less than 25,000 mtCO2e uncontrolled and less 

than 10,000 pounds of fluorinated GHG uncontrolled, 

facilities would have the option to conduct emissions 

testing or engineering calculations or assessments.

Second, EPA requests comment on its criteria for 

allowing use of engineering calculations to characterize 

the emissions of process vents that vent to destruction 

devices. EPA understands that many and perhaps most 

destruction devices used at fluorinated GHG production 

facilities can achieve DEs of 99.9 percent or better. EPA 

also understands that many facilities have equipment or 

Formatted: Subscript

Author

Formatted: Subscript

Author

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Subscript

Author

Deleted: Emissions

Deleted: , depending on the overall 

mass flow of the emissions stream. 

Another

Deleted: 
procedures in place to prevent uncontrolled emissions, 

though some do not. It is important to note that 

uncontrolled emissions during device downtime can reduce 

the effective (time-weighted average) DE to 90 percent or 

less, increasing emissions by a factor of 100 or more. 

However, one alternative to the proposed approach would be 

to allow the use of engineering calculations for any vent 

whose emissions, considering both the DE and the historical 

uptime of the destruction device, fell below the 10,000 

mtCO2e cutoff. For purposes of this calculation, the annual 

time of uncontrolled emissions could be equated to the 

longest annual time of uncontrolled emissions observed over 

the previous five years. EPA requests comment on this 

alternative approach.

Preliminary estimates. To develop preliminary 

emissions estimates for each vent, facilities would be 

permitted to use the same types of previous measurements, 

engineering calculations, and engineering assessments that 

they would be permitted to use to develop emission 

calculation factors. These are described below under 

“Process-specific Emission Calculation Factor Approach.”

Process vent emissions testing. For process vent 

emissions testing, facilities would be required to use EPA 

reference methods, including EPA Method 18 and EPA Method 

Formatted: Subscript

Author
320, or ASTM D6348-03.37 Alternative testing methods could 

be used if validated using EPA Method 301. EPA reference 

methods are included in the rule requirements for 

determining sample and velocity traverses, velocity and 

volumetric flow rates, gas analysis, and stack gas 

moisture, along with several alternative flow rate 

determination methods, such as OTM-24 and ALT-012. 

Commenters who have previously estimated their emissions of 

fluorinated GHGs stated that they used these approaches to 

do so.

The testing periods would be required to include 

representative process operation and to exclude atypical 

events (such as process upsets or malfunctions).38 Within 

any given operating scenario (discussed further below), the 

full range of process operation would be required to be 

represented, i.e. the emissions data must be representative 

of typical process operation while also including process 

variability. Facilities would be required to consider 

process parameters that may potentially cause variability 

 

37 EPA Method 320 and the ASTM method are Fourier Transform Infrared 

(FTIR) methods. For such methods, compounds are identified by 

characteristic spectra, and libraries providing spectra for the range 

of compounds likely to be found in emissions streams can greatly 

facilitate analysis. EPA requests comment on whether such spectral 

libraries are available for fluorinated GHGs, and if not, on whether 

EPA might play a role in assembling a spectral library for fluorinated 

GHGs. 

38 EPA is proposing an exception if monitoring is sufficiently long to 

ensure that such events are not overrepresented in the emission factor.
of the emissions, such as catalyst degradation, seasonal 

variability, raw material suppliers, etc. For example, 

where a facility uses a catalyst, test runs would have to 

be conducted at various points over the life of the 

catalyst. The production level during the testing periods 

would be required to be representative of normal operation. 

To develop process-specific emissions factors, 

facilities would be required to conduct at least three test 

runs and to analyze the relative standard deviation (RSD) 

of the emission factors corresponding to each run to 

determine whether additional runs were necessary. The 

emission factors and their RSD would be calculated across 

all fluorinated GHGs emitted from the vent in CO2e terms. 

If the RSD exceeded twenty percent, the facility would be 

required to conduct an additional three tests. The 

rationale for the RSD test is that if the variability of a 

population or parameter is large, then more samples are 

required to obtain a robust estimate of the mean (average) 

of that parameter. EPA estimates that at a relative 

standard deviation of 20 percent, an emission factor 

calculated as the mean of three test runs has a 95 percent 

chance of being within 50 percent of the actual mean 

emission rate of the process. The reasoning and 
calculations behind this conclusion are discussed in more 

detail in the TSD.

An alternative approach would be to conduct additional 

runs until the change in the running average emission 

factor fell under 10 percent. This approach is similar to 

requirements for measuring emission factors (slope 

coefficients) in subpart F (Primary Aluminum) and could 

provide representative emissions from the process and 

address variability. However, it has two potential 

drawbacks in the context of fluorinated gas production. 

First, for processes whose variability is predictable 

(e.g., due to catalyst age) rather than random, the fourth 

sample could satisfy the running average requirement but 

lead to a biased emission factor, for example if two of the 

four samples were taken when the catalyst was new. Second, 

facilities could find it inconvenient to analyze samples 

and calculate emission factors between each test run after 

the first three. EPA requests comment on this alternative 

approach.

For continuous process vents, facilities would conduct 

1-hour test runs, and for batch process vents, facilities 

would test during emissions episodes of the batch. We 

request comment on the appropriate number of test runs to 

conduct for continuous and batch process vents and the 

Formatted: Not Highlight

Author

Author

Deleted: Subpart
appropriate RSD that facilities should meet. We also 

request comment of the appropriateness of testing batch 

process vents during emissions episodes only. Another 

option is to require testing of vents for the full duration 

of the batch process, but this could significantly increase 

the expense of the emissions test without necessarily 

improving its accuracy.

Where multiple processes vent into a common vent or 

control device, EPA is proposing that facilities do one of 

the following: sample each process in the ducts before the 

emissions are combined, sample when only one process is 

operating, or sample the combined emissions at 

representative combinations of capacity utilizations for 

all the processes. If the last option were selected, 

facilities would be required to perform 3 times n test 

runs, where n is the number of processes feeding into the 

common vent or add-on control device. The emission factor 

would be calculated by dividing the total emissions by the 

summed activity across the processes venting to the common 

vent, and the PSEF would be applied whenever one or more of 

the processes was operating. 

Process activity data would have to be collected 

simultaneously with the emissions data during the emissions 

test. The process activity data would be used to develop 
the emissions factor. Process activity data that could be 

used in development of the emissions factor includes raw 

material feed, amount of product produced, or other process 

activity known to have a direct effect on emissions.

Facilities would be required to define the operating 

scenario that encompasses the range of operating conditions 

that represent typical operation for the process and to 

develop representative emissions factors for each operating 

scenario. To define the process operating scenario, a 

facility would include information including the process 

description and the specific process equipment used; the 

process vents, emission episodes and durations, and the 

quantity of uncontrolled fluorinated GHG emissions; the

control device or destruction device used to control 

emissions; and the manifolding of process vents within the 

process and from other processes. Alternative operating 

scenarios would also be defined for differences in 

operating conditions that affect emissions. Examples of 

situations where process differences may warrant separate 

operating scenarios include the following: making small 

volumes of a product in one set of batch process equipment 

part of the year and making larger volumes in larger batch 

process equipment part of the year; use of two different 

types of catalyst in the same process; deliberate 
alterations in process conditions such as temperature or 

pressure to shift the reaction to a particular product; and 

making small volumes of a product in a batch process part 

of the year and making large volumes in a continuous 

process part of the year. A facility is required to develop 

a representative emissions factor for each process 

operating scenario because each operating scenario for a 

process will result in different emissions levels.

In general, emissions testing during process startups 

and shutdowns would not be expected to lead to 

representative emission factors, because emission rates 

tend to fluctuate during such events. Exceptions to this 

could include long-term monitoring that would not overrepresent startup or shutdown conditions in the resulting 

emission factor, and monitoring specifically to obtain 

emission factors for startups and shutdowns conditions. 

Several companies indicated that they have analyzed the 

emissions profile during startup events and during shutdown 

events. They found that the emission rates during these 

events departed from those at steady state conditions, but 

that emissions profiles were consistent between one startup 

event and another. 

The uncertainty of the process-vent-specific emission 

factor approach is anticipated to be roughly 10 percent; 

Author

Deleted: 
the uncertainty of the emissions testing is estimated to be 

approximately 10 percent (as calibration requirements for

most test methods require ±10 percent accuracy and 

precision), and the uncertainty of the process activity 

measurement is ±1 percent. While emissions testing must 

continue if the first three test runs exhibit an RSD or 0.2 

or greater, the RSD is expected to be a measure of the 

variability of the process rather than the error of the 

measurement. 

EPA is proposing that emission factors would need to 

be developed before December 31, 2011, the end of the first 

year of reporting under this subpart. Throughout 2011, 

facilities would be responsible for gathering monthly 

activity data to which the emission factors, once 

developed, would be applied to estimate monthly and annual 

emissions from each process. 

Updates to Emission Factors. After developing their 

initial process-vent-specific emission factors, facilities 

would be required to update them every 5 years or when 

there was a process or equipment change that would alter 

the process operating scenario. Process or equipment 

changes would include changes in raw materials, equipment, 

production levels, or operating conditions that would be 

expected to affect the level of emissions. EPA is 
proposing periodic updates of the emission factors because 

facilities that have measured and re-measured their 

emission factors over a period of several years have found 

that gradual, incremental changes to the process (e.g., to 

improve yields) have significantly changed emission factors 

over time. The proposed five-year frequency is consistent 

with that required for some source categories covered in 

the MRR (e.g., for process vents used in HCFC-22 production 

processes under subpart O) but is higher than that required 

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

slope factors for aluminum processes). EPA requests 

comment on the proposed frequency of measurement. 

An alternative to regular updates to emission factors 

would be updates triggered by changes to other indicators 

of emission rates, such as process yields. Under such an 

approach, facilities could calculate how their emission 

factor would change if the change in yield were 

attributable solely to a change in the emission rate. If 

this change exceeded 15 percent (as a fraction of the 

current emission factor), the emission factor would need to 

be re-measured. EPA requests comment on this alternative. 

Measurements performed before the effective date of 

this rule. We are proposing that emission factor 

measurements performed before the effective date of this 

Author

Author

Author

Deleted: mandatory reporting rule

Deleted: Subpart

Deleted: 
rule could be used to estimate GHG emissions if the 

measurements were performed in accordance with the 

requirements of the rule less than five years before the 

effective date. We believe that it may also be appropriate 

to permit use of previously measured emission factors whose 

measurement departed in some particulars from the 

requirements of the rule but still substantially met most 

of the requirements, making it likely that the emission 

factors were representative. In this case, facilities 

could submit information to EPA on areas where measurements 

departed from the requirements from the rule, and EPA could 

review the measurements to verify that they still 

substantially met most of the requirements. We request 

comment on this option. 

Process-Specific Emission Calculation Factor Approach. 

As noted above, facilities could use engineering 

calculations to estimate emissions from vents that either 

(1) had annual emissions below 1,000 mtCO2e or (2) vented to 

a control device with a destruction efficiency of 99.9

percent and had equipment and procedures in place to 

prevent uncontrolled emissions. We are proposing an 

emission factor approach that includes both emissions 

testing and engineering calculations, with the required 

Author

Formatted: Subscript

Author

Author

Deleted: issue. 

Deleted: %
approach depending on the magnitude of uncontrolled 

emissions from the process vent. 

Engineering calculations use basic chemical 

engineering principles and component property data to 

calculate emissions (and develop emission factors) rather 

than actually measuring emissions. Calculations for 

various emissions episodes could be conducted using 

standard equations presented in EPA’s Emissions Inventory 

Improvement Process guidance documents, Pharmaceutical 

NESHAP, and Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP. Calculations 

highlighted in these documents and in codified rule text 

include vapor displacement, purging, heating, 

depressurization, vacuum systems, gas evolution, air 

drying, and empty vessel purging. 

Engineering assessments may be conducted using 

previous test data or other information available on the 

process. Engineering assessments include use of previous 

test reports where the emissions are representative of 

current operating practices; bench-scale or pilot-scale 

test data that are representative of full-scale process 

operating conditions; design analysis based on chemical 

engineering principles, measurable process parameters, or 

physical or chemical laws or properties. The data used in 

engineering assessments must be documented. 

Author

Deleted: 
Process activity data must be measured in conjunction 

with the emissions estimate based on calculations and 

assessments. This process activity data is needed to 

develop the emissions calculation factor. 

Just as for emission factor development, facilities 

are required to define the operating scenario for the 

emission calculation factor development. Alternative 

operating scenarios would also be defined for differences 

in operating conditions that affect emissions. As 

discussed previously for the emission factor approach, a 

facility would be required to develop a representative 

emission calculation factor for each process operating 

scenario because each operating scenario for a process will 

result in different emission levels (see discussion above). 

Facilities would update the process-vent-specific 

emission calculation factors every five years or when there 

is a process or equipment change that would alter the 

process operating scenario. 

Potential use of continuous emissions monitors to 

measure emissions from vents. Another option we are 

considering is to require that facilities measure emissions 

from fluorinated gas production facilities using continuous 

emissions monitors (CEMS). Under this approach, facilities 

would be required to install and operate CEMS capable of 

Author

Deleted: 
measuring fluorinated GHGs to measure process emissions. 

The requirements for the CEMs would be similar to those in 

subpart C, adjusted, as appropriate, to accommodate CEMS 

for fluorinated gases. One possible option is to use 

Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometers (FTIRs) in 

scrubber stacks to measure emissions. FTIR spectroscopy is 

presently used to conduct short-term fluorinated GHG 

emission measurements from processes. 

If properly selected and maintained, CEMS would be 

expected to provide estimates of emissions more accurate 

than either the mass-balance or the process-vent approach. 

However, potential drawbacks to requiring CEMS are that 

they would be relatively expensive to install and they may 

not tolerate the acidic and reactive environments found in 

vents at many fluorinated gas production facilities. (The 

latter concern might be mitigated by installing CEMS after 

a scrubber, if this is practicable.) Given these potential 

concerns, it may be appropriate to require CEMS for 

particularly large emission streams, e.g., those resulting 

in emissions of more than 50,000 mtCO2e annually. EPA 

requests comment on the use and implementation of CEMS at 

fluorinated gas production facilities. We also request 

data or other information evaluating the use of CEMS in 

Author

Formatted: Subscript

Author

Deleted: 
fluorinated gas production facilities to determine 

fluorinated GHG emissions. 

Equipment Leak Emissions Estimates. For completeness, 

EPA is proposing that monitoring of process vents be 

supplemented by monitoring of equipment leaks, whose 

emissions do not occur through process vents. To estimate 

emissions from equipment leaks, we would require use of EPA 

Method 21 and the Protocol for Equipment Leak Estimates

(EPA-453/R-95-017). Leak monitoring would be performed 

annually. The Protocol includes four methods for 

estimating equipment leaks. These are, from least to most 

accurate, the Average Emission Factor Approach, the 

Screening Ranges Approach, EPA Correlation Approach, and 

the Unit-Specific Correlation Approach. We are proposing 

that the facility use one of the last three methods. To

use these methods, the facility would need to have (or 

develop) Response Factors relating concentrations of the 

target fluorinated GHG (or surrogate gas co-occurring in 

the stream) to concentrations of the gas with which the 

leak detector is calibrated. Our understanding is that 

flame ionization detectors (FIDs) are generally insensitive 

to fluorinated GHGs, and that they are therefore not likely 

to be effective for detecting and quantifying fluorinated 

GHG leaks. An exception to this would be a situation in 

Formatted: Font:Not Italic, Underline

Author

Formatted: Font:Not Italic, Underline

Author
which the fluorinated GHG occurred in a stream along with a 

substance (e.g., a hydrocarbon) to which the FID was 

sensitive; in this case, the other substance could be used 

as a surrogate to quantify leaks from the stream. We 

understand that at least two fluorocarbon producers 

currently use methods in the Protocol to quantify their 

emissions of fluorinated GHGs with different levels of 

accuracy and precision.39 Other analytical techniques that 

are sensitive to fluorinated compounds may be available to 

monitor concentrations of equipment leaks, including 

photoionization, ultraviolet, infrared, and others. EPA 

requests comment on the availability and use of portable 

monitoring instruments for equipment leak monitoring of 

fluorinated GHG. 

Another approach for monitoring leaks from pieces of 

equipment includes use of the Alternative Work Practice 

(AWP) for EPA Method 21 (similar to monitoring requirements 

under 40 CFR part 60, subpart A, 40 CFR part 60.18; 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart A, 40 CFR part 63.11; or 40 CFR part 65, 

 

39 One producer estimates HFC and other fluorocarbon emissions by using 

the Average Emission Factor Approach. This approach simply assigns an 

average emission factor to each component without any evaluation of 

whether or how much that component is actually leaking. The second 

producer estimates emissions using the Screening Ranges Approach, which 

assigns different emission factors to components based on whether the 

concentrations of the target chemical are above or below 10,000 ppmv. 

This producer has developed a Response Factor for HCFC-22, which is 

present in the same streams as the HFC-23 whose leaks are being 

estimated. (HFC-23 emissions are discussed in Section O of the October 

30, 2009 MRR.) 

Author

Author

Deleted: §

Deleted: §
subpart A, 40 CFR part 65.7). This approach would include 

monitoring leaking equipment with an optical gas imaging 

instrument. Emissions from those pieces of equipment found 

to be leaking could be estimated based on emission factors. 

Under this approach, facilities would be required to image 

each piece of equipment associated with processes covered 

under subpart L and in fluorinated GHG service, and all 

emissions imaged by the optical gas imaging instrument 

would be considered leaks and would be subject to emissions 

estimation. EPA requests comment on the technical 

feasibility and accuracy of this approach for fluorinated 

GHG emissions.

Other Potentially Significant Emission Points. We are 

requesting comment on the inclusion of fluorinated GHG 

emissions from storage tanks, wastewater, and container 

filling, particularly where these emissions occur before 

the production measurement at fluorinated GHG production 

facilities. We anticipate that emissions from wastewater 

and storage tanks would be small to insignificant due to 

the low solubility of most fluorinated GHGs in water and 

the use of pressurized tanks for storage. However, we 

request comment on the emission levels expected from these 

emission points.

Author

Deleted: §
Our current understanding is that most fluorinated GHG 

production facilities measure their production before 

container filling, e.g., by using flowmeters just upstream 

of the container connection to measure the mass flowing 

into the containers. If this is the case, emissions that 

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

connections) would have been included in the production 

(supply) measurement. However, if production is measured 

by weighing containers before and after filling, then 

emissions during container filling would not have been 

included in the production measurement. In these cases, 

facilities using the emission factor approach would need to 

quantify container filling emissions for completeness. 

Possible methods for tracking these emissions include 

engineering estimates, default or site-specific emission 

factors, and mass balances. These methods are discussed in 

more detail in the TSD.

Destruction Device Performance Testing. EPA is 

proposing to require fluorinated gas producers that destroy 

fluorinated GHGs to conduct an emissions test every five 

years to determine the destruction efficiency (DE) of the 

destruction device. As discussed further in the TSD, the 

testing for determining the DE would be similar to the 

emissions testing required to develop process-specific 
emission factors, described above. Facilities would be 

required to conduct their testing when operating at high 

loads reasonably expected to occur and when destroying the 

most-difficult-to-destroy fluorinated GHG fed into the 

device (or when destroying a surrogate that was more 

difficult to destroy than that fluorinated GHG). The last 

point is particularly important because some fluorinated 

GHGs (e.g., CF4 and SF6) are extremely difficult to destroy; 

DEs determined for other fluorinated GHGs would 

overestimate the destruction of these fluorinated GHGs.

Facilities that have conducted an emissions test on 

their destruction device within the five years prior to the 

effective date of the rule would be allowed to use the DE 

determined during that test if the test was conducted in 

accordance with the proposed test requirements. Facilities 

could also use the DREs determined during principal organic 

hazardous constituent testing and hazardous waste combustor 

testing, provided those tests determined the DRE based on 

the most-difficult-to-destroy fluorinated GHG fed into the 

device (or based on a surrogate that was more difficult to 

destroy than the most-difficult-to-destroy fluorinated 

GHG).

EPA is proposing to require reporting of fluorinated 

GHG emissions from destruction of fluorinated GHGs; we 
request comment on whether we should also require reporting 

of by-product fluorinated GHG emissions from destruction of 

CFCs and HCFCs. Specifically, we request comment on the 

extent to which fluorinated GHGs may be generated and 

emitted during destruction of CFCs and HCFCs at facilities 

producing these chemicals. Testing of destruction devices 

used in the electronics sector has shown that destruction 

of one fluorinated compound can lead to the emission of 

others under some circumstances.

6. Selection of Procedures for Estimating Missing Data

In the event that a scale or flowmeter normally used 

to measure reactants, products, by-products, or wastes 

fails to meet a test to verify its accuracy or precision, 

malfunctions, or is rendered inoperable, we are proposing 

that facilities be required to estimate these quantities 

using other measurements where these data are available. 

For example, facilities that ordinarily measure production 

by metering the flow into the day tank could use the weight 

of product charged into shipping containers for sale and 

distribution as a substitute. It is our understanding that 

the types of flowmeters and scales used to measure 

fluorocarbon production (e.g., Coriolis meters) are 

generally quite reliable, and therefore that it should 

rarely be necessary to rely solely on secondary production 

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: 
measurements. In general, production facilities rely on 

accurate monitoring and reporting of the inputs and outputs 

of the production process. Nevertheless, EPA is also 

proposing that if a secondary mass measurement for the 

stream is not available, producers can use a related 

parameter and the historical relationship between the 

related parameter and the missing parameter to estimate the 

flow.

