Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases 

Page 1 of 402 

6560.50 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 98

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

RIN 2060-AQ00 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Additional Sources 

of Fluorinated GHGs 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final Rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing a regulation to require 

monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 

from additional sources of fluorinated GHGs, including 

electronics manufacturing, fluorinated gas production, 

electrical equipment use, electrical equipment manufacture 

or refurbishment, as well as importers and exporters of 

pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams. This rule 

requires monitoring and reporting of GHGs for these source 

categories only for sources with CO2 equivalent emissions, 

imports, or exports above certain threshold levels. This 

rule does not require control of GHGs. 

DATES: The final rule is effective on [INSERT THE 

DATE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

The incorporation by reference of certain publications 

1
listed in the rule is approved by the Director of Federal 

Register as of [UPDATE: INSERT THE DATE 30 DAYS AFTER 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

ADDRESSES: EPA established a single docket under 

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

documents in the docket are listed on the 

www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the 

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

confidential business information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is 

not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available 

only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either electronically through 

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

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

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

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

through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

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

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

FOR FURTHER GENERAL INFORMATION CONTACT: Carole Cook, 

Climate Change Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs 

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

2
Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

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

address: GHGReportingRule@epa.gov. For technical 

information and implementation materials, please go to the 

Web site 

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

You may also contact the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule 

Hotline at 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/help.html. To 

submit a question, select Rule Help Center, followed by 

Contact Us. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulated Entities. The Administrator determined that 

this action is subject to the provisions of Clean Air Act 

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

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

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

affects owners and operators of electronics manufacturing 

facilities, fluorinated gas production facilities, electric 

power systems, and electrical equipment manufacturing 

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

categories and entities include those listed in Table 1 of 

this preamble. 

3
Table 1. Examples of Affected Entities by Category 

Category NAICS Examples of affected facilities 

Electronics 

Manufacturing 

334111 Microcomputers manufacturing 

facilities. 

334413 Semiconductor, photovoltaic (solidstate) device manufacturing 

facilities. 

334419 Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) unit 

screens manufacturing facilities. 

334419 Micro-electro-mechanical systems 

(MEMS) manufacturing facilities. 

Fluorinated Gas 

Production 

325120 Industrial gases manufacturing 

facilities. 

Electrical 

Equipment Use 

221121 Electric bulk power transmission 

and control facilities. 

Electrical 

Equipment 

Manufacture or 

Refurbishment 

33531 Power transmission and distribution 

switchgear and specialty 

transformers manufacturing 

facilities 

Importers and 

Exporters of 

Pre-charged 

Equipment and 

Closed-Cell 

Foams 

423730 Air-conditioning equipment (except 

room units) merchant wholesalers 

333415 Air-conditioning equipment (except 

motor vehicle) manufacturing 

 

336391 Motor Vehicle Air-Conditioning 

Manufacturing 

423620 Air-conditioners, room, merchant 

wholesalers 

443111 Household Appliance Stores 

423730 Automotive air-conditioners 

merchant wholesalers 

326150 Polyurethane foam products 

manufacturing 

335313 Circuit breakers, power, 

manufacturing 

423610 Circuit breakers merchant 

wholesalers 

Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers 

regarding facilities likely to be affected by this action. 

4
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 subparts related to electronics 

manufacturing facilities, fluorinated gas production 

facilities, electric power transmission or distribution 

facilities, electrical equipment manufacturing or 

refurbishment facilities, and importers and exporters of 

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

questions regarding the applicability of this action to a 

particular facility, consult the person listed in the 

preceding “FOR FURTHER GENERAL INFORMATION CONTACT” 

section. 

Many facilities affected by this reporting rule have 

GHG emissions from multiple source categories listed in 40 

CFR part 98 or in this rule. Table 2 of this preamble has 

been developed as a guide to help potential reporters in 

the source categories subject to this reporting rule 

identify the source categories (by subpart) that they may 

need to (1) consider in their facility applicability 

5
determination, and/or (2) include in their reporting. The 

table should only be seen as a guide. Additional subparts 

in 40 CFR part 98 may be relevant for a given reporter. 

Similarly, not all listed subparts are relevant for all 

reporters. 

Table 2. Source Categories and Relevant Subparts 

Source category 

(and main applicable 

subpart) 

Subparts recommended for review to 

determine applicability 

Electricity Generation Electrical Equipment Use 

Electronics Manufacturing General Stationary Fuel Combustion 

Fluorinated Gas 

Production 

General Stationary Fuel Combustion 

Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse 

Gases 

Electrical Equipment Use General Stationary Fuel Combustion 

Imports and Exports of 

Fluorinated GHGs Inside 

Pre-charged Equipment and 

Closed-Cell Foams 

Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse 

Gases 

Sulfur Hexafluoride and PFCs from 

Electrical Equipment Manufacture and 

Refurbishment 

Electrical Equipment 

Manufacture or 

Refurbishment 

General Stationary Fuel Combustion 

Imports and Exports of Fluorinated 

GHGs Inside Pre-charged Equipment and 

Closed-Cell Foams 

Judicial Review. 

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

this final rule is available only by filing a petition for 

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

Columbia Circuit by [INSERT THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Under CAA section 

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

raised with reasonable specificity during the period for 

public comment can be raised during judicial review. This 

6
section also provides a mechanism for EPA to convene a 

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

objection can demonstrate to EPA that it was impracticable 

to raise such objection within [the period for public 

comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after 

the period for public comment (but within the time 

specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of 

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

seeking to make such a demonstration to EPA should submit a 

Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the 

Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Room 3000, 

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

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

the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and 

the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law 

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

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., 

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

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

may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal 

proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements. 

Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms 

and abbreviations are used in this document. 

7
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials 

BAMM Best Available Monitoring Methods 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CARB California Air Resources Board 

CBI confidential business information 

CFC chlorofluorocarbon 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

CO2e CO2-equivalent 

EIA Economic Impact Analysis 

EO Executive Order 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

F-GHG fluorinated greenhouse gas 

FTIR fourier transform infrared (spectroscopy) 

FID flame ionization detector 

GC gas chromatography 

GHG greenhouse gas 

GWP global warming potential 

HCFC hydrochlorofluorocarbon 

HFC hydrofluorocarbon 

HFE hydrofluoroether 

HTF heat transfer fluid 

ICR information collection request 

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

kg kilograms 

LCD liquid crystal displays 

MEMS micro-electro-mechanical systems 

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 

8
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 

PSEF process-vent-specific emission factor 

PV photovoltaic cells 

QA quality assurance 

QA/QC quality assurance/quality control 

R&D research and development 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RGGI Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative 

RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis 

SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

SF6 sulfur hexafluoride 

TCR The Climate Registry 

TSD technical support document 

U.S. United States 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

VOC volatile organic compound(s) 

WCI Western Climate Initiative 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. Organization of this Preamble 

B. Background on the Final Rule 

C. Legal Authority 

II. Reporting and Record Keeping Requirements for Specific 

Source Categories 

A. Overview of the Mandatory GHG Reporting Program 

B. Overview of Confidentiality Determination for Data 

Elements in the Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule 

9
C. Summary of Changes to the General Provisions of the 

General Provisions of 40 CFR Part 98 Related to the 

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

D. Electronics Manufacturing (Subpart I) 

E. Fluorinated Gas Production (Subpart L) 

F. Electric Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use 

(Subpart DD) 

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

H. Sulfur Hexafluoride and Perfluorocarbons from Electrical 

Equipment Manufacture or Refurbishment (Subpart SS) 

III. Economic Impacts of the Rule 

A. How were compliance costs estimated? 

B. What are the costs of the rule? 

C. What are the economic impacts of the rule? 

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

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

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly 

Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act 

I. Background 

A. Organization of this Preamble

10
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 rule, 

including a brief discussion of the rationale for revising 

the initially proposed requirements for subparts L, DD, and 

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

authority under the CAA to collect the required data, and 

the benefits of collecting the data. 

The second section of this preamble provides a brief 

summary of the key design elements for each subpart. For 

each subpart, this section includes (i) the definition of 

the source category, (ii) GHGs to report, (iii) GHG 

emission calculating and monitoring methods, (iv) data 

reporting requirements, and (v) records that must be 

retained. Each subpart also includes a summary of major 

changes since proposal and a summary of comments and 

responses. Please refer to the specific source category of 

interest for more details. 

The third section provides the summary of the cost 

impacts, economic impacts, and benefits of this rule from 

the Economic Analysis. Finally, the last section discusses 

11
the various statutory and executive order requirements 

applicable to this rule. 

B. Background on the Final Rule

Today’s action finalizes monitoring and reporting 

requirements for the following five source categories: 

electronics manufacturing, fluorinated gas production, 

electrical equipment use, electrical equipment manufacture 

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

EPA initially proposed reporting requirements for 

electronics, fluorinated GHG production, and electrical 

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

larger rulemaking effort to establish a GHG reporting 

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

EPA also requested comment on requiring reporting of the 

quantities of fluorinated GHGs imported and exported inside 

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

include requirements for these source categories in the 

Final Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule (Final MRR) (40 CFR part 

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

September 22, 2009 and published in the Federal Register on 

October 30, 2009 (74 FR 56260). 

 EPA deferred action on these source categories 

because EPA received a number of lengthy, detailed comments 

12
regarding the proposed requirements for these source 

categories. These comments, which are described in more 

detail in the discussions of the individual source 

categories in the April 12, 2010 proposed rule, raised 

concerns about the costs and technical feasibility of 

implementing subparts I and L as initially proposed, 

requested clarification of how “facility” should be 

interpreted under subpart DD, and both favored and opposed 

a requirement to report 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 to re-propose significant pieces of these 

subparts. The revised proposed rule was published in the 

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

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

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

2010. 

For subparts I and L this rule incorporates a number 

of technical changes including, but not limited to, the 

addition of different methodologies that provide improved 

emissions coverage at a lower cost burden to facilities as 

compared to the initial April 2009 proposal. Where aspects 

of the initial proposals for subparts I and L are retained 

13
in this rule, such as in the basic mass-balance methodology 

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

many of the equations for subpart I, today’s rule adds more 

flexibility in how and how frequently the underlying data 

are gathered. In addition, EPA is requiring facilities to 

report emissions from manufacture or refurbishment of 

electrical equipment and to report the quantities of 

fluorinated GHGs imported and exported inside pre-charged 

equipment and foams. 

We have concluded the monitoring approaches required 

in this rule, which combine direct measurement and 

facility-specific calculations, effectively balance 

accuracy and costs, and that they are warranted even though 

the rule does not contain any emissions reduction 

requirements. As we stated in the October 2009 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 rule, facilities and suppliers will begin 

data collection in 2011 following the methods outlined in 

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

EPA is allowing facilities and suppliers to use the Best 

Available Monitoring Methods (BAMM) for six months. This 

14
means that facilities and suppliers may elect to use BAMM 

through June 30, 2011. In addition, facilities and 

suppliers may also submit a request to EPA by February 28, 

2011 for an extension of the use of BAMM beyond June 30, 

2011. For more specific information on the requests, 

including what information the requests are required to 

contain, refer to the Monitoring and QA/QC Requirements 

section of the specific subpart. EPA does not anticipate 

approving the use of best available monitoring methods 

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

to approve such requests submitted by June 30, 2011 under 

unique and extreme circumstances which include safety, 

technical infeasibility, or inconsistency with other local, 

State or Federal regulations. 

C. Legal Authority 

EPA is finalizing requirements for five source 

categories (electronics manufacturing, production of 

fluorinated gases, use of electrical transmission and 

distribution equipment, manufacture or refurbishment of 

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

CAA authority; specifically, authorities provided in CAA 

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

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

15
October 30, 2009), CAA section 114(a)(1) provides EPA with 

broad authority to require emissions sources, persons 

subject to the CAA, manufacturers of process or control 

equipment, or persons whom the Administrator believes may 

have necessary information to monitor and report emissions 

and provide such other information the Administrator 

requests for the purposes of carrying out any provision of 

the CAA. Further information is available in “Mandatory 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA’s Response to Public 

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

II. Requirements for Specific Source Categories 

A. Overview of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program

The Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting regulations 

codified at 40 CFR part 98 require reporting of GHG 

emissions and supply from all sectors of the economy, and 

apply to certain downstream facilities that emit GHGs, as 

well as to certain upstream suppliers of fossil fuels and 

industrial GHGs. For suppliers, the GHG emissions reported 

are the emissions that will result from combustion or use 

of the products supplied. The regulations require annual 

reporting of GHGs including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane 

(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), 

perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and 

16
other fluorinated compounds (e.g., hydrofluoroethers 

(HFEs)). 

Part 98 regulations require only that source 

categories subject to the rule monitor and report GHGs in 

accordance with the methods specified in the individual 

subparts. In this action, EPA is adding five source 

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

be reported and the GHG calculation procedures, monitoring, 

missing data procedures, recordkeeping, and reporting 

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

and SS see the relevant subpart description below. 

In order to meet the reporting time, quality 

assurance, and verification requirements of the rule, EPA 

is establishing an electronic reporting system to 

facilitate collection of data under part 98. All 

facilities that are covered under part 98, including those 

subject to the reporting requirements in subparts I, L, DD, 

QQ, and SS, will use this data system to submit required 

data. 

B. Overview of Confidentiality Determination for Data 

Elements in the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rules

Today’s action does not address whether data reported 

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

confidential business information (CBI). EPA published a 

17
proposed confidentiality determination on July 7, 2010 (75 

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

proposed which specific data elements would be treated as 

CBI and which data elements must be available to the public 

under section 114 of the CAA. EPA has received several 

comments on the proposal, and is in the process of 

considering these comments. A final determination will be 

issued before any data is released, and the final 

determination will include all of the data elements under 

these subparts. 

C. Summary of Changes to the General Provisions of the 

General Provisions of 40 CFR Part 98 Related to the 

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

Changes to Applicability. EPA is amending 40 CFR 98.2 

as follows by amending Tables A-3, A-4, and A-5 to include 

five subparts, DD, SS, I, L. and QQ, respectively. 

The following source categories have been added to the 

list of source categories in Table A-3 because they have a 

production capacity or gas consumption threshold rather 

than a CO2e emission threshold. 

Χ Electric power transmission or distribution 

facilities that include the total nameplate 

capacity located within the facility, when added 

18
to the total nameplate capacity of SF6 and PFC 

containing equipment that is not located within 

the facility but is under common ownership or 

control, exceeds 17,820 lbs of sulfur 

hexafluoride (SF6)or perfluorocarbons (PFCs) 

(subpart DD). 

Χ Electric power equipment manufacturing or 

refurbishing facilities with total annual SF6 and 

PFC purchases (combined) that exceed 23,000 lbs 

per year (subpart SS). 

The following source categories are subject to the 

rule if facility emissions exceed 25,000 metric tons CO2e 

per year. Therefore, these source categories have been 

added to the list of emission threshold source categories 

referenced in Table A-4. 

Χ Fluorinated gas production facilities whose 

emissions would exceed 25,000 mtCO2e in the 

absence of control technologies (subpart L). 

Χ Electronics manufacturing facilities whose 

emissions would exceed 25,000 mtCO2e in the 

absence of control technologies (subpart I). 

19
For all of these facilities, whether they are listed 

in Table A-3 or A-4, the annual GHG report must cover 

stationary fuel combustion sources, miscellaneous uses of 

carbonates, and all applicable source categories listed in 

Table A-3 and Table A-4. 

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

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

to Table A-5 because they are supplier categories. 

As is true for the source categories covered by the 

Final MRR, a facility or supplier in any of these source 

categories could cease reporting if their controlled (postcontrol) emissions were less than 25,000 mtCO2e per year for 

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

for three consecutive years, subject to the procedures at 

40 CFR 98.2(i). 

Definitions. Today’s rule includes a number of 

definitions applicable to specific source categories. 

These definitions are not being added to the definitions 

section in Part 98 Subpart A because these definitions 

relate to these specific subparts and do not have broader 

applicability to EPA’s mandatory reporting regulations. To 

this end, EPA is including these definitions in the 

20
applicable subparts. EPA has sought to avoid any conflict 

between these subpart-specific definitions and the 

definitions in Subpart A. In one instance, for electric 

power systems, EPA is applying a category-specific 

definition of facility rather than the general definition 

of facility in the General Provisions. The reasons for 

this category-specific definition of facility are set forth 

in section II.G of this preamble. The remaining 

definitions are intended as supplements to the definitions 

section in the General Provisions. EPA does not believe 

these definitions create conflicts with the General 

Provisions. To the extent regulated entities are in doubt 

as to which definition applies, they should assume that the 

category-specific definitions are controlling. 

Incorporation by Reference (IBR). We are amending 40 

CFR 98.7 (incorporation by reference) to include standard 

methods used in the subparts. In particular, for subpart 

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

International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative’s Guideline 

for Environmental Characterization of Semiconductor Process 

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

International SEMATECH’s Guidelines for Environmental 

Characterization of Semiconductor Equipment (International 

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

21
Destruction or Removal Efficiency (DRE) of Fluorinated 

Greenhouse Gas Abatement Equipment in Electronics 

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

standards are referenced in 40 CFR 98.94 (Monitoring and 

QA/QC requirements for subpart I) and 40 CFR 98.97 (Records 

that must be retained for subpart I). 

In addition, for subpart L, we are revising the 

paragraphs listing several ASME standards that are already 

contained in 40 CFR 98.7 to indicate that these standards 

are also referenced by 40 CFR 98.124 (Monitoring and QA/QC 

requirements in 40 CFR part 98, subpart L, fluorinated gas 

production). We are also adding the following three 

standards: the Emissions Inventory Improvement Program, 

Volume II: Chapter 16, Methods for Estimating Air 

Emissions from Chemical Manufacturing Facilities; Protocol 

for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates; and EPA’s Protocol 

for Measuring Destruction or Removal Efficiency (DRE) of 

Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Abatement Equipment in 

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

These are referenced in 40 CFR 98.124 (Monitoring and QA/QC 

requirements for subpart L). 

D. Electronics Manufacturing (Subpart I)

1. Summary of the Final Rule 

22
Source Category Definition. The electronics 

manufacturing source category consists of facilities that 

manufacture micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS), liquid 

crystal displays (LCDs), photovoltaic cells (PV), and 

semiconductors (including light-emitting diodes), using the 

following electronics manufacturing production processes: 

Χ Electronics manufacturing production processes in 

which the etching process uses plasma-generated 

fluorine atoms and other reactive fluorine-containing 

fragments, which chemically react with exposed thinfilms (e.g., dielectric, metals) and silicon to 

selectively remove portions of material; 

Χ Electronics manufacturing production processes in 

which chambers used for depositing thin films are 

cleaned periodically using plasma-generated fluorine 

atoms and other reactive fluorine-containing fragments 

from fluorinated and other gases; 

Χ Electronics manufacturing production process in which 

wafers are cleaned using plasma generated fluorine 

atoms or other reactive fluorine-containing fragments 

to remove residual material from wafer surfaces, 

including the wafer edge; 

23
Χ Electronics manufacturing production processes in 

which fluorinated compounds can be transformed in the 

plasma processes into different fluorinated compounds, 

which are then exhausted, unless abated, into the 

atmosphere; 

Χ Chemical vapor deposition processes or other 

manufacturing production processes that use N2O; and 

Χ Production processes which use fluorinated GHGs as 

heat transfer fluids to cool process equipment, 

control temperature during device testing, and 

soldering (e.g. vapor phase reflow). Heat transfer 

fluids commonly used in electronics manufacturing 

include those sold under the trade names "Galden® " 

and "FluorinertTM." 

Reporting Threshold. Electronics manufacturing 

facilities that meet the applicability criteria in the 

General Provisions (40 CFR 98.2) summarized in Section II.A 

of this preamble must report GHG emissions. Facilities 

must determine if they meet the applicability criteria in 

the General Provisions (40 CFR 98.2(a)(2)) by using the 

methods in section 98.91 of this rule. Electronics 

manufacturing facilities covered by this rule are those 

that have emissions equal to or greater than 25,000 mtCO2e. 

24
For electronics manufacturing, EPA is requiring that 

uncontrolled emissions be used for purposes of determining 

whether a facility’s emissions are equal to or greater than 

25,000 mtCO2e. It is important to clarify that the methods 

for determining whether a manufacturer exceeds the 

threshold are different from those used to calculate and 

report annual GHG emissions. The methods for calculating 

GHG emissions are detailed in the following paragraphs. 

GHGs to Report. Each facility must calculate and 

report the following emissions: 

Χ Fluorinated GHGs from plasma etching, chamber 

cleaning, and wafer cleaning; 

Χ N2O from chemical vapor deposition and other 

electronics manufacturing production processes; 

Χ Fluorinated GHGs from heat transfer fluid use; and 

Χ CO2, CH4, and N2O combustion emissions from stationary 

combustion units by following the requirements of 40 

CFR part 98, subpart C (General Stationary Fuel 

Combustion Sources). 

GHG Emissions Calculation and Monitoring. To calculate 

fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions from electronics 

manufacturing facilities, reporters must use the following 

methods, as appropriate for each electronics manufacturing 

25
facility (i.e. MEMS, LCD, PV, or semiconductor 

manufacturing facility). 

Fluorinated GHG Emissions from Electronics Manufacturing 

Production Processes 

 To calculate and report fluorinated GHG emissions, 

reporters must adhere to the typology shown in Figure 1. 

Figure 1. Typology for Calculating Fluorinated GHG 

Emissions from Electronics Manufacturing 

At the top of the typology figure are process types, 

which consist of plasma etching, chamber cleaning, and 

wafer cleaning. The second level in the figure consists of 

process sub-types, which are identified for only the 

chamber cleaning process type. As explained below in 

section 2 (“Summary of Major Changes Since the Proposal”) 

and section 3 (“Summary of Comments and Responses”), EPA is 

only establishing sub-types for the chamber cleaning 

process type because sufficient information was available 

for these sub-types to establish default emission factors. 

The three chamber cleaning process sub-types are in-situ 

plasma, remote plasma, and in-situ thermal cleans. The 

26
bottom of the figure displays production process recipes. 

Definitions are provided in the paragraphs below. 

Process Type. EPA is defining a process type as a 

broad group of manufacturing steps used at a facility 

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

device manufacture for which fluorinated GHG and N2O 

emissions and fluorinated GHG and N2O usages are calculated 

and reported. The process types are plasma etching, 

chamber cleaning, and wafer cleaning.1

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

a set of similar manufacturing steps, more closely related 

within a broad process type. (Note, for clarity, EPA is 

referring to what was previously termed process categories 

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

sub-types). 

In situ plasma process sub-type consists of the 

cleaning of thin-film production chambers, after processing 

substrates, with a fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent that is 

dissociated into its cleaning constituents by a plasma 

generated inside the chamber where the film was produced. 

 

1

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

of any production process using fluorinated GHG reagents to selectively 

remove materials that have been deposited on a substrate during 

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

wafer cleaning process type consists of any production process using 

fluorinated GHG reagents to clean wafers at any step during production. 

27
Remote plasma process sub-type consists of the 

cleaning of thin-film production chambers, after processing 

substrates, with a fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent 

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

source. 

In situ thermal process sub-type consists of the 

cleaning of thin-film production chambers, after processing 

substrates, with a fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent that is 

thermally dissociated into its cleaning constituents inside 

the chamber where one or more thin films are produced. 

Production Process Recipe (Recipe). EPA has included 

definitions of “individual recipe” and “similar recipes” in 

today’s final rule as an aid to understanding the portions 

of the rule where a facility is required or allowed to 

calculate emissions on a recipe-specific basis. The final 

rule uses the term “individual recipe” to refer to a 

specific combination of gases, under specific conditions of 

reactor temperature, pressure, flow, radio frequency (RF) 

power and duration, used repeatedly to fabricate a specific 

feature on a specific film or substrate. EPA is also 

introducing the term “similar recipes” to refer to recipes 

that have identical chemical compositions and where

differences, considered separately, in reactor pressure, 

individual gas flows, applied RF power and flow 

28
stabilization time, relative to equipment manufacturers’ 

best known method or a facility’s process of record, are 

less than or equal to plus or minus 10 percent (see the 

Electronics Manufacutring TSD (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927) for 

supporting information). Generally, where facilities are 

required to develop recipe-specific utilization and byproduct formation rates, they may apply the utilization and 

by-product formation rates developed for an individual 

recipe to any “similar recipe.” 

Electronics manufacturing facilities must calculate 

and report emissions of each fluorinated GHG used the 

facility by adhering to typologies discussed and defined 

above, as appropriate, and using the following methods 

based on the use of (1) gas consumption, and (2) emission 

factors for fluorinated-GHG utilization and by-product 

formation rates. Where facilities are required to estimate 

and calculate emissions using sub-types or recipes, they 

are also required to report those emissions in aggregate by 

process type. 

These methods are summarized in Table 3 below. EPA 

is naming the methodologies described below and required in 

the final rule for electronics manufacturing using a format 

29
similar to that used in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for 

National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. While EPA’s 

methodologies may be viewed generally as an extension from 

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

distinct in terms of its applicability and level of detail. 

Gas Consumption

Electronics manufacturing facilities must use the 

following methods to calculate and apportion fluorinated 

GHG consumption: 

X Total annual gas consumption calculated using the 

facility’s purchase records, disbursements, gas container 

inventories, and gas- and facility-specific heel factors. 

X Total annual gas consumption apportioning factors 

developed using facility-specific engineering models based 

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

proportional to gas usage) of fluorinated GHG-using 

activity. Facilities must document these models in their 

site GHG Monitoring Plans (as required under 40 CFR 98.3) 

and verify them. At a minimum, facilities must verify and 

document the information listed in 40 CFR 98.94(c) and 40 

CFR 98.97(c), respectively. This information must be 

updated each reporting year. 

30
Fluorinated GHG Utilization and By-Product Formation Rates 

(Emission Factors)

Electronics manufacturing facilities must use the 

following methods for applying (and in some cases, 

developing) fluorinated GHG emission factors, as 

appropriate. 

Facilities that Manufacture MEMS, LCD, and PV

Facilities that manufacture MEMS, LCD, and PV are 

required to calculate and report their fluorinated GHG 

emissions from two process types: plasma etching and 

chamber cleaning. These facilities are required to use 

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

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

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

methodology. A facility may use directly measured recipespecific emission factors in lieu of defaults only if the 

recipe-specific emission factors are measured in accordance 

with the 2006 ISMI Guidelines, International SEMATECH 

#06124825A-ENG, with limited exceptions.2 The facility must 

develop recipe-specific factors for each individual recipe 

except that a factor developed for one individual recipe 

may be applied to similar recipes. In a given reporting 

 

2

 EPA is permitting facilities to use emission factors measured in 

accordance with the 2001 ISMI Guidelines, International SEMATECH 

#01104197A-XFR, provided the emissions factors were measured prior to 

January 1, 2007. Documentation for the measurements is required. 

31
year, a facility must develop new recipe-specific emission 

factors only for recipes which are not similar to any 

recipe used in a previous reporting year(s). Facilities 

that choose the recipe-specific approach must also 

aggregate the recipe-specific emissions and report the 

total emissions by process type (plasma etching and chamber 

cleaning). In addition, where a facility reports using 

recipe-specific emission factors, they are required to 

report the film or substrate that was etched/cleaned and 

the feature type that was etched. 

To ensure consistent methods of calculating and 

reporting emissions, EPA is prohibiting a facility from 

creating and using a hybrid method. This means that a 

single facility must choose between using only default 

emission factors or using recipe-specific emission factors 

for all process types; hybrid methods using both default 

emission factors and recipe-specific factors within the 

same reporting year are not permitted. This restriction 

will enable EPA to analyze emissions and trends using a 

consistent set of data. In addition, requiring the use of 

consistent emission estimation methods for each type of 

electronics manufacturing facility EPA’s administrative 

burden. 

Facilities that Manufacture Semiconductors 

32
EPA is requiring semiconductor manufacturing 

facilities to use a method to calculate and report their 

fluorinated GHG emissions which varies depending on the 

size of wafers that the facility is manufacturing (i.e., 

whether the facility manufactures wafers measuring 300 mm 

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

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

For facilities that manufacture wafers measuring 300 mm and 

less, EPA is requiring the use of one of two following 

methods for calculating and reporting emissions, depending 

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

facilities that have an annual manufacturing capacity that 

is less than or equal to 10,500 m2 silicon and 2) a method 

for those that have an annual manufacturing capacity 

greater than 10,500 m2

 silicon. A facility’s manufacturing 

capacity (as calculated using Equation I-5 of the rule) is 

100 percent of the maximum designed substrate starts, 

expressed as surface area, for the reporting year. This 

distinction in manufacturing capacity was part of EPA’s 

initial April 2009 proposed rule (74 FR 16448). 

Semiconductor Manufacturing Facilities that Fabricate 

Devices on Wafers Measuring 300 mm or less in Diameter

and that Have an Annual Manufacturing Capacity of Less 

than or Equal to 10,500 m2 Silicon 

33
Semiconductor manufacturing facilities that fabricate 

devices on wafers measuring 300 mm or less in diameter and 

that have an annual manufacturing capacity of less than or 

equal to 10,500 m2 silicon3 must calculate and report their 

fluorinated GHG emissions using the following five process 

types and sub-types, and the corresponding default emission 

factors presented in Tables I-4 and I-5 of subpart I: 

X Plasma etching process type; 

X Chamber cleaning process type which includes the 

following three process sub-types: 

 X in-situ plasma chamber cleaning process sub-type; 

X remote plasma chamber cleaning process sub-type; 

X in-situ thermal chamber cleaning process subtype; and 

X Wafer cleaning process type. 

 Default emission factors are differentiated by 150/200 

mm and 300 mm wafer technology. The default emission 

factors were developed using the data provided in Table 5 

of the report Draft Emission Factors for Refined 

Semiconductor Manufacturing Process Categories (EPA-HQ-OAR-

 

3

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

100 percent of annual manufacturing capacity of a facility as 

determined by summing the area of maximum designed substrate starts of 

a facility per month over the reporting period. 

34
2009-0927-0073). EPA is using the term “Tier 2c Method” to 

refer to this methodology. 

A facility may use directly measured recipe-specific 

emission factors for each individual recipe or recipe that 

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

recipe-specific emission factors are measured in accordance 

with the 2006 ISMI Guidelines, International SEMATECH 

#06124825A-ENG, with limited exceptions.4 The facility 

must develop recipe-specific factors for each individual 

recipe except that a factor developed for one individual 

recipe may be applied to similar recipes. In a given 

reporting year, a facility must develop recipe-specific 

emission factors only for new recipes which are not similar 

to any recipe used in a previous reporting year(s). 

Facilities that choose the recipe-specific approach must 

also aggregate the recipe-specific emissions and report the 

total emissions by process type (plasma etching, chamber 

cleaning, and wafer cleaning). In addition, where a 

facility reports using recipe-specific emission factors, 

they are required to report the film or substrate that was 

etched/cleaned and the feature type that was etched. 

A facility must use either default emission factors 

only, or recipe-specific emission factors only for all 

 

4

 See footnote 2. 

35
process types and sub-types; creating and using a hybrid 

method is not permitted for the reasons discussed above. 

Semiconductor Manufacturing Facilities that Fabricate 

Devices on Wafers Measuring 300 mm or less in Diameter

and that Have an Annual Manufacturing Capacity of 

Greater Than 10,500 m2 Silicon 

Semiconductor manufacturing facilities that fabricate 

devices on wafers measuring 300 mm or less in diameter and 

that have an annual manufacturing capacity greater than 

10,500 m2

 silicon (the “largest” semiconductor manufacturing 

facilities)5 must calculate and report their emissions using 

a combination of default emission factors and directly 

measured recipe-specific emission factors. EPA is using 

the term “Tier 2d Method” to refer to this methodology. 

For the following four process types and sub-types, 

facilities must calculate emissions using only the default 

emission factors in Tables I-4 and I-5 of subpart I: 

X Chamber cleaning process type: 

X in-situ plasma chamber cleaning process sub-type; 

X remote plasma chamber cleaning process sub-type; 

X in-situ thermal chamber cleaning process subtype; and 

 

5

 EPA estimates that the largest semiconductor facilities comprise 29 

facilities out of 175 total semiconductor facilities. See the 

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

0927) for EPA’s analysis. 

36
X Wafer cleaning process type. 

Default emission factors are differentiated by 150/200 

mm and 300 mm wafer technology. These emission factors, 

which are the same emission factors as specified for the 

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

Table 5 of the report Draft Emission Factors for Refined 

Semiconductor Manufacturing Process Categories (EPA-HQ-OAR2009-0927-0073). 

For the plasma etching process type, facilities must 

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

recipe-specific factors for each individual recipe except 

that a factor developed for one individual recipe may be 

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

facility must develop new recipe-specific emission factors 

only for recipes which are not similar to any recipe used 

in a previous reporting year(s). Plasma etching recipespecific emission factors must be measured in accordance 

with the 2006 ISMI Guidelines, International SEMATECH 

#06124825A-ENG, with limited exemptions.6 Facilities must 

also aggregate the recipe-specific emissions and report the 

total emissions by plasma etching process type. In 

addition, the facility is required to report the film or 

 

6

 See footnote 2. 

37
substrate that was etched/cleaned and the feature type that 

was etched for recipes used. 

A facility also has the option of using directly 

measured recipe-specific emission factors in lieu of 

default emission factors for the chamber and wafer cleaning 

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

measured in accordance with the 2006 ISMI Guidelines, 

International SEMATECH #06124825A-ENG, with limited 

exceptions.7 The facility must develop recipe-specific 

factors for each individual recipe except that a factor 

developed for one individual recipe may be applied to 

similar recipes. In a given reporting year, a facility 

must develop new recipe-specific emission factors only for 

recipes which are not similar to any recipe used in a 

previous reporting year(s). Facilities that choose the 

recipe-specific approach for the chamber and wafer cleaning 

process types must also aggregate the recipe-specific 

emissions and report the total emissions by those process 

types. In addition, where a facility reports using recipespecific emission factors, they are required to report the 

film or substrate that was etched/cleaned and the feature 

type that was etched 

 

7

 See footnote 2. 

38
If a facility elects to adhere to this option, that 

facility must use recipe-specific emission factors only for 

all process types; a hybrid method using both default 

emission factors and recipe-specific factors within the 

same reporting year is not permitted for reasons discussed 

above. 

Semiconductor Facilities that Fabricate Devices on 

Wafers Measuring Greater than 300 mm in Diameter

Semiconductor manufacturing facilities that fabricate 

devices on wafers measuring greater than 300 mm in 

diameter, regardless of capacity, must calculate and report 

all of their emissions from processes that use fluorinated 

GHGs (including plasma etching, chamber cleaning, and 

wafer cleaning process types) using directly measured 

recipe-specific emission (i.e., an approach consistent with 

the 2006 IPCC Tier 3 methodology). EPA is using the term 

“Tier 3 Method” to refer to this methodology. In a given 

reporting year, a facility must develop new recipe-specific 

emission factors only for recipes which are not similar to 

any recipe used in a previous reporting year(s). Emission 

factors must be measured in accordance with the 2006 ISMI 

Guidelines, International SEMATECH #06124825A-ENG, with 

39
limited exceptions.8 Facilities must also aggregate the 

recipe-specific emissions and report the total emissions by 

process type (plasma etching, chamber cleaning, and wafer 

cleaning). In addition, facility is required to report the 

film or substrate that was etched/cleaned and the feature 

type that was etched for recipes used. 

Table 3. Summary of Final Provisions for Electronics Manufacturing 

Facilities to Estimate and Report Fluorinated GHG Emissions from Etching and 

Cleaning and Etching Processes

Emissions 

Source 

Manufactured 

Wafer Size 

Annual 

Capacitya

Required 

Methodology to 

Optional 

Methodology 

PV, MEMS, LCD NA NA Modified Tier 

2b- Use EPA 

default 

emission 

factors for 

plasma etching 

and chamber 

cleaning 

process types. 

Tier 3 - Use 

recipe-specific 

emission factors 

for production 

processes that 

use fluorinated 

GHGs. 

Semiconductors 300 mm and 

smaller 

Less than 

or equal 

to 10,500 

m2 silicon 

Tier 2c - Use 

EPA default 

emission 

factors for 

plasma etching, 

chamber 

cleaning 

(including insitu plasma 

cleaning, 

remote plasma 

cleaning, insitu thermal 

cleaning subtypes), and 

wafer cleaning 

process types. 

Tier 3 – Use 

recipe-specific 

emission factors 

for that use 

fluorinated GHGs. 

Semiconductors 300 mm and 

smaller 

Greater 

than 

Tier 2d - Use 

EPA default 

Tier 3 - Use 

recipe-specific 

 

8

 See footnote 2. 

40
10,500 m2 

silicon 

emission 

factors for 

chamber 

cleaning 

(including insitu plasma 

cleaning, 

remote plasma 

cleaning, insitu thermal 

cleaning subtypes), and 

wafer cleaning 

process types, 

and recipespecific 

emission 

factors for 

plasma etching. 

emission factors 

for production 

process that use 

fluorinated GHGs. 

Semiconductors Larger than 

300 mm 

NA Tier 3 – Use 

recipe-specific 

emission 

factors for 

production 

process that 

use fluorinated 

GHG. 

None. 

a

 Manufacturing capacity is 100 percent of annual manufacturing capacity of a facility as 

determined by summing the area of maximum designed substrate starts of a facility per month 

over the reporting period.

N2O Emissions: Electronics manufacturing facilities must 

calculate emissions of N2O using: 

X Requirements for calculating and apportioning gas 

consumption as outlined above for “Fluorinated GHG 

emissions.” 

X Manufacturing production process emission factors for 

chemical vapor deposition and other electronics 

manufacturing production processes using either defaults 

41
provided in Table I-9 of subpart I or facility-specific N2O 

emission factors based on facility measurements of N2O. 

Emission factors must be measured in accordance with the 

2006 ISMI Guidelines, International SEMATECH #06124825AENG, with limited exceptions.9

Emissions of Heat Transfer Fluids: Electronics 

manufacturing facilities must calculate and report 

emissions from heat transfer fluids using a mass balance 

approach. 

Reporting Controlled Emissions from Abatement Systems:

Electronics manufacturing facilities that wish to calculate 

and report controlled fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions from 

abatement systems must certify that their abatement systems 

are installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with 

the manufacturers’ specifications, as well as account for 

uptime of abatement systems. Facilities must calculate 

controlled emissions from abatement systems using either: 

X Destruction or removal efficiencies based on a default 

value of 60 percent. This approach requires certification 

that the abatement system is specifically designed for 

fluorinated GHG and N2O. A facility must support its 

certification that the abatement system is specifically 

 

9

 See footnote 2. 

42
designed for fluorinated GHG and N2O abatement by 

documenting the suppliers specifications; or 

X Directly measured destruction or removal efficiencies 

measured in accordance with EPA’s Protocol for Measuring 

Destruction or Removal Efficiency of Fluorinated Greenhouse 

Gas Abatement Equipment in Electronics Manufacturing (EPA’s 

DRE Protocol), Version 1, EPA 430-R-10-003. These 

destruction or removal efficiencies must be measured at a 

frequency specified by EPA’s Random Sampling Abatement 

System Testing Program (RSASTP). 

Best Available Monitoring Methods. EPA is permitting 

electronics manufacturing facilities to use Best Available 

Monitoring Methods (BAMM) through June 30, 2011 without 

submitting a request. The owner or operator must use the 

calculation methodologies and equations in the “Calculating 

GHG Emissions” section of subpart I, but may use the best 

available monitoring method for any parameter for which it 

is not reasonably feasible to acquire, install, or operate 

a required piece of monitoring equipment. EPA is 

permitting facilities to use BAMM for six months based on 

EPA’s experience implementing the Final MRR issued in 

October 2009 and because it has determined that some 

electronics manufacturing facilities may need additional 

time to comply with the requirements in the final rule. 

43
Facilities wishing to extend BAMM beyond the initial 

six month period until December 31, 2011, must submit a 

petition to EPA by February 28, 2011. Requests for BAMM 

extensions must include detailed explanations and 

supporting documentation to describe why it is not 

reasonably feasible for the facility to comply with the 

required provisions. In general, extension requests must 

include detailed descriptions and evidence that it is not 

reasonably feasible for the facility to acquire, install, 

or operate a required piece of monitoring equipment by July 

1, 2011. In the case where a service provider is unable to 

provide necessary measurement services, EPA is using the 

date of December 31, 2011 because recipe-specific emission 

factors may be measured at any time during the reporting 

year. BAMM extension requests must also document the 

facility’s efforts to comply with the requirements and 

explain the best available alternate monitoring method that 

the facility will use, should EPA approve the request. 

For facilities required to use the Tier 2d method 

(i.e., the largest semiconductor facilities), EPA is 

requiring that if the use of best available monitoring 

methods is permitted, the facility would be required to 

recalculate and resubmit 2011 emissions using recipespecific factors with their report for the 2012 reporting 

44
year (to be submitted in 2013). For example, such a 

facility having been granted BAMM may use a default etch 

emission factor to calculate and report its 2011 emissions. 

This facility must then recalculate and report its 2011 

emissions with its 2012 report or as soon as the required 

recipe-specific etch emission factors are available. 

EPA does not anticipate approving the use of BAMM 

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

to approve any such requests submitted by June 30, 2011 

under unique and extreme circumstances which include 

safety, technical infeasibility, or inconsistency with 

other local, State or Federal regulations. Facilities 

requesting BAMM past December 31, 2011 would have to submit 

similar documentation to support the request as was 

required for BAMM requests in 2011. In addition, these 

facilities would be required to describe the unique and 

extreme circumstances which necessitate the extended BAMM. 

As introduced above, facilities granted an extension of 

BAMM will be required to recalculate and re-submit its 

emissions using the required recipe-specific factors for 

the years in which BAMM is used to estimate emissions. The 

recalculated emissions must be reported in the earliest 

possible reporting year. 

45
Data Reporting. In addition to the information required to 

be reported by the General Provisions (40 CFR 98.3(c)) and 

summarized in Section II.A of this preamble, reporters must 

annually submit additional data used to calculate GHG 

emissions. A list of the specific data to be reported for 

this source category is contained in section 98.96 of this 

rule. 

Recordkeeping. In addition to the records required by the 

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

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

of additional data used to calculate GHG emissions. A list 

of specific records that must be retained for this source 

category is included in section 98.97 of this rule. 

2. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal 

The major changes in this rule since the April 2010 

proposal are identified in the following list. The 

rationales for these, and the identification of and 

rationale for other significant changes to the proposed 

rule can be found below or in “Mandatory Greenhouse Gas 

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

I: Electronics Manufacturing” (available in the docket, 

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

April 2009 proposal for electronics manufacturing are 

included below or in the Response to Comment Document. In 

46
addition to the changes identified below, EPA reorganized 

sections of the proposed regulatory text and made editorial 

changes to improve clarity and readability. 

Χ EPA has clarified that semiconductors, include, among 

others, light-emitting diodes (LEDs). Please refer to 

“Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's 

Response to Public Comments, Subpart I: Electronics 

Manufacturing” (available in the docket, EPA-HQ-OAR2009-0927) for EPA’s rationale for this clarification. 

Χ EPA has revised the requirements for semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities that fabricate devices on 

wafers measuring 300 mm or less in diameter to 

calculate and report fluorinated GHG emissions from 

etching and cleaning process types. In the final 

rule, EPA is requiring these facilities to use one of 

two different methodologies, depending on the 

manufacturing capacity of the facility. 

Χ EPA has modified the requirement for semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities that fabricate devices on 

wafers measuring 300 mm or less in diameter to require 

those facilities that have an annual manufacturing 

capacity of less than or equal to 10,500 m2

 silicon to 

calculate and report fluorinated GHG emissions based 

47
on five process types and sub-types, as opposed to 

nine emitting process sub-types as proposed in the 

April 2010 rule. These facilities must calculate and 

report fluorinated GHG emissions from the etching 

process type, chamber cleaning process type and its 

associated sub-types (in-situ plasma, remote plasma, 

in-situ thermal), and the wafer cleaning process type. 

The five process types and sub-types are 

differentiated by two wafer technologies (150/200 mm 

and 300 mm wafer size). EPA is using the term “Tier 

2c” to refer to this methodology. EPA is combining 

default emission factors for 150 mm and 200 mm wafer 

technologies because EPA did not have sufficient 

measured emissions data to establish different factors 

for these two technologies. For each of these process 

types and associated sub-types, EPA provides default 

emission factors accounting for (1) the mass fraction 

of the input gas that is utilized during (i.e., not 

emitted from the process type or sub-type) and (2) the 

mass of each reportable fluorinated GHG by-product 

formed as a fraction of the mass of the dominant 

fluorinated GHG input gas used. 

48
Χ EPA has added provisions to require the largest 

semiconductor facilities (defined as facilities with 

annual capacities of greater than 10,500 m2 of silicon) 

to calculate and report their emissions from the 

plasma etching process type using directly measured 

recipe-specific emission factors, while using EPA’s 

default emission factors for chamber cleaning subtypes, and for the wafer cleaning process types. EPA 

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

methodology. All emission factors (utilization and 

by-product formation rates) for the etch processes are 

required to be measured in accordance with the 2006 

ISMI Guidelines, with limited exceptions.10 

The requirement for semiconductor manufacturing 

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

rates (i.e. recipe-specific emission factors) was 

originally proposed in EPA’s initial April 2009 

proposal (74 FR 16448). In that proposed rule, EPA 

proposed to require the large semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities to calculate and report 

emissions from all fluorinated GHG using processes 

using such an approach. Further, in EPA’s April 2010 

 

10 See footnote 2. 

49
proposal (75 FR 18652), EPA proposed, as an 

alternative to the Refined Method, to require all 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities to estimate and 

report using recipe-specific emission factors. 

Χ EPA has clarified what manufacturing capacity of a 

facility means by providing a new equation (Equation 

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

manufacturing capacity is 100 percent of annual 

manufacturing capacity of a facility as determined by 

summing the area of maximum designed substrate starts 

of a facility per month over the reporting period. 

EPA has also provided a definition of maximum designed 

substrate starts. 

Χ EPA clarified the requirement for recipe-specific 

measurements to facilitate the implementation of the 

Tier 2d and Tier 3 methods. EPA provided definitions 

of “individual recipe” and “similar recipe.” For 

recipe-specific emission factors, rather than 

requiring each and every individual recipe to be 

measured, EPA is permitting a facility to apply one 

measured recipe-specific emission factor to a group of 

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

facility must develop new recipe-specific emission 

50
factors only for recipes which are not similar to any 

recipe used in a previous reporting year(s). In 

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

report the film or substrate that was etched/cleaned 

and the feature type that was etched. 

Χ EPA has modified the procedures by which facilities 

must develop gas consumption apportioning factors. In 

the final rule, facilities must apportion gas 

consumption using facility-specific engineering models 

based on quantifiable metrics of activity. Facilities 

must verify these models as specified by EPA in 

section 98.96(c) of this rule and document them in 

their site GHG Monitoring Plans (as required under 40 

CFR 98.3). EPA will permit the use of facilityspecific gas apportionment models based on 

quantifiable metrics, such as wafer pass or wafer 

starts, provided the facility documents and verifies 

the model. As part of these new requirements, EPA has 

added definitions for actual gas consumption, dominant 

gas, modeled gas consumption, repeatable 

demonstration, and wafer starts. Further, EPA has 

clarified that all electronics manufacturing 

facilities must apportion consumption of fluorinated 

51
GHGs and N2O used at a facility in accordance with the 

apportioning methods outlined in the final rule. 

Χ EPA has revised the requirement to recalculate gas-and 

facility-specific heel factors. EPA is requiring 

facilities to recalculate gas- and facility-specific 

heel factors if the trigger point for change out used 

to establish a gas- and facility-specific heel factor 

differs by more than 5 percent, expressed as a percent 

of the previously used trigger point for change out. 

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

trigger point for change out. 

EPA made this revision in response to comments 

received to its proposal. EPA agrees with commenters 

that asserted the proposed requirement to recalculate 

the heel factor when the percentage change from the 

original trigger point exceeded 1 percent was too 

burdensome. Please refer to “Mandatory Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments, 

Subpart I: Electronics Manufacturing” (available in 

the docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927) for additional 

information on EPA’s rationale. 

52
Χ EPA has added equations specifying how to calculate 

uptime and how to account for uptime in DREs for 

abatement systems where a facility is calculating and 

reporting controlled emissions. EPA has also modified 

how uptime is calculated by defining an “operational 

mode” for abatement systems and removing the reference 

to SEMI Standard E-10-0304E

. 

Χ EPA has modified the Best Available Monitoring Methods 

(BAMM) provisions for subpart I to allow electronics 

manufacturing facilities to use BAMM through June 30, 

2011 without submitting a request to EPA. Facilities 

wishing to extend BAMM beyond the initial six month 

period until December 31, 2011, must submit a petition 

to EPA by February 28, 2011. EPA anticipates 

facilities will need to use best available monitoring 

methods under limited circumstances. See section 1 

above “Summary of the Final Rule” for additional 

information about the BAMM provisions. 

Based on comments received to EPA’s proposed 

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

rules for electronics manufacturing) EPA has concluded 

that some electronics manufacturing facilities may 

need additional time to fully meet the requirements 

53
finalized in this rule. For example, the largest 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities may be 

challenged to complete the etch process emission 

measurements required for EPA’s Tier 2d method in 

2011. However, EPA expects all electronics 

manufacturing facilities will be prepared to fully 

comply with this rule’s requirements no later than 

year-end 2011. Therefore, extension of BAMM 

provisions beyond 2011 would only be granted in unique 

and extreme circumstances which include safety, 

technical infeasibility, or inconsistency with other 

local, State or Federal regulations. For a more 

detailed discussion on EPA’s rationale, see “Mandatory 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to 

Public Comments, Subpart I: Electronics Manufacturing” 

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

3. Summary of Comments and Responses 

This section contains a brief summary of major 

comments and responses. A large number of comments were 

received on this subpart covering numerous topics. 