If concentration measurements are unavailable for some 

period, we are proposing that the facility use the average 

of the concentration measurements from just before and just 

after the period of missing data. 

We request comment on these proposed methods for 

estimating missing data.

7. Selection of Data Reporting Requirements

Under the proposed rule, owners and operators of 

facilities producing fluorinated gases would be required to 

report both their fluorinated GHG emissions and the 

quantities used to estimate them on a process-specific 

basis. They would also be required to report the results 

of each scoping study, specifically, the chemical 

identities of the contents of potentially emitted streams. 

Facilities using the mass-balance approach would report the 

masses of the reactants, products, by-products, and wastes, 

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: 
and, if applicable, the quantities of any product in the 

by-products and/or wastes (if that product is emitted at 

the facility). The chemical identities of reactants, 

products, and by-products would also be reported, along 

with the chemical equations used to estimate emissions. 

Facilities using the emission factor approach would report 

the activity data used to calculate emissions (e.g., the 

quantity produced, transformed, or destroyed) and the 

emission factors used to estimate them. We are proposing 

that owners and operators report annual totals of these 

quantities by process and facility. 

Where fluorinated GHG production facilities have 

estimated missing data, the facility would be required to 

report the reason the data were missing, the length of time 

the data were missing, the method used to estimate the 

missing data, and the estimates of those data. 

We propose that facilities report these data because 

the data are necessary to verify facilities’ calculations 

of fluorinated GHG emissions. We request comment on these 

proposed reporting requirements.

8. Selection of Records That Must Be Retained.

Maintaining records of the information used to 

determine the reported GHG emissions is necessary to enable 

us to verify that the GHG emissions monitoring and 

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: 
calculations were done correctly. Under the proposed rule, 

owners and operators of facilities producing fluorinated 

GHGs would be required to retain records documenting the 

data reported, including records of monthly emission 

estimation calculations, all data that went in to the 

calculations, calibration records for flowmeters, scales, 

and gas chromatographs, and documentation of emission 

factor development activities. These records are necessary 

to verify that the GHG emissions monitoring and 

calculations were performed correctly.

C. Electric Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use

 In the April 2009 proposed MRR (74 FR 16448; April 

10, 2009), EPA proposed mandatory reporting of SF6 and PFC 

emissions from electric power transmission and distribution 

system equipment in subpart DD. As initially proposed, 

this source category would comprise electric power 

transmission and distribution systems that operate using 

gas-insulated substations, circuit breakers and other 

switchgear, or power transformers containing sulfur 

hexafluoride (SF6) or perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and emissions 

would represent the annual facility-wide emissions of SF6

and PFCs for the reporting facility.

EPA received comment from approximately 22 entities, 

many of whom requested elaboration on what is included in 

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Subscript

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: mandatory GHG reporting rule

Deleted: be comprised of
an electric power system for purposes of this source 

category as well as the relationship of an electric power 

system to a facility. The requirements of 40 CFR part 98 

apply to owners and operators of any “facility”40. EPA is 

issuing this supplemental proposal to provide additional 

detail on this source category.

In doing so, our objective is to clarify and solicit 

further comment on the scope of an “electric power system” 

and what constitutes a facility for this subpart. We also 

provide further detail on options we considered. We are 

proposing to integrate the Energy Information 

Administration of the Department of Energy (EIA) list of 

examples of electric power entities into the definition of 

a facility for this subpart. The EIA lists the following 

as electric power entities: “a company; an electric 

cooperative; a public electric supply corporation as the 

Tennessee Valley authority; a similar Federal department or 

agency such as the Bonneville Power Administration; the 

Bureau of Reclamation or the Corps of Engineers; a 

municipally owned electric department offering service to 

 

40 Unless otherwise specified in an individual subpart, facility means 

any physical property, plant, building, structure, source, or 

stationary equipment located on one or more contiguous or adjacent 

properties in actual physical contact or separated solely by a public 

roadway or other public right-of-way and under common ownership or 

common control, that emits or may emit any greenhouse gas. Operators 

of military installations may classify such installations as more than 

a single facility based on distinct and independent functional 

groupings within contiguous military properties. 

Author

Deleted: Part
the public; or an electric public utility district (a 

“PUD”); also a jointly owned electric supply project such 

as the Keystone.41 We are proposing to incorporate the EIA 

list of electric power entities because it is widely used 

in the industry and includes the spectrum of energy supply 

participants with relevant operations, i.e., vertically 

integrated, generate and transmit only, transmit and 

distribute only, transmit only and distribute only. 

We are also seeking comment on whether it would be 

appropriate to use the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative 

(RGGI) definition of a transmission and/or distribution 

entity in our definition of electric power system.42 RGGI 

defines an entity as “the assets and equipment used to 

transmit and distribute electricity from an electric 

generator to the electrical load of a customer.” It 

includes all related assets and equipment located within 

the service territory of the entity, defined as the service 

territory of a load-serving entity specified by the 

applicable state regulatory agency. In particular, EPA 

seeks comment on whether the RGGI definition includes the 

spectrum of entities identified in the EIA list and 

 

41 Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Energy Glossary: Energy terms and definitions; 

http://www.eia.gov/glossary

42 Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative Model Rule, 2008.

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: .

Deleted: That definition is 

Deleted: .

Deleted: 
captures the full universe of SF6-emitting entities in the 

United States 

EPA is requesting comments on only 40 CFR 98.300 

Definition of the Source Category in proposed subpart DD. 

EPA is not seeking further comment on other elements of the 

initial proposal such as the selection of the threshold and 

the proposed monitoring methods. 

1. Definition of the Source Category

EPA proposes to define the source category as follows: 

“The electric equipment use source category includes 

electric power systems as described in this paragraph. 

Notwithstanding the definition of facility in subpart A, 

for purposes of this subpart, “facility” means an electric 

power system. Electric power system means the collection 

of SF6- and PFC-insulated equipment linked through electric 

power transmission or distribution lines and operated as an 

integrated unit by one electric power entity or several 

entities that have a single owner. SF6- and PFC-insulated 

equipment includes gas-insulated substations, circuit 

breakers, other switchgear, gas-insulated lines, and power 

transformers containing SF6 or PFCs. Equipment also 

includes gas containers such as pressurized cylinders, gas 

carts, new equipment owned but not yet installed, or other 

containers.” 

Formatted: Subscript

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: .S.

Deleted: only 

Deleted: comment

Deleted: Subpart DD. 

Deleted: 

Deleted: .

Deleted: 

Deleted: 
The largest use of SF6 is as an electrical insulator 

and interrupter in equipment intended for use in connection 

with generation, transmission, distribution, and conversion 

of electric energy. The gas has been employed by the 

electric power industry in the United States since the 

1950s because of its dielectric strength and arc-quenching 

characteristics. SF6 has replaced flammable insulating oils 

in many applications and allows for more compact 

substations in dense urban areas. It has also facilitated 

expansion of the electric power grid through long-distance 

transmission at high and extra-high voltages. SF6 is used 

in gas-insulated substations, circuit breakers and other 

switchgear, transformers, and gas-insulated lines. The 

types and location of gas-insulated equipment used varies 

depending on a number of technical, system design, 

geographic and historic factors. Currently, there are no 

available substitutes for SF6 in high-voltage applications. 

For further information, see the SF6 from Electrical 

Equipment TSD in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQOAR-2009-0927). 

Since SF6 is used in pressurized equipment, unintended

emissions of SF6 occur over the life cycle of the equipment. 

SF6 can escape from gas-insulated substations and switchgear 

through seals, especially from older equipment. The gas 

Author

Author

Author

Deleted: .S.

Deleted: -030).

Deleted: 
can also be released during installation, servicing, and 

equipment disposal. Emissions of SF6 from electric power 

systems were estimated to be 12.4 million metric tons of 

CO2e in 2006. Emissions from electrical equipment 

manufacture and refurbishing are being covered in subpart

SS.

PFCs are sometimes used as dielectric and as heat 

transfer fluids in power transformers. PFCs are also used 

for retrofitting CFC-113 cooled transformers. The common 

PFC used in this application is perfluorohexane (C6F14). In 

terms of both absolute and carbon-weighted emissions, PFC 

emissions from electrical equipment are generally believed 

to be much smaller than SF6 emissions. EPA does not 

currently have an estimate of PFC emissions from this 

source category. PFCs, however, are very potent and 

persistent greenhouse gases and an accurate inventory of 

use and emissions from all sources is important. 

Consequently, as stated in our initial proposal, we are 

proposing to include emissions of PFCs in this subpart. 

Reference to gas-insulated equipment implies SF6 and PFCs. 

The electric transmission and distribution equipment 

use source category includes all gas-insulated electrical 

equipment such as gas-insulated substations, circuit 

breakers, other switchgear, gas-insulated lines, and power 

Formatted: Subscript

Author

Author

Author

Author

Deleted: Subpart

Deleted: Subpart.

Deleted: 
transformers. This equipment is used as part of an 

interconnected group of electric transmission lines and 

associated equipment for the movement or transfer of 

electric energy in bulk between points of supply and points 

at which it is transformed for delivery to the ultimate 

customer. This equipment, along with lines and other 

associated equipment used for the movement or transfer of 

electric energy, operates as part of a contemporaneous 

network in real-time and in a synchronous manner to provide 

stable and reliable electricity to customers. 

A clear definition of a facility for this source 

category is important in order to determine whether a 

collection of electrical equipment meets the reporting 

threshold and to ensure that double or under reporting of 

emissions is minimized. In defining a facility, we 

reviewed current definitions used in the CAA and by the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), North American 

Energy Reliability Corporation (NERC), California Air 

Resources Board (CARB), RGGI and EIA; consulted with 

industry; and reviewed current regulations relevant to the 

industry. Typically, the various regulations under the CAA

define a facility as a group of emissions sources all 

located in a contiguous area and under the control of the 

same person (or persons under common control). The subpart

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Deleted: Clean Air Act (

Deleted: )

Deleted: Council

Deleted: REGGI

Deleted: 

Deleted: Clean Air Act

Deleted: Subpart
A definition of facility would require all SF6 equipment 

included in the facility be located on contiguous or 

adjacent properties. We are proposing not to use the exact 

definition of “facility” found in subpart A because the 

completeness and accuracy of emissions data for this source 

category are dependent on reporting on all equipment 

regardless of location. For completeness, reporting needs 

to account for and report on all sources and activities 

within the facility. The purpose of transmission is to 

move energy over long distances. Similarly, distribution 

can occur over large geographical areas. Therefore, it is 

neither practical nor appropriate to exclude certain types 

of equipment solely based on its lack of physical 

proximity. Emissions from gas-insulated equipment occur 

during installation, operation, servicing and 

decommissioning. Accuracy of reporting requires that 

emissions are systematically neither over nor under actual 

emissions; consequently including all equipment at all 

periods of the life cycle is necessary. Thus, EPA has 

concluded that strict adherence to the subpart A definition 

is not appropriate for this source category. 

In deciding where to draw the boundary between one 

facility and the next, we considered the following levels 

of reporting: per piece of equipment, by substation or 

Author

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Font:Not Bold

Author

Author

Deleted: Subpart

Deleted: ,

Deleted: Consequently

Deleted: Subpart

Deleted: 
switchyard, corporate-level, and aggregation of total 

equipment by system. Reporting per piece of equipment was

deemed costly and highly impractical for reporters. 

Reporting by substation or switchyard, where multiple 

pieces of equipment is often located, would also be 

burdensome, given that a specific reporting protocol using 

the proposed mass-balance reporting method would have to be 

set up for each substation, requiring cylinder inventory 

and other data collection to be done on a per substation 

basis. Although this may be practical for some system 

owners, others have responsibility for dozens or hundreds 

of substations. Finally, EPA considered corporate-level 

reporting based on comments submitted on our initial 

proposal. We concluded, however, that given the complex 

and varied corporate structures within the electric power 

industry that approach would not be practical and 

appropriate for this source. The full results of our 

assessment can be found in the SF6 from Electrical Equipment 

TSD. 

For this source category, EPA is proposing to define

the facility as an “electric power system,” which would 

mean that reporting would occur at a “system-wide” level. 

The electric power system would be defined as all electric 

power equipment insulated with SF6 or PFCs regardless of 

Author

Author

Deleted: (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-030)

Deleted: ”,
location linked through electric power transmission or 

distribution lines and operated as an integrated unit by 

one electric power entity or several entities that have a 

single owner. Reporting by the electric power system would 

comprise all gas-insulated equipment located between the 

point of generation and the point at which the ultimate 

customer receives the electricity. Such equipment includes 

gas-insulated substations, circuit breakers, other 

switchgear, gas-insulated lines, or power transformers 

containing SF6 or PFCs. EPA proposes to define an electric 

power entity as a company; an electric cooperative; a 

public electric supply corporation as the Tennessee Valley 

Authority; a similar Federal department or agency such as 

the Bonneville Power Administration; the Bureau of 

Reclamation or the Corps of Engineers; a municipally owned 

electric department offering service to the public; or an 

electric public utility district (a “PUD”); also a jointly 

owned electric supply project such as the Keystone.

Although the size of these facilities will vary, and some 

are expected to cross state lines, a facility is likely to 

encompass more than a thousand miles of lines and hundreds 

of pieces of equipment located at multiple substations or 

switchyards. Equipment also includes gas containers such 

Formatted: Font color: Auto

Author

Formatted: Font color: Auto, Subscript

Author

Author

Deleted: Electric power entities 

consist of a 
as pressurized cylinders, gas carts, new equipment owned 

but not yet installed, or other containers. 

EPA believes the proposed definition of “facility” for 

this source category is appropriate and analogous to the 40 

CFR part 98 subpart A definition of a “facility” used for 

other source categories due to the physical interconnection 

and operational dependence of the components of the system. 

It is also consistent with the concept of a “transmission 

and distribution system,” which is a standard term used by 

the industry. The transfer of energy is dependent on the 

collective functioning of all components of the system 

which must operate as a contemporaneous network in realtime and in a synchronous manner. Without system-wide use 

of gas-insulated equipment, operation and system 

reliability is not possible. Furthermore, system-wide 

reporting is consistent with the reported servicing and 

maintenance practices of many SF6-insulated equipment owners 

making this approach less burdensome and more efficient 

than using a substation or per piece of equipment source 

definition. This is also consistent with the approach used 

by over 80 systems from across the United States that are 

participating in the “EPA SF6 Emission Reduction Partnership 

for Electric Power Systems”, and has proven to be a 

practical and reasonable approach for the collection of 

Author

Formatted: Font color: Auto

Author

Formatted: Font color: Auto, Subscript

Author

Author

Deleted: Subpart

Deleted: .S.
emissions data. In addition, the burden of using the massbalance method proposed for monitoring is lowest at a 

system-wide level.

EPA is requesting comment on whether one electric 

power system should be distinguished from the next on the 

basis of operation, ownership, or some combination of the 

two. EPA is proposing that the electric power system be 

the collection of equipment operated as an integrated unit 

by one electric power entity or several entities that have 

a single owner because it best reflects the functional 

aspect of the system (transmitting and distributing power) 

and emphasizes the physical interconnection and operational 

dependence of the system components. It also reflects 

current voluntary best practices for GHG reporting from 

this source category. This proposed definition would not 

relieve entities that own but do not operate equipment of 

the obligation to report under 40 CFR 98.3. Regardless of 

the role that operation or ownership plays in the final 

source category definition, the obligation to report will 

apply to both owners and operators. 

Under the proposed definition of facility, total 

emissions would be derived from the entire collection of 

servicing inventory (cylinders stored) and gas-insulated 

Author

Deleted: 
equipment. Reporting would be based on the aggregation of 

emissions of all servicing inventory and equipment.

Installation of Electrical Equipment at Electric Power 

Systems. In section E below, EPA is requesting comment on 

two issues related to equipment installation and 

commissioning that is performed by equipment manufacturers 

at electric power systems. These issues affect both users 

and manufacturers of electrical equipment and could affect 

the calculation methods required under both subpart DD and 

subpart SS. Please see section E for a discussion of these 

issues. 

D. Imports and Exports of Fluorinated GHGs inside precharged equipment and closed-cell foams 

1. Overview of Reporting Requirements

Under today’s proposed rule, importers and exporters 

of pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams would be 

required to report their imports and exports to EPA if 

either their imports or their exports contained a total of 

more than 25,000 mtCO2e of fluorinated GHGs. The reports 

would be similar to those required of importers and 

exporters of bulk GHGs under subpart OO of the final MRR

published on October 28, 2009. In addition, equipment 

importers would be required to report the types and charge 

sizes of equipment and the number of pieces of each type of 

Author

Formatted: Font color: Black

Author

Author

Formatted: No widow/orphan control,

Don't keep lines together

Author

Formatted: No bullets or numbering, No

widow/orphan control, Don't keep lines

together

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Subscript

Author

Author

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: 

Page Break

Deleted: Subpart

Deleted: Mandatory Reporting Rule
equipment that they imported or exported, while foam 

importers would be required to report the volume of foam 

and fluorinated GHG density of the foam that they imported. 

Importers and exporters would report at the corporate 

level.

2. Summary of Initial Proposed Rule and Comments Received

In the proposed MRR published on April 10, 2009, we 

did not propose to require reporting of the quantities of 

GHGs imported and exported inside products. We were 

concerned that it would be difficult for importers and 

exporters to identify and quantify the quantities of GHGs 

inside some products and that the number of importers and 

exporters would be high. However, we requested comment on 

the option of requiring reporting of imports and exports of 

HFCs and SF6 contained in pre-charged air-conditioning, 

refrigeration, and electrical equipment and in closed cell 

foams. We noted that for these products, information on 

the size and chemical identity of the charge or blowing 

agent is likely to be readily available to importers and 

exporters (e.g., from nameplates affixed to equipment, 

servicing manuals, and product information for foams). 

Moreover, as noted above, the total quantities of imported 

and exported fluorinated GHGs in pre-charged equipment and 

foams are significant. 

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: No bullets or numbering,

Don't keep lines together

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Subscript

Author

Deleted: initial 

Deleted: rule
We received a range of comments on whether or not we 

should require reporting of fluorinated GHGs imported or 

exported inside of pre-charged equipment and closed-cell 

foams. Several manufacturers and importers of fluorinated 

GHGs supported such a requirement, noting that the 

identities and quantities of fluorinated GHGs inside 

equipment and foams are well-known, that imported and 

exported quantities are significant in aggregate, that the 

number of importers and exporters is small, and that 

information on fluorinated GHGs imported or exported inside 

of equipment could help to inform legislation being 

considered by Congress, which would include fluorinated 

GHGs imported in pre-charged equipment under emissions 

caps. Some of these commenters stated that failure to 

require reporting of imported equipment and foams would be 

unfair to domestic manufacturers, who would be subject to 

reporting from which foreign manufacturers would be 

exempted. They observed that this inequity could drive 

production offshore, harming the U.S. economy and possibly 

increasing global GHG emissions if less efficient 

manufacturers in developing countries took over the lost 

U.S. production.

Equipment importers and a fluorocarbon producer 

opposed a requirement to report imports and exports of 
fluorinated GHGs in pre-charged equipment and foams, 

stating that such a requirement would be unnecessary and 

costly. These commenters stated that the quantities of 

fluorinated GHGs inside individual pieces of equipment are 

small, ranging from ounces to pounds, and that emissions 

from such equipment are extremely small because the systems 

are hermetically sealed.

After carefully considering the comments and available 

information on imports and exports of fluorinated GHGs 

inside pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams, we are 

proposing to require reporting of these imports and 

exports.

3. Definition of the Source Category

This source category includes importers and exporters 

of pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams that contain 

fluorinated GHGs. Pre-charged equipment includes airconditioning equipment or equipment components that contain 

HFCs and electrical equipment or equipment components that 

contain SF6 or PFCs. Closed-cell foams include closed-cell 

foams blown with HFC blowing agents. 

Air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment generally 

uses HFC refrigerants. In this application, HFCs serve as 

substitutes for ozone-depleting substances (ODSs), which 

are being phased out under the Montreal Protocol and Title 

Formatted: No bullets or numbering

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Subscript

Author
VI of the CAA. Because some ODSs (i.e., HCFCs) are only 

beginning to be phased out, the use of HFCs in equipment 

such as window and residential air-conditioners is expected 

to grow very quickly over the next decade. Imports and 

exports of HFC pre-charged equipment may grow as well. 

Although the quantities of chemical contained in each unit 

are small in absolute terms (i.e., a few pounds or less),

they are more significant in CO2-equivalent terms, ranging 

up to eleven mtCO2e per unit for pre-charged commercial airconditioners. This significance is due to the high GWPs of 

the HFCs.

HFCs are also used as blowing agents during the 

manufacture of foams. Open-cell foams are assumed to emit 

100 percent of the blowing agent in the year they are 

manufactured, whereas closed-cell foams emit only a 

fraction of their total HFC content upon manufacture. Foam 

products that are closed-cell and imported or exported as a 

finished foam product therefore have potential to emit the 

blowing agent remaining in the foam after manufacture. 

Closed cell foams that are imported or exported include: 

polyurethane (PU) rigid foam used as insulation in domestic 

refrigerators and freezers; commercial refrigeration foam; 

PU rigid sandwich panel continuous and discontinuous foam; 

Author

Author

Formatted: Subscript

Author

Formatted: Subscript

Author

Deleted: Clean Air Act

Deleted: 
extruded polystyrene (XPS) sheet foam; and XPS boardstock 

foam.

SF6 is used as an electrical insulator and arcquenching gas in electrical transmission equipment, 

including circuit breakers and gas-insulated substations. 

Again, the quantities of SF6 in each unit are often small in 

absolute terms (around 14 pounds per circuit breaker), but 

are larger in CO2-equivalent terms (around 150 mtCO2e per 

circuit breaker).43

Our analysis indicates that the quantities of 

fluorinated GHGs imported and exported inside of precharged equipment and foams are significant. Imports are 

estimated to total about 21 million mtCO2e, while exports 

are estimated to total about 8 million mtCO2e. For further 

information, please see the TSD for Imports and Exports of 

Pre-Charged Equipment and Foams (Revised) in the docket for 

this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927).

We are proposing to require reporting for a number of 

reasons. First, we have determined that exports and 

particularly imports of pre-charged equipment and foam have 

a substantial impact on the total U.S. supply of 

fluorinated GHGs and of industrial GHGs generally. Based 

 

43 Emissions from use and manufacture of electrical equipment are 

addressed under subparts DD and SS of this rule; subpart OOa addresses 

only the import and export of such equipment.

Formatted: Subscript

Author

Formatted: Subscript

Author

Formatted: Subscript

Author

Formatted: Subscript

Author

Formatted: Subscript

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Not Highlight

Author

Author

Formatted: Not Highlight

Author

Deleted: Technical Support Document

Deleted: ),

Deleted: -XXX
on the estimates above, imports constitute between seven 

and ten percent of the net U.S. supply of fluorinated GHGs, 

while exports are equivalent to between three and four 

percent of that total. (The range is based on slightly 

different estimates of the net U.S. supply based on bottomup and top-down approaches.) We estimate that 22 million 

pieces of equipment and 66 million board-feet of foam are 

imported annually. Although the quantities of HFCs and SF6

in individual pieces of equipment may be small in terms of 

the mass of chemical, the high GWPs of these chemicals can 

make them significant in CO2-equivalent terms. For example, 

a pre-charged residential air conditioner (unitary) 

contains about 7 tons of CO2e, while an average size circuit 

breaker with a shipping charge of SF6 (20 percent of a full, 

operational charge) contains over 150 tons of CO2e. 

Imported and exported fluorinated GHGs are added to or 

subtracted from the U.S. supply of fluorinated GHGs 

regardless of whether they are imported in bulk or in 

equipment. Every year, a part of the U.S. fluorinated GHG 

supply is used to charge new equipment or to blow closedcell foams. If equipment is imported already containing a 

charge, that charge offsets demand that would otherwise 

have occurred for fluorinated GHGs that are produced 

domestically or imported in bulk. Accounting for the 

Formatted: Subscript

Author

Formatted: Subscript

Author

Formatted: Subscript

Author

Formatted: Subscript

Author
quantities of fluorinated GHGs in equipment therefore 

significantly improves our understanding of the U.S. supply 

of fluorinated GHGs. Although commenters who opposed 

reporting noted that leak rates from some types of imported 

equipment are low, this does not distinguish fluorinated 

GHGs imported inside of equipment from fluorinated GHGs 

that are charged into the same type of equipment after its 

import or domestic manufacture. Any imported or 

domestically produced fluorinated GHG may be stored for 

many years inside equipment before being emitted or 

destroyed.44 

The second reason that we are proposing to require 

reporting of imports and exports of fluorinated GHGs inside 

pre-charged equipment and foams is that discussions with 

industry experts indicate that the numbers of importers and 

exporters are relatively small, limiting the administrative 

burden of the rule and increasing the cost-effectiveness of 

the data gathering. Experts from the air-conditioning and 

refrigeration industry estimate that there are 

approximately 50 importers and 25 exporters of pre-charged 

air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment, and experts 

from the electrical equipment industry estimate that there 

 

44 Even if the fluorinated GHG is recovered from the equipment at the 

end of the equipment’s life, it will ultimately be either emitted or 

destroyed. Recycling delays emission or destruction (and reduces demand 

for new fluorinated GHG), but it does not avoid it. 

Author

Author

Deleted: FDeleted: F-
are approximately 8 importers and 10 exporters of precharged electrical equipment. Based on the membership of 

various trade organizations including foam manufacturers 

and distributors, EPA estimates that there are 

approximately 50 entities that import and 25 entities that 

export foams. These numbers are considerably smaller than 

the number of importers and exporters of bulk fluorinated 

GHGs that are covered by the final rule published October 

30, 2009.

Third, we estimate that the costs associated with 

identifying, quantifying, and reporting the quantities of 

fluorinated GHGs imported and exported inside pre-charged 

products and foams are reasonably modest. As noted above, 

information on the chemical identities and sizes of 

equipment charges should be readily available to importers 

and exporters, and the same is true for the identities and 

densities of the HFCs in foams, which strongly influence 

the insulating capacities of the foams. 

Inclusion of other products that contain fluorinated 

GHGs. EPA’s understanding is that pre-charged equipment 

and closed-cell foams account for the great majority of 

fluorinated GHGs that are imported in or exported from the 

United States inside of products. However, a variety of 

products containing fluorinated greenhouse gases 

Author

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: .S.
(fluorinated GHGs), nitrous oxide (N2O), and carbon dioxide 

(CO2) are imported into and exported from the United States, 

including, for example, aerosols containing HFCs. EPA 

requests comment on the magnitude of imports and exports of 

these other products and on whether such imports and 

exports should be reported under this subpart. 

4. Selection of Reporting Threshold 

We are proposing to require that importers and 

exporters of fluorinated GHGs contained in pre-charged 

equipment and closed cell foams report their imports and 

exports if either their total imports or their total 

exports, in equipment, foams, and in bulk, exceed 25,000 

mtCO2e per year. This threshold is the same as that for 

bulk imports and exports. 

Tables 9 and 10 of this preamble show the estimated 

imports and exports (in mtCO2e) and facilities 

(corporations) that would be covered under the various 

thresholds for imports and exports of equipment and foam. 

Table 9. Threshold Analysis for Fluorinated GHGs Imported 

Inside Pre-Charged Equipment and Closed-Cell Foams 

HFC Refrigeration/AC 

Equipment SF6 Electrical Equipment Closed-cell Foams

Threshold 

Level Imports Covered

Importers 

Covered Imports Covered

Importers 

Covered

Imports 

Covered

Importers 

Covered

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

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

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

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

Formatted: Subscript

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Subscript

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Subscript

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Position:Horizontal: Left,

Relative to: Column, Vertical: In line,

Relative to: Margin, Horizontal: 0", Wrap

Author

Formatted Table

Author

Formatted: Font:Bold

Author

Formatted: Font:Bold

Author

Formatted: Position:Horizontal: Left,

Relative to: Column, Vertical: In line,

Relative to: Margin, Horizontal: 0", Wrap

Author

Formatted: Centered, Position:Horizontal:

Left, Relative to: Column, Vertical: In line,

Relative to: Margin, Horizontal: 0", Wrap

Around

Author

Formatted: Position:Horizontal: Left,

Relative to: Column, Vertical: In line,

Relative to: Margin, Horizontal: 0", Wrap

Author

Formatted: Position:Horizontal: Left,

Relative to: Column, Vertical: In line,

Relative to: Margin, Horizontal: 0", Wrap

Author

Formatted: Position:Horizontal: Left,

Relative to: Column, Vertical: In line,

Relative to: Margin, Horizontal: 0", Wrap

Author

Formatted: Position:Horizontal: Left,

Relative to: Column, Vertical: In line,

Relative to: Margin, Horizontal: 0", Wrap

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: OOa-1

Deleted: Ooa-2 shows

Deleted: 

Deleted: 
Table 10. Threshold Analysis for Fluorinated GHGs Exported 

Inside Pre-Charged Equipment and Closed-Cell Foams 

Threshold 

Level

Exports 

Covered

Exporters 

Covered Exports Covered

Exporters 

Covered

Exports 

Covered

Exporters 

Covered

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

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

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

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

In the absence of importer- and exporter-specific 

information, we assumed that within the three general 

categories of products, each importer and exporter imported 

or exported the same quantity of fluorinated GHGs. 

(Exports of SF6 in electrical equipment were the sole 

exception to this.) This assumption led to the conclusion 

that 100 percent of imported and exported pre-charged 

equipment and foams (except exported electrical equipment) 

would be reported at the 25,000 mtCO2e threshold. In fact, 

imports and exports are likely to be concentrated among a 

subset of importers and exporters, and fewer entities are 

therefore likely to report at the 25,000 mtCO2e threshold. 

We request comment on the distribution of imports and 

exports among importers and exporters and on the likely 

coverage (in percentage terms) of imported and exported 

equipment and foams at the 25,000 mtCO2e threshold. An 

alternative approach would be to lower the threshold or to 

require reporting by all importers and exporters of precharged equipment and closed cell foams, but EPA is 

Formatted: Font:Bold

Author

Formatted: Position:Horizontal: Left,

Relative to: Column, Vertical: In line,

Relative to: Margin, Horizontal: 0", Wrap

Author

Formatted Table

Author

Formatted: Centered, Position:Horizontal:

Left, Relative to: Column, Vertical: In line,

Relative to: Margin, Horizontal: 0", Wrap

Around

Author

Formatted: Position:Horizontal: Left,

Relative to: Column, Vertical: In line,

Relative to: Margin, Horizontal: 0", Wrap

Author

Formatted: Position:Horizontal: Left,

Relative to: Column, Vertical: In line,

Relative to: Margin, Horizontal: 0", Wrap

Author

Formatted: Position:Horizontal: Left,

Relative to: Column, Vertical: In line,

Relative to: Margin, Horizontal: 0", Wrap

Author

Formatted: Position:Horizontal: Left,

Relative to: Column, Vertical: In line,

Relative to: Margin, Horizontal: 0", Wrap

Author

Formatted: Subscript

Author

Formatted: Subscript

Author

Formatted: Subscript

Author
concerned that this approach could burden many small 

importers and exporters with reporting while gaining little 

additional coverage of imports and exports in equipment and 

foams. 

5. Selection of Proposed Monitoring Methods. 

We are proposing to require importers and exporters of 

equipment and foams to estimate their imports and exports 

of each fluorinated GHG by multiplying the mass of the 

fluorinated GHG contained in each type of equipment or foam 

by the number of pieces of equipment or by the volume of 

foam, as appropriate. As noted above, we believe that 

information on fluorinated GHG identity and charge size (or 

density, for foams) should be readily available to 

importers and exporters. 

Under the current MRR, bulk importers and exporters of 

fluorinated GHGs are not required to report individual 

shipments totaling less than 250 mtCO2e of fluorinated GHGs. 

This exemption was intended to exclude small shipments, 

e.g., of chemical samples being shipped for analysis, from 

reporting. We established the exemption after an analysis 

of import and export shipments showed that it would 

decrease reporting by less than 0.1 percent. We are not 

proposing a similar exemption for small shipments of 

equipment and foams because we do not believe it would be 

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Subscript

Author

Deleted: mandatory GHG reporting rule
necessary and because we are concerned that it might lead 

to the exclusion of a significant share of imports and 

exports of these products. We do not believe the smallshipment exemption would be necessary because the 

definition of import in subpart A already excludes the 

bringing into the United States of household effects such 

as refrigerators and window air conditioners. We are 

concerned that the exemption may result in excluding a 

significant share of imports and exports because 250 mtCO2e 

equates to a large number of pieces of some types of 

equipment (e.g., over 1,300 household refrigerators). 

6. Selection of Data to Be Reported. 

EPA is proposing to require importers and exporters of 

pre-charged equipment and closed cell foams to report the 

following:

(1) The total mass in metric tons of each fluorinated 

GHG imported or exported in pre-charged equipment or 

closed-cell foams. 

(2) For each type of pre-charged equipment, the 

identity of the fluorinated GHG used as a refrigerant or 

electrical insulator, charge size (holding charge45, if 

applicable), and number imported or exported 

 

45 This refers to any holding charge consisting of a fluorinated GHG. 

Holding charges consisting of other gases, such as nitrogen, are not 

included.

Author

Formatted: Subscript

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: .S.
(3) For closed-cell foams that are imported or 

exported inside of appliances, the identity of the 

fluorinated GHG contained in the foam, the quantity of 

fluorinated GHG contained in the foam in each appliance, 

and the number of appliances imported for each type of 

appliance.

(4) For closed cell-foams that are not inside of 

appliances, the identity of the fluorinated GHG, the 

density of the fluorinated GHG in the foam (kg fluorinated 

GHG/cubic foot), and the quantity of foam imported or 

exported (cubic feet) for each type of closed-cell foam.

(5) Dates on which the pre-charged equipment or 

closed-cell foams were imported or exported.

(6) Ports of entry through which the pre-charged 

equipment or closed-cell foams passed. 

(7) Countries from or to which the pre-charged 

equipment or closed-cell foams were imported or exported.

We are proposing to collect this information because 

it is necessary either to understand the total volume of 

fluorinated GHGs imported or exported inside of pre-charged 

equipment and foams (and thereby contributing to the U.S. 

supply of fluorinated GHGs) or to verify submitted 

information.
7. Selection of Recordkeeping Requirements. 

EPA is proposing to require importers and exporters of 

equipment and closed cell foams to retain the following 

records: 

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

export,

(2) The invoice for the import or export, and

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

This information is necessary to verify submitted 

information. 

E. Electrical Equipment Manufacture or Refurbishment 

1. Definition of the Source Category

This source category comprises electrical equipment 

manufacturers and refurbishers of SF6 or PFC-insulated 

closed-pressure equipment and sealed-pressure equipment 

including gas-insulated substations, circuit breakers and 

other switchgear, gas-insulated lines, or power 

transformers containing sulfur-hexafluoride (SF6) or 

perfluorocarbons (PFCs).

Electrical equipment employed to transmit and 

distribute electricity constitutes the largest use of SF6 in 

the world. The dielectric strength and arc-quenching 

characteristics of SF6 make it an extremely effective 

electrical insulator and interrupter. For this reason, the 

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: 
electric power industry in the United States has used this 

gas since the 1950s in both closed-pressure and sealedpressure equipment including gas-insulated substations, 

circuit breakers and other switchgear, and gas-insulated 

lines. Closed-pressure equipment requires periodic 

refilling (topping up) with gas during its lifetime, 

whereas sealed-pressure equipment generally does not. SF6 

has replaced flammable insulating oils in many applications 

and allows for more compact substations in dense urban 

areas. SF6 insulated equipment has also made expansion of 

the grid through transmission over significantly longer 

distances economically practical. Currently, there are no 

available substitutes for SF6 in this application. For 

further information, see the SF6 from Electrical Equipment 

Manufacturers TSD in the docket for this rulemaking (EPAHQ-OAR-2009-0927).

Manufacturers of gas insulated electrical equipment 

purchase bulk SF6 gas to: (1) install a holding or shipping 

charge in high-voltage closed-pressure equipment, (2) ship 

alongside closed-pressure equipment for topping off at 

installation site, (3) fill sealed-pressure equipment with 

its intended lifetime supply of SF6, and (4) develop and 

test equipment.

Author

Formatted: Not Highlight

Author

Author

Formatted: Not Highlight

Author

Deleted: .S.

Deleted: -XXX
Emissions of SF6 from equipment manufacturers can occur 

during the development and testing of equipment and during 

equipment filling, but emissions can also occur during the 

other uses of SF6 at manufacturing facilities. 

Refurbishment of equipment generally occurs at facilities 

used to manufacture new equipment and emissions typically 

occur during the leak test operations for gas-containing 

components as well as the disassembly and reassembly of 

equipment. 

PFCs are sometimes used as dielectrics and heat 

transfer fluids in power transformers. PFCs are also used 

for retrofitting CFC-113 cooled transformers. The most 

common PFC used in this application is perfluorohexane 

(C6F14). In terms of both absolute and carbon-weighted 

emissions, PFC emissions from electrical equipment are 

generally believed to be much smaller than SF6 emissions 

from electrical equipment. 

According to the U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007 (EPA 2009), total U.S. 

estimated emissions of SF6 from electrical equipment 

manufacturers were 0.81 million metric tons CO2e in 2006. 

EPA is proposing to require reporting from electrical 

equipment manufacture and refurbishment facilities because 

these operations represent a significant source, 
approximately 5 percent of U.S. SF6 emissions. It is 

estimated that ten equipment manufacturers were responsible 

for these emissions.

EPA is seeking comment on whether transformers using 

PFCs are currently manufactured in the United States EPA 

is also seeking comment on whether PFC emissions associated 

with the production of this equipment occur at the same 

rate as SF6 emissions from equipment manufacture and whether 

emissions occur during the same processes. EPA is 

proposing to include emissions of PFCs emitted during the 

manufacture or refurbishment of PFC-containing power 

transformers because while PFCs are known to be used in 

this application, the National Inventory has no information 

on the magnitude of this source. PFCs are very potent and 

persistent greenhouse gases and an accurate inventory of 

use and emissions from all sources is important. 

2. Selection of Reporting Threshold

We propose to require electrical equipment 

manufacturers to report their SF6 and PFC emissions if their 

total annual purchases of SF6 and PFCs exceed 23,000 lbs. 

This consumption-based threshold is equivalent to an 

emissions-based threshold of 25,000 metric tons CO2 Eq., 

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: _Paragraph-Format-GHG

Author

Author

Deleted: %

Deleted: .S.

Deleted: 

Deleted: 

Deleted: Mt 
assuming an average manufacturer emission rate of 10

percent.46

In developing this proposed threshold, we considered 

several emission-based threshold options including 1,000 

metric tons CO2e; 10,000 metric tons CO2e; 25,000 metric 

tons CO2e: and 100,000 metric tons CO2e. SF6 and PFC 

consumption thresholds of 922; 9,220; and 92,200 lbs of SF6

and PFC were also considered, corresponding to the emission 

threshold options of 1,000; 10,000; and 100,000 metric tons 

CO2e, respectively. Summaries of the threshold options 

(consumption-based and emissions-based) and the number of 

equipment manufacturers and emissions covered under each 

threshold are presented in Table 11 of this preamble.

Table 11. Threshold Analysis for Electrical Equipment 

Manufacture. 

Emission Emissions Covered Facilities Covered

Threshold 

Level 

metric tons 

CO2e/yr

Total 

National 

Emissions

Total 

Number of 

Facilities

metric 

tons 

CO2e/yr Percent Facilities Percent

1,000 814,128 10 814,128 100% 10 100%

10,000 814,128 10 814,128 100% 10 100%

25,000 814,128 10 814,128 100% 10 100%

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

The proposed consumption threshold and the 

corresponding emissions threshold level is consistent with 

 

46 The 10 percent emission rate is the average of the “ideal” and 

“realistic” manufacturing emission rates (4 percent and 17 percent, 

respectively) identified in a paper prepared under the auspices of the 

International Council on Large Electric Systems (CIGRE) in February 

2002 (O’Connell et al. 2002). 

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: _Table title-GHG Preamble,

Left, Indent: Left: 0", Don't keep with next

Author

Author

Formatted Table

Author

Formatted: English (US)

Author

Formatted: Line spacing: single

Author

Formatted: Line spacing: single

Author

Formatted: Line spacing: single

Author

Formatted: Line spacing: single

Author

Formatted: Line spacing: single

Author

Author

Deleted: %

Deleted: 

Deleted: .

Deleted: 

Deleted: 
general requirements of the Final MRR (74 FR 56260) and 

provides comprehensive coverage of emissions for this 

sector. A consumption-based threshold was selected because 

it permits equipment manufacturers to quickly determine 

whether they are covered by referring to SF6 and PFC 

purchase records.

3. Selection of Proposed Monitoring Methods

We are proposing that all electrical equipment 

manufacturing facilities where SF6 and PFC purchases exceed 

23,000 lbs per year report all SF6 and PFC emissions using a 

mass-balance approach. This would include all emissions 

from equipment testing, manufacturing (including filling), 

decommissioning and disposal, refurbishing, and from 

storage cylinders. We are proposing this approach because 

it is the most accurate and because all equipment 

manufacturers should be able to conduct the mass-balance

analysis using readily available information. 

The proposed monitoring methods are similar to the 

methodologies described in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines Tier 3 

methods for emissions from electrical equipment 

manufacturing. These methodologies outline a mass-balance 

approach that is comparable to the proposed approach for 

subpart DD Electric Power System Equipment.

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Font:Not Italic, Underline

Author

Deleted: Mandatory Reporting rule

Deleted: 

Deleted: 

Deleted: 

Deleted: 

Deleted: 
The mass-balance approach we are proposing for 

electrical equipment manufacturers works by tracking and 

systematically accounting for all facility uses of SF6 and 

PFCs during the reporting year. The quantities of SF6 and 

PFCs that cannot be accounted for are assumed to have been 

emitted to the atmosphere. The emissions of SF6 and PFCs 

would be estimated and reported separately. 

The following equation describes the proposed 

facility-level mass-balance approach. (For brevity, the 

equation refers only to SF6; however, the method would also 

apply to PFCs in power transformers.)

Equipment Manufacturing Emissions = Decrease in SF6

Inventory + Acquisitions of SF6 – Disbursements of SF6

Where:

Decrease in SF6 Inventory = SF6 stored in containers at the 

beginning of the year – SF6 stored in containers at the end 

of the year

Acquisitions of SF6 = SF6 purchased from chemical producers 

or distributors in bulk + SF6 returned by equipment users or 

distributors with or inside equipment + SF6 returned to site 

after off-site recycling

Disbursements of SF6 = SF6 contained in new equipment 

delivered to customers + SF6 delivered to equipment users in 

containers + SF6 returned to suppliers + SF6 sent off-site 

for recycling + SF6 sent to destruction facilities.