Responses to significant comments received can be found in 

“Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response 

to Public Comments, Subpart I: Electronics Manufacturing” 

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

54
Comment: EPA received a broad range of comments 

stating that the initial and revised methodologies for 

calculating GHG emissions in subpart I were overly 

burdensome and costly. For example, with respect to EPA’s 

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

asserted that the requirements for apportioning of gas 

usage without the use of “engineering judgment” would 

require the development of complex software systems and 

monitoring of activity data at a level of detail that would 

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

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

2009), commenters argued that the direct measurement 

requirement would result in very high costs associated with 

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

manufacturing facilities. 

Response: EPA considered all of these comments, and 

evaluated alternative methods for calculating GHG emissions 

for electronics manufacturing, controlled and uncontrolled. 

EPA considered alternative methods that would result in 

reduced burden on industry while maintaining or improving 

the quality and breadth of reported data. EPA also 

considered the gaps in the available emission factor 

55
knowledge base and has implemented a method to address this 

deficiency. 

EPA has made every effort to reduce burden to the 

industry while maintaining requirements that it has 

determined are necessary to obtain facility-specific 

emission estimates. For example, based on comments 

received, EPA has revised the gas apportioning method to 

allow for the usage of quantifiable indicators other than 

wafer passes. In the final rule, facilities will be 

allowed to develop apportioning factors based on other 

quantifiable indicators provided the method is described in 

writing, is repeatable, and is verified through comparison 

with actual gas consumption. This approach provides 

facilities flexibility in the choice of apportioning 

methods and assures a high degree of data quality. 

Additional details on the gas apportioning method are 

described in this section 3 (“Summary of Comment and 

Responses”) of the preamble. 

As another means to reduce burden to the industry, EPA 

is only requiring the “largest” semiconductor manufacturing 

facilities to calculate and report emissions using directly 

measured recipe-specific emission factors, ensuring that 

burden is commensurate with potential to emit. The largest 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities account for nearly 

56
two-thirds of uncontrolled emissions while accounting for 

less than 20 percent of all facilities expected to report 

under subpart I. In addition, the largest semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities are only required to directly 

measure etch process emissions. Etch processes are the 

least understood of the electronics manufacturing processes 

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

establish default emission factors for multiple etch 

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

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

number and burden of direct measurements required. 

Additional details on steps taken to reduce the burden 

are described in this section below (“Summary of Comments 

and Responses”) and in “Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting 

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

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

In general, while commenters asserted that EPA’s 

proposed requirements were too burdensome and costly, 

comments lacked sufficient quantitative detail or 

substantiation. However, in response to concerns that EPA 

did not fully account for compliance costs in its economic 

analysis, EPA did update its costs estimates to reflect the 

costs associated with the requirements finalized in the 

57
rule. EPA has concluded that its final cost estimates 

appropriately account for the compliance burden under this 

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

this rule, please see sections 4 & 5 of the Economic Impact 

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

0927). 

Method for Calculating GHG Emissions 

Comment: While some commenters supported EPA’s intent 

for the Refined Method to gather representative and 

accurate facility level emissions estimates, they argued 

that the Refined Method itself was not supported for 

several reasons.11 Commenters asserted that the Refined 

Method stemmed from a technically flawed uncertainty 

analysis and apparent misunderstandings of current 

processes realities. Commenters also stated that extending 

the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b etch category (“process type”) from 

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

justified given the limited data available for developing 

emissions factors. As an alternative to EPA’s Refined 

Method, many commenters suggested an “Alternative Refined 

 

11 EPA’s “Refined Method” as proposed in April 2010 (75 FR 18652) is 

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

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

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

58
Method,” that they argued would achieve greater accuracy 

than the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b method and would avoid 

uncertainty issues created by EPA’s Refined Method. 

The “Alternative Refined Method,” as described in 

comments, is comprised of five process types and sub-types, 

which include: the three chamber clean sub-types (remote 

plasma clean, in-situ plasma clean, and in-situ thermal 

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

type for all etch processes. Commenters suggested that 

this method would be superior to the EPA proposed Refined 

Method in terms of accuracy and cost. 

A different commenter expressed concern with EPA’s 

Refined Method, stating that the use of EPA’s Refined 

Method to estimate emissions would result in less accurate 

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

This commenter encouraged EPA to require the use of the 

2006 IPCC Tier 3 method for all semiconductor facilities 

given the need for accurate data and the significant 

emissions from this sector, but argued that at a minimum 

EPA should rely on Tier 3 estimation for “large 

facilities,” as it did in its initial proposal. 

Response: In general, EPA agrees with commenters that 

stated the available data as of the proposal was sufficient 

to establish default emissions factors for multiple chamber 

59
clean process sub-types, but insufficient to support 

establishing default emission factors for multiple etch 

process sub-types. EPA did not receive enough additional 

data during the comment period to address this 

insufficiency.12 Accordingly, EPA is not establishing 

default emissions factors for etch sub-types in this final 

rule. EPA also agrees with the commenter that stated an 

estimation approach based on the IPCC Tier 3 method would 

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

of the burden that would be imposed by requiring all 

covered facilities to use an approach based on the 2006 

IPCC Tier 3 method for all emissions. 

In this final rule, EPA is requiring semiconductor 

facilities to calculate and report fluorinated emissions by 

adhering to one of three different emission estimation 

methodologies, depending on the wafer size manufactured and 

the facility’s manufacturing capacity.13 These requirements 

are presented in section 1 (“Summary of the Final Rule”) of 

 

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

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

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

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

additional information received after publication of the proposed rule, 

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

the public draft default emission factors for semiconductor 

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

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

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

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

100 percent of annual manufacturing capacity of a facility as 

determined by summing the area of maximum designed substrate starts of 

a facility per month over the reporting period. 

60
this preamble and summarized in Table 3. EPA has 

determined that the requirements in the final rule 

effectively balance EPA’s objectives with an appropriate 

level of burden to industry. 

In response to comments received on EPA’s proposed 

methodology for semiconductor manufacturing facilities, EPA 

undertook another analysis to evaluate the uncertainty 

associated with emission estimation methods. Specific 

information on the analysis can be found in the Electronics 

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

results from this exercise showed (a) emissions estimated 

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

uncertainty analysis to be performed with more meaningful 

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

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

emission calculations. These results support the 

methodology finalized in the final rule. 

Given the current lack of available facility-level gas 

usage and emission information for etching in particular, 

and EPA’s need for increased accuracy in emission estimates 

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

the largest semiconductor facilities estimate and report 

61
recipe-specific emission factors for all etch processes. 

EPA views the generation of such data as essential to 

improving future efforts to characterize this sector’s GHG 

emissions. 

While EPA recognizes that more than half of the gas 

consumed in semiconductor manufacturing is for chamber 

cleaning, EPA also recognizes that most of the variability 

in gas consumption, and hence emissions, across many 

facilities is found for recipes used under the plasma etch 

process type. Etch recipes utilize many gases 

(approximately six or more either alone or in combination) 

with varying GWPs. Process recipes vary between facilities 

because they are a crucial part of company competitiveness 

and innovation. 

While EPA is finalizing the Tier 2c method for some 

semiconductor facilities (i.e. not the largest 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities) and has determined 

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

method, EPA maintains that estimating emissions based on 

process sub-types for etch with robust default factors 

would result in more accurate facility-level emission 

estimates as compared to estimating emissions using a 

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

years, EPA may evaluate the recipe-specific emission 

62
factors received through this final rule to determine 

whether a sufficiently robust data set exists to establish 

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

semiconductor facilities that will be using a default 

emission factor for the etch process type under this final 

rule to estimate and report emissions using an approach 

based on multiple etch and chamber clean process sub-types 

similar to the Refined Method EPA proposed in April 2010. 

EPA is requiring only the largest facilities to report 

recipe-specific emission factors for etching processes, 

rather than requiring all semiconductor facilities to 

report all etch processes regardless of capacity, or 

requiring the largest facilities to report all process 

emissions using recipe-specific emission factors, because 

EPA has concluded that this approach minimizes burden to 

industry. Further, this requirement ensures that the 

burden associated with reporting is proportional to the 

magnitude of a facility’s potential emissions. 

EPA selected 10,500 m2

 silicon as the threshold for 

large facilities because facilities above this threshold 

are expected to account for nearly two-thirds of 

uncontrolled emissions while accounting for less than 20 

percent of all facilities expected to report under subpart 

63
I. Based on EPA’s analysis, the expected number of the 

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

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

with an annual manufacturing capacity of greater than 

10,500 m2

) in its initial proposal for semiconductor 

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

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

the semiconductor industry, “large” facilities do not 

inherently have higher emissions of fluorinated GHGs. 

These commenters noted that beginning with the second 

generation of 200 mm facilities, transitions to NF3 remote 

cleans and deployment of point of use abatement resulted in 

significantly lower emissions as compared to older 

facilities. In response, while EPA acknowledges 

qualitative reports on second generation 200 mm wafer 

facilities adopting NF3 remote plasma cleans and point of 

use abatement systems as presented in comments, it is 

unaware of published studies that quantitatively document 

the market penetration of either NF3 remote plasma source 

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

those facilities. 

In the final rule, EPA is also clarifying what meets 

the requirement for recipe-specific measurements to 

facilitate implementation of the Tier 2d and Tier 3 

64
methods. EPA recognizes a facility may employ potentially 

hundreds of recipes. Therefore, as a means to reduce 

burden for facilities that are required or elect to develop 

recipe-specific measurements, EPA is permitting a facility 

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

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

recipe-specific emission factor for an individual recipe, 

it may apply that emission factor to “similar recipes.” 

This provision allows a facility to measure fewer 

manufacturing processes to develop the emission factors 

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

comparison to a more stringent approach which would require 

measurements for each and every individual recipe used at a 

facility. As another means to reduce burden EPA is 

clarifying that in a given reporting year, a facility must 

develop new recipe-specific emission factors only for 

recipes which are not similar to any recipe used in a 

previous reporting year(s). 

EPA is defining an individual recipe as a specific 

combination of gases, under specific conditions of reactor 

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

repeatedly to fabricate a specific feature on a specific 

film or substrate. EPA is defining similar recipes as 

those that have identical chemical compositions and where 

65
differences, considered separately, in reactor pressure, 

individual gas flows, applied RF power and flow 

stabilization time, relative to equipment manufacturers’ 

best known method or a facility’s process of record, are 

less than or equal to plus or minus 10 percent (see the 

Electronics Manufacturing TSD for supporting information). 

Monitoring and QA/QC Requirements 

Comment: Many commenters voiced concerns regarding the 

burden associated with EPA’s proposed requirement to 

measure DRE of abatement equipment in accordance with EPA’s 

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

argued the required frequency of measurements in the 

proposed random sampling abatement system testing program 

(RSASTP) is overly burdensome and unnecessary. 

With respect to EPA’s requirement to measure DRE in 

accordance with EPA’s Protocol, commenters noted few 

facilities have characterized the DRE of installed 

abatement systems using EPA’s DRE Protocol because the 

Protocol was published in 2010. One commenter requested 

that EPA permit the use of measurements made prior to the 

publication of the EPA DRE Protocol as long as the facility 

can demonstrate the measurements were based on test methods 

substantially similar to those outlined in the EPA 

66
Protocol. In addition to providing comments on the 

required use of the DRE Protocol, commenters also requested 

that EPA allow the use of CF4 as a tracer to determine 

dilution when a abatement system is in “low fire” and that 

EPA permit the use of a Fourier Transform Infrared 

Spectroscopy (FTIR) without the additional use of 

Quadrapole Mass Spectroscopy (QMS). 

In regards to EPA’s proposed RSASTP, many commenters 

asserted that the burden placed on facilities to comply 

with the RSASTP is not necessary. These commenters stated 

that facilities may have hundreds of abatement systems and 

that periodic, especially annual, third-party testing is 

not necessary as long as a facility maintains and operates 

equipment properly. Some commenters argued that testing 

should be required only for new models of abatement systems 

that are not simply a variant of an existing system used at 

a facility. Other commenters also suggested alternative 

testing regimes to the RSASTP that would place most of the 

DRE measurement burden in the early years of testing. 

Response: In general, EPA does not agree with 

commenters and is finalizing the requirements for 

measurement of abatement DRE using the EPA DRE Protocol and 

for the testing frequency described in the RSASTP. 

67
EPA is finalizing the requirement that facilities 

measure abatement system DREs in accordance with EPA’s DRE 

Protocol because it will ensure that measured DREs are 

accurate through properly accounting for dilution and by 

meeting EPA’s established performance standard (as 

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

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

guideline) that exists to date for measuring DREs of 

abatement equipment used in electronics manufacturing. 

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

and validated by actual experience and data collection in 

fully operational manufacturing facilities during multiple 

measurement studies performed by EPA in collaboration with 

industry.14 EPA’s DRE Protocol has been through two public 

peer review processes over the course of two years and is 

based on input from national and international industry 

experts. For documentation of the comments received during 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

Destruction or Removal Efficiency (DRE) Measurement Method for 

Electronics Manufacturing: A Cooperative Evaluation with NEC 

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

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

(DRE) Measurement Method for Electronics Manufacturing: A Cooperative 

Evaluation with Qimonda (EPA 430-R-08-017). 

68
It is important to clarify that EPA is not 

specifically prohibiting the use of previously measured 

DREs; a facility may use previously measured DREs provided 

the facility can demonstrate that the measurements were 

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

Protocol permits flexibility in measurement practices 

provided the measurements achieve a performance standard 

that, among other things, ensures dilution is properly 

measured. 

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

in the DRE Protocol. Specifically, with respect to 

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

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

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

Table 2 provides a list of acceptable gases for measuring 

total abatement system flows, along with their use 

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

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

tracer gases in abatement systems that are designed to 

abate these gases. Additionally, EPA prohibits use of CF4

as a tracer in fluorinated GHG abatement systems operating 

in “low fire” because reviewers of early drafts of EPA’s 

DRE Protocol made repeated claims that one could not be 

certain some abatement was not occurring. 

69
EPA does not wholly agree with commenters who 

suggested that the use of only an FTIR and not a QMS to 

measure dilution, and hence DREs, should be permitted. The 

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

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

an inert gas to measure dilution (provided the abatement 

system which is being tested does not abate the tracer gas 

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

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

with tracers that are inert because while a method that 

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

aware of robust measurements that demonstrate such a 

method. 

With respect to EPA’s requirement to measure DREs with 

the frequency prescribed in the RSASTP, EPA does not agree 

with commenters who suggested the RSASTP is burdensome and 

unnecessary. Commenters did not provide EPA sufficient 

information or data to support their claim that the RSASTP 

is unnecessary. The RSASTP provides a much less burdensome 

device measurement scheme when compared to requiring a 

facility to test all abatement systems used annually, but 

still allows EPA to ensure a facility has measured DREs 

accurately and at least once every five years. 

70
As EPA stated in the preamble to the April 2010 

proposed rule (75 FR 18652), there are two reasons for 

requiring the DRE to be measured for each abatement device 

over a time period and by specific class, as outlined in 

the RSASTP. First, some fluorinated GHGs, such as CF4, are 

harder to destroy than others; thus, the performance of 

abatement systems with one fluorinated GHG cannot 

necessarily be assumed to apply to other fluorinated GHGs. 

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. 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 supports gradually testing all of 

the abatement systems within a class, and for retesting 

individual abatement systems over time. 

 Comment: In general, most commenters supported the 

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

proposed default DRE value of 60 percent. Commenters 

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

unreasonably low, in part because the 60 percent default 

71
factor was based on CF4 destruction data and therefore, 

should not be applied to other fluorinated GHGs. 

Commenters noted that CF4 is the most stable compound and 

the most difficult among all fluorinated GHG to destroy 

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

avoid significantly overestimating emissions. Further, one 

commenter asserted that the unreasonably low value for the 

default DRE penalizes semiconductor manufacturers who have 

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

other GHG reduction programs to install and maintain 

control devices.15 

As an alternative, commenters recommend that IPCC 

and/or abatement system manufacturer default DREs should be 

permitted, and potentially discounted by 10 percent to 

account for differences between field and lab certification 

conditions. Commenters also suggested that EPA provide 

additional default factors for C2F6 and other fluorinated 

GHGs that are easier to abate than CF4. 

One commenter opposed EPA’s default DRE value and 

asserted that default DREs should not be permitted at all 

because a default DRE does not capture the potentially high 

 

15 Since 1996, EPA has maintained a partnership with the U.S. 

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

the Semiconductor Industry. As part of the Partnership, semiconductor 

facilities have committed to reduce fluorinated GHG emissions by at 

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

2010. 

72
variability in DREs across different systems and across 

similar systems installed at different facilities. In 

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

based only on 11 actual measured DRE values. The commenter 

encouraged EPA to require only direct measurement of DRE’s 

in accordance with EPA’s DRE Protocol and disallow any 

application of a default DRE. 

Response: EPA disagrees with commenters that asserted 

EPA should permit electronics manufacturing facilities to 

report controlled emissions from abatement systems using 

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

with or without applying a 10 percent discount. As EPA 

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

2006 default factors or the manufacturer’s DRE values 

because once installed, abatement equipment may fail to 

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

DRE performance claimed by equipment suppliers and upon 

which the 2006 IPCC default factors were based may have 

been incorrectly measured due to a failure to account for 

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

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

supported by industry assessments as presented in Beu, 

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

default DRE value was calculated using data from 

73
measurements assured to properly account for the effects of 

dilution. In addition, the tested systems were properly 

installed, operated, and maintained. 

EPA is including the option for facilities to use a 

default DRE in the final rule to permit those facilities 

that have fluorinated GHG and N2O abatement systems to 

calculate and report controlled emissions using an approach 

that is less burdensome than directly measuring abatement 

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

DRE is based on EPA's practical experience measuring the 

performance of abatement systems during the development of 

the DRE Protocol.16 Further, for a facility to use the 

default DRE, they are required to certify that their 

abatement systems are installed, operated, and maintained 

in accordance with the manufacturers’ specifications, and 

provide certification that the abatement system is 

specifically designed for fluorinated GHG and N2O. 

EPA is proud of its numerous collaborations with the 

semiconductor industry via the PFC Reduction/Climate 

Partnership for the Semiconductor Industry.17 EPA and its 

Partners have investigated the origins and magnitude of GHG 

emissions as well as technologies to minimize this 

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

 

16 See footnote 14. 17 www.epa.gov/semiconductor-pfc/ 

74
that the 60 percent default DRE penalizes Partner’s 

facilities. One of many important lessons learned by the 

Partnership concerns the challenge of properly measuring 

and maintaining fluorinated GHG abatement system 

performance. As discussed above, the 60 percent default 

DRE value is based upon EPA’s technical experience studying 

abatement systems, properly installed, operated and 

measured in actual production settings. EPA looks forward 

to continuing to collaborate with electronics manufacturers 

to minimize greenhouse gas emissions in 2011 and beyond. 

Further, EPA does not agree with commenters’ 

suggestion to apply a 10 percent discount to the 

manufacturer’s DRE values to account for differences 

between field and lab certification conditions. The 10 

percent discount appears arbitrary and was not accompanied 

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

electronics manufacturing facilities to apply a 10 percent 

discount to manufacturers’ DRE values. 

EPA agrees with commenters, in principle, that default 

DRE values could be developed for specific fluorinated 

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

However, EPA does not have sufficient DRE data for other 

fluorinated GHGs that were measured using EPA’s DRE 

Protocol and thus assured to properly account for the 

75
effects of dilution. Further, commenters did not provide 

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

future years EPA may consider establishing default DRE 

values for other fluorinated GHGs and N2O using data 

received from DRE measurements made in accordance with 

EPA’s DRE Protocol. 

Comment: Most commenters opposed EPA’s proposed 

procedures to account for abatement system uptime. 

Although several commenters agreed that accounting for 

uptime of abatement systems used at a facility is 

reasonable, some commenters asserted that EPA’s proposed 

procedures may not reflect actual practices at most 

facilities. 

In some cases, commenters stated that tools and 

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

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

alternative, one commenter suggested that EPA allow 

facilities to monitor uptime by documenting where abatement 

systems and production tools are interlocked and recording 

instances when abatement systems fail. 

 One commenter asserted that EPA’s inclusion, in the 

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

, 

Specification for Definition and Measurement of Equipment 

Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability was 

76
incorrect. The commenter noted that the SEMI Standard E10-0304E

 does not include the concept of co-dependent uptime 

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

the commenter urged EPA to remove the reference to the SEMI 

standard and to define the appropriate calculation and its 

individual terms in the regulation unless EPA determines 

that one of the SEMI E-10-0304E formulas may in fact be 

used. 

Response: EPA took into consideration all concerns 

from commenters about the methods by which EPA proposed to 

calculate uptime of abatement systems. In response, EPA 

has modified the procedures required for monitoring and 

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

0304E

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

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

the final rule allows a facility to calculate an abatement 

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

in which that abatement system is in an operational mode 

when fluorinated GHGs or N2O are flowing through production 

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

the total time in which fluorinated GHGs or N2O are flowing 

through production process tool(s) connected to that 

abatement system. Further, EPA has defined operational 

mode as the time in which an abatement system is being 

77
operated within the range of parameters as specified in the 

operations manual provided by the system manufacturer. For 

clarification purposes, EPA has also added a discrete 

equation for calculating uptime into this rule. Lastly, 

also for clarification, EPA has added an equation that 

provides direction for facilities to account for uptime in 

overall facility emissions calculations. 

With respect to the commenter who suggested that EPA 

allow facilities to monitor and track uptime by documenting 

that tools are interlocked and instances in which abatement 

systems have failed, EPA appreciates the comment, but is 

not modifying the uptime requirements as suggested by the 

commenter. EPA expects facilities with interlocked 

abatement systems should be able to easily monitor and 

account for uptime of abatement systems using the methods 

provided in this rule. Absent data on the prevalence of 

interlocked tools and abatement systems in the industry, 

EPA will not permit facilities to use the method suggested 

by the commeter. Also, EPA is not permitting facilities to 

use the method suggested by the commenter as this would 

allow the use of multiple methods to monitor and account 

for uptime. Where feasible, EPA would like to ensure that 

facilities are using consistent methods as part of 

estimating emissions because will create a consistent basis 

78
on which to compare industry emissions and will also reduce 

EPA’s administrative burden. 

Comment: Many commenters expressed concern with EPA’s 

proposed method to apportion gas consumption to the nine 

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

refined process categories in the April 2010 proposal) for 

semiconductor facilities using a quantifiable metric. 

According to commenters, the proposed method of 

apportioning gas to the nine process sub-types of the 

Refined Method using a facility-specific engineering model 

based on wafer passes is overly burdensome and not 

currently feasible. More specifically, commenters asserted 

that because many facilities do not currently track wafer 

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

capital costs for the software needed to collect these 

data. Some commenters argued that it is not feasible to 

apportion gas to the nine proposed process sub-types solely 

based on wafer pass information. For example, one 

commenter noted that when one recipe is used to etch 

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

that one recipe would fall under multiple process sub-types 

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

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

track how much of each gas in the recipe was specifically 

79
used for each film etched in that one wafer pass, it is not 

feasible in this situation to apportion gas based on wafer 

pass. 

In most cases, commenters provided alternative methods 

for apportioning gas consumption. For example, some 

commenters suggested more flexible methods in which the 

apportioning is based on at least one quantifiable 

indicator and engineering knowledge. Commenters also 

asserted that apportionment should be determined by the 

facility and that EPA should not prescribe specific 

quantifiable indicators for apportioning gas consumption in 

the final rule. 

Response: EPA appreciates the concerns raised by 

commenters about EPA’s proposed method to apportion 

facility gas consumption. EPA is sensitive to the burden 

imposed by the rule and seeks to minimize it when possible 

without compromising the accuracy of reported emission 

estimates. 

Apportioning gas consumption to process types, process 

sub-types, or recipes, as defined in section 98.98 of this 

rule, regardless of the type of electronics manufacturing 

facility, is an essential part of the emission estimation 

methodology required by EPA in this subpart. Apportionment 

is required because emission factors are for specific 

80
process types, process sub-types, or recipes, and are based 

on knowledge of the amount of gas consumed. Requiring 

facilities to apportion gas consumption based on a metric 

that is quantifiable and measurable (a metric that is 

proportional to gas usage) is necessary for EPA to ensure 

that methods by which gas is apportioned, and hence 

emissions are estimated, are verifiable and accurate. 

In the final rule, to effectively balance commenters’ 

concerns about burden and feasibility with EPA’s 

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

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

starts) to apportion gas consumption. Under this final 

requirement, to develop apportioning factors, facilities 

must develop an engineering model that utilizes measureable 

process information.18 EPA is not specifying the 

quantifiable metric that must be used in these models; 

rather EPA is allowing reporters the flexibility to select 

the most appropriate quantifiable metric on which to base 

the facility-specific engineering model, provided model 

documentation and verification requirements as described 

below are met. 

 

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

during a specific manufacturing process relative to the total amount of 

that gas used during all processes at the facility. 

81
Documentation. As part of record-keeping requirements, 

EPA is requiring facilities to document, in their site GHG 

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

information about their facility-specific engineering 

model, including definitions of variables, derivations of 

equations and formulas, and example calculations to ensure 

apportioning factors are repeatable. This information must 

be updated annually in the facility’s site GHG monitoring 

plan. EPA is requiring this documentation as a means to 

verify that facility-specific engineering models are 

developed and then updated each year for each facility, and 

that the apportioning factors developed from these models 

are based on a quantifiable metric. EPA is requiring 

facilities to update model documentation and verification 

each year to account for changes to tools or process at a 

facility between reporting periods. 

Verification. EPA is requiring facilities to verify 

their engineering models used to apportion gas consumption 

by demonstrating that the results from the model are 

repeatable19 and by comparing the difference between modeled 

gas usage and actual gas usage. EPA is requiring this 

 

19 A repeatable demonstration means that the variables used in the 

formulas for the facility’s engineering model for gas apportioning 

factors are based on observable and measurable quantities that govern 

gas consumption rather than engineering judgment about those quantities 

or gas consumption. 

82
comparison to be made yearly for two different gases, one 

corresponding to the gas used in the largest quantity for 

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

quantity for chamber cleaning on a mass basis during a 

reporting period, based on the total amount of gas usage 

measured by a facility. EPA would consider a model as 

verified when the apportioned plasma etching gas usage as 

modeled differs from the actual gas usage by less than or 

equal to 5 percent relative to actual gas consumption , 

reported to one significant figure using standard rounding 

conventions. This verification requirement only applies to 

the comparison for the plasma etching gas, and does not 

have to be completed for the comparison for the chamber 

cleaning gas. 

EPA selected a verification standard of 5 percent as a 

means for a facility to demonstrate to EPA that the 

uncertainty in modeled estimates of gas usage does not 

appreciably affect the uncertainty in that facility’s 

reported emissions.20 EPA is focusing the verification of 

facility-specific engineering models on etching because 

information received in comments21 on the proposed rule and 

from Partner reports from EPA’s PFC Reduction/Climate 

 

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

0927) for more details on the verification metric. 

21 Refer to comment number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-0131. 

83
Partnership for the Semiconductor Industry show that 

reportable gases used for etching rank second and third in 

total quantities of usage industry-wide, and have the 

highest emission factors, which together make gas usage for 

etching process types a significant contributor to total 

facility emissions.22 

To reduce burden associated with verification, in the 

final rule, EPA is requiring that gas usage data for 

verification purposes be collected only for a single 30-day 

period of operation during which the capacity utilization 

equals or exceeds 60 percent of the design capacity. EPA 

selected a 30-day period for model verification to minimize 

disruptions to normal manufacturing operations while, at 

the same time, establishing a time period that is 

sufficiently long and a utilization that is sufficiently 

high to be representative of facility operations. 

E. Fluorinated Gas Production (Subpart L)

1. Summary of Final Rule 

Source Category Definition. 

 

22 Although EPA understands that chamber cleaning processes require the 

largest quantities of gas usage, the emission factors for chamber 

cleaning are low compared to etching emission factors. 

84
• The fluorinated gas production source category 

consists of processes that manufacture a fluorinated 

gas from any raw material or feedstock chemical, 

except for processes that generate HFC-23 during the 

production of HCFC-22. Producing a fluorinated gas 

includes the following: 

o Producing a fluorinated GHG as defined at 

98.410(b). 

o The manufacture of a chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) or 

hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) from any raw 

material or feedstock chemical, including the 

manufacture of a CFC or HCFC as an isolated 

intermediate for use in a process that will 

result in its transformation either at or outside 

of the production facility. 

• Producing a fluorinated gas does not include the 

following: 

o The reuse or recycling of a fluorinated gas. 

o The creation of HFC-23 during the production of 

HCFC-22. 

85
o The creation of intermediates that are created 

and transformed in a single process with no 

storage of the intermediates. 

o The creation of fluorinated GHGs that are 

released or destroyed at the production facility 

before the production measurement at 98.414(a). 

However, although such release and destruction do 

not themselves constitute fluorinated gas 

production, they must be reported when they occur 

during fluorinated gas production. 

Reporters must submit annual GHG reports for facilities 

that meet applicability criteria in the [General Provisions 

(40 CFR 98.2)]. 

GHGs to Report. For facilities that meet the source 

category definition, report the following: 

• CO2, CH4, and N2O combustion emissions from each 

stationary combustion unit 

• The total mass of fluorinated GHG emitted from: 

o Each fluorinated gas production process and all 

fluorinated gas production processes combined. 

86
o Each fluorinated gas transformation process that 

is not part of a fluorinated gas production 

process and all such fluorinated gas 

transformation processes combined. 

o Each fluorinated gas destruction process that is 

not part of a fluorinated gas production process 

or a fluorinated gas transformation process and 

all such fluorinated gas destruction processes 

combined. 

o Venting of residual fluorinated GHGs in 

containers (e.g., returned heels). 

GHG Emission Calculation and Monitoring. Reporters 

must calculate F-GHG emissions as follows: 

• Initial Scoping Test. Perform an initial scoping test 

under §98.124(a) to identify all fluorinated GHGs that 

occur in the process. 

• Estimating emissions. There are two methods for 

estimating fluorinated GHG emissions from fluorinated 

gas production and transformation processes: the mass 

balance method and the emission factor method. 

• Mass balance method. 

87
o Error test. Based on one of the approaches 

described in the rule, determine the absolute 

error and the relative error of using the mass 

balance method to estimate emissions from the 

process. If these calculations show that use of 

the mass-balance approach to estimate emissions 

from the process will result in an absolute error 

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

year or a relative error less than or equal 30 

percent of the estimated emissions, then you may 

use the mass-balance approach to estimate 

emissions from the process. Otherwise, you must 

use the emission factor method. 

o Mass-balance calculation. To perform the mass 

balance calculation, you must track and measure 

the raw material inputs to the process and 

outputs, including byproducts and products, from 

the process to determine the fluorinated GHG 

emissions. To characterize emissions (i.e., 

divide them among reactants, products, and 

byproducts), you must either perform stack 

testing on process vents or assume that all 

88
emissions consist of fluorinated GHGs, whether 

these are reactants, products, or by-products. 

• Emission factor (and emission calculation factor) 

methods. 

o For each process vent, perform a preliminary 

estimate of emissions, considering any controls, 

using one of the methods outlined below. For 

continuous process vents with estimated emissions 

greater than or equal to 10,000 mtCO2e, you must 

conduct emissions testing to develop or verify an 

emission factor for the process vent. For any 

process vents with estimated emissions less than 

10,000 mtCO2e and for batch process vents with 

emissions greater than or equal to 10,000 mtCO2e, 

you have the option to use engineering 

calculations or assessments to develop an 

emission calculation factor for the process vent. 

o In the preliminary estimate, account for the 

demonstrated destruction efficiency and expected 

downtime of the destruction device, if 

applicable. Both the expected downtime of the 

device and the expected activity level for the 

process must be based on typical recent values 

89
unless there is a compelling reason to adopt a 

different value. If there is such a reason 

(e.g., introduction of controls for a previously 

uncontrolled vent), it must be documented in the 

facility’s GHG Monitoring Plan. If your process 

vent emits one or more fluorinated GHGs whose 

GWPs are not listed in Table A-1, you may use a 

default global warming potential (GWP) of 2000 

for these fluorinated GHGs, or you may request to 

use provisional GWPs for these fluorinated GHGs 

if 

 the fluorinated GHGs are emitted in 

quantities that, with a default GWP of 2000, 

result in total calculated annual emissions 

equal to or greater than 10,000 mtCO2e for 

the vent, and 

 you believe the fluorinated GHGs have GWPs 

that would result in total calculated annual 

emissions less than 10,000 mtCO2e for the 

vent. 

o For the preliminary estimate, facilities may use 

the following methods: 

90
 Facilities may use the Emissions Inventory 

Improvement Process, Volume II: Chapter 16, 

Methods for Estimating Air Emissions from 

Chemical Manufacturing Facilities. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, August 

2007. 

 Facilities may determine the uncontrolled 

fluorinated GHG emissions from any process 

vent within the process using the procedures 

specified in 40 CFR §63.1257(d)(2)(i), 

“National Emission Standards for 

Pharmaceutical Production,” except as 

specified in paragraphs §98.123 

(b)(1)(i)(B)(1) through (b)(1)(i)(B)(7). 

 Facilities may use commercial software 

products that follow chemical engineering 

principles, including the calculation 

methodologies in paragraphs 98.123 

(b)(1)(i)(A) and (B). 

 Facilities may use previous test results, 

bench scale, or pilot-scale data, provided 

they are representative of the current 

process operating conditions. 

91
 Facilities may use design analysis based on 

chemical engineering principles, measurable 

process parameters, or physical or chemical 

laws or properties. 

 Facilities may use maximum flow rate, 

fluorinated GHG emission rate, 

concentration, or other relevant parameters 

specified or implied within a permit limit 

applicable to the process vent. 

o Emission and emission calculation factors for 

continuous or other non-batch processes: For 

process vents with emissions, considering 

controls, that are greater than or equal to 

10,000 mtCO2e, conduct emissions testing to 

determine the site-specific, process ventspecific emissions factor. 

 If the vent is controlled and annual 

emissions bypassing, i.e., not venting to, 

the control device are less than 10,000 

mtCO2e, then you may conduct emissions 

testing after the control device. 

92
 Otherwise, conduct emissions testing before

the control device. You may conduct 

emissions testing for fluorinated GHG 

following an acid gas scrubber, if there is 

no appreciable fluorinated GHG reduction 

occurring. 

o For process vents with annual emissions of less 

than 10,000 mtCO2e, either conduct emissions 

testing or use one of the engineering calculation 

or assessment methods outlined above to develop 

the site-specific, process-vent specific emission 

calculation factor. If and when emissions from 

the process vent meet or exceed 10,000 mtCO2e 

(e.g., due to activity increases, process 

changes, or destruction device malfunctions), you 

must conduct emissions testing and develop an 

emission factor for the vent by the end of the 

following year. 

o Emission and emission calculation factors for 

batch processes: For process vents from batch 

processes, either perform emissions testing as 

described above or use one of the engineering 

calculation or assessment methods outlined above 

93
to develop the site-specific, process-vent 

specific emission calculation factor. If 

estimated controlled emissions from the vent are 

greater than or equal to 10,000 mtCO2e and you 

develop an emission calculation factor, then you 

must conduct field verification measurements 

during the largest emission episode to verify 

that factor. 

o All processes: Determine the emissions factor or 

the emissions calculation factor using the 

fluorinated GHG emission rate and the process 

activity rate. 

o Estimate annual fluorinated GHG emissions from 

each process vent using the emission factor or 

the emission calculation factor and the actual 

activity data along with the use and uptime of 

the destruction device. 

o Sum the fluorinated GHG emission for all vents at 

the facility. 

o If using the emission factor or emission 

calculation factor approach, estimate emissions 

from equipment leaks using the EPA Protocol for 

94
Equipment Leak Emission Estimates (EPA-453/R-95-

017). The equipment leak emission estimates may 

include use of Method 21 for appropriate 

fluorinated GHGs. Alternatively, use a sitespecific leak detection method that you have 

validated for the fluorinated GHGs (or their 

surrogates) that occur in the process. 

• To establish the destruction efficiency, conduct a 

performance test or use the destruction efficiency 

determined during a previous performance test that 

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

destruction efficiency must be developed specifically 

for that compound (although in the case of SF6, CF4 may 

be used as a surrogate). 

• For destruction processes, estimate emissions using 

the calculation methods in the rule. 

• To estimate emissions from venting of container heels 

in cases where the heels are not recaptured or 

destroyed, either 

o weigh each container upon its return to the 

facility and before venting or 

95
o develop a representative heel factor for each 

fluorinated GHG and container size and type and 

multiply it by the number of containers of that 

gas and size and type vented annually. 

• Request to use a GWP other than 2000 for fluorinated 

GHGs whose GWPs are not listed in Table A-1. As noted 

above, for purposes of the preliminary emissions 

estimate under the emission factor approach, 

facilities may request to use a GWP other than 2000 

for fluorinated GHGs that do not have GWPs listed in 

Table A-1. Facilities must submit this request by 

February 28, 2011. 

o For each fluorinated GHG that does not have a GWP 

listed in Table A-1 and that constitutes more 

than one percent by mass of the stream emitted 

from the vent, the facility must provide the 

identity of the fluorinated GHG (including its 

chemical formula), the estimated GWP of the 

fluorinated GHG, the data and analysis that 

supports the facility’s estimate of the GWP of 

the fluorinated GHG, and the engineering 

calculations or assessments and underlying data 

that demonstrate that the process vent is 

96
calculated to emit less than 10,000 mtCO2e only 

when the proposed provisional GWPs, not the 

default GWP of 2000, are used for fluorinated 

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

o If EPA determines that the request is complete, 

that it substantiates each of the provisional 

GWPs, and that it demonstrates that the process 

vent is calculated to emit less than 10,000 

mtCO2e only when the provisional GWPs, not the 

default GWP of 2000, are used for fluorinated 

GHGs whose GWPs are not listed in Table A-1, then 

EPA will permit the facility to use the 

provisional GWPs for the preliminary emissions 

calculations unless EPA determines through a 

notice and comment process that one or more of 

the provisional GWPs is in error. As part of the 

notice and comment process, EPA will publish a 

summary of the data and analysis submitted to 

support the GWP. 

• Best available monitoring methods (BAMM). We are 

allowing facilities to use Best Available Monitoring 

Methods (BAMM) for any parameter that cannot 

reasonably be measured according to the monitoring and 

97
QA/QC requirements of subpart L. The owner or 

operator must use the calculation methodologies and 

equations in the “Calculating GHG Emissions” section 

of subpart L, but may use the best available 

monitoring method for any parameter for which it is 

not reasonably feasible to achieve the following by 

either July 1 or January 1, 2011 (these dates are 

discussed further below): 

o acquire, install, or operate a required piece of 

monitoring equipment, 

o procure services from necessary providers (e.g., 

contractors specializing in stack testing to 

support the development of emission factors), or 

o gain physical access to make required 

measurements (e.g., because a measurement 

requires the installation of a port and it is 

unsafe to install the port during process 

operation). 

• Facilities may use BAMM through June 30, 2011 without 

submitting a request to EPA. Facilities wishing to 

extend BAMM beyond the initial six-month period until 

December 31, 2011 for parameters other than emission 

98
factors, emission characterizations, and destruction 

efficiencies must submit a request to EPA by February 

28, 2011. Facilities wishing to extend BAMM beyond the 

initial six month period until December 31, 2011 for 

emission factors, emission characterizations, and 

destruction efficiencies must submit a petition to EPA 

by June 30, 2011. 

• Requests for BAMM extensions must include detailed 

explanations and supporting documentation to describe 

why it is not reasonably feasible for the facility to 

comply with the applicable monitoring requirements. 

In general, extension requests must include detailed 

descriptions and evidence that it is not reasonably 

feasible for the facility to acquire, install, or 

operate a required piece of monitoring equipment, to 

procure services from necessary providers, or to gain 

physical access to make required measurements in a 

facility by July 1, 2011 (for parameters other than 

emission factors, emission characterizations, and 

destruction efficiencies) or January 1, 2011 (for 

emission factors, emission characterizations, and 

destruction efficiencies). BAMM extension requests 

must also document the facility’s efforts to comply 

99
with the requirements and explain the BAMM that the 

facility will use, should EPA approve the request. 

EPA does not anticipate approving the use of BAMM 

beyond December 31, 2011; however, EPA reserves the 

right to approve any such requests submitted by June 

30, 2011 under unique and extreme circumstances which 

include safety, technical infeasibility, or 

inconsistency with other local, State or Federal 

regulations. Facilities requesting BAMM past December 

31, 2011 would have to submit documentation to support 

the request similar to that required for BAMM requests 

in 2011. In addition, these facilities would be 

required to describe the unique and extreme 

circumstances which necessitate the extended BAMM. 

• We anticipate that facilities will need to use best 

available monitoring methods only under limited 

circumstances. 

• BAMM for facilities pursuing the emission factor 

approach. 

• For facilities pursuing the emission factor approach 

for a given process, we expect that most activity data 

is already monitored using measurement devices with an 

accuracy and precision of ±1 percent of full scale or 

100
better. However, where this is not the case and where 

it is not reasonably feasible to acquire, install, or 

operate the measurement device by January 1, 2011 (or 

July 1, 2011), the facility would use the currently 

installed device (or would request to use it) through 

June 30, 2011 (or December 31, 2011). 

• Facilities already have until December 31, 2011 to 

develop emission factors, emission characterizations, 

and destruction efficiencies; thus, they would not 

need to use BAMM for these parameters unless they 

could not complete stack testing and parameter 

development until after that date. In this case, if 

the request for extended BAMM were granted, the 

facility would use an emission calculation factor, 

emission characterization, or destruction efficiency 

developed through engineering calculations or 

assessments to estimate 2011 emissions from the 

affected vent and process. As a condition for 

granting 12-month BAMM during the development of 

emission factors, emission characterizations, and 

destruction efficiencies, we are requiring facilities 

to recalculate and re-submit their 2011 emission 

estimates for the affected processes using the 

101
emission factors, emission characterizations, and 

destruction efficiencies that they develop for those 

processes in 2012. The one exception to this 

requirement is for a process that changes 

significantly between 2011 and 2012. 

• We do not expect facilities to require BAMM for 

estimating emissions from equipment leaks because we 

are already providing a great deal of flexibility in 

how such leaks may be estimated, including allowing 

the use of default emission factors. 

• BAMM for facilities pursuing the mass-balance 

approach. 

• For facilities using the mass-balance approach for a 

given process, we anticipate that the main reason for 

using BAMM will be an inability to meet the error 

limit due to an inability to acquire, install, or 

operate measurement devices with sufficient accuracies 

and precisions by January 1, 2011. In such cases, 

facilities will have a choice regarding the monitoring 

method they select to estimate emissions from the 

process under the BAMM provisions. They may use 

engineering calculations or assessments to develop 

emission calculation factors, or they may apply the 

102
mass-balance equations to the data they acquire using 

their current measurement devices. Before pursuing 

the latter method, facilities must estimate the 

relative and absolute errors that would be associated 

with using the mass-balance method to estimate 

emissions based on their current monitoring data. We 

anticipate approving the use of BAMM with the massbalance method only if those errors are less than 50 

percent or less than 2,500 mtCO2e for six months of 

emissions, respectively. If facilities cannot meet 

these error limits, they should use engineering 

calculations or assessments as their BAMM. 

• BAMM for facilities pursuing either approach. 

• Facilities requesting BAMM while they prepare to 

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

not reasonably feasible for them to apply the other 

approach to estimate emissions from the relevant 

process. Thus, facilities requesting BAMM until 

January 1, 2012 while they prepare to implement the 

mass-balance approach must explain and document why it 

is not reasonably feasible for them to apply the 

103
emission factor approach by July 1, 2011, and vice 

versa. 

Data Reporting. In addition to the information required 

to be reported by the General Provisions (40 CFR 98.3(c)), 

reporters must submit additional data that are used to 

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

reported for this source category is contained in §98.126. 

Recordkeeping. In addition to the records required by 

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

keep records of additional data used to calculate GHG 

emissions. A list of specific records that must be 

retained for this source category is included in §98.127. 

2. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal 

The major changes since proposal are identified in the 

following list. The rationale for these and any other 

significant changes can be found below or in “Mandatory 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA’s Response to Public 

Comments, Subpart L: Fluorinated Gas Production 

Processes.” 

• We are adding a number of clarifications to assist 

reporters in determining when and how the initial 

scoping test must be performed. Specifically, the 

initial scoping test applicability criteria are 

104
applied on a process vent basis rather than a process 

basis; facilities may conduct sampling and analysis on 

process vents or on process streams; and testing 

methods specific to stack testing do not have to be 

used. Other validated industry sampling analysis 

standards may be used. 

• We have added more flexibility to the mass-balance 

approach to 

o Allow use of the mass-balance approach with 

processes that do not produce fluorinated GHGs 

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

that transform fluorinated GHGs); and 

o Incorporate process variability into the error 

calculation. 

• We have added more flexibility to the emission factor 

approach by 

o Changing the method for determining whether the 

emissions of a process vent fall below the 10,000 

mtCO2e cutoff that allows the use of engineering 

calculations rather than stack testing. First, 

we are allowing the use of controlled rather than 

uncontrolled emissions in this determination and 

105
are consequently eliminating the separate 

exemption for vents that are 99.9 percent 

controlled. Second, where one or more 

fluorinated GHGs emitted from the vent do not 

have a GWP listed in Table A-1, we are allowing 

the use of a default GWP of 2000 for these GHGs 

in the determination rather than setting a cutoff 

of one ton of chemical. We are also allowing 

facilities to request to use a provisional GWP 

where the facility believes that the fluorinated 

GHG’s GWP is less than 2000 and where the 

difference would reduce the calculated vent 

emissions from above the 10,000 mtCO2e cutoff to 

below it. 

o Introducing a new option to use engineering 

calculations or assessments with all batch 

processes, regardless of emissions (although you 

must conduct field verification measurements 

during the largest emission episodes to verify 

the emission factor for the process vent if 

emissions from the vent are greater than or equal 

to 10,000 mtCO2e). 

106
o Allowing emissions testing after the control 

device if the vent is controlled and annual 

emissions bypassing (i.e., not vented to) the 

control device are less than 10,000 mtCO2e. This 

change alleviates concerns for testing certain 

hazardous streams on the inlet side to the 

control device, limits the number of potential 

sampling ports that may need to be installed, and 

limits testing to outlet emissions only (single 

measurement point) without need for additional 

destruction efficiency testing. 

o Expanding the set of test methods that can be 

used for emissions testing. We are allowing 

industry standard sampling and analytical methods 

that have been validated using EPA Method 301 or 

other validation methods. 

o Expanding the set of methods that can be used for 

quantifying emissions from equipment leaks. We 

are now allowing use of the default average 

emission factor approach in the EPA Protocol for 

Equipment Leaks and are allowing facilities to 

implement their own methods for detecting and 

quantifying fluorinated GHG emissions from 

107
equipment leaks. Site-specific leak detection 

methods must be validated and both the methods 

and their validation must be documented in the 

facility’s GHG Monitoring Plan. 

o For purposes of quantifying emissions from 

equipment leaks, defining “in fluorinated GHG 

service” as containing or contacting a feedstock, 

byproduct, or product that contains 5 percent or 

more total fluorinated GHG by weight. 

• We are adding a requirement to monitor and report 

fluorinated GHG emissions from containers when the 

residual fluorinated GHG (heel) is vented to the 

atmosphere rather than recaptured and reused or 

destroyed. As discussed in the proposed rule and in 

the technical support document, venting of residual 

gas from containers can have a significant impact on 

the overall emission rate of a fluorinated GHG 

production facility. Estimating such emissions is 

straightforward and is not expected to impose a 

significant burden on facilities. 

• We are adding a one-time requirement to report data 

and analysis regarding the formation of products of 

incomplete combustion (PICs) that are fluorinated GHGs 

108
during the destruction of fluorinated gases. Studies 

of high-energy processes in the electronics industry 

indicate that PFC PICs may form in significant 

quantities during the destruction of fluorinated GHGs. 

Once formed, such PICs are likely to be very difficult 

to destroy. We considered requiring reporting of 

fluorinated GHG PIC generation and emissions under 

this rule, but we concluded that more information on 

the nature and magnitude of such emissions was needed 

to determine whether and how to craft reporting 

requirements. The one-time reporting requirement 

regarding PICs is intended to begin addressing this 

need. 

• We are modifying the proposed Best Available 

Monitoring Methods (BAMM) provision to allow 

fluorinated gas production facilities to use BAMM 

through June 30, 2011 without submitting a request to 

EPA. In the proposal, facilities would have been 

allowed to use BAMM only through March 31, 2011 

without submitting a request. We are also reserving 

the right to allow, in extremely limited 

circumstances, facilities to use BAMM in 2012. We are 

allowing facilities to use BAMM for six months rather 

109
than three and are potentially allowing the use of 

BAMM beyond 2011 based on comments received on the 

April 12, 2010 proposed rule and our experience 

implementing the final reporting rule issued in 

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

rationale, see “Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting 

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

Fluorinated Gas Production” (available in the docket, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927). 

3. Summary of Comments and Responses 

This section contains a brief summary of major comments 

and responses. A number of comments on fluorinated GHG 

production were received covering numerous topics. 

Responses to significant comments received can be found in 

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

Public Comments, Subpart L: Fluorinated Gas Production 

Processes.” 

Monitoring and QA/QC Requirements

Comment: Several commenters stated that the proposed 

Process Vent Threshold is too stringent, particularly in 

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

listed in Table A-1 of Subpart A of the rule. One commenter 

stated that by assigning this default GWP to all unknown 

110
fluorinated organic compounds, an emphasis is being placed 

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

commenter noted that since many of their compounds are not 

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

10,000 mtco2e threshold. Several commenters requested that 

they be allowed to develop and use their own GWPs for 

compounds that are not listed in Table A-1, following the 

general guidance presented in various IPCC reports. 

Multiple commenters provided comment on the control 

efficiency (or destruction efficiency) of destruction 

devices. One commenter requested that the required control 

efficiencies be adjusted to reflect the established 

performance efficiency of the process. Additionally, the 

commenter noted that when a very low concentration of the 

analyte of interest is present in a stream, a 99.9 DE may 

not be achievable. 

Another commenter stated that EPA should clarify that 

this limit is per vent and not on the basis of individual 

batch steps. This same commenter requested that EPA allow 

post-control efficiencies for vents that are controlled by 

DRE less than 99.9%. 

One commenter recommended that EPA modify the 

threshold to reflect a sum of controlled and uncontrolled 

emissions to allow for situations when a destruction device 

111
is not in use. One commenter suggested that EPA establish 

a schedule that would require larger sources (greater than 

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

years, with smaller sources tested in subsequent years as 

technologies improve. Another commenter requested that EPA 

implement the 10,000 mtCO2e threshold and that it be 

applied as an additive threshold amongst all portions of a 

facility that are covered under the Mandatory Reporting 

Rule. This commenter also noted that the 10,000 mtCO2e 

threshold is in accord with the requirements of many states 

and the Western Climate Initiative. 

Response: EPA appreciates the comments and has 

modified the method for determining whether the emissions 

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

which the facility may use engineering calculations rather 

than stack testing to estimate emissions. First, we are 

allowing the use of controlled rather than uncontrolled 

emissions in this determination and are consequently 

eliminating the separate exemption for vents that are 99.9 

percent controlled. Second, where one or more fluorinated 

GHGs emitted from the vent do not have a GWP listed in 

Table A-1, we are allowing the use of a default GWP of 2000 

for these GHGs in the determination rather than setting a 

cutoff of one ton of chemical. Third, where facilities 

112
believe that the default GWP overestimates the actual GWP 

and where use of the actual GWP would lower the calculated 

emissions from the vent from above the 10,000 mtCO2e cutoff 

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

GWP other than 2000. 

We believe that this revised approach allows 

reasonable flexibility and ensures that the rigor of 

emission calculations is proportional to the likely 

magnitude of the emissions. While the proposed rule would 

have permitted the use of engineering calculations and 

assessments to estimate emissions from vents that were 

always 99.9 percent controlled, they would have required 

stack testing for vents controlled below the 99.9 percent 

level, even if the emissions from these vents were 

considerably below 10,000 mtCO2e. Today’s final rule 

establishes a more consistent approach to accounting for 

destruction by permitting the use of engineering 

calculations and assessments where controlled emissions 

fall below 10,000 mtCO2e. 

Today’s final rule also allows for a more 

sophisticated treatment of fluorinated GHGs whose GWPs are 

not listed in Table A-1. Under the proposed rule, 

facilities would have been required to perform stack 

testing on fluorinated GHG streams that exceeded one ton 

113
and that included any fluorinated GHG that did not have a 

GWP listed in table A-1, even if this fluorinated GHG made 

up a small fraction of the stream. Implicitly, this 

assigned a GWP of 10,000 not only to the GHG without a GWP 

in table A-1, but to the rest of the stream. Assigning a 

default GWP of 2000 to GHGs without GWPs in table A-1 

allows streams to be evaluated based on a reasonable 

estimate of the total CO2e rather than just on total F-GHG 

tonnage.23 The 2,000 value was selected based on an 

evaluation of all the known GWPs for fluorocarbon F-GHGs as 

listed in Table A-1.24 It is intended to be a short-term 

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

broader program for evaluating the GWPs of fluorinated 

GHGs. However, such a program will not be established in 

time to evaluate all of the GWPs that must be evaluated for 

 

23 This would avoid problematic situations that could arise if 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

most PFCs whose vapor pressures qualify them as fluorinated GHGs 

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

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

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

1,200 to 1,400). 

114
purposes of determining whether or not to perform stack 

testing on process vents. 

The option to request to use a provisional GWP 

addresses situations where the GWP of 2000 would 

significantly overestimate the CO2e emissions from a 

process vent and inappropriately trigger stack testing. In 

general, we expect such situations to be rare. 

Comment: Several commenters stated that the analytical 

methods as proposed are too prescriptive. Some of the 

methods are either not appropriate for testing fluorinated 

compounds or do not work well with fluorinated compounds. 

(Other commenters noted that they had successfully used the 

same methods to detect and quantify fluorinated GHGs in 

stack emissions, however.) The prescribed detectors (e.g., 

ECD) do not work well with all fluorinated compounds. The 

need to adapt the methods to accommodate site-specific 

issues or safety concerns is not addressed in the proposed 

rule. EPA needs to increase the flexibility in the testing 

section, include the same level of flexibility as was used 

in subpart OO, allow more methods as alternatives for use 

in analysis, and rely heavily on the facility GHG 

Monitoring Plan. 

Response: EPA agrees that additional flexibility is 

appropriate and has integrated additional flexibility into 

115
the rule in order to allow the use of alternative test 

methods and procedures, which must be documented in the 

facility’s GHG Monitoring Plan. By requiring use of a 

quality-assured analytical instrument technology that is 

capable of detecting the analyte of interest and using a 

procedure that is validated and statistically rigorous, 

facilities should be able to obtain and report accurate 

emissions measurements. 

Comment: Several commenters requested clarification 

of or changes to the error test that facilities must 

perform before applying the mass-balance approach to 

estimate emissions from a process. Some commenters 

requested that EPA establish an error limit in terms of the 

quantity of reactants fed into the process, an option on 

which EPA had requested comment. These commenters were 

concerned that the error limit that was presented in the 

proposed regulatory text, which would require the error to 

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

would disadvantage fluorinated GHG production processes 

with low emissions for which facilities might prefer to use 

the mass-balance approach. 

Response: EPA has carefully evaluated various options 

to ensure that emissions estimates developed using the 

mass-balance approach are reasonably accurate while 

116
avoiding placing a burden on facilities with low emissions. 

In its deliberations, EPA has considered the fact that for 

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

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

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

percent. The availability of the PSEF approach argues 

against allowing use of the mass-balance approach where 

relative and absolute errors become large. 

The approach that EPA proposed, which would require 

the error to fall below either 30 percent of emissions or 

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

and the absolute error of small emissions. EPA anticipates 

that processes that have large throughputs, moderate to 

large emission rates (2 percent), and measurements with 

good precisions and accuracies will pass this error test, 

because the error will fall under 30 percent of emissions. 

EPA also anticipates that processes that have small to 

medium throughputs, small to medium emission rates, and 

measurements with moderate to good precisions and 

accuracies will pass the error test, because the error will 

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

mtCO2e. However, processes with large throughputs and 

small emission rates may not pass the error test even if 

117
their measurements are highly accurate and precise, because 

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

emissions. 

The last set of processes described might be able to 

use the mass-balance approach if the error test were 

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

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

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

would remain constant regardless of the emission rate 

rather than increasing as emissions decreased. However, 

while such an approach would maintain the mass-balance 

approach as an option for large processes with small 

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

precision and accuracy of the resulting emission estimates 

well below what could be achieved using the emission factor 

approach. For example, consider a process producing 10 

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

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

error was limited to 0.6 percent of the fluorinated GHG 

product,25 the error of the emissions estimate for this 

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

emission factor approach, the error of the emissions 

 

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

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

production. 

118
estimate would be half this, 30,000 mtCO2e. Thus, EPA is 

not adopting the alternative error test. Instead, EPA is 

adopting the error test that was proposed. 

Comment: One commenter stated that the relative error 

associated with each measurement is not necessarily known. 

This commenter also requested clarification on when the 

error test must take place and how multiple measurements 

should be handled in the test. The commenter noted that 

over the reporting year, at least twelve measurements would 

be made of masses and concentrations. If facilities waited 

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

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

have time to pursue the alternative of developing and 

applying process-specific emission factors. 

Response: EPA agrees that there may be multiple 

sources of error in the mass and concentration measurements 

used to estimate emissions under the mass balance approach. 

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

known or easily quantifiable, the most important sources of 

error can be assessed and quantified. These include the 

error of the measurement devices and the variability of the 

process. In general, facilities would be expected to know 

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

flowmeters) for measuring mass and their analytical methods 

119
for measuring concentrations. Facilities would also be 

expected to know how variable their process is and in 

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

Since mass measurements are cumulative (that is, the 

monthly estimates of mass flowing into or out of the 

process should be totals for the month), process 

variability will generally have much more of an impact on 

the accuracy and precision of the concentration 

measurements than on those of the mass measurements. 

 If a facility has a record of concentration 

measurements that are representative of the current process 

(including its full variability) and analytical methods, 

then these concentration measurements may be used to assess 

the variability of the process. The variability in these 

measurements will also capture the random error 

(imprecision) of the analytical method. (The variability 

will not capture the systematic error or inaccuracy of the 

method, but this is generally expected to be smaller than 

the error associated with process variability.) To 

incorporate this variability into the error calculation, 

facilities must consider the fact that at least 12 

concentration measurements would be taken over the course 

120
of the year.26 As explained further in the response to 

comments document, this can be accomplished using the 

student’s t distribution. 

If a facility does not have a record of concentration 

measurements that capture the variability of the process, 

the facility can assess this variability by either (1) 

relying on engineering calculations, or (2) taking several 

measurements over the first month or two of the reporting 

year. The facility can then incorporate the results of 

these measurements into the mass-balance error calculation. 

Since these two methods for assessing variability may be 

less reliable than long-term monitoring, the facility may 

wish to pursue the process-specific, site-specific emission 

factor approach if the results show that the process barely 

passes the error test. 

 Comment: Commenters also addressed the issue of the 

use of surrogates in determining destruction efficiency. 

They noted that in the destruction and removal efficiency 

(DRE) testing that is performed at hazardous waste 

combustors pursuant to 40 CFR 63.1219, facilities are 

 

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

concentration measurements so that they obtain a representative set of 

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

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

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

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

elapse between measurements. 

121
allowed to test any principal organic hazardous constituent 

(POHC) within a thermal stability class to establish the 

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

argued that EPA should take a similar approach in the 

requirements for determining the destruction efficiency 

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

such as naphthalene, are acceptable surrogates. 

Response: We understand that in the destruction and 

removal efficiency (DRE) testing that is performed at 

hazardous waste combustors pursuant to part 63, subpart 

EEE, facilities that demonstrate 99.99% DRE for a POHC 

within a thermal stability class are allowed to assume that 

99.99% DRE would also be achieved for the other compounds 

in that class and for compounds in other thermal stability 

classes with lower thermal stability rankings. This 

approach is based on the general conclusion that, for POHCs 

that are in the same class and that occur in significant 

volumes, differences in DREs tend to be small, and that 

compounds in other thermal stability classes with lower 

stability rankings are easier to destroy. 

However, it would be a misapplication of the thermal 

stability index to conclude that a combustor that has 

122
demonstrated 99.99% DRE for any Class 1 compound27 would 

also achieve 99.99% DRE for SF6, a Class 1 compound, and for 

perfluoromethane (CF4). While achieving 99.99% DRE for SF6

ensures 99.99% DRE for other Class 1 compounds, the 

converse may not be true. As discussed below, SF6 is 

substantially more thermally stable than other Class 1 

compounds (and CF4 is substantially more thermally stable 

than SF6). Note that this does not impugn EPA’s policy of 

assuming for purposes of the hazardous waste combustion 

standards that achieving 99.99% DRE for a Class 1 compound 

ensures 99.99% DRE for other Class 1 compounds (and, 

therefore, for all POHCs). Given that SF6 is nontoxic and 

is not a RCRA Part 261, Appendix VIII organic compound for 

which 99.99% DRE would be required under the hazardous 

waste combustion standards, the fact that demonstrating 

99.99% DRE for other Class 1 compounds may not ensure 

99.99% DRE for SF6 is irrelevant to that policy. 

The theoretical considerations that support the 

conclusion that fluorinated GHGs are extremely thermally 

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

bonds. These energies make it difficult to break the bonds 

through reaction with oxygen, hydrogen, or the hydroxyl 

radical, the typical means of destroying other class 1 

 

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

stability, meaning they are the most difficult compounds to destroy. 

123
compounds. Essentially, the only path available to destroy 

these fully fluorinated compounds in HWCs or thermal 

oxidizers is through thermal decomposition at very high 

temperatures.28 These temperatures are significantly higher 

than those required for the thermal decomposition of most 

other class 1 compounds. For SF6, the thermal stability 

index indicates that the temperature to achieve 99 percent 

destruction with a two-second residence time is 1090°C; for 

CF4, we project that the temperature would be on the order 

of 1380°C.29 Researchers have suggested that CF4 may break 

down only in the flame zone.30 

Experimental evidence supports the idea that SF6 and 

CF4 are difficult to destroy. Due in part to the 

theoretical considerations outlined above, several studies 

have evaluated the use of SF6 as a possible surrogate for 

POHCs in evaluating DREs. Most studies have verified that 

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

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

estimate of the DREs for POHCs under most conditions. In 

one experiment at a full-scale hazardous waste incinerator, 

 

28W. Tsang et al make this case for perfluoromethane in Tsang, W., 

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

Highly Fluorinated Organic Compounds,” Combustion Science and 

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

sulfur hexafluoride. 

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

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

p. 393. 

30 Tsang, p. 387. 

124
the investigators found that even at high-temperature 

conditions, SF6 had a DRE that led to emissions 

approximately an order of magnitude higher than those of 

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

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

100 times lower than those of other POHCs.31 As noted 

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

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

abatement devices used in electronics manufacturing, which 

destroyed CF4 with an efficiency that was significantly 

lower (sometimes orders of magnitude lower) than the 

efficiency with which they destroyed SF6.32 

SF6 is ranked fourth in the POHC Thermal Stability 

Index; CF4 is not ranked. Three compounds are ranked higher 

than SF6 (i.e., ranked as having higher thermal stability). 

Hydrogen cyanide and cyanogen are ranked first and second 

in the thermal stability Index, but these POHCs are rarely 

 

31 A. Trenholm, C. Lee, and H. Jermyn, “Full-Scale POHC Incinerability 

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

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

91/002 April, 1991, pp. 79-88. 

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

Destruction or Removal Efficiency (DRE) Measurement Method for 

Electronics Manufacturing: A Cooperative Evaluation with Qimonda,” 

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

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

Measurement Method for Electronics Manufacturing: A Cooperative 

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

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

or Removal Efficiency (DRE) Measurement Method for Electronics 

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

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

125
present at levels that qualify them as POHCs. Benzene is 

ranked third, but it frequently occurs as a product of 

incomplete combustion (PIC) and is therefore rarely 

selected as a POHC for DRE testing. For these reasons, the 

compounds above SF6 in the Index have not been used to 

measure the performance of most hazardous waste 

combustors.33,34 However, at fluorinated gas production 

sites that vent SF6, CF4, or other perfluorocarbons to 

destruction devices, these high-GWP compounds have the 

potential to profoundly affect the actual, CO2-weighted 

destruction efficiencies of those devices. The long 

atmospheric lifetimes of CF4 (50,000 years) and SF6 (3,000 

years) amplify the desirability of accurate measurements of 

their destruction. Thus, using these compounds themselves 

to measure their DEs, rather than compounds that may 

overestimate their DEs (and underestimate their emissions) 

by an order of magnitude or more, is critical. 

Other fluorinated compounds are not likely to be as 

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

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

 

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

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

achieve 99.99% DRE for SF6. 34 If hydrogen cyanide or cyanogens were present in a hazardous waste at 

levels high enough to consider them as principal organic hazardous 

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

they were tested as POHCs given that they are substantially more 

thermally stable than other Class 1 compounds. 

126
Nevertheless, higher molecular weight perfluorocarbons such 

as C2F6 are still expected to be relatively difficult to 

incinerate.35 As is true for CF4, the mechanism of 

destruction is expected to be thermal decomposition rather 

than attack by radicals, although the decomposition 

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

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

For these reasons, EPA is requiring that facilities 

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

destruction devices with the most difficult-to-destroy 

compound in this set that they actually destroy. (This 

requirement applies if the facility wishes to reflect the 

destruction in its emissions estimates; the facility has 

the option of forgoing testing if it does not wish to 

reflect the destruction.) Specifically, facilities that 

destroy CF4 must test the DE of their destruction device 

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

Facilities that destroy SF6 must test the DE of their 

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

efficiency to this compound. Facilities that destroy 

higher molecular weight PFCs must test the DE of their 

destruction device with C2F6, SF6, or CF4 to apply an 

efficiency to these compounds. Facilities that destroy 

 

35 Tsang, p. 401. 

127
other fluorinated GHGs, such as HFCs, may test the DE of 

their destruction device using any class 1 compound in the 

POHC Thermal Stability Index.

 Comment: Commenters stated that the methods proposed 

for detecting and quantifying equipment leaks are 

burdensome and as currently written, are inappropriate for 

many fluorinated GHGs. The commenters noted that, in their 

experience in monitoring emissions of VOCs or HAPs from 

equipment leaks, such leaks typically make up only a small 

percentage of facility emissions. Several commenters noted 

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

Equipment Leak Estimates and would be used in conjunction 

with Method 21. Method 21 was developed to detect and 

quantify emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 

from various sources. The technologies that are commonly 

used for quantifying leaks of VOCs do not detect many 

fluorinated GHGs at the sensitivity required by Method 21, 

and detectors that are capable of quantifying leaks of a 

range of these fluorinated GHGs do not meet all of the 

specifications for detectors set forth in Method 21, 

including, for example, probe diameter and sampling rate. 

Several commenters requested that EPA allow the use of 

alternative methods to detect and quantify fluorinated GHG 

equipment leaks. Some of these alternatives addressed the 

128
inability of Method-21-compliant technology to detect 

fluorinated GHGs. Others addressed the cost of screening 

large equipment sets for leaks, and some addressed both. 

The alternative methods included alternative detection 

technologies that did not meet all of the specifications of 

Method 21, any EPA monitoring approach in use in 

regulations, soap bubble testing either as a screening 

approach to be followed up with leak quantification or as a 

leak designator in itself, pressure and vacuum tests on 

batch process equipment, various sampling regimens, and 

alternative equipment counting approaches (for example, 

approaches that focus on rotating but not static 

equipment). One commenter suggested that EPA permit 

monitoring of room exhaust to quantify leaks from process 

equipment inside the room where the facility successfully 

completes an EPA Method 204 capture efficiency 

demonstration. Commenters requested that EPA allow 

facilities to establish and modify their own methods to 

provide appropriate equipment leak estimates for 

fluorinated GHG emissions, provided the methodology is 

documented in the GHG Monitoring Plan. 

Response: EPA agrees that it is appropriate to give 

facilities flexibility in designing and conducting their 

leak monitoring. In today’s final rule, we are expanding 

129
the set of methods that can be used for quantifying 

emissions from equipment leaks. We are now allowing use of 

the default Average Emission Factor approach in the EPA 

Protocol for Equipment Leak Estimates and are allowing 

facilities to implement their own methods for detecting and 

quantifying fluorinated GHG emissions from equipment leaks. 

Site-specific leak detection methods must be validated, 

e.g., through comparison with other methods, and both the 

methods and their validation must be documented in the 

facility’s GHG Monitoring Plan. 

Three considerations have persuaded us to allow this 

flexibility. First, the equipment and methods for 

detecting and quantifying emissions of fluorinated GHGs 

from equipment leaks have not advanced as far as those for 

monitoring emissions of VOC from equipment leaks. While 

some fluorinated GHGs can be detected using instruments 

that meet EPA Method 21 specifications, many others cannot 

be. Although instruments for detecting leaks of HFCs and 

SF6 from air-conditioning, refrigeration, and electrical 

equipment have existed for some time, most of these 

instruments do not quantify emissions and/or detect only 

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

instruments are not capable of quantifying emissions of the 

broad range of fluorinated GHGs that can leak from process 

130
equipment in fluorinated gas production facilities. For 

some fluorinated GHGs, the only instruments that are 

capable of detecting and quantifying emissions do not meet 

all of the Method 21 specifications or reach their maximum 

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

permitting use of monitoring equipment that departs from 

Method 21 specifications. 

Second, information submitted by several fluorinated 

gas producers indicates that equipment leaks account for a 

very small share of facility-wide fluorinated GHG 

emissions. Although this generalization is largely based 

on experience with VOCs and HAPs, two fluorinated gas 

producers have surveyed at least some of their process 

equipment with detectors sensitive to fluorinated GHGs and 

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

Consequently, if some leak quantification methods used to 

monitor equipment leak emissions under this rule, despite 

initial validation efforts, are later found to have 

relatively poor precisions or accuracies, these errors are 

unlikely to have had a large impact on facility emissions 

estimates in the meantime. The potential costs of 

experimentation in this area are relatively low. 

Third, the goal of this rule is to quantify 

fluorinated GHG emissions from leaks rather than to 

131
regulate them. Hence, leak quantification approaches that 

yield unbiased, if imprecise, estimates are preferable to 

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

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

Also, approaches that quantify leaks without locating them 

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

are acceptable in this context. 

One area where we are setting a quantitative 

monitoring standard is in sampling fractions and 

frequencies. In addition to requiring the sampled 

equipment to be representative of the equipment used in the 

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

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

of the equipment for each process be monitored each year. 

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

consistent standard across facilities and ensures that all 

equipment is sampled over a three-year period. 

One option that we considered and rejected was to 

require facilities to use the Average Emission Factor 

Approach in the Protocol for Equipment Leak Estimates.36 

This approach requires facilities to count the number of 

pieces of equipment of each type in a process and multiply 

 

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

three methods in the Protocol, which were proposed. 

132
the number of each type by a default emission factor. 

Fluorinated gas producers noted that this approach tends to 

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

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

even if they are imprecise, are preferable to extremely 

conservative estimates in the context of a reporting rule. 

Thus, although we are giving facilities the option to use 

the Average Emission Factor Approach (which may be 

desirable in a facility for which even this approach will 

yield an equipment leak estimate that is a tiny percentage 

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

We are requiring facilities to include brief 

descriptions of their leak detection methods in their 

annual GHG report. After facilities have gained experience 

designing and implementing leak detection approaches, we 

may revisit this issue to identify the approaches that are 

most effective. 

F. Electrical Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use 

(Subpart DD)

1. Summary of the Final Rule 

Source Category Definition. The electrical 

transmission and distribution equipment use source category 

consists of all electric transmission and distribution 

equipment and servicing inventory insulated with or 

133
containing SF6 or PFCs used within electric power 

transmission or distribution facilities. Such equipment 

includes all gas-insulated substations, circuit breakers, 

switchgear (including both closed-pressure and hermetically 

sealed-pressure equipment) electric power transformers, 

gas-insulated lines containing SF6 or PFCs, and new 

equipment owned but not yet installed. Servicing inventory 

includes pressurized cylinders, gas carts, and other 

containers of SF6 or PFC. 

 This source category does not include electricity 

generating units that are subject to Subpart D. 

Reporting Threshold. EPA is finalizing a reporting 

threshold based on nameplate capacity of equipment. 

Electric power transmission or distribution facilities must 

report if the total nameplate capacity of SF6 and PFC 

containing equipment located within the facility, when 

added to the total nameplate capacity of SF6 and PFC 

containing equipment that is not located within the 

facility but is under common ownership or control, exceeds 

17,820 lbs. Electricity generating units that have SF6 and 

PFC containing equipment onsite do not need to report GHG 

emissions from this source category unless the total 

nameplate capacity of SF6 and PFC containing equipment 

located within the Subpart D facility exceeds 17,820 lbs. 

134
GHGs to Report. Electrical Equipment Users must report 

the total SF6 and PFC emissions (including emissions from 

fugitive equipment leaks, installation, servicing, 

equipment decommissioning and disposal, and from storage 

cylinders) resulting from the transmission and distribution 

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

For equipment installation, you must report emissions from 

new equipment or equipment being installed at your facility 

once the title to the equipment is transferred to the 

electric power transmission or distribution entity. 

GHG Emissions Calculation and Monitoring. Reporters 

must calculate emissions using the following system-level 

mass-balance approach: 

• User Emissions = Decrease in SF6 Inventory + 

Acquisitions of SF6 + Disbursements of SF6 - Net 

Increase in Total Nameplate Capacity of Equipment 

Where: 

— Decrease in SF6 Inventory is SF6 stored in containers 

(but not in equipment) at the beginning of the year minus 

SF6 stored in containers (but not in equipment) at the end 

of the year. 

— Acquisitions of SF6 is SF6 purchased from chemical 

producers or distributors in bulk + SF6 purchased from 

equipment manufacturers or distributors with or inside of 

equipment, including hermetically sealed-pressure 

switchgear + SF6 returned to site after off-site recycling. 

— Disbursements of SF6 is SF6 in bulk and contained in 

equipment that is sold to other entities + SF6 returned to 

135
suppliers + SF6 sent off-site for recycling + SF6 sent offsite for destruction. 

— Net Increase in Total Nameplate Capacity of Equipment 

is the Nameplate capacity of new equipment, including 

hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear minus Nameplate 

capacity of retiring equipment, including hermetically 

sealed-pressure switchgear. (Note that Nameplate capacity 

refers to the full and proper charge of equipment rather 

than to the actual charge, which may reflect leakage.) 

The same method must be used to estimate emissions of 

PFCs. 

Data Reporting. In addition to the information 

required to be reported by the General Provisions 

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

reporters must submit additional data that are used to 

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

reported for this source category is contained in §98.306. 

Recordkeeping. In addition to the records required by 

the General Provisions (§98.3(g)) and summarized in Section 

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

additional data used to calculate GHG emissions. A list of 

specific records that must be retained for this source 

category is included in §98.307. 

2. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal 

Major changes in this source category since proposal 

are identified in the following list. The rationale for 

these and any other significant changes can be found below 

or in “Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's 

136
Response to Public Comments, Electric Transmission and 

Distribution Equipment Use—2009 proposal” and “Mandatory 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public 

Comments, Electric Transmission and Distribution Equipment 

Use—2010 proposal.” 

X Provide a definition for the Facility for subpart DD 

that is based on the system-wide physical collection of 

transmission and distribution equipment between the point 

at which electricity is obtained by an electric power 

system and the point at which electricity is provided to 

the customer or another electric power transmission or 

distribution entity not under common ownership. 

X Clarify that the term Operator, when applied to this 

source category, does not include entities whose sole 

responsibility is to balance load or otherwise address 

electricity flow. As specified in the General Provisions 

for part 98, the term Operator does include any other 

person who operates or supervises an electric power 

transmission or distribution facility. 

X Scales required to be accurate within +/- 2 lbs of 

true weight. This absolute accuracy requirement is 

generally considered less stringent than the 1% relative 

accuracy requirement that was originally proposed. 

137
X Scale recalibration required in accordance with 

manufacturer specifications, rather than scale reclibration 

be at least annually as was originally proposed. 

3. Summary of Comments and Responses

This section contains a brief summary of major 

comments and responses. A large number of comments on this 

subpart were received covering numerous topics. Responses 

to significant comments received can be found in “Mandatory 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public 

Comments, Subpart DD: Electrical Transmission and 

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

Definition of Source Category

Comment: Nearly all commenters stated that the 

proposed definition of an electric power transmission and 

distribution facility was generally appropriate and 

consistent with current industry practice of system-wide 

servicing equipment and tracking data. Several commenters 

suggested that the definition of a facility for this 

subpart could be further modified to more clearly define 

where an electric power systems begins and ends as well as 

who is responsible for reporting emissions that occur from 

electrical equipment that might be owned and serviced by 

multiple entities. 

138
A couple commenters recommended that the facility for 

this source category be defined on the basis of corporatelevel ownership. These commenters stated that a corporatebased facility boundary would help ensure that potential 

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

emissions falling above the threshold) and ensure more 

accurate emissions reporting while minimizing the burden on 

owners and operators of electric power systems in figuring 

out how to define facility boundaries. One commenter stated 

that a corporate-level facility definition would allow the 

most accurate and quickest determination of whether an 

entity is above the reporting threshold by enabling the 

entity to review the service and maintenance records for 

equipment that it owns. This commenter also expressed 

concern over who should be considered an operator of an 

electric power transmission and distribution facility, 

stating that the “operation” of an electric system relates 

to entities that coordinate operations across company lines 

to ensure reliability, balance load, and address congestion 

through generation dispatch and system planning. 

Two additional commenters from the electric power 

industry were supportive of defining the boundaries of a 

facility on the basis of equipment operation and thought 

this would be the most straightforward method for 

139
determining which equipment to include in their emission 

estimates. 

Response: In developing the proposed definition of a 

facility for this source category, EPA carefully considered 

definitions based on numerous concepts, including 

corporate-level ownership as well as equipment collectively 

operated by a single entity. 

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

of the facility definition for this source category. First, 

there are many non-corporate entities in the electric power 

industry, including municipalities and federal government 

agencies, that do not fit into a corporate-based definition 

of a facility. 

Second, a corporate-based facility definition is not 

well-suited to cases where there are multiple owners and 

operators of equipment that is interconnected or located 

within the same substation. The monitoring methods for 

subpart DD are designed to measure system-wide emissions 

from groups of equipment and SF6 storage stocks that are 

serviced and maintained together rather than emissions from 

individual pieces of equipment or individual cylinders. 

Some commenters expressed that they service and maintain 

equipment that they do not own using their centralized SF6 

140
gas stocks, which are also used to service equipment they 

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

corporate ownership would require emissions for a few 

pieces of the equipment to be estimated separately from the 

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

the system-wide mass-balance monitoring methods required by 

subpart DD. 

Instead, EPA has defined the Facility for this source 

category to mean the electric power system, which 

comprises all electric transmission and distribution 

equipment insulated with or containing SF6 or PFCs 

which is linked through electric power transmission or 

distribution lines and functions as an integrated 

unit and is located between (1) the point(s) at which 

electric energy is obtained by the facility from an 

electricity generating unit or a different electric 

power transmission or distribution entity that does 

not have a common owner and (2) the point(s) at which 

the customer(s) or another electric power transmission 

or distribution entity that does not have a common 

owner receives the electric energy. The facility also 

includes all servicing inventory for this equipment 

that contains SF6 or PFCs. 

141
In addition, EPA has defined Electric Power 

Transmission or Distribution Entity as any entity that 

transmits, distributes, or supplies electricity to a 

consumer or other user, including any company, 

electric cooperative, public electric supply 

corporation, a similar Federal department (including 

the Bureau of Reclamation or the Corps of Engineers), 

a municipally owned electric department offering 

service to the public, an electric public utility 

district, or a jointly owned electric supply project. 

Per the General Provisions (40 CFR 98.2 - 98.4) 

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

reporting requirements are applicable to both the owners 

and operators of a facility, each facility must have one 

and only one designated representative who will be 

responsible for certifying, signing, and submitting GHG 

emissions reports to EPA. The designated representative is 

to be selected by an agreement binding on the owners and 

operators of the facility. Since the definition of 

Operator in the General Provisions (40 CFR 98.6) is 

ambiguous in the context of the electric transmission and 

distribution equipment use source category, EPA has 

provided a clarification of Operator for this source 

category, which is the following: “Operators excludes 

142
entities whose sole responsibility is to ensure 

reliability, balance load or otherwise address electricity 

flow.” 

Definition of Source Category

Comment: EPA received comments stating that electrical 

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

to report SF6 emissions from electrical equipment located 

within the boundary of their generating facilities as part 

of the EGUs’ facility emission reports. This comment is in 

reference to the Subpart A §98.2(a)(1)requirement that 

reports for facilities that contain any source category (as 

defined in subparts C through JJ) must cover all source 

categories and GHGs for which calculation methodologies are 

provided in those subparts. Commenters noted that since 

the mass-balance monitoring methods in subpart DD are 

designed to monitor emissions at the system-wide level, it 

would be very difficult and time-consuming for an 

integrated electric power entity that operates electrical 

equipment at both generation facilities and across 

transmission and distribution systems (using the same SF6 

gas stocks) to estimate emissions only for the generation 

facilities. Furthermore, commenters noted that since the 

definition of an electric power system for subpart DD is 

already inclusive of any equipment operated by the electric 

143
power system at a generation facility, there could be 

double-counting of emissions for both the electric power 

system and the electricity generation facility. 

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

units and Subpart DD electric power systems as well as the 

challenge of estimating SF6 emissions solely from an 

electricity generating unit that is part of a larger 

integrated electric power system. EPA is confirming that an 

electricity generating unit would be required to report 

emissions associated with the Electric Transmission and 

Distribution Equipment Use source category, but only if SF6

and PFC-insulated equipment within the Subpart D facility 

exceeded the reporting threshold for Subpart DD. EPA 

expects that in general, the Subpart DD facility will not 

independently meet this threshold and thus is unlikely to 

incur the reporting obligation. Therefore, EPA does not 

anticipate double counting as a significant issue for 

Subparts D Electricity Generation Units and DD Electrical 

Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use. 

Monitoring and QA/QC requirements

Comment: Several commenters were critical of the 

requirement for weighing SF6 cylinders each time they enter 

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

144
noted the high burden associated with such frequent 

weighing of cylinders and also the lack of a perceived 

benefit since the cylinders already must be weighed at the 

beginning and end of each year for the beginning and endof-year storage inventory. 

Response: EPA agrees that the benefit of weighing SF6 

gas cylinders as they enter and leave inventory does not 

justify the costs of performing this activity. EPA has 

removed this requirement from § 98.306 (b)(2) and clarified 

that the QA/QC requirements for scale accuracy and 

calibration apply to cylinders returned to the gas supplier 

and cylinders weighed at the beginning and end of each year 

for the beginning and end-of-year storage inventory. 

Monitoring and QA/QC requirements

 Comment: Commenters generally expressed agreement that 

it was excessively burdensome to require scales used to 

weigh cylinders to be accurate and precise to within 1 

percent of the true weight and to be recalibrated at least 

annually or at the minimum frequency specified by the 

manufacturer, whichever is more frequent (40 CFR § 98.304 

(b)). Numerous commenters stated that the recalibration 

frequency specified by the manufacturer would be 

sufficient, thereby making the annual recalibration minimum 

unnecessary. Some commenters also stated that purchasing 1% 

145
accuracy scales would be expensive. One commenter 

suggested requiring scales with accuracies of +/- 2 pounds 

of full scale, which provides an accuracy within or close 

to 1 percent for the cylinder weights typically measured by 

electric power entities (i.e., between 105 and 225 pounds 

including tare weight). 

Response: The 1 percent accuracy requirement was 

proposed by EPA because the mass-balance method for 

measuring emissions requires accurate inputs, and the 

overall uncertainty of the emission estimate rises at an 

accelerating pace as the potential inaccuracy of each input 

increases. However, EPA also recognizes that the price of 

scales does increase as the accuracy of the scale increases 

and that many electric power entities do not currently use 

scales that are accurate to within 1 percent of the true 

weight. 

In order to balance the reporting burden with the need 

for accurate mass-balance inputs, this Final Rule requires 

the accuracy and precision of scales used to weigh 

cylinders to be based on pounds, within +/- 2 pounds of 

true weight. In addition, scale recalibration is required 

in accordance with manufacturer specifications, with no 

requirement that scale recalibration occur at least 

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

146
Public Comments for Subpart DD, EPA believes these 

adjustments still provide data of sufficient accuracy and 

certainty. 

Data Reporting Requirements

Comment: EPA received many comments regarding the 

inclusion of sealed-pressure equipment—which is not 

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

nameplate capacity estimates that must be reported to EPA 

under § 98.306 (a). Commenters recommended either (1) a 

minimum threshold be established to exclude sealed-pressure 

electrical equipment from the nameplate capacity estimation 

or (2) alternative methods should be allowed for estimating 

the nameplate capacity of sealed-pressure equipment (rather 

than performing a bottom-up inventory of the equipment). 

The most commonly cited rationale for these recommendations 

was the high burden associated with determining the 

nameplate capacity for each piece of sealed-pressure 

equipment within electric power systems, which can contain 

thousands of pieces of sealed-pressure equipment. Most 

commenters correctly acknowledged that even if a minimum 

threshold was established for reporting total facility-wide 

nameplate capacity, emissions from sealed-pressure 

equipment would still be captured in the mass-balance 

monitoring methods in 40 CFR § 98.304, and therefore 

147
establishing a minimum threshold for the nameplate capacity 

inventory would not exclude sealed-pressure equipment from 

reported emissions. 

Response: EPA agrees that the burden associated with 

performing a bottom-up assessment to determine the 

nameplate capacity of each piece of sealed-pressure 

equipment within an electric power transmission and 

distribution facility is unnecessarily high when compared 

to the benefits of performing such an assessment. As a 

result, EPA has excluded sealed-pressure equipment from the 

data reporting requirement for total facility-wide 

nameplate capacity existing as of the beginning of the 

year. 

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

disposal still makes it important to document emissions 

from sealed-pressure equipment, especially for facilities 

that specialize in electricity distribution. EPA has 

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

SF6 acquisitions input of the mass-balance equation, and 

sealed-pressure equipment that is new or retired must still 

be considered as a change to the nameplate capacity in the 

mass-balance equation. This will ensure that emissions from 

148
sealed-pressure equipment are still included in the overall 

emissions estimate. 

Since sealed-pressure equipment is no longer required 

to be included in the total facility-wide nameplate 

capacity estimate, EPA is including distribution miles in 

§98.306 Data Reporting Requirements because distribution 

miles provide an approximate indication of how much sealedpressure equipment is within an electric power transmission 

and distribution system. 

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

1. Summary of the Final Rule 

Source Category Definition. This source category 

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

consists of any entity that is importing or exporting 

closed-cell foams that contain a fluorinated GHG. 

Any importer or exporter of fluorinated GHGs contained 

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

the applicability criteria in the General Provisions (40 

CFR 98.2(a)(4)), summarized in Section II.A of this 

preamble, must report their GHG emissions. 

GHGs to Report. Importers and exporters of 

fluorinated GHGs inside pre-charged equipment and closed149
cell foam report the quantity of each fluorinated GHG 

contained in pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams 

imported or exported during the calendar year. For 

importers and exporters of closed-cell foams that are not 

the manufacturers of the foams and do not know the identity 

and mass of the fluorinated GHG within the closed-cell 

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

fluorinated GHGs imported or exported in closed-cell foams. 

GHG Emissions Calculation and Monitoring. The total 

mass of each fluorinated GHG imported and exported inside 

equipment or foams shall be estimated by multiplying the 

mass of flourinated GHG per unit of equipment or foam type 

by the number of units of equipment or foam type imported 

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

section 98.433. For importers and exporters of closed-cell 

foams that do not know the identity and mass of the 

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

CO2e of the fluorinated GHGs shall be estimated by 

multiplying the mass in CO2e of flourinated GHGs per unit of 

equipment or foam type by the number of units of equipment 

or foam type imported or exported annually, as presented in 

Equation QQ-2 under section 98.433. 

Data Reporting. In addition to the information 

required to be reported by the General Provisions (40 CFR 

150
98.3(c)), reporters must submit additional data that are 

used to calculate GHG emissions. A list of the specific 

data to be reported for this source category is contained 

in section 98.436. 

Recordkeeping. In addition to the records required by 

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

keep records of additional data used to calculate GHG 

emissions. A list of specific records that must be 

retained for this source category is included under section 

98.437. 

2. Summary of Major Changes since Proposal 

The major changes in this rule since the April 2010 

proposal are identified in the following list. The 

rationale for these and any other significant changes to 

the proposed rule can be found below or in “Mandatory 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public 

Comments, Subpart QQ: Importers and Exporters of 

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

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

exporter does not know the identity and amount of 

fluorinated GHGs inside the closed-cell foam is 

unknown, they can report the amount of fluorinated 

151
GHGS imported or exported on a Co2e basis, based on 

information from the manufacturer. 

Χ EPA has revised the definition of closed-cell foams to 

exclude packaging foam. 

Χ EPA has revised the requirements for importers such 

that the port of entry and country of origin are no 

longer listed under data reporting requirements. 

These two data elements are now listed under 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Χ EPA has revised the requirement for exporters such 

that the port of exit and countries to which items 

were exported are no longer listed under data 

reporting requirements. These are two data elements 

are now listed under recordkeeping requirements. 

3. Summary of Comments and Responses 

This section contains a brief summary of major 

comments and responses. A large number of comments on this 

subpart were received covering numerous topics. Responses 

to significant comments received can be found in “Mandatory 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public 

Comments, Subpart QQ: Importers and Exporters of 

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

0927). 

152
Comment: Commenters stated that data on fluorinated 

GHGs contained in pre-charged equipment or closed-cell 

foams does not constitute emissions data and is thus 

outside EPA’s authority to collect under this rulemaking. 

Commenters also stated that any emissions from these 

equipment types would depend upon “the ultimate end-use and 

disposal” of the equipment, activities beyond the 

reporter’s control. 

Response: In this final rule, EPA is issuing 

reporting requirements for importers and exporters of 

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

as a supplier source category under 98.2(4). 

As discussed in the preamble to the October 2009 Final 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Rule (74 FR 56260), 

that rule (as well as today’s action) responds to a 

specific request from Congress to collect data on GHG 

emissions from both upstream production and downstream 

sources, as appropriate. Therefore, EPA has developed 

reporting requirements for direct emitters of GHGs as well 

as for suppliers of fuels and industrial gases. For 

fluorinated GHGs in particular, the US supply is impacted 

by the production, import, and export of fluorinated GHGs 

in bulk as well as by the import and export of fluorinated 

153
GHGs in pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams. EPA 

has already finalized reporting requirements for suppliers 

of industrial gases (40 CFR 98 Subpart OO) which include 

importers and exporters of fluorinated GHGs in bulk. 

Today’s action supplements EPA’s previous action by 

requiring reporting from importers and exporters of 

fluorinated GHGs in equipment and closed-cell foams. 

In many cases, the fluorinated GHGs contained in 

equipment and closed-cell foams are ultimately emitted by a 

large number of small sources. To cover these direct 

emissions would require reporting by hundreds of thousands 

of small entities, such as individual homes with leaking 

air conditioning units. To avoid this impact, the rule does 

not include all of those emitters but instead requires 

reporting by importers and exporters of fluorinated GHGs in 

equipment and closed-cell foams. For further discussion of 

the need for upstream reporting, see the preamble to the 

October 2009 Final Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas 

Rule (74 FR 56271). 

EPA has the legal authority to collect data from 

suppliers, including importers and exporters of fluorinated 

GHGS contained in equipment and closed-cell foams. Section 

114 authorizes EPA to gather information from any person 

who is subject to a requirement of the Act (other than 

154
engine manufacturers) or who may have information the 

Administrator believes is necessary for purposes of section 

114(a) (which in turn references carrying out any provision 

of the Act). Information from suppliers of industrial 

greenhouse gases is relevant to understanding the 

quantities and types of gases being supplied to the 

economy, in particular those that could be emitted 

downstream, which will aid in evaluating action under CAA 

section 111, as well as various sections of title VI (e.g., 

609 and 612) that address substitutes to ozone depleting 

substances. A complete discussion of these issues, 

including a discussion of EPA’s legal basis for collecting 

information from upstream reporters, can be found in 

section I.C of the preamble to the October 2009 Final 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Rule (74 FR 56271) 

and Volume 9 of the Response to Comments to the Mandatory 

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

EPA notes that some commenters appear to associate 

comments on whether EPA has authority to collect subpart QQ 

data, comments on whether subpart QQ data is “emission 

data,” and comments on whether data collected under QQ 

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

subpart QQ data is addressed above. Today’s action does 

not address whether data reported under this subpart are 

155
“emission data” or whether these data will be treated as 

confidential business information (CBI). EPA published a 

proposed confidentiality determination on July 7, 2010 (75 

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

of this preamble for more information. 

Comment: Some commenters stated that this subpart is 

a minor source of GHG emissions. These commenters stated 

that the quantities of fluorinated GHGs inside individual 

pieces of equipment are small, ranging from ounces to 

pounds, and that emissions from such equipment are ”de 

minimis” because the systems are hermetically sealed. 

Response: In this final rule, EPA is issuing 

reporting requirements for importers and exporters of 

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

fluorinated GHGs imported in pre-charged equipment and 

closed-cell foams are significant because of the high GWP 

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

approximately 22 MMTCO2e are imported by entities subject to 

this subpart, which together comprise the eleventh most 

significant source of GHGs (in carbon dioxide equivalent 

terms) covered under the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse 

Gases Rule. (More information on these estimates can be 

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

156
fluorinated GHGs from entities subject to this subpart are 

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

fluorinated GHG supply, while exports are estimated to 

account for one to two percent. 

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

eventually emitted into the atmosphere, as these gases leak 

from the equipment or are vented during service and 

disposal events. By accounting for all chemical flows into 

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

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

consumption and ultimately emissions that is more accurate 

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

commenters note, these equipment are purchased and used by 

a diffuse variety of entities. Upstream data gathering is 

thus the most effective and accurate method to obtain this 

important data. For further discussion of the need for 

upstream reporting, see the preamble to the October 2009 

Final Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Rule (74 FR 

56271). 

Comment: EPA received comments from an association 

representing some motor vehicle manufacturers concerning 

the reporting of fluorinated GHGs contained in motor 

vehicle air conditioners (MVACs). The commenter 

recommended delaying the reporting requirements for MVACs 

157
or exempting them altogether. The commenter noted that the 

Final Rule on Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (75 

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

low-GWP refrigerants. The commenter also noted that 

manufacturers are contemplating the use of lower GWP 

refrigerants in MVACs due to the ability to voluntarily 

generate credits under the light duty rule and EU 

regulations. Commenters stated that exempting or delaying 

the applicability of the reporting requirements would 

conserve public resources and harmonize existing 

incentives. The commenter also stated that EPA should 

modify reporting requirements for MVAC imports and exports 

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

certain data elements would require reconfiguration of 

existing systems, and that these particular reporting 

requirements should be developed off-line for verification 

purposes. 

Response: In this final rule, EPA is not exempting 

importers and exporters of MVACs or delaying the 

applicability of the reporting requirements to them. MVACs 

are a significant source of fluorinated GHGs; EPA estimates 

that currently approximately 18 percent of fluorinated GHGs 

(in carbon dioxide equivalent terms) imported under this 

158
subpart are contained within MVACs. EPA recognizes there is 

significant interest and research into new low-GWP 

refrigerants; however, the timing and the extent of the 

MVAC market to make such a transition are uncertain. Under 

Section 612 of the Clean Air Act, EPA has proposed to find 

the low-GWP refrigerant HFO-1234yf acceptable, subject to 

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

has not been finalized. In addition, although the light 

duty vehicle rule allows automakers to earn additional 

leakage credits if they use a low GWP refrigerant, EPA 

actually predicted that automakers would meet the standards 

by reducing refrigerant leakage, not by switching to lowerGWP alternatives (see the Regulatory Impact Analysis for 

the Final Rule on Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

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

EPA concluded there is not sufficient evidence that the 

transition to low GWP refrigerants in MVACs is underway 

such that the importers and exporters of MVACs should be 

exempt or that the reporting requirements should be 

delayed. 

Regarding the statement that EPA should collect data 

on a model year basis, EPA developed the Mandatory 

Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Rule to collect information 

159
under all subparts on a calendar year basis. EPA plans to 

use data collected under this rule to support analyses of 

various GHG policy options; therefore, EPA requires the 

data on a calendar year basis to allow meaningful 

comparison of data across and within subparts. In 

developing these requirements, EPA recognized that some 

reporting requirements may require the reconfiguration of 

existing tracking systems or the development of new 

tracking systems. In fact, EPA included the development of 

tracking system as an implementation cost in the “Economic 

Impact Analysis for the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse 

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

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

related to these implementation costs for subpart QQ 

developed under the Economic Impact Analysis. This 

commenter, in particular, did not provide specific 

information related to the burden of reporting data on a 

calendar year basis. Therefore, given the utility of the 

data and the need for meaningful annual analysis, EPA is 

finalizing the requirement to report the imports and 

exports of fluorinated GHGs within pre-charged equipment or 

closed-cell foams on an annual basis. 

Finally, the commenter suggested that the port of 

entry (or exit) and the country from which (or to which) 

160
items were shipped could be developed off-line for 

verification purposes. EPA agrees with this comment and 

has therefore moved these two items to record keeping 

requirements. 

Further discussion of issues related to reporting 

requirements for MVACs can be found in the “Mandatory 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public 

Comments, Subpart QQ: Importers and Exporters of 

Fluorinated GHGs Inside Pre-charged Equipment or Closedcell Foams” (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927). 

Comment: EPA received comments regarding the 

calculation of fluorinated GHGs within closed-cell foams. 

One commenter stated that fluorinated GHGs are emitted from 

closed-cell foams at varying rates, and therefore, the best 

way to determine the amount of fluorinated GHGs contained 

in closed-cell foams is to require reporting on the total 

amount of fluorinated GHGs consumed by the foreign 

manufacture at the point of manufacture. One commenter 

stated that the proposed reporting requirements would 

result in a cumbersome process between appliance 

manufacturers and foam suppliers where the foam suppliers 

would be required to disclose proprietary information on 

the closed-cell foam composition to equipment 

161
manufacturers. The commenter stated that EPA should 

therefore allow reporting on a C02e basis. 