EPA is seeking comment on the proposed methods for 

determining disbursements of SF6 or PFCs, specifically, with 

respect to SF6 or PFCs contained in new equipment delivered 

to customers and SF6 or PFCs delivered to equipment users in 

Formatted: Centered, Indent: First line: 0"

Author

Author

Formatted: _GHG equation

Author

Formatted: Font:Not Italic, Underline

Author

Author

Formatted: Font:Not Italic, Underline

Author

Author

Formatted: Font:Not Italic, Underline

Author

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: 

Deleted: 

Deleted: 
cylinders. Two methods are being proposed. Disbursement 

of SF6 or PFCs to customers in new equipment or cylinders 

could be estimated by weighing containers before and after 

gas from the containers was used to fill equipment or 

cylinders, or by using flow meters to measure the amount of 

gas used to fill equipment or cylinders. EPA requests 

comment on these two options.

Alone, both of these options would inappropriately 

count as “disbursements” emissions that occurred between 

the flow meter or weighed container and the equipment being 

filled. These emissions could include losses from coupling 

and decoupling of fill valves and leaks from hoses or other 

flow lines that connect the container to the equipment that 

being filled. EPA is therefore proposing to require that 

these emissions be quantified and subtracted from the 

disbursement total. 

Specifically, EPA is proposing to require that these 

emissions be estimated using measurements and/or 

engineering assessments or calculations based on chemical 

engineering principles or physical or chemical laws or 

properties. Such assessments or calculations could be 

based on, as applicable, the internal volume of the hose or 

line that was open to the atmosphere during coupling and 

decoupling activities, the internal pressure of the hose or 

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Deleted: If the first method of 

weighing containers were used, 

emissions downstream of the 

containers that dispensed SF6 or 

PFCs into new equipment or 

cylinders (i.e., losses from 

Deleted: ed

Deleted: is being filled) would be 

required to be estimated separately 

and subtracted from the 

disbursement total. Similarly, if 

the second method of flow meters 

were used and the flow meter was 

not located at the equipment’s fill 

valve, emissions downstream of the 

containers would be required to be 

estimated separately

Deleted: If the flow meter was 

located at the valve, the flow 

meter reading would be sufficient 

for determining any emissions 

downstream of the containers 

dispensing SF6 or the PFC. 

Deleted: In addition to seeking 

comment on these two proposed 

options

Deleted: also seeking comment on the 

methods and calculations for 

determining emission losses 

downstream of the containers 

dispensing SF6 or the PFC. EPA is 
line, the time the hose or line was open to the atmosphere 

during coupling and decoupling activities, the frequency 

with which the hose or line was purged and the flow rate 

during purges. Such methods could also include the use of 

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

Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates) to 

determine a loss factor appropriate to calculate emissions. 

Unexpected or accidental emissions from the filling lines 

or hoses would be required to be included in the total. 

EPA is seeking comment on the specific methods that 

should be employed to estimate emission losses from hoses 

or flow lines and on whether a particular method or set of 

methods should be required for this estimate. In addition, 

EPA requests comment on whether emissions downstream of the 

containers dispensing the SF6 or PFCs consist solely of 

emissions from lines or hoses. EPA’s understanding is that 

electrical equipment is at a vacuum and is sealed prior to 

being filled with SF6 or PFCs; however, if it contains air 

or nitrogen and this gas is purged during the filling 

process, then the method should also account for SF6 and PFC 

emissions that occur during such purging. 

EPA is also considering other options for accurately 

measuring the quantities of SF6 or PFCs disbursed to 

equipment users in equipment. (These options are described 
in more detail in the TSD.) One option being considered is 

to assume that the mass of SF6 or PFCs disbursed to 

customers in equipment is equal to the nameplate capacity 

of the equipment (or, where the equipment is shipped with a 

partial charge, equal to the nameplate capacity of the 

equipment times the ratio of the densities of the partial 

charge and the full charge.) Although the nominal 

nameplate capacity could be used for this calculation, EPA 

is concerned that the actual mass of SF6 or PFCs charged 

into each piece of equipment may vary by a few percent from 

the nominal capacity (e.g., because there is some 

variability in the internal volume of the equipment or in 

the density to which the equipment is charged). Because 

the mass-balance approach requires precise inputs, 

inaccuracies of even two or three percent could lead to 

very large inaccuracies in the facility’s emissions 

estimate. 

One way of developing a more precise estimate of the 

nameplate capacity of equipment would be to fill the 

equipment with a fluid and then to carefully recover the 

fluid, measuring what was recovered. This fluid could be 

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

equipment would be charged to its operational or shipping 

SF6 density using the facility’s usual methods and then 

Author

Formatted: Not Highlight

Author

Deleted: Technical Support Document
emptied. The mass of the SF6 recovered, adjusted slightly 

for the residual pressure of the SF6 that would remain in 

the equipment even at a deep vacuum, could be equated to 

the full or shipping charge, as applicable. One advantage 

of this approach is that it would reflect the actual SF6

charging practices of the facility; one disadvantage is 

that it could result in small SF6 emissions during the 

charging and recovery steps. 

If a liquid was used, the equipment would be filled 

carefully, ensuring that the full volume was filled, and 

then emptied. The volume of the liquid recovered would be 

equated to the internal volume of the equipment.47 This 

volume times the SF6 density at the full charge would yield 

the nameplate capacity of the equipment. 

To account for variability, a certain number of these 

measurements would need to be performed to develop a robust 

and representative average nameplate capacity (or shipping 

charge) for each make and model. The specific number of 

measurements would depend on the variability of the 

nameplate capacity within each make and model, as discussed 

in the TSD. It may be appropriate to select equipment 

samples filled at different times to reflect day-to-day 

 

47 The temperature of the liquid would need to be kept constant 

throughout this exercise to obtain an accurate measurement of the 

volume.

Author

Deleted: Technical Support Document
variability in the facility’s filling practices and 

conditions. EPA seeks comment on these other options for 

accurately measuring the quantities of SF6 and PFCs 

disbursed to customers in equipment and/or cylinders. 

Another option is to require that the equipment filled 

with SF6 or the PFC from the container be weighed before and 

after filling. The tare weight of the equipment would then 

be subtracted from the weight of the filled equipment to

determine the weight of the gas in the equipment, and 

therefore, the weight of the actual disbursement. One 

potential concern regarding this option is that the mass of 

the SF6 or PFC charged into the equipment is likely to be 

low relative to the mass of the equipment; thus, it may be 

difficult to obtain a precise measurement of the mass of 

the SF6 or PFC using this method (i.e., within 1 percent) 

even if the scale is precise and accurate to within 1 

percent of full scale. EPA requests comment on this 

approach.

Installation of Electrical Equipment at Electric Power 

Systems. EPA also requests comment on two issues related 

to equipment installation and commissioning that is 

performed by equipment manufacturers at electric power 

systems. The first issue is whether an equipment 

installation mass-balance equation is required to measure 
emissions from equipment installation and commissioning 

that is performed by equipment manufacturers at utility 

locations. Where the manufacturer filled the equipment 

before transferring custody to the equipment user, EPA is 

assuming that the manufacturer would be responsible for the 

associated emissions. This would also apply to equipment 

that was filled at the factory but whose charge leaked out 

before being delivered to the customer. Quantitative 

methods for addressing these issues are discussed in more 

detail in the TSD.

The second issue is whether manufacturers should be 

required to certify to equipment users the actual quantity 

(mass) of SF6 or PFCs charged into the equipment at 

installation. EPA understands that in some cases, 

manufacturers may deliberately exceed the nameplate 

capacity of equipment when charging it, e.g., to postpone 

the re-fill of the equipment in the event that the 

equipment develops a leak. If this is the case, then the 

actual initial charge of the equipment should be conveyed 

clearly to the equipment user, and the mass-balance 

approach used by the equipment user should be adjusted to 

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

underestimate emissions. (These issues are discussed in 

more detail in the TSD.) EPA requests comment on how 

Author

Deleted: Technical Support Document
frequently equipment is over-charged at installation, and 

on quantitative methods for compensating for this 

overcharge in user emissions estimates (i.e., under 

proposed subpart DD).

Other Options Considered. In developing the proposed 

approach, we reviewed the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, the United 

States GHG Inventory, DOE 1605(b), EPA’s Climate Leaders 

Program, and The Climate Registry. In our review of the 

IPCC Guidelines, we also considered the IPCC Tier 1 and the 

IPCC Tier 2 methods for calculating and reporting SF6 and 

PFC emissions. Although the IPCC Tier 1 and IPCC Tier 2 

methods are simple, IPCC does not provide default emission 

factors for the United States due to lack of data. 

Furthermore, SF6 use in electrical equipment manufacturing 

is largely dependent on the type of equipment being 

produced and the specific handling practices at facilities. 

Applying an emission factor to all equipment manufacturers 

would not take into account the different types of 

equipment being produced at each facility or the variation 

in handling practices among facilities. Nor would it 

provide data of sufficient accuracy for the source or on a 

per facility basis. As a result, we are not proposing the 

IPCC Tier 1 or Tier 2 method.

Formatted: No underline

Author

Author

Author

Deleted: .S.

Deleted: .S.
We are not proposing to require continuous emissions 

monitoring (CEMs) because of insufficient information on 

which to base a decision and because CEMS is not expected 

to be practical for this source category at this time due 

to the intermittent and widespread nature of the emissions. 

EPA seeks comment on whether continuous emissions 

monitoring is technically feasible for this source 

category. 

4. Selection of Procedures for Estimating Missing Data

It is expected that equipment manufacturers should be 

able to obtain 100 percent of the data needed to perform 

the mass-balance calculations for both SF6 and PFCs. The 

use of the mass-balance approach requires correct records 

for all inputs. However, if needed, missing data can be 

replaced using data from similar manufacturing operations, 

and from similar equipment testing and decommissioning

activities for which data are available. 

5. QA/QC Requirements

We propose that electrical equipment manufacturers be 

required to use flowmeters or scales that are accurate and 

precise to within one percent of full scale. In addition, 

we are proposing to require manufacturers to establish 

procedures for and document their measurements and 

calculations under this subpart, including check-out sheets 

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: 

Deleted: decomissioning

Deleted: 

Deleted: 
and weigh-in procedures for cylinders, residual gas amounts 

in cylinders sent back to suppliers, invoices for gas and 

equipment purchases or sales, and documentation of

recycling and destruction. The records that are being 

proposed are the minimum needed to reproduce and confirm 

emission calculations. 

6. Selection of Data Reporting Requirements

We propose annual reporting for the electrical 

equipment manufacturing and refurbishing industry. 

Equipment manufacturers would report all SF6 and PFC 

emissions, including those from equipment testing, 

equipment manufacturing, and bulk SF6 and PFC handling. 

However, the emissions would not need to be broken down and 

reported separately for testing, manufacturing, or bulk SF6

and PFC handling. Along with their emissions, electrical 

equipment manufacturers would be required to submit the 

following supplemental data: SF6 and PFCs with or inside 

equipment delivered to customers, the nameplate capacity of 

the equipment delivered to customers, SF6 and PFCs returned 

by customers with or inside equipment, bulk SF6 and PFC 

purchases, SF6 and PFCs sent off-site for destruction or to 

be recycled, SF6 and PFC returned from offsite after 

recycling, SF6 and PFCs stored in containers at the 

beginning and end of the year, SF6 and PFCs returned to 

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: 
suppliers. For any missing data, manufacturers would be 

required to report the reason the data were missing, the 

length of time the data were missing, the method used to 

estimate emissions in their absence, and the quantity of 

emissions thereby estimated.

These data would be submitted because they are the 

minimum data that are needed to understand and reproduce 

the emission calculations that are the basis of the 

reported emissions. 

7. Selection of Records That Must Be Retained

We propose that electrical equipment manufacturers be 

required to keep records documenting (1) their adherence to 

the QA/QC requirements specified in the proposed rule, and 

(2) the data that would be included in their emission 

reports, as specified above. 

F. Subpart A Revisions 

Amendments to the General Provisions. In a separate 

rulemaking package that was recently published (March 16, 

2010), EPA issued minor harmonizing changes to the general 

provisions for the GHG reporting rule (40 CFR part 98, 

subpart A) to accommodate the addition of source categories 

not included in the 2009 final rule (e.g., subparts 

proposed in April 2009 but not finalized in 2009, any new 

subparts that may be proposed in the future). The changes 

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Font color: Black

Author

Author

Formatted: Normal, Indent: First line:

0.5", Line spacing: double, Don't adjust

space between Latin and Asian text, Don't

adjust space between Asian text and

Author

Formatted: Font color: Black

Author

Formatted: No underline, Font color:

Author

Author

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: 

Page Break

Deleted: Proposed 

Deleted: EPA is proposing 

harmonizing changes to the general 

provisions for the mandatory GHG 

reporting rule (40 CFR part 98, 

subpart A) to accommodate the 

addition of the proposed 40 CFR 

part 98, subparts I, L, DD, OOa, 

and SS. The changes affect 

paragraphs on rule applicability, 

schedule, definitions, and 

incorporation by reference.

In particular, we propose to revise 

40 CFR 98.2(a) to add the 

facilities and suppliers covered by 

the proposed subparts to the list 

of source categories that must 

report their annual emissions 

starting with calendar year 2011. 

Deleted: (XX FR XXXXX), EPA is

issuing

Deleted: These
update 98.2(a) on rule applicability and 98.3 regarding the 

reporting schedule to accommodate any additional subparts 

and the schedule for their reporting obligations (e.g., 

source categories finalized in 2010 would not begin data 

collection until 2011 and reporting in 2012). 

In particular, we restructured 40 CFR 98.2(a) to move 

the lists of source categories from the text into tables. 

A table format improves clarity and facilitates the 

addition of source categories that were not included in 

calendar year 2010 reporting and would begin reporting in 

future years. A table, versus list, approach allows other 

sections of the rule to be updated automatically when the 

table is updated; a list approach requires separate updates 

to the various list references each time the list is 

changed. In addition to reformatting the 98.2(a)(1)-(2) 

lists into tables, other sections of subpart A were 

reworded to refer to the source category tables because the 

tables make it clear which source categories are to be 

considered for determining the applicability threshold and 

reporting requirements for calendar years 2010, 2011, and 

future years.

The source categories proposed in this notice would be 

added within 40 CFR 98.2 as follows. The following source 

categories would be added to the list of “all-in” source 

Author

Author

Formatted: Font color: Auto

Author

Formatted: Font color: Auto

Author

Author

Formatted: _Paragraph-Format-GHG

Preamble, Indent: First line: 0"

Author

Author

Author

Author

Deleted: reporting 

Deleted: are restructuring

Deleted: The rationale for this 

restructuring is explained in more 

detail in the rulemaking 

implementing the harmonizing 

changes. The text below identifies 

where the source categories 

Deleted: . The rationales for the 

applicability thresholds for each 

source category are contained in 

the source-category sections of 

this preamble. 

The 

Deleted: Table A-3, 

Deleted: table 
categories referenced in 40 CFR 98.2(a)(1), because they 

have a production capacity or gas consumption threshold 

rather than a CO2e emission threshold:

Χ Electric power systems that include electrical 

equipment with a total nameplate capacity that exceeds 

17,820 lbs (7,838 kg) of SF6 or perfluorocarbons 

(PFCs)(subpart DD).

Χ Electric power equipment manufacturing with total 

annual SF6 and PFC purchases (combined) that exceed 

23,000 lbs per year (subpart SS).

The following source categories would be subject to 

the rule if facility emissions exceed 25,000 metric tons 

CO2e per year. Therefore, these source categories would be 

added to the list of emission threshold source categories 

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

Χ Fluorinated gas production facilities whose emissions 

would exceed 25,000 mtCO2e in the absence of control 

technologies (subpart L)

Χ Facilities with electronics manufacturing processes 

(as defined in proposed 40 CFR part 98, subpart I) 

In addition, importers and exporters of pre-charged 

equipment or closed-cell foam products containing 

fluorinated GHGs, N2O, or CO2 would be added to the list of 

suppliers referenced in 40 CFR 98.2(a)(4). For all of these 

source categories, facilities would be required to begin 

collecting data in 2011 for reporting in 2012. 

Today’s proposed rule includes a number of definitions 

applicable to specific source categories. The agency is 

Formatted: _Bullet-GHG Preamble, Left,

Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt, No bullets

or numbering

Author

Author

Formatted: _Bullet-GHG Preamble, Left,

Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt, No bullets

or numbering

Author

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Subscript

Author

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Subscript

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Deleted: .

Deleted: category

Deleted: Table A-4, 

Deleted: table

Deleted: 40 CFR 98.2(a)(5) would be 

added to provide the applicability 

requirements for suppliers (as 

defined in proposed subpart OOa) 

that import or export 

Deleted: , and 

Deleted: . The paragraph previously 

numbered 98.2(a)(5)

Deleted: renumbered as (a)(6).

The introductory text

Deleted: 1), (2), and(3) and a few 

other sentences throughout 40 CFR 

part 98, subpart A that reference 

“subparts C through JJ” or 

“subparts KK through PP” would be 

reworded to accommodate proposed 

new subparts such as SS that are 

outside

Deleted: ranges of letters. These 

rewordings are also necessary to 

make these references correct in 

terms of which 

Deleted: are considered for 

applicability determination and 

Deleted: for calendar years 2010, 

2011, and future years. These 

rewordings either refer to the 

source category tables (which list 
not planning to add these definitions to the definitions 

section in Subpart A because these definitions relate to 

these specific subparts and do not have broader 

applicability to EPA’s mandatory reporting regulations. 

Instead, EPA intends to include these definitions in the 

applicable subparts. EPA has sought to avoid any conflict 

between these subpart-specific definitions and the 

definitions in Subpart A. In one instance, the 

supplemental proposal for electric power systems, EPA is 

proposing to use a category-specific definition of facility 

rather than the general definition of facility in the 

General Provisions. The reasons for this category-specific 

definition of facility are set forth in section II.C of 

this preamble. The remaining definitions are intended as 

supplements to the definitions section in the General 

Provisions. EPA does not believe these definitions create 

conflicts with the General Provisions, although it welcomes 

comments on this issue. To the extent regulated entities 

are in doubt as to which definition applies, they should 

assume that the category-specific definitions are 

controlling.

We propose to amend 40 CFR 98.7 (incorporation by 

reference) to include standard methods used in the proposed 

subparts. In particular, we would add the 2006 

Author

Author

Author

Author

Deleted: for each calendar year) or 

otherwise correct 

Deleted: range

Deleted: subparts referenced, as 

appropriate. 

Deleted: 6 to add definitions for 

several terms used in the proposed 

subparts and to clarify the meaning 

of certain terms for purposes of

the proposed subparts covered by 

this notice. We also propose to 

amend 40 CFR 98.
International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative’s 

Guidelines for Environmental Characterization of 

Semiconductor Process Equipment and SEMI E10-0304 

Specification for Definition and Measurement of Equipment 

Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability (2006), 

which are referenced in proposed 40 CFR 98.94 (Monitoring

and QA/QC Requirements for 40 CFR part 98, subpart I, 

electronics manufacturing) and 40 CFR 98.97 (Records that 

must be retained). In addition, we propose to revise the 

paragraphs listing several ASME standards that are already 

contained in 40 CFR 98.7 to indicate that these standards 

are also referenced by proposed 40 CFR 98.124 (Monitoring

and QA/QC requirements in proposed 40 CFR part 98, subpart 

L, fluorinated gas production).

III. Economic Impacts of the Rule 

This section of the preamble examines the costs and 

economic impacts of the proposed rulemaking and the 

estimated economic impacts of the rule on affected 

entities, including estimated impacts on small entities. 

Complete detail of the economic impacts of the proposed 

rule can be found in the text of the economic impact 

analysis (EIA) in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQOAR-2009-0927). 

A. How were compliance costs estimated?

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: _Level 1-GHG Preamble

Author

Formatted: _Level 2-GHG Preamble

Author

Deleted: is 

Deleted: monitoring

Deleted: requirements

Deleted: would alter

Deleted: monitoring

Deleted: on
1. Summary of Method Used to Estimate Compliance Costs 

EPA used available industry and EPA data to 

characterize conditions at affected sources. Incremental 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting activities were 

then identified for each type of facility and the 

associated costs were estimated. The annual costs reported 

in 2006$. EPA’s estimated costs of compliance are 

discussed below and in greater detail in section 4 of the 

economic impact analysis (EIA).

Labor Costs. The vast majority of the reporting costs 

include the time of managers, technical, and administrative 

staff in both the private sector and the public sector. 

Staff hours are estimated for activities, including:

Χ Monitoring (private): staff hours to operate and maintain 

emissions monitoring systems.

Χ Recordkeeping and Reporting (private): staff hours to 

gather and process available data and reporting it to EPA 

through electronic systems.

Χ 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).

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: _bullet-last, Space Before: 0

pt, After: 0 pt, No bullets or numbering

Author

Deleted: ) (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927):
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. Onetime capital costs are amortized over a 10-year cost 

recovery period at a rate of 7 percent.