Response: EPA has finalized the requirement to report 

only the amount of fluorinated GHGs imported or exported 

within closed-cell foams. EPA has added an alternative 

reporting method for instances when the type and mass of 

fluorinated GHGs within the closed-cell foams are not known 

by the importers and exporters. 

The intent of this rule is to better understand U.S. 

GHG emissions in order to inform policy decisions. This 

rule does not attempt to quantify emissions that occur 

during the production of materials that are eventually 

imported into the U.S, such as emissions that occur during 

the manufacture of closed-cell foams. Therefore, EPA is 

finalizing the requirement to report only the amount of 

flourinated GHGs contained in the closed-cell foams that 

are imported or exported, not the total amount of 

fluorinated GHGs consumed during the manufacture of these 

products. EPA notes that the identity and mass of the 

fluorinated GHGs within closed-cell foams impact the foams’ 

ability to insulate and that these parameters are known to 

the entities that manufacture and market these products. 

EPA recognizes the unique situation that may arise 

when an importer of closed-cell foams is not the same 

162
entity that manufactured the closed-cell foam. In such 

cases, the importer may not know the mass and identity of 

the fluorinated GHG within the closed-cell foam. 

Therefore, EPA has added an alternative reporting provision 

that allows reporting by CO2e basis for closed-cell foams 

under these circumstances. 

EPA is requiring importers and exporters to report the 

identity and mass of the fluorinated GHG within closed-cell 

foams when it is known. This is consistent with EPA’s 

approach for pre-charged equipment, where EPA requires 

importers and exporters to report the identity and amount 

of fluorinated GHGs within equipment. EPA will use this 

information to better understand the types and amounts of 

fluorinated GHGs imported and exported into the U.S. This 

information will support analysis under this subpart as 

well as analysis across subparts, particularly subparts 

that collect data on fluorinated GHGs. 

For importers and exporters that are unable to obtain 

detailed information on the closed-cell foams from the 

manufacturer, EPA is requiring that the importers and 

exporters identify the foam manufacturer and to certify 

that they were unable to obtain this information from them. 

These importers and exporters are also required to document 

the communications with the foam manufacturer and retain 

163
the information in their records. When verifying data 

collected under this rule, EPA may contact foam 

manufacturers independently to obtain more detailed 

information on the identity and mass of the fluorinated 

GHGs contained within these closed-cell foams. 

Further discussion of issues related reporting 

requirements for closed-cell foams can be found in the 

“Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response 

to Public Comments, Subpart QQ: Importers and Exporters of 

Fluorinated GHGs Inside Pre-charged Equipment or Closedcell Foams” (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927). 

Comment: EPA also received comments as to whether 

packaging foams would be included under this subpart. 

Response: EPA has also excluded packaging foam from 

this subpart. EPA’s original analysis of this source 

category identified only imports and exports of closed-cell 

foams used to insulate, such as closed-cell foams used in 

refrigeration equipment, as a significant source of 

fluorinated GHGs. In subsequent conversation with 

industry, EPA learned that closed-cell foams can sometimes 

be used in general packaging. EPA never intended to 

include these sources. Packaging foams are widely used 

when shipping materials, and EPA anticipates it would be 

too burdensome for entities to ascertain the type of 

164
packaging foam and the blowing agent used in that foam when 

shipping materials, particularly as the packaging foam is 

incidental to the items being imported or exported. 

Therefore, EPA has revised the definition of closed-cell 

foams to exclude packaging foam. 

H. Electrical Equipment Manufacture or Refurbishment 

(Subpart SS) 

1. Summary of the Final Rule 

Source Category Definition. This source category 

consists of electrical equipment manufacturers and 

refurbishers of SF6 or PFC-insulated closed-pressure 

equipment and sealed-pressure equipment including gasinsulated substations, circuit breakers and other 

switchgear, gas-insulated lines, or power transformers 

containing sulfur-hexafluoride (SF6) or perfluorocarbons 

(PFCs). 

Reporting Threshold. Reporters must submit annual GHG 

reports for facilities that meet the applicability criteria 

in the General Provisions of §98.2(a)(1). Electrical 

equipment manufacturing and refurbishing facilities covered 

by this rule are those that have total annual purchases of 

SF6 and PFCs that exceed 23,000 pounds. 

 GHGs to Report. For electrical equipment manufacturers 

and refurbishers of SF6 or PFC-insulated closed-pressure 

165
equipment and sealed-pressure equipment, report the 

following emissions: 

• SF6 and PFCs emissions from electrical equipment 

manufacturing. 

• SF6 and PFCs emissions from electrical equipment 

refurbishing. 

• SF6 and PFCs emissions from electrical equipment 

testing. 

• SF6 and PFCs emissions from electrical equipment 

decommissioning and disposal. 

• SF6 and PFCs emissions from storage cylinders and other 

containers. 

• SF6 and PFC emissions from electrical equipment 

installation that occurs before title to the equipment 

is transferred to the customer. 

In addition, report GHG emissions for other source 

categories at the facility for which calculation methods 

are provided in the rule, as applicable. For example, 

report CO2, N2O and CH4 combustion-related emissions from 

each stationary combustion unit on site under 40 CFR part 

98, subpart C (General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources). 

GHG Emissions Calculation and Monitoring. Reporters 

must calculate SF6 and PFC emissions using a mass-balance 

166
approach, which includes the following inputs (For brevity, 

the inputs refer only to SF6; however, the method also 

applies PFCs): 

• The decrease in SF6 Inventory must be determined by 

subtracting SF6 stored in containers at the end of the 

year from SF6 stored in containers at the beginning of 

the year. 

• Acquisitions of SF6 must be determined by summing SF6 

purchased from chemical producers or distributors in 

bulk, SF6 returned by equipment users or distributors 

with or inside equipment, and SF6 returned to site 

after off-site recycling. 

• Disbursements of SF6 must be determined by summing 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, 

and SF6 sent off-site for destruction. 

Reporters also must calculate SF6 and PFC emissions 

from the equipment being installed on the electric power 

system’s premises when the installation occurs before the 

title to the equipment is transferred to the electric power 

entity. Reporters may use a mass-balance approach or an 

engineering calculation to estimate installation losses. 

Data Reporting. In addition to the information 

required to be reported by the General Provisions (40 CFR 

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

reporters must submit additional data that are used to 

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

reported for this source category is contained in §98.456. 

167
Recordkeeping. In addition to the records required by 

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

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

of additional data used to calculate GHG emissions. A list 

of specific records that must be retained for this source 

category is included in §98.457. 

2. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal 

The major changes in this rule since the proposal are 

identified in the following list. The rationale for these 

and any other significant changes to subpart SS can be 

found below or in “Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: 

EPA's Response to Public Comments, Subpart SS: Sulfur 

Hexafluoride and Perfluorocarbons from Electrical Equipment 

Manufacture or Refurbishment.” 

This section contains a brief summary of major 

comments and responses. A small number of comments were 

received on this subpart which covered several topics. 

Responses to significant comments received can be found in 

“Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response 

to Public Comments, Subpart SS: Sulfur Hexafluoride and 

Perfluorocarbons from Electrical Equipment Manufacture or 

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

0927). 

168
X EPA is easing the accuracy and precision requirements 

for scales and flowmeters used to measure mass for the 

mass-balance equation. Specifically, rather than requiring 

flowmeters and scales to have an accuracy and precision of 

±1 percent of the true mass or weight, we are requiring 

them to have an accuracy and precision of ±1 percent of 

either full scale (for flowmeters) or the maximum weight of 

the containers typically weighed on the scale (for scales). 

For scales that are used to weigh cylinders containing 115 

lbs of gas when full, this equates to ±1 percent of the sum 

of 115 pounds and approximately 120 lbs tare, or slightly 

more than ±2 lbs. This absolute accuracy requirement, 

expressed as a percentage of the filled weight of the 

container that is weighed on the scale, is less stringent 

than the 1% (of true weight) relative accuracy requirement 

in the proposed rule. 

X To reduce burden and increase flexibility, EPA is 

allowing use of a calculated emission factor for 

determining emissions downstream of the flow meter 

measuring the mass of SF6 being transferred from the storage 

container to the equipment being filled. A value must be 

determined for each combination of hose and valve of a 

given sized diameter. The calculated emission factor must 

be multiplied by the number of annual fill operations that 

169
uses the hose and valve combination. The calculation must 

be performed annually to account for changes to the 

specifications of the valves or hoses that may occur 

throughout the year.

X To increase flexibility, EPA is providing an 

additional option for determining the mass of SF6 or the 

PFCs disbursed to customers in new equipment. EPA is 

allowing the equipment’s nameplate capacity or, in cases 

where equipment is shipped with a partial charge, the 

equipment’s partial shipping charge to be assumed as equal 

to the disbursement. A sufficiently precise estimate of 

the nameplate capacity for each make and model of equipment 

must be determined through a number of measurements. The 

number of measurements required must be calculated to 

achieve a precision of one percent of the true mean, using 

a 95 percent confidence interval. 

X To improve data accuracy, the quantity of gas charged 

into delivered equipment and added during installation by 

the manufacturer must be certified by the manufacturer and 

expressed in pounds of SF6 or PFC. 

X To clarify the reporting boundary between subparts DD 

and SS, EPA is requiring electrical equipment manufacturers 

to estimate and report the annual SF6 and PFC emissions from 

the equipment being installed on the electric power 

170
system’s premises until the title of the equipment has 

transferred to the electric power transmission or 

distribution entity. Either an equipment installation mass 

balance equation or an engineering calculation must be used 

for this purpose. 

3. Summary of Comments and Responses 

This section contains a brief summary of major 

comments and responses. A small number of comments which 

covered several topics were received on this subpart. 

Responses to significant comments received can be found in 

“Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response 

to Public Comments, Subpart SS: Electrical Equipment 

Manufacture or Refurbishment” (available in the docket, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927). 

Selection of Reporting Threshold

Comment: EPA received comment that gas cylinders which 

are sealed and unused should not count toward the reporting 

threshold. These cylinders are purchased by the electrical 

equipment manufacturer for shipment to customers. 

According to the commenter, since these cylinders are never 

opened and their seals remain intact, no leakages can 

occur. The commenter explained that the 10% leak rate used 

to determine the threshold is based on losses during 

171
testing, manufacturing, and commissioning. Activities such 

as storage would not count toward the leak rate. 

Response: EPA disagrees that sealed and unused 

cylinders should not count toward the reporting thresholod. 

EPA recognizes that sealed cylinders are unlikely to be a 

major source of emissions and that it has been the standard 

practice by some manufacturers to deliver sealed cylinders 

with new equipment. However, EPA is concerned that not 

including these cylinders could introduce complications in 

tracking gas in cylinders and other containers because of 

the need to differentiate those cylinders that are sealed 

and destined for the customer and those cylinders that are 

sealed and destined for use by the electrical equipment 

manufacturer. Further it would be virtually impossible for 

an audit of threshold and cylinder record keeping 

requirements to distinquish the different use of cylinders 

at the beginning and end of the year. Therefore, EPA is 

finalizing the requirement that sealed and unused cylinders 

count toward the determination of the reporting threshold. 

Monitoring and QA/QC Requirements

Comment: EPA received comment that measuring residual 

gas amounts to within 1 percent of accuracy is not 

attainable in practice. Scales currently in use have an 

172
accuracy of ± 2 pounds; a 1 percent measurement of “new or 

residual gas amounts” would require a scale with an 

accuracy of ±0.1 pounds, or 200 times more precise than 

currently in use. The commenter suggested that the 

required accuracy be no stricter than 10 percent for 

residual gas amounts. 

Response: EPA has reviewed this commenter’s concern as 

well as similar concerns of several commenters on the 

accuracy requirement of scales for Subpart DD, Electric 

Transmission and Distribution Equipment Uses. 

After further evaluation of the types of scales 

available, the range of accuracies and precisions, and the 

effect of those accuracies and precisions on the accuracy 

and precision of facility-level emissions estimates, we 

have eased the requirements for scale accuracy and 

precision. As noted above, we proposed that scales be 

accurate and precise to within ±1 percent of the true mass 

or weight or better. When the mass being weighed on the 

scale is small, as is the case for the residual gas being 

returned to the supplier, this requires a very good 

absolute precision and accuracy, e.g., better than ±0.1 

pounds. EPA conducted an analysis that examined the impact 

of different scale accuracies on the relative uncertainty 

of emission estimates from two hypothetical electrical 

173
equipment manufacturer facilities; the findings indicate 

that the incremental increase in relative uncertainty from 

a requirement of ± 1 percent of true mass or weight scale 

accuracy to ± 2 pounds scale accuracy was not enough to 

justify a more stringent accuracy of 1 percent and its 

associated burden. 

This final rule requires the accuracy and precision of 

scales used to weigh cylinders to be ±1 of full scale or 

better of the filled weight (gas plus tare) of the 

containers of SF6 or PFCs that are weighed on the scale. 

This absolute error would be allowed for container heels as 

well as for the full container. For scales that are 

generally used to weigh cylinders containing 115 pounds of 

gas when full, this equates to ±1 percent of the sum of 115 

pounds and approximately 120 pounds tare, or slightly more 

than ± 2 pounds. EPA concluded this change will lower the 

burden on reporters without significant compromise to data 

quality. 

Comment: EPA received comment regarding the 

administrative burden of the proposed method to determine 

emissions downstream of the flowmeter measuring the mass of 

SF6 (or PFC) being transferred from the storage container 

to the equipment being filled. The commenter asserted that 

accurately determining emissions downstream of the 

174
flowmeter (to subtract from the disbursement total) could 

require an inordinate administrative burden associated with 

recording the numerous parameters for individual fill 

operations. The commenter suggested that the entity be 

explicitly permitted to apply a statistical calculation to 

a subset of individual fill operations, such as a midpoint 

or average loss rates, to use as the loss rates associated 

with all fill operations. The statistical calculation would 

be based on the factors outlined in the proposed rule, but 

the proposed approach would relieve the burden of 

rerecording the measurements for each individual operation. 

 Response: EPA recognizes that developing a 

representative loss factor that can be used for all filling 

events is more practical than performing measurements for 

each individual fill operation. EPA agrees with the 

commenters that direct measurement is unnecessarily 

burdensome. Consequently, rather than requiring actual 

measurements as proposed, EPA is allowing reporters to 

account for variability in the diameters and fittings of 

hoses supplied by various manufacturers and applied under 

varying conditions and requiring an emission factor be 

calculated for each hose and valve, or fitting, 

combination. For each hose-valve combination, the 

calculated emission factor must be multiplied by the number 

175
of annual fill operations that use that hose-valve 

arrangement. The calculation must be recalculated annually 

to account for changes to the specifications of the valves 

or hoses that may occur throughout the year. In addition, 

EPA is requiring electrical equipment manufacturers to 

account for SF6 or PFC emissions that occur as a result of 

unexpected events or accidental losses, such as a 

malfunctioning hose or leak in the flow line, during the 

filling of equipment or containers for disbursement. If 

there is a sudden rise in the quantity of SF6 or PFC gas 

that is needed to fill a certain make and model to its 

shipping charge, or nameplate capacity, this may be 

indicative of a leak in the lines. It is good practice to 

note unusual changes to the quantities used to fill 

equipment. 

Comment: Several entities provided comment as to 

whether manufacturers should be required to certify to 

equipment users the actual quantity of SF6 or PFCs charged 

into equipment at the manufacturing facility as well as the 

actual quantity of SF6 or PFCs charged into equipment at 

installation. In general, users of electric power 

equipment supported both certifying requirements as they 

would provide more accurate acquisitions inputs needed for 

176
the mass-balance method required for estimating emissions 

from electric power equipment use. 

Response: EPA had requested comment on whether 

manufacturers should be required to certify the actual 

quantity (mass) of SF6 or PFCs charged into equipment at 

installation. EPA concludes that the electrical equipment 

manufacturer should certify the quantity of gas provided in 

delivered equipment as it represents two inputs to two mass 

balance equations—the disbursements input (i.e., sales of 

SF6 to other entities, including gas in equipment that is 

sold) of the mass-balance equation used by manufacturers 

and the acquisitions input (i.e., gas with or alongside 

equipment) of the mass-balance equation used by electric 

power systems. Additionally, EPA concludes that the 

electrical equipment manufacturer should certify the 

quantity of gas charged into the equipment at installation 

as it represents the acquisition input to the electric 

power systems’ mass balance equation. The validity of the 

mass-balance approach is dependent on precise inputs, 

consequently, inaccuracies of even two or three percent 

could lead to unacceptably large inaccuracies in emissions 

estimates. The final rule includes a requirement for 

electrical equipment manufacturers to maintain such 

certifications as records and to express the quantity in 

177
pounds of SF6 or PFC gas. Electrical equipment 

manufacturers should provide copies of the certifications 

to electric power systems upon request. 

Installation of Electrical Equipment at Electric Power 

Systems 

Comment: EPA received comments from electric power 

systems and electrical equipment manufacturers regarding 

whether the manufacturer should be responsible for 

emissions during installation or whether those emissions 

should become the customer’s responsibility. Equipment 

manufacturers and electric power systems commented that the 

reporting requirement should be the responsibility of the 

electric power system at the point in time when the 

equipment title is transferred. 

Response: EPA recognizes that some equipment, namely 

gas insulated substations, is typically manufactured by the 

manufacturer onsite and can take several months to complete 

assembly, inspection, and final acceptance and 

commissioning. For these projects, gas accounting is best 

done by the manufacturer that is assembling the equipment 

and handling the gas that will be installed into the 

equipment. Based on EPA’s review of these comments, the 

final rule specifies that the responsibility of reporting 

emissions from installation practices is dependent upon the 

178
point at which the title is transferred to the electric 

power transmission or distribution entity. In instances 

when the title to the equipment has not yet been 

transferred even though the equipment is at the electric 

power transmission or distribution facility, the equipment 

manufacturer must estimate and report emissions from 

equipment installation using the equipment installation 

mass balance equation or an engineering calculation. In 

instances when the title of the equipment has been 

transferred to the electric power transmission or 

distribution facility, the electric power transmission or 

distribution facility must estimate and report emissions 

during installation by accounting for the amount of gas 

inside the equipment, upon the date of the title transfer 

to the electric power transmission or distribution entity, 

in the mass balance acquisition input. If the title is 

transferred to the electric power transmission or 

distribution entity and the installation is conducted by a 

third party, the electric power transmission or 

distribution facility would be required to report emissions 

during installation. The role and responsibility of 

reporters with respect to use of contractors or third 

parties is elaborated in more detail in the Response to 

Comment Document. 

179
III. Economic Impacts of the Final Rule 

This section of the preamble examines the costs and 

economic impacts of this rule and the estimated economic 

impacts of the rule on affected entities, including 

estimated impacts on small entities. Complete detail of 

the economic impacts of the rule can be found in the text 

of the economic impact analysis (EIA) in the docket for 

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

A number of comments on economic impacts of the rule 

were received regarding the estimation of compliance costs 

for subparts covered by the rule. A summary of burden 

related comments can be found in the preamble for each 

subpart. Complete responses to significant comments 

received can be found in “Mandatory Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments, 

Additional Sources of Fluorinated GHGs (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-

0927). 

A. How were compliance costs estimated?

1. Summary of Method Used to Estimate Compliance Costs 

EPA used available industry and EPA data to 

characterize conditions at affected sources. Incremental 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting activities were 

then identified for each type of facility and the 

associated costs were estimated. The annual costs are 

180
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 report 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). 

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. One181
time capital costs are amortized over a 10-year cost 

recovery period at a rate of 7 percent. 

B. What are the costs of the rule?

1. Summary of Costs 

The total annualized costs incurred under the fluorinated 

GHG reporting rule will be approximately $6.8 million in 

the first year and $7.4 million in subsequent years 

($2006). This includes a public sector burden estimate of 

$384,000 for program implementation and verification 

activities. Table 12 shows the first year and subsequent 

year costs by subpart. In addition, it presents the cost 

per ton reported, and the relative share of the total cost 

represented by each subpart. 

182
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

$3.1 $0.36 45% $5.6 $0.3

6

75%

Subpart L - 

Fluorinated Gas 

Production

$2.1 $0.20 31% $0.3 $0.0

3

4%

Subpart DD – 

Electric 

Transmission and 

Distribution 

Equipment Use 

$0.6 $0.19 8% $0.6 $0.0

5

7%

Subpart QQ - 

Imports and 

Exports of 

Fluorinated GHGs

$0.7 $0.03 10% $0.6 $0.0

2

8%

Subpart SS - 

Electrical 

Equipment 

Manufacture and 

Refurbishment 

and 

Manufacturing of 

Electrical 

Components

$0.02 $0.01 0.3% $0.02 $0.0

1

0%

Private Sector, 

Total 

$6.5 94% $7.0 95%

Public Sector, 

Total

$0.4 6% $0.4 5%

Total $6.8 100% $7.4 100%

C. What are the economic impacts of the rule?

1. Summary of Economic Impacts 

EPA prepared an economic analysis to evaluate the 

impacts of this rule on affected industries. To estimate 

183
the economic impacts, EPA first conducted a screening 

assessment, comparing the estimated total annualized 

compliance costs by industry, where industry is defined in 

terms of North American Industry Classification System 

(NAICS) code, with industry average revenues. Average 

cost-to-sales ratios for establishments in affected NAICS 

codes are typically less than 2 percent. 

These low average cost-to-sales ratios indicate that 

the rule is unlikely to result in significant changes in 

firms’ production decisions or other behavioral changes, 

and thus unlikely to result in significant changes in 

prices or quantities in affected markets. Thus, EPA 

followed its Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses 

(EPA, 2002, p.124-125) and used the engineering cost 

estimates to measure the social cost of the rule, rather 

than modeling market responses and using the resulting 

measures of social cost. Table 13 of this preamble 

summarizes cost-to-sales ratios for affected industries. 

Table 13. Estimated Cost-To-Sales Ratios for Affected 

Entities (First Year, 2006$) 

2007 NAICS NAICS Description Sub-part

Average Cost 

Per Entity 

($/ 

entity) 

All 

Enterprises 

334413 

Semiconductor and Related Device 

Manufacturing I (Semis) $19,980 0.03%

334413 

Semiconductor and Related Device 

Manufacturing 

I (NonSemis) $16,046 0.02%

334119 

Other Computer Peripheral Equipment 

Manufacturing 

I (NonSemis) $16,046 0.06%

325120 Industrial Gas Manufacturing L $151,045 1.28%

184
2007 NAICS NAICS Description Sub-part

Average Cost 

Per Entity 

($/ 

entity) 

All 

Enterprises 

221121 Electrical Power Systems DD $2,213 0.00%

326140 Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing QQ $3,364 0.03%

326150 

Urethane and Other Foam Product (except 

Polystyrene) 

Manufacturing QQ $3,364 0.03%

333415 

Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating 

Equipment 

and Commercial and Industrial 

Refrigeration 

Equipment Manufacturing QQ $3,364 0.01%

335313 

Switchgear and Switchboard Apparatus 

Manufacturing QQ $3,364 0.02%

336391 

Motor Vehicle Air-Conditioning 

Manufacturing QQ $3,364 0.01%

423610 

Electrical Apparatus and Equipment, 

Wiring Supplies, 

and Related Equipment Merchant 

Wholesalers QQ $3,364 0.05%

423620 

Electrical and Electronic Appliance, 

Television, and 

Radio Set Merchant Wholesalers QQ $3,364 0.02%

423720 

Plumbing and Heating Equipment and 

Supplies 

(Hydronics) Merchant Wholesalers QQ $3,364 0.05%

423730 

Warm Air Heating and Air-Conditioning 

Equipment 

and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers QQ $3,364 0.07%

423740 

Refrigeration Equipment and Supplies 

Merchant 

Wholesalers QQ $3,364 0.09%

443111 Household Appliance Stores QQ $3,364 0.24%

443112 

Radio, Television and Other Electronics 

Stores QQ $3,364 0.14%

422610 

Plastics Materials and Basic Forms and 

Shapes 

Merchant Wholesalers QQ $3,364 0.03%

33361 

Engine, Turbine, and Power Transmission 

Equipment Manufacturing SS $2,213 0.00%

33531 Electrical Equipment Manufacturing SS $2,213 0.02%

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

1. Summary of Impacts on Small Businesses 

As required by the RFA and SBREFA, EPA assessed the 

potential impacts of the rule on small entities (small 

businesses, governments, and non-profit organizations). 

185
(See Section IV.C of this preamble for definitions of small 

entities.) 

EPA conducted a screening assessment comparing 

compliance costs for affected industry sectors to industryspecific receipts data for establishments owned by small 

businesses. This ratio constitutes a “sales” test that 

computes the annualized compliance costs of this rule as a 

percentage of sales and determines whether the ratio 

exceeds some level (e.g., 1 percent or 3 percent). 

The cost-to-sales ratios were constructed at the 

establishment level (average reporting program costs per 

establishment/average establishment receipts) for several 

business size ranges. This allowed EPA to account for 

receipt differences between establishments owned by large 

and small businesses and differences in small business 

definitions across affected industries. The results of the 

screening assessment are shown in Table 14 of this 

preamble. 

As shown, the cost-to-sales ratios are typically less 

than 1 percent for establishments owned by small businesses 

that EPA considers most likely to be covered by the 

reporting program (e.g., establishments owned by businesses 

with 20 or more employees). 

186
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 

I 

(Se

mis

) 500

$19,9

80 0.03% 1.16% 0.22% 0.07% 0.04% 0.01% 0.02%

334413 

Semiconductor and 

Related Device 

Manufacturing 

I 

(No

nSem

is) 500

$16,0

46 0.02% 0.94% 0.18% 0.05% 0.04% 0.01% 0.02%

334119 

Other Computer 

Peripheral 

Equipment 

Manufacturing 

I 

(No

nSem

is) 500

$16,0

46 0.06% 0.92% 0.14% 0.04% 0.02% 0.04% 0.01%

325120 

Industrial Gas 

Manufacturing L 1,000

$151,

045 1.28%

27.68

% 0.92% 3.80% NA NA NA

221121 

Electrical Power 

Systems DD 

< 4 

Mill

ion 

MWh

$2,21

3 0.00% 0.10% 0.01% 0.01% NA NA NA

326140 

Polystyrene Foam 

Product 

Manufacturing QQ 500

$3,36

4 0.03% 0.25% 0.06% 0.04% NA NA 0.01%

326150 

Urethane and Other 

Foam Product 

(except 

Polystyrene) 

Manufacturing QQ 500

$3,36

4 0.03% 0.19% 0.05% 0.02% 0.02% NA NA

333415 

Air-Conditioning 

and Warm Air 

Heating Equipment 

and Commercial and 

Industrial 

Refrigeration 

Equipment 

Manufacturing QQ 750

$3,36

4 0.01% 0.22% 0.04% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01%

335313 

Switchgear and 

Switchboard 

Apparatus 

Manufacturing QQ 750

$3,36

4 0.02% 0.24% 0.05% 0.02% NA NA NA

336391 

Motor Vehicle AirConditioning 

Manufacturing QQ 750

$3,36

4 0.01% 0.33% 0.07% NA NA NA NA

423610 

Electrical 

Apparatus and 

Equipment, Wiring 

Supplies, 

and Related 

Equipment Merchant 

Wholesalers QQ 100

$3,36

4 0.05% 0.10% 0.03% 0.03% 0.05% 0.03% 0.03%

187
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 

423620 

Electrical and 

Electronic 

Appliance, 

Television, and 

Radio Set Merchant 

Wholesalers QQ 100

$3,36

4 0.02% 0.07% 0.02% 0.01% 0.00% 0.01% 0.01%

423720 

Plumbing and 

Heating Equipment 

and Supplies 

(Hydronics) 

Merchant 

Wholesalers QQ 100

$3,36

4 0.05% 0.10% 0.02% 0.03% 0.06% 0.03% 0.09%

423730 

Warm Air Heating 

and AirConditioning 

Equipment 

and Supplies 

Merchant 

Wholesalers QQ 100

$3,36

4 0.07% 0.13% 0.05% 0.06% 0.10% 0.03% NA

423740 

Refrigeration 

Equipment and 

Supplies Merchant 

Wholesalers QQ 100

$3,36

4 0.09% 0.16% 0.05% 0.10% 0.08% 0.04% NA

443111 

Household Appliance 

Stores QQ $9 M

$3,36

4 0.24% 0.42% 0.09% 0.07% NA NA NA

443112 

Radio, Television 

and Other 

Electronics Stores QQ $9 M

$3,36

4 0.14% 0.53% 0.15% 0.23% NA NA NA

422610 

Plastics Materials 

and Basic Forms 

and Shapes 

Merchant 

Wholesalers QQ 100

$3,36

4 0.03% 0.09% 0.03% 0.02% 0.01% 0.01% 0.05%

33361 

Engine, Turbine, 

and Power 

Transmission 

Equipment 

Manufacturing SS 

500 -

1,00

0

$2,21

3 0.00% 0.17% 0.03% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01%

33531 

Electrical 

Equipment 

Manufacturing SS 

750 -

1,00

0

$2,21

3 0.02% 0.19% 0.04% 0.01% 0.01% 0.00% 0.01%

334413 

Semiconductor and 

Related Device 

Manufacturing 

I 

(Se

mis

) 500

$19,9

80 0.03% 1.16% 0.22% 0.07% 0.04% 0.01% 0.02%

188
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. 

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 

189
today’s action. Using publicly available sources (e.g., 

Hoovers.com), we collected parent company sales and 

employment data and found that only one company could be 

classified as a small entity. Using the cost data for a 

representative entity (see Section 4), EPA determined the 

small entity's cost-to-sales ratio is below one percent. 

Electronic Computer Manufacturing (334111) and 

Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing (334413). 

Data on the number of electronics facilities comes 

from the World Fab Watch and the Flat Panel Display Fabs on 

Disk datasets. The census data categories cover more 

establishments than just those facilities covered in the 

rule. Subpart I covers facilities included in NAICS codes 

for Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing (334413) 

and Other Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing 

(334119). The World Fab Watch dataset includes 216 

facilities (94 of which exceed the 25,000 ton threshold), 

while the sum of the two NAICS codes include 1,903 

establishments. Covered facilities with emissions greater 

than 25,000 MtCO2e per year are unlikely to be included in 

the 1 to 20 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 

190
the threshold excludes 6 percent of industry emissions from 

the least-emitting facilities. 

Although this rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 

EPA nonetheless took several steps to reduce the impact of 

this rule on small entities. For example, EPA is requiring 

monitoring and reporting requirements that build off of the 

UIC program. In addition, EPA is requiring 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 held, 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 (EPAHQ-OAR-2009-0927). 

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

1. Benefits of the rule for society 

EPA examined the potential benefits of the Fluorinated 

GHG Reporting Rule. EPA’s previous analysis of the GHG 

reporting rule discussed the benefits of a reporting system 

with respect to policy making relevance, transparency 

issues, and market efficiency. Instead of a quantitative 

191
analysis of the benefits, EPA conducted a systematic 

literature review of existing studies including government, 

consulting, and scholarly reports. 

A mandatory reporting system will benefit the public 

by increased transparency of facility emissions data. 

Transparent, public data on emissions allows for 

accountability of polluters to the public stakeholders who 

bear the cost of the pollution. Citizens, community 

groups, and labor unions have made use of data from 

Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers to negotiate 

directly with polluters to lower emissions, circumventing 

greater government regulation. Publicly available 

emissions data also will allow individuals to alter their 

consumption habits based on the GHG emissions of producers. 

The greatest benefit of mandatory reporting of 

industry GHG emissions to government will be realized in 

developing future GHG policies. For example, in the EU’s 

Emissions Trading System, a lack of accurate monitoring at 

the facility level before establishing CO2 allowance permits 

resulted in allocation of permits for emissions levels an 

average of 15 percent above actual levels in every country 

except the United Kingdom. 

Benefits to industry of GHG emissions monitoring 

include the value of having independent, verifiable data to 

192
present to the public to demonstrate appropriate 

environmental stewardship, and a better understanding of 

their emission levels and sources to identify opportunities 

to reduce emissions. Such monitoring allows for inclusion 

of standardized GHG data into environmental management 

systems, providing the necessary information to achieve and 

disseminate their environmental achievements. 

Standardization will also be a benefit to industry: 

once facilities invest in the institutional knowledge and 

systems to report emissions, the cost of monitoring should 

fall and the accuracy of the accounting should improve. A 

standardized reporting program will also allow for 

facilities to benchmark themselves against similar 

facilities to understand better their relative standing 

within their industry. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 

4, 1993), this action is a "significant regulatory action” 

because it may raise novel legal or policy issues arising 

out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the 

principles set forth in the EO. Accordingly, EPA submitted 

this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

193
for review under EO 12866 and any changes made in response 

to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket 

for this action. 

EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs 

associated with today’s action. This analysis is contained 

in the Economic Impact Analysis (EIA), Economic Impact 

Analysis for the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions F-Gases Subparts I, L, DD, QQ, and SS (EPA-HQOAR-2009-0927). A copy of the analysis is available in the 

docket for this action and the analysis is briefly 

summarized here. In this report, EPA has identified the 

regulatory options considered, their costs, the emissions 

that will likely be reported under each option, and 

explained the selection of the option chosen for the rule. 

Overall, EPA has concluded that the costs of the F-Gases 

Rule are outweighed by the potential benefits of more 

comprehensive information about GHG emissions. The total 

annualized cost of the rule will be approximately $6.8 

million (in 2006$) during the first year of the program and 

$7.4 million in subsequent years (including $0.4 million of 

programmatic costs to the Agency). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this rule 

have been submitted for approval to the Office of 

194
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 

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

Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been assigned 

EPA ICR number 2373.02. 

EPA has identified the following goals of the 

mandatory GHG reporting system: 

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 

195
and marked as Confidential Business Information (CBI) will 

not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set 

forth in 40 CFR Part 2. However, emission information 

collected under CAA section 114 generally cannot be claimed 

as CBI and will be made public.37

The projected cost and hour respondent burden in the 

ICR, averaged over the first three years after 

promulgation, is $6.70 million and 73,246 hours per year. 

The estimated average burden per response is 175.7 hours; 

the frequency of response is annual for all respondents 

that must comply with the rule’s reporting requirements; 

and the estimated average number of likely respondents per 

year is 417. The cost burden to respondents resulting from 

the collection of information includes the total capital 

and start-up cost annualized over the equipment’s expected 

useful life (averaging $2.72 million per year) a total 

operation and maintenance component (averaging $24,000 per 

year), and a labor cost component (averaging $3.96 million 

per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR Part 1320.3(b). 

 

37 Although CBI determinations are usually made on a case-by-case basis, 

EPA has issued guidance in an earlier Federal Register notice on what 

constitutes emission data that cannot be considered CBI (956 FR 7042 – 

7043, February 21, 1991). As discussed in Section II.B of this 

preamble, EPA has initiated a separate notice and comment process to 

make CBI determinations for the data collected under this rule. See 

{INSERT FR NOTICE} 

196
These cost numbers differ from those shown elsewhere 

in the EIA because ICR costs represent the average cost 

over the first three years of the rule, but costs are 

reported elsewhere in the EIA for the first year of the 

rule. Also, the total cost estimate of the rule in the EIA 

includes the cost to the Agency to administer the program. 

The ICR differentiates between respondent burden and cost 

to the Agency, estimated to be $384,000. 

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is 

not required to respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 

The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are 

listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is approved by OMB, 

the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR 

part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control 

number for the approved information collection requirements 

contained in the final rule 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 

notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless 

the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

197
small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts of the 

Fluorinated GHG Reporting Rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as a small business as defined by the 

Small Business Administration’s regulations at 13 CFR 

121.201; according to these size standards, criteria for 

determining if ultimate parent companies owning affected 

facilities are categorized as small vary by NAICS. Table 

15 presents small business criteria for affected NAICS. 

Table 15. Small Business Criteria for affected NAICS 

2007 

 NAICS NAICS Description Subpart

SBA Size 

Standard 

(effective 

August 22, 

2008)

334413 Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing I 500

334119 Other Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing I 1,000

325120 Industrial Gas Manufacturing L 1,000

221121 Electrical Power Systems DD

< 4 Million 

MWh

326140 Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing QQ 500

326150 

Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) 

Manufacturing QQ 500

333415 

Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment 

and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration 

Equipment Manufacturing QQ 750

335313 Switchgear and Switchboard Apparatus Manufacturing QQ 750

336391 Motor Vehicle Air-Conditioning Manufacturing QQ 750

423610 

Electrical Apparatus and Equipment, Wiring Supplies, 

and Related Equipment Merchant Wholesalers QQ 100

423620 

Electrical and Electronic Appliance, Television, and 

Radio Set Merchant Wholesalers QQ 100

423720 

Plumbing and Heating Equipment and Supplies 

(Hydronics) Merchant Wholesalers QQ 100

423730 

Warm Air Heating and Air-Conditioning Equipment 

and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers QQ 100

423740 

Refrigeration Equipment and Supplies Merchant 

Wholesalers QQ 100

443111 Household Appliance Stores QQ $9 M

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

422610 

Plastics Materials and Basic Forms and Shapes 

Merchant Wholesalers QQ 100

33361 

Engine, Turbine, and Power Transmission Equipment 

Manufacturing SS 500 - 1,000

198
33531 Electrical Equipment Manufacturing SS 750 - 1,000

EPA assessed the potential impacts of this rule on 

small entities using a sales test, defined as the ratio of 

total annualized compliance costs to firm sales. Details 

are provided in section 5.3 of the EIA. These sales tests 

compare the average establishment’s total annualized 

mandatory reporting costs to the average establishment 

receipts for enterprises within several employment 

categories38. The average entity costs used to compute the 

sales test are the same across all of these enterprise size 

categories. As a result, the sales test will overstate the 

cost-to-sales ratio for establishments owned by small 

businesses, because the reporting costs are likely lower 

than average entity estimates provided by the engineering 

cost analysis. 

The results of the screening analysis show that for 

most NAICS, the costs are estimated to be less than 1 

percent of sales in all firm size categories. For two 

NAICS, however, some size categories (especially those with 

1-20 employees) show costs exceeding 1% of sales. These 

sectors are Industrial Gas Manufacturing (NAICS 325120) and 

Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing (NAICS 

 

38For the one to 20 employee category, we exclude SUSB data for 

enterprises with zero employees. These enterprises did not operate the 

entire year. 

199
334413). A more careful examination of impacts on small 

firms in these NAICS codes was conducted. 

Analysis of firms in NAICS 334413 shows that firms 

with fewer than 20 employees produce less than 2% of 

output; firms below the 25,000 Mt CO2e threshold release 

approximately 6% of emissions. Because emissions and 

production levels are highly correlated, firms fewer than 

20 employees are generally not expected to be affected by 

the final rule; if they are, their costs are likely to be 

lower than the overall average costs used in the screening 

analysis. Thus, EPA does not expect the final rule to 

impose significant costs to a substantial number of small 

entities in NAICS 334413. 

Subpart L covers facilities included in NAICS codes 

for Industrial Gas Manufacturing (NAICS 325120). Within 

this subpart, EPA identified 13 ultimate parent company 

names covered by the final rule. Using publicly available 

sources (such as Hoovers.com), EPA collected parent company 

sales and employment data and found that only one company 

could be classified as a small entity. Using the cost data 

for a representative entity (see Section 4 of the EIA), EPA 

determined the small entity’s cost-to-sales ratio is below 

1%. 

200
After considering the economic impacts of today’s 

action on small entities, I therefore certify that this 

rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Although this rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 

the Agency nonetheless tried to reduce the impact of this 

rule on small entities, including seeking input from a wide 

range of private- and public-sector stakeholders. When 

developing the rule, the Agency took special steps to 

ensure that the burdens imposed on small entities were 

minimal. The Agency conducted several meetings with 

industry trade associations to discuss regulatory options 

and the corresponding burden on industry, such as 

recordkeeping and reporting. The Agency investigated 

alternative thresholds and analyzed the marginal costs 

associated with requiring smaller entities with lower 

emissions to report. 

Through comprehensive outreach activities after 

proposal of the rule, EPA held meetings and/or conference 

calls with representatives of the primary audience groups. 

After proposal, EPA posted a general fact sheet for the 

rule, information sheets for every source category, and an 

FAQ document. We continued to meet with stakeholders and 

201
entered documentation of all meetings into the docket. One 

public hearing was held on April 12, 2010, which included 

three speakers from industry and one non-governmental 

environmental group. In addition, 20 outreach meetings were 

held. We considered public comments in developing the final 

rule. 

During rule implementation, EPA will maintain an “open 

door” policy for stakeholders to ask questions about rule 

or provide suggestions to EPA about the types of compliance 

assistance that would be useful to small businesses. EPA 

intends to develop a range of compliance assistance tools 

and materials and conduct extensive outreach for the final 

rule. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA), P.L. 104-4, establishes requirements for federal 

agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions 

on state, local, and tribal governments and the private 

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. 

202
This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may 

result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the 

private sector in any one year. Overall, EPA estimates 

that the total annualized costs of this rule are 

approximately $6.1 million in the first year, and $3.9 

million per year in subsequent years. Thus, this rule is 

not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of 

UMRA. 

This rule is also not subject to the requirements of 

section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments. Facilities subject to the rule include 

electronics manufacturers, fluorinated gas producers, 

electric power systems, electrical equipment manufacturers 

and refurbishers, as well as importers and exporters of 

pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams. None of the 

facilities currently known to undertake these activities 

are owned by small government.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

 This action does not have federalism implications. 

It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national government and the 

States, or on the distribution of power and 

203
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 

specified in Executive Order 13132. This regulation 

applies to electronics manufacturing, fluorinated gas 

production, electrical equipment use, electrical equipment 

manufacture or refurbishment, as well as importers and 

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

Few state or local government facilities will be affected. 

This regulation also does not limit the power of states or 

localities to collect GHG data and/or regulate GHG 

emissions. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to 

this action. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments

Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951, 

November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal 

officials in the development of regulatory policies that 

have tribal implications.” 

This action does not have tribal implications, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 

9, 2000). This regulation applies to facilities that 

manufacture electronic devices, produce fluorinated gases, 

use electrical equipment in electric power systems, import 

204
or export fluorinated GHGs inside pre-charged equipment and 

closed-cell foams, or manufacture electrical equipment. 

The only facilities among these that might be owned by 

tribal governments are facilities that use electrical 

equipment in electric power systems. EPA contacted the 

National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) and 

asked whether any electric power systems owned or operated 

by tribal governments were likely to exceed the threshold 

for reporting emissions from electrical equipment use. 

NRECA stated that they did not expect any tribally owned or 

operated electric power systems would trip the threshold. 

(There are a small number of distribution cooperatives 

owned by tribes but no transmission or generation.) Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. 

Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this 

rule, EPA sought opportunities to provide information to 

tribal governments and representatives during development 

of the MRR rule. In consultation with EPA’s American 

Indian Environment Office, EPA’s outreach plan included 

tribes. During the proposal phase, EPA staff provided 

information to tribes through conference calls with 

multiple Indian working groups and organizations at EPA 

that interact with tribes and through individual calls with 

two tribal board members of TCR. In addition, EPA prepared 

205
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 proposal. It 

was posted on the MRR Web site and published in the Tribal 

Air Newsletter. For a complete list of tribal contacts, 

see the “Summary of EPA Outreach Activities for Developing 

the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule,” in the Docket for the 

initial proposed mandatory reporting rule (April, 2009) 

(EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-055). 

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 action is not subject to EO 

206
13045 because it does not establish an environmental 

standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly 

Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not a “significant energy action” as 

defined in 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 rule is not likely to have any adverse 

energy effects. This rule relates to monitoring, reporting 

and recordkeeping at facilities that manufacture, sell, 

use, import, or export fluorinated GHG related products and 

does not impact energy supply, distribution or use. 

Therefore, we conclude that this rule is not likely to have 

any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use. 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 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 

207
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through 

OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. 

This rule involves technical standards. EPA will use 

voluntary consensus standards from at least three different 

voluntary consensus standards bodies, including the 

following: ASTM, ASME, and International SEMATECH 

Manufacturing Initiative. These voluntary consensus 

standards will help facilities monitor, report, and keep 

records of GHG emissions. No new test methods were 

developed for this rule. Instead, from existing rules for 

source categories and voluntary greenhouse gas programs, 

EPA identified existing means of monitoring, reporting, and 

keeping records of greenhouse gas emissions. The existing 

methods (voluntary consensus standards) include a broad 

range of measurement techniques, such as methods to measure 

gas or liquid flow and methods to identify the contents of 

vented or exhausted streams. The test methods are 

incorporated by reference into the rule and are available 

as specified in 40 CFR 98.7. 

By incorporating voluntary consensus standards into 

this rule, EPA is both meeting the requirements of the 

208
NTTAA and presenting multiple options and flexibility in 

complying with this rule. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations

EO 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 

Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its 

main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest 

extent practicable and permitted by law, to make 

environmental justice part of their mission by identifying 

and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects of their 

programs, policies, and activities on minority populations 

and low-income populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not affect the level of protection provided 

to human health or the environment. This rule does not 

affect the level of protection provided to human health or 

the environment because it is a rule addressing information 

collection and reporting procedures. 

K. Congressional Review Act

209
210

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as 

added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 

Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take 

effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule 

report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of 

the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United 

States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 

House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of 

the U.S. prior to publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days 

after it is published in the Federal Register. This action 

is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This 

rule will be effective [INSERT THE DATE 30 DAYS AFTER 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 98 

 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and 

procedure, Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, 

Suppliers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 
Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases 

Page 211 of 402 

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, 

chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 98—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 98 continues to 

read as follows: 

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

Subpart A-[AMENDED] 

2. Table A-3 to subpart A is amended by adding 

“Electrical Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use” 

and “Electrical Transmission Distribution Equipment 

Manufacture or Refurbishment” to read as follows: 

Table A-3 to Subpart A—Source Category List for §98.2(a)(1) 

Source Categoriesa Applicable in 2010 and Future Years 

* * * * * * * 

Additional Source Categoriesa Applicable in 2011 and Future 

Years

* * * * * * * 

Electrical Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use (Subpart 

DD) 

Electrical Transmission and Distribution Equipment Manufacture 

or Refurbishment (subpart SS) . 

a Source categories are defined in each applicable subpart. 

211
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

3. Table A-4 to subpart A is amended by adding 

“Electronics Manufacturing” and “Fluorinated Gas 

Production” to read as follows: 

Table A-4 to Subpart A—Source Category List for §98.2(a)(2) 

Source Categoriesa Applicable in 2010 and Future Years 

* * * * * * * 

Additional Source Categoriesa Applicable in 2011 and Future 

Years

* * * * * * * 

Electronics Manufacturing (subpart I) 

Fluorinated Gas Production (subpart L) 

a Source categories are defined in each applicable subpart. 

4. Table A-5 to subpart A is amended by adding 

“Importers and Exporters of Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases 

Contained in Pre-charged Equipment or Closed-cell Foams” to 

read as follows: 

Table A-5 to Subpart A—Supplier Category List for 

§98.2(a)(4) 

Supplier Categoriesa Applicable in 2010 and Future Years 

* * * * * * * 

Additional Supplier Categoriesa Applicable in 2011 and Future 

Years

* * * * * * * 

Importers and Exporters of Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases 

Contained in Pre-charged Equipment or Closed-cell Foams 

(subpart QQ): 

 (A) Importers of an annual quantity of fluorinated 

greenhouse gases contained in pre-charged equipment or closedcell foams that is equivalent to 25,000 metric tons CO2e or 

more. 

 (B) Exporters of an annual quantity of fluorinated 

greenhouse gases contained in pre-charged eequipment or closedcell ffoams that is equivalent to 25,000 metric tons CO2e or 

more. 

a Source categories are defined in each applicable subpart. 

212
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

* * * * * 

5. Section 98.7 is amended as follows: 

a. By revising paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(8) and 

paragraph (e)(30). 

b. By adding paragraphs (m)(3) through (m)(5). 

c. By adding paragraph (n). 

§98.7 What standardized methods are incorporated by 

reference into this part?

 * * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) ASME MFC-3M–2004 Measurement of Fluid Flow in 

Pipes Using Orifice, Nozzle, and Venturi, incorporation by 

reference (IBR) approved for §98.34(b), §98.124(k)(1), 

§98.244(b), §98.254(c), §98.324(e), §98.344(c), §98.354(d), 

§98.354(h), and §98.364(e). 

(2) ASME MFC-4M–1986 (Reaffirmed 1997) Measurement of 

Gas Flow by Turbine Meters, IBR approved for §98.34(b), 

§98.124(k)(2), §98.244(b), §98.254(c), §98.324(e), 

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

(3) ASME MFC-5M–1985 (Reaffirmed 1994) Measurement of 

Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits Using Transit-Time 

Ultrasonic Flowmeters, IBR approved for §98.34(b), 

§98.124(k)(3), §98.244(b), and §98.354(d). 

213
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(4) ASME MFC-6M–1998 Measurement of Fluid Flow in 

Pipes Using Vortex Flowmeters, IBR approved for §98.34(b), 

§98.124(k)(4), §98.244(b), §98.254(c), §98.324(e), 

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

(5) ASME MFC-7M–1987 (Reaffirmed 1992) Measurement of 

Gas Flow by Means of Critical Flow Venturi Nozzles, IBR 

approved for §98.34(b), §98.124(k)(5), §98.244(b), 

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

§98.364(e). 

(6) ASME MFC-9M–1988 (Reaffirmed 2001) Measurement of 

Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits by Weighing Method, IBR 

approved for §98.34(b), §98.124(k)(6), and §98.244(b). 

(7) ASME MFC-11M-2006 Measurement of Fluid Flow by 

Means of Coriolis Mass Flowmeters, IBR approved for 

§98.124(k)(7), §98.244(b), §98.254(c), §98.324(e), 

§98.344(c), and §98.354(h). 

(8) ASME MFC-14M-2003 Measurement of Fluid Flow Using 

Small Bore Precision Orifice Meters, IBR approved for 

§98.124(k)(8), §98.244(b), §98.254(c), §98.324(e), 

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

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

* * * * * 

214
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(30) ASTM D6348-03 Standard Test Method for 

Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct 

Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy 

(ASTM D6348), IBR approved for §98.54(b), §98.124(c)(4)(v), 

and §98.224(b). 

* * * * * 

(m) * * * 

* * * * * 

(3) Protocol for Measuring Destruction or Removal 

Efficiency (DRE) of Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Abatement 

Equipment in Electronics Manufacturing, Version 1, EPA-430-

R-10-003, (March 2010)(EPA 430-R-10-003), 

http://www.epa.gov/semiconductorpfc/documents/dre_protocol.pdf, IBR approved for 

§98.94(f)(4)(i), §98.94(g)(3), §98.97(d)(4), §98.98, and 

§98.124(c)(4)(v). 

(4) Emissions Inventory Improvement Program, Volume 

II: Chapter 16, Methods for Estimating Air Emissions from 

Chemical Manufacturing Facilities, August 2007, Final, 

http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eiip/techreport/volume02/index.

htmlIBR approved for §98.123(b)(1)(i)(A). 

(5) Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates, 

EPA-453/R-95-017, November 1995 (EPA-453/R-95-017), 

215
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/efdocs/equiplks.pdf, IBR 

approved for §98.123(c) and §98.124(e). 

 (n) The following material is available from the 

International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative, 2706 

Montopolis Drive, Austin, Texas 78741, (512) 356-3500, 

http://ismi.sematech.org

(1) Guideline for Environmental Characterization of 

Semiconductor Process Equipment, International SEMATECH 

Manufacturing Initiative Technology Transfer #06124825AENG, December 22, 2006 (International SEMATECH #06124825AENG), IBR approved for §98.94(d), §98.94(d)(1), §98.94(e), 

§98.94(e)(1), §98.94(g)(1), §98.96(f)(3), and §98.97(b)(1). 

(2) Guidelines for Environmental Characterization of 

Semiconductor Equipment, International SEMATECH Technology 

Transfer #01104197A-XFR, December 4, 2001 (International 

SEMATECH #01104197A-XFR), IBR approved for §98.94(d), 

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

§98.96(f)(3), and §98.97(b)(1). 

* * * * * 

6. 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. 

216
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

98.94 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements. 

98.95 Procedures for estimating missing data. 

98.96 Data reporting requirements. 

98.97 Records that must be retained. 

98.98 Definitions. 

Table I-1 to Subpart I of Part 98— Default Emission Factors 

for Threshold Applicability Determination 

Table I-2 to Subpart I of Part 98— Examples of Fluorinated 

GHGs Used by the Electronics Industry 

Table I-3 to Subpart I of Part 98- Default Emission Factors 

for Semiconductor Manufacturing for 150 mm and 200 mm Wafer 

Sizes 

Table I-5 to Subpart I of Part 98- Default Emission Factors 

for Semiconductor Manufacturing for 300 mm Wafer Size 

Table I-5 to Subpart I of Part 98—Default Emission Factors 

for MEMS Manufacturing 

Table I-6 to Subpart I of Part 98—Default Emission Factors 

for LCD Manufacturing 

Table I-7 to Subpart I of Part 98—Default Emission Factors 

for PV Manufacturing 

Table I-8 to Subpart I of Part 98- Emission Factors for N2O 

Subpart I—Electronics Manufacturing 

§98.90 Definition of the source category.

(a) The electronics manufacturing source category 

consists of facilities that manufacture micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS), liquid crystal displays (LCD), 

photovoltaic cells (PV), and semiconductors (including 

light-emitting diodes (LEDs)). 

(b) The electronics manufacturing source category 

consists of any of the production processes listed in 

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

(1) Each electronics manufacturing production process 

in which the etching process uses plasma-generated fluorine 

217
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

atoms and other reactive fluorine-containing fragments, 

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

dielectric, metals) and silicon to selectively remove 

portions of material. 

(2) Each electronics manufacturing production process 

in which chambers used for depositing thin films are 

cleaned periodically using 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, including the 

wafer edge. 

(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 

218
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

to cool process equipment, control temperature during 

device testing, and soldering (e.g., vapor phase reflow). 

§98.91 Reporting threshold.

(a) You must report GHG emissions under this subpart 

if electronics manufacturing production processes, as 

defined in §98.90, are performed at your facility and your 

facility meets the requirements of either §98.2(a)(1) or 

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

comparison to the 25,000 metric ton CO2e per year emission 

threshold in paragraph §98.2(a)(2), calculate emissions 

from electronics manufacturing production processes by 

using paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), or (a)(4) of this 

section, as appropriate. 

(1) If you manufacture semiconductors you must 

calculate total annual production process emissions for 

threshold applicability purposes using the default emission 

factors shown in Table I-1 to this subpart and Equation I-1 

of this subpart. 

T i i 0.001**EF**1.1E

i

= ∑ S GWP (Eq. I-1) 

Where: 

ET = Total annual production process emissions for 

threshold applicability purposes (metric tons 

CO2e). 

1.1 = Factor accounting for heat transfer fluid 

emissions, estimated as 10 percent of total 

annual production process emissions at a 

facility. 

219
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

S = 100 percent of annual manufacturing capacity 

of a facility as calculated using Equation I-5 

of this subpart (m2). 

EFi = Emission factor for input gas i. 

GWPi = Gas-appropriate GWP as provided in Table A-1 

to Subpart A of part 98. 

0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons. 

i = Input gas. 

(2) If you manufacture MEMS you must calculate total 

annual production process emissions for threshold 

applicability purposes using the default emission factors 

shown in Table I-1 to this subpart and Equation I-2 of this 

subpart. 

T i i 0.001**EF*E

i

= ∑ S GWP (Eq. I-2) 

Where: 

ET = Total annual production process emissions for 

threshold applicability purposes (metric tons 

CO2e). 

S = 100 percent of annual manufacturing capacity 

of a facility as calculated using Equation I-5 

of this subpart (m2

). 

EFi = Emission factor for input gas i. 

GWPi = Gas-appropriate GWP as provided in Table A-1 

to Subpart A of part 98. 

0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons. 

i = Input gas. 

(3) If you manufacture LCDs you must calculate total 

annual production process emissions for threshold 

applicability purposes using the default emission factors 

shown in Table I-1 to this subpart and Equation I-3 of this 

subpart. 

220
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

T i i 0.000001**EF*E

i

= ∑ S GWP (Eq. I-3) 

Where: 

ET = Total annual production process emissions for 

threshold applicability purposes (metric tons 

Co2e). 

S = 100 percent of annual manufacturing capacity 

of a facility as calculated using Equation I-5 

of this subpart (m2

). 

EFi = Emission factor for input gas i. 

GWPi = Gas-appropriate GWP as provided in Table A-1 

to Subpart A of part 98. 

0.000001 = Conversion factor from g to metric tons. 

i = Input gas. 

(4) If you manufacture PVs you must calculate total 

annual production process emissions for threshold 

applicability purposes using gas-appropriate GWP values 

shown in Table A-1 to subpart A and Equation I-4 of this 

subpart.

E 001.0** T i i

i

= ∑ GWPC (Eq. I-4) 

Where: 

ET = Total annual production process emissions for 

applicability purposes (metric tons Co2e). 

Ci = Annual fluorinated GHG (gas i) purchases or 

consumption (kg). 

GWPi = Gas-appropriate GWP as provided in Table A-1 

to Subpart A of part 98. 

0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons. 

i = Input gas. 

(b) You must calculate annual manufacturing capacity 

of a facility using Equation I-5 of this subpart. 

221
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

= ∑

12

S xWx (Eq. I-5) 

S = 100 percent of annual manufacturing capacity 

of a facility (m2). 

Wx = Maximum designed substrate starts of a 

facility in month x (m2 per month). 

x = Month. 

§98.92 GHGs to report.

(a) You must report emissions of fluorinated GHGs (as 

defined in §98.6) and N2O. The fluorinated GHGs that are 

emitted from electronics manufacturing production processes 

include, but are not limited to, those listed in Table I-2 

to this subpart. You must individually report, as 

appropriate: 

(1) Fluorinated GHGs from plasma etching. 

(2) Fluorinated GHGs from chamber cleaning. 

(3) Fluorinated GHGs from wafer cleaning. 

(4) N2O from chemical vapor deposition and other 

electronics manufacturing production processes. 

(5) Fluorinated GHGs from heat transfer fluid use. 

(b) CO2, CH4, and N2O combustion emissions from each 

stationary combustion unit. You must calculate and report 

these emissions under subpart C of this part (General 

Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources) by following the 

requirements of subpart C. 

222
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

§98.93 Calculating GHG emissions.

(a) You must calculate total annual facility-level 

emissions of each fluorinated GHG used in electronics 

manufacturing production processes at your facility, for 

each process type, using Equations I-6 and I-7 of this 

subpart according to the procedures in paragraphs (a)(1), 

(a)(2), (a)(3) or (a)(4) of this section, as appropriate. 

Facilities to which the procedures in paragraphs (a)(1) or 

(a)(2) apply may elect to use the procedures in paragraph 

(a)(3) as an alternative. 

∑ (Eq. I-6) =

=

N

j

processtyp i EeE ij

1

Where: 

Process type Ei = Annual emissions of input gas i from 

the processes type (metric tons). 

Eij = Annual emissions of input gas i from 

recipe , process sub-type, or process 

type j as calculated in Equation I-8 of 

this subpart (metric tons). 

N = The total number of recipes or process 

sub-types j which depends on the 

electronics manufacturing facility and 

emission calculation methodology. If Eij

is calculated for a process type j in 

Equation I-8 of this subpart, N = 1. 

i = Input gas. 

j = Recipe, process sub-type, or process 

type. 

 ∑∑ (Eq. I-7) ==

N

j i

k BEijk processtypeBE

1

Where: 

223
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

processtypeBEk = Annual emissions of by-product gas k from 

the processes type (metric tons). 

BEijk = Annual emissions of by-product k formed 

from input gas i used for recipe, process 

sub-type, or process type j as calculated 

in Equation I-9 of this subpart (metric 

tons). 

N = The total number of recipes or process 

sub-types j, which depends on the 

electronics manufacturing facility and 

emission calculation methodology. If BEkij

is calculated for a process type j in 

Equation I-9 of this subpart, N = 1. 

i = Input gas. 

j = Recipe, process sub-type, or process 

type. 

k = By-product gas. 

(1) If you manufacture MEMS, LCD, or PVs, you must, 

except as provided in §98.93 (a)(3) of this section, 

calculate annual facility-level emissions of each 

fluorinated GHG used for the plasma etching and chamber 

cleaning process types using default utilization and byproduct formation rates as shown in Table I-5, I-6, or I-7, 

as appropriate, and by using Equations I-8 and I-9 of this 

subpart. 

(2) If you manufacture semiconductors on wafers 

measuring 300 mm or less in diameter, except as provided in 

§98.93 (a)(3) of this section, you must adhere to the 

procedures in paragraphs (2)(i) or (2)(ii) of this section. 

 (i) If your facility has an annual manufacturing 

capacity, as calculated using Equation I-5 of this subpart, 

224
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

of less than or equal to 10,500 m2 silicon you must adhere to 

the procedures in paragraphs (i)(A) through (i)(C) of this 

section. 

(A) You must calculate annual facility-level emissions 

of each fluorinated GHG used for the plasma etching process 

type using default utilization and by-product formation rates 

as shown in Table I-3 or I-4 of this subpart, and by using 

Equations I-8 and I-9 of this subpart. 

(B) You must calculate annual facility-level emissions 

of each fluorinated GHG used for each of the process subtypes associated with the chamber cleaning process type, insitu plasma chamber clean, remote plasma chamber clean, and 

in-situ thermal chamber clean using default utilization and 

by-product formation rates as shown in Table I-3 or I-4 of 

this subpart, and by using Equations I-8 and I-9 of this 

subpart. 

(C) You must calculate annual facility-level emissions 

of each fluorinated GHG used for the wafer cleaning process 

type using default utilization and by-product formation rates 

as shown in Table I-3 or I-4 of this subpart and by using 

Equations I-8 and I-9 of this subpart. 

(ii) If your facility has an annual manufacturing 

capacity of greater than 10,500 m2

 silicon, as calculated 

using Equation I-5 of this subpart, you must adhere to the 

225
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

procedures in paragraphs (ii)(A) through (ii)(C) of this 

section. 

(A) You must calculate annual facility-level emissions 

of each fluorinated GHG used for the plasma etching process 

type using recipe-specific utilization and by-product 

formation rates determined as specified in §98.94(d), and by 

using Equations I-8 and I-9 of this subpart. You must 

develop recipe-specific utilization and by-product formation 

rates for each individual recipe unless the recipe is a 

similar recipe as defined in §98.98. Recipe-specific 

utilization and by-product formation rates must be developed 

each reporting year only for recipes which are not similar to 

any recipe used in a previous reporting year, as defined in 

§98.98. 

(B) You must calculate annual facility-level emissions 

of each fluorinated GHG used for each of the process subtypes associated with the chamber cleaning process type, insitu plasma chamber clean, remote plasma chamber clean, and 

in-situ thermal chamber clean using default utilization and 

by-product formation rates as shown in Table I-3 or I-4 to 

this subpart, and by using Equations I-8 and I-9 of this 

subpart. 

(C) You must calculate annual facility-level emissions 

of each fluorinated GHG used for the wafer cleaning process 

226
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

type using default utilization and by-product formation rates 

as shown in Table I-3 or I-4 to this subpart, and by using 

Equations I-8 and I-9 of this subpart. 

(3) If you do not adhere to procedures as specified in 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section, you must 

calculate annual facility-level emissions of each fluorinated 

GHG for all fluorinated GHG emitting production processes 

using recipe-specific utilization and by-product formation 

rates determined as specified in §98.94(d) and by using 

Equations I-8 and I-9 of this subpart. You must develop 

recipe-specific utilization and by-product formation rates 

for each individual recipe unless the recipe is a similar 

recipe as defined in §98.98. Recipe-specific utilization and 

by-product formation rates must be developed each reporting 

year only for recipes which are not similar to any recipe 

used in a previous reporting year, as defined in section 

98.98. 

(4) If you manufacture semiconductors on wafers 

measuring greater than 300 mm in diameter, you must calculate 

annual facility-level emissions of each fluorinated GHG used 

for all fluorinated GHG emitting production processes using 

recipe-specific utilization and by-product formation rates as 

specified in §98.94(d), and by using Equations I-8 and I-9 of 

this subpart. You must develop recipe-specific utilization 

227
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

and by-product formation rates for each individual recipe 

unless the recipe is a similar recipe as defined in §98.98. 

Recipe-specific utilization and by-product formation rates 

must be developed each reporting year only for recipes which 

are not similar to any recipe used in a previous reporting 

year, as defined in section 98.98. 

Cijij ij −−= ijij 0.001*)d*a(1*)U(1*E (Eq. I-8) 

Where: 

Eij = Annual emissions of input gas i from recipe, 

process sub-type, or process type j (metric 

tons). 

Cij = Amount of input gas i consumed for recipe, 

process sub-type, or process type j, as 

calculated in Equation I-13 of this 

subpart(kg). 

Uij = Process utilization for input gas i for 

recipe, process sub-type, or process type j. 

aij = Fraction of input gas i used in recipe, 

process sub-type, or process type j with 

abatement systems. 

dij = Fraction of input gas i destroyed or removed 

in abatement systems for recipe, process 

sub-type, or process type j, as calculated 

in Equation I-14 of this subpart. This is 

zero unless the facility adheres to 

requirements in §98.94(f). 

0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons. 

i = Input gas. 

j = Recipe, process sub-type, or process type. 

ijk = ijijk − daCBBE kjij )*1(** *0.001 (Eq. I-9) 

Where: 

BEijk = Annual emissions of by-product k formed from 

input gas i from recipe, process sub-type, 

or process type j (metric tons). 

228
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

Bijk = Amount of gas k created as a by-product per 

amount of input gas i (kg) consumed by 

recipe, process sub-type, or process type j 

(kg). 

Cij = Amount of input gas i consumed for recipe, 

process sub-type, or process type j, as 

calculated in Equation I-13 of this subpart 

(kg)). 

aij = Fraction of input gas i used for recipe, 

process sub-type, or process type j with 

abatement systems. 

djk = Fraction of by-product gas k destroyed or 

removed in abatement systems for recipe, 

process sub-type, or process type j, as 

calculated in Equation I-14 of this subpart. 

This is zero unless the facility adheres to 

requirements in §98.94(f). 

0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons. 

i = Input gas. 

j = Recipe, process sub-type, or process type. 

k = By-product gas. 

 

(b) You must calculate annual facility-level N2O 

emissions from chemical vapor deposition processes and 

other electronics manufacturing production processes using 

Equation I-10 of this subpart and the methods in paragraphs 

(b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section. 

(1) You must use a factor for N2O utilization for 

chemical vapor deposition processes pursuant to either 

paragraph (1)(i) or (1)(ii) of this section. 

(i) You must develop a facility-specific N2O 

utilization factor averaged over all N2O-using chemical 

229
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

vapor deposition processes determined as specified in 

§98.94(e). 

(ii) If you do not use a facility-specific N2O 

utilization factor for chemical vapor deposition processes, 

you must use the default utilization factor as shown in 

Table I-8 to this subpart for N2O from chemical vapor 

deposition processes. 

(2) You must use a factor for N2O utilization for 

other manufacturing processes pursuant to either paragraph 

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

(i) You must develop a facility-specific N2O 

utilization factor averaged over all N2O-using electronics 

manufacturing production processes other than chemical 

vapor deposition processes determined as specified in 

§98.94(e). 

(ii) If you do not use a facility-specific N2O 

utilization factor for manufacturing processes other than 

chemical vapor deposition, you must use the default 

utilization factor in as shown in Table I-8 to this subpart 

for N2O from manufacturing processes other than chemical 

vapor deposition. 

O)E(N ,Nj2 ,N ,N,N 0.001*)d*a(1*)U(1* (Eq. I-10) 2 2 2 2 = C jO − jO − jOjO

Where: 

230
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

E(N2O) = Annual emissions of N2O for N2O-using process j 

(metric tons). 

CN2O,j = Amount of N2O consumed for N2O-using process j, 

as calculated in Equation I-13 of this subpart 

and apportioned to N2O process j (kg). 

UN2O,j = Process utilization 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 for process j, 

as calculated in Equation I-14 of this 

subpart. This is zero unless the facility 

adheres to requirements in §98.94(f). 

0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons. 

j = type of N2O-using process. 

(c) You must calculate total annual gas consumption 

for each fluorinated GHG and N2O using Equation I-11 of this 

subpart. 

 Ci = (IBi – IEi + Ai – Di) (Eq. I-11) 

Where: 

Ci = Annual consumption of input gas i (kg per year). 

IBi = Inventory of input gas i stored in containers at 

the beginning of the reporting year, including 

heels (kg). For containers in service at the 

beginning of a reporting year, account for the 

quantity in these containers as if they were 

full.

IEi = Inventory of input gas i stored in containers at 

the end of the reporting year, including heels 

(kg). For containers in service at the end of a 

reporting year, account for the quantity in 

these containers as if they were full. 

Ai = Acquisitions of gas i during the year through 

purchases or other transactions, including heels 

in containers returned to the electronics 

manufacturing facility (kg). 

Di = Disbursements of gas i through sales or other 

transactions during the year, including heels in 

231
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

containers returned by the electronics 

manufacturing facility to the chemical supplier, 

as calculated using Equation I-12 to this 

subpart (kg). 

i = Input gas. 

(d) You must calculate disbursements of gas i using 

facility-wide gas-specific heel factors, as determined in 

§98.94(b), and by using Equation I-12 of this subpart. 

 Di = hi * Ni* Fi + Xi (Eq. I-12) 

Where: 

Di = Disbursements of gas i through sales or other 

transactions during the year, including heels in 

containers returned by the electronics 

manufacturing facility to the gas distributor 

(kg). 

hi = Facility-wide gas-specific heel factor for input 

gas i (fraction), as determined in §98.94(b) of 

this subpart. 

Ni = Number of containers returned to the gas 

distributor containing the standard heel of gas 

i. 

Fi = Full capacity of containers containing gas i 

(kg). 

Xi = Disbursements under exceptional circumstances of 

gas i through sales or other transactions during 

the year (kg). These include returns of 

containers whose contents have been weighed due 

to an exceptional circumstance as specified in 

§98.94(b)(4). 

(e) You must calculate the amount of input gas i 

consumed for each individual recipe (unless the recipe is a 

similar recipe), process sub-type, or process type j, using 

Equation I-13 of this subpart. 

232
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

 Cij = fij * Ci (Eq. I-13) 

Where: 

Ci,j = The annual amount of input gas i consumed for 

recipe, process sub-type, or process type j 

(kg). 

fi,j = Recipe-specific, process sub-type-specific, or 

process type-specific gas apportioning factor as 

determined in accordance with §98.94(c) of this 

subpart. 

Ci = Annual consumption of input gas i as calculated 

using Equation I-11 of this subpart (kg). 

i = Input gas. 

j = Recipe, process sub-type, or process type. 

(f) If you report controlled emissions pursuant to 

§98.94(f) you must calculate the fraction of input gas i 

destroyed in abatement systems for each individual recipe 

(unless the recipe is a similar recipe), process sub-type, 

or process type j by using Equations I-14 of this subpart. 

 ∑

∑

=

k

ijy

y

yijyijy

ji C

udC

d

**

, (Eq. I-14) 

Where: 

dij = Fraction of input gas i destroyed in 

abatement systems by recipe, process subtype, or process type j. 

Cijy = The amount of input gas i consumed for 

recipe, process sub-type, or process type j 

fed into abatement system y (kg). 

dijy = Fraction of input gas i destroyed in 

abatement system y by recipe, process sub233
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

type, or process type j. This is zero unless 

the facility adheres to requirements in 

§98.94(g). 

uy = The uptime of abatement system y as 

calculated in Equation I-15 of this subpart. 

Cij = The amount of input gas i consumed for 

recipe, process sub-type, or process type j 

(kg). 

i = Input gas. 

j = Recipe, process sub-type, or process type. 

y = Abatement system. 

(g) If you report controlled emissions pursuant to 

§98.94(f) you must calculate the uptime by using Equation 

I-15 of this subpart. 

y

y

y T

t

u = (Eq. I-15) 

Where: 

uy = The uptime of abatement system y. 

ty = The total time in which abatement system y 

is in an operational mode when fluorinated 

GHGs or N2O are flowing through production 

process tool(s) connected to abatement 

system y. 

Ty = Total time in which fluorinated GHGs or N2O 

 are flowing through production process 

 tool(s) connected to abatement system y. 

y = Abatement system. 

 

(h) If you use fluorinated heat transfer fluids, you 

must report the annual emissions of fluorinated GHG heat 

transfer fluids using the mass balance approach described 

in Equation I-16 of this subpart. 

234
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

EHi = (* −−+−+ DIRNPIdensity itititititioi 001.0*) (Eq. I-16) 

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 

in containers other than equipment at the 

beginning of the reporting year (in stock or 

storage) (l). The inventory at the beginning 

of the reporting year must be the same as the 

inventory at the end of the previous reporting 

year. 

Pit = Acquisitions of fluorinated heat transfer fluid 

i during the reporting year(l), including 

amounts purchased from chemical suppliers, 

amounts purchased from equipment suppliers with 

or inside of equipment, and amounts returned to 

the facility after off-site recycling. 

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 (l). 

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 reporting year (l). 

Iit = Inventory of fluorinated heat transfer fluid i 

in containers other than equipment at the end 

of the reporting year (in stock or storage)(l). 

Dit = Disbursements of fluorinated heat transfer 

fluid i during the reporting year, including 

amounts returned to chemical suppliers, sold 

with or inside of equipment, and sent off-site 

for verifiable recycling or destruction (l). 

Disbursements should include only amounts that 

are properly stored and transported so as to 

prevent emissions in transit. 

0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons. 

i = Heat transfer fluid. 

§98.94 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements. 

235
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(a) For calendar year 2011 monitoring, you may 

following the provisions in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of 

this section for best available monitoring requirements. 

(1) Best available monitoring methods. During January 

1, 2011 through June 30, 2011, owners or operators may use 

best available monitoring methods for any parameter that 

cannot reasonably be measured according to the monitoring 

and QA/QC requirements of this subpart. The owner or 

operator must use the calculation methodologies and 

equations in the ‘‘Calculating GHG Emissions’’ section of 

this subpart, but may use the best available monitoring 

method for any parameter for which it is not reasonably 

feasible to acquire, install, or operate a required piece 

of monitoring equipment in a facility by January 1, 2011. 

Starting no later than July 1, 2011, the owner or operator 

must discontinue using best available methods and begin 

following all applicable monitoring and QA/QC requirements 

of this part, except as provided in paragraphs (a)(2) or 

(a)(3) of this section. Best available monitoring methods 

means any of the following methods specified in this 

paragraph: 

(i) Monitoring methods currently used by the facility 

that do not meet the specifications of this subpart. 

(ii) Supplier data. 

236
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(iii) Engineering calculations. 

(iv) Other company records. 

(2) Requests for extension of the use of best 

available monitoring methods in 2011. The owner or 

operator may submit a request to the Administrator to use 

one or more best available monitoring methods between July 

1, 2011 and December 31, 2011. 

(i) Timing of request. The extension request must be 

submitted to EPA no later than February 28, 2011. 

 (ii) Content of request. Requests must contain the 

following information: 

 (A) A list of the needed equipment that could not be 

acquired, installed, or operated and a description of the 

reasons why it could not be obtained, installed, or 

operated before July 1, 2011. 

(B) A list of specific items of monitoring 

instrumentation for which the request is being made and the 

locations where each piece of monitoring instrumentation 

will be installed. 

(C) Identification of the specific rule requirements 

for which the instrumentation is needed. 

 (D) If the reason for the extension is that the 

equipment cannot be purchased, delivered, or installed by 

July 1, 2011, include supporting documentation such as the 

237
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

date the monitoring equipment was ordered, investigation of 

alternative suppliers, and the dates by which alternative 

vendors promised delivery or installation, backorder 

notices or unexpected delays, descriptions of actions taken 

to expedite delivery or installation, and the current 

expected date of delivery or installation. 

 (E) If the reason for the extension is that service 

providers were unable to provide necessary measurement 

services, include supporting documentation demonstrating 

that these services could not be acquired by December 31, 

2011. This documentation must include written 

correspondence to and from at least three service providers 

stating that they will not be available to provide the 

necessary services by December 31, 2011. 

 (F) A detailed description of the specific best 

available monitoring methods that the facility will use in 

place of the required methods. 

 (G) A description of the specific actions the owner or 

operator will take to comply with monitoring requirements 

by January 1, 2012. 

(iii) Approval criteria. To obtain approval, the owner 

or operator must demonstrate to the Administrator’s 

satisfaction that by December 31, 2011 it is not reasonably 

feasible to acquire, install, or operate the required piece 

238
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

of monitoring equipment according to the requirements of 

this subpart. As a condition for permitting the use of 

best available monitoring methods, facilities that are 

required to calculate and report emissions in accordance 

with §98.93(a)(2)(ii), must recalculate and re-submit their 

2011 estimated emissions using the recipe-specific emission 

factors that are developed for their etching processes. 

The facility’s recalculated emissions must be reported in 

the next possible reporting year. 

 (3) Requests for extension of the use of best 

available monitoring methods beyond 2011. EPA does not 

anticipate approving the use of best available monitoring 

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

right to approve any such requests submitted no later than 

June 30, 2011 under unique and extreme circumstances which 

include safety, technical infeasibility, or inconsistency 

with other local, State or Federal regulations. 

(i) Timing of request. The extension request must be 

submitted to EPA no later than June 30, 2011. 

 (ii) Content of request. Requests must contain the 

following information: 

 (A) A list of parameters for which the owner or 

operator is seeking use of best available monitoring 

methods beyond 2011. 

239
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

 (B) A description of the specific rule requirements 

which the owner or operator cannot meet, including a 

detailed explanation as to why the requirements can not be 

met. 

 (C) Detailed description of the unique circumstances 

necessitating an extension, including specific data 

collection issues that do not meet safety regulations, 

technical infeasibility or specific laws or regulations 

that conflict with data collection. 

 (D) A detailed explanation and supporting 

documentation of how and when the owner or operator will 

receive the required data and/or services to comply with 

Subpart I reporting requirements in the future. 

 (E) A detailed description of the specific best 

available monitoring methods that the facility will use in 

place of the required methods. 

 (F) The Administrator reserves the right to require 

that the owner or operator provide additional 

documentation. 

(iii) Approval criteria. To obtain approval, the owner 

or operator must demonstrate to the Administrator’s 

satisfaction that by December 31, 2012, it is not 

reasonably feasible to acquire, install, or operate the 

required piece of monitoring equipment according to the 

240
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

requirements of this subpart. As a condition for 

permitting the use of best available monitoring methods, 

facilities that are required to calculate and report 

emissions in accordance with §98.93(a)(2)(ii), must 

recalculate and re-submit their 2012 estimated emissions 

using the recipe-specific emission factors that are 

developed for their etching processes. The facility’s 

recalculated emissions must be reported in the next 

possible reporting year. 

 (b) For purposes of Equation I-12 of this subpart, 

you must estimate facility-wide gas-specific heel factors 

for each container type for each gas used according to the 

procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this 

section. 

(1) Base your facility-wide gas-specific heel factors 

on the trigger point for change out of a container for each 

container type for each gas used. Facility-wide gasspecific heel factors must be expressed as the ratio of the 

trigger point for change out, in terms of mass, to the 

initial mass in the container, as determined by paragraphs 

(b)(2) and (b)(3) of this section. 

(2) The trigger point for change out you use to 

calculate a facility-wide gas-specific heel factors in 

§98.94(b)(1) must be determined by monitoring the mass or 

241
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

the pressure of your containers. If you monitor the 

pressure, convert the pressure to mass using the ideal gas 

law, as displayed in Equation I-17 of to this subpart, with 

the appropriate Z value selected based upon the properties 

of the gas. 

 pV=ZnRT (Eq. I-17) 

Where: 

p = Absolute pressure of the gas (Pa) 

V = Volume of the gas (m3) 

Z = Compressibility factor 

n = Amount of substance of the gas (moles) 

R = Gas constant (8.314 Joule/Kelvin mole) 

T = Absolute temperature (K) 

(3) The initial mass you use to calculate a facilitywide gas-specific heel factor in §98.94(b)(1) may be based 

on the weight of the gas provided to you in gas supplier 

documents; however, you remain responsible for the accuracy 

of these masses and weights under this subpart. 

(4) If you change a container in an exceptional 

circumstance, a point that differs by more than 20 percent 

from the trigger point for change out used to calculate 

your facility-wide gas-specific heel factor for that gas 

and container type, you must weigh that container, or 

measure the pressure of that container with a pressure 

gauge, in place of using a heel factor. 

242
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(c) You must develop apportioning factors for 

fluorinated GHG and N2O consumption to use in Equation I-13 

of this subpart for each input gas i, as appropriate, using 

a facility-specific engineering model that is documented in 

your site GHG Monitoring Plan as required under §98.3(g)(5) 

of this part. This model must be based on a quantifiable 

metric, such as wafer passes or wafer starts. To verify 

your model, you must demonstrate its precision and accuracy 

by adhereing to the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) and 

(c)(2) of this section. 

(1) You must demonstrate that the fluorinated GHG and 

N2O apportioning factors are developed using calculations 

that are repeatable, as defined in section 98.98. 

(2) You must demonstrate the accuracy of your 

facility-specific model by comparing the acutal amount of 

input gas i consumed and the modeled amount of input gas i 

consumed for the plasma etching and chamber cleaning 

process types, as follows: 

(i) You must analyze at least a 30 day period of 

operation during which the capacity utilization equals or 

exceeds 60 percent of its design capacity. 

(ii) You must compare the actual amount of input gas i 

consumed to the modeled amount of input gas i consumed for 

one reportable input gas i under each of the plasma etching 

243
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

process type and the chamber cleaning process type. You 

must certify the selected gases are consumed in the largest 

quantities, on a mass basis, at your facility in a 

reporting year for each the plasma etching process type and 

the chamber cleaning process type. 

(iii) You must demonstrate that the comparison 

performed for the largest quantity of gas consumed under 

the plasma etching process type in paragraph (2)(ii) of 

this section, does not result in a difference between the 

actual and modeled gas consumption that exceeds five 

percent relative to actual gas consumption, reported to one 

significant figure using standard rounding conventions. 

(d) If you use factors for fluorinated GHG process 

utilization and by-product formation rates other than the 

defaults provided in Tables I-3, I-4, I-5, I-6, and I-7 to 

this subpart, you must use utilization and by-product 

formation rates that are developed with measurements made 

using the International SEMATECH #06124825A-ENG 

(incorporated by reference, see §98.7). You may use 

recipe-specific utilization and by-product formation rates 

that were measured using the International SEMATECH 

#01104197A-XFR (incorporated by reference, see §98.7) 

provided the measurements were made prior to January 1, 

2007. You may use recipe-specific utilization and by244
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

product formation rates measured by a third party, such as 

a manufacturing equipment supplier, if the conditions in 

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

(1) The third party has measured recipe-specific 

utilization and by-product formation rates using the 

International SEMATECH #06124825A-ENG (incorporated by 

reference, see §98.7,) or the International SEMATECH 

#01104197A-XFR (incorporated by reference, see §98.7) 

provided the measurements were made prior to January 1, 

2007. 

(2) Measurements made by a third party to develop 

recipe-specific utilization and by-product formation rates 

must have been made for recipes similar to those used at 

your facility, as defined in section 98.98. 

(e) If you develop facility-specific N2O utilization 

factors you must use factors developed using measurements 

made in accordance with the International SEMATECH 

#06124825A-ENG (incorporated by reference, see §98.7). You 

may use measurements made using the International SEMATECH 

#01104197A-XFR (incorporated by reference, see §98.7) 

provided the measurements were made prior to January 1, 

2007. You may use N2O utilization factors measured by a 

third party if the conditions in paragraphs (e)(1) and 

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

245
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(1) The third party has measured N2O utilization 

factors using the International SEMATECH #06124825A-ENG 

(incorporated by reference, see §98.7,) or the 

International SEMATECH #01104197A-XFR (incorporated by 

reference, see §98.7) provided the measurements were made 

prior to January 1, 2007. 

(2) The conditions under which the measurements were 

made are representative of your facility’s N2O emitting 

production processes. 

 (f) If your facility employs abatement systems and 

you wish to reflect emission reductions due to these 

systems in calculations in §98.93, you must adhere to the 

procedures in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section. 

If you use the default destruction or removal efficiency of 

60 percent, you must adhere to procedures in paragraph 

(f)(3) of this section. If you use either a properly 

measured destruction or removal efficiency as defined in 

98.98, or a class average of properly measured destruction 

or removal efficiencies during a reporting year, you must 

adhere to procedures in paragraph (f)(4) of this section. 

(1) You must certify and document that the abatement 

systems are properly installed, operated, and maintained 

according to manufacturers’ specifications by adhering to 

246
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

the procedures in paragraphs (1)(i) and (1)(ii) of this 

section. 

(i) You must certify and document proper installation 

by verifying your systems were installed in accordance with 

the manufacturers' specifications. 

(ii) You must certify and document your systems are 

operated and maintained in accordance with the 

manufacturers’ specifications. 

(2) You must calculate and report the uptime of 

abatement systems using Equation I-15 of this subpart. 

(3) To report emissions using the default destruction 

or removal efficiency of 60 percent, you must certify and 

document that the abatement systems at your facility are 

specifically designed for fluorinated GHG and N2O abatement. 

(4) If you do not use the default destruction or 

removal efficiency value to calculate and report emissions, 

you must use either a properly measured destruction or 

removal efficiency, or a class average of properly measured 

destruction or removal efficiencies, determined in 

accordance with procedures in paragraphs (f)(4)(i) through 

(f)(4)(v) of this section. 

(i) A properly measured destruction or removal 

efficiency value must be determined in accordance with EPA 

430-R-10-003 (incorporated by reference, see §98.7). 

247
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(ii) You must annually select and properly measure 

the destruction or removal efficiency for a random sample 

of abatement systems to include in a random sampling 

abatement system testing program (RSASTP) in accordance 

with procedures in paragraphs (ii)(A) and (ii)(B) of this 

section. 

(A) Each reporting year for each abatement system 

class a random sample of three or 20 percent of installed 

abatement systems, whichever is greater, must be tested. 

If 20 percent of the total number of abatement systems in 

each class does not equate to a whole number, the number of 

systems to be tested must be determined by rounding up to 

the nearest integer. 

(B) You must select the random sample each reporting 

year for the RSASTP without repetition of previouslymeasured systems in the sample, until all systems in each 

class are properly measured in a 5-year period. 

(iii) If you have measured the destruction or removal 

efficiency of a particular abatement system during the 

previous two-year period, you must calculate emissions from 

that system using the most recently measured destruction or 

removal efficiency for that particular system. 

(iv) If the destruction or removal efficiency of an 

individual abatement system has not been properly measured 

248
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

during the previous two-year period, you may use a simple 

average of the properly measured destruction or removal 

efficiencies for systems of that class, in accordance with 

the RSASTP. Your facility must maintain or exceed the 

RSASTP schedule if you wish to apply class average 

destruction or removal efficiency factors to abatement 

systems that have not yet been properly measured. 

(v) If your facility uses redundant abatement 

systems, you may account for the total abatement system 

uptime calculated for a specific exhaust stream during the 

reporting year. 

(g) You must adhere to the QA/QC procedures of this 

paragraph when calculating fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions 

from electronics manufacturing production processes: 

(1) Follow the QA/QC procedures in the International 

SEMATECH #06124825A-ENG (incorporated by reference, see 

§98.7) when estimating facility-specific, recipe-specific 

fluorinated GHG and N2O utilization and by-product formation 

rates. 

(2) Ensure that the QA/QC procedures in the 

International SEMATECH #01104197A-XFR (incorporated by 

reference, see §98.7) were followed if recipe-specific 

utilization and by-product formation rates that are being 

249
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

used were developed using the 2001 ISMI Guidelines {insert 

correct reference} and were made prior to January 1, 2007. 

(3) Follow the QA/QC procedures in accordance with 

those in EPA 430-R-10-003 (incorporated by reference, see 

§98.7) when calculating abatement systems destruction or 

removal efficiencies. 

(4) Demonstrate that as part of normal facility 

operations the inventory of gas stored in containers at the 

beginning of the reporting year is the same as the 

inventory of gas stored in containers at the end of the 

previous reporting year. 

(h) You must adhere to the QA/QC procedures of this 

paragraph when calculating annual gas consumption for each 

fluorinated GHG and N2O used at your facility and 

fluorinated GHG emissions from heat transfer fluid use: 

(1) Review all inputs to Equations I-11 and I-16 of 

this subpart to ensure that all inputs and outputs to the 

facility’s system are accounted for. 

(2) Do not enter negative inputs into the mass 

balance Equations I-11 and I-16 of this subpart and ensure 

that no negative emissions are calculated. 

(3) Ensure that the inventory at the beginning of one 

reporting year is identical to the inventory reported at 

the end of the previous reporting year. 

250
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(4) Ensure that the total quantity of gas i in 

containers in service at the end of a reporting year is 

accounted for as if the in-service containers were full for 

Equation I-11 of this subpart. Ensure also that the same 

quantity is accounted for in the inventory of input gas i 

stored in containers at the beginning of the subsequent 

reporting year. 

(i) All flowmeters, weigh scales, pressure gauges, and 

thermometers used to measure quantities that are monitored 

under this section or used in calculations under §98.93 

must have an accuracy and precision of one percent of full 

scale or better. 

§98.95 Procedures for estimating missing data.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph §98.95(b), a 

complete record of all measured parameters used in the 

fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions calculations in §98.93 and 

§98.94 is required. 

(b) If you use heat transfer fluids at your facility 

and are missing data for one or more of the parameters in 

Equation I-16 of this subpart, you must estimate heat 

transfer fluid emissions using the arithmetic average of 

the emission rates for the reporting year immediately 

preceding the period of missing data and the months 

immediately following the period of missing data. 

251
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

Alternatively, you may estimate missing information using 

records from the heat transfer fluid supplier. You must 

document the method used and values used for all missing 

data values. 

§98.96 Data reporting requirements. 

In addition to the information required by §98.3(c), 

you must include in each annual report the following 

information for each electronics manufacturing facility: 

(a) Total annual emissions as determined in Equations 

I-1 through I-4 of this subpart for calculating reporting 

thresholds. 

(b) Annual manufacturing capacity of a facility as 

determined in Equation I-5 of this subpart. 

(c) Annual emissions of: 

(1) Each fluorinated GHG emitted from each process 

type for which your facility is required to calculate 

emissions as calculated in Equations I-6 and I-7 of this 

subpart. 

(2) Each fluorinated GHG emitted from each individual 

recipe (unless the recipe is a similar recipe), or process 

sub-types as calculated in Equations I-8 and I-9 of this 

subpart, as applicable. 

252
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(3) N2O emitted from each chemical vapor deposition 

process and from other N2O-using manufacturing processes as 

calculated in Equation I-10 of this subpart. 

(4) Each heat transfer fluid emitted as calculated in 

Equation 1-16 of this subpart. 

(d) The method of emissions calculation used in 

§98.93. 

(e) Annual production in terms of substrate surface 

area (e.g., silicon, PV-cell, glass). 

(f) When you used recipe-specific utilization and byproduct formation rates or a facility-specific N2O 

utilization factor, you must report the following, as 

applicable: 

(1) The recipe-specific utilization and by-product 

formation rates for each individual recipe (unless the 

recipe is a similar recipe). 

(2) The film or substrate that was etched/cleaned and 

the feature type that was etched, as applicable. 

(3) Source of the measured recipe-specific 

utilization and by-product formation rates. 

(4) Certification the measurements for all reported 

recipe-specific utilization and by-product formation rates 

were made in accordance with International SEMATECH 

#06124825A-ENG (incorporated by reference, see §98.7), or 

253
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

with International SEMATECH #01104197A-XFR (incorporated by 

reference, see §98.7) if measurements were made prior to 

January 1, 2007. 

(g) Annual fluorinated GHG and N2O gas consumed during 

the reporting year and facility-wide gas-specific heelfactors used for each fluorinated GHG and N2O as determined 

in Equation I-11 of this subpart. 

(h) All apportioning factors used to apportion 

fluorinated GHG and N2O consumption. 

(i) Results of the calculation to determine if the 

facility-specific engineering model used to apportion 

fluorinated GHG and N2O consumption is verified in 

accordance with procedures in §98.94(c)(1) and (2). 

(j) Fraction of each fluorinated GHG or N2O fed into 

recipe, process sub-type, or process type that is fed into 

tools connected to abatement systems. 

(k) Fraction of each gas destroyed in abatement 

systems for a recipe, process sub-type, or process type as 

determined pursuant to §98.98(f). 

(l) Inventory and description of all abatement 

systems through which fluorinated GHGs or N2O flow at your 

facility, including the number of devices of each 

manufacturer, model numbers, manufacturer claimed 

fluorinated GHG and N2O destruction or removal efficiencies, 

254
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

if any, and records of destruction or removal efficiency 

measurements over their in-use lives. The inventory of 

abatement systems must describe the tools and the 

recipe(s), process sub-type, or process type for which 

these systems treat exhaust. 

(m) For each abatement system through which 

fluorinated GHGs or N2O flow at your facility, for which you 

are reporting controlled emissions, the following: 

(1) Certification that each abatement system has been 

installed, maintained, and operated in accordance with 

manufacturers’ specifications. 

(2) The monitored uptimes for the reporting year as 

determined by Equation I-15 of this subpart, and the 

calculations used to determine them. 

(3) The default destruction or removal efficiency 

value or properly measured destruction or removal 

efficiencies for each abatement system used in the 

reporting year. 

(4) Where the default destruction or removal 

efficiency value is used to report emissions, certification 

that the abatement systems for which emissions are being 

reported were specifically designed for fluorinated GHG and 

N2O abatement. You must support this certification by 

providing abatement system supplier documentation stating 

255
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

that the system was designed for fluorinated GHG and N2O 

abatement. 

(5) Where properly measured destruction or removal 

efficiencies or class averages of destruction or removal 

efficiencies are used, the following must also be reported: 

(i) A description of the class, including the 

abatement system manufacturer and model number and the 

fluorinated GHG(s) and N2O in the effluent stream. 

(ii) The total number of systems in that class for 

the reporting year. 

(iii) The total number of systems for which 

destruction or removal efficiency was properly measured in 

that class for the reporting year. 

(iv) A description of the calculation used to 

determine the class average, including all inputs to the 

calculation. 

(v) A description of the method used for randomly 

selecting class members for testing. 

(n) For heat transfer fluid emissions, inputs to the 

mass-balance equation, Equation I-16 of this subpart for 

each fluorinated GHG used. 

(o) Example calculations for fluorinated GHG, N2O, and 

heat transfer fluid emissions. 

256
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(p) A brief description of each “best available 

monitoring method” used according to paragraph §98.94(a), 

the parameter measured using the method, and the time 

period during which the “best available monitoring method” 

was used. 

§98.97 Records that must be retained. 

In addition to the information required by §98.3(g), 

you must retain the following records: 

(a) All data used and copies of calculations made as 

part of estimating emissions, including all spreadsheets. 

(b) Documentation for the values used for fluorinated 

GHG and N2O utilization and by-product formation rates. If 

you use facility-specific and recipe-specific utilization 

and by-product formation rates, the following records must 

also be retained, as applicable: 

(1) Complete documentation and final report for 

measurements of recipe-specific utilization and by-product 

formation rates demonstrating that the values were measured 

using International SEMATECH #06124825A-ENG (incorporated 

by reference, see §98.7) or International SEMATECH 

#01104197A-XFR (incorporated by reference, see §98.7) 

provided the measurements were made prior to January 1, 

2007. 

257
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(2) Documentation that recipe-specific utilization 

and by-product formation rates developed for your facility 

are measured for recipes that are similar to those used at 

your facility, as defined in §98.98. 

(3) Documentation that your facility’s N2O 

measurements are representative of the N2O emitting 

processes at your facility. 

(4) The date and results of the initial and any 

subsequent tests to determine utilization and by-product 

formation rates. 

 (c) Documentation for the facility-specific 

engineering model used to apportion fluorinated GHG and N2O 

consumption. This documentation must be part of your site 

GHG Monitoring Plan as required under §98.3(g)(5) of this 

part. At a minimum you must retain the following: 

(1) A clear, detailed description of the faciliyspecific model, including how it was developed; the 

quantifiable metric used in the model; all sources of 

information, equations, and formulas, each with clear 

definitions of terms and variables; and a clear record of 

any changes made to the model while it was used to 

apportion fluorinated GHG and N2O consumption across 

individual recipes (unless the recipe is a similar recipe), 

process sub-types, and/or process types. 

258
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(2) Sample calculations used for developing a recipespecific, process sub-type-specific, or process typespecific gas apportioning factor, fij for the dominant gases 

used for each individual recipe (unless the recipe is a 

similar recipe), process sub-type, or process type; 

(d) For each abatement system through which 

fluorinated GHGs or N2O flow at your facility, for which you 

are reporting controlled emissions, the following: 

(1) Documentation to certify the abatement system is 

installed, maintained, and operated in accordance with 

manufacturers’ specifications. 

 (2) Abatement system calibration and maintenance 

records. 

(3) Where the default destruction or removal 

efficiency value is used, documentation from the abatement 

system supplier describing the equipment’s designed purpose 

and emission control capabilities for F-GHG and N2O. 

(4) Where properly measured DRE is used to report 

emissions, dated certification by the technician who made 

the measurement that the destruction or removal efficiency 

is calculated in accordance with methods in EPA 430-R-10-

003 (incorporated by reference, see §98.7) complete 

documentation of the results of any initial and subsequent 

259
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

tests, and the final report as specified in EPA 430-R-10-

003 (incorporated by reference, see §98.7). 

(e) Purchase records for gas purchased. 

(f) Invoices for gas purchases and sales. 

(g) Documents and records used to monitor and 

calculate abatement system uptime. 

§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 takes precedence for the reporting requirements in 

this subpart. 

Abatement system means a device or equipment that 

destroys or removes fluorinated GHGs and N2O in waste 

streams from one or more electronics manufacturing 

production processes. 

Actual gas consumption means the quantity of gas used 

during wafer/substrate processing over some period based on 

a measured change in gas container weight or gas container 

pressure or on a measured volume of gas. 

By-product formation means the creation of fluorinated 

GHGs during electronics manufacturing production processes 

260
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

or the creation of fluorinated GHGs by an abatement system. 

By-product formation is expressed as a rate of the mass of 

the by-product formed to the mass of the fluorinated GHG 

used with the largest flow rate. 

Class means a category of abatement systems grouped by 

manufacturer model number(s) and by the gas which the 

system is used to abate, including N2O and CF4 direct and 

by-product formation, and all other fluorinated GHG gas 

direct and byproduct formation. Classes may also include 

any other abatement systems for which the reporting 

facility wishes to report controlled emissions provided 

that class is identified. 