B. What are the costs of the rule?

1. Summary of Costs

The total annualized costs incurred under the 

fluorinated GHG reporting rule would be approximately $6.1

million in the first year and $3.9 million in subsequent 

years ($2006). This includes a public sector burden 

estimate of $384,000 for program implementation and 

verification activities. EPA also considered an 

alternative national cost scenario in order to assess 

national cost estimates if selected subpart I facilities 

validate the DRE of abatement devices. Under this 

scenario, the total annualized costs incurred under the 

fluorinated GHG reporting rule would be approximately $1.7 

million higher (or $7.8 million first year; $5.6 million 

subsequent years). Table 12 shows the first year and 

subsequent year costs by subpart. In addition, it presents 

Formatted: _Level 2-GHG Preamble

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Deleted: 7.2

Deleted: 4.0

Deleted: 

Deleted: Subpart

Deleted: .9

Deleted: 7

Deleted: 

Page Break

Deleted: III-1.
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 $0.51 42% $2.6 $0.45 67%

Subpart L -

Fluorinated Gas 

Production $2.1 $0.20 47% $0.3 $0.08 7%

Subpart OO -

Imports and Exports 

of Fluorinated GHGs $0.7 $0.02 10% $0.6 $0.02 16%

Subpart SS -

Electrical 

Equipment 

Manufacture and 

Refurbishment and 

Manufacturing of 

Electrical 

Components $0.02 $0.01 0.3% $0.02 $0.01 1%

Private Sector, 

Total $5.7 94% $3.5 90%

Public Sector, 

Total $0.4 6% $0.4 10%

Total $6.1 100% $3.9 100%

C. What are the economic impacts of the rule?

1. Summary of Economic Impacts

EPA prepared an economic analysis to evaluate the 

impacts of the proposed rule on affected industries. To 

estimate the economic impacts, EPA first conducted a 

screening assessment, comparing the estimated total 

annualized compliance costs by industry, where industry is 

defined in terms of North American Industry Classification 

Formatted: _Table title-GHG Preamble

Author

Formatted Table

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: _Level 2-GHG Preamble

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: _Paragraph-Format-GHG

Preamble, Indent: First line: 0"

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: 71%

Deleted: 3.

Deleted: 60

Deleted: 4

Deleted: 11%

Deleted: 17%

Deleted: 6.8

Deleted: 99%

Deleted: 6

Deleted: 99%

Deleted: <1%

Deleted: <1%

Deleted: 7.2

Deleted: 4.0

Deleted: 
System (NAICS) code, with industry average revenues. 

Average cost-to-sales ratios for establishments in affected 

NAICS codes are typically less than 1 percent. 

These low average cost-to-sales ratios indicate that 

the rule is unlikely to result in significant changes in 

firms’ production decisions or other behavioral changes, 

and thus unlikely to result in significant changes in 

prices or quantities in affected markets. Thus, EPA 

followed its Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses 

(EPA, 2002, p.124-125) and used the engineering cost 

estimates to measure the social cost of the rule, rather 

than modeling market responses and using the resulting 

measures of social cost. Table 13 of this preamble 

summarizes cost-to-sales ratios for affected industries.

Table 13. Estimated Cost-To-Sales Ratios for Affected 

Entities (First Year, 2006$)

NAICS NAICS Description Sub-part

Average Cost 

Per Entity 

($/

entity)

All 

Enterprises

334413

Semiconductor and Related Device 

Manufacturing (Semiconductors) I $31,748 0.05%

334413

Semiconductor and Related Device 

Manufacturing (MEMS) I $5,239 0.01%

334413

Semiconductor and Related Device 

Manufacturing (LCD) I $7,598 0.01%

334119

Other Computer Peripheral Equipment 

Manufacturing (Photovoltaics) I $8,777 0.04%

325120 Industrial Gas Manufacturing L $151,045 1.44%

326140 Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing OO $3,364 0.03%

326150

Urethane and Other Foam Product (except 

Polystyrene)

Manufacturing

OO $3,364 0.03%

Author

Author

Formatted: Font:Not Bold

Author

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0",

Tabs: 0", Left + Not at 1.01"

Author

Author

Author

Formatted Table

Author

Deleted: III-2

Deleted: 

Page Break

Deleted: III-2

... [77]
333415

Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating 

Equipment

and Commercial and Industrial 

Refrigeration

Equipment Manufacturing

OO $3,364 0.01%

335313 Switchgear and Switchboard Apparatus 

Manufacturing OO $3,364 0.02%

336391 Motor Vehicle Air-Conditioning 

Manufacturing OO $3,364 0.01%

423610

Electrical Apparatus and Equipment, 

Wiring Supplies,

and Related Equipment Merchant 

Wholesalers

OO $3,364 0.05%

423620

Electrical and Electronic Appliance, 

Television, and

Radio Set Merchant Wholesalers

OO $3,364 0.02%

423720

Plumbing and Heating Equipment and 

Supplies

(Hydronics) Merchant Wholesalers

OO $3,364 0.05%

423730

Warm Air Heating and Air-Conditioning 

Equipment

and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers

OO $3,364 0.07%

423740

Refrigeration Equipment and Supplies 

Merchant

Wholesalers

OO $3,364 0.10%

443111 Household Appliance Stores OO $3,364 0.27%

443112 Radio, Television and Other Electronics 

Stores OO $3,364 0.15%

424610b

Plastics Materials and Basic Forms and 

Shapes

Merchant Wholesalers

OO $3,364 0.04%

33361 Engine, Turbine, and Power Transmission 

Equipment Manufacturing SS $2,213 0.01%

33531 Electrical Equipment Manufacturing SS $2,213 0.02%

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

422610.

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

1. Summary of Impacts on Small Businesses

As required by the RFA and SBREFA, EPA assessed the 

potential impacts of the rule on small entities (small 

businesses, governments, and non-profit organizations). 

(See Section IV.C of this preamble for definitions of small 

entities.) 

EPA conducted a screening assessment comparing 

compliance costs for affected industry sectors to industryAuthor

Formatted: _Level 2-GHG Preamble

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: 

Page Break
specific receipts data for establishments owned by small 

businesses. This ratio constitutes a “sales” test that 

computes the annualized compliance costs of this rule as a 

percentage of sales and determines whether the ratio 

exceeds some level (e.g., 1 percent or 3 percent). 

The cost-to-sales ratios were constructed at the 

establishment level (average reporting program costs per 

establishment/average establishment receipts) for several 

business size ranges. This allowed EPA to account for 

receipt differences between establishments owned by large 

and small businesses and differences in small business 

definitions across affected industries. The results of the 

screening assessment are shown in Table 14 of this 

preamble. 

As shown, the cost-to-sales ratios are typically less 

than 1 percent for establishments owned by small businesses 

that EPA considers most likely to be covered by the 

reporting program (e.g., establishments owned by businesses 

with 20 or more employees).

Author

Author

Deleted: VII-3

Deleted: .
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)

Avera

ge 

Cost 

Per 

Entit

y ($/

entit

y)

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 

(Semiconductors) I 500

$31,7

48 0.05% 2.07% 0.40% 0.12% 0.08% 0.02% 0.04%

334413

Semiconductor and 

Related Device 

Manufacturing 

(MEMS) I 500

$5,23

9 0.01% 0.34% 0.07% 0.02% 0.01% 0.00% 0.01%

334413

Semiconductor and 

Related Device 

Manufacturing 

(LCD) I 500

$7,59

8 0.01% 0.50% 0.10% 0.03% 0.02% 0.01% 0.01%

334119

Other Computer 

Peripheral 

Equipment 

Manufacturing 

(Photovoltaics) I 1,000

$8,77

7 0.04% 0.56% 0.09% 0.03% 0.01% 0.02% 0.01%

325120 Industrial Gas 

Manufacturing L 1,000

$151,

045 1.44%

31.03

% 1.03% 4.26% NA NA NA

326140

Polystyrene Foam 

Product 

Manufacturing OO 500

$3,36

4 0.03% 0.28% 0.07% 0.04% NA NA 0.01%

326150

Urethane and Other 

Foam Product 

(except 

Polystyrene)

Manufacturing OO 500

$3,36

4 0.03% 0.21% 0.06% 0.02% 0.02% NA NA

333415

Air-Conditioning 

and Warm Air 

Heating Equipment

and Commercial and 

Industrial 

Refrigeration

Equipment 

Manufacturing OO 750

$3,36

4 0.01% 0.25% 0.04% 0.02% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01%

335313

Switchgear and 

Switchboard 

Apparatus 

Manufacturing OO 750

$3,36

4 0.02% 0.26% 0.06% 0.02% NA NA NA

336391

Motor Vehicle AirConditioning 

Manufacturing OO 750

$3,36

4 0.01% 0.37% 0.08% NA NA NA NA

423610

Electrical 

Apparatus and 

Equipment, Wiring 

Supplies,

and Related 

Equipment Merchant 

Wholesalers OO 100

$3,36

4 0.05% 0.11% 0.03% 0.04% 0.05% 0.03% 0.04%

Author

Author

Formatted: Font:12 pt

Author

Formatted: Font:12 pt

Author

Formatted: _Table title-GHG Preamble

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Left, Keep with next

Author

Formatted Table

Author

Formatted: Keep with next

Author

Formatted: Left

Author

Formatted: Left

Author

Formatted: Left

Author

Formatted: Left

Author

Formatted: Left

Author

Formatted: Left

Author

Formatted: Left

Author

Formatted: Left

Author

Formatted: Left

Author

Formatted Table

Author

Formatted: Left

Author

Formatted: Left

Author

Deleted: Section Break (Next Page)

Deleted: III-3

Deleted: Page Break

... [78]
423620

Electrical and 

Electronic 

Appliance, 

Television, and

Radio Set Merchant 

Wholesalers OO 100

$3,36

4 0.02% 0.08% 0.02% 0.01% 0.00% 0.01% 0.01%

423720

Plumbing and 

Heating Equipment 

and Supplies

(Hydronics) 

Merchant 

Wholesalers OO 100

$3,36

4 0.05% 0.12% 0.02% 0.04% 0.07% 0.03% 0.10%

423730

Warm Air Heating 

and AirConditioning 

Equipment

and Supplies 

Merchant 

Wholesalers OO 100

$3,36

4 0.07% 0.15% 0.06% 0.06% 0.12% 0.03% NA

423740

Refrigeration 

Equipment and 

Supplies Merchant

Wholesalers OO 100

$3,36

4 0.10% 0.18% 0.05% 0.11% 0.09% 0.05% NA

443111 Household Appliance 

Stores OO $9 M

$3,36

4 0.27% 0.47% 0.10% 0.08% NA NA NA

443112

Radio, Television 

and Other 

Electronics Stores OO $9 M

$3,36

4 0.15% 0.59% 0.17% 0.26% NA NA NA

424610b

Plastics Materials 

and Basic Forms 

and Shapes

Merchant 

Wholesalers OO 100

$3,36

4 0.04% 0.10% 0.03% 0.02% 0.01% 0.01% 0.06%

33361

Engine, Turbine, 

and Power 

Transmission 

Equipment 

Manufacturing SS

500 -

1,00

0

$2,21

3 0.01% 0.19% 0.03% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01%

33531

Electrical 

Equipment 

Manufacturing SS

750 -

1,00

0

$2,21

3 0.02% 0.22% 0.04% 0.01% 0.01% 0.00% 0.01%

a The Census Bureau defines an enterprise as a business organization 

consisting of one or more domestic establishments that were specified 

under common ownership or control. The enterprise and the 

establishment are the same for single-establishment firms. Each 

multi-establishment company forms one enterprise—the enterprise 

employment and annual payroll are summed from the associated 

establishments. Enterprise size designations are determined by the 

summed employment of all associated establishments. Since the SBA’s 

business size definitions (http://www.sba.gov/size) apply to an 

establishment’s ultimate parent company, we assume in this analysis 

that the enterprise definition above is consistent with the concept of 

ultimate parent company that is typically used for Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) screening analyses.

b The 2002 SUSB data uses 1997 NAICS codes. For this industry, the 

relevant code is NAICS 422610.

Formatted: Left

Author

Formatted: Left

Author

Author

Formatted: Left

Author

Formatted Table

Author

Formatted: Left

Author

Formatted: Left

Author

Formatted: Left

Author

Formatted: Left

Author

Formatted: Left

Author

Formatted: Left

Author

Formatted: Font:(Default) Courier New

Author

Formatted: Underline

Author

Formatted: Font:(Default) Courier New

Author

Author

Deleted: Page Break

Deleted: 
EPA acknowledges that several enterprise categories 

have ratios that exceed this threshold (e.g., enterprise 

with one to 20 employees). The Industrial Gas 

Manufacturing industry (NAICS 325120) has sales test 

results over 1 percent for all enterprises. The following 

enterprise categories have sales test results over 1

percent and for entities with less than 20 employees: 

Industrial Gas Manufacturing (325120) and Semiconductor and 

Related Device Manufacturing (334413).

EPA took a more detailed look at the categories noted 

above as having sales test ratios above 1 percent. EPA 

collected information on the entities likely to be covered 

by the rule as part of the expert sub-group process. 

Industrial Gas Manufacturing (325120). Subpart L 

covers facilities included in NAICS codes for Industrial 

Gas Manufacturing (NAICS 325120). Within this subpart, EPA 

identified 13 ultimate parent company names covered by the 

proposed rule. Using publicly available sources (e.g., 

Hoovers.com), we collected parent company sales and 

employment data and found that only one company could be 

classified as a small entity. Using the cost data for a 

representative entity (see Section 4), EPA determined the 

small entity's cost-to-sales ratio is below one percent.

Author

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Underline

Author

Author

Deleted: Section Break (Next Page)

Deleted: %

Deleted: %

Deleted: %.

Deleted: 
206

Electronic Computer Manufacturing (334111) and 

Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing (334413). 

Data on the number of electronics facilities comes from the 

World Fab Watch and the Flat Panel Display Fabs on Disk 

datasets. The census data categories cover more 

establishments than just those facilities covered in the 

rule. Subpart I covers facilities included in NAICS codes 

for Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing (334413) 

and Other Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing 

(334119). The World Fab Watch dataset includes 216 

facilities (94 of which exceed the 25,000 ton threshold), 

while the sum of the two NAICS codes include 1,903 

establishments. Covered facilities with emissions greater 

than 25,000 MtCO2e per year are unlikely to be included in 

the 1 to 20 employees size category. Emissions are roughly 

proportional to production, and establishments with 1 to 20 

employees total only 1.6 percent of total receipts, while 

the proposed threshold excludes 6 percent of industry 

emissions from the least-emitting facilities. Although 

this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless took 

several steps to reduce the impact of this rule on small 

entities. For example, EPA is proposing monitoring and 

reporting requirements that build off of the UIC program. 

Formatted: Underline

Author

Author

Formatted: Subscript

Author

Author

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: %

Deleted: %
207

In addition, EPA is proposing equipment and methods that 

may already be in use by a facility for compliance with its 

UIC permit. Also, EPA is requiring annual reporting 

instead of more frequent reporting.

In addition to the public hearing that EPA plans to 

hold, EPA has an open door policy, similar to the outreach 

conducted during the development of the proposed and final 

MRR. Details of these meetings are available in the docket 

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

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

EPA examined the potential benefits of the Fluorinated 

GHG Reporting Rule. EPA’s previous analysis of the GHG 

reporting rule discussed the benefits of a reporting system 

with respect to policy making relevance, transparency 

issues, market efficiency. Instead of a quantitative 

analysis of the benefits, EPA conducted a systematic 

literature review of existing studies including government, 

consulting, and scholarly reports. 

A mandatory reporting system will benefit the public 

by increased transparency of facility emissions data. 

Transparent, public data on emissions allows for 

accountability of polluters to the public stakeholders who 

bear the cost of the pollution. Citizens, community 

groups, and labor unions have made use of data from 

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: _Level 2-GHG Preamble

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Deleted: Mandatory GHG Reporting 

Rule. 

Deleted: 2008-0508

Deleted: 

Deleted: Carbon Dioxide Injection and 

Geologic Sequestration

Deleted: .

Deleted: relavence

Deleted: 
208

Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers to negotiate 

directly with polluters to lower emissions, circumventing 

greater government regulation. Publicly available 

emissions data also will allow individuals to alter their 

consumption habits based on the GHG emissions of producers. 

The greatest benefit of mandatory reporting of 

industry GHG emissions to government will be realized in 

developing future GHG policies. For example, in the EU’s 

Emissions Trading System, a lack of accurate monitoring at 

the facility level before establishing CO2 allowance permits 

resulted in allocation of permits for emissions levels an 

average of 15 percent above actual levels in every country 

except the United Kingdom. 

Benefits to industry of GHG emissions monitoring 

include the value of having independent, verifiable data to 

present to the public to demonstrate appropriate 

environmental stewardship, and a better understanding of 

their emission levels and sources to identify opportunities 

to reduce emissions. Such monitoring allows for inclusion 

of standardized GHG data into environmental management 

systems, providing the necessary information to achieve and 

disseminate their environmental achievements. 

Standardization will also be a benefit to industry, 

once facilities invest in the institutional knowledge and
209

systems to report emissions, the cost of monitoring should 

fall and the accuracy of the accounting should improve. A 

standardized reporting program will also allow for 

facilities to benchmark themselves against similar 

facilities to understand better their relative standing 

within their industry. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not by 

itself an “economically significant regulatory action” 

because it is unlikely to have an annual economic effect of 

less than $100 million. EPA’s cost analysis, presented in 

Section 4 of the Economic Impact Analysis (EIA), estimates 

that for the minimum reporting under the recommended 

regulatory option, the total annualized cost of the rule 

will be approximately $6.1 million (in 2006$) during the 

first year of the program and $3.9 million in subsequent 

years (including $0.4 million of programmatic costs to the 

Agency). This proposed action adds subparts I, L, OO, and 

SS to the MRR, which was a significant regulatory action. 

Thus, EPA has chosen to analyze the impacts of this 

proposed rule as if it were significant. EPA submitted 

this proposed action to the Office of Management and Budget 

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: _Paragraph-Format-GHG

Preamble, Indent: First line: 0"

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Deleted: 7.2

Deleted: 4.0

Deleted: Subparts

Deleted: mandatory GHG reporting rule
210

(OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866, and any 

changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this proposed action.

In addition, EPA prepared an analysis of the potential 

costs associated with this proposed action. This analysis 

is contained in the Economic Impact Analysis (EIA), 

Economic Impact Analysis for the Mandatory Reporting of 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions F-Gases Subparts I, L, OO, and SS

(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927). A copy of the analysis is 

available in the docket for this action and the analysis is 

briefly summarized here. In this report, EPA has 

identified the regulatory options considered, their costs, 

the emissions that would likely be reported under each 

option, and explained the selection of the option chosen 

for the rule. Overall, EPA has concluded that the costs of 

the F-Gases Rule are outweighed by the potential benefits 

of more comprehensive information about GHG emissions. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this 

proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork 

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

Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been 

assigned EPA ICR number [2373.01]. 

Author

Formatted: Underline

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: ___GHG PARAGRAPH,

Indent: First line: 0"

Author

Formatted: Font:Not Italic, Underline,

Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: “

Deleted: ” 

Deleted: 2008-0508
211

EPA has identified the following goals of the 

mandatory GHG reporting system:

Χ 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.

Χ Balance the rule’s coverage to maximize the amount of 

emissions reported while excluding small emitters. 

Χ Create reporting requirements that are, to the extent 

possible and appropriate, consistent with existing GHG 

reporting programs in order to reduce reporting burden 

for all parties involved. 

The information from fluorinated GHG facilities will 

allow EPA to make well-informed decisions about whether and 

how to use the CAA to regulate these facilities and 

encourage voluntary reductions. Because EPA does not yet 

know the specific policies that will be adopted, the data 

reported through the mandatory reporting system should be 

of sufficient quality to inform policy and program 

development. Also, consistent with the Appropriations Act, 

the reporting rule covers a broad range of sectors of the 

economy. 

This information collection is mandatory and will be 

carried out under CAA section 114. Information identified 

and marked as Confidential Business Information (CBI) will 

not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set 

forth in 40 CFR Part 2. However, emissions information 

Author

Author

Deleted: FDeleted: Sections 
212

collected under CAA section 114 generally cannot be claimed 

as CBI and will be made public.48

The projected cost and hour respondent burden in the 

ICR, averaged over the first three years after 

promulgation, is $4.51 million and 81,500 hours per year. 

The estimated average burden per response is 272 hours; the 

frequency of response is annual for all respondents that 

must comply with the rule’s reporting requirements; and the 

estimated average number of likely respondents per year is 

276. The cost burden to respondents resulting from the 

collection of information includes the total capital and 

start-up cost annualized over the equipment’s expected 

useful life (averaging $44,000 per year) a total operation 

and maintenance component (averaging $24,000 per year), and 

a labor cost component (averaging $4.44 million per year). 

Burden is defined at 5 CFR Part 1320.3(b). 

These cost numbers differ from those shown elsewhere 

in the EIA because ICR costs represent the average cost 

over the first three years of the rule, but costs are 

reported elsewhere in the EIA for the first year of the 

 

48 Although CBI determinations are usually made on a case-by-case basis, 

EPA has issued guidance in an earlier Federal Register notice on what 

constitutes emissions data that cannot be considered CBI (956 FR 7042 –

7043, February 21, 1991). As discussed in Section II.R of the preamble 

to the Final MRR, EPA will be initiating a separate notice and comment 

process to make CBI determinations for the data collected under this 

proposed rulemaking.

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Deleted: Sections

Deleted: 96

Deleted: 89,400

Deleted: 292

Deleted: 283.

Deleted: 66

Deleted: 36

Deleted: 86

Deleted: rule
213

rule. Also, the total cost estimate of the rule in the EIA 

includes the cost to the Agency to administer the program. 

The ICR differentiates between respondent burden and cost 

to the Agency, estimated to be $384,000.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is 

not required to respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 

The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are 

listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is approved by OMB, 

the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR 

part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control 

number for the approved information collection requirements 

contained in the final rule. 