Destruction or removal efficiency means the efficiency 

of an abatement system to destroy or remove fluorinated 

GHGs, N2O, or both. The destruction or removal efficiency 

is equal to one minus the ratio of the mass of all relevant 

GHGs exiting the abatement system to the mass of GHG 

entering the abatement system. When GHGs are formed in an 

abatement system, destruction or removal efficiency is 

expressed as one minus the ratio of amounts of exiting GHGs 

to the amounts entering the system in units of CO2-

equivalents (CO2e). 

261
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

Dominant gas means the reportable gas with the highest 

flow rate when a process recipe includes multiple 

fluorinated GHGs. 

Gas utilization means the fraction of input N2O or 

fluorinated GHG converted to other substances during the 

etching, deposition, and/or wafer and chamber cleaning 

processes. Gas utilization is expressed as a rate or 

factor for specific electronics manufacturing recipes, 

process sub-types, or process types. 

Heat transfer fluids are fluorinated GHGs used for 

temperature control, device testing, and soldering in 

certain types of electronic manufacturing production 

processes. Heat transfer fluids used in the electronics 

sector include perfluoropolyethers, perfluoroalkanes, 

perfluoroethers, tertiary perfluoroamines, and 

perfluorocyclic ethers. Heat transfer fluids commonly used 

in electronics manufacturing include those sold under the 

trade names "Galden® " and "FluorinertTM." Electronics 

manufacturers may also use these same fluorinated chemicals 

to clean substrate surfaces and other parts. 

Heel means the amount of gas that remains in a gas 

container after it is discharged or off-loaded; heel may 

vary by container type. 

262
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

Individual recipe means a specific combination of 

gases, under specific conditions of reactor temperature, 

pressure, flow, radio frequency (RF) power and duration, 

used repeatedly to fabricate a specific feature on a 

specific film or substrate. 

Maximum designed substrate starts means the maximum 

quantity of substrates, expressed as surface area, that 

could be started each month during a reporting year if the 

facility were fully equipped as defined in the facility 

design specifications and if the equipment were fully 

utilized. It denotes 100 percent of annual manufacturing 

capacity of a facility. 

Modeled gas consumed means the quantity of gas used 

during wafer/substrate processing over some period based on 

a verified facility-specific engineering model used to 

apportion gas consumption. 

Nameplate capacity means the full and proper charge of 

chemical specified by the equipment manufacturer to achieve 

the equipment’s specified performance. The nameplate 

capacity is typically indicated on the equipment’s 

nameplate; it is not necessarily the actual charge, which 

may be influenced by leakage and other emissions. 

Operational mode means the time in which an abatement 

system is being operated within the range of parameters as 

263
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

specified in the operations manual provided by the system 

manufacturer. 

Process sub-type is a set of similar manufacturing 

steps, more closely related within a broad process type. 

For example, the chamber cleaning process type includes insitu plasma chamber cleaning, remote plasma chamber 

cleaning, and in-situ thermal chamber cleaning sub-types. 

Process types are broad groups of manufacturing steps 

used at a facility associated with substrate (e.g., wafer) 

processing during device manufacture for which fluorinated 

GHG and N2O emissions and fluorinated GHG and N2O usages are 

calculated and reported. The process types are plasma 

etching, chamber cleaning, and wafer cleaning. 

(1) The plasma etching process type consists of any 

production process using fluorinated GHG reagents to 

selectively remove materials39 that have been deposited on a 

substrate during electronics manufacturing. 

(2) The chamber cleaning process type consists of the 

process sub-types defined in (a) through (c) of this 

section. 

 

39 These materials may include SiO2, SiOx-based or fully organic-based 

thin-film material, SiN, SiON, Si3N4, SiC, SiCO, SiCN, etc. 

(represented by the general chemical formula, SiwOxNyXz where w,x,y and 

z are zero or integers and X may be some other element such as carbon), 

silicon, or metal films (such as aluminum or tungsten). 

264
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(a) In situ plasma process sub-type consists of the 

cleaning of thin-film production chambers, after processing 

substrates, with a fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent that is 

dissociated into its cleaning constituents by a plasma 

generated inside the chamber where the film is produced. 

(b) Remote plasma process sub-type consists of the 

cleaning of thin-film production chambers, after processing 

substrates, with a fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent 

dissociated by a remotely located plasma source. 

(c) In situ thermal process sub-type consists of the 

cleaning of thin-film production chambers, after processing 

substrates, with a fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent that is 

thermally dissociated into its cleaning constituents inside 

the chamber where thin film is produced. 

(3) The wafer cleaning process type consists of any 

production process using fluorinated GHG reagents to clean 

wafers at any step during production. 

Properly measured destruction or removal efficiency 

means destruction or removal efficiencies measured in in 

accordance with EPA 430-R-10-003 (incorporated by 

reference, see §98.7). 

Redundant abatement systems means a system that is 

specifically designed, installed and operated for the 

purpose of destroying fluorinated GHGs and N2O gases. A 

265
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

redundant abatement system is used as a backup to the main 

fluorinated GHGs and N2O abatement system during those 

times when the main system is not functioning or operating 

in accordance with design and operating specifications. 

Repeatable demonstration means that the variables used 

in the formulas for the facility’s engineering model for 

gas apportioning factors are based on observable and 

measurable quantities that govern gas consumption rather 

than engineering judgment about those quantities or gas 

consumption. 

Similar recipes means those that have identical 

chemical compositions and where differences, considered 

separately, in reactor pressure, individual gas flows, 

applied RF power and flow stabilization time, relative to 

equipment manufacturers’ best known method or a facility’s 

process of record, are less than or equal to plus or minus 

10 percent. 

Trigger point for change out means the residual weight 

or pressure of a gas container type that a facility uses to 

change out that gas container. 

Uptime means the ratio of (1) the total time in which 

that abatement system is in an operational mode when 

fluorinated GHGs or N2O are flowing through production 

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

266
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

the total time in which fluorinated GHGs or N2O are flowing 

through production process tool(s) connected to that 

abatement system. 

Wafer passes is a count of the number of times a 

silicon wafer is processed in a specific process recipe, 

sub-type, or type. The total number of wafer passes over a 

reporting year is the number of wafer passes per tool times 

the number of operational process tools in use during the 

reporting year. 

Wafer starts means the number of fresh wafers that are 

introduced into the fabrication sequence each month. It 

includes test wafers, which means wafers that are exposed 

to all of the conditions of process characterization, 

including but not limited to actual etch conditions or 

actual film deposition conditions. 

 

Table I-1 to Subpart I of Part 98— Default Emission Factors 

for Threshold Applicability Determination 

Emission Factors EFi

Product Type CF4 C2F6 CHF3 C3F8 NF3 SF6

Semiconductors 

(kg/m2 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 to Subpart I of Part 98—Examples of Fluorinated 

GHGs Used by the Electronics Industry 

Product Type Fluorinated GHGs Used During Manufacture 

267
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

268

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) 
Table I-3 to Subpart I of Part 98-Default Emission Factors for Semic

Manufacturing for 150mm and 200 mm Wafer Sizes 

Process Gas i Process 

Type/Subtype CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C3F8 c-C4F8 NF3 SF6 

PATTERNING/ETCHING  1-Ui 0.69 0.56 0.38 0.093 NA 0.25 0.038 0.20  BCF4 NA 0.23 0.026 0.021 NA 0.19 0.0040 NA  BC2F6 NA NA NA NA NA 0.084 NA NA  BC3F8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA CHAMBER CLEANING In situ plasma cleaning  1-Ui 0.92 0.55 NA NA 0.40 0.10 0.18 NA  BCF4 NA 0.19 NA NA 0.20 0.11 0.011 NA  BC2F6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA  BC3F8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Remote plasma cleaning  1-Ui NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.029 NA  BCF4 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.0047 NA  BC2F6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA  BC3F8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA In situ thermal cleaning  1-Ui NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA  BCF4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA  BC2F6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA  BC3F8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

Process Gas i Process 

Type/Subtype CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C3F8 c-C4F8 NF3 SF6 

WAFER CLEANING  1-Ui 0.77 NA NA 0.24 NA NA 0.23 0.20  BCF4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA  BC2F6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA  BC3F8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

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

Table I-4 to Subpart I of Part 98-Default Emission Factors for Semic

Manufacturing for 300 mm Wafer Size 

Process Gas i Process 

Type/Subtype CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C3F8 c-C4F8 NF3 SF6 

PATTERNING/ETCHING  1-Ui 0.80 0.80 0.48 0.13733 NA 0.29 0.324 0.37  BCF4 NA NA 0.0018 0.00113 NA 0.079 NA NA  BC2F6 NA NA 0.0011 NA NA 0.12 NA NA  BC3F8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA CHAMBER CLEANING In situ plasma cleaning  1-Ui NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.23 NA  BCF4 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.0046 NA  BC2F6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA  BC3F8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Remote plasma cleaning  1-Ui NA NA NA NA 0.063 NA 0.017 NA  BCF4 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.040 NA 

270
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

Process Gas i Process 

Type/Subtype CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C3F8 c-C4F8 NF3 SF6 

 BC2F6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA  BC3F8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA In situ thermal cleaning  1-Ui NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.28 NA  BCF4 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.010 NA  BC2F6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA  BC3F8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA WAFER CLEANING  1-Ui 0.77 NA NA 0.24 NA NA 0.23 0.20  BCF4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA  BC2F6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA  BC3F8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

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

Table I-5 to Subpart I of Part 98—Default Emission Factors for MEMS Manufac

Process Process Gas i 

Type 

Factors CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C3F8 c-C4F8 NF3 Remote NF3 SF6 C4F6

Etch 1-Ui 0.7 0.41 0.41 0.061 NA 0.21 NA 0.2 0.2 0.1 Etch BCF4 NA 0.41 0.071 0.081 NA 0.2 NA NA NA 0.3Etch BC2F6 NA NA NA NA NA 0.2 NA NA NA 0.2CVD 1-Ui 0.9 0.6 NA NA 0.4 0.1 0.02 0.2 NA NA CVD BCF4 NA 0.1 NA NA 0.1 0.1 0.022 0.12 NA NA CVD BC3F8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

271
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

272

Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information. 1 Estimate includes multi-gas etch processes. 2 Estimate reflects presence of low-k, carbide and multi-gas etch processes that ma

containing fluorinated GHG additive.
Table I-6 to Subpart I of Part 98—Default Emission Factors 

for LCD Manufacturing 

Process Gas i Process 

Type 

Factors CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C3F8 c-C4F8

NF3

Remote NF3 SF6

Etch 1-Ui 0.6 NA 0.2 NA NA 0.1 NA NA 0.3

Etch BCF4 NA NA 0.07 NA NA 0.009 NA NA NA 

Etch BCHF3 NA NA NA NA NA 0.02 NA NA NA 

Etch BC2F6 NA NA 0.05 NA NA NA NA NA NA 

CVD 1-Ui NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.03 0.3 0.9

Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available 

information. 

Table I-7 to Subpart I of Part 98—Default Emission Factors

for PV Manufacturing 

Process Process Gas i 

Type 

Factors CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C3F8 c-C4F8

NF3

Remote NF3 SF6

Etch 1-Ui 0.7 0.4 0.4 NA NA 0.2 NA NA 0.4

Etch BCF4 NA 0.2 NA NA NA 0.1 NA NA NA 

Etch BC2F6 NA NA NA NA NA 0.1 NA NA NA 

CVD 1-Ui NA 0.6 NA NA 0.1 0.1 NA 0.3 0.4

CVD BCF4 NA 0.2 NA NA 0.2 0.1 NA NA NA 

Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available 

information. 

Table I-8 to Subpart I of Part 98-Default Emission Factors 

for N2O 

Process Type Factors N2O 

CVD 1-Ui 0.2 

Other Manufacturing Process 1-Ui 0.0 

7. Add subpart L to read as follows: 

Subpart L-Fluorinated Gas Production 

Sec. 

98.120 Definition of the source category. 

98.121 Reporting threshold. 

98.122 GHGs to report. 

98.123 Calculating GHG emissions. 

98.124 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements. 

98.125 Procedures for estimating missing data. 

98.126 Data reporting requirements. 

273
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

98.127 Records that must be retained. 

98.128 Definitions. 

Subpart L-Fluorinated Gas Production 

§98.120 Definition of the source category.

(a) The fluorinated gas production source category 

consists of processes that produce a fluorinated gas from 

any raw material or feedstock chemical, except for 

processes that generate HFC-23 during the production of 

HCFC-22. 

(b) To produce a fluorinated gas means to manufacture 

a fluorinated gas from any raw material or feedstock 

chemical. Producing a fluorinated gas includes producing a 

fluorinated GHG as defined at §98.410(b). Producing a 

fluorinated gas also includes the manufacture of a 

chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) or hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) 

from any raw material or feedstock chemical, including 

manufacture of a CFC or HCFC as an isolated intermediate 

for use in a process that will result in the transformation 

of the CFC or HCFC either at or outside of the production 

facility. Producing a fluorinated gas does not include the 

reuse or recycling of a fluorinated gas, the creation of 

HFC-23 during the production of HCFC-22, the creation of 

intermediates that are created and transformed in a single 

process with no storage of the intermediates, or the 

274
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

creation of fluorinated GHGs that are released or destroyed 

at the production facility before the production 

measurement in §98.414(a). 

§98.121 Reporting threshold.

You must report GHG emissions under this subpart if 

your facility contains a fluorinated gas production process 

that generates or emits fluorinated GHG and the facility 

meets the requirements of either §98.2(a)(1) or (a)(2) of 

this part. To calculate GHG emissions for comparison to 

the 25,000 metric ton CO2e per year emission threshold in 

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

gas production using uncontrolled GHG emissions. 

§98.122 GHGs to report.

(a) You must report CO2, CH4, and N2O combustion 

emissions from each stationary combustion unit. You must 

calculate and report these emissions under subpart C of 

this part (General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources) by 

following the requirements of subpart C. 

(b) You must report under subpart O of this part 

(HCFC-22 Production and HFC-23 Destruction) the emissions 

of HFC-23 from HCFC-22 production processes and HFC-23 

destruction processes. Do not report the generation and 

emissions of HFC-23 from HCFC-22 production under this 

subpart. 

275
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(c) You must report the total mass of each 

fluorinated GHG emitted from: 

(1) Each fluorinated gas production process and all 

fluorinated gas production processes combined. 

(2) Each fluorinated gas transformation process that 

is not part of a fluorinated gas production process and all 

such fluorinated gas transformation processes combined. 

(3) Each fluorinated gas destruction process that is 

not part of a fluorinated gas production process or a 

fluorinated gas transformation process and all such 

fluorinated gas destruction processes combined. 

(4) Venting of residual fluorinated GHGs from 

containers returned from the field. 

§98.123 Calculating GHG emissions.

For fluorinated gas production and transformation 

processes, you must calculate the fluorinated GHG emissions 

from each process using either the mass balance method 

specified in paragraph (a) of this section or the emission 

factor or emission calculation factor method specified in 

paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section, as 

appropriate. For destruction processes that destroy 

fluorinated GHGs that were previously “produced” as defined 

at §98.410(b), you must calculate emissions using the 

procedures in paragraph (e) of this section. For venting of 

276
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

residual gas from containers (e.g., cylinder heels), you 

must calculate emissions using the procedures in paragraph 

(f) of this section. 

(a) Mass balance method. Before using the mass 

balance approach to estimate your fluorinated GHG emissions 

from a process, you must estimate the absolute and relative 

errors associated with using the mass balance approach on 

that process using Equations L-1 through L-4 of paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section in conjunction with Equations L-7 

through L-14 of this section. You may use the mass-balance 

approach to estimate emissions from the process if this 

calculation results in an absolute error of less than or 

equal to 3,000 metric tons CO2e per year or a relative error 

of less than or equal to 30 percent of the estimated 

emissions. If you do not meet either of the error limits, 

you must use the emission factor approach detailed in 

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

emissions from the process. 

(1) Error calculation. To perform the calculation, 

you shall first calculate the absolute and relative errors 

associated with the quantities calculated using Equations 

L-7 through L-11. Alternatively, you may estimate these 

errors based on the variability of previous process 

measurements (e.g., the variability of measurements of 

277
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

stream concentrations or process yields), provided these 

measurements are representative of the current process and 

current measurement devices and techniques. Once errors 

have been calculated for the quantities in these equations, 

those errors shall be used to calculate the error in 

Equation L-6. 

(i) Where the measured quantity is a mass, the error 

in the mass shall be equated to the accuracy or precision 

(whichever is larger) of the flowmeter, scale, or 

combination of volumetric and density measurements at the 

flow rate or mass measured. 

(ii) Where the measured quantity is a concentration, 

the error of the concentration shall be equated to the 

accuracy or precision (whichever is larger) of the method 

used to measure the concentration, accounting for the 

variability of the process, the frequency of the 

measurements, and the accuracy or precision (whichever is 

larger) of the analytical technique used to measure the 

concentration at the concentration measured. If the 

variability of process measurements is used to estimate the 

error, this variability shall be assumed to account both 

for the variability of the process and the precision of the 

analytical technique. In this case, the accuracy of the 

analytical technique does not need to be accounted for 

278
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

unless this accuracy is larger than the variability of the 

process measurements. 

(iii) If the process emits one or more fluorinated 

GHGs whose GWPs are not listed in Table A-1, use a default 

GWP of 2,000 for these GHGs in the error calculation. 

(iv) Equation L-1 of this section provides the 

general formula for calculating the absolute errors of sums 

and differences where the sum, S, is the summation of 

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

 eSA = [(a*ea)2

 + ((b*eb)2 + (c*ec)2 ]1/2 (Eq. L-1)

Where: 

eSA = absolute error of the sum, expressed as one half of 

a 95 percent confidence interval. 

ea = relative error of a, expressed as one half of a 95 

percent confidence interval. 

eb = relative error of b, expressed as one half of a 95 

percent confidence interval. 

ec = relative error of c, expressed as one half of a 95 

percent confidence interval. 

(v) Equation L-2 of this section provides the general 

formula for calculating the relative errors of sums and 

differences: 

( ) cba

e

e sA

SR ++ = (Eq. L-2) 

Where: 

eSR = relative error of the sum, expressed as one half of 

a 95 percent confidence interval. 

279
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

eSA = absolute error of the sum, expressed as one half of 

a 95 percent confidence interval. 

a+b+c = sum of the variables measured 

(vi) Equation L-3 provides the general formula for 

calculating the absolute errors of products (e.g., flow 

rates of GHGs calculated as the product of the flow rate of 

the stream and the concentration of the GHG in the stream), 

where the product, P, is the result of multiplying the 

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

 ePA = (a*b*c)(ea

2

 + eb

2

 + ec

2

)1/2 (Eq. L-3) 

Where: 

ePA = absolute error of the product, expressed as one 

half of a 95 percent confidence interval. 

ea = relative error of a, expressed as one half of a 

95 percent confidence interval. 

eb = relative error of b, expressed as one half of a 

95 percent confidence interval. 

ec = relative error of c, expressed as one half of a 

95 percent confidence interval. 

(vii) Equation L-4 of this section provides the 

general formula for calculating the relative errors of 

products: 

( ) cba

e

e PA

PR ** = (Eq. L-4) 

Where: 

ePR = relative error of the product, expressed as one 

half of a 95 percent confidence interval. 

280
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

ePA = absolute error of the product, expressed as one 

half of a 95 percent confidence interval. 

a*b*c = product of the variables measured 

(2) The total mass of each fluorinated GHG emitted 

annually from all fluorinated gas production and 

fluorinated GHG transformation processes shall be estimated 

by using Equation L-5 of this section. 

( ) (Eq. L-5) 

11

FGHGPip Bkip FGHG

m

i

FGHGRip

n

p

EFGHG E E − E −

=

−

=

= ∑∑ + +

Where: 

EFGHG = Total mass of each fluorinated GHG emitted annually 

from all production and transformation processes 

(metric tons). 

ERip-FGHG = Total mass of the fluorinated GHG reactant 

emitted from production process i over the period p 

(metric tons, defined in Equation L-9 of this 

section). 

EPip-FGHG = Total mass of the fluorinated GHG product emitted 

from production process i over the period p (metric 

tons, defined in Equation L-10 of this section). 

EBkip-FGHG = Total mass of fluorinated GHG by-product k 

emitted from production process i over the period p 

(metric tons, defined in Equation L-11 on this 

section). 

n = Number of concentration and flow measurement periods 

for the year. 

m = Number of production processes. 

(3) The mass of total fluorine emitted from 

production process i over the period p shall be estimated 

at least monthly by calculating the difference between the 

total mass of fluorine in the reactant(s) and the total 

mass of fluorine in the product, accounting for the total 

281
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

mass of fluorine in any destroyed or recaptured streams 

that contain reactants, products, or byproducts. This 

calculation shall be performed using Equation L-6 of this 

section. An element other than fluorine may be used in the 

mass-balance equation, provided the element occurs in all 

of the fluorinated GHGs fed into or generated by the 

process. In this case, the mass fractions of the element 

in the reactants, products, and byproducts shall be 

calculated as appropriate for that element. 

DP (Eq. L-6) 

v

F = ∑ d Rd − *)*( − FMFFPMFFRE

1

Where: 

EF = Total mass of fluorine emitted from production 

process i over the period p (metric tons). 

Rd = Total mass of the fluorine-containing reactant d 

that is fed into production process i over the 

period p (metric tons). 

P = Total mass of the fluorine-containing product 

produced by production process i over the period p 

(metric tons). 

MFFRd = Mass fraction of fluorine in the reactant, 

calculated in Equation L-12. 

MFFP = Mass fraction of fluorine in the product, calculated 

in Equation L-13. 

FD = Total mass of fluorine in destroyed or recaptured 

streams containing fluorine-containing reactants, 

products, and byproducts, calculated in Equation L-7 

of this section. 

v = Number of fluorine-containing reactants fed into 

process i._ 

(4) The mass of total fluorine in destroyed or 

recaptured streams containing fluorine-containing 

282
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

reactants, products, and byproducts shall be estimated at 

least monthly using Equation L-7 of this section. 

∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ = = = = = = ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

+ ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

+ + ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛ =

v

d

Rd

q

j

Bk Rd Dj

q

j

x

l

Bkj Dj rlBkl

u

k

P

q

j

D WcF DjP MFF MFFScWc Wc MFF

1 1 1 1 1 1

** * ** **

 (Eq. L-7) 

Where: 

FD = Total mass of fluorine in destroyed or recaptured 

streams containing fluorine-containing reactants, 

products, and byproducts. 

cP = Concentration (mass fraction) of the fluorinecontaining product in stream j of destroyed wastes. 

If this concentration is only a trace concentration, 

cP is equal to zero. 

cBkj = Concentration (mass fraction) of by-product k in 

stream j of destroyed wastes over the period p. If 

this concentration is only a trace concentration, 

cBjk is equal to zero. 

cBkl = The concentration (mass fraction) of by-product k in 

stream l of recaptured material over the period p. 

If this concentration is only a trace concentration, 

cBkl is equal to zero. 

cRd = The concentration (mass fraction) of reactant d in 

stream j of destroyed wastes over the period p. If 

this concentration is only a trace concentration, cRd

is equal to zero. 

WDj = Mass of wastes removed from production process i in 

stream j and destroyed over the period p (metric 

tons). 

Srl = The mass of materials that are removed from 

production process i in stream l and that are 

recaptured over the period p. 

MFFRd = Mass fraction of fluorine in reactant d, calculation 

in Equation L-12. 

MFFP = Mass fraction of fluorine in the product, calculated 

in Equation L-13. 

MFFBk = Mass fraction of fluorine in by-product k, 

calculation in Equation L-14. 

q = Number of waste streams destroyed in production 

process i. 

u = Number of by-products generated in production 

process i. 

283
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

v = Number of reactants fed into production process i. 

(5) The mass of streams removed from production 

process i in stream j and destroyed over the period p shall 

be estimated using Equation L-8 of this section: 

Dj = Fj

* DEWW (Eq. L-8) 

Where: 

WDj = The mass of streams removed from production 

process i in stream j and destroyed over the period p 

(metric tons). 

WFj = The total mass of streams removed from production 

process i in stream j and fed into the destruction device 

over the period p (metric tons). 

DE = Demonstrated destruction efficiency of the 

destruction device (weight fraction). 

 

(6) To estimate the terms FERd, FEP, and FEBk for Eqs. 

L-9, L-10, and L-11, you may use stack testing, monitoring 

of one or more emitted streams, and/or engineering 

calculations or assessments. The sum of the three terms 

must equal 1. You must assume that the total mass of 

fluorine emitted, EF, estimated in Eq. L-6, occurs as 

fluorinated GHGs unless you measure emissions of fluorinecontaining compounds that are not fluorinated GHGs using 

stack testing or monitoring of emitted streams. Testing 

must be conducted using methods in §98.124(c)(4). 

284
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(7) The total mass of reactant emitted shall be 

estimated at least monthly based on the total fluorine 

emitted and the fraction that consists of fluorinecontaining reactants using Equation L-9: 

⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛

+ +

=

∑ ∑ = =

− u

k

P k Bk

v

d

d Rd

Fd

ipR

FER MFF MFFFEP FEB MFF

EFER E

1 1

* * *

*

 (Eq. 

L-9) 

Where: 

ER-ip = Total mass of fluorine-containing reactant d that is 

emitted from process i over the period p (metric 

tons). 

FERd = The fraction of the mass emitted that consists of 

the fluorine-containing reactant d. 

EF = Total mass of fluorine emissions from production 

process i over the period p (metric tons). 

FEP = The fraction of the mass emitted that consists of 

the fluorine-containing product. 

FEBk = The fraction of the mass emitted that consists of 

fluorine-containing by-product k. 

MFFRd = Mass fraction of fluorine in reactant d, calculated 

in Equation L-12. 

MFFP = Mass fraction of fluorine in the product, calculated 

in Equation L-13. 

MFFBk = Mass fraction of fluorine in by-product k, 

calculation in Equation L-14. 

u = Number of fluorine-containing by-products generated 

in production process i. 

v = Number of fluorine-containing reactants fed into 

process i. 

(8) The total mass of product emitted shall be 

estimated at least monthly based on the total fluorine 

285
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

emitted and the fraction that consists of fluorinecontaining products using Equation L-10: 

⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛

+ +

=

∑ ∑=

− u

k

Rd P k Bk

v

d

F

ipP

FER MFF MFFFEP FEB MFF

EFEP E

1 1

* * *

*

 (Eq. L-10) 

Where: 

EP-ip = Total mass of fluorine-containing product emitted 

from process i over the period p (metric tons). 

FEP = The fraction of the mass emitted that consists of 

the fluorine-containing product. 

EF = Total mass of fluorine emissions from production 

process i over the period p (metric tons). 

FERd = The fraction of the mass emitted that consists of 

fluorine-containing reactant d. 

FEBk = The fraction of the mass emitted that consists of 

fluorine-containing by-product k. 

MFFRd = Mass fraction of fluorine in reactant d, calculated 

in Equation L-12. 

MFFP = Mass fraction of fluorine in the product, calculated 

in Equation L-13. 

MFFBk = Mass fraction of fluorine in by-product k, 

calculation in Equation L-14. 

u = Number of fluorine-containing by-products generated 

in production process i. 

v = Number of fluorine-containing reactants fed into 

process i. 

 (9) The total mass of byproduct k emitted shall be 

estimated at least monthly based on the total fluorine 

emitted and the fraction that consists of fluorinecontaining byproducts using Equation L-11: 

 

⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛

+ +

=

∑ ∑=

− u

k

Rd P k Bk

v

d

Fk

ipBk

FER MFF MFFFEP FEB MFF

EFEB E

1 1

* * *

*

 (Eq. L-11) 

286
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

Where: 

EBk-ip = Total mass of fluorine-containing byproduct k 

emitted from process i over the period p (metric 

tons). 

FEBk = The fraction of the mass emitted that consists of 

fluorine-containing by-product k. 

FERd = The fraction of the mass emitted that consists of 

fluorine-containing reactant d. 

FEP = The fraction of the mass emitted that consists of 

the fluorine-containing product. 

EF = Total mass of fluorine emissions from production 

process i over the period p (metric tons). 

MFFRd = Mass fraction of fluorine in reactant d, calculated 

in Equation L-12. 

MFFP = Mass fraction of fluorine in the product, calculated 

in Equation L-13. 

MFFBk = Mass fraction of fluorine in by-product k, 

calculation in Equation L-14. 

u = Number of fluorine-containing by-products 

generated in production process i. 

v = Number of fluorine-containing reactants fed into 

process i. 

(10) The fraction of fluorine in the reactant shall be 

estimated using Equation L-12: 

Rd

F

Rd Rd MW

AW MFF = MF * (Eq. L-12) 

Where: 

MFFRd = Mass fraction of fluorine in reactant d (fraction). 

MFRd = Moles fluorine per mole of reactant d. 

AWF = Atomic weight of fluorine. 

MWRd = Molecular weight of reactant d. 

(11) The fraction of fluorine in the product shall be 

estimated using Equation L-13: 

287
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

P

F

P P MW

AW = MFMFF * (Eq. L-13) 

Where: 

MFFP = Mass fraction of fluorine in the product (fraction). 

MFP = Moles fluorine per mole of product. 

AWF = Atomic weight of fluorine. 

MWP = Molecular weight of the product produced. 

(12) The fraction of fluorine in the byproduct shall 

be estimated using Equation L-14: 

Bk

F

Bk Bk MW

AW MFF = MF * (Eq. L-14) 

Where: 

MFFBk = Mass fraction of fluorine in the product (fraction). 

MFBk = Moles fluorine per mole of by-product k. 

AWF = Atomic weight of fluorine. 

MWBk = Molecular weight of by-product k. 

(b) Emission factor and emission calculation factor 

methods. To use the method in this paragraph, you must 

first make a preliminary estimate of the emissions from 

each individual process vent under paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section. Then, compare the preliminary estimate to the 

criteria in paragraph (b)(2) of this section to determine 

whether the process vent meets the criteria for using the 

emission factor method described in paragraph (b)(3) of 

this section or whether the process vent meets the criteria 

288
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

for using the emission calculation factor method described 

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

(1) Preliminary estimate of emissions by process 

vent. You must estimate the annual emissions of 

fluorinated GHG for each process vent within a process 

using the approaches specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and 

(b)(2)(ii) of this section, accounting for any controls as 

specified in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section. You 

may determine emissions of fluorinated GHG by process vent, 

including both continuous process vents and batch process 

vents, using existing measurements and/or calculations 

based on chemical engineering principles and chemical 

property data or you may conduct an engineering assessment. 

You must document all data, assumptions, and procedures 

used in the calculations or engineering assessment and keep 

a record of the emissions determination (in §98.127(a)). 

(i) Engineering calculations. For emission 

calculations for batch process vents, continuous process 

vents, and batch emissions episodes that occur from 

continuous processes, you may use paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A), 

(B), or (C) of this section. 

(A) Emissions Inventory Improvement Program, Volume 

II: Chapter 16, Methods for Estimating Air Emissions from 

Chemical Manufacturing Facilities, U.S. Environmental 

289
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

Protection Agency, August 2007, Final (incorporated by 

reference, see §98.7). 

(B) You may determine the fluorinated GHG emissions 

from any process vent within the process using the 

procedures specified in 40 CFR §63.1257(d)(2)(i) and 

(d)(3)(ii)(B), except as specified in paragraphs 

(b)(1)(i)(B)(1) through (b)(1)(i)(B)(4) of this section. 

For those processes that are subject to 40 CFR subpart GGG 

and already complying with 40 CFR §63.1257(d)(2)(i) or 

(d)(3)(ii)(B), you may continue to comply with those 

paragraphs without the exceptions listed in paragraphs 

(b)(1)(i)(B)(1) through (b)(1)(i)(B)(4) of this section; in 

addition, those processes subject to subpart GGG may use 

the definition of process condenser from 40 CFR §63.1251. 

For the purposes of this subpart, use of the term “HAP” in 

§63.1257(d)(2)(i) shall mean “fluorinated GHG”. 

(1) To calculate emissions caused by the heating of a 

vessel without a process condenser to a temperature lower 

than the boiling point, you must use the procedures in 

§63.1257(d)(2)(i)(C)(3). 

(2) To calculate emissions from depressurization of a 

vessel without a process condenser, you must use the 

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

290
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(3) To calculate emissions from vacuum systems, the 

terms used in Equation 33 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG, 

are defined as follows: 

(i) Psystem = absolute pressure of the receiving 

vessel; 

(ii) Pi= partial pressure of the fluorinated GHG 

determined at the exit temperature and exit pressure 

conditions of the condenser or at the conditions of the 

dedicated receiver; 

(iii) Pj= partial pressure of condensables (including 

fluorinated GHG) determined at the exit temperature and 

exit pressure conditions of the condenser or at the 

conditions of the dedicated receiver; 

(iv) MWFluorinated GHG= molecular weight of the 

fluorinated GHG determined at the exit temperature and exit 

pressure conditions of the condenser or at the conditions 

of the dedicated receiver. 

(4) To calculate uncontrolled emissions when a vessel 

is equipped with a process condenser, you must use the 

procedures in 40 CFR 63.1257(d)(3)(i)(B), except as 

follows: 

(i) You must determine the flowrate of gas (or volume 

of gas), partial pressures of condensables, temperature 

(T), and fluorinated GHG molecular weight (MWFluorinated GHG) at 

291
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

the exit temperature and exit pressure conditions of the 

condenser or at the conditions of the dedicated receiver. 

(ii) You must assume that all of the components 

contained in the condenser exit vent stream are in 

equilibrium with the same components in the exit condensate 

stream (except for noncondensables). 

(iii) You must perform a material balance for each 

component 

(iv) For the emissions from gas evolution, the term 

for time, t, must be used in Equation 12 to 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart GGG. 

(v) Emissions from empty vessel purging shall be 

calculated using Equation 36 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG 

and the exit temperature and exit pressure conditions of 

the condenser or the conditions of the dedicated receiver. 

(C) Commercial software products that follow chemical 

engineering principles (e.g., including the calculation 

methodologies in paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(A) and (B) of this 

section). 

(ii) Engineering assessments. For emissions 

determinations for batch process vents, continuous process 

vents, and for batch emission events from continuous 

processes, you may conduct an engineering assessment to 

292
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

calculate uncontrolled emissions. An engineering 

assessment includes, but is not limited to, the following: 

(A) Previous test results, provided the tests are 

representative of current operating practices of the 

process. 

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

representative of the process operating conditions. 

(C) Maximum flow rate, fluorinated GHG emission rate, 

concentration, or other relevant parameters specified or 

implied within a permit limit applicable to the process 

vent. 

(D) Design analysis based on chemical engineering 

principles, measureable process parameters, or physical or 

chemical laws or properties. 

(iii) Emission controls. If the process vent is 

vented to a destruction device, you may reflect the impact 

of the destruction device on emissions. In your emissions 

estimate, account for 

(A) the destruction efficiencies of the device that 

have been demonstrated for the fluorinated GHGs in the vent 

stream for periods when the process vent is vented to the 

destruction device, and 

(B) any periods when the process vent is not vented 

to the destruction device. 

293
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(iv) Use of typical recent values. In the 

calculations in paragraphs (1)(i), (1)(ii), and (1)(iii) of 

this section, the values used for the expected process 

activity and for the expected fraction of that activity 

whose emissions will be vented to the properly functioning 

destruction device shall be based on typical recent values 

for the process unless there is a compelling reason to 

adopt a new value (e.g., installation of a control device 

for a previously uncontrolled process). If there is such a 

reason, it shall be documented in the facility’s GHG 

Monitoring Plan. 

(2) Process vent annual CO2-equivalent limit. 

(i) If the calculations under paragraph (b)(1), as 

well as any subsequent calculations under paragraphs (b)(3) 

or (b)(4), indicate that the individual process vent has 

fluorinated GHG emissions of less than 10,000 metric ton 

CO2e per year, then you may comply with either paragraph 

(b)(3) (Emission Factor approach) or paragraph (b)(4) 

(Emission Calculation Factor approach). For fluorinated 

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

this part, use a default GWP of 2,000 in the CO2e emissions 

estimate in this paragraph and in paragraph (b)(ii), unless 

you submit a request to use other GWPs for those 

294
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

fluorinated GHGs in that process under paragraph (b)(2)(iv) 

of this section and we approve that petition. 

(ii) If an individual continuous process vent does 

not meet the criteria in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this 

section, then you must comply with the emission factor 

method specified in paragraph (b)(3) (Emission Factor 

approach) of this section. 

(A) You must conduct emission testing for processvent-specific emission factor development on the 

uncontrolled vent unless the calculations you performed 

under paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section indicate that 

the uncontrolled fluorinated GHG emissions that occur 

during periods when the process vent is not vented to the 

properly functioning destruction device are less than 

10,000 metric tons CO2e per year. In this case, you may 

conduct emission testing after the destruction device to 

develop a process-vent-specific emission factor. If you do 

so, you must develop and apply an emission calculation 

factor under paragraph (b)(4) to estimate emissions during 

any periods when the process vent is not vented to the 

properly functioning destruction device. 

(B) Regardless of the level of uncontrolled 

emissions, the emission testing for process-vent-specific 

emission factor development may be conducted on the outlet 

295
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

side of a wet scrubber in place for acid gas reduction, if 

one is in place, as long as there is no appreciable 

reduction in the fluorinated GHG. 

(iii) If an individual batch process vent does not 

meet the criteria in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, 

the facility may comply with either paragraph (b)(3) 

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

Calculation Factor approach). 

(iv) Request to use a GWP other than 2000 for 

fluorinated GHGs whose GWPs are not listed in Table A-1. 

If your process vent emits one or more fluorinated GHGs 

whose GWPs are not listed in Table A-1, that are emitted in 

quantities that, with a default GWP of 2000, result in 

total calculated annual emissions equal to or greater than 

10,000 mtCO2e for the vent, and that you believe have GWPs 

that would result in total calculated annual emissions less 

than 10,000 mtCO2e for the vent, you may submit a request 

to use provisional GWPs for these fluorinated GHGs for 

purposes of the calculations in paragraphs (b)(1) and 

(b)(2) of this section. The request must be submitted by 

February 28, 2011 for a completeness determination and 

review by EPA. 

(A) Contents of the request. You shall include the 

following information in the request for each fluorinated 

296
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

GHG that does not have a GWP listed in Table A-1 and that 

constitutes more than one percent by mass of the stream 

emitted from the vent: 

(1) the identity of the fluorinated GHG, including its 

chemical formula and, if available, CAS number, 

(2) the estimated GWP of the fluorinated GHG, 

(3) the data and analysis that supports your estimate 

of the GWP of the fluorinated GHG, including 

(i) data and analysis related to the low-pressure gas 

phase infrared absorption spectrum of the fluorinated GHG; 

(ii) data and analysis related to the estimated 

atmospheric lifetime of the fluorinated GHG (reaction 

mechanisms and rates, including e.g., photolysis and 

reaction with atmospheric components such as OH, O3, CO, and 

water); 

(iii) the radiative transfer analysis that integrates 

the lifetime and infrared absorption spectrum data to 

calculate the GWP; 

(iv) any published or unpublished studies of the GWP 

of the gas. 

(4) the engineering calculations or assessments and 

underlying data that demonstrate that the process vent is 

calculated to emit less than 10,000 mtCO2e of this and 

other fluorinated GHGs only when the proposed provisional 

297
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

GWPs, not the default GWP of 2000, are used for fluorinated 

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

(B) Review and completeness determination by EPA. If 

EPA determines that the request is complete, that it 

substantiates each of the provisional GWPs, and that it 

demonstrates that the process vent is calculated to emit 

less than 10,000 mtCO2e of this and other fluorinated GHGs 

only when the provisional GWPs, not the default GWP of 

2000, are used for fluorinated GHGs whose GWPs are not 

listed in Table A-1, then EPA will permit the facility to 

use the provisional GWPs for the calculations in paragraphs 

(b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section until and unless EPA 

determines, through a notice and comment process, that one 

or more of the provisional GWPs is in error. As part of the 

notice and comment process, EPA will publish the data and 

analysis submitted under paragraphs (b)(2)(iv)(A)(1) 

through (3). 

(3) Process-vent-specific emission factor method. 

For each process vent, conduct an emission test and measure 

fluorinated GHG emissions from the process and measure the 

process activity, such as the feed rate, production rate, 

or other process activity rate, during the test as 

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

298
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

data and procedures used in developing emission factors 

shall be documented according to §98.127. 

(i) You must measure the process activity, such as 

the process feed rate, process production rate, or other 

process activity rate, as applicable, during the emission 

test according to the procedures in §98.124 and calculate 

the rate for the test period, in kg per hour . 

(ii) For continuous processes, you must calculate the 

hourly fluorinated GHG emission rate using Equation L-16 of 

this section and determine the hourly fluorinated GHG 

emission rate per process vent for the test run. 

1

60 *

10

1 * 1 ***

106 3 SV QMW C E PV

PV

ContPV = (Eq. L-16) 

Where: 

EContPV = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from process 

vent v from production process i during the emission test 

during test run r (kg/hr). 

CPV = Concentration of fluorinated GHG f during test 

run r of the emission test (ppmv). 

MW = Molecular weight of fluorinated GHG f (g/g-mole). 

QPV = Flow rate of the process vent stream during test 

run r of the emission test (m3/min). 

SV = Standard molar volume of gas (0.0240 m3/g-mole at 

68°F and 1 atm). 

1/103

 = Conversion factor (1 kilogram/1000 gram). 

60/1 = Conversion factor (60 minutes/1 hour). 

(iii) You must calculate a site-specific, processvent-specific emission factor for each process vent, in kg 

of fluorinated GHG per process activity rate (e.g., kg of 

299
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

feed or production), as applicable, using Equation L-17 of 

this section. For continuous processes, divide the hourly 

fluorinated GHG emission rate during the test by the hourly 

process activity rate during the test runs. 

r

Activity

E

EF

r

EmissionTest

PV

PV

∑ ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

= 1 (Eq. L-17) 

Where: 

EFPV = Average emission factor for 

fluorinated GHG f emitted from 

process vent v during production 

process i (e.g., kg emitted/kg 

activity). 

EPV = Mass of fluorinated GHG f 

emitted from process vent v from 

production process i during the 

emission test during test run r, 

for either continuous or batch (kg 

emitted/hr for continuous, kg 

emitted/batch for batch). 

ActivityEmissionTest = Process feed, process production, or 

other process activity rate during 

the emission test during test run 

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

continuous, calculated in Equation 

L-13 of this section, kg 

product/batch for batch, 

calculated in Equation L-14 of 

this section). 

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

batches) performed during the 

emission test. 

(iv) If you conducted emissions testing on the 

controlled vent (i.e., after the destruction device), you 

must calculate fluorinated GHG emissions for the process 

300
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

vent for the reporting period using Equation L-18 of this 

section. You must also develop a process-specific emission 

calculation factor based on §98.123(b)(4) for the periods 

when the process vent is not venting to the destruction 

device. 

EPV −RptPeriod = EF −CPV* ActivityRptPeriod−C + ECF −UPV* ActivityRptPeriod−U (Eq. L-18) 

Where: 

EPV-RptPeriod = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from 

process vent v from production process i, 

for the reporting period (kg). 

EFPV-C = Average emission factor for fluorinated 

GHG f emitted from process vent v during 

production process i based on testing 

after the destruction device (kg 

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

product). 

ActivityRptPeriod-C = Total process feed, process production, 

or other process activity during the 

reporting period for which emissions are 

vented to the properly functioning 

destruction device (i.e., controlled). 

ECFPV-U = Emission calculation factor for 

fluorinated GHG f emitted from process 

vent v during production process i during 

periods when the process vent is not 

vented to the properly functioning 

destruction device (kg 

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

product). 

ActivityRptPeriod-U = Total process feed, process production, 

or other process activity during the 

reporting period for which the process 

vent is not vented to the properly 

functioning destruction device (e.g., kg 

product) 

301
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(v) If you conducted emissions testing on the 

uncontrolled vent, apply the destruction efficiencies of 

the device that have been demonstrated for the fluorinated 

GHGs in the vent stream to the fluorinated GHG emissions 

for the process vent, using Equation L-19 of this section. 

You may apply the destruction efficiency only to the 

portion of the process activity during which emissions are 

vented to the properly functioning destruction device 

(i.e., controlled). 

E EF *(Activity Activity DE)1(* ) PV −RptPeriod = −UPV RptPeriod−U + RptPeriod−C − (Eq. L-19) 

Where: 

EPV-RptPeriod = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from 

process vent v from production process 

i, for the reporting period, 

considering destruction efficiency 

(kg). 

EFPV-U = Emission factor (uncontrolled) for 

fluorinated GHG f emitted from process 

vent v during production process i (kg 

emitted/kg product). 

ActivityRptPeriod-U = Total process feed, process production, 

or other process activity during the 

reporting period for which the process 

vent is not vented to the properly 

functioning destruction device (e.g., 

kg product). 

ActivityRptPeriod-C = Total process feed, process production, 

or other process activity during the 

reporting period for which the process 

vent is vented to the properly 

functioning destruction device (e.g., 

kg product). 

DE = Demonstrated destruction efficiency of 

the destruction device (weight 

fraction). 

302
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(vi) Sum the emissions from all process vents in the 

process for the reporting period to estimate total 

fluorinated GHG process emissions, using Equation L-20 of 

this section. 

= ∑ − (Eq. L-20) 

v

Pfi EE PV RptPeriod

1

Where: 

 

EPfi = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from 

production process i, for the reporting 

period (kg). 

EPV-RptPeriod = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from 

process vent v from production process i, 

for the reporting period, considering 

destruction efficiency (kg). 

v = Number of process vents in production 

process i. 

(vii) Sum the emissions from all processes for the 

reporting period to estimate total fluorinated GHG process 

vent emissions, using Equation L-21 of this section. 

= ∑ (Eq. L-21) 

i

Pf EE Pfi

1

 

Where: 

 

EPf = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from all 

process vents at the facility, for the reporting 

period (metric tons). 

EPfi = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from production 

process i, for the reporting period (metric 

tons). 

i = Number of production processes i at the facility. 

303
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(4) Process-vent-specific emission calculation factor 

method. For each process vent, determine fluorinated GHG 

emissions by calculations and determine the process 

activity rate, such as the feed rate, production rate, or 

other process activity rate, associated with the emission 

rate. In addition to developing an emission calculation 

factor for a batch process vent, the facility must conduct 

a quality assurance check of the emission calculation 

factor, i.e., conduct a field verification on the largest 

batch emission episode using the methods in §98.124(c)(4). 

(i) You must calculate uncontrolled emissions of 

fluorinated GHG by individual process vent, EPV, using 

measurements and/or calculations based on chemical 

engineering principles and chemical property data or you 

may conduct an engineering assessment, using the procedures 

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

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

emissions must be based on a typical batch or production 

rate under a defined operating scenario. The process 

activity rate associated with the uncontrolled emissions 

must be determined. All data, assumptions, and procedures 

used in the calculations or engineering assessment shall be 

documented according to §98.127. 

304
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(ii) You must calculate a site-specific, processvent-specific emission calculation factor for each process 

vent, in kg of fluorinated GHG per activity rate (e.g., kg 

of feed or production) as applicable, using Equation L-22 

of this section. 

vepresentati

PV

PV Activity

E ECF

Re

= (Eq. L-22) 

Where: 

ECFPV = Emission calculation factor for 

fluorinated GHG f emitted from process 

vent v during production process i (kg 

emitted/kg product). 

EPV = Average mass of fluorinated GHG f 

emitted, based on calculations, from 

process vent v from production process 

i during the period or batch for which 

emissions were calculated, for either 

continuous or batch (kg emitted/hr for 

continuous, kg emitted/batch for 

batch). 

ActivityRepresentative = Process feed, process production, or 

other process activity rate 

corresponding to average mass of 

emissions based on calculations (e.g., 

kg product/hr for continuous, kg 

product/batch for batch). 

(iii) You must calculate fluorinated GHG emissions 

for the process vent for the reporting period by 

multiplying the process-vent-specific emission calculation 

factor by the total process activity, as applicable, for 

the reporting period, using Equation L-23 of this section. 

305
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

EPV −RptPeriod = ECFPV* ActivityRptPeriod (Eq. L-23) 

Where: 

EPV-RptPeriod = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from 

process vent v from production process i, 

for the reporting period (kg). 

ECFPV = Emission calculation factor for 

fluorinated GHG f emitted from process 

vent v during production process i (kg 

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

product). 

ActivityRptPeriod = Process feed, process production, or 

other process activity during the 

reporting period. 

(iv) If the process vent is vented to a destruction 

device, apply the demonstrated destruction efficiency of 

the device to the fluorinated GHG emissions for the process 

vent, using Equation L-24 of this section. You may apply 

the destruction efficiency only to the portion of the 

process activity that is vented to the properly functioning 

destruction device (i.e., controlled). 

E ECF *(Activity Activity DE)1(* ) PV −RptPeriod = PV RptPeriod−U + RptPeriod−C − (Eq. L-24) 

Where: 

EPV-RptPeriod = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from 

process vent v from production process 

i, for the reporting period considering 

destruction efficiency (kg). 

ECFPV = Emission calculation factor for 

fluorinated GHG f emitted from process 

vent v during production process i (kg 

emitted/kg product). 

ActivityRptPeriod-U = Total process feed, process production, 

or other process activity during the 

reporting period for which the process 

306
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

vent is not vented to the properly 

functioning destruction device (e.g., 

kg product). 

ActivityRptPeriod-C = Total process feed, process production, 

or other process activity during the 

reporting period for which the process 

vent is vented to the properly 

functioning destruction device (e.g., 

kg product). 

DE = Demonstrated destruction efficiency of 

the destruction device (weight 

fraction). 

(v) Sum the fluorinated GHG emissions from all 

process vents in the process for the reporting period to 

estimate total process emissions, using Equation L-25 of 

this section. 

= ∑ − (Eq. L-25) 

v

Pfi EE PV RptPeriod

1

Where: 

 

EPfi = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from 

production process i, for the reporting 

period (kg). 

EPV-RptPeriod = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from 

process vent v from production process i, 

for the reporting period, considering 

destruction efficiency (kg). 

v = Number of process vents in production 

process i. 

(vi) Sum the emissions from all processes for the 

reporting period to estimate total fluorinated GHG process 

emissions, using Equation L-26 of this section. 

= ∑ (Eq. L-26) 

i

Pf EE Pfi

1

 

307
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

Where: 

 

EPf = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from all 

processes at the facility, for the reporting 

period (metric tons). 

EPfi = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from production 

process i, for the reporting period (metric 

tons). 

i = Number of production processes i at the facility. 

(c) Calculate fluorinated GHG emissions for equipment 

leaks (EL). If you comply with paragraph (b) of this 

section, you must calculate the fluorinated GHG emissions 

from pieces of equipment associated with processes covered 

under this subpart and in fluorinated GHG service. If you 

conduct monitoring of equipment in fluorinated GHG service, 

monitoring should be conducted for those in light liquid 

and in gas and vapor service. If you conduct monitoring, 

you may exclude from monitoring each piece of equipment 

that is difficult-to-monitor, that is unsafe-to-monitor, 

that is insulated, or that is in heavy liquid service; you 

may exclude from monitoring each pump with dual mechanical 

seals, agitator with dual mechanical seals, pump with no 

external shaft, and agitator with no external shaft; 

however you must estimate emissions from these pieces using 

another approach. Equipment that is in fluorinated GHG 

service for less than 300 hr/yr and equipment that is in 

vacuum service are exempted from these requirements. 

308
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(1) The emissions from equipment leaks must be 

calculated using any of the procedures in paragraphs 

(c)(1)(i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) of this section. 

(i) Use of Average Emission Factor Approach in EPA

Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates. The 

emissions from equipment leaks may be calculated using the 

default Average Emission Factor Approach in EPA Protocol 

for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates, EPA-453/R-95-017 

(incorporated by reference, see §98.7). 

(ii) Use of Other Approaches in EPA Protocol for 

Equipment Leak Emission Estimates in conjunction with EPA 

Method 21. The emissions from equipment leaks may be 

calculated using one of the following methods in EPA-453/R95-017 (incorporated by reference, see §98.7): the 

Screening Ranges Approach; the EPA Correlation Approach; or 

the Unit-Specific Correlation Approach. If you determine 

that EPA Method 21 is appropriate for monitoring a 

fluorinated GHG, you may have to develop response factors 

for the fluorinated GHG or for each surrogate to be 

measured using EPA Method 21, 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-7. 

For each fluorinated GHG measured, the response factor 

shall be less than 10. The response factor is the ratio of 

the known concentration of a fluorinated GHG to the 

309
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

observed meter reading when measured using an instrument 

calibrated with the reference compound. 

(iii) Use of Other Approaches in EPA Protocol for 

Equipment Leak Emission Estimates in conjunction with sitespecific leak detection methods. The emissions from 

equipment leaks may be calculated using one of the 

following methods in EPA-453/R-95-017 (incorporated by 

reference, see §98.7): the Screening Ranges Approach; the 

EPA Correlation Approach; or the Unit-Specific Correlation 

Approach. You may develop a site-specific leak detection 

method appropriate for monitoring fluorinated GHGs to use 

along with these three approaches. The site-specific leak 

detection method must meet the requirements in 

§98.124(e)(1). 

(iv) Use of site-specific leak detection methods. 

The emissions from equipment leaks may be calculated using 

a site-specific leak detection method. The site-specific 

leak detection method must meet the requirements in 

§98.124(e)(1). 

(2) You must collect information on the number of 

each type of equipment; the service of each piece of 

equipment (gas, light liquid, heavy liquid); the 

concentration of each fluorinated GHG in the stream; and 

the time period each piece of equipment was in service. 

310
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

Depending on which approach you follow, you may collect 

information for equipment on the associated screening data 

concentrations for greater than or equal to 10,000 ppmv and 

associated screening data concentrations for less than 

10,000 ppmv; associated actual screening data 

concentrations; and associated screening data and leak rate 

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

correlation. 

(3) Calculate and sum the emissions of each 

fluorinated GHG in metric tons per years for equipment 

pieces for all processes, EELf, annually. If monitoring is 

conducted for equipment leaks, you must include and 

estimate emissions for types of equipment that are excluded 

from monitoring, including difficult-to-monitor, unsafe-tomonitor, insulated, in heavy liquid service pieces of 

equipment and pumps with dual mechanical seals, agitators 

with dual mechanical seals, pumps with no external shaft, 

and agitators with no external shaft. 

(d) Calculate total fluorinated GHG emissions for the 

facility/source category. Estimate annually the total mass 

of fluorinated GHG emissions from process vents in either 

paragraph (b)(3) or (b)(4) of this section, as appropriate, 

and from equipment leak emissions in paragraph (c) using 

Equation L-27 of this section. 

311
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

Pf += EEE ELf (Eq. L-27) 

Where: 

 

E = Total mass of each fluorinated GHG f emitted from 

the facility, annual basis (metric tons/year). 

EPf = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from all process 

vents at the facility, annually (metric tons). 

EELf = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from equipment 

leaks for pieces of equipment for the facility, 

annually (metric tons/year). 

(e) Calculate fluorinated GHG emissions from 

destruction of fluorinated GHGs that were previously 

“produced”. Estimate annually the total mass of 

fluorinated GHGs emitted from destruction of fluorinated 

GHGs that were previously “produced” as defined at 

§98.410(b) using Equation L-28 of this section: 

D REE D −= DE)1(* (Eq. L-28) 

Where: 

ED = The mass of fluorinated GHGs emitted annually 

from destruction of fluorinated GHGs that were previously 

“produced” as defined at §98.410(b) (metric tons). 

RED = The mass of fluorinated GHGs that were previously 

“produced” as defined at §98.410(b) and that are fed 

annually into the destruction device (metric tons). 

DE = Destruction efficiency of the destruction device 

(fraction). 

(f) Emissions from venting of residual fluorinated 

GHGs in containers. If you vent residual fluorinated GHGs 

from containers, you must either measure the residual 

fluorinated GHGs vented from each container or develop a 

heel factor for each combination of fluorinated GHG, 

312
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

container size, and container type that you vent. You do 

not need to estimate de minimis emissions associated with 

good-faith attempts to recycle or recover residual 

fluorinated GHGs in or from containers. 

(1) Measuring contents of each container. If you 

weigh or otherwise measure the contents of each container 

before venting the residual fluorinated GHGs, use equation 

L-29 to calculate annual fluorinated GHG emissions from 

venting of residual fluorinated GHG from containers. 

Convert pressures to masses as directed in paragraph 

(f)(2)(ii) of this section. 

−= ∑∑ (Eq. L-29) 

n

Efj

n

Cf Bfj HHE

1 1

Where: 

 

ECf = Total mass of each fluorinated GHG f emitted from 

the facility through venting of residual fluorinated 

GHG from containers, annual basis (kg/year). 

HBfj = Mass of residual fluorinated GHG f in container j 

when received by facility. 

HEfj = Mass of residual fluorinated GHG f in container j 

after evacuation by facility. (Facility may equate 

to zero.) 

(2) Developing and applying heel factors. If you use 

heel factors to estimate emissions of residual fluorinated 

GHGs vented from containers, you must develop these factors 

based on representative samples of the containers received 

by your facility from fluorinated GHG users. 

313
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(i) Sample size. For each combination of fluorinated 

GHG, container size, and container type that you vent, 

select a representative sample of containers that reflects 

the full range of quantities of residual gas returned in 

that container size and type. This sample should reflect 

the full range of the industries and a broad range of the 

customers that use and return the fluorinated GHG, 

container size, and container type. The minimum sample 

size for each combination of fluorinated GHG, container 

size, and container type shall be 30, unless this is 

greater than the number of containers returned within that 

combination, in which case the contents of every container 

returned shall be measured. 

(ii) Measurement of residual gas. The residual 

weight or pressure you use for §98.123(f)(1) must be 

determined by monitoring the mass or the pressure of your 

cylinders/containers. If you monitor the pressure, convert 

the pressure to mass using the ideal gas law, as displayed 

in Equation L-30 of this subpart, with an appropriately 

selected Z value. 

 pV=ZnRT (Eq. L-30) 

Where: 

p = Absolute pressure of the gas (Pa) 

V = Volume of the gas (m3

) 

Z = Compressibility factor 

314
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

n = Amount of substance of the gas (moles) 

R = Gas constant (8.314 Joule/Kelvin mole) 

T = Absolute temperature (K) 

(iii) Heel factor calculation. To determine the heel 

factor, use the facility-wide gas–specific 

cylinder/container residual mass, determined from 

§98.123(b)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(ii) to calculate the unused gas 

for each container. This value is expressed as a fraction 

of the initial mass in the cylinder/container. 

(iv) Calculate annual fluorinated GHG emissions from 

venting of residual fluorinated GHG from containers using 

equation L-31 of this section. 

 = ** + XFNhE ffjfjfjCf (Eq. L-31) 

Where: 

 

ECf = Total mass of each fluorinated GHG f emitted from 

the facility through venting of residual fluorinated 

GHG from containers, annual basis (kg/year). 

hfj = Facility-wide gas-specific heel factor for input 

gas f (fraction) and container size and type j, 

as determined in §98.124(j) of this subpart. 

Nfj = Number of containers of size and type j returned 

to the fluorinated gas production facility 

containing the standard heel of fluorinated GHG 

f. 

Ffj = Full capacity of containers of size and type j 

containers containing gas f (kg). 

Xf = Total returns of gas f in container size and type j 

that were significantly larger than the heel factor 

and that were therefore individually weighed as 

specified in §98.124(j) (kg). 

315
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

§98.124 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.

(a) Initial scoping test to identify fluorinated 

GHGs. You must conduct an initial scoping test to identify 

all fluorinated GHGs that may be generated from processes 

that are subject to this subpart and that have at least one 

process vent with uncontrolled emissions of 1.0 metric ton 

or more of fluorinated GHGs based on the preliminary 

estimate of emissions in §98.123(b)(1). You are not 

expected to quantify emissions under this initial scoping 

test. To conduct the scoping test, select the stream(s) 

(including process streams or destroyed streams) or process 

vent(s) that would be expected to individually or 

collectively contain all of the fluorinated GHG by-products 

of the process and conduct the initial scoping test on 

these selected streams or vents. You do not have to test 

every stream or process vent, i.e., you do not have to test 

a stream or process vent that contains only fluorinated 

GHGs that are contained in other streams or process vents 

that are being tested. Initial scoping testing must be 

conducted according to the procedures in paragraph (c)(4) 

of this section. 

(b) Mass Balance monitoring. If you determine 

fluorinated GHG emissions using the mass balance method 

316
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

under §98.123(a), you must estimate the total mass of each 

fluorinated GHG emitted from the process at least monthly. 

(1) You must conduct the following mass measurements 

on a monthly or more frequent basis using flowmeters, weigh 

scales, or a combination of volumetric and density 

measurements with accuracy and precision that allow the 

facility to meet the error criteria in §98.123(a): 

(i) Total mass of each product produced shall be 

estimated using the methods and measurements set forth in 

§98.413(a) and (b) and in §98.414(a) and (b). For each 

product, the mass produced used for the mass-balance 

calculation shall be the same as the mass produced that is 

reported under subpart OO, where applicable. 

(ii) Total mass of each reactant fed into the 

production process shall be measured. 

(iii) If the stream permanently removed from the 

production process and fed into the destruction device 

contains more than trace concentrations of fluorinated GHG 

product, then the mass of the stream fed into the 

destruction device shall be measured. 

(v) If a by-product is responsible for yield loss and 

occurs in any stream (including process steams, emissions 

streams, or destroyed streams) in more than trace 

concentrations, then the mass flow of each stream that 

317
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

contains more than trace concentrations of the by-product 

shall be measured. 

(vi) If a by-product is a fluorinated GHG (other than 

HFC-23 generated during HCFC-22 production), occurs in more 

than trace concentrations in any stream (including process 

streams, emissions streams, or destroyed streams), occurs 

in more than trace concentrations in any stream that is 

recaptured or is fed into a destruction device, and is not 

completely recaptured or completely destroyed, then the 

mass flow of each stream that contains more than trace 

concentrations of the by-product and that is recaptured or 

is fed into the destruction device shall be measured. 

(2) The following concentration measurements shall be 

conducted at least once each calendar month, during which 

the process is operating, on a schedule to ensure that the 

measurements are representative of the full range of 

process conditions (e.g., catalyst age). Measure more 

frequently if this is necessary to meet the error criteria 

in §98.123(a)(1). Use equipment and methods (e.g., gas 

chromatography) that comply with paragraph (c)(4) of this 

section and that have an accuracy and precision that allow 

the facility to meet the error criteria in §98.123(a)(1). 

(i) If the stream permanently removed from the 

production process and fed into the destruction device 

318
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

contains more than trace concentrations of fluorinecontaining product and if the stream mass includes more 

than trace concentrations of materials other than the 

product, then the concentration of the product shall be 

measured. 

(ii) If a by-product is responsible for yield loss 

and occurs in any stream (including process streams, 

emissions streams, or destroyed streams) in more than trace 

concentrations and if the stream mass includes more than 

trace concentrations of materials other than the byproduct, then the concentration of the by-product shall be 

measured. 

(iii) If a by-product is a fluorinated GHG, occurs in 

more than trace concentrations in any stream (including 

process streams, emissions streams, or destroyed streams), 

occurs in more than trace concentrations in any stream that 

is recaptured or is fed into a destruction device, and is 

not completely recaptured or completely destroyed, and if 

the measured stream mass includes more than trace 

concentrations of materials other than the by-product, then 

the concentration of the by-product shall be measured. 

 (c) Emission factor testing. If you determine 

fluorinated GHG emissions using the site-specific processvent-specific emission factor, you must meet the 

319
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(11) of this 

section. 

(1) Process vent testing. Conduct an emissions test 

that is based on representative performance (i.e., 

performance based on the defined operating scenario) of the 

affected process. For each continuous process vent stream 

that contains more than trace concentration of fluorinated 

GHG, develop a process-vent-specific emission factor for 

the defined operating scenario; you may include startup and 

shutdown events if the monitoring is sufficiently long or 

comprehensive to ensure that such events are not 

overrepresented in the emission factor. Malfunction events 

shall not be included in the monitoring. 

(2) Different operating scenarios. Develop separate 

process-vent-specific emission factors for different 

operating scenarios as needed. In general, it is 

anticipated that the emission factors within the defined 

range of operating conditions for the process in an 

operating scenario will not vary more than 15 percent from 

the emission factor at the representative conditions of the 

operating scenario. If your process operates under 

different conditions as part of normal operations, you must 

perform emission testing and develop separate emission 

factors for these different operating scenarios. 

320
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(3) Number of runs. For continuous processes, sample 

the process vent for a minimum of 3 runs of 1 hour each. If 

the RSD of the emission factor calculated based on the 

first 3 runs is greater than or equal to 0.2 for the 

emissions factor, continue to sample the process vent for 

an additional 3 runs of 1 hour each. If more than one 

fluorinated GHG is measured, the RSD shall be expressed in 

terms of total CO2 equivalents. For fluorinated GHGs whose 

GWPs are not listed in Table A-1 of subpart A of this part, 

use a default GWP of 2000 in the RSD calculation. 

(4) Analytical Methods. Use a quality-assured 

analytical measurement technology capable of detecting the 

analyte of interest at the concentration of interest and 

use a procedure validated with the analyte of interest at 

the concentration of interest. Where calibration standards 

for the analyte are not available, a chemically similar 

surrogate may be used. Acceptable analytical measurement 

technologies include but are not limited to gas 

chromatography (GC) with an appropriate detector, infrared 

(IR), fourier transform infrared (FTIR), and nuclear 

magnetic resonance (NMR). Acceptable methods for 

determining fluorinated GHGs include EPA Method 18 in 

Appendix A-1 of 40 CFR part 60, EPA Method 320 in Appendix 

A of 40 CFR part 63, the Draft EPA DRE Protocol, ASTM 

321
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

D6348-03 (incorporated by reference in §98.7), or other 

analytical methods validated using EPA Method 301 or some 

other scientifically sound validation protocol. Acceptable 

methods for determining total fluorine concentrations for 

fluorine-containing compounds in streams for §98.123(a) 

include EPA Method 13A (in some instances), EPA Method 13B 

(in some instances), EPA Method 26, and EPA Method 26A, in 

Appendix A-1 of 40 CFR part 60 and EPA Method 320 in 

Appendix A of 40 CFR part 63 or other analytical methods 

validated using EPA Method 301 or some other scientifically 

sound validation protocol. The validation protocol may 

include analytical technology manufacturer specifications 

or recommendations. 

(5) Documentation in GHG Monitoring Plan. Describe 

the analytical method(s) used under paragraph (c)(4) in the 

site GHG Monitoring Plan as required under §98.3(g)(5) of 

this part. At a minimum, include in the description of the 

method a description of the analytical measurement 

equipment and procedures, quantitative estimates of the 

method’s accuracy and precision for the analytes of 

interest at the concentrations of interest, as well as a 

description of how these accuracies and precisions were 

estimated, including the validation protocol used. 

322
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(6) Process activity measurements. Determine the 

mass rate of process feed, process production, or other 

process activity as applicable during the test using flow 

meters, weigh scales, or other measurement devices or 

instruments with an accuracy and precision of ±1 percent of 

full scale or better. These devices may be the same plant 

instruments or procedures that are used for accounting 

purposes (such as weigh hoppers, belt weigh feeders, 

combination of volume measurements and bulk density, etc.) 

if these devices or procedures meet the requirement. For 

monitoring ongoing process activity, use flow meters, weigh 

scales, or other measurement devices or instruments with an 

accuracy and precision of ±1 percent of full scale or 

better. 

(7) Sample each process. If process vents from 

separate processes are manifolded together to a common vent 

or to a common destruction device, you must follow 

§98.124(c)(7)(i) or (ii). 

(i) You must sample emissions from each process in the 

ducts before the emissions are combined, sample in the 

common duct when only one process is operating, or sample 

the combined emissions during representative combinations 

of capacity utilizations for all the processes. If the 

last option is selected, 3 times n test runs shall be 

323
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

required, where n is the number of processes feeding into 

the common vent or destruction device, and the processvent-specific emission factor shall be applied whenever one 

or more of the processes is operating. In this case, 

calculate the emission factor for each sample by dividing 

the total emissions by the summed process activity across 

the processes venting to the common vent. Derive the 

process-vent-specific emission factor by averaging the 3n 

emission factors. 

(ii) Alternative for manifolded process vents. If 

you sample when multiple process vents are manifolded 

together to a common vent or destruction device, you may 

sample the combined emissions and use the analyses from 

existing measurements and/or calculations based on chemical 

engineering principles, engineering assessments, and 

process knowledge, to allocate the emissions contribution 

from each process vent. The total fluorinated GHG loading 

measured in the manifolded vent during operation of 

multiple process vents can be compared to the expected 

emissions based on the emissions estimation (see existing 

measurements and/or calculations, etc. above) on the 

individual process vents. If the summation of the expected 

fluorinated GHG emissions from the individual process vents 

are within 20 percent of the total fluorinated GHG 

324
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

emissions measured during the manifolded testing, you may 

use the existing emissions measurements and/or 

calculations, etc. to allocate the manifolded emissions 

rate to the individual process vents.] 

(8) Emission test results. The results of an 

emission test must include the analysis of samples, 

determination of emissions, and raw data and must identify 

the process and the process vents tested. The emissions 

test report must contain all information and data used to 

derive the process-vent-specific emission factor, as well 

as key process conditions during the test. Key process 

conditions include those that are normally monitored for 

process control purposes and may include but are not 

limited to yields, pressures, temperatures, etc. (e.g., of 

reactor vessels, distillation columns). 

(9) Emissions testing frequency. You must conduct 

emissions testing to develop the process-specific emission 

factor under §98.124(c)(5)(i), (ii), or (iii), whichever 

occurs first: 

(i) Conduct an emissions test every 10 years. 

(ii) Operating scenario change that affects the 

emissions factor. For planned operating scenario changes, 

i.e., meaning the emission factor value may change by 15 

percent, you may estimate the fluorinated GHG emissions 

325
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

using the calculation methods in §98.123(b)(1). If the 

calculated fluorinated GHG emissions due to the operating 

scenario change show a 15 percent or greater change in the 

process-vent-specific emissions factor (this would include 

the cumulative change in the process-vent specific 

emissions factor since the last emissions test), you must 

conduct an emissions test to update the process-ventspecific emissions factor. 

(iii) Change in production yield. When there is a 

change in the production yield of the process that shows a 

15 percent or greater change in the process-vent-specific 

emissions factor (this would include the cumulative change 

in the process-vent-specific emissions factor since the 

last emissions test), you must conduct an emissions test to 

update the process-vent-specific emissions factor. 

 (10) If a continuous process vent with fluorinated 

GHG emissions less than 10,000 mtCO2e, per §98.123(b)(2), 

is later found to have fluorinated GHG emissions of 10,000 

mtCO2e or greater, you must conduct the emissions testing 

for the process vent during the following year and develop 

the process-vent-specific emission factor from the 

emissions testing. 

326
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(11) Previous measurements. If you have conducted an 

emissions test less than 10 years before the effective date 

of this rule, and the emissions testing meets the 

requirements in paragraph (c)(1) through (10) of this 

section, you may use the previous emissions testing to 

develop process-vent-specific emission factors. 

(d) Emission calculation factor monitoring. If you 

determine fluorinated GHG emissions using the site-specific 

process-vent-specific emission calculation factor, you must 

meet the requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(3) 

of this section. 

(1) Revise the emission calculation factor for each 

process every 10 years based on representative operation 

(i.e., performance based on the defined operating scenario) 

of the affected process. For each continuous process vent, 

develop the emission calculation factor [based on 

representative, make parallel to EF para] for the defined . 

For each batch process vent, develop the emission 

calculation factor for the defined operating scenario, 

i.e., the typical batch process. 

(2) Different operating conditions. You must develop 

separate emissions calculation factors for different 

operating scenarios as needed. If your process operates 

under different conditions as part of normal operations, 

327
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

you must conduct emissions calculations and develop 

separate emission factors for these different operating 

scenarios. For continuous process vents, determine the 

emissions based on the process activity at each specific 

different condition. For batch process vents, determine 

emissions based on the process feed rate, process 

production rate, or other process activity rate for each 

typical batch operating scenario and for each non-typical 

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

(3) Process activity measurements. Use flow meters, 

weigh scales, or other measurement devices or instruments 

with an accuracy and precision of ±1 percent of full scale 

or better for monitoring ongoing process activity. 

(e) Emission monitoring for pieces of equipment. If 

you conduct a site-specific leak detection method or 

monitoring approach for pieces of equipment, follow 

paragraph (e)(1) or (e)(2) of this section. Also follow 

paragraphs (e)(3) and (e)(4) of this section. 

(1) Site-specific leak detection approach. You may 

develop a site-specific leak detection approach. You must 

validate the leak detection method and describe the method 

and the validation in the GHG Monitoring Plan (for example, 

you could validate by releasing a known rate of fluorinated 

GHG or surrogate), and if it is not possible to validate 

328
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

the site-specific leak detection method, then describe any 

efforts that have been undertaken to compare the results of 

the method to those obtained using other means, including 

the results of that comparison. Include in this 

description a detailed description of the method, including 

the procedures and equipment used and any sampling 

strategies. Also include the rationale behind the method, 

including why the method is expected to result in an 

unbiased estimate of emissions from equipment leaks. If 

the method is based on methods that are used to detect or 

quantify leaks or other emissions in other regulations, 

standards, or guidelines, identify and describe the 

regulations, standards, or guidelines and why their methods 

are applicable to emissions of fluorinated GHGs from leaks. 

Account for possible sources of error in the method, e.g., 

instrument detection limits, measurement biases, and 

sampling biases. For methods based on measuring the 

concentrations of leaked fluorinated GHGs in room air, 

explain how the method accounts for variations in 

concentrations in room air and the possibility that some of 

the mass of fluorinated GHGs emitted may not be accounted 

for in the measurement and/or subsequent estimate. For all 

methods, provide a quantitative estimate of the accuracy 

and precision of the method. 

329
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(2) EPA Method 21 monitoring. If you determine that 

EPA Method 21 is appropriate for monitoring a fluorinated 

GHG, conduct the screening level concentration measurements 

using EPA Method 21 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 to 

determine the screening level concentration data or actual 

screening level concentration data for the Screening Ranges 

Approach, the EPA Correlation Approach, or the UnitSpecific Correlation Approach. For the one-time testing to 

develop the Unit-Specific Correlation equations in EPA453/R-95-017 (incorporated by reference, see §98.7), 

conduct the screening level concentration measurements 

using EPA Method 21 and the bagging procedures to measure 

mass emissions. Concentration measurements of bagged 

samples must be conducted using gas chromatography 

following EPA Method 18 analytical procedures or other 

method according to §98.124(c)(4). Use methane or other 

appropriate compound as the calibration gas. 

(3) Frequency of Measurement and Sampling. If you 

estimate emissions based on monitoring of equipment, 

conduct monitoring at least annually. Sample at least onethird of equipment annually (except for equipment that is 

unsafe-to-monitor, difficult-to-monitor, insulated, in 

330
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

heavy liquid service, pumps with dual mechanical seals, 

agitators with dual mechanical seals, pumps with no 

external shaft, and agitators with no external shaft), 

changing the sample each year such that at the end of three 

years, all equipment in the process has been monitored. If 

you estimate emissions based on a sample of the equipment 

in the process, ensure that the sample is representative of 

the equipment in the process. 

(f) Destruction device performance testing. If you 

vent fluorinated GHG emissions or otherwise feed 

fluorinated GHGs into a destruction device and apply the 

destruction efficiency of the device in §98.123, you must 

conduct an emissions test to determine the destruction 

efficiency. 

(1) You must sample the inlet and outlet of the 

destruction device for a minimum of three runs of 1 hour 

each to determine the destruction efficiency. You must 

conduct the emissions testing using the methods in 

paragraph (c)(4) of this section. To determine the 

destruction efficiency, emission testing shall be conducted 

when operating at high loads reasonably expected to occur 

(i.e., representative of high total fluorinated GHG load 

that will be sent to the device) and when destroying the 

most-difficult-to-destroy fluorinated GHG (or a surrogate 

331
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

that is still more difficult to destroy) that is fed into 

the device from the processes subject to this subpart and 

whose destruction you wish to reflect in your report. If 

the outlet concentration of fluorinated GHG is below the 

detection limit of the method, you may use a concentration 

of one-half the detection limit to estimate the destruction 

efficiency. 

(i) If perfluoromethane, CF4, is vented to the 

destruction device in more than trace concentrations, you 

must test and determine the destruction efficiency achieved 

specifically for CF4 to take credit for the CF4 emissions 

reduction. 

(ii) If sulfur hexafluoride, SF6, is vented to the 

destruction device in more than trace concentrations, you 

must test and determine the destruction efficiency achieved 

specifically for SF6, or alternatively for CF4 as a 

surrogate, to take credit for the SF6 emissions reduction. 

(iii) If perfluorocarbons other than CF4 are vented to 

the destruction device in more than trace concentrations, 

you must test and determine the destruction efficiency 

achieved for the lowest molecular weight saturated 

perfluorocarbon vented to the destruction device, or 

alternatively for SF6 or CF4 as a surrogate, to take credit 

for the PFC emission reduction. 

332
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(iv) For all other fluorinated GHG that are emitted 

in more than trace concentrations, you may test and 

determine the destruction efficiency achieved for mostdifficult-to-destroy compound or surrogate vented to the 

destruction device (e.g, any Class 1 compound on the 

Thermal Stability Rankings List). 

 (2) Previous testing. If you have conducted an 

emissions test within the 5 years prior to [INSERT THE DATE 

60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER], and the emissions testing meets the requirements 

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

destruction efficiency determined during this previous 

emissions testing. 

 (3) Hazardous Waste Combustor testing. If a 

destruction device used to destroy fluorinated GHG is 

subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE, or any part of 40 

CFR part 260-270 you may apply the destruction efficiency 

specifically determined for CF4, SF6, PFCs other than CF4, 

and all other fluorinated GHGs under that test if the 

testing meets the criteria in paragraph (f)(1)(i) through 

(iv) of this section. 

(g) Mass of previously produced fluorinated GHGs fed 

into destruction device. You must measure the mass of 

333
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

fluorinated GHGs which are present in more than trace 

concentrations that are fed into the destruction device and 

that were previously produced as defined at §98.410(b). 

Such fluorinated GHGs include but are not limited to 

quantities that are shipped to the facility by another 

facility for destruction and quantities that are returned 

to the facility for reclamation but are found to be 

irretrievably contaminated and are therefore destroyed. 

You must use flowmeters, weigh scales, or a combination of 

volumetric and density measurements with an accuracy and 

precision of 1 percent of full scale or better. If the 

measured mass includes more than trace concentrations of 

materials other than the fluorinated GHG being destroyed, 

you must measure the concentrations of fluorinated GHG 

being destroyed. You must multiply this concentration 

(mass fraction) by the mass measurement to obtain the mass 

of the fluorinated GHG fed into the destruction device. 

(h) Emissions due to deviations of destruction 

device. In their estimates of the mass of fluorinated GHG 

destroyed, fluorinated GHG production facilities that 

destroy fluorinated GHGs shall account for any temporary 

reductions in the destruction efficiency that result from 

any malfunctions of the destruction device, including 

deviations from the operating conditions defined in state 

334
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

or local permitting requirements and/or oxidizer 

manufacturer specifications. 

(i) Emissions due to process startup, shutdown, or 

malfunctions. Fluorinated GHG production facilities shall 

account for fluorinated GHG emissions that occur as a 

result of startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions, either 

recording fluorinated GHG emissions during these events, or 

documenting that these events do not result in significant 

fluorinated GHG emissions. 

(j) Measure the residual fluorinated GHG in 

containers received by the facility either using scales or 

using pressure and temperature measurements. Scales shall 

have an accuracy and precision of ±1 percent or better of 

the filled weight (gas plus tare) of the containers of 

fluorinated GHGs that are typically weighed on the scale. 

For example, for scales that are generally used to weigh 

cylinders containing 115 pounds of gas when full, this 

equates to ±1 percent of the sum of 115 pounds and 

approximately 120 pounds tare, or slightly more than ±2 

pounds. Pressure gauges and thermometers used to measure 

quantities that are monitored under this paragraph must 

have an accuracy and precision of 1 percent of full scale 

or better. 

335
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(k) Initial scoping testing, emissions testing, 

emissions factor development, and emission calculation 

factor development must be completed by December 31, 2011. 

(l) Calibrate all flow meters, weigh scales, and 

combinations of volumetric and density measures using 

monitoring instruments traceable to the International 

System of Units (SI) through the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST) or other recognized 

national measurement institute. Recalibrate all flow 

meters, weigh scales, and combinations of volumetric and 

density measures at the minimum frequency specified by the 

manufacturer. Use any of the following applicable flow 

meter test methods or the calibration procedures specified 

by the flow meter, weigh-scale, or other volumetric or 

density measure manufacturer. 

(1) ASME MFC–3M–2004, Measurement of Fluid Flow in 

Pipes Using Orifice, Nozzle, and Venturi (incorporated by 

reference, see §98.7). 

(2) ASME MFC–4M–1986 (Reaffirmed 1997), Measurement 

of Gas Flow by Turbine Meters (incorporated by reference, 

see §98.7). 

(3) ASME-MFC–5M–1985, (Reaffirmed 1994), Measurement 

of Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits Using Transit-Time 

336
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

Ultrasonic Flowmeters (incorporated by reference, see 

§98.7). 

(4) ASME MFC–6M–1998, Measurement of Fluid Flow in 

Pipes Using Vortex Flowmeters (incorporated by reference, 

see §98.7). 

(5) ASME MFC–7M–1987 (Reaffirmed 1992), Measurement 

of Gas Flow by Means of Critical Flow Venturi Nozzles 

(incorporated by reference, see §98.7). 

(6) ASME MFC–9M–1988 (Reaffirmed 2001), Measurement 

of Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits by Weighing Method 

(incorporated by reference, see §98.7). 

(7) ASME MFC-11M-2006, Measurement of Fluid Flow by 

Means of Coriolis Mass Flowmeters (incorporated by 

reference, see §98.7). 

(8) ASME MFC-14M-2003, Measurement of Fluid Flow 

Using Small Bore Precision Orifice Meters (incorporated by 

reference, see §98.7). 

(m) All analytical equipment used to determine the 

concentration of fluorinated GHGs, including but not 

limited to gas chromatographs and associated detectors, IR, 

FTIR and NMR devices, shall be calibrated at a frequency 

needed to support the type of analysis specified in the 

site GHG Monitoring Plan as required under §98.124_ and 

93.3(g)(5) of this part. Quality assurance samples at the 

337
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

concentrations of concern shall be used for the 

calibration. Such quality assurance samples shall consist 

of or be prepared from certified standards of the analytes 

of concern where available; if not available, calibration 

shall be performed by a method specified in the GHG 

Monitoring Plan. 

(n) Special provisions for reporting year 2011. 

(1) Best available monitoring methods. During January 

1, 2011 through June 30, 2011, owners or operators may use 

best available monitoring methods for any parameter that 

cannot reasonably be measured according to the monitoring 

and QA/QC requirements of this subpart. The owner or 

operator must use the calculation methodologies and 

equations in the “Calculating GHG Emissions” section of 

this subpart, but may use the best available monitoring 

method for any parameter for which it is not reasonably 

feasible to acquire, install, or operate a required piece 

of monitoring equipment, to procure services from necessary 

providers, or to gain physical access to make required 

measurements in a facility by January 1, 2011. Starting no 

later than July 1, 2011, the owner or operator must 

discontinue using best available methods and begin 

following all applicable monitoring and QA/QC requirements 

of this part, except as provided in paragraph (n)(2) of 

338
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

this section. Best available monitoring methods means any 

of the following methods specified in this paragraph: 

(i) Monitoring methods currently used by the facility 

that do not meet the specifications of this subpart. 

(ii) Supplier data. 

(iii) Engineering calculations. 

(iv) Other company records. 

(2) Requests for extension of the use of best 

available monitoring methods in 2011 for parameters other 

than emission factors, emission characterizations, or 

destruction efficiencies. The owner or operator may submit 

a request to the Administrator to use one or more best 

available monitoring methods for parameters other than 

emission factors, emission characterizations, or 

destruction efficiencies between July 1, 2011 and December 

31, 2011. 

(i) Timing of request. The extension request must be 

submitted to EPA no later than February 28, 2011. 

(ii) Content of request. Requests must contain the 

following information: 

(A) A list of specific items of monitoring equipment 

and measurement services for which the request is being 

made and the locations (e.g., processes and vents) where 

339
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

each piece of monitoring equipment will be installed and 

where each measurement service will be provided. 

(B) Identification of the specific rule requirements 

for which the monitoring equipment or measurement service 

is needed. 

(C) A description of the reasons why the needed 

equipment could not be obtained, installed, or operated or 

why the needed measurement service could not be provided 

before July 1, 2011. The owner or operator must consider 

all of the data collection and emission calculation options 

outlined in the rule for a specific emissions source before 

claiming that a specific safety, technical, logistical, or 

legal barrier exists. 

(D) If the reason for the extension is that the 

equipment cannot be purchased, delivered, or installed by 

July 1, 2011, include supporting documentation such as the 

date the monitoring equipment was ordered, investigation of 

alternative suppliers, the dates by which alternative 

vendors promised delivery or installation, backorder 

notices or unexpected delays, descriptions of actions taken 

to expedite delivery or installation, and the current 

expected date of delivery or installation. 

(E) If the reason for the extension is that service 

providers were unable to provide necessary measurement 

340
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

services, include supporting documentation demonstrating 

that these services could not be acquired by July 1, 2011. 

This documentation must include written correspondence to 

and from at least two service providers stating that they 

will not be available to provide the necessary services by 

July 1, 2011. 

(F) If the reason for the extension is that the 

process is operating continuously without process shutdown, 

include supporting documentation showing that it is not 

practicable to isolate the process equipment or unit and 

install the measurement device without a full shutdown or a 

hot tap, and that there is no opportunity before July 1, 

2011 to install the device. Include the date of the three 

most recent shutdowns for each relevant process equipment 

or unit, the frequency of shutdowns for each relevant 

process equipment or unit, and the date of the next planned 

process equipment or unit shutdown. 

(G) If the reason for the extension is that access to 

process streams, emissions streams, or destroyed streams, 

as applicable, could not be gained by July 1, 2011, include 

illustrative documentation such as photographs and 

engineering diagrams demonstrating that access could not be 

gained. 

341
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(H) A description of the best available monitoring 

methods that will be used and how their results will be 

applied (i.e., which calculation method will be used) to 

develop the emission estimate. Where the proposed BAMM is 

the use of current monitoring data in the mass-balance 

approach, include the estimated relative and absolute 

errors of the mass-balance approach using the current 

monitoring data. 

(I) A description of the specific actions the owner or 

operator will take to comply with monitoring requirements 

by January 1, 2012. 

(3) Requests for extension of the use of best 

available monitoring methods in 2011 for emission factors, 

emission characterizations, and destruction efficiencies. 

The owner or operator may submit a request to the 

Administrator to use one or more best available monitoring 

methods between July 1, 2011 and December 31, 2011 for 

emission factors and destruction efficiencies. 

 (i) Timing of request. The extension request must be 

submitted to EPA no later than June 30, 2011. 

(ii) Content of request. Requests must contain the he 

information outlined in paragraph (2)(ii) of this section, 

substituting January 1, 2012 for July 1, 2011 and 

substituting January 1, 2013 for January 1, 2012. 

342
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(iii) Reporting of 2011 emissions using emission 

factors, emission characterizations, and destruction 

efficiencies developed in 2012. Facilities that are 

approved to use BAMM in 2011 for emission factors, emission 

characterizations, or destruction efficiencies for certain 

process must submit, by March 31, 2013, revised 2011 

emission estimates that reflect the emission factors and 

destruction efficiencies that are measured for those 

processes in 2012. 

(4) Requests for extension of the use of best 

available monitoring methods beyond 2011. EPA does not 

anticipate approving the use of best available monitoring 

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

right to review requests for unique and extreme 

circumstances which include safety, technical 

infeasibility, or inconsistency with other local, State or 

Federal regulations. 

(i) Timing of request. The extension request must be 

submitted to EPA no later than June 30, 2011. 

(ii) Content of request. Requests must contain the 

following information: 

(A) The information outlined in paragraph (2)(ii) of 

this section, substituting January 1, 2012 for July 1, 2011 

and substituting January 1, 2013 for January 1, 2012. 

343
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(B) A detailed outline of the unique circumstances 

necessitating an extension, including specific data 

collection issues that do not meet safety regulations, 

technical infeasibility or specific laws or regulations 

that conflict with data collection. The owner or operator 

must consider all the data collection and emission 

calculation options outlined in the rule for a specific 

emissions source before claiming that a specific safety, 

technical or legal barrier exists. 

(C) A detailed explanation and supporting 

documentation of how and when the owner or operator will 

receive the required data and/or services to comply with 

Subpart L reporting requirements in the future. 

(D) The Administrator reserves the right to require 

that the owner or operator provide additional 

documentation. 

 (5) Approval criteria. To obtain approval, the owner 

or operator must demonstrate to the Administrator’s 

satisfaction that it is not reasonably feasible to acquire, 

install, or operate the required piece of monitoring 

equipment, to procure services from necessary providers, or 

to gain physical access to make required measurements in a 

facility according to the requirements of this subpart by 

344
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

the dates specified in §98.124(n)(2), (3), and (4) for any 

of the reasons described in §98.124(n)(2)(ii). 

 

§98.125 Procedures for estimating missing data.

(a) A complete record of all measured parameters used 

in the GHG emissions calculations in §98.123 is required. 

Therefore, whenever a quality-assured value of a required 

parameter is unavailable, a substitute data value for the 

missing parameter shall be used in the calculations as 

specified in the paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. 

You must document and keep records of the procedures used 

for all such estimates. 

(b) For each missing value of the fluorinated GHG 

concentration or fluorine-containing compound 

concentration, the substitute data value shall be the 

arithmetic average of the quality-assured values of that 

parameter immediately preceding and immediately following 

the missing data incident. 

(c) For each missing value of the mass produced, fed 

into the production process, fed into the transformation 

process, fed into destruction devices, sent to another 

facility for transformation, or sent to another facility 

for destruction, the substitute value of that parameter 

shall be a secondary mass measurement where such a 

345
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

measurement is available. For example, if the mass 

produced is usually measured with a flowmeter at the inlet 

to the day tank and that flowmeter fails to meet an 

accuracy or precision test, malfunctions, or is rendered 

inoperable, then the mass produced may be estimated by 

calculating the change in volume in the day tank and 

multiplying it by the density of the product. Where a 

secondary mass measurement is not available, the substitute 

value of the parameter shall be an estimate based on a 

related parameter. For example, if a flowmeter measuring 

the mass fed into a destruction device is rendered 

inoperable, then the mass fed into the destruction device 

may be estimated using the production rate and the 

previously observed relationship between the production 

rate and the mass flow rate into the destruction device. 

§98.126 Data reporting requirements.

(a) All facilities. In addition to the information 

required by §98.3(c), you shall report the following 

information. 

(1) The chemical identities of the contents of the 

stream(s) (including process, emissions, and destroyed 

streams) analyzed under the initial scoping test of 

fluorinated GHG at §98.124(a), by process. 

346
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(2) The location and function of the stream(s) 

(including process streams, emissions streams, and 

destroyed streams) that were analyzed under the initial 

scoping test of fluorinated GHG at §98.124(a), by process. 

(3) The annual emissions of each fluorinated GHG by 

process, for equipment leaks, and for the facility as a 

whole. 

(4) The method used to determine the mass emissions 

of each fluorinated GHG, i.e., mass balance, process-ventspecific emission factor, or process-vent-specific emission 

calculation factor, for each process and process vent at 

the facility. 

(5) The chemical formula and total mass produced of 

the fluorinated gas product in metric tons, by chemical and 

process. 

(b) Reporting for mass balance approach. For 

processes whose emissions are determined using the massbalance approach under §98.123(a), you shall report the 

following for each process: 

 (1) The absolute and relative uncertainties 

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

as well as the data (including quantities and their 

uncertainties) used in these calculations. 

347
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(2) The balanced chemical equation that describes the 

reaction used to manufacture the fluorinated GHG product 

and each fluorinated GHG transformation product 

(specifically, the equation that provides the 

stoichiometric coefficients in Equation L-7 of this 

subpart). 

(3) The total mass and chemical formula of each 

reactant fed into the production process in metric tons, by 

chemical. 

(4) The total mass of fluorine emissions. 

(5) The total mass of the fluorinated GHG product and 

fluorine-containing compounds removed from the production 

process and destroyed. 

(6) The mass and chemical formula of each by-product 

generated. 

(7) The mass of each by-product destroyed at the 

facility. 

(9) The mass of each by-product recaptured and sent 

off-site for destruction. 

(10) The mass of each by-product recaptured for other 

purposes. 

(c) Reporting for emission factor and emission 

calculation factor approach. For processes whose emissions 

are determined using the emission factor approach under 

348
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

§98.123(b)(3) or the emission calculation factor under 

§98.123(b)(4), you shall report the following for each 

process: 

(1) The process activity used to estimate emissions 

(e.g., tons of product produced or tons of reactant 

consumed). 

(2) The site-specific, process-vent-specific emission 

factor(s) or emission calculation factor for each process 

vent. 

(3) The mass of each fluorinated GHG emitted, 

including the mass of each fluorinated GHG emitted from 

equipment leaks. 

(d) Reporting for missing data. Where missing data 

have been estimated pursuant to §98.125, you shall report 

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

data were missing, the method used to estimate the missing 

data, and the estimates of those data. 

(e) Reporting of destruction device excess emissions

data. Each fluorinated gas production facility that 

destroys fluorinated GHGs shall report the excess emissions 

that result from malfunctions of the destruction device, 

and these excess emissions would be reflected in the 

fluorinated GHG estimates in §98.123(a) and (b). Such 

349
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

excess emissions would occur if the destruction efficiency 

was reduced due to the malfunction. 

(f) Reporting of emissions testing report. Each 

fluorinated gas production facility that conducted 

emissions testing to develop emissions factor shall submit 

the emissions test report within 60 days of completing the 

emissions test. The emissions testing report must include 

the information required in §98.123(c)(7). 

(g) Reporting of destruction device testing. Each 

fluorinated gas production facility that destroys 

fluorinated GHGs shall submit the emissions test report for 

the destruction device testing within 60 days of 

completing the emissions test. The emissions testing 

report must contain the following information: 

(1) Destruction efficiency (DE) of each destruction 

unit for each fluorinated GHG, or if a surrogate was used, 

the DE of the surrogate. 

(2) Test methods used to determine the destruction 

efficiency. 

(3) Methods used to record the mass of fluorinated 

GHG destroyed. 

(4) Chemical identity of the fluorinated GHG(s) used 

in the performance test conducted to determine DE, 

including surrogates, and information on why the surrogate 

350
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

is sufficient to demonstrate DE for each fluorinated GHG, 

consistent with requirements in §98.124(f)(1), vented to 

the destruction unit. 

(5) Name of all applicable federal or state 

regulations that may apply to the destruction process. 

(6) If a facility would like to apply a destruction 

efficiency for a fluorinated GHG that currently does not 

have a demonstrated destruction efficiency, consistent with 

§98.124(f)(1), (for example, if a new process starts up) or 

the methods used to record mass of fluorinated GHG 

destroyed, the facility may conduct a destruction device 

testing as necessary to determine the destruction 

efficiency. The revised emission testing report must be 

submitted to reflect the destruction efficiency and 

submitted to EPA within 60 days of the testing. 

(h) Reporting for destruction of previously produced 

fluorinated GHGs. Each fluorinated gas production facility 

that destroys fluorinated GHGs shall report the following 

for each previously produced fluorinated GHG destroyed: 

(1) The mass of the fluorinated GHG fed into the 

destruction device. 

(2) The mass of the fluorinated GHG emitted from the 

destruction device. 

351
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(i) Reporting of emissions from venting of residual 

fluorinated GHGs from containers. Each fluorinated gas 

production facility that vents residual fluorinated GHGs 

from containers shall report the following for each 

fluorinated GHG vented: 

(1) The mass of the residual fluorinated GHG vented 

from containers annually (tons). 

(2) If applicable, the heel factor calculated for 

each container size and type. 

(j) Reporting of fluorinated GHG products of 

incomplete combustion (PICs) of fluorinated gases. Each 

fluorinated gas production facility that destroys 

fluorinated gases shall submit a one-time report by June 

30, 2011, that describes any measurements, research, or 

analysis that it has performed or obtained that relate to 

the formation of products of incomplete combustion (PICs) 

that are fluorinated GHGs during the destruction of 

fluorinated gases. The report should include the methods 

and results of any measurement or modeling studies, 

including the PICs for which the exhaust stream was 

analyzed, as well as copies of relevant scientific papers, 

if available, or citations of the papers, if they are not. 

§98.127 Records that must be retained.

352
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

In addition to the records required by §98.3(g), you 

must retain the dated records specified in paragraphs (a) 

through (h) of this section, as applicable. 

(a) Process information records.

(1) Identify all products and processes subject to 

this subpart. Include the unit identification as 

appropriate. 

(2) Monthly and annual records of all analyses and 

calculations conducted, including all information reported 

as required under §§98.123 and 98.126. 

(b) Emission factor and emission calculation factor 

method. Retain the following records for each process at 

the facility. 

(1) Identify all process vents above and below the 

10,000 metric tons CO2e per year emission limit for 

fluorinated GHG. 

(2) For vents above the 10,000 metric tons CO2e per 

year emission limit, identify those that vent to a 

destruction device all of the process operating time or 

part of the time. 

(3) For each vent, identify the method used to 

develop the factor (i.e., emission factor by emissions test 

or emissions calculation factor). 

353
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(4) The emissions test data and reports and the 

calculations used to determine the process-vent-specific 

emissions factor, including the actual process-ventspecific emission factor, the average hourly fluorinated 

GHG emission rate from the process vent during the test and 

the process feed rate, process production rate, or other 

process activity rate during the test. 

(5) The calculations used to determine the processvent-specific emissions calculation factor and the actual 

emissions calculation factor. 

(6) The ongoing monthly or batch process production 

quantity and annual process production quantity or other 

process activity information in the appropriate units, 

along with the dates and time period during which the 

process was operating. 

 (7) Calculations used to determine annual emissions 

of each fluorinated GHG for each process and the total 

fluorinated GHG emissions for all processes, i.e., total 

for facility. 

(c) Missing data records. Where missing data have 

been estimated pursuant to §98.125, you shall record the 

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

were missing, the method used to estimate the missing data, 

and the estimates of those data 

354
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(d) Process vent emission testing. A fluorinated GHG 

production facility that conducts process vent emission 

testing to determine process-vent-specific emission factor 

for fluorinated GHGs shall retain the results of the 

emission testing, including data in §98.124(c)(7) and: 

(1) Test methods used to determine the flow rate and 

fluorinated GHG concentrations of the process vent stream. 

(2) Flow rate of fluorinated GHG stream. 