To comment on the Agency’s need for this information, 

the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any 

suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, EPA has 

established a public docket for this proposed rule, which 

includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-

0927. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and 

OMB. See ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice 

for where to submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB 

at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office 

of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, 

DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is 

Author

Author

Author

Deleted: Part

Deleted: [

Deleted: ].
214

required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 

and 60 days after [date of publication], a comment to OMB 

is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives 

it by [publication plus 30]. The final rule will respond 

to any OMB or public comments on the information collection 

requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 

notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless 

the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of today’s rule 

on small entities, For the fluorinated GHG Reporting Rule, 

small entity is defined as a small business as defined by 

the Small Business Administration’s regulations at 13 CFR 

121.201; according to these size standards, criteria for 

determining if ultimate parent companies owning affected 

facilities are categorized as small vary by NAICS. Small 

entity criteria range from total number of employees at the 

firm fewer than 100 to number of employees fewer than 1000; 

Author

Deleted: F-
215

one affected NAICS, 44311, defines small entities as those 

with sales below $9 million. EIA tables 5-11 and 5-12

present small business criteria and enterprise size 

distribution data for affected NAICS.EPA assessed the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities 

using a sales test, defined as the ratio of total 

annualized compliance costs to firm sales. Details are 

provided in section 5.3 of the EIA. These sales tests 

examine the average establishment’s total annualized 

mandatory reporting costs to the average establishment 

receipts for enterprises within several employment 

categories49. The average entity costs used to compute the 

sales test are the same across all of these enterprise size 

categories. As a result, the sales-test will overstate the 

cost-to-receipt ratio for establishments owned by small 

businesses, because the reporting costs are likely lower 

than average entity estimates provided by the engineering 

cost analysis 

The results of the screening analysis show that for 

most NAICS, the costs are estimated to be less than 1

percent of sales in all firm size categories. For two 

NAICS, however, the costs exceed 1 percent of sales for the 

 

49For the one to 20 employee category, we exclude SUSB data for 

enterprises with zero employees. These enterprises did not operate the 

entire year.

Author

Author

Formatted: _Paragraph-Format-GHG

Preamble, Indent: First line: 0"

Author

Author

Author

Deleted: 6

Deleted: 7

Deleted: %

Deleted: %
216

1-20 employee size category; for these NAICS, a more 

detailed assessment was conducted. For NAICS 334413, firms 

with fewer than 20 employees produce less than 2 percent of 

output; firms below the 25,000 Mt CO2e threshold release 

approximately 6 percent of emissions. Because emissions 

and production levels are highly correlated, firms with 

fewer than 20 employees are generally not expected to be 

affected by the proposed rule; if they are, their costs are 

likely to be lower than the overall average costs used in 

the screening analysis. Thus, EPA does not expect the 

proposed rule to impose significant costs to a substantial 

number of small entities in NAICS 334413. Subpart L covers 

facilities included in NAICS codes for Industrial Gas 

Manufacturing (NAICS 325120). Within this subpart, EPA 

identified 13 ultimate parent company names covered by the 

proposed rule. Using publicly available sources 

(e.g.,hoovers.com), we collected parent company sales and 

employment data and found that only one company could be 

classified as a small entity. Using the cost data for a 

representative entity (see Section 4 of the EA), EPA 

determined the small entity's cost-to-sales ratio is below 

one percent.

After considering the economic impacts of today’s 

proposed rule on small entities, I therefore certify that 

Author

Author

Deleted: %

Deleted: %
217

this proposed rule will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Although this rule would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 

the Agency nonetheless tried to reduce the impact of this 

rule on small entities, including seeking input from a wide 

range of private- and public-sector stakeholders. When 

developing the rule, the Agency took special steps to 

ensure that the burdens imposed on small entities were 

minimal. The Agency conducted several meetings with 

industry trade associations to discuss regulatory options 

and the corresponding burden on industry, such as 

recordkeeping and reporting. The Agency investigated 

alternative thresholds and analyzed the marginal costs 

associated with requiring smaller entities with lower 

emissions to report. The Agency also selected a hybrid 

method for reporting, which provides flexibility to 

entities and helps minimize reporting costs.

In addition to the public hearing that EPA plans to 

hold, EPA has an open door policy, similar to the outreach 

conducted during the development of the proposed and final 

MRR.

Details of these meetings are available in the docket 

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

Author

Deleted: Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule
218

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 

sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must 

prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for final rules with “federal mandates” that may 

result in expenditures to state, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more in any one year. 

This proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate 

that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for 

State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

the private sector in any one year. Overall, EPA estimates 

that the total annualized costs of this proposed rule are 

approximately $6.1 million in the first year, and $3.9

million per year in subsequent years. Thus, this proposed 

rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 

205 of UMRA.

This proposed rule is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no 

regulatory requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. Facilities subject to 

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Font:Not Bold, Font color:

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: 7.2

Deleted: 4.0
219

the proposed rule include facilities that manufacture, 

sell, import or export fluorinated GHG related products. 

None of the facilities currently known to undertake these 

activities are owned by small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This action does not have federalism implications. 

It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national government and the 

States, or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 

specified in Executive Order 13132. This regulation applies

to facilities that manufacture, sell, import, or export 

fluorinated GHG related products. Few state or local 

government facilities would be affected. This regulation 

also does not limit the power of states or localities to 

collect GHG data and/or regulate GHG emissions. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent 

with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and 

State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits 

comment on this proposed action from State and local 

officials.

Author

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: ___GHG PARAGRAPH

Author

Formatted: Underline

Author

Author

Formatted: Underline

Author

Formatted: Underline

Author

Author

Formatted: Underline

Author

Author

Formatted: Underline

Author

Formatted: ___GHG PARAGRAPH

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: FDeleted: 

Deleted: Executive Order 13132, 

entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999), requires EPA to 

develop an accountable process to 

ensure “meaningful and timely input 

by state and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies 

that have federalism implications.” 

“Policies that have federalism 

implications” is defined in the 

executive order to include 

regulations that 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.”

Deleted: proposed rule

Deleted: states

Deleted: states

Deleted: 

Deleted: FDeleted: proposed rule.

... [79]
220

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments

Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951, 

November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal 

officials in the development of regulatory policies that 

have tribal implications.” 

This proposed rule is not expected to have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This 

regulation applies to facilities that manufacture, sell, 

import, or export fluorinated GHG related products. Few 

facilities expected to be affected by the rule are likely 

to be owned by tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this proposed rule. 

Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this 

proposed rule, EPA sought opportunities to provide 

information to tribal governments and representatives 

during development of the MRR rule. In consultation with 

EPA’s American Indian Environment Office, EPA’s outreach 

plan included tribes. During the proposal phase, EPA staff 

provided information to tribes through conference calls 

with multiple Indian working groups and organizations at 

EPA that interact with tribes and through individual calls 

Author

Deleted: F-
221

with two tribal board members of TCR. In addition, EPA 

prepared a short article on the GHG reporting rule that 

appeared on the front page of a tribal newsletter—Tribal 

Air News—that was distributed to EPA/OAQPS’s network of 

tribal organizations. EPA gave a presentation on various 

climate efforts, including the mandatory reporting rule, at 

the National Tribal Conference on Environmental Management 

in June, 2008. In addition, EPA had copies of a short 

information sheet distributed at a meeting of the National 

Tribal Caucus. EPA participated in a conference call with 

tribal air coordinators in April 2009 and prepared a 

guidance sheet for Tribal governments on the proposed rule. 

It was posted on the MRR Web site and published in the 

Tribal Air Newsletter. For a complete list of tribal 

contacts, see the “Summary of EPA Outreach Activities for 

Developing the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule,” in the 

Docket for the initial proposed rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-

055). In addition to the consultation activities 

supporting the MRR, EPA continues to provide requested 

information to tribal governments and representatives 

during development of the Track II rules such as this 

proposed rulemaking. EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed action from tribal officials.

Formatted: Font:Not Italic, Underline

Author

Author

Author

Author

Deleted: web

Deleted: this

Deleted: making
222

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

EPA interprets EO 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 EO has the potential to 

influence the regulation. This proposed action is not 

subject to EO 13045 because it does not establish an 

environmental standard intended to mitigate health or 

safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly 

Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

This proposed rule is not a “significant energy 

action” as defined in EO 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) 

because it is not likely to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

Further, we have concluded that this proposed rule is not 

likely to have any adverse energy effects. This proposed 

rule relates to monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping at 

facilities that manufacture, sell, import, or export 

fluorinated GHG related products and does not impact energy 

supply, distribution or use. Therefore, we conclude that 

this proposed rule is not likely to have any adverse 

effects on energy supply, distribution, or use.

Author

Deleted: F-
223

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 proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. 

EPA will use voluntary consensus standards from at least 

seven different voluntary consensus standards bodies, 

including the following: ASTM, ASME, ISO, Gas Processors 

Association, American Gas Association, American Petroleum 

Institute, and National Lime Association. These voluntary 

consensus standards will help facilities monitor, report, 

and keep records of GHG emissions. No new test methods 

were developed for this proposed rule. Instead, from 

existing rules for source categories and voluntary 

greenhouse gas programs, EPA identified existing means of 
224

monitoring, reporting, and keeping records of greenhouse 

gas emissions. The existing methods (voluntary consensus 

standards) include a broad range of measurement techniques, 

such as methods to measure gas or liquid flow; and methods 

to gauge and measure petroleum and petroleum products. The 

test methods are incorporated by reference into the 

proposed rule and are available as specified in 40 CFR 

98.7.

By incorporating voluntary consensus standards into 

this proposed rule, EPA is both meeting the requirements of 

the NTTAA and presenting multiple options and flexibility 

in complying with the proposed rule. EPA welcomes comments 

on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, 

specifically, invites the public to identify potentiallyapplicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why 

such standards should be used in this proposed regulation. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations

EO 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 

Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its 

main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest 

extent practicable and permitted by law, to make 

environmental justice part of their mission by identifying 

Author

Deleted: 

<sp>
225

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. Author

Deleted: .S. 
Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Additional Sources 

of Fluorinated GHGs (Page 226 of 357)

EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not 

have disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not affect the level of protection provided 

to human health or the environment. This proposed rule 

does not affect the level of protection provided to human 

health or the environment because it is a rule addressing 

information collection and reporting procedures. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 98

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and 

procedure, Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, 

Suppliers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: March 22, 2010.

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator.

Author

Author

Deleted: 

Date:

Deleted: 
227

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, 

chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed 

to be amended as follows:

PART 98—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 98 continues to 

read as follows:

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

2. Section 98.7 is amended as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

j. By adding paragraph (k).

k. By adding paragraph (l).

§98.7 What standardized methods are incorporated by 

reference into this part?

* * * * 

(d) * * *

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: ___GHG PARAGRAPH,

Indent: First line: 0"

Author

Formatted: Font:Bold, Check spelling and

grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: ___GHG PARAGRAPH,

Indent: First line: 0"

Author

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: _Paragraph-Format-GHG

Preamble, Indent: First line: 0"

Author

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted: _Paragraph-Format-GHG

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Deleted: 2. Subpart A—[Amended]

Deleted: 1

Deleted: by revising paragraph (b) to 

read 

Deleted: §98.1 Purpose and Scope.

* * * * *

(b) Owners and operators of 

facilities and suppliers that are 

subject to this part must follow 

the requirements of subpart A and 

all applicable subparts of this 

part. If a conflict exists between 

a provision in subpart A and any 

other applicable subpart, the 

requirements of the applicable 

subpart shall take precedence.

3. Section 98.2 is amended by

Deleted: a) to read as follows:

Deleted: §98.2 Who must report?

(a) The GHG reporting requirements 

and related monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements of this part apply to 

the owners and operators of any 

facility that is located in the 

United States and that meets the 

requirements of either 

Deleted: a)(1), (a)(2), or (a

Deleted: ) of this section; and any 

supplier that meets the 

requirements of paragraph (a)(4) or 

(a)(5) Deleted: of this section: (1) A facility that 

contains any source category that 

is listed in Table A-3 of this 

subpart in any calendar year 

starting in 2010. For these 

facilities, the annual GHG report 

must cover stationary fuel 

combustion sources (subpart C), 

miscellaneous use of carbonates 

(subpart U), and all applicable 

source categories listed in Table 

A-3 of this subpart.

(2) A facility that contains any 

source category that is listed in 

Table A-4 of this subpart in any 

calendar year starting in 2010 and 

that emits 25,000 metric tons CO2e 

or more per year in combined 

emissions from stationary fuel 

combustion units, miscellaneous 

uses of carbonate, and all 

applicable source categories that 

are listed in Table A-4 of this 

subpart. For these facilities, the 

annual GHG report must cover 

stationary fuel combustion sources 

(subpart C), miscellaneous use of 

carbonates (subpart U), and all

applicable source categories listed 

in Table A-4 of this subpart.

Deleted: ),

Deleted: ), and

Deleted: s

Deleted: ) and

Deleted: ) to read as follows:

Deleted: 

 (d) The following material is 

available for purchase from the 

American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers (ASME), Three Park 

Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990, 

(800) 843-2763, 

http://www.asme.org.

... [82]

... [83]

... [80]

... [84]

... [81]

... [85]
228

(1) ASME MFC-3M–2004 Measurement of Fluid Flow in 

Pipes Using Orifice, Nozzle, and Venturi, incorporation by 

reference (IBR) approved for §98.34(b), §98.124(k), 

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

(2) ASME MFC-4M–1986 (Reaffirmed 1997) Measurement of 

Gas Flow by Turbine Meters, IBR approved for §98.34(b), 

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

§98.364(e).

(3) ASME MFC-5M–1985 (Reaffirmed 1994) Measurement of 

Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits Using Transit-Time 

Ultrasonic Flowmeters, IBR approved for §98.34(b), 

§98.124(k), and §98.244(b).

(4) ASME MFC-6M–1998 Measurement of Fluid Flow in 

Pipes Using Vortex Flowmeters, IBR approved for §98.34(b), 

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

§98.364(e).

(5) ASME MFC-7M–1987 (Reaffirmed 1992) Measurement of 

Gas Flow by Means of Critical Flow Venturi Nozzles, IBR 

approved for §98.34(b), §98.124(k), §98.244(b), §98.254(c), 

§98.344(c), and §98.364(e).

(6) ASME MFC-9M–1988 (Reaffirmed 2001) Measurement of 

Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits by Weighing Method, IBR 

approved for §98.34(b), §98.124(k), and §98.244(b).

Formatted: Font:Courier New

Author

Formatted: _Paragraph-Format-GHG

Author

Author

Formatted: Font:Courier New

Author

Formatted: Font:Courier New, Check

spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Font:Courier New, Check

spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Font:Courier New, Check

spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Font:Courier New, Check

spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Font:Courier New, Check

spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Font:Courier New, Check

spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: b

Deleted: b

Deleted: b

Deleted: b

Deleted: b

Deleted: b
229

(7) ASME MFC-11M-2006 Measurement of Fluid Flow by 

Means of Coriolis Mass Flowmeters, IBR approved for 

§98.124(k), §98.244(b), §98.254(c), and §98.344(c).

(8) ASME MFC-14M-2003 Measurement of Fluid Flow Using 

Small Bore Precision Orifice Meters, IBR approved for 

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

§98.364(e).

* * * * * 

(e) * * *

.

* * * * *

(30) ASTM D6348-03 Standard Test Method for 

Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct 

Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, 

IBR approved for §98.54(b), §98.124(c), and §98.224(b).

* * * * *

(k) The following material is available from the 

International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative, 

http://ismi.sematech.org

(1) Guideline for Environmental Characterization of 

Semiconductor Process Equipment, International SEMATECH 

Manufacturing Initiative Technology Transfer #06124825BENG. (2006)

Author

Formatted: Font:Courier New, Check

spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Font:Courier New, Check

spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Font:Courier New, No

underline, Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Font:Courier New

Author

Formatted: _Paragraph-Format-GHG

Preamble, Indent: First line: 0"

Author

Formatted: Font:Courier New, No

underline, Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Font:Courier New, Font color:

Auto

Author

Formatted: _Paragraph-Format-GHG

Preamble, Indent: First line: 0"

Author

Formatted: Font:Courier New

Author

Formatted: Font:Courier New, Check

spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: _Paragraph-Format-GHG

Preamble, Line spacing: single

Author

Field Code Changed

Unknown

Author

Deleted: b

Deleted: b

Deleted: The following material is 

available for purchase from the 

American Society for Testing and 

Material (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor 

Drive, P.O. Box CB700, West 

Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428-

B2959, (800) 262-1373, 

http://www.astm.org

Deleted: 

Deleted: /docubase/wrappers/5.htm
230

(l) The following material is available for purchase 

from SEMI, 3081 Zanker Road, San Jose, CA 95134, (408) 943-

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

(1) SEMI E10-0304 Specification for Definition and 

Measurement of Equipment Reliability, Availability, and 

Maintainability (2004). 

(2) [Reserved]

3. Add subpart I to read as follows:

3. Add subpart I to read as follows:

Subpart I—Electronics Manufacturing

Sec.

§98.90 Definition of the source category.

§98.91 Reporting threshold.

§98.92 GHGs to report.

§98.93 Calculating GHG emissions.

§98.94 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements. 

§98.95 Procedures for estimating missing data.

§98.96 Data reporting requirements. 

§98.97 Records that must be retained. 

§98.98 Definitions.

Author

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Author

Author

Formatted: Font:Courier New, Check

spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Font:Courier New, Check

spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Font:Courier New, Check

spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: _Paragraph-Format-GHG

Preamble, Indent: First line: 0"

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: No underline

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: http://www.semi.org

Deleted: Relizability

Deleted: (RAM)

Deleted: * * * * *

7. Table ADeleted: is amended by adding the 

following source categories under 

Additional Source Categories

Applicable in 2011 and Future Years

Deleted: Electric power systems that 

include electrical equipment with a 

total nameplate capacity that 

exceeds 17,820 lbs (7,838 kg) of 

SF6 or perfluorocarbons 

(PFCs)(subpart DD)

Electric equipment manufacturing 

with total annual purchases of SF6

and PFCs (combined) that exceed 

23,000 pounds per year (subpart SS)

8. Table A-4 is amended by adding 

the following source categories 

under Additional Source Categories 

Applicable in 2011 and Future 

Years:

Electronics manufacturing (subpart 

I)

Fluorinated gas production (subpart 

L)

9. Table A-5 is amended by adding 

the following source category under 

Additional Source Categories 

Applicable in 2011 and Future 

Years:

Pre-charged equipment and closedcell foam product suppliers 

(subpart OOa):

(A) Importers with annual imports 

that are equivalent to 25,000 

metric tons CO2e or more of GHG 

from the combined imports of the 

following products: fluorinated GHG 

in pre-charged equipment; 

fluorinated GHG in closed-cell 

foams; and bulk N2O, CO2, and 

fluorinated GHG

... [86]
231

Table I-1 of Subpart I— Default Emission Factors for 

Threshold Applicability Determination

Table I-2 of Subpart I—Examples of Fluorinated GHGs Used by 

the Electronics Industry 

Table I-3 of Subpart I—Default Emission Factors for MEMS 

Manufacturing

Table I-4 of Subpart I—Default Emission Factors for LCD 

Manufacturing

Table I-5 of Subpart I—Default Emission Factors for PV 

Manufacturing

Table I-6 of Subpart I-Default Emission Factors for Refined 

Process Categories for Semiconductor Manufacturing for 150 

mm Wafer Size

Table I-7 of Subpart I-Default Emission Factors for Refined 

Process Categories for Semiconductor Manufacturing for 200 

mm Wafer Size

Table I-8 of Subpart I-Default Emission Factors for Refined 

Process Categories for Semiconductor Manufacturing for 300 

mm Wafer Size

Subpart I—Electronics Manufacturing

§98.90 Definition of the source category.

(a) The electronics source category consists of any 

of the processes listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(6) 

of this section. Electronics manufacturing facilities 

include, but are not limited to, facilities that 

manufacture semiconductors, liquid crystal displays (LCDs), 

micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS), and photovoltaic 

cells (PV).

(1) Each electronics manufacturing production process 

in which the etching process uses plasma-generated fluorine 

atoms and other reactive fluorine-containing fragments, 

which chemically react with exposed thin-films (e.g., 
232

dielectric, metals) and silicon to selectively remove 

portions of material.

(2) Each electronics manufacturing production process 

in which chambers used for depositing thin films are 

cleaned periodically using plasma-generated fluorine atoms 

and other reactive fluorine-containing fragments from 

fluorinated and other gases.

(3) Each electronics manufacturing production process 

in which wafers are cleaned using plasma generated fluorine

atoms or other reactive fluorine-containing fragments to 

remove residual material from wafer surfaces.

(4) Each electronics manufacturing production process 

in which some fluorinated compounds can be transformed in 

the plasma processes into different fluorinated compounds 

which are then exhausted, unless abated, into the 

atmosphere.

(5) Each electronics manufacturing production process 

in which the chemical vapor deposition process or other 

manufacturing processes use N2O.

(6) Each electronics manufacturing production process 

in which fluorinated GHGs are used as heat transfer fluids 

to cool process equipment, control temperature during 

device testing, and solder semiconductor devices to circuit 

boards.

Author

Deleted: and
233

§98.91 Reporting threshold.

You must report GHG emissions under this subpart if 

your facility contains an electronics manufacturing process 

and the facility meets the requirements of either 

§98.2(a)(1) or (a)(2). To calculate GHG emissions for 

comparison to the 25,000 metric ton CO2e per year emission 

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

emissions from electronics manufacture by using either 

paragraph (a), (b), (c), or (d) of this section, as 

appropriate.

(a) Semiconductor manufacturers shall calculate 

process emissions for applicability purposes using the 

default emission factors shown in Table I-1 of this subpart 

and Equation I-1 of this section.

E 1.1* *EF *0.001 T i S i= ! (Eq. I-1)

Where:

ET = Total annual process emissions for 

applicability purposes (metric tons).