(3) Concentration (mass fraction) of each fluorinated 

GHG. 

(4) Emission factor calculated from paragraph (b)(4) 

of this section in metric tons per activity. 

(e) Destruction efficiency testing. A fluorinated 

GHG production facility that destroys fluorinated GHGs 

shall retain the emissions performance testing report 

containing the following information: 

(1) Destruction efficiency (DE) for fluorinated 

GHG(s) used in the performance test conducted to determine 

DE in each destruction device. 

(2) Test methods used to determine the destruction 

efficiency. 

(3) Methods used to record the mass of fluorinated 

GHG destroyed. 

355
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(4) Name of all applicable federal or state 

regulations that may apply to the destruction process. 

(5) If process changes affect the destruction 

efficiency of the destruction device or the methods used to 

record mass of fluorinated GHG destroyed, then the revised 

emission testing report must be submitted to reflect the 

changes. 

(7) Records of test reports and other information 

documenting the facility’s destruction efficiency report in 

§98.126(e) and (g). 

(f) Equipment leak records. If you are subject to 

§98.123(c) of this subpart, you must maintain information 

on the number of each type of equipment; the service of 

each piece of equipment (gas, light liquid, heavy liquid); 

the concentration of each fluorinated GHG in the stream; 

the time period each piece of equipment was in service, and 

the emission calculations for each fluorinated GHG for all 

processes. Depending on which equipment leak monitoring 

approach you follow, you must maintain information for 

equipment on the associated screening data concentrations 

for greater than or equal to 10,000 ppmv and associated 

screening data concentrations for less than 10,000 ppmv; 

associated actual screening data concentrations; and 

associated screening data and leak rate data (i.e., 

356
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

bagging) used to develop a unit-specific correlation. If 

you developed and follow a site-specific leak detection 

approach, provide the records for monitoring events and the 

emissions estimation calculations, as appropriate, 

consistent with the approach for equipment leak emission 

estimation in the site’s GHG Monitoring Plan. 

(g) All facilities. Dated records documenting the 

initial and periodic calibration of the gas chromatographs, 

GC/MS, GC/ECD, FTIR, and NMR devices, weigh scales, 

flowmeters, and volumetric and density measures used to 

measure the quantities reported under this subpart, 

including the industry standards or manufacturer directions 

used for calibration pursuant to §98.124(c), (e), (f), (k) 

and (l). 

§98.128 Definitions.

Except as provided below, all of the terms used in 

this subpart have the same meaning given in the Clean Air 

Act and subpart A of this part. If a conflict exists 

between a definition provided in this subpart and a 

definition provided in subpart A, the definition in this 

subpart shall take precedence for the reporting 

requirements in this subpart. 

Batch process or batch operation means a noncontinuous 

operation involving intermittent or discontinuous feed into 

357
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

equipment, and, in general, involves the emptying of the 

equipment after the batch operation ceases and prior to 

beginning a new operation. Addition of raw material and 

withdrawal of product do not occur simultaneously in a 

batch operation. 

Batch emission episode means a discrete venting 

episode associated with a vessel in a process; a vessel may 

have more than one batch emission episode. For example, a 

displacement of vapor resulting from the charging of a 

vessel with a feed material will result in a discrete 

emission episode that will last through the duration of the 

charge and will have an average flow rate equal to the rate 

of the charge. If the vessel is then heated, there will 

also be another discrete emission episode resulting from 

the expulsion of expanded vapor. Other emission episodes 

also may occur from the same vessel and other vessels in 

the process, depending on process operations. 

By-product means a chemical that is produced 

coincidentally during the production of another chemical. 

Completely destroyed means destroyed with a 

destruction efficiency of 99.99 percent or greater. 

Completely recaptured means 99.99 percent or greater 

of each fluorinated GHG is removed from a stream. 

358
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

Continuous process or operation means a process where 

the inputs and outputs flow continuously throughout the 

duration of the process. Continuous processes are 

typically steady state. 

Destruction device means any device used to destroy 

fluorinated GHG. 

Destruction process means a process used to destroy 

fluorinated GHG in a destruction device such as a thermal 

incinerator or catalytic oxidizer. 

Difficult-to-monitor means the equipment piece may not 

be monitored without elevating the monitoring personnel 

more than 2 meters (7 feet) above a support surface or it 

is not accessible in a safe manner when it is in 

fluorinated GHG service. 

Dual mechanical seal pump and dual mechanical seal 

agitator means a pump or agitator equipped with a dual 

mechanical seal system that includes a barrier fluid system 

where the barrier fluid is not in light liquid service; 

each barrier fluid system is equipped with a sensor that 

will detect failure of the seal system, the barrier fluid 

system, or both; and meets the following requirements: 

(1) Each dual mechanical seal system is operated with 

the barrier fluid at a pressure that is at all times 

359
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(except periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction) 

greater than the pump or agitator stuffing box pressure; or 

(2) Equipped with a barrier fluid degassing reservoir 

that is routed to a process or fuel gas system or connected 

by a closed-vent system to a control device; or 

(3) Equipped with a closed-loop system that purges the 

barrier fluid into a process stream. 

Equipment (for the purposes of 40 CFR part 98, subpart 

L only) means each pump, compressor, agitator, pressure 

relief device, sampling connection system, open-ended valve 

or line, valve, connector, and instrumentation system in 

fluorinated GHG service for a process subject to this 

subpart; and any destruction devices or closed-vent systems 

to which processes subject to this subpart are vented. 

Fluorinated gas means any fluorinated GHG, CFC, or 

HCFC. 

In fluorinated GHG service means that a piece of 

equipment either contains or contacts a feedstock, 

byproduct, or product that is a liquid or gas and contains 

at least 5 percent by weight fluorinated GHG. 

In gas and vapor service means that a piece of 

equipment in regulated material service contains a gas or 

vapor at operating conditions. 

360
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

In heavy liquid service means that a piece of 

equipment in regulated material service is not in gas and 

vapor service or in light liquid service. 

In light liquid service means that a piece of 

equipment in regulated material service contains a liquid 

that meets the following conditions: 

(1) The vapor pressure of one or more of the organic 

compounds is greater than 0.3 kilopascals at 20°C, 

(2) The total concentration of the pure organic 

compounds constituents having a vapor pressure greater than 

0.3 kilopascals at 20°C is equal to or greater than 20 

percent by weight of the total process stream, and 

(3) The fluid is a liquid at operating conditions. 

(Note to definition of “in light liquid service”: 

Vapor pressures may be determined by standard reference 

texts or ASTM D–2879.) 

In vacuum service means that equipment is operating at 

an internal pressure which is at least 5 kilopascals below 

ambient pressure. 

Isolated intermediate means a product of a process 

that is stored before subsequent processing. An isolated 

intermediate is usually a product of chemical synthesis. 

Storage of an isolated intermediate marks the end of a 

361
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

process. Storage occurs at any time the intermediate is 

placed in equipment used solely for storage. 

No external shaft pump and No external shaft agitator

means any pump or agitator that is designed with no 

externally actuated shaft penetrating the pump or agitator 

housing. 

Operating scenario means any specific operation of a 

process and includes for each process: (1) A description 

of the process, the specific process equipment used, and 

the range of operating conditions for the process; (2) An 

identification of related process vents, their associated 

emissions episodes and durations, and calculations and 

engineering analyses to show the annual uncontrolled 

fluorinated GHG emissions from the process vent; (3) The 

control or destruction devices used, as applicable, 

including a description of operating and/or testing 

conditions for any associated destruction device; (4) The 

process vents (including those from other processes) that 

are simultaneously routed to the control or destruction 

device(s); and (5) The applicable monitoring requirements 

and any parametric level that assures destruction or 

removal for all emissions routed to the control or 

destruction device. A change to any of these elements not 

previously reported, except for item (4) of this 

362
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

definition, shall constitute a different operating 

scenario. 

Process means all equipment which collectively 

function to produce a fluorinated gas product, including an 

isolated intermediate (which is also a fluorinated gas 

product), or to transform a fluorinated gas product. A 

process may consist of one or more unit operations. For 

the purposes of this subpart, process includes any, all, or 

a combination of reaction, recovery, separation, 

purification, or other activity, operation, manufacture, or 

treatment which are used to produce a fluorinated gas 

product. For a continuous process, cleaning operations 

conducted may be considered part of the process, at the 

discretion of the facility. For a batch process, cleaning 

operations are part of the process. Ancillary activities 

are not considered a process or part of any process under 

this subpart. Ancillary activities include boilers and 

incinerators, chillers and refrigeration systems, and other 

equipment and activities that are not directly involved 

(i.e., they operate within a closed system and materials 

are not combined with process fluids) in the processing of 

raw materials or the manufacturing of a fluorinated gas 

product. 

363
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

Process condenser means a condenser whose primary 

purpose is to recover material as an integral part of a 

process. All condensers recovering condensate from a 

process vent at or above the boiling point or all 

condensers in line prior to a vacuum source are considered 

process condensers. Typically, a primary condenser or 

condensers in series are considered to be integral to the 

process if they are capable of and normally used for the 

purpose of recovering chemicals for fuel value (i.e., net 

positive heating value), use, reuse or for sale for fuel 

value, use, or reuse. 

Process vent (for the purposes of 40 CFR part 98, 

subpart L only) means a vent from a process vessel or vents 

from multiple process vessels within a process that are 

manifolded together into a common header, through which a 

fluorinated GHG-containing gas stream is, or has the 

potential to be, released to the atmosphere. Examples of 

process vents include, but are not limited to, vents on 

condensers used for product recovery, bottoms receivers, 

surge control vessels, reactors, filters, centrifuges, and 

process tanks. Process vents do not include vents on 

storage tanks or pieces of equipment. 

Typical batch means a batch process operated within a 

range of operating conditions that are documented in an 

364
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

operating scenario. Emissions from a typical batch are 

based on the operating conditions that result in 

representative emissions. The typical batch defines the 

uncontrolled emissions for each emission episode defined 

under the operating scenario. 

Uncontrolled fluorinated GHG emissions means a gas 

stream containing fluorinated GHG which has exited the 

process (or process condenser, where applicable), but which 

has not yet been introduced into a destruction device to 

reduce the mass of fluorinated GHG in the stream. If the 

emissions from the process are not routed to a destruction 

device, uncontrolled emissions are those fluorinated GHG 

emissions released to the atmosphere. 

Unsafe-to-monitor means that monitoring personnel 

would be exposed to an emmediate danger as a consequence of 

monitoring the piece of equipment. Examples of unsafe-tomonitor equiment include, but is not limited to, equipment 

under extreme pressure or heat. 

8. Add subpart DD to read as follows: 

Subpart DD— Electrical Transmission and Distribution 

Sec. 

98.300 Definition of the source category. 

98.301 Reporting threshold. 

98.302 GHGs to report. 

98.303 Calculating GHG emissions. 

98.304 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements. 

98.305 Procedures for estimating missing data. 

365
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

98.306 Data reporting requirements. 

98.307 Records that must be retained. 

98.308 Definitions. 

Subpart DD—Electrical Transmission and Distribution 

Equipment Use 

§98.300 Definition of the source category.

(a) The electrical transmission and distribution equipment 

use source category consists of all electric transmission 

and distribution equipment and servicing inventory 

insulated with or containing SF6 or PFCs used within 

electric power transmission or distribution facilities. 

Electric transmission and distribution equipment and 

servicing inventory includes, but is not limited to: 

(1) gas-insulated substations; 

(2) circuit breakers; 

(3) switchgear, including closed-pressure and hermatically 

sealed-pressure switchgear and gas-insulated lines 

containing SF6 or PFCs; 

(4) gas containers such as pressurized cylinders; 

(5) gas carts; 

(6) electric power transformers; and 

(7) other containers of SF6 or PFC. 

(b) This source category does not include electricity 

generating units that are subject to subpart D of this 

part. 

366
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

§98.301 Reporting threshold.

(a) You must report GHG emissions from an electric 

power transmission or distribution facility if the total 

nameplate capacity of SF6 and PFC containing equipment 

located within the facility, when added to the total 

nameplate capacity of SF6 and PFC containing equipment that 

is not located within the facility but is under common 

ownership or control, exceeds 17,820 lbs and the facility 

meets the requirements of §98.2(a)(1). 

(b) A facility other than an electric power 

transmission or distribution facility that is subject to 

this part because of emissions from source categories 

described in Table A-3 or A-4 of this part is not required 

to report emissions under subpart DD of this part unless 

the total nameplate capacity of SF6 and PFC containing 

equipment located within that facility exceeds 17,820 lbs. 

§98.301 GHGs to report.

You must report total SF6 and PFC emissions (including 

emissions from fugitive equipment leaks, installation, 

servicing, equipment decommissioning and disposal, and from 

storage cylinders) resulting from the transmission and 

distribution servicing inventory and equipment listed in 

§98.300(a). For acquisitions of equipment containing or 

insulated with SF6 or PFCs, you must report emissions from 

367
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

the equipment after the title to the equipment is 

transferred to the electric power transmission or 

distribution entity. 

§98.302 Calculating GHG emissions.

(a) For each electric power transmission or 

distribution facility, you must calculate the annual SF6 and 

PFC emissions using the mass-balance approach in Equation 

DD-1 of this section: 

User Emissions = (Decrease in SF6 Inventory) + (Acquisitions 

of SF6) – (Disbursements of SF6) – (Net Increase in Total 

Nameplate Capacity of Equipment Operated) 

 (Eq. DD-1) 

Where: 

Decrease in SF6 Inventory = (SF6 stored in containers, but 

not in equipment, at the 

beginning of the year) – (SF6

stored in containers, but not in 

equipment, at the end of the 

year). 

Acquisitions of SF6 = (SF6 purchased from chemical 

producers or distributors in 

bulk) + (SF6 purchased from 

equipment manufacturers or 

distributors with or inside 

equipment, including 

hermetically sealed-pressure 

switchgear) + (SF6 returned to 

facility after off-site 

recycling). 

Disbursements of SF6 = (SF6 in bulk and contained in 

equipment that is sold to other 

entities) + (SF6 returned to 

suppliers) + (SF6 sent off site 

368
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

for recycling) + (SF6 sent offsite for destruction). 

Net Increase in Total Nameplate 

Capacity of Equipment 

Operated = (The Nameplate Capacity of new 

equipment, including 

hermetically sealed-pressure 

switchgear) – (Nameplate 

Capacity of retiring equipment, 

including hermetically sealedpressure switchgear). (Note that 

Nameplate Capacity refers to the 

full and proper charge of 

equipment rather than to the 

actual charge, which may reflect 

leakage.) 

(b) The mass-balance method in paragraph (a) of this 

section shall be used to estimate emissions of PFCs from 

power transformers, substituting the relevant PFC(s) for SF6

in equation DD-1. 

§98.303 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements. 

a) For calendar year 2011 monitoring, you may follow 

the provisions of §98.3(d)(1) through (d)(2) for best 

available monitoring methods rather than follow the 

monitoring requirements of this section. For purposes of 

this subpart, any reference in §98.3(d)(1) through (d)(2) 

to 2010 shall mean 2011, to March 31st shall mean June 30th, 

and to April 1st shall mean July 1st. Any reference to the 

effective date or date of promulgation in 98.3(d)(1) 

through (2) shall mean the effective date or date of 

promulgation of this subpart. 

369
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(b) You must adhere to the following QA/QC methods 

for reviewing the completeness and accuracy of reporting: 

(1) Review inputs to Equation DD-1 to ensure inputs 

and outputs to the company’s system are included. 

(2) Do not enter negative inputs and confirm that 

negative emissions are not calculated. However, the 

Decrease in SF6 Inventory and the Net Increase in Total 

Nameplate Capacity may be calculated as negative numbers. 

(3) Ensure that beginning-of-year inventory matches 

end-of-year inventory from the previous year. 

(4) Ensure that in addition to SF6 purchased from bulk 

gas distributors, SF6 purchased from Original Equipment 

Manufacturers (OEM) and SF6 returned to the facility from 

off-site recycling are also accounted for among the total 

additions. 

(c) Ensure the following QA/QC methods are employed 

throughout the year: 

(1) Ensure that cylinders returned to the gas 

supplier are consistently weighed on a scale that is 

certified to be accurate and precise to within 2 pounds of 

the scale’s capacity and is periodically recalibrated per 

the manufacturer’s specifications. Either measure residual 

gas (the amount of gas remaining in returned cylinders) or 

have the gas supplier measure it. If the gas supplier 

370
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

weighs the residual gas, obtain from the gas supplier a 

detailed monthly accounting, within +/- 2 pounds, of 

residual gas amounts in the cylinders returned to the gas 

supplier. 

(2) Ensure that cylinders weighed for the beginning 

and end of year inventory measurements are weighed on a 

scale that is certified to be accurate to within 2 pounds 

of the scale’s capacity and is periodically recalibrated 

per the manufacturer’s specifications. All scales used to 

measure quantities that are to be reported under §98.306 

shall be calibrated using suitable NIST-traceable standards 

and suitable methods published by a consensus standards 

organization (e.g., ISWM, ISDA, NCWM, or others). 

Calibration shall be performed prior to the first reporting 

year. 

(3) Ensure all substations have provided information 

to the manager compiling the emissions report (if it is not 

already handled through an electronic inventory system). 

§98.304 Procedures for estimating missing data.

A complete record of all measured parameters used in 

the GHG emissions calculations is required. Replace 

missing data, if needed, based on data from equipment with 

a similar nameplate capacity for SF6 and PFC, and from 

371
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

similar equipment repair, replacement, and maintenance 

operations. 

§98.305 Data reporting requirements. 

In addition to the information required by §98.3(c), 

each annual report must contain the following information 

for each electric power transmission and distribution 

facility, by chemical: 

(a) Nameplate capacity of equipment containing SF6 and 

nameplate capacity of equipment containing each PFC: 

(1) Existing as of the beginning of the year (not 

including hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear). 

(2) New during the year (all SF6-insulated equipment, 

including hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear). 

(3) Retired during the year (all SF6-insulated 

equipment, including hermetically sealed-pressure 

switchgear). 

(b) Transmission miles (length of lines carrying 

voltages at or above 34.5 kV). 

(c) Distribution miles (length of lines carrying 

voltages at or below 34.5 kV). 

(d) SF6 and PFC sales and purchases. 

(e) SF6 and PFC sent off site for destruction. 

(f) SF6 and PFC sent off site to be recycled. 

372
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(g) SF6 and PFC returned from off site after 

recycling. 

(h) SF6 and PFC stored in containers at the beginning 

and end of the year. 

(i) SF6 and PFC with or inside new equipment purchased 

in the year. 

(j) SF6 and PFC with or inside equipment sold to other 

entities. 

(k) SF6 and PFC returned to suppliers. 

§98.306 Records that must be retained. 

In addition to the information required by §98.3(g), 

you must retain records of the information reported and 

listed in §98.306. 

§98.307 Definitions.

Except as specified in this section, all terms used in 

this subpart have the same meaning given in the Clean Air 

Act and subpart A of this part.

Facility means, for the purposes of this source 

category, the electric power system, which comprises all 

electric transmission and distribution equipment insulated 

with or containing SF6 or PFCs which is linked through 

electric power transmission or distribution lines and 

functions as an integrated unit and is located between (1) 

the point(s) at which electric energy is obtained by the 

373
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

facility from an electricity generating unit or a different 

electric power transmission or distribution entity that 

does not have a common owner and (2) the point(s) at which 

the customer(s) or another electric power transmission or 

distribution entity that does not have a common owner 

receives the electric energy. The facility also includes 

servicing inventory for such equipment that contains SF6 or 

PFCs. 

Electric power transmission or distribution entity is 

any entity that transmits, distributes, or supplies 

electricity to a consumer or other user, including any 

company, electric cooperative, public electric supply 

corporation, a similar Federal department (including the 

Bureau of Reclamation or the Corps of Engineers), a 

municipally owned electric department offering service to 

the public, an electric public utility district, or a 

jointly owned electric supply project. 

Operator, for the purposes of this subpart, excludes 

entities whose sole responsibility is to balance load or 

otherwise address electricity flow. 

9. Add Subpart QQ to read as follows: 

Subpart QQ—Importers and Exporters of Fluorinated 

Greenhouse Gases Contained in Pre-charged Equipment or 

Closed-cell Foams 

374
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

Sec. 

98.430 Definition of the source category. 

98.431 Reporting threshold. 

98.432 GHGs to report. 

98.433 Calculating GHG emissions. 

98.434 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements. 

98.435 Procedures for estimating missing data. 

98.436 Data reporting requirements. 

98.437 Records that must be retained. 

98.438 Definitions. 

Subpart QQ—Importers and Exporters of Fluorinated 

Greenhouse Gases Contained in Pre-charged Equipment or 

Closed-cell Foams 

§98.430 Definition of the source category.

(a) The source category, importers and exporters of 

fluorinated GHGs contained in pre-charged equipment or 

closed-cell foams, consists of the following suppliers: any 

entity that is importing or exporting pre-charged equipment 

that contains a fluorinated GHG, and any entity that is 

importing or exporting closed-cell foams that contain a 

fluorinated GHG. 

§98.431 Reporting threshold.

Any importer or exporter of fluorinated GHGs contained 

in pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams who meets the 

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

GHG contained in the imported or exported pre-charged 

equipment or closed-cell foams. 

375
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

§98.432 GHGs to report.

You must report the quantity of each fluorinated GHG 

contained in pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams 

that you import or export during the calendar year. 

§98.433 Calculating GHG contained in pre-charged equipment 

or closed-cell foams.

(a) The total mass of each fluorinated GHG imported 

and exported inside equipment or foams shall be estimated 

using Equation QQ-1 of this section: 

= ∑tNSI tt 001.0** (Eq. QQ-1) 

Where: 

I = Total mass of the fluorinated GHG imported or 

exported by the entity annually (metric tons) 

t = Equipment/foam type containing the fluorinated 

GHG 

St = Mass of fluorinated GHG per unit of equipment or 

foam type t (charge per piece of equipment or cubic foot of 

foam, kg) 

Nt = Number of units of equipment or foam type t 

imported or exported annually (pieces of equipment or cubic 

feet of foam) 

0.001 = Factor converting kg to metric tons 

(b) When the identity and mass of a fluorinated GHG 

in a closed-cell foam is unknown to the importer or 

exporter, the total mass in CO2e for the fluorinated GHG 

imported and exported inside closed-cell foams shall be 

estimated using Equation QQ-2 of this section: 

376
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

= ∑tNSI tt 001.0** (Eq. QQ-2) 

Where: 

I = Total mass in CO2e of the fluorinated GHGs 

imported or exported in close-cell foams by the entity 

annually (metric tons) 

t = Equipment/foam type containing the fluorinated 

GHG 

St = Mass in CO2e of the fluorinated GHGs per unit of 

equipment or foam type t (charge per piece of equipment or 

cubic foot of foam, kg) 

Nt = Number of units of equipment or foam type t 

imported or exported annually (pieces of equipment or cubic 

feet of foam) 

0.001 = Factor converting kg to metric tons 

§98.434 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements. 

(a) For calendar year 2011 monitoring, you may follow 

the provisions of §98.3(d)(1) through (d)(2) for best 

available monitoring methods rather than follow the 

monitoring requirements of this section. For purposes of 

this subpart, any reference in §98.3(d)(1) through (2) to 

the year 2010 shall mean 2011, to March 31st shall mean June 

30th, and to April 1st shall mean July 1st. Any reference to 

the effective date or date of promulgation in 98.3(d)(1) 

through (2) shall mean the effective date or date of 

promulgation of this subpart. 

(b) The inputs to the annual submission shall be 

reviewed against the import or export transaction records 

377
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

to ensure that the information submitted to EPA is being 

accurately transcribed as the correct chemical or blend in 

the correct pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foam in 

the correct quantities (metric tons) and units (kg per 

piece of equipment or cubic foot of foam). 

§98.435 Procedures for estimating missing data. 

Procedures for estimating missing data are not 

provided for importers and exporters of fluorinated GHGs 

contained in pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams. A 

complete record of all measured parameters used in tracking 

fluorinated GHGs contained in pre-charged equipment or 

closed-cell foams is required. 

§98.436 Data reporting requirements.

(a) Each importer of fluorinated GHGs contained in 

pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams shall submit an 

annual report that summarizes its imports at the corporate 

level, except for transshipments, as specified: 

(1) Total mass in metric tons of each fluorinated GHG 

imported in pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams. 

(2) For each type of pre-charged equipment, the 

identity of the fluorinated GHG used as a refrigerant or 

electrical insulator, charge size (holding charge, if 

applicable), and number imported. 

378
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(3) For closed-cell foams that are imported inside of 

appliances, the identity of the fluorinated GHG contained 

in the foam, the quantity of fluorinated GHG contained in 

the foam in each appliance, and the number of appliances 

imported for each type of appliance. 

(4) For closed cell-foams that are not imported 

inside of appliances, the identity of the fluorinated GHG, 

the density of the fluorinated GHG in the foam (kg 

fluorinated GHG/cubic foot), and the quantity of foam 

imported (cubic feet) for each type of closed-cell foam. 

(5) Dates on which the pre-charged equipment or 

closed-cell foams were imported. 

(6) If the importer does not know the identity and 

mass of the fluorinated GHG within the closed-cell foam, 

the importer shall report the following: 

(i) Total mass in metric tons of CO2e of the 

fluorinated GHGs imported in closed-cell foams. 

(ii) For closed-cell foams that are imported inside 

of appliances, the mass of the fluorinated GHGs in CO2e 

contained in the foam in each appliance and the number of 

appliances imported for each type of appliance. 

(iii) For closed-cell foams that are not imported 

inside of appliances, the mass in CO2e of the fluorinated 

GHGs in the foam (kg CO2e /cubic foot) and the quantity of 

379
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

foam imported (cubic feet) for each type of closed-cell 

foam. 

(iv) Dates on which the closed-cell foams were 

imported. 

(v) Name of the foam manufacturer. 

(vi) Certification that the importer was unable to 

obtain information on the identity and mass of the 

fluorinated GHG within the closed-cell foam from the 

closed-cell foam manufacturer. 

(b) Each exporter of fluorinated GHGs contained in 

pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams shall submit an 

annual report that summarizes its exports at the corporate 

level, except for transshipments, as specified: 

(1) Total mass in metric tons of each fluorinated GHG 

exported in 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 (including holding 

charge, if applicable), and number exported. 

(3) For closed-cell foams that are exported inside of 

appliances, the identity of the fluorinated GHG contained 

in the foam, the quantity of fluorinated GHG contained in 

the foam in each appliance, and the number of appliances 

exported for each type of appliance. 

380
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(4) For closed-cell foams that are not exported 

inside of appliances, the identity of the fluorinated GHG, 

the density of the fluorinated GHG in the foam (kg 

fluorinated GHG/cubic foot), and the quantity of foam 

exported (cubic feet) for each type of closed-cell foam. 

(5) Dates on which the pre-charged equipment or 

closed-cell foams were exported. 

(6) If the exporter does not know the identity and 

mass of the fluorinated GHG within the closed-cell foam, 

the exporter shall report the following: 

(i) Total mass in metric tons of CO2e of the 

fluorinated GHGs exported in closed-cell foams. 

(ii) For closed-cell foams that are exported inside 

of appliances, the mass of the fluorinated GHGs in CO2e 

contained in the foam in each appliance and the number of 

appliances imported for each type of appliance. 

(iii) For closed-cell foams that are not exported 

inside of appliances, the mass in CO2e of the fluorinated 

GHGs in the foam (kg CO2e /cubic foot) and the quantity of 

foam imported (cubic feet) for each type of closed-cell 

foam. 

(iv) Dates on which the closed-cell foams were 

exported. 

(v) Name of the foam manufacturer 

381
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(vi) Certification that the exporter was unable to 

obtain information on the identity and mass of the 

fluorinated GHG within the closed-cell foam from the 

closed-cell foam manufacturer. 

§98.437 Records that must be retained.

(a) In addition to the data required by §98.3(g), 

importers of fluorinated-GHGs in pre-charged equipment and 

closed-cell foams shall retain the following records 

substantiating each of the imports that they report: 

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

(2) The invoice for the import. 

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

(4) Ports of entry through which the pre-charged 

equipment or closed-cell foams passed. 

(5) Countries from which the pre-charged equipment or 

closed-cell foams were imported. 

(6) For importers that report the mass of 

fluourinated GHGs within closed-cell foams on a CO2e basis, 

correspondance or other documents that show the importer 

was unable to obtain information on the identity and mass 

of fluorinated GHGs within closed-cell foams from the foam 

manufacturer. 

(b) In addition to the data required by §98.3(g), 

exporters of fluorinated GHGs in pre-charged equipment and 

382
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

closed-cell foams shall retain the following records 

substantiating each of the exports that they report: 

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

(2) The invoice for the export. 

(3) Ports of exit through which the pre-charged 

equipment or closed-cell foams passed. 

(4) Countries to which the pre-charged equipment or 

closed-cell foams were exported. 

(5) For exporters that report the mass of 

fluourinated GHGs within closed-cell foams on a CO2e basis, 

correspondance or other documents that show the exporter 

was unable to obtain information on the identity and mass 

of fluorinated GHGs within closed-cell foams from the foam 

manufacturer. 

(c) Persons who transship pre-charged equipment and 

closed-cell foams containing fluorinated GHGs shall 

maintain records that indicated that the pre-charged 

equipment or foam originated in a foreign country and was 

destined for another foreign country and did not enter into 

commerce in the United States. 

§98.438 Definitions.

Except as provided below, all of the terms used in 

this subpart have the same meaning given in the Clean Air 

Act and subpart A of this part. If a conflict exists 

383
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

between a definition provided in this subpart and a 

definition provided in subpart A, the definition in this 

subpart shall take precedence for the reporting 

requirements in this subpart. 

Appliance means any device which contains and uses a 

fluorinated greenhouse gas refrigerant and which is used 

for household or commercial purposes, including any air 

conditioner, refrigerator, chiller, or freezer. 

Closed-cell foam means any foam product, excluding 

packaging foam, that is constructed with a closed-cell 

structure and a blowing agent containing a fluorinated GHG. 

Closed-cell foams include but are not limited to 

polyurethane (PU) appliance foam, PU continuous and 

discontinuous panel foam, PU one component foam, PU spray 

foam, extruded polystyrene (XPS) boardstock foam, and XPS 

sheet foam. Packaging foam means foam used exclusively 

during shipment or storage to temporarily enclose items. 

Electrical Equipment means gas-insulated substations, 

circuit breakers, other switchgear, gas-insulated lines, or 

power transformers. 

Fluorinated GHG refrigerant means, for purposes of 

this subpart, any substance consisting in part or whole of 

a fluorinated greenhouse gas and that is used for heat 

transfer purposes and provides a cooling effect. 

384
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

Pre-charged appliance means any appliance charged with 

fluorinated greenhouse gas refrigerant prior to sale or 

distribution or offer for sale or distribution in 

interstate commerce. This includes both appliances that 

contain the full charge necessary for operation and 

appliances that contain a partial “holding” charge of the 

fluorinated greenhouse gas refrigerant (e.g., for shipment 

purposes). 

Pre-charged appliance component means any portion of 

an appliance, including but not limited to condensers, 

compressors, line sets, and coils, that is charged with 

fluorinated greenhouse gas refrigerant prior to sale or 

distribution or offer for sale or distribution in 

interstate commerce. 

Pre-charged equipment means any pre-charged appliance, 

pre-charged appliance component, pre-charged electrical 

equipment, or pre-charged electrical equipment component. 

Pre-charged electrical equipment means any electrical 

equipment, including but not limited to gas-insulated 

substations, circuit breakers, other switchgear, gasinsulated lines, or power transformers containing a 

fluorinated GHG prior to sale or distribution, or offer for 

sale or distribution in interstate commerce. This includes 

both equipment that contain the full charge necessary for 

385
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

operation and equipment that contain a partial “holding” 

charge of the fluorinated GHG (e.g., for shipment 

purposes). 

Pre-charged electrical equipment component means any 

portion of electrical equipment that is charged with SF6 or 

PFCs prior to sale or distribution or offer for sale or 

distribution in interstate commerce. 

10. Add subpart SS to read as follows: 

Subpart SS—Electrical Equipment Manufacture or 

Refurbishment 

Sec. 

98.450 Definition of the source category. 

98.451 Reporting threshold. 

98.452 GHGs to report. 

98.453 Calculating GHG emissions. 

98.454 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements. 

98.455 Procedures for estimating missing data. 

98.456 Data reporting requirements. 

98.457 Records that must be retained. 

98.458 Definitions. 

Subpart SS—Electrical Equipment Manufacture or 

Refurbishment 

§98.450 Definition of the source category.

The electrical equipment manufacturing category 

consists of processes that manufacture or refurbish gasinsulated substations, circuit breakers, other switchgear, 

gas-insulated lines, or power transformers (including gascontaining components of such equipment) containing sulfurhexafluoride (SF6) or perfluorocarbons (PFCs). 

386
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

§98.451 Reporting threshold.

You must report GHG emissions under this subpart if 

your facility contains an electrical equipment 

manufacturing or refurbishing process and the facility 

meets the requirements of §98.2(a)(1). Electrical equipment 

manufacturing and refurbishing facilities covered by this 

rule are those that have total annual purchases of SF6 and 

PFCs that exceed 23,000 pounds. 

§98.452 GHGs to report.

(a) You must report annual SF6 and PFC emissions 

(including emissions from equipment testing, installation, 

manufacturing, decommissioning and disposal, refurbishing, 

and from storage cylinders and other containers) from any 

facility associated with the manufacture or refurbishment 

of closed-pressure or sealed-pressure equipment (including 

components of such equipment). For equipment installation, 

you must report annual SF6 and PFC emissions from the 

equipment being installed at the electric power 

transmission or distribution facility when emissions from 

installation activities (e.g., filling) occur before the 

title to the equipment is transferred to the electric power 

transmission or distribution entity. 

(b) You must report CO2, N2O and CH4 combustionrelated emissions from each stationary combustion unit. 

387
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

You must calculate and report these emissions under subpart 

C of this part (General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources) 

by following the requirements of subpart C. 

§98.453 Calculating GHG emissions.

(a) For each electrical equipment manufacturer or 

refurbisher, you must estimate the annual SF6 and PFC 

emissions using the mass-balance approach in Equation SS-1 

of this section: 

User Emissions = (Decrease in SF6 Inventory) + (Acquisitions 

of SF6) – (Disbursements of SF6) (Eq. SS-1) 

Where: 

Decrease in SF6 Inventory = (SF6 stored in containers at the 

beginning of the year) – (SF6

stored in containers at the end 

of the year). 

Acquisitions of SF6 = (SF6 purchased from chemical 

producers or distributors in 

bulk) + (SF6 returned by 

equipment users or distributors 

in equipment or containers) + 

(SF6 returned to site after offsite 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 offsite for destruction). 

(b) The mass-balance method in paragraph (a) of this 

section shall be used to estimate emissions of PFCs 

associated with the manufacture or refurbishment of power 

388
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

transformers, substituting the relevant PFC(s) for SF6 in 

Equation SS-1. 

(c) The disbursements of SF6 or PFCs to customers in 

new equipment or cylinders shall be estimated using 

Equation SS-2 of this section: 

∑ (Eq. SS-2) =

=

n

p

DGHG Qp

1

Where: 

DGHG = The disbursement of SF6 or PFCs over the period to 

customers in new equipment or cylinders. 

Qp = The mass of the SF6 or PFCs charged into equipment 

or containers over the period p sent to customers 

or sent off-site for other purposes including for 

recycling, for destruction or to be returned to 

suppliers. 

n = The number of periods in the year. 

(d) The mass of SF6 or PFCs disbursed to customers in 

new equipment or cylinders over the period p shall be 

estimated by monitoring the mass flow of the SF6 or PFCs 

into the new equipment or cylinders using a flowmeter or by 

weighing containers before and after gas from containers is 

used to fill equipment or cylinders. 

(e) If the mass of SF6 or the PFC disbursed to 

customers in new equipment or cylinders over the period p 

is estimated by weighing containers before and after gas 

from containers is used to fill equipment or cylinders, 

this quantity shall be estimated by using Equation SS-3 of 

this section: 

389
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

−−= EMMQ LEBp (Eq. SS-3) 

Where: 

Qp = The mass of SF6 or the PFC disbursed to customers over 

the period p. 

MB = The mass of the contents of the containers used to 

fill equipment or cylinders at the beginning of 

period p. 

ME = The mass of the contents of the containers used to 

fill equipment or cylinders at the end of period p. 

EL = The mass of SF6 or the PFC emitted during the period p 

downstream of the containers used to fill equipment 

or cylinders (e.g., emissions from hoses or other 

flow lines that connect the container to the 

equipment or cylinder that is being filled). 

(f) If the mass of SF6 or the PFC disbursed to 

customers in new equipment or cylinders over the period p 

is determined using a flowmeter, this quantity shall be 

estimated using Equation SS-4 of this section: 

p −= EMQ Lmr (Eq. SS-4) 

Where: 

Qp = The mass of SF6 or the PFC disbursed to customers over 

the period p. 

Mmr = The mass of the SF6 or the PFC that has flowed through 

the flowmeter during the period p. 

EL = The mass of SF6 or the PFC emitted downstream of the 

flowmeter during the period p (e.g., emissions from 

hoses or other flow lines that connect the container 

to the equipment that is being filled). 

 (g) The mass of SF6 or the PFC emitted during the 

period p downstream of the containers used to fill 

equipment or cylinders (e.g., emissions from hoses or other 

flow lines that connect the container to the equipment or 

390
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

cylinder that is being filled) shall be estimated using 

Equation SS-5 of this section: 

L C ×= EFFE C (Eq. SS-5) 

Where: 

EL = The mass of SF6 or the PFC emitted during the period p 

downstream of the containers used to fill equipment 

or cylinders (e.g., emissions from hoses or other 

flow lines that connect the container to the 

equipment or cylinder that is being filled) 

FC = The total annual number of fill operations for the 

valve-hose combination. 

EFC = The emission factor for the valve-hose combination. 

 (h) The mass of SF6 or the PFC disbursed to 

customers in new equipment over the period p also may be 

determined by assuming that it is equal to the equipment’s 

nameplate capacity or, in cases where equipment is shipped 

with a partial charge, equal to its partial shipping 

charge, calculated by multiplying the nameplate capacity of 

the equipment by the ratio of the densities of the partial 

charge and the full charge. To determine the equipment’s 

actual nameplate capacity, you must measure the nameplate 

capacities of a representative sample of each make and 

model and take the average for each make and model as 

specified at paragraph 98.454(f). 

(i) You must estimate the annual SF6 and PFC emissions 

from the equipment that is installed at the electric power 

transmission or distribution facility before the title to 

391
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

the equipment is transferred, using either a mass balance 

equation as provided in Equation SS-6 or an engineering 

calculation as provided in Equation SS-7 or Equation SS-8 

of this section: 

I c F p −+= NMMEI (Eq. SS-6) 

Where: 

EIP = SF6 or PFC emissions from equipment installation at 

electric transmission or distribution facilities over 

the period p. 

MF = The mass of the SF6 or PFCs used to fill equipment. 

MC = The mass of the SF6 or PFCs used to charge the 

equipment prior to leaving the electrical equipment 

manufacturer facility. 

NI = The nameplate capacity of the equipment installed at 

electric transmission or distribution facilities. 

Or, 

 p = B − E − EMMEI L (Eq. SS-7) 

Where: 

EIP = SF6 or PFC emissions from equipment installation at 

electric transmission or distribution facilities over 

the period p. 

MB = The mass of the contents of the containers used to 

fill equipment at the beginning of period p. 

ME = The mass of the contents of the containers used to 

fill equipment at the end of period p. 

EL = The mass of SF6 or the PFC emitted during the period p 

downstream of the containers used to fill (e.g., 

emissions from hoses or other flow lines that connect 

the container to the equipment or cylinder that is 

being filled). 

Or, 

392
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

 p −= EMEI Lmr (Eq. SS-8) 

Where: 

EIP = SF6 or PFC emissions from equipment installation at 

electric power transmission or distribution 

facilities over the period p. 

Mmr = The mass of the SF6 or the PFC that has flowed through 

the flow meter during the period p. 

EL = The mass of SF6 or the PFC emitted downstream of the 

flowmeter during the period p (e.g., emissions from 

hoses or other flow lines that connect the container 

to the equipment that is being filled). 

§98.454 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.

(a) For calendar year 2011 monitoring, you may follow 

the provisions of §98.3(d)(1) through (d)(2) for best 

available monitoring methods rather than follow the 

monitoring requirements of this section. For purposes of 

this subpart, any reference in §98.3(d)(1) through (d)(2) 

to 2010 shall mean 2011, to March 31st shall mean June 30th, 

and to April 1st shall mean July 1st. Any reference to the 

effective date or date of promulgation in 98.3(d)(1) 

through (2) shall mean the effective date or date of 

promulgation of this subpart. 

(b) Ensure that all the quantities required by the 

equations of this subpart have been measured using either 

flowmeters with an accuracy and precision of ±1 percent of 

full scale or better or scales with an accuracy and 

precision of ±1 percent of the filled weight (gas plus 

tare) of the containers of SF6 or PFCs that are typically 

393
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

weighed on the scale. For scales that are generally used 

to weigh cylinders containing 115 pounds of gas when full, 

this equates to ±1 percent of the sum of 115 pounds and 

approximately 120 pounds tare, or slightly more than ±2 

pounds. Account for the tare weights of the containers. 

You may accept gas masses or weights provided by the gas 

supplier e.g., for the contents of cylinders containing new 

gas or for the heels remaining in cylinders returned to the 

gas supplier) if the supplier provides documentation 

verifying that accuracy standards are met; however, you 

remain responsible for the accuracy of these masses and 

weights under this subpart. 

(c) Calibrate all flowmeters, weigh scales, and 

combinations of volumetric and density measures that are 

used to measure or calculate quantities that are to be 

reported under this subpart prior to the first year for 

which GHG emissions are reported under this part. 

Calibrations performed prior to the effective date of this 

rule satisfy this requirement. Recalibrate all flowmeters, 

weigh scales, and combinations of volumetric and density 

measures at the minimum frequency specified by the 

manufacturer. Use National Institute of Standards and 

Technology-traceable standards and suitable methods 

394
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

published by a consensus standards organization (e.g., 

ASTM, ASME, ISO, or others). 

(d) For purposes of Equations SS-5 of this subpart, 

the emission factor for the valve-hose combination (EFC) 

shall be estimated using measurements and/or engineering 

assessments or calculations based on chemical engineering 

principles or physical or chemical laws or properties. 

Such assessments or calculations may be based on, as 

applicable, the internal volume of hose or line that is 

open to the atmosphere during coupling and decoupling 

activities, the internal pressure of the hose or line, the 

time the hose or line is open to the atmosphere during 

coupling and decoupling activities, the frequency with 

which the hose or line is purged and the flow rate during 

purges. You must develop a value for EFc (or use an 

industry-developed value) for each combination of hose and 

valve fitting, to use in Equation SS-5. The value for EFC

must be determined for each combination of hose and valve 

fitting of a given diameter or size. The calculation must 

be recalculated annually to account for changes to the 

specifications of the valves or hoses that may occur 

throughout the year. 

(e) Electrical equipment manufacturers and 

refurbishers shall account for SF6 or PFC emissions that 

395
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

occur as a result of unexpected events or accidental 

losses, such as a malfunctioning hose or leak in the flow 

line, during the filling of equipment or containers for 

disbursement by including these losses into the estimated 

mass of SF6 or the PFC emitted downstream of the container 

or flowmeter during the period p.

(f) If the mass of SF6 or the PFC disbursed to 

customers in new equipment over the period p is determined 

by assuming that it is equal to the equipment’s nameplate 

capacity or, in cases where equipment is shipped with a 

partial charge, equal to its partial shipping charge, 

equipment samples for conducting the nameplate capacity 

tests shall be selected using the following stratified 

sampling strategy: for each make and model, group the 

measurement conditions to reflect predictable variability 

in the facility’s filling practices and conditions (e.g., 

temperatures at which equipment is filled). Then, 

independently select equipment samples at random from each 

make and model under each group of conditions. To account 

for variability, a certain number of these measurements 

must be performed to develop a robust and representative 

average nameplate capacity (or shipping charge) for each 

make, model, and group of conditions. A Student T 

distribution calculation should be conducted to determine 

396
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

how many samples are needed for each make, model, and group 

of conditions as a function of the relative standard 

deviation of the sample measurements. To determine a 

sufficiently precise estimate of the nameplate capacity, 

the number of measurements required must be calculated to 

achieve a precision of one percent of the true mean, using 

a 95 percent confidence interval. To estimate the 

nameplate capacity for a given make and model, you must use 

the lowest mean value among the different groups of 

conditions, or provide justification for the use of a 

different mean value for the group of conditions that 

represents the typical practices and conditions for that 

make and model. Measurements can be conducted using SF6, 

another gas, or a liquid. Re-measurement of nameplate 

capacities should be conducted every five years to reflect 

cumulative changes in manufacturing methods and conditions 

over time. 

(g) Ensure the following QA/QC methods are employed 

throughout the year: 

(1) Ensure that procedures are in place and followed 

to track and weigh all cylinders or other containers at the 

beginning and end of the year. 

(2) Ensure all domestic electrical equipment 

manufacturing locations have provided information to the 

397
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

manager compiling the emissions report (if it is not 

already handled through an electronic inventory system). 

(h) You must adhere to the following QA/QC methods 

for reviewing the completeness and accuracy of reporting: 

(1) Review inputs to Equation SS-1 of this subpart to 

ensure inputs and outputs to the company’s system are 

included. 

(2) Do not enter negative inputs and confirm that 

negative emissions are not calculated. However, the 

decrease in SF6 inventory may be calculated as negative. 

(3) Ensure that beginning-of-year inventory matches 

end-of-year inventory from the previous year. 

(4) Ensure that in addition to SF6 purchased from bulk 

gas distributors, SF6 returned from equipment users with or 

inside equipment and SF6 returned from off-site recycling 

are also accounted for among the total additions. 

§98.455 Procedures for estimating missing data.

A complete record of all measured parameters used in 

the GHG emissions calculations is required. Replace 

missing data, if needed, based on data from similar 

manufacturing operations, and from similar equipment 

testing and decommissioning activities for which data are 

available. 

§98.456 Data reporting requirements. 

398
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

In addition to the information required by §98.3(c), 

each annual report must contain the following information 

at each facility level, by chemical: 

(a) SF6 and PFC sales and purchases. 

(b) SF6 and PFCs sent off site for destruction. 

(c) SF6 and PFCs sent off site to be recycled. 

(d) SF6 and PFCs returned from off site after 

recycling. 

(e) SF6 and PFCs returned by equipment users with or 

inside equipment. 

(f) SF6 and PFCs stored in containers at the beginning 

and end of the year. 

(g) SF6 and PFCs inside equipment delivered to 

customers. 

(h) SF6 and PFCs returned to suppliers. 

(i) The nameplate capacity of the equipment delivered 

to customers with SF6 or PFCs inside, if different from the 

quantity in paragraph (g) of this section. 

(j) A description of the engineering methods and 

calculations used to determine emissions from hoses or 

other flow lines that connect the container to the 

equipment that is being filled. 

399
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(k) The values for EFC for each hose and valve 

combination and the associated valve fitting sizes and hose 

diameters. 

(l) The total number of annual fill operations for 

each hose and valve combination, or, FC of Equation SS-5. 

(m) The mean value for each make, model, and group of 

conditions if the mass of SF6 or the PFC disbursed to 

customers in new equipment over the period p is determined 

by assuming that it is equal to the equipment’s nameplate 

capacity or, in cases where equipment is shipped with a 

partial charge, equal to its partial shipping charge. 

(n) The number of samples and the upper and lower 

bounds on the 95 percent confidence interval for each make, 

model, and group of conditions if the mass of SF6 or the 

PFC disbursed to customers in new equipment over the period 

p is determined by assuming that it is equal to the 

equipment’s nameplate capacity or, in cases where equipment 

is shipped with a partial charge, equal to its partial 

shipping charge 

 (o) SF6 and PFCs used to fill equipment at electric 

power transmission or distribution facilities, or MF, of 

Equation SS-6. 

400
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

(p) SF6 and PFCs used to charge the equipment prior to 

leaving the electrical equipment manufacturer facility, or 

MC, of Equation SS-6. 

(q) The nameplate capacity of the equipment installed 

at electric power transmission or distribution facilities 

used to determine emissions from installation, or NI, of 

Equation SS-6. 

(r) A description of the engineering methods and 

calculations used to determine emissions from hoses or 

other flow lines that connect to the equipment that is 

being filled during installation if Equation SS-7 or SS-8 

is used and if this description differs from the 

description required at §98.456(j). 

(s) For any missing data, you must report the reason 

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

missing, the method used to estimate emissions in their 

absence, and the quantity of emissions thereby estimated. 

§98.457 Records that must be retained. 

In addition to the information required by §98.3(g), 

you must retain the following records: 

(a) All information reported and listed in §98.456. 

(b) Accuracy certifications and calibration records 

for all scales and monitoring equipment, including the 

401
DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 

402

method or manufacturer’s specification used for 

calibration. 

(c) Certifications of the quantity of gas, in pounds, 

charged into equipment at the manufacturing facility as 

well as the actual quantity of gas, in pounds, charged into 

equipment at installation. 

(d) Check-out and weigh-in sheets and procedures for 

cylinders. 

(e) Residual gas amounts in cylinders sent back to 

suppliers. 

(f) Invoices for gas purchases and sales. 

§98.458 Definitions.

All terms used in this subpart have the same meaning 

given in the Clean Air Act and subpart A of this part.