1.1 = Factor accounting for heat transfer fluid 

emissions, estimated as 10 percent of total 

clean and etch emissions at a facility.

S = 100 percent of manufacturing capacity of a 

facility (m2).

EFi = Emission factor for input gas i.

0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons. 

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: _GHG equation

Author

Field Code Changed

Unknown

Author

Formatted: Style

_Paragraph-Format-GHG Preamble + First

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: _tabs for equations, Indent:

Left: 0", Hanging: 1.3"

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: ),

Deleted: 

Deleted: I, 

Deleted: 

Deleted: 

Deleted: %

Deleted: %

Deleted: 
234

(b) LCD manufacturers shall calculate process 

emissions for applicability purposes using the default 

emission factors shown in Table I-1 of this subpart and 

Equation I-2 of this section. 

E *EF *0.000001 T i S i= ! (Eq. I-2)

Where:

ET = Total annual process emissions for 

applicability purposes (metric tons).

S = 100 percent of manufacturing capacity of a 

facility (m2).

EFi = Emission factor for input gas i.

0.000001 = Conversion factor from g to metric tons.

(c) MEMS manufacturers shall calculate process 

emissions for applicability purposes using the default 

emission factors shown in Table I-1 of this subpart and 

Equation I-3 of this section. 

E *EF *0.001 T i S i= ! (Eq. I-3)

Where:

ET = Total annual process emissions for 

applicability purposes (metric tons).

S = 100 percent of manufacturing capacity of a 

facility (m2).

EFi = Emission factor for input gas i.

0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons.

(d) PV manufacturers shall calculate process 

emissions for applicability purposes using gas-appropriate 

Formatted

Author

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Field Code Changed

Unknown

Formatted

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Field Code Changed

Unknown

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Deleted: I, 

Deleted: 

Deleted: 

Deleted: %

Deleted: 

Deleted: I, 

Deleted: 

Deleted: 

Deleted: %

Deleted: 

... [96]

... [89]

... [90]

... [92]

... [91]

... [98]

... [87]

... [97]

... [101]

... [93]

... [102]

... [94]

... [99]

... [103]

... [95]

... [100]

... [104]

... [88]

... [105]
235

GWP values shown in Table A-1 to subpart A and equation I-4 

of this section.

E * *0.001 T i i

i

= ! C GWP (Eq. I-4)

Where:

ET = Total annual process emissions for 

applicability purposes (metric tons).

Ci = Annual fluorinated GHG (gas i) purchases or 

consumption (kg).

GWPi = Gas-appropriate GWP.

0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons.

§98.92 GHGs to report.

(a) You shall report emissions of N2O and fluorinated 

GHGs (as defined in §98.6). The fluorinated GHGs that are 

emitted from electronics production processes include, but 

are not limited to, those listed in Table I-2 of this 

subpart. You must report:

(1) Fluorinated GHGs from plasma etching.

(2) Fluorinated GHGs from chamber cleaning.

(3) Fluorinated GHGs from wafer cleaning.

(4) N2O from chemical vapor deposition and other 

manufacturing processes.

(5) Fluorinated GHGs from heat transfer fluid use.

(b) CO2, CH4, and N2O combustion emissions from each 

stationary combustion unit. You must calculate and report

these emissions under subpart C of this part (General

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Field Code Changed

Unknown

Author

Formatted: _GHG equation, Indent: Left:

Author

Formatted: Style

_Paragraph-Format-GHG Preamble + First

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: _tabs for equations, Indent:

Left: 0", Hanging: 1.3"

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: ,

Deleted: 

Deleted: 

Deleted: I

Deleted: 6
236

Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources) by following the 

requirements of subpart C.

§98.93 Calculating GHG emissions.

(a) You shall calculate annual facility-level 

emissions for each fluorinated GHG used at your facility, 

for each process type used at your facility (plasma 

etching, chamber cleaning, or wafer cleaning) as 

appropriate, using equations I-5 and I-6 of this section 

and according to the procedures in paragraph (a)(1), 

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

!=

=

N

j

i Eij processtypeE 1

(Eq. I-5)

Where: 

processtypeEi = Annual emissions of input gas i from the 

processes type (metric tons).

Eij = Annual emissions of input gas i from 

individual process j or process category 

j (metric tons).

N = The total number of individual processes

j or process categories j, which depend 

on the electronics manufacturing facility

and emission calculation methodology.

 !!=

=

N

j i

k BEkij processtypeBE 1

(Eq. I-6)

Where:

processtypeBEk = Annual emissions of by-product gas k from 

the processes type (metric tons).

BEkij = Annual emissions of by-product k formed 

from input gas i during individual process 

j or process category j (metric tons).

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Field Code Changed

Unknown

Formatted

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Field Code Changed

Unknown

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Author

Deleted: either ...) or 

Deleted: 

Deleted: 

Deleted: individual 

Deleted: j or process categories j

Deleted: =

Deleted: =

Deleted: will 

Deleted: , process type,

Deleted: 

Deleted: individual 

Deleted: j or process categories j

Deleted: =

... [110]

... [109]

... [106]

... [119]

... [108]

... [120]

... [112]

... [121]

... [117]

... [113]

... [122]

... [118]

... [114]

... [123]

... [111]

... [115]

... [124]

... [107]

... [116]

... [125]
237

N = The total number of individual processes j 

or process categories j, which depend on 

the electronics manufacturing facility and 

emission calculation methodology.

(1) Semiconductor facilities that fabricate devices 

on wafers measuring 300 mm or less in diameter shall 

calculate annual facility-level emissions of each fluorinated 

GHG used at a facility for each fluorinated GHG-using process 

type, either from all individual processes at that facility 

in accordance with §98.94(d), or from process categories as 

defined in this paragraph (a)(1). 

(i) All etching process categories for which annual 

fluorinated GHG emissions shall be calculated are defined in 

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

(A) Oxide etch means any process using fluorinated 

GHG reagents to selectively remove SiO2, SiOx-based or fully 

organic-based thin-film material that has been deposited on a 

wafer during semiconductor device manufacturing.

(B) Nitride etch means any process using fluorinated 

GHG reagents to selectively remove SiN, SiON, Si3N4, SiC, 

SiCO, SiCN, etc. (represented by the general chemical 

formula, SiwOxNyXz where w,x,y and z are zero or integers and 

X can be some other element such as carbon) that has been 

deposited on a wafer during semiconductor manufacturing.

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0", First

line: 0"

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: =

Deleted: will 

Deleted: , process type,

Deleted: facilities

Deleted: paragraphs (1)(i) through 

(1)(iii) of 

Deleted: section. Semiconductor 

facilities that fabricate 450 mm or 

greater than 450 mm wafers shall 

caclculate annual facility-level 

emissions of each fluorinated GHG 

used at 

Deleted: facility from all 

individual processes at that 

facility in accordance with 

§98.94(d).

Deleted: )

Deleted: paragraphs (i)(A) through 

(i)(D) of 

Deleted: section

Deleted: 

... [127]

... [126]
238

(C) Silicon etch also often called polysilicon etch 

means any process using fluorinated GHG reagents to 

selectively remove silicon during semiconductor 

manufacturing.

(D) Metal etch means any process using fluorinated 

GHG reagents associated with removing metal films (such as 

aluminum or tungsten) that have been deposited on a wafer 

during semiconductor manufacturing.

(ii) All chamber cleaning process categories for 

which annual fluorinated GHG emissions shall be calculated 

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

(A) In situ plasma means cleaning thin-film 

production chambers, after processing one or more wafers, 

with a fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent that is dissociated 

into its cleaning constituents by a plasma generated inside 

the chamber where the film was produced.

(B) Remote plasma system means cleaning thin-film 

production chambers, after processing one or more wafers, 

with a fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent dissociated by a 

remotely located (e.g., upstream) plasma source.

(C) In situ thermal means cleaning thin-film 

production chambers, after processing one or more wafers, 

with a fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent that is thermally 

dissociated into its cleaning constituents inside the 

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: _Paragraph-Format-GHG

Preamble, Line spacing: single

Author

Author

Deleted: paragraphs (ii)(A) through 

(ii)(C) of 

Deleted: section

Deleted: 

Deleted: .
239

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

produced.

(iii) All wafer cleaning process categories for which 

annual fluorinated GHG emissions shall be calculated are 

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

(A) Bevel cleaning means any process using 

fluorinated GHG reagents with plasma to clean the edges of 

wafers during semiconductor manufacture.

(B) Ashing means any process using fluorinated GHG 

reagents with plasma to remove photoresist materials during 

wafer manufacture.

(2) Semiconductor facilities that fabricate devices on 

wafers measuring greater than 300 mm in diameter shall 

calculate annual facility-level emissions of each 

fluorinated GHG used at a facility for all individual 

processes at that facility in accordance with §98.94(d).

(3) All other electronics facilities shall calculate 

annual facility-level emissions of each fluorinated GHG 

used at a facility for each process type, including etching 

and chemical vapor deposition chamber cleaning. 

(b) You shall calculate annual facility-level 

emissions for each fluorinated GHG used at your facility, 

for each individual process, process category, or process 

type used at your facility as appropriate, using Equations

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Font color: Black

Author

Formatted: Font color: Auto

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: paragraphs 

Deleted: )

Deleted: and (iii)(B) of this 

section.

(A)

Deleted: cateogry

Deleted: equations
240

I-7 and I-8 of this section, and according to the 

procedures in either paragraph (b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3) of 

this section.

Eij = Cij *(1! Uij) * (1! aij *dij)*0.001 (Eq. I-7)

Where: 

Eij = Annual emissions of input gas i from 

individual process, process category, or 

process type j (metric tons). 

Cij = Amount of input gas i consumed in individual 

process, process category, or process type

j, as calculated in Equation I-10 (kg) of 

this section and apportioned pursuant to 

§98.94(c).

Uij = Process utilization for input gas i during 

individual process, process category, or 

process type j.

aij = Fraction of input gas i used in individual 

process, process category, or process type j 

with abatement systems.

dij = Fraction of input gas i destroyed in 

abatement systems connected to individual 

process, process category, or process type

j, accounting for uptime as specified in 

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

facility adheres to requirements in 

§98.94(f). 

0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons. 

* *(1 * ) BEijk = Bijk Cij ! aij dkj *0.001 (Eq. I-8)

Where: 

BEijk = Annual emissions of by-product k formed from 

input gas i during individual process, 

process category, or process type j (metric 

tons).

Bijk = Amount of gas k created as a by-product per 

amount of input gas i (kg) consumed in 

individual process, process category, or 

process type j (kg).

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Field Code Changed

Unknown

Formatted: Font:(Default) Courier New

Author

Author

Author

Author

Deleted: 2

Deleted: )

Deleted: j

Deleted: category

Deleted: j or

Deleted: ).

Deleted: j or

Deleted: j

Deleted: category

Deleted: j

Deleted: category

Deleted: of subpart I

Deleted: j

Deleted: category

Deleted: j or
241

Cij = Amount of input gas i consumed in individual 

process, process category, or process type

j, as calculated in Equation I-10 of this 

section (kg) and apportioned pursuant to 

§98.94(c).

aij = Fraction of input gas i used in individual 

process, process category, or process type j 

with abatement systems.

dkj = Fraction of by-product gas k destroyed in 

abatement systems connected to individual 

process, process category, or process type

j, accounting for uptime as specified in 

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

facility adheres to requirements in 

§98.94(f).

0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons. 

(1) Semiconductor facilities that fabricate devices 

on wafers measuring 300 mm or less in diameter shall use 

the procedures in either paragraph (b)(1)(i) or (b)(1)(ii) 

of this section.

(i) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(1)(ii), you 

shall use default process category emission factors for 

process utilization and by-product formation rates shown in 

Tables I-6, I-7, and I-8 of this subpart as appropriate.

(ii) You may use recipe-specific measurements instead 

of the process category default factors provided that you 

follow methods in §98.94(d).

(2) Semiconductor facilities that fabricate devices 

on wafers measuring greater than 300 mm in diameter shall 

use recipe-specific measurements and follow methods in 

§98.94(d) to calculate emissions from each fluorinated GHGAuthor

Formatted

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Normal

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Normal, Indent: First line:

0.5", Space Before: 0 pt, Line spacing:

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Deleted: j...category...).

Deleted: j...category

Deleted: j...category... of subpart I

Deleted: 

Deleted: facilities

Deleted: Subpart I 

Deleted: cateogory 

Deleted: All other electronics 

facilities shall use the default 

process category specific emission 

factors for process utilization and 

by-product formation rates shown in 

Tables I-3, I-4, and I-5 of subpart 

I for MEMS, LCD, and PV 

manufacturing, respectively.

(c) ...450 mm or ...450...wafers 

... [128]

... [130]

... [129]

... [133]

... [131]

... [134]

... [132]
242

using process type. You shall use Equations I-5 through I8 of this section to calculate fluorinated GHG emissions 

from all fluorinated GHG-using process recipes. 

(3) All other electronics facilities shall use the 

default process type-specific emission factors for process 

utilization and by-product formation rates shown in Tables 

I-3, I-4, and I-5 of this subpart for MEMS, LCD, and PV 

manufacturing, respectively.

(c) You shall calculate annual facility-level N2O 

emissions from electronics manufacturing processes, using 

Equation I-9 of this section and the methods in this 

paragraph (c). 

(1) You shall use a factor for N2O utilization for 

chemical vapor deposition processes pursuant to either 

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

(i) You shall develop a facility-specific N2O 

utilization factor averaged over all N2O-using recipes used 

for chemical vapor deposition processes in accordance with 

§98.94(e). 

(ii) If you do not use a facility-specific N2O 

utilization factor for chemical vapor deposition processes, 

you shall use 20 percent as the default utilization factor 

for N2O from chemical vapor deposition processes. 

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: equations

Deleted: 

Deleted: d

Deleted: paragraphs (d)

Deleted: through (d)(4) of this 

section. 

(1)

Deleted: an emisssion 

Deleted: 

Deleted: %
243

(2) You shall use a factor for N2O utilization for 

other manufacturing processes pursuant to either paragraph 

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

(i) You shall develop a facility-specific N2O 

utilization factor averaged over all N2O-using recipes used 

for manufacturing processes other than chemical vapor 

deposition processes in accordance with §98.94(e). 

(ii) If you do not use a facility-specific N2O 

utilization factor for manufacturing processes other than 

chemical vapor deposition, you shall use the default 

utilization factor of 0 percent for N2O from manufacturing 

processes other than chemical vapor deposition. 

(3) If your facility employs abatement systems and 

you wish to quantify and document N2O emission reductions 

due to these systems, you must adhere to the requirements 

in §98.94(f).

(4) You shall calculate annual facility-level N2O 

emissions for all processes at your facility using Equation 

I-9 of this section.

E(N O) *(1 U ) *(1 a *d )*0.001 2 N , N , N , N , 2 2 2 2 O j O j O j O j

j

= " C ! ! (Eq. I-9)

Where: 

E(N2O) = Annual emissions of N2O (metric tons/year). 

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: _Paragraph-Format-GHG

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Field Code Changed

Unknown

Formatted: Lowered by 15 pt

Author

Formatted: _tabs for equations, Indent:

Left: 0", Hanging: 1.3"

Author

Author

Formatted: English (US), Check spelling

and grammar

Author

Formatted: English (US), Check spelling

and grammar

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: an emission 

Deleted: utlization 

Deleted: either 

Deleted: 

Deleted: %

Deleted: 
244

CN2O,j = Amount of N2O consumed for N2O-using process j, 

as calculated in Equation I-10 of this section 

and apportioned to N2O process j (kg).

UN2O,j = Process utilization for N2O-using process j.

a N2O,j = Fraction of N2O used in N2O-using process j

with abatement systems.

dN2O,j = Fraction of N2O for N2O-using process j

destroyed by abatement systems connected to 

process j, accounting for uptime as specified 

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

facility adheres to requirements in §98.94(f).

0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons. 

(d) You shall calculate gas consumption for each 

fluorinated GHG and N2O used at your facility using 

facility-wide gas-specific heel factors, as determined in 

§98.94(b), and using Equation I-10 of this section.

Ci = (IBi – IEi + Ai – Di) * 0.001 (Eq. I-10)

Where:

Ci = Annual consumption of input gas i (metric 

tons/year).

IBi = Inventory of input gas i stored in cylinders or 

other containers at the beginning of the year, 

including heels (kg). 

IEi = Inventory of input gas i stored in cylinders or 

other containers at the end of the year, 

including heels (kg). 

Ai = Acquisitions of gas i during the year through 

purchases or other transactions, including heels 

in cylinders or other containers returned to the 

electronics manufacturing facility (kg).

Di = Disbursements under exceptional circumstances of 

gas i through sales or other transactions during 

the year, including heels in cylinders or other 

containers returned by the electronics 

manufacturing facility to the chemical supplier, 

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Deleted: i

Deleted: 

Deleted: i

Deleted: i

Deleted: 

Deleted: i

Deleted: i

Deleted: 

Deleted: i

Deleted: i

Deleted: 

Deleted: i

Deleted: i

Deleted: of subpart I

Deleted: =

... [139]

... [138]

... [137]

... [147]

... [135]

... [152]

... [148]

... [142]

... [143]

... [149]

... [144]

... [140]

... [150]

... [145]

... [141]

... [151]

... [146]

... [136]
245

calculated using equation I-11 of this section

(kg). 

0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons.

(e) You shall calculate disbursements of gas i using 

Equation I-11 of this section. 

Di = hi * Ni* Fi + Xi (Eq. I-11)

Where:

Di = Disbursements of gas i through sales or other 

transactions during the year, including heels in 

cylinders or other containers returned by the 

electronics manufacturing facility to the gas 

distributor (kg).

hi = Facility-wide gas-specific heel factor for input 

gas i (%), as determined in §98.94(b) of this 

subpart.

Ni = Number of cylinders or other containers returned 

to the gas distributor containing the standard 

heel of gas i.

Fi = Full capacity of cylinders or other containers 

containing gas i (kg).

Xi = Disbursements under exceptional circumstances of 

gas i through sales or other transactions during 

the year. These include returns of containers 

whose contents have been weighed due to an 

exceptional circumstance as specified in 

§98.94(b)(5) of this subpart (kg).

(f) For facilities that use fluorinated heat transfer 

fluids, you shall report the annual emissions of 

fluorinated GHG heat transfer fluids using the mass balance 

approach described in Equation I-12 of this section.

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: 11
246

EHi = density *(Iio + Pit ! Nit + Rit ! Iit ! Dit ) *0.001 (Eq. I-12)

Where: 

EHi = Emissions of fluorinated GHG heat transfer 

fluid i, (metric tons/year).

Density = Density of fluorinated heat transfer fluid i 

(kg/l).

Iio = Inventory of fluorinated heat transfer fluid i 

(kg) (in containers, not equipment) at the 

beginning of the reporting year (l). The 

inventory at the beginning of the reporting 

year must be the same as the inventory at the 

end of the previous reporting year.

Pit = Acquisitions of fluorinated heat transfer fluid 

i (kg) during the current reporting year (l). 

Includes amounts purchased from chemical 

suppliers, amounts purchased from equipment 

suppliers with or inside of equipment, and 

amounts returned to the facility after off-site 

recycling. 

Nit = Total nameplate capacity (full and proper 

charge) of equipment that uses fluorinated heat 

transfer fluid i and that is newly installed 

during the reporting year (kg).

Rit = Total nameplate capacity (full and proper 

charge) of equipment that uses fluorinated heat 

transfer fluid i and that is removed from 

service during the current reporting year (kg). 

Iit = Inventory of fluorinated heat transfer fluid i 

(kg)(in containers, not equipment) at the end 

of current reporting year (l).

Dit = Disbursements of fluorinated heat transfer 

fluid i (kg) during the current reporting year 

(l). Includes amounts returned to chemical 

suppliers, sold with or inside of equipment, 

and sent off site for verifiable recycling or 

destruction. Disbursements should include only 

amounts that are properly stored and 

transported so as to prevent emissions in 

transit.

0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons.

§98.94 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements. 

Field Code Changed

Unknown

Formatted

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Author

Author

Deleted: 11

Deleted: (l)

Deleted: Net purchases

Deleted: [

Deleted: ]

Deleted: contains

Deleted: I

Deleted: [

Deleted: ]

Deleted: contains

Deleted: .

Deleted: Amount

Deleted: properly recovered, stored

Deleted: recycle

... [162]

... [165]

... [153]

... [166]

... [159]

... [157]

... [155]

... [160]

... [169]

... [156]

... [167]

... [170]

... [158]

... [168]

... [161]

... [163]

... [154]

... [171]

... [164]
247

(a) For calendar year 2011 monitoring, you may follow 

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

available monitoring methods rather than follow the 

monitoring requirements of this section. For purposes of 

subpart I, any reference to the year 2010 in §98.3(d)(1) 

through (d)(3) shall mean 2011.

(b) For purposes of Equation I-10 of this section, 

you must estimate facility-wide gas-specific heel factors 

for each cylinder/container type for each gas used

according to the procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(b)(6) of this section. 

(1) You shall base your facility-wide gas-specific 

heel factors on the residual weight or pressure of a gas 

cylinder/container that your facility uses to change out 

that cylinder/container for each cylinder/container type 

for each gas used.

(2) The residual weight or pressure you use for 

§98.94(b)(1) shall be determined by monitoring the mass or 

the pressure of your cylinders/containers. If you monitor 

the pressure, you shall convert the pressure to mass using 

the ideal gas law, as displayed in Equation I-13 of this 

section, with an appropriately selected Z value. 

pV=ZnRT (Eq. I-13)

Where:

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted

Author

Formatted: _GHG equation

Author

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: )

Deleted: 

Deleted: 

Deleted: weight 

Deleted: by 

Deleted: the value

Deleted: be converted 

Deleted: 12

Deleted: 

Deleted: ...12

... [172]

... [173]

... [175]

... [174]
248

p = Absolute pressure of the gas (Pa)

V = Volume of the gas (m3)

Z = Compressibility factor

n = Amount of substance of the gas (moles)

R = Gas constant (8.314 Joule/Kelvin mole)

T = Absolute temperature (K)

(3) You shall use the facility-wide gas–specific 

cylinder/container residual mass, determined from 

§98.94(b)(1) and (b)(2), to calculate the unused gas for 

each container, which when expressed as fraction of the 

initial mass in the cylinder/container is the heel factor. 

(4) The initial mass used to calculate the facilitywide gas-specific heel factor may be based on the weight of 

the gas provided to you in the gas supplier documents; 

however, you remain responsible for the accuracy of these 

masses and weights under this subpart.

(5) In the exceptional circumstance that you change a 

cylinder/container at a residual mass or pressure that 

differs by more than 20 percent from your facility-wide 

gas-specific determined values, you shall weigh that 

cylinder, or measure the pressure of that cylinder with a 

pressure gauge, in place of using a heel factor. 

(6) You shall recalculate facility-wide gas-specific 

heel factors applied at your facility in the event that the 

residual weight or pressure of the gas cylinder/container 

Formatted: _tabs for equations, Tabs:

0.5", Left

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Normal, Space After: 0 pt

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: /K mol

Deleted: weight

Deleted: 

Deleted: intial

Deleted: 
249

that your facility uses to change out that 

cylinder/container differs by more than 1 percentage point 

from that used to calculate the previous gas-specific heel 

factor.

(c) Semiconductor facilities shall apportion 

fluorinated GHG consumption by process category, as defined 

in §98.93(a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(iii), or by individual 

process using a facility-specific engineering model based 

on wafer passes. 

(d) If you use factors for fluorinated GHG process 

utilization and by-product formation rates other than the 

defaults provided in Tables I-6 through I-8 of this 

subpart, you must use factors that have been measured using 

the International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative’s 

Guideline for Environmental Characterization of 

Semiconductor Process Equipment (December 2006). You may 

use factors for fluorinated GHG process utilization and byproduct formation rates measured by manufacturing equipment 

suppliers if the conditions in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) 

of this section are met.

(1) The manufacturing equipment supplier has measured 

the GHG emission factors for process utilization and byproduct formation rates using the International SEMATECH 

Manufacturing Initiative’s Guideline for Environmental 

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: gas 

Deleted: 

Deleted: fluorinated GHG emission 

Deleted: I

Deleted: fluorinated GHG emission 

Deleted: paragraph
250

Characterization of Semiconductor Process Equipment 

(December 2006). 

(2) The conditions under which the measurements were 

made are representative of your facility’s fluorinated GHG 

emitting processes.

(e) If you use N2O utilization factors other than 

those defaults provided in §98.93(c)(1)(ii) or (c)(2)(ii), 

you must use factors that have been measured using the 

International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative’s Guideline 

for Environmental Characterization of Semiconductor Process 

Equipment (December 2006). You may use utilization factors 

measured by manufacturing equipment suppliers if the 

conditions in paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this section 

are met.

(1) The manufacturing equipment supplier has measured 

the N2O utilization factors using the International SEMATECH 

Manufacturing Initiative’s Guideline for Environmental 

Characterization of Semiconductor Process Equipment 

(December 2006). 

(2) The conditions under which the measurements were 

made are representative of your facility’s N2O emitting 

processes.

(f) If your facility employs abatement systems and 

you wish to reflect emission reductions due to these 

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: d

Deleted: d

Deleted: paragraph

Deleted: the 
251

systems in appropriate calculations in §98.93, you must 

adhere to the procedures in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of 

this section. If you use the default destruction or 

removal efficiency of 60 percent, you must adhere to 

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

either a properly measured destruction or removal 

efficiency, or a class average of properly measured 

destruction or removal efficiencies during a reporting 

year, you must adhere to procedures in paragraph (f)(4) of 

this section. 

(1) You must certify and document that the systems 

are properly installed, operated, and maintained according 

to manufacturers’ specifications by adhering to the 

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

section.

(i) Proper installation must be verified by 

certifying the systems are installed in accordance with the 

manufacturers’ specifications.

(ii) Proper operation and maintenance must be 

verified by certifying the systems are operated and 

maintained in accordance with the manufacturers’ 

specifications.

(2) You shall take into account and report the uptime 

of abatement systems when using destruction or removal 

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: %

Deleted: cetifying
252

efficiencies to reflect emission reductions. Abatement 

system uptime is expressed as the sum of an abatement 

system’s operational productive, standby, and engineering 

times divided by the total operations time of its 

associated manufacturing tool(s) as referenced in SEMI 

Standard E-10-0340 Specification for Definition and 

Measurement of Equipment Reliability, Availability, and 

Maintainability (2004).

(3) To report controlled emissions using the default 

destruction or removal efficiency, you shall certify and 

document that the abatement systems at the facility for 

which you are reporting controlled emissions are 

specifically designed for fluorinated GHG and N2O abatement 

and you shall use a default destruction or removal 

efficiency of 60 percent for those abatement systems.

(4) If you do not use the default destruction or 

removal efficiency value to report controlled emissions, 

you shall use either a properly measured destruction or 

removal efficiency, or a class average of properly measured 

destruction or removal efficiencies during a reporting 

year, determined in accordance with procedures in 

paragraphs (f)(4)(i) through (f)(4)(v) of this section.

(i) Destruction or removal efficiencies must be 

properly measured in accordance with EPA’s Protocol for 

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Normal, Indent: First line:

0.5", Line spacing: double

Author

Deleted: (

Deleted: %

Deleted: ,

Deleted: 1

Deleted: 1
253

Measuring Destruction or Removal Efficiency of Fluorinated 

Greenhouse Gas Abatement Equipment in Electronics 

Manufacturing (March 2010). 

(ii) A facility must annually select and properly 

measure the destruction or removal efficiency for a random 

sample of abatement systems to include in a random sampling 

abatement system testing program (RSASTP) in accordance 

with procedures in paragraphs (f)(3)(ii)(A) and 

(f)(3)(ii)(B) of this section. 

(A) Each reporting year a random sample of three or 

20 percent of installed abatement systems, whichever is 

greater, for each abatement system class shall be tested. 

In instances where 20 percent of the total number of 

abatement systems in each class does not equate to a whole 

number, the number of systems to be tested shall be 

determined by rounding up to the nearest integer. 

(B) You shall select the random sample each reporting 

year for the RSASTP without repetition of systems in the 

sample, until all systems in each class are properly 

measured in a 5-year period. 

(iii) If a facility has measured the destruction or 

removal efficiency of a particular abatement system during 

the previous two-year period, the facility shall calculate 

emissions from that system using the destruction or removal 

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Deleted: ). The RSASTP consists of 

the following:

Deleted: %

Deleted: %

Deleted: 

Deleted: systmes 

Deleted: individual abatement 
254

efficiency most recently measured for that particular 

system. 

(iv) If an individual abatement system has not yet 

undergone proper destruction or removal efficiency testing 

during the previous two-year period, the facility may apply 

a simple average of the properly measured destruction or 

removal efficiencies for all systems of that class, in 

accordance with the RSASTP. The facility shall maintain or 

exceed the RSASTP schedule and regime if it wishes to apply 

class average destruction or removal efficiency factors to 

abatement systems that have not been properly measured as 

per the RSASTP.

(v) In instances where redundant abatement systems 

are used, the facility may account for the total abatement 

system uptime calculated for a specific exhaust stream 

during the reporting year.

(g) You shall adhere to the QA/QC procedures of this 

paragraph when estimating fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions 

from all electronics manufacturing processes:

(1) You shall follow the QA/QC procedures in the 

International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative’s Guideline 

for Environmental Characterization of Semiconductor Process 

Equipment (December 2006) when estimating facilityAuthor

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: resent

Deleted: destruction or removal 

efficiency

Deleted: sampling 

Deleted: awaiting proper measurement

Deleted: (v) In the case that

Deleted: in

Deleted: random sample in the 5 year 

period, you shall use the measured 

destruction or removal efficiency 

for that system or average 

destruction or removal efficiency

for that

Deleted: class

Deleted: f

Deleted: manufacutring
255

specific, recipe-specific fluorinated GHG and N2O 

utilization and by-product formation rates. 

(2) You shall follow the QA/QC procedures in EPA’s 

Protocol for Measuring Destruction or Removal Efficiency of 

Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Abatement Equipment in 

Electronics Manufacturing (March 2010) when estimating 

abatement systems destruction or removal efficiency.

(3) You shall certify that gas consumption is tracked 

to a high degree of precision as part of normal facility 

operations ensuring that the inventory at the beginning of 

the reporting is the same as the inventory at the end of 

the previous year.

(h) You shall adhere to the QA/QC procedures of this 

paragraph when estimating fluorinated GHG emissions from 

heat transfer fluid use and annual gas consumption for each 

fluorinated GHG and N2O used at your facility:

(1) You shall review all inputs to Equations I-10 and 

I-12 of this section to ensure that all inputs and outputs 

to the facility’s system are accounted for. 

(2) You shall not enter negative inputs into the mass 

balance Equations I-10 and I-12 of this section and shall 

ensure that no negative emissions are calculated.

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Font color: Black, Check

spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Font color: Black, Check

spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Font color: Black, Check

spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar,

Highlight

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: receipe

Deleted: the 

Deleted: taking into account 

Deleted: and

Deleted: gas inventories and that 

further QA/QC is not required.

Deleted: g

Deleted: Equation

Deleted: 11

Deleted: Equation I-11
256

(3) You shall ensure that the beginning of year 

inventory matches the end of year inventory from the 

previous year. 

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

fourier transform infrared measuring systems) used to 

determine the concentration of fluorinated GHG and N2O in 

process streams shall be calibrated just prior to 

destruction or removal efficiency, gas utilization, or byproduct formation measurement through analysis of certified 

standards with known concentrations of the same chemicals 

in the same ranges (fractions by mass) as the process 

samples. Calibration gases prepared from a highconcentration certified standard using a gas dilution 

system that meets the requirements specified in Method 205, 

40 CFR part 51, Appendix M may also be used.

(j) All flowmeters, weigh scales, pressure gauges, and 

thermometers used to measure quantities that are monitored 

under this section or used in calculations under §98.93 

shall have an accuracy and precision of one percent of full 

scale or better.

§98.95 Procedures for estimating missing data.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph §98.95(b), a

complete record of all measured parameters used in the

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: h

Deleted: Test 

Deleted: Part
257

fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions calculations in §98.93 and 

§98.94 is required. 

(b) If you use heat transfer fluids at your facility 

and are missing data for one or more of the parameters in 

Equation I-12 of this subpart, you shall estimate heat 

transfer fluid emissions using the arithmetic average of 

the emission rates for the year immediately preceding the 

period of missing data and the months immediately following 

the period of missing data. Alternatively, you may 

estimate missing information using records from the heat 

transfer fluid supplier. You shall document the method 

used and values estimated for all missing data values.

§98.96 Data reporting requirements. 

In addition to the information required by §98.3(c), 

you shall include in each annual report the following 

information for each electronics facility. 

(a) Annual emissions of each fluorinated GHG and N2O 

emitted from each individual process, process category, or 

process type as applicable and from all heat transfer fluid 

use as applicable. 

(b) The method of emissions calculation used in 

§98.93.

(c) Production in terms of substrate surface area 

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

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: 11

Deleted: all etching processes, all 

chamber cleaning processes, all 

wafer cleaning processes, all 

chemical vapor deposition 

processes,

Deleted: .
258

(d) Emission factors used for process utilization and 

by-product formation rates and the source for each factor 

for each fluorinated GHG and N2O.

(e) Where process categories for semiconductor 

facilities as defined in §98.93(a)(1)(i) through 

(a)(1)(iii) are not used, descriptions of individual 

processes or process categories used to estimate emissions. 

(f) For each fluorinated GHG and N2O, annual gas 

consumed during the reporting year and facility-wide gasspecific heel-factors used.

(g) The apportioning factors for each process 

category (i.e., fractions of each gas fed into each 

individual process or process category used to calculate 

fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions) and a description of the 

engineering model used for apportioning gas usage per 

§98.94(c). If the method used to develop the apportioning 

factors permits the development of facility-wide 

consumption estimates that are independent of the estimates 

calculated in Equation I-10 of this subpart (e.g., that are 

based on wafer passes for each individual process or 

process category), you shall report the independent 

facility-wide consumption estimate for each fluorinated GHG 

and N2O. 

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: b
259

(h) Fraction of each gas fed into each process type 

that is fed into tools with abatement systems.

(i) Description of all abatement systems through 

which fluorinated GHGs or N2O flow at your facility, 

including the number of devices of each manufacturer, model 

numbers, manufacturers guaranteed destruction or removal 

efficiencies, if any, and record of destruction or removal 

efficiency measurements over its in-use life. The 

inventory of abatement systems shall also include a 

description of the associated tools and/or processes for 

which these systems treat exhaust.

(j) For each abatement system through which 

fluorinated GHGs or N2O flow at your facility, for which you 

are reporting controlled emissions, the following:

(1) Certification that each abatement system used at 

your facility is installed, maintained, and operated in 

accordance with manufacturers’ specifications. 

(2) The uptime and the calculations to determine 

uptime for that reporting year.

(3) The default destruction or removal efficiency 

value or properly measured destruction or removal 

efficiencies for each abatement system used in that 

reporting year to reflect controlled emissions. 

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: 
260

(4) Where the default destruction or removal 

efficiency value is used to report controlled emissions, 

certification that the abatement systems for which 

controlled emissions are being reported are specifically 

designed for fluorinated GHG and N2O abatement.

(5) Where properly measured destruction or removal 

efficiencies or class averages of destruction or removal 

efficiencies are used to report controlled emissions, the 

following:

(i) A description of the class including the 

abatement system manufacturer and model number, and the 

fluorinated GHG and N2O in the process effluent stream;

(ii) The total number of systems in that class for 

the reporting year.

(iii) The total number of systems for which 

destruction or removal efficiency was measured in that 

class for the reporting year.

(iv) A description of the calculation used to 

determine the class average, including all inputs of the 

calculation.

(vi) A description of method of randomly selecting 

class members for testing.

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: certication

Deleted: 

Deleted: efficiences
261

(k) For heat transfer fluid emissions, inputs in the 

mass-balance equation, Equation I-12 of this subpart for 

each fluorinated GHG.

(l) Example calculations for fluorinated GHG, N2O, and 

heat transfer fluid emissions. 

§98.97 Records that must be retained. 

In addition to the information required by §98.3(g), 

you must retain the following records:

(a) Data and copies of calculations used to estimate 

emissions including all spreadsheets.

(b) Documentation for the values used for fluorinated

GHG and N2O utilization and by-product formation rates. If 

you use facility-specific, recipe-specific gas utilization 

and by-product formation rates, the following records must 

be retained:

(1) Documentation that these were measured using the 

International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative’s Guideline 

for Environmental Characterization of Semiconductor Process 

Equipment (December 2006). 

(2) Documentation that the measurements made are 

representative of fluorinated GHG and N2O emitting processes 

at your facility.

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: equation

Deleted: 11

Deleted: I 

Deleted: receipe

Deleted: the 

Deleted: 
262

(3) The date and results of the initial and any 

subsequent tests to determine process tool gas utilization 

and by-product formation rates. 

(c) For each abatement system through which 

fluorinated GHGs or N2O flows at your facility, for which 

you are reporting controlled emissions, the following:

(1) Documentation to certify that each abatement 

system used at your facility is installed, maintained, and 

operated in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications.

(2) Records of the uptime and the calculations to 

determine how the uptime was accounted for at your 

facility.

(3) Abatement system calibration and maintenance 

records.

(4) Where the default destruction or removal 

efficiency value was used, documentation from the abatement 

system supplier describing the equipment’s designed purpose 

and emission control capabilities.

(5) Where properly measured destruction or removal 

efficiency is used to report controlled emissions, dated 

certification by the technician who made the measurement

that the destruction or removal efficiency was calculated 

according to methods in EPA’s Protocol for Measuring 

Destruction or Removal Efficiency of Fluorinated Greenhouse 

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: 

Deleted: ,

Deleted: ,

Deleted: the 
263

Gas Abatement Equipment in Electronics Manufacturing, 

complete documentation of the results of any initial and 

subsequent tests, and the final report as specified in 

EPA’s Protocol for Measuring Destruction or Removal 

Efficiency of Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Abatement 

Equipment in Electronics Manufacturing (March 2010).

(d) Purchase records for gas purchased.

(e) Invoices for gas purchases and sales.

§98.98 Definitions.

Except as provided below, all of the terms used in 

this subpart have the same meaning given in the Clean Air 

Act and subpart A of this part. If a conflict exists 

between a definition provided in this subpart and a 

definition provided in subpart A, the definition in this

subpart shall take precedence for the reporting 

requirements in this subpart.

Abatement system means a device or equipment that 

destroys or removes fluorinated GHGs and/or N2O in waste 

streams from one or more electronics manufacturing tool 

chamber(s).

By-product formation means the creation of fluorinated 

GHGs during electronics manufacturing processes or the 

creation of fluorinated GHGs by an abatement system. Byproduct formation is expressed as rate of the mass of the 

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: ___GHG PARAGRAPH

Author

Author

Author

Author

Author

Formatted: Font:Not Bold

Author

Deleted: and

Deleted: Any term

Deleted: that is not defined in this 

subpart or in §98.6 has

Deleted: it

Deleted: §98.6

Deleted: of 
264

by-product formed to the mass of the fluorinated GHG used 

with the largest flow rate. 

Destruction or removal efficiency means the efficiency 

of a control system to destroy or remove fluorinated GHGs, 

N2O, or both. The destruction or removal efficiency is 

equal to one minus the ratio of the mass of all relevant 

GHGs exiting the emission abatement system to the mass of 

GHG entering the emission abatement system. When 

fluorinated GHGs are formed in an abatement system, 

destruction or removal efficiency is expressed as one minus 

the ratio of amounts of exiting GHGs to the amounts 

entering the system in units of CO2-equivalents.

Gas utilization means the fraction of input N2O or 

fluorinated GHG converted to other substances during the 

etching, deposition, and/or wafer and chamber cleaning 

processes. Gas utilization is expressed as a rate or 

factor for specific manufacturing processes.

Heat transfer fluids are fluorinated GHGs used for 

temperature control, device testing, and soldering in 

certain types of electronic manufacturing. Heat transfer 

fluids used in the electronics sector include 

perfluoropolyethers, perfluoroalkanes, perfluoroethers, 

tertiary perfluoroamines, and perfluorocyclic ethers. Heat 

transfer fluids commonly used in electronics manufacturing 

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: .
265

include those sold under the trade names "Galden® " and 

"FluorinertTM." Electronics manufacturers may also use 

these same fluorinated chemicals to clean substrate 

surfaces and other parts.

Heel means the amount of gas that remains in a gas 

cylinder or container after it is discharged or off-loaded 

(this may vary by cylinder or container type and facility).

Nameplate capacity means the full and proper charge of 

gas specified by the equipment manufacturer to achieve the 

equipment’s specified performance. The nameplate capacity 

is typically indicated on the equipment’s nameplate; it is 

not necessarily the actual charge, which may be influenced 

by leakage and other emissions.

Proper destruction or removal efficiency measurement

means measured in accordance with EPA’s Protocol for 

Measuring Destruction or Removal Efficiency of Fluorinated 

Greenhouse Gas Abatement Equipment in Electronics 

Manufacturing (March 2010). 

Uptime means the total time during the reporting year 

when the abatement system for which controlled emissions 

will be reported was properly installed, operated, and 

maintained. 

Wafer passes is a count of the number of times a 

silicon wafer is processed in a specific process category. 

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Deleted: trade

Deleted: accorance

Deleted: operatated
266

The total number of wafer passes over a reporting year is 

the number of wafer passes per tool times the number of 

operational process tools in use during the reporting year. 

Process category is a set of similar manufacturing 

steps, performed for the same purpose, associated with 

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

manufacture for which fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions and 

fluorinated GHG and N2O usages are calculated and reported.

Table I-1 of Subpart I— Default Emission Factors for 

Threshold Applicability Determination

Emission Factors EFi

Product Type CF4 C2F6 CHF3 C3F8 NF3 SF6

Semiconductors 

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

LCD 

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

MEMs 

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

Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available 

information.

Table I-2 of Subpart I—Examples of Fluorinated GHGs Used by 

the Electronics Industry 

Product Type Fluorinated GHGs Used During Manufacture

Electronics CF4, C2F6, C3F8, c-C4F8, c-C4F8O, C4F6, C5F8, 

CHF3, CH2F2, NF3, SF6, and HTFs (CF3-(OCF(CF3)-CF2)n-(O-CF2)m-O-CF3, CnF2n+2, 

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

Formatted: Font:(Default) Courier New,

Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: Font:(Default) Courier New,

Check spelling and grammar

Author

Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Author

Author

Formatted: _Table title-GHG Preamble,

Left, Adjust space between Latin and

Asian text, Adjust space between Asian

Author

Author

Formatted Table

Author

Formatted: Font:11 pt

Author

Formatted: _Table title-GHG Preamble,

Left, Adjust space between Latin and

Asian text, Adjust space between Asian

Author

Author

Formatted Table

Author

Author

Deleted: .

Deleted: 

Deleted: 

Deleted: 

Deleted: