OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

6560.50 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts xx

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

RIN 2060-A079 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Additional Sources 

of Fluorinated GHGs 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed Rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is revising and supplementing its 

initial proposed actions to require reporting of 

fluorinated greenhouse gas (F-GHG) emissions from certain 

source categories. Specifically, EPA is revising and 

supplementing its initial proposal to require reporting of 

fluorinated GHG emissions from electronics manufacturing, 

production of fluorinated gases, and use of electrical 

transmission and distribution equipment. EPA is also 

proposing to require such reporting from manufacture or 

refurbishment of electrical equipment and import and export 

of pre-charged equipment and closed cell foams. This 

proposed rule would not require control of greenhouse 

gases; rather it would require only that sources above 

certain threshold levels monitor and report emissions. 

DATES: Comments must be received on or before [INSERT 

THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER]. There will be a public hearing on [insert 

date]in [1310 L St NW, Washington, DC 20005 ]. It will 

begin at [9:00 am – 4:00 pm] local time. The incorporation 

by reference of certain publications listed in the proposed 

supplemental rule is approved by the Director of Federal 

Register as of [INSERT THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION 

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket 

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

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

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

for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–1741. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

2

• Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket 

Center (EPA/DC), Mailcode 6102T, Attention Docket ID 

No.EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading 

Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. 

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

received will be included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available online at 

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

information provided, unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise 

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

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

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

or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 

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

without going through http://www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured and included as 

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

made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and 

other contact information in the body of your comment and 

with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special 

characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any 

defects or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 

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

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

CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 

statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 

material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 

Publicly available docket materials are available either 

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

copy at the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room [insert 

room], 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

3

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

through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

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

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

FOR FURTHER GENERAL INFORMATION CONTACT: Carole Cook, 

Climate Change Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs 

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

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

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

address: GHGReportingRule@epa.gov. For technical 

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

public hearings or to register to speak at the hearings, 

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

ghgrulemaking.html. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Additional Information on Submitting Comments: To expedite 

review of your comments by Agency staff, you are encouraged 

to send a separate copy of your comments, in addition to 

the copy you submit to the official docket, to Carole Cook, 

U.S. EPA, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Climate Change 

Division, Mail Code 6207–J, Washington, DC, 20460, 

telephone (202) 343–9263, e-mail GHGReportingRule@epa.gov. 

As indicated above, although EPA previously proposed a 

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

become final. This proposal partly supplements and partly 

replaces that initial proposal. Comments on the initial 

proposal will be considered only to the extent they remain 

relevant. To ensure that their comments on newly proposed 

or re-proposed provisions are considered, parties should 

submit or re-submit them at this time. 

Regulated Entities. The Administrator determined that 

this action is subject to the provisions of Clean Air Act 

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

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

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

regulation. If finalized, these regulations would affect 

owners or operators of electronics manufacturing 

facilities, fluorinated gas production facilities, electric 

power systems, and electrical equipment manufacturing 

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

categories and entities would include those listed in Table 

1 of this preamble: 

Table 1. Examples of Affected Entities by Category 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

4

Category NAICS Examples of affected facilities 

Electronics 

Manufacturing 

334111 Microcomputers manufacturing 

facilities. 

334413 Semiconductor, photovoltaic (solidstate) device manufacturing 

facilities. 

334419 LCD unit screens manufacturing 

facilities. 

334419 MEMS manufacturing facilities. 

Fluorinated GHG 

Production 

325120 Industrial gases manufacturing 

facilities. 

Electrical 

Equipment Use 

221121 Electric bulk power transmission 

and control facilities. 

Electrical 

Equipment 

Manufacture or 

Refurbishment 

33531 Power transmission and 

distribution switchgear and 

specialty transformers 

manufacturing facilities 

Importers and 

Exporters of 

Pre-charged 

Equipment and 

Closed-Cell 

Foams 

423730 Air-conditioning equipment (except 

room units) merchant wholesalers 

333415 Air-conditioning equipment (except 

motor vehicle) manufacturing 

 

423620 Air-conditioners, room, merchant 

wholesalers 

443111 Household Appliance Stores 

326150 Polyurethane foam products 

manufacturing 

335313 Circuit breakers, power, 

manufacturing 

423610 Circuit breakers merchant 

wholesalers 

Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers 

regarding facilities likely to be affected by this action. 

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

could be potentially affected by the reporting 

requirements. Other types of facilities and companies not 

listed in the table could also be subject to reporting 

requirements. To determine whether you are affected by 

this action, you should carefully examine the applicability 

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

relevant criteria in the proposed subparts related to 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

5

electronics manufacturing facilities, fluorinated gas 

production facilities, electrical equipment use, electrical 

equipment manufacturing or refurbishment facilities, and 

importers and exporters of pre-charged equipment and 

closed-cell foams. If you have questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a particular facility, 

consult the person listed in the preceding “FOR FURTHER 

INFORMATION CONTACT” section. 

Many facilities that would be affected by the proposed 

rule have GHG emissions from multiple source categories 

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

of this preamble has been developed as a guide to help 

potential reporters in the source categories subject to the 

proposed rule identify the source categories (by subpart) 

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

applicability determination, and/or (2) include in their 

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

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

given reporter. Similarly, not all listed subparts are 

relevant for all reporters. 

Table 2. Source Categories and Relevant Subparts 

Source category 

(and main applicable 

subpart) 

Subparts recommended for review to 

determine applicability 

Electricity Generation Electrical Equipment Use 

Electronics Manufacturing General Stationary Fuel Combustion 

Fluorinated GHG 

Production 

General Stationary Fuel Combustion 

Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse 

Gases 

Electrical Equipment Use General Stationary Fuel Combustion 

Imports and Exports of 

Fluorinated GHGs Inside 

Pre-charged Equipment and 

Closed-Cell Foams 

Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse 

Gases 

Sulfur Hexafluoride and PFCs from 

Electrical Equipment Manufacture and 

Refurbishment 

Electrical Equipment 

Manufacture or 

Refurbishment 

General Stationary Fuel Combustion 

Imports and Exports of Fluorinated 

GHGs Inside Pre-charged Equipment and 

Closed-Cell Foams 

Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms 

and abbreviations are used in this document. 

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials 

CAA Clean Air Act 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

6

CBI confidential business information 

CFC chlorofluorocarbon 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

CO2e CO2-equivalent 

EO Executive Order 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

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 microelectricomechanical devices 

MMTCO2e million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent 

MS mass spectrometry 

N2O nitrous oxide 

NACAA National Association of Clean Air Agencies 

NAICS North American Industry Classification System 

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 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

7

PV photovoltaic cells 

QA quality assurance 

QA/QC quality assurance/quality control 

R&D research and development 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RGGI Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative 

RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis 

SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

SF6 sulfur hexafluoride 

TCR The Climate Registry 

TSD technical support document 

U.S. United States 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

VOC volatile organic compound(s) 

WCI Western Climate Initiative 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. Background 

A. Organization of this Preamble 

B. Background on the Proposed Rule 

C. Legal Authority 

D. Relationship to other Federal, State and Regional 

Programs 

II. Summary of and Rationale for the Reporting, 

Recordkeeping and Verification Requirements for Specific 

Source Categories 

A. Electronics Manufacturing 

B. Fluorinated Gas Production 

C. Electrical Equipment Use 

D. Imports and Exports of Pre-charged Equipment and Closed 

Cell Foams 

E. Manufacture of Electrical Equipment 

F. Subpart A Revisions 

III. Economic Impacts of the Proposed Rule 

A. How were compliance costs estimated? 

B. What are the costs of the proposed rule? 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

8

C. What are the economic impacts of the proposed rule? 

D. What are the impacts of the proposed rule on small 

businesses? 

E. What are the benefits of the proposed 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 

I. Background 

A. Organization of This Preamble

 This preamble is broken into several large sections, 

as detailed above in the Table of Contents. The paragraphs 

below describe the layout of the preamble and provide a 

brief summary of each section. 

The first section of this preamble contains the basic 

background information about the origin of this proposed 

rule, including a brief discussion of the initial proposed 

requirements for electronics, fluorinated gas production, 

and use of electrical transmission and distribution 

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

legal authority under the Clean Air Act to collect the 

proposed data, and the benefits of collecting the data. 

The second section of this preamble provides a brief 

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

which EPA is seeking comment today for each subpart. 

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

rationale for (i) the definition of the source category 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

9

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

proposed reporting and monitoring methods, (iv) selection 

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

data reporting requirements, and (vi) selection of records 

that must be retained. EPA describes the proposed options 

for each design element, as well as the other options 

considered. Throughout this discussion, EPA highlights 

specific issues on which we solicit comment. Please refer 

to the specific source category of interest for more 

details. 

The third section provides the summary of the cost 

impacts, economic impacts, and benefits of this proposed 

rule from the Economic Analysis. Finally, the last section 

discusses the various statutory and executive order 

requirements applicable to this proposed rulemaking. 

B. Background on the Proposed Rule

The Final Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule (“Final MRR”), 

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

Jackson on September 22, 2009 and published in the Federal 

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

which became effective on December 29, 2009, included 

reporting of GHGs from the facilities and suppliers that 

EPA determined should be included to appropriately respond 

to the direction in the 2008 Consolidated Appropriations 

Act1. These source categories capture approximately 85 

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

emitters as well as suppliers of fossil fuels and 

industrial gases. 

In the April 2009 proposed mandatory GHG reporting 

rule, the electronics, fluorinated GHG production, and 

electrical equipment use source categories were included as 

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

on requiring reporting under subpart OO of the quantities 

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

lengthy, detailed comments regarding proposed subparts I 

and L, several comments regarding the definition of 

“facility” under subpart DD, and several comments regarding 

a reporting requirement for imports and exports of F-GHGs 

contained inside pre-charged equipment and foams. These 

comments, which are described in more detail in the 

discussions of the individual source categories below, 

 

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

1844, 2128. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

10

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 F-GHGs contained in 

imported and exported pre-charged equipment and closed-cell 

foams. 

EPA recognized the concerns raised by stakeholders, 

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

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

these subparts. For subparts I and L this proposal 

incorporates a number of changes including, but not limited 

to, the addition of different methodologies that provide 

improved emissions coverage at a lower cost burden to 

facilities as compared to the initial proposal. Where 

aspects of the initial proposals for I and L are retained 

in this proposal, such as in the basic mass-balance 

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

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

flexibility in how and how frequently the underlying data 

are gathered. In addition, EPA is proposing requirements to 

report emissions from manufacture or refurbishment of 

electrical equipment and to report the quantities of 

fluorinated GHGs imported and exported inside pre-charged 

equipment and foams. 

We believe the monitoring approaches proposed in this 

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

costs, and that they are warranted even though the rule 

does not contain any emissions reduction requirements. As 

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

are expected to be used in analyzing and developing a range 

of potential CAA GHG policies and programs. A consistent 

and accurate data set is crucial to serve this intended 

purpose. 

Under this proposed rule, facilities not already 

reporting but required to report under this rule would 

begin data collection in 2011 following the methods 

outlined in the proposed rule and would submit data to EPA 

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

facilities would have the option to use Best Available 

Monitoring Methods (BAMM) for the first quarter of the 

first reporting year for the source categories included in 

this proposed rule. Thus, for these source categories, 

facilities could use BAMM through March 31, 2011. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

11

C. Legal Authority

EPA is proposing this rule under its existing CAA 

authority, specifically authorities provided in section 114 

of the CAA. As discussed further below and in ‘‘Mandatory 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA’s Response to Public 

Comments, Legal Issues’ (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-XXXX), EPA is 

not citing the FY 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act as 

the statutory basis for this action. While that law 

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

requiring the mandatory reporting of GHG emissions, it is 

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

the authority to gather the information proposed by this 

rule. 

As stated in the Final MRR, CAA section 114 provides 

EPA broad authority to require the information proposed by 

this rule because such data would inform and are relevant 

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

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

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

Administrator to require emissions sources, persons subject 

to the CAA, or persons whom the Administrator believes may 

have necessary information to monitor and report emissions 

and provide such other information the Administrator 

requests for the purposes of carrying out any provision of 

the CAA. EPA notes that while climate change legislation 

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

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

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

do so for purposes of that pending legislation, this 

proposed rule is authorized by, and the information being 

gathered by this proposed rule is relevant to implementing, 

the existing CAA. EPA expects, however, that the 

information collected by this proposed rule would also 

prove useful to legislative efforts to address GHG 

emissions. 

For further information about EPA’s legal authority, 

see the proposed and final MRR. 

D. Relationship to other Federal, State and Regional 

Programs 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

12

In developing this proposed rule, EPA reviewed 

monitoring methods included in international guidance 

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

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

Reduction/Climate Partnership for the Semiconductor 

Industry and the U.S. Department of Energy Voluntary 

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

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

Resources Institute and World Business Council for 

Sustainable Development GHG Protocol) and industry guidance 

(e.g., 2006 ISMI Guideline for Environmental 

Characterization of Semicondcutor Process Equipment). 

EPA also reviewed State reporting programs (e.g., 

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

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, Western Climate 

Initiative, The Climate Registry). These are important 

programs that not only led the way in reporting of GHG 

emissions before the Federal government acted but also 

assist in quantifying the GHG reductions achieved by 

various policies. Many of these programs collect different 

or additional data as compared to this proposed rule. For 

example, State programs may establish lower thresholds for 

reporting, request information on areas not addressed in 

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

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

discussion on the relationship of this proposed rule to 

other programs, please refer to the preamble to the Final 

MRR. 

II. Summary of and Rationale for the Reporting, 

Recordkeeping and Verification Requirements for Specific 

Source Categories 

A. Electronics Manufacturing

1. Overview of Reporting Requirements 

Electronics manufacturing includes, but is not limited 

to, the manufacture of semiconductors, liquid crystal 

displays (LCDs), microelectricomechanical systems (MEMS), 

and photovoltaic cells (PV). The electronics industry uses 

multiple long-lived fluorinated greenhouse gases 

(fluorinated GHGs) such as perfluorocarbons (PFCs), 

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

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

This proposed rule would apply to electronics manufacturing 

facilities where emissions from electronics manufacturing 

processes such as plasma etching, chemical vapor 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

13

deposition, chamber cleaning, and heat transfer fluid use 

as well as stationary fuel combustion units equal or exceed 

25,000 metric tons of CO2e per year2. In this action, we 

are proposing methods to estimate emissions from cleaning 

and etching for semiconductor, LCD, MEMS, and PV 

manufacture and also methods for estimating N2O emissions 

from chemical vapor deposition and other manufacturing 

processes such as chamber cleaning. We are also clarifying 

methods for estimating emissions from heat transfer fluids. 

And lastly, we are proposing methods for reporting 

controlled emissions from abatement systems. 

2. Major Changes Since Initial Rule Proposed 

In the initial proposal for electronics manufacturing, 

we included the following provisions for reporting 

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

facilities and an emissions-based threshold for PV 

facilities; (2) methods for estimating fluorinated GHG 

emissions from etching and cleaning; (3) methods for 

estimating N2O emissions during etching and cleaning; (4) 

methods for verifying destruction or removal efficiency 

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

emissions from heat transfer fluids. 

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

a number of lengthy, detailed comments regarding the 

electronics manufacturing subpart. In total, we received 

comments from approximately 10 entities on the proposed 

rule regarding electronics manufacture. The commenters 

generally opposed the proposed reporting requirements for 

large semiconductor facilities and stated that excessive 

monitoring and reporting were required. For example, 

commenters asserted that they do not currently collect the 

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

that to collect such data would entail significant burden 

and capital costs. In most cases, commenters provided 

alternative approaches to each of the reporting 

requirements. 

We have carefully reviewed the comments, issues, and 

suggestions raised by stakeholders regarding electronics 

manufacturing. In response, we are revising our initial 

proposal and are proposing the following reporting 

provisions for electronics manufacture: (1) a single 

 

2 As discussed further below, EPA is proposing that uncontrolled 

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

emissions are equal to or greater than 25,000 mtCO2e. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

14

emissions-based reporting threshold for all semiconductor, 

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

estimating emissions from cleaning and etching activities 

for semiconductor facilities and other electronics 

facilities including those that manufacture LCDs, MEMS, and 

PVs; (3) modified methods for estimating facility N2O 

emissions; (4) clarified methods for estimating emissions 

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

reporting controlled emissions from abatement systems. 

In the paragraphs below, we summarize the main 

provisions included in the initial proposal for reporting 

emissions from electronics manufacturing and we briefly 

summarize the major changes that are being proposed today. 

For more detailed information on the initial proposal, see 

the electronics manufacturing section of EPA’s proposed 

rule on the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases (74 FR 

16448). 

Reporting Threshold 

In the initial proposal, we proposed a capacity-based 

threshold, requiring those facilities with a capacity of 

1,080 m2 silicon or greater to report their GHG emissions. 

The capacity based threshold of 1,080 m2 silicon, which is 

equivalent to 25,000 mtCO2e using the IPCC 2006 Tier 1 

default factors and assuming no abatement, was applicable 

to semiconductor, MEMS, and LCD manufacturers. Due to a 

lack of information on use and emissions of fluorinated 

GHGs for PV manufacture, we proposed an emissions-based 

threshold of 25,000 mtCO2e for those facilities. We 

proposed to use a capacity-based threshold based on the 

published capacities of facilities, as opposed to an 

emissions-based threshold, where possible, because we 

believed that it simplified the applicability 

determination. 

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

commenter noted that it was unclear how production capacity 

was defined and stated that actual manufacturing levels 

could fluctuate year by year. In response to these 

comments, we are now proposing a single emissions-based 

threshold equal to or greater than 25,000 metric tons of 

CO2e per year for electronics manufacturing facilities. We 

have concluded that a single emissions-based threshold will 

simplify the applicability determination and that by 

applying the method for determining whether the threshold 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

15

is met, a facility will be able to quickly determine 

whether they must report under this rule. 

Estimating Emissions from Cleaning and Etching Processes 

With respect to estimating emissions from chamber 

cleaning and etching, in our initial proposal, we outlined 

two different methods; one method for large semiconductor 

facilities, and another method for smaller semiconductor 

facilities and LCD, MEMS, and PV facilities. We defined 

large semiconductor facilities as those facilities with 

annual capacities of greater than 10,500 m2 silicon 

(equivalent to 29 out of 175 total semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities). For large semiconductor 

facilities we proposed an approach based on the IPCC Tier 3 

method that required the use of company-specific data for 

(1) gas consumption, (2) gas utilization3, (3) by-product 

formation4, and (4) DREs for all emissions abatement 

processes at the facility. As we stated in the initial 

proposal, we had concluded that large semiconductor 

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

necessary data readily available either in-house or from 

suppliers to apply the highest Tier method. For smaller 

semiconductor facilities and LCD, MEMS, and PV facilities, 

we proposed the IPCC Tier 2b approach, which provides IPCC 

2b default emission factors for process utilization, byproduct formation, and site-specific DRE measurements. 

Comments received in response to our initial proposal 

stated that the 2006 IPCC Tier 3 method would be overly 

burdensome for semiconductor manufacturers and that 

process-specific emission factors do not exist for many 

tools and processes. The commenters noted that most 

semiconductor facilities do not track gas consumption by 

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

semiconductor company uses the Tier 3 method. Generally, 

 

3

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

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

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

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

rate or factor for specific manufacturing processes. “Utilization” 

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

the quantity of gas fed into process at an electronics manufacturing 

facility. 

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

the quantity of fluorinated GHGs created during electronics 

manufacturing processes. Fluorinated GHG by-products may also be 

formed by abatement devices. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

16

commenters requested the use of the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b 

method. 

In response to these comments, we are now proposing 

the use of a “Refined Method” for estimating these 

emissions from semiconductor facilities. Our revised 

methodology includes a simpler approach to estimating 

emissions from cleaning and etching as compared to the Tier 

3 method that was initially proposed for large 

semiconductor facilities. To this end, we estimate that 

our proposed methodology will result in a reduction in 

burden compared to the Tier 3 method for those facilities 

previously defined as large semiconductor facilities, and 

an improvement in accuracy of the emissions estimate as 

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

since we anticipate that all semiconductor facilities 

already have, or have ready access to, the information 

required by this proposed methodology, we are also 

proposing to require all semiconductor facilities to 

estimate emissions using the Refined Method. We have 

concluded the method we are proposing is the most 

appropriate method taking into account both the cost to the 

reporter as well as accuracy of emissions achieved. 

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

are proposing to require an approach based on a slightly 

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

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

requirements we are proposing for semiconductor 

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

Tier 2b process categories (i.e. clean and etch), (3) 2006 

IPCC Tier 2b factors, and (4) methods for reporting 

controlled emissions from abatement systems (as proposed 

below). The main difference between the method proposed in 

this revised proposal and in the initial proposal is the 

addition of a gas-and facility-specific heel factor to 

determine overall gas consumption. We did not receive any 

comments on the Tier 2b method that we proposed for LCD, 

MEMS, and PV facilities in our initial proposal. We are 

proposing to add the requirement of gas-and-facility 

specific heel factors based on comments received from 

semiconductor facilities in response to the initial 

proposal. It is our understanding that LCD, MEMS, and PV 

facilities have the data required to develop a gas-andfacility specific heel factors and that it can be 

implemented with minimal burden. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

17

Estimating Facility N2O Emissions 

In our initial proposal, our approach required that 

facilities estimate annual N2O emissions using a simple 

mass-balance method. This method assumed that all N2O 

consumed is emitted (i.e., not converted or destroyed). We 

also requested comment on utilization factors for N2O as 

well as on data on N2O by-product formation. 

In response to our initial proposal, we received 

comments that clarified that N2O is used primarily in the 

chemical vapor deposition process. Commenters opposed our 

proposed method for estimating N2O emissions, which assumed 

100% N2O used is emitted, and asserted that semiconductor 

facilities should be permitted to use measured N2O emission 

factors where these factors were measured using methods 

consistent with the 2006 International SEMATECH 

Manufacturing Initiative’s Guideline for Environmental 

Characterization of Semiconductor Process Equipment (2006 

ISMI Guidelines). Commenters also noted that facilities 

that have not developed N2O emission factors should be 

allowed to use a default emission factor of 60%, reflecting 

N2O utilization of 40%.5 Lastly, commenters asserted that 

those companies that have a measured DRE for N2O abatement 

be allowed to apply these DREs in the emission estimates. 

We are now proposing two methods for estimating N2O 

emissions from electronics manufacturing: one for 

estimating N2O emissions from chemical vapor deposition and 

another for estimating N2O emissions from all other 

manufacturing processes such as chamber cleaning. 

Reporting Controlled Emissions from Abatement Systems 

For the use of devices to abate fluorinated GHG 

emissions, the emissions estimation method originally 

proposed accounted for destruction by abatement systems 

only if facilities verified the performance of their 

systems using one of two methods. In particular, we 

proposed to require that the DRE be verified by either (1) 

measurement by the facility using the methods described in 

EPA’s Protocol for Measuring Destruction or Removal 

Efficiency of Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Abatement 

Equipment in Electronics Manufacturing (EPA’s DRE 

Protocol), or (2) purchase by the facility of abatement 

 

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

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

response to the initial proposal. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

18

systems that were tested by a third party according to 

EPA’s DRE Protocol. 

We also proposed to require that facilities use the 

systems within the manufacturer’s specified system 

lifetime, operate the system within the manufacturer 

specific limits for the gas mix and exhaust flow rate 

intended for the fluorinated GHG destruction, and maintain 

the equipment according to the manufacturer’s guidelines. 

In addition, if facilities chose not to verify the 

performance of their abatement equipment using methods 

provided, only uncontrolled emissions could be reported. 

In response to the initial proposal, commenters were 

generally opposed to EPA’s initial approach for measuring 

DRE, noting that it was overly burdensome to measure every 

fluorinated GHG abatement device in each fab and that 

generally, facilities use the IPCC default factors or 

manufacturer-supplied measurements. Commenters also noted 

that according the Results of the ISMI ESH Technology 

Center Greenhouse Gas Facility Survey, that less than one 

percent of installed abatement systems have been tested 

using the draft EPA Protocol. In addition, commenters were 

also opposed to EPA’s proposed requirement that facilities 

rely on vendor-specified system lifetime as abatement 

systems are typically able to effectively abate PFC 

emissions for much longer than the vendor-specified system 

lifetime assuming proper operation and maintenance. 

For purposes of this reporting rule, we are now 

proposing that facilities that wish to document and report 

fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions reflecting the use of 

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

documentation to certify that the abatement device is 

installed, operated, and maintained according to 

manufacturers’ specifications, (2) accounting for the 

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

abatement system is specifically designed for fluorinated 

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

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

with EPA DRE Protocol) confirming abatement system’s 

performance.

Estimating Emissions from Heat Transfer Fluids 

To estimate the emissions from heat transfer fluids we 

proposed to require that electronics manufacturers use the 

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

method. As we stated in the initial proposal, the 2006 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

19

IPCC Tier 2 approach uses company-specific data and 

accounts for differences among facilities’ heat transfer 

fluids, leak rates, and service practices. 

In comments we received on our initial proposal, it 

was noted that our proposed method for estimating emissions 

from heat transfer fluids would require companies to 

compile a detailed inventory of all fluorinated heat 

transfer equipment and its nameplate capacity. Comments 

stated that such a mass balance approach would be overly 

burdensome. 

In evaluating these comments, we believe that there 

was some confusion regarding our intended method. As a 

result, we are not changing the broad outlines of our 

initial proposal, but we are clarifying required data 

elements. 

3. Definition of the Source Category 

The electronics industry uses multiple long-lived 

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

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

and PV. We understand that there are other electronics 

manufacturers such as those facilities that manufacture 

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

fluorinated GHGs in similar manufacturing processes as 

semiconductors. As a result, we are seeking information on 

fluorinated GHG emissions associated with the manufacture 

of these products and also comment on whether to include 

them as part of the electronics manufacturing source 

category. It is our intent to include these other sources 

as part of the electronics manufacturing source category in 

the final rule where their emissions meet or exceed our 

proposed threshold of 25,000 mtCO2e. 

Fluorinated GHGs are used for plasma etching of 

silicon materials, cleaning deposition tool chambers, and 

wafer cleaning. N2O is also used in depositing certain 

films and chamber cleaning. Additionally, electronics 

manufacturing employs fluorinated GHGs (typically liquids 

at ambient temperature) as heat transfer fluids. The most 

common fluorinated GHGs in use for these purposes are CHF3

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

heat transfer fluids; other compounds such as 

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

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

this preamble presents fluorinated GHGs typically used 

during manufacture of electronics devices. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

20

Table I-3. Examples of Fluorinated GHGs Used by the 

Electronics Industry 

Product Type Fluorinated GHGs Used During Manufacture 

Electronics (e.g., 

Semiconductor, 

MEMS, LCD, PV) 

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

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

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

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

(CnF2n+1)3N)a

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

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

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

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

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

Description of Electronics Manufacturing Processes and 

Activities. Fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions result from 

the following electronics processes and activities: 

(1) Plasma etching; 

(2) Chemical vapor deposition; 

(3) Chamber cleaning; 

(4) Wafer cleaning; and 

(5) Heat transfer fluid use. 

Plasma etching, essential to fabricating intricate, 

nanometer size features in contemporary electronic devices, 

is the removal of solid material from a substrate surface 

with gaseous reactants, in plasma, to produce gaseous 

products, which are then pumped away and disposed. Unless 

abated, unreacted fluorinated reactants or fluorinated GHG 

by-products from etching are emitted into the atmosphere. 

Typical fluorinated GHG etching reagents, used either 

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

for polysilicon films; and CHF3 for aluminum and SF6 for 

tungsten films. A typical fluorinated GHG by-product from 

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

formed. 

Deposition is a fundamental step in the fabrication of 

a variety of electronic devices. During deposition, layers 

of dielectric, barrier, or electrically conductive films 

are deposited or grown on a wafer or other substrate. 

Chemical vapor deposition enables the deposition of 

dielectric or metal films. During the chemical vapor 

deposition process, gases that contain atoms of the 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

21

material to be deposited react on the wafer surface to form 

a thin film of solid material. Films deposited by chemical 

vapor deposition may be silicon oxide, single-layer crystal 

epitaxial silicon, amorphous silicon, silicon nitride, 

dielectric anti-reflective coatings, low k dielectric, 

aluminum, titanium, titanium nitride, polysilicon, 

tungsten, refractory metals or silicides. Nitrous oxide 

may be the oxidizer of choice during deposition of silicon 

oxide films. 

Chambers used for depositing polysilicon, dielectric 

and metal films are cleaned periodically using fluorinated 

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

gas is converted to fluorine atoms in plasma, which etches 

away residual silicon-containing material from chamber 

walls, electrodes, and chamber hardware. Undissociated 

fluorinated gases and other fluorinated and non-fluorinated 

products pass from the chamber to waste streams and, unless 

emissions control systems are employed, into the 

atmosphere. 

Typical fluorinated GHGs used for chamber cleaning are 

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

formation during chamber cleaning. As with etching films, 

fluorinated GHG by-products may be formed during chamber 

cleaning, typically CF4. 

During wafer processing, any residual photoresist 

material can be removed through an ashing process, which 

consists of placing partially processed wafers in an oxygen 

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

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

plasma process with fluorinated gas chemistry. In both of 

these wafer cleaning processes, unused fluorinated GHGs are 

emitted unless abated. 

Fluorinated GHG liquids (at ambient temperature) such 

as fully fluorinated linear, branched or cyclic alkanes, 

ethers, tertiary amines and aminoethers, and mixtures 

thereof are used as heat transfer fluids at several 

semiconductor facilities to cool process equipment, control 

temperature during device testing, and solder semiconductor 

devices to circuit boards. The fluorinated heat transfer 

fluid’s high vapor pressures can lead to evaporative losses 

during use.6 

 

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

Guidelines. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

22

Our understanding is that heat transfer fluids are 

widely used within semiconductor manufacturing. We are 

seeking comment on the extent of use and annual replacement 

quantities of heat transfer fluids in other electronics 

sectors, such as their use for cooling or cleaning during 

LCD manufacture. 

Total U.S. Emissions From Electronics Manufacturing.

Emissions of fluorinated GHGs from 216 electronics 

facilities were estimated to be 6.1 million metric tons CO2e 

in 2006. Below is a breakdown of emissions by electronics 

product type. 

Semiconductors. Emissions of fluorinated GHGs, 

including heat transfer fluids, from 175 semiconductor 

facilities were estimated to be 5.9 million metric tons CO2e 

in 2006. Of the total estimated semiconductor emissions, 

5.4 million metric tons CO2e are from etching/chamber 

cleaning and 0.5 million metric tons CO2e are from heat 

transfer fluid usage. 

MEMS. Emissions of fluorinated GHGs from 12 MEMS 

facilities were estimated to be 0.1 million metric tons CO2e 

in 2006. 

LCDs. Emissions of fluorinated GHGs from 9 LCD 

facilities were estimated to be 0.02 million metric tons 

CO2e in 2006. 

PV. Emissions of fluorinated GHGs from 20 PV 

facilities were estimated to be 0.07 million metric tons 

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

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

amorphous silicon) and other PV manufacturing facilities in 

the U.S. using fluorinated GHGs. 

For additional background information on the 

electronics industry, refer to the Electronics 

Manufacturing TSD (EPA-HQOAR-2009-0927-XX). 

4. Threshold for Reporting 

For facilities that manufacture semiconductors, LCD, 

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

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

Final MRR, EPA is proposing that for the purposes of 

determining whether a facility emits amounts equal to or 

greater than 25,000 mtCO2e, a facility must include 

emissions from all source categories for which methods are 

provided in the rule. For purposes of the threshold 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

23

determination under subpart I, we are proposing two 

different methods, depending on whether the facility 

manufacturers semiconductors, MEMS, LCDs or PVs (see 

proposed in §98.91). It is important to note that these 

methods are only for determining whether a facility exceeds 

the threshold; the proposed methods required for monitoring 

and reporting emissions data are presented in section 5 

below. 

To determine whether a manufacturer falls above or 

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

that semiconductor, MEMS, and LCD facilities use gas 

specific emission factors assuming 100% manufacturing 

capacity to calculate annual metric tons of emissions in CO2

equivalents. Because we understand that heat transfer 

fluids are widely used within semiconductor manufacturing, 

we are proposing that semiconductor manufacturers add 10% 

of total clean and etch emissions at a facility to their 

estimate. For applicability purposes, we propose that 

manufacturing capacity means the facility’s full planned 

design capacity. 

The gas specific emission factors we are proposing to 

use for threshold applicability for semiconductors and LCD 

facilities are consistent with the 2006 IPCC Tier 1 

emission factors. For MEMS, because there are no IPCC 

factors available, we are assuming that SF6 accounts for 

100% of the sector’s total emissions. The emission factor 

we are proposing for threshold applicability is based on 

the assumption that the MEMS SF6 emission factor is 

equivalent to the IPCC Tier 1 SF6 emission factor for 

semiconductors, scaled up by a factor of 5.7 

We are proposing that PV facilities multiply annual 

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

Subpart A of Part 98, to calculate annual metric tons of 

emissions in CO2 equivalents. None of these calculations 

would account for emission abatement technologies. 

We are proposing to require an emissions estimating 

method that does not account for destruction by abatement 

systems because actual emissions from facilities employing 

abatement systems may exceed estimates when based on the 

manufacturers’ rated DREs of the equipment and may 

therefore exceed the 25,000 mtCO2e threshold without the 

knowledge of the facility operators. When abatement 

equipment is used, electronics manufacturers often estimate 

 

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

to the Electronics Manufacturing TSD (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-XX). 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

24

their emissions using the manufacturer-supplied DRE for the 

system. However, an abatement system may fail to achieve 

its rated DRE either because it was not installed properly, 

is not being properly operated and maintained, or because 

the DRE value itself was incorrectly measured due to a 

failure to properly account for the effects of dilution. 

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

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

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

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

In our analysis of the emissions thresholds, we 

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

mtCO2e, and 100,000 mtCO2e per year. Our analysis used IPCC 

Tier 1 emission factors and assumed no abatement. Table I4 of this preamble shows emissions and facilities that 

would be captured by the respective emissions thresholds. 

Table I-4. Threshold Analysis for Electronics Industry 

Emission Emissions Covered Facilities Covered 

Threshold 

Level 

metric tons 

CO2e/yr 

Total 

National 

Emissions 

Total 

Number of 

Facilities

metric 

tons 

CO2e/yr Percent Facilities Percent

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

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

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

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

We selected the 25,000 mtCO2e per year threshold 

because it maximizes emissions reporting, while excluding 

small facilities that do not contribute significantly to 

the overall GHG emissions. 

Table I-5 of this preamble shows the estimated 

emissions and number of facilities that would report for 

each type of source under the proposed emissions-based 

thresholds. 

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

Thresholds. 

Emissions 

Source Emissions Covered 

Facilities 

Covered 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

25

Threshold 

Total 

National 

Facilities 

Total 

Emissions 

of Source 

(metric 

tons CO2e) 

metric tons 

CO2e/yr 

Percent Facilities Percent 

Semiconductors 25,000 Mt 

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

MEMS 

25,000 Mt 

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

LCD 

25,000 Mt 

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

PV 

25,000 Mt 

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

The proposed emissions-based thresholds are estimated 

to include approximately 50 percent of semiconductor 

facilities and between approximately 5 percent and 17 

percent of the facilities manufacturing PV and MEMS 

respectively. At the same time, the thresholds are 

expected to cover nearly 96 percent of fluorinated GHG 

emissions from semiconductor facilities, 66 percent of 

fluorinated GHG emissions from facilties manufacturing 

MEMS, and 47 percent of fluorinated GHG emissions from 

facilities manufacturing PV. Combined, these emissions are 

estimated to account for close to 94 percent of fluorinated 

GHG emissions from the electronics industry as a whole. 

Based on our current analysis, facilites manufacturing 

LCDs are not expected to meet the proposed threshold. In 

addition, only 2 MEMS facilities and one PV facility are 

expected to be covered. The data and information that we 

currently have on MEMS, LCD, and PV manufacturing, however, 

is limited and incomplete. We are including these sectors 

because they have similar fluorinated GHG and N20 use and 

manufacturing processes as those of semicondcutor 

manufacturing and they are high growth sectors. We 

estimate that emisisons from MEMS, LCD, and PV may be 

higher than our data show currently and we expect them to 

increase in the future. 

For additional background information on the threshold 

analysis, refer to the Electronics Manufacturing TSD (EPAHQ-OAR-2009-0927-XX). For specific information on costs, 

including unamortized first year capital expenditures, 

please refer to section XXXX of the RIA and the RIA cost 

appendix. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

26

5. Selection of Proposed Monitoring Methods 

We are proposing methods to monitor and estimate 

fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions from semiconductor, LCD, 

MEMS, and PV manufacture. The proposed methods discussed 

below include the following: (i) estimating emissions from 

cleaning and etching processes (ii) estimating facility N2O 

emissions; (iii) estimating emissions from heat transfer 

fluids; and (iv) reporting controlled emissions from 

abatement equipment. The methods described and proposed in 

this section are for estimating emissions that would be 

required to be reported under this subpart (see proposed in 

§98.93 and §98.94). It is important to note that these 

methods differ from those proposed in the section above 

which are for determining applicability of the subpart. 

(i). Methods for Estimating Emissions from Cleaning and 

Etching Processes 

We are proposing different methods for estimating 

fluorinated GHG emissions from etching and cleaning based 

on whether the facility is a semiconductor manufacturer or 

an LCD, MEMS, or PV manufacturer. 

Method for Semiconductor Facilities. 

Under this proposal, all semiconductor manufacturers 

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

would be required to estimate and report emissions from 

etching and cleaning using one of two approaches. First, 

we are proposing an approach, hereinafter referred to as 

the “Refined Method,” that is based on: 

(1) gas consumption as calculated using the facility’s 

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

heel factors, 

(2) facility-specific methods for apportioning gas 

consumption by process category8 using indicators of GHGusing activity (e.g., wafer passes), 

(3) emission factors for utilization and by-product 

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

categories with more specificity than the simpler cleaning 

 

8

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

of similar manufacturing steps, performed for the same purpose, 

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

manufacture for which fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions and fluorinated 

GHG and N2O usages are calculated and reported. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

27

and etching categories listed in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines), 

and 

(4) methods for reporting controlled emissions (as 

proposed below). 

Alternatively, we are proposing to permit those 

facilities that have monitoring infrastructure or the 

necessary data to estimate emissions obtained through 

recipe-specific measurements to report their emissions 

using their data by following an approach consistent with 

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

semiconductor manufacturers that fabricate electronic 

devices on wafers of diameter 450 mm or larger, we are 

proposing to require that they estimate and report their 

emissions using recipe-specific measurements and follow an 

approach consistent with the IPCC Tier 3 method. Each of 

these approaches is discussed below. 

Refined Method 

The Refined Method would apply to all covered 

semiconductor facilities and would not make a distinction 

between large and smaller facilities. In the paragraphs 

below, we discuss in detail each one of the components we 

are proposing to require under this approach. 

Gas consumption as calculated using the facility’s purchase 

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

factors. Notwithstanding the definition of “heel” in 

subpart A of this rule9, we are proposing that for purposes 

of electronics manufacturing that a heel means, “the amount 

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

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

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

the subpart A definition because it contains a default 

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

facilities to calculate gas-and facility-specific heel 

factors rather than using a default value. 

As part of determining each facility’s overall usage 

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

facility use their purchase records, inventory, and gas- 

 

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

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

container). 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

28

and facility-specific heel factors. More specifically, for 

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

proposing that semiconductor facilities be required to base 

their heel factors on the residual weight or pressure of 

the gas cylinder or container that a facility uses to 

change out that cylinder/container. This is common 

practice in the industry and is typically referred to as 

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

each gas and cylinder/container type, together with the 

initial container mass or pressure, are used to calculate 

the unused gas for each container, which when expressed as 

a fraction of the initial amount in the container is the 

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

each container for that gas to determine the net amount of 

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

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

than one percentage point from that used to calculate the 

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

Currently most semiconductor facilities rely upon the 

IPCC default heel factor of 10% and apply that value to 

each cylinder/container. Based on information provided in 

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

factors, the heel factor in a given facility for individual 

cylinders/containers can vary from 3% to 25%. Given this 

variation, we conclude that gas-and facility-specific heel 

factors would provide improved accuracy in emissions 

estimates over the use of the IPCC default heel factor. 

We understand that there are exceptional circumstances 

when facilities do not always change cylinders/containers 

exactly when they reach the targeted residual weight or 

pressure. In those instances, which we expect are 

infrequent, we are proposing that the cylinder/container 

must be weighed or the pressure measured using a pressure 

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

heel factor as part of determining the net amount of gas 

used at a facility. We are proposing to define an 

exceptional circumstance as one which the 

cylinder/container is changed at a residual mass or 

pressure that differs by more than 20 percent from the 

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

frequency of these exceptional circumstances and also the 

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

proposing to require that the exceptional 

cylinder/container be weighed or the pressure measured. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

29

When taking an annual inventory, we understand that 

multiple cylinders/containers are in service. We request 

comment on the significance of accounting for the quantity 

of fluorinated GHGs or N2O remaining in cylinders/containers 

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

request comment and detailed information on other methods 

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

facilities may be using for determining annual gas 

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

inventory system). 

Apportioning gas consumption to process categories. 

Estimating facility emissions requires apportioning annual 

facility-wide gas consumption across a facility’s emitting 

process categories by way of applying facility-specific 

apportioning factors. A facility’s uncontrolled emissions 

are the product of that apportioned gas consumption and the 

corresponding emission factor. To determine the share of 

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

require that semiconductor facilities use a quantifiable 

indicator (or metric) of gas usage activity. More 

specifically, we are proposing facilities track wafer 

passes as an indicator of activity with which to apportion 

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

the number of times a silicon wafer is processed for a 

specific process category. The total number of wafer 

passes over a reporting year is the number of wafer passes 

per tool times the number of operational process tools 

during the reporting year. 

To illustrate a case where wafer passes is used as a 

facility-specific engineering model, consider a facility 

that uses NF3 for chamber cleaning with remote plasma 

systems and for etching polysilicon and oxide films. With 

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

containers used, the facility knows the amount of NF3

consumed. To estimate emissions, the facility must now 

apportion NF3 usage between the chamber cleaning and oxide 

and polysilicon etching processes. To do this it might use 

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

cleaning system together with the time and nominal (not 

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

cleaning system and the corresponding figures for oxide and 

polysilicon etch processes to arrive at the proportion of 

NF3 used for cleaning chambers and etching oxide and 

polysilicon films. Once developed, these apportioning 

factors would be used to estimate NF3 gas usage for the 

cleaning and etching process categories proposed in our 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

30

method. This example is illustrated further in Table I-6 

of this preamble. 

Table I-6. Illustrative Calculation for NF3 Example at One 

Facility 

Gas Type – 

Annual Usage, 

kg. 

Process 

Category 

Apportioning 

Factor 

Process category 

gas usage, kg. 

RPS Chamber 

Cleaning 

82% 46,202 

Polysilicon 

Etch 

17% 9,561 

NF3 – 56,286 kg 

Oxide Etch 1% 523 

We request comment on using wafer passes as an 

appropriate quantifiable indicator of activity, and on our 

description and example of how it would be used. 

We recognize that facilities may use other types of 

quantifiable indicators of gas-usage activity data to 

develop facility-specific engineering models to estimate 

gas consumption. We may include additional indicators as 

options in the final rule if they are quantifiable and if 

we receive adequate information regarding how they were 

developed and how they are used, including descriptions, 

examples and any additional information that may be 

necessary to understand how such indicators of activity 

would be developed and used in a facility-specific 

engineering model to apportion annual facility-wide gas 

usage across a facility’s emitting process categories. The 

use of engineering judgment, for example, is not based on a 

quantitative metric and would not be considered an 

acceptable quantifiable indicator of gas usage. We also 

request comment on the use of a representative sampling 

method for tracking activity indicators such as wafer 

passes that may be used in the engineering model. 

In many cases, EPA anticipates that the development of 

apportioning factors will result in a facility-wide 

consumption estimates that are independent of the estimates 

calculated using purchase records, inventory, and facilityspecific heel factors. In such cases, facilities are 

required to report these consumption estimates. 

Emission factors for refined process categories. We are 

proposing that semiconductor facilities estimate their 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

31

emissions using a specific set of process categories. Our 

proposed method would simplify the reporting requirements 

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

number of emitting process categories from up to 455 per 

facility down to a fixed figure of approximately nine or 

less. Our goal in establishing the process categories is 

to account for most of the variability in emission factors 

across processes while limiting the total number of process 

categories whose gas usage must be tracked by semiconductor 

facilities. 

Under this approach, we are proposing to require 

reporting of fluorinated GHG emissions for the following 

nine emitting process categories: four subcategories for 

wafer patterning (etching), three subcategories for chamber 

cleaning, and two subcategories for wafer cleaning. The 

nine process categories we are proposing account for 

distinct and widely-used manufacturing activities during 

production of discrete, logic and memory devices. We 

anticipate that these nine categories effectively capture 

current and projected processes and the differences in 

emission factors across various semiconductor manufacturing 

technologies. 

Our proposed definitions of these nine emitting 

categories are: 

Wafer patterning subcategories: 

Oxide etch means any process using fluorinated GHG 

reagents to selectively remove SiO2, SiOx-based or fully 

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

a wafer during semiconductor device manufacturing. 

Nitride etch means any process using fluorinated GHG 

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

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

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

some other element such as carbon) that has been deposited 

on a wafer during semiconductor manufacturing. 

Silicon etch also often called polysilicon etch means 

any process using fluorinated GHG reagents to selectively 

remove silicon during semiconductor manufacturing. 

Metal etch means any process using fluorinated GHG 

reagents associated with removing metal films (such as 

aluminum or tungsten) that have been deposited on a wafer 

during semiconductor manufacturing. 

Chamber cleaning subcategories: 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

32

In situ plasma means cleaning thin-film production 

chambers, after processing one or more wafers, with a 

fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent that is dissociated into 

its cleaning constituents by a plasma generated inside the 

chamber where the film was produced. 

Remote plasma system means cleaning thin-film 

production chambers, after processing one or more wafers, 

with a fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent dissociated by a 

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

In situ thermal means cleaning thin-film production 

chambers, after processing one or more wafers, with a 

fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent that is thermally 

dissociated into its cleaning constituents inside the 

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

produced. 

Wafer cleaning subcategories: 

Bevel cleaning means any process using fluorinated GHG 

reagents with plasma to clean the edges of wafers during 

semiconductor manufacture. 

Ashing means any process using fluorinated GHG 

reagents with plasma to remove photoresist materials during 

wafer manufacture. 

We request comment on the nine process categories we 

are proposing, their definitions as specified above, and 

whether they clearly define a specific process without 

ambiguity. In addition we request comment on whether the 

categories should be further refined to better capture the 

variability in emission rates among fluorinated GHG using 

manufacturing activities (e.g. whether any additional 

categories should be added or whether the proposed 

categories should be combined, and the definition of those 

categories). 

Under this approach of defining a specific set of 

process categories, we are also considering additional 

patterning and chamber cleaning subcategories. The 

alternative patterning subcategories, which may replace or 

complement the four thin-film based subcategories defined 

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

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

silicon vias and regular vias. Each of these subcategories 

represents a specific feature achieved through etching 

(instead of subcategories based on the type of thin film 

etched). 

Alternative chamber cleaning categories may 

distinguish between the types of films being removed from 

the chamber during cleaning. These might include 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

33

distinguishing between chambers coated with tungsten and 

silicon-based films, or distinguishing between thin-film 

deposition equipment manufacturers. We request comment on 

these additional process categories and whether or not we 

should include alternative process categories in addition 

to the nine process categories that we are proposing. We 

also request comment on other methods of categorizing 

processes and detailed information on those categories. 

For each of the nine process categories described 

above, we are proposing emission factors that account for 

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

during (i.e., not emitted from) the process and (2) the 

mass of each fluorinated GHG by-product formed as a 

fraction of the mass of the dominant fluorinated GHG input 

gas used.10 The process category factors distinguish wafer 

sizes: emission factors are grouped by 150 mm, 200 mm and 

300 mm wafer sizes for each process category because gas 

conversion has increased with newer generations of tools. 

We developed the factors using a method of aggregation 

similar to the 2006 IPCC factor development methodology. 

The document that describes the process for the 2006 IPCC 

factor development is available for review in the Air 

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927. Please refer to the 

Electronics Manufacturing TSD EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-XX for a 

detailed explanation and background information on how the 

emission factors were collected and developed for the 

Refined Method. 

In the creation of the IPCC factors, insufficient 

information was available to weigh each process category 

(etch and clean categories for the IPCC Tier 2b method) by 

an estimate of its use across the industry. For the 

emission factors for the nine process categories, we 

request comment on using a weighting scheme and detailed 

information on how it would be developed and implemented. 

We request additional utilization and by-product 

formation rates and supporting information on how they were 

measured (i.e., whether they were measured using the 2006 

ISMI Guidelines) to further support the development of 

emission factors. In a final rule, we may use the 

additional data to further refine the emission factors. 

We are also considering an alternate approach where 

each facility would develop for themselves or acquire from 

process equipment manufacturers emission factors (i.e., gas 

 

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

fluorinated GHG constitutes the largest mass of gas used for that 

process. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

34

utilization and by-product formation rates) for the nine 

process categories. Under this approach, we would require 

the gas utilization and by-product formation rates to be 

developed using the 2006 International SEMATCH 

Manufacturing Initiative’s Guideline for Environmental 

Characterization of Semiconductor Process Equipment. 

Facilities would be required to construct and apply 

averages for each process category. One advantage of this 

approach is that these facility-specific emission factors 

would be expected to be more representative of the 

particular processes at that facility than the default 

emission factors. On the other hand, we estimate the 

burden associated with each facility developing its own 

emission factors would be greater compared to using the 

factors published by EPA. We request comment on this 

approach. 

We recognize that given the dynamic manufacturing 

processes by the industry, updates to the process 

categories and emission factors may be necessary. We 

request comment on the frequency with which those should be 

updated. 

We estimate that our Refined Method will result in a 

reduction in burden for the large semiconductor facilities 

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

increase in accuracy as compared to the IPCC Tier 2b 

method. We estimate the uncertainty from using a set of 

refined process categories to be roughly one-half the 

uncertainty of the Tier 2b method, assuming similar methods 

for apportioning gas usage for each method. For the Tier 

2b method the fluorinated GHG consuming processes used 

during semiconductor production are collapsed into just two 

categories, resulting in considerable variability for each 

category. For the Refined Method there are as many as nine 

fluorinated GHG-using categories, resulting in less 

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

Electronics Manufacturing TSD (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-XX) for 

a more detailed discussion of our uncertainty analysis. 

For the relatively smaller semiconductor facilities 

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

estimate an increase in burden as compared to our initial 

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

method; however, we anticipate that these facilities have 

the necessary data available to comply. The increase in 

burden for estimating emissions using the Refined Method, 

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

the increased level of effort to distinguish between nine 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

35

refined process categories in comparison to two broad clean 

and etch categories, respectively. 

Recipe-specific measurements 

As an alternative to the Refined Method where EPA default 

factors would be used, we are also proposing to permit 

those facilities that have monitoring infrastructure or the 

necessary data to estimate emissions obtained through 

recipe-specific measurements to report their emissions 

using their data (see proposed in §98.93(a)(1) and 

§98.94(d)). This approach, consistent with the 2006 IPCC 

Tier 3 method, would require company-specific data on (1) 

gas consumption using gas-and facility-specific heel 

factors (as described above), (2) recipe-specific gas 

utilization and by-product formation factors, and also (3) 

methods for reporting controlled emissions from abatement 

devices (as proposed below). Under this approach, gas 

utilization and by-product formation rates would be 

required to be developed using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines for 

all fluorinated GHG-using process types at that facility. 

According to information provided by one of the 

commenters in response to our initial proposal, only one 

company currently estimates their emissions using an 

approach consistent with the Tier 3 method. Nevertheless, 

if a facility is using a method that provides more accurate 

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

such method. We request comment on the number of companies 

that are currently or expecting to in the near future, 

report their emissions using this method. 

We are also proposing to require semiconductor 

manufacturers that fabricate electronic devices on wafers 

of diameter 450 mm or larger to estimate their emissions 

based on an approach consistent with the IPCC Tier 3 method 

and gas-and facility-specific heel factors for estimating 

and reporting GHG emissions. Under this approach, gas 

utilization and by-product formation rates would be 

required to be developed using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines for 

all fluorinated GHG using process types at that facility. 

We understand the industry’s conversion to 450 mm is 

expected to begin in 2011 or shortly thereafter. We are 

proposing this requirement because we estimate that this 

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

facility-specific emission estimate. By including this 

requirement for only the 450 mm or larger wafers in this 

proposal, we anticipate a reduction in burden as compared 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

36

to requiring large semiconductor facilities to estimate 

their emissions using an approach consistent with the IPCC 

Tier 3 method for the smaller sized wafers as well (i.e. 

300 mm and smaller). We anticipate a reduction in burden 

because emission factors (i.e. gas utilization and byproduct formation rates) can be developed over a number of 

years as semiconductor manufacturers begin to transition to 

450 mm tools and develop the estimating and reporting 

infrastructure. The commissioning process for new tools is 

an ideal opportunity for emission factor development and/or 

verification. We request comment on requiring 

semiconductor manufacturers that fabricate electronic 

devices on wafers of diameter 450 mm or larger to estimate 

their emissions based on an approach consistent with the 

IPCC Tier 3 method. 

During the development of this proposal, the 2006 

International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative's Guideline 

for Environmental Characterization of Semiconductor Process 

Equipment was revised and republished (December 2009). We 

request comment on requiring the use of the revised version 

of the Guidelines to measure emission factors as opposed to 

the 2006 version of the Guidelines, and also information on 

emission factors (including utilization by-product 

formation rates) measured using the revised Guidelines. 

Method for LCD, MEMS, and PV Facilities. 

In this action for LCD, MEMS, and PV facilities we are 

proposing an approach based on a slightly modified 2006 

IPCC Tier 2b method which would include (1) gas consumption 

calculated using the facility’s purchase records, 

inventory, and gas-and facility-specific heel factors (as 

described above), (2) gas consumption apportioned to 2006 

IPCC Tier 2b broad process categories, clean and etch, (3) 

emission factors consistent with the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b 

factors, and (4) methods for reporting controlled emissions 

from abatement equipment (as proposed below). 

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

as proposed for semiconductor facilities including the 

provisions for exceptional circumstances. Although we 

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

facilities are currently estimating their emissions from 

manufacture and how they are currently accounting for 

heels, their gas use and manufacturing processes are 

similar to that of semiconductor manufacturing. As a 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

37

result, we have concluded these facilities have the data 

required to develop a gas-and facility-specific heel 

factors and this method can be implemented with minimal 

burden. Similar to the semiconductor manufacturing case, 

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

expected to result in improved accuracy when compared to 

the IPCC’s 10% default factor. We request comment on our 

proposal to require LCD, MEMS, and PV facilities to use 

gas-and facility-specific heel factors and our 

understanding that these facilities have the data to 

develop such a factor with minimal burden. 

Under this approach consistent with the 2006 IPCC Tier 

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

facilities use the calculated mass of gas consumed and 

apportion this amount to the simplified process categories 

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

The associated emission factors including utilization and 

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

uncontrolled fluorinated GHG emissions. The emission 

factors being proposed are consistent with the 2006 IPCC 

default values. For MEMS manufacturing, where an IPCC 

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

consistent with the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b factors for 

semiconductor manufacturing. We selected these factors 

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

semiconductor manufacturing. 

We are requesting information on emissions and 

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

are requesting such information as a means to verify that 

the Tier 2b emission factors for each of the manufacturing 

types are reflective of current fluorinated GHG emitting 

processes. Based on new information we receive, we may 

consider updating the emission factors in the final rule. 

We expect that LCD, MEMS, and PV manufacturers may 

also use engineering models and substrate-based indicators 

of manufacturing activity for apportioning gas consumption 

by process category similar to the approach described for 

semiconductors above (e.g. wafer passes). We request 

detailed information on those indicators, how they were 

developed, and how they are used in a facility-specific 

engineering model to apportion annual facility-wide gas 

usage across a facility’s emitting process categories. 

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

manufacturing facilities abide by the requirements proposed 

for reporting controlled emissions from abatement systems 

as proposed below. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

38

Review of Existing Reporting Programs and Methodologies and 

Consideration of Alternative Methods 

EPA considered various methods for estimating 

emissions from etching and cleaning processes for 

electronics manufacturing facilities including the 2006 

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

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

used fluorinated GHGs in all facilities. For a detailed 

description of our evaluation of these options, please see 

the Electronics Manufacturing section of the initial 

Mandatory Reporting Rule (74 FR 16499). 

For this proposal, to estimate emissions from 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities, we are also 

considering the alternative of a modified Tier 2b method 

(our preferred option for other electronics manufacturers) 

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

default factors and gas- and facility-specific data on 

heels and gas use by process category. This approach would 

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

method for estimating emissions and would require 

semiconductor facilities to report emissions using (1) gas 

consumption as calculated using the facility’s purchase 

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

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

for apportioning gas usage by process category using 

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

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

for reporting controlled emissions using our proposed 

approach discussed below. 

Another option we are considering is to evaluate 

emissions from electronics manufacturing using CEMS. Under 

this approach, facilities would be required to install and 

operate CEMS to measure process emissions. A typical 

electronics manufacturing facility may have many individual 

process tools that influence emissions. Process tool 

exhaust is managed within the facility using stainless 

steel plumbing and ductwork. Due to the complexity of the 

manufacturing layout, CEMS would be attached either to 

every tool or to one or more final exhaust points (e.g., 

scrubber stacks). One possible option is to use Fourier 

Transform Infrared Spectrometers (FTIRs) in scrubber stacks 

to measure facility emissions. FTIR spectroscopy is 

presently used to conduct short-term fluorinated GHG 

emission measurements from single tools. EPA requests 

comment on the use of CEMS at electronics manufacturing 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

39

facilities. We also request data and other information 

evaluating the use of CEMS in electronics facilities to 

determine fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions. 

(ii). Method for Estimating N2O emissions 

We are proposing that electronics manufacturers 

estimate N2O emissions from chemical vapor deposition 

processes and all other electronics manufacturing processes 

such as chamber cleaning, and that they estimate those 

emissions using the following proposed methods. 

To estimate N2O emissions from chemical vapor 

deposition we are proposing the use of a facility-specific 

emission factor based on facility measurements of N2O 

utilization for chemical vapor deposition at a facility, 

using 2006 ISMI Guidelines. Under this approach, we 

propose to permit the facility to apply the average N2O 

utilization emission factor to all N2O using chemical vapor 

deposition recipes. In cases where a facility has not 

developed a facility-specific N2O utilization factor for 

chemical vapor deposition processes, we are proposing a 

default value in the range of ~0% to 40%. We are taking a 

comment on a range due to a lack of information for N2O 

utilization for chemical vapor deposition processes. 

In comments received in response to our initial 

proposal, industry provided information to support a N2O 

utilization factor of 40%, primarily in 300 mm chemical 

vapor deposition processes. Taking the industry-provided 

40% utilization into account, we propose to select a N2O 

utilization factor in the range from ~0% to 40%. In the 

industry’s survey, the measured utilization factors are 

largely from newer 300 mm manufacturing equipment. We do 

not expect these data fairly represent the entire 

population of all N2O processes and installed equipment, 

many of which are older tools. In addition, some of the 

data used by industry to develop this default was not 

distinguished by process specific uses of N2O. For these 

reasons, and because we understand that N2O is most commonly 

used for chemical vapor deposition as opposed to other 

processes, we are proposing to establish a default value 

within a range of values with 40% as the upper bound and 

~0% as the lower bound to be conservative, reducing 

potential for underestimation. We request comment on 

values within the range we are proposing and also 

additional information on N2O utilization from chemical 

vapor deposition processes. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

40

To estimate N2O emissions from all other manufacturing 

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

a facility-specific utilization factor based on facility 

measurements using 2006 ISMI Guidelines, or applying a 

default utilization factor of 0% which assumes N2O is not 

converted or destroyed during the manufacturing process. 

We are proposing this method due to a lack of information 

regarding other processes for which N2O is used and N2O 

utilization data in those processes. We request 

information on electronics manufacturing processes that use 

N2O and N2O utilization during those processes. 

Additionally, we are proposing that as part of 

determining annual facility N2O emissions, if a facility 

employs abatement systems and it wishes to report N2O 

emission reductions due to these systems it must adhere to 

the methods for reporting controlled emissions included in 

this proposal. 

(iii). Method for Estimating Emissions of Heat Transfer 

Fluids 

To estimate the emissions of heat transfer fluids, we 

propose that electronics manufacturers use the 2006 IPCC 

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

not changing the broad outlines of our initial proposal; 

however, we are clarifying required data elements. 

In evaluating the comments we received, we understand 

that there was some confusion regarding our intended 

method. The proposed method required data on the total 

nameplate capacity11 of equipment that “is installed during 

the reporting year.” We intended “installed during the 

reporting year” to mean newly installed during the period, 

not in place from the beginning of that period. To 

eliminate confusion, we are clarifying that facilities are 

required to provide the total nameplate capacity (charge) 

of equipment that is “newly installed” during the reporting 

year. We anticipate that facilities will find it 

straightforward to track the nameplate capacities of 

equipment that is newly installed or retired during the 

reporting year. 

 

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

by the equipment manufacturer to achieve the equipment’s specified 

performance. The nameplate capacity is typically indicated on the 

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

may be influenced by leakage and other emissions. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

41

In addition, we are also clarifying that a facility 

may only subtract the amount of fluorinated heat transfer 

fluids sent off site if the heat transfer fluids are 

properly recovered, stored, and sent off site for 

verifiable recycling or destruction during the current 

reporting year. We are adding this clarification because 

we understand that facilities may be recovering, storing, 

and removing from their facility, fluorinated heat transfer 

fluids in a manner that does not effectively prevent the 

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

cases, the users of the chemicals would be required to 

account for these emissions using the mass-balance 

calculation provided. 

As we stated in our initial proposal, in developing 

our proposal for estimating heat transfer fluid emissions, 

we reviewed both the IPCC Tier 1 and IPCC Tier 2 

approaches. The Tier 1 approach for heat transfer fluid 

emissions is based on the utilization capacity of the 

semiconductor facility multiplied by a default emission 

factor. Although the Tier 1 approach has the advantages of 

simplicity, it is less accurate than the Tier 2 approach 

according to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. The IPCC Tier 2 

approach uses company-specific data and accounts for 

differences among facilities’ heat transfer fluids (which 

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

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

percent confidence interval according to the 2006 IPCC 

Guidelines. 

(iv). Method for Reporting Controlled Emissions from 

Abatement Systems 

For this proposed rule, we are defining DRE as the 

efficiency of a control system designed to destroy or 

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

one minus the ratio of the mass of all relevant GHGs 

exiting the emission abatement system to the mass of GHGs 

entering the emission abatement system. When fluorinated 

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

one minus the ratio of amounts of exiting GHGs to the 

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

addition, we are clarifying facilities may account for all 

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

devices) provided that they abide by the requirements 

below. 

We are proposing to use the term destruction or 

removal efficiency (DRE) as opposed to “destruction 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

42

efficiency” or “destruction,” terms that are already 

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

use DRE because it is the term generally used by the 

electronics manufacturing industry. Furthermore, in 

addition to capturing the destruction of materials in the 

exhaust, the term also captures materials in the exhaust 

that are recycled or captured for reuse. 

For purposes of this reporting rule, we propose that 

facilities that wish to document and report fluorinated GHG 

and N2O emissions reflecting the use of abatement systems 

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

certify that the abatement system is installed, operated, 

and maintained in accordance with manufacturers’ 

specifications, (2) accounting for the system’s uptime12, 

and (3) either certification that the abatement system is 

specifically designed for fluorinated GHG and N2O abatement 

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

DRE measurement to confirm the performance of the abatement 

system. Proper DRE measurement means measured in 

accordance with EPA’s Protocol for Measuring Destruction or 

Removal Efficiency of Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Abatement 

Equipment in Electronics Manufacturing (EPA’s DRE 

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

Air Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927. Our proposed 

approach is depicted as a decision tree in Figure XX. 

The proposed approach requires annual certification to 

ensure that abatement systems for which controlled 

emissions are reported are installed, operating, and 

maintained according to manufacturers’ specifications. Our 

approach would also require that any DRE used in reporting 

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

on-site measurements and actual uptime of the system, 

accounting for system redundancy. When process tools are 

equipped with multiple abatement systems designed for 

fluorinated GHGs and N2O, the facility may account for the 

combined uptime for the specific calculation of controlled 

emissions. Each one of these components is discussed in 

detail in the paragraphs below. We anticipate this method 

for reporting controlled emissions will ensure that 

abatement systems have been properly installed, operated 

and maintained during each reporting period and that best 

available measured DRE values are used to estimate and 

report emissions. 

 

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

abatement system for which controlled emissions will be reported was 

properly installed, operated, and maintained. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

43

Figure XX. DRE Verification Decision Tree. 

Notes: 

DRED EPA default DRE 

DRER DRE used when reporting emissions 

DREM Properly measured DRE 

<DREc> Class average DRE 

RSASTP Random sampling abatement system testing program 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

44

Proper Installation, Operation, and Maintenance 

We are proposing that all facilities that use 

abatement systems and would like to reflect these emissions 

reductions in their annual emissions estimations be 

required to document and certify the abatement equipment's 

proper installation, operation, and maintenance. There are 

many manufacturers, and for each manufacturer multiple 

models, that are marketed as fluorinated GHG-destruction 

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

capable of destroying some fluorinated GHGs, they may not 

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

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

fluorinated GHG exhaust composition (EPA, 2006). It 

appears that this variability may be partially attributable 

to installation as well as operating and maintenance 

practices although variations in how destruction is 

measured may also contribute to this variability (Beu, 

2005). Evidence indicates abatement devices must be 

properly installed to ensure achievement of the 

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

devices be installed in accordance with manufacturers’ 

specifications. 

In terms of operation and maintenance, we also propose 

to require that abatement systems be operated and 

maintained in accordance with the manufacturers’ 

specifications. It is well known across the industry that 

abatement system performance varies greatly depending on a 

variety of abatement device and process parameters such as 

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

2006, 2007)). Our proposed requirement that abatement 

systems be operated and maintained in accordance with 

manufacturers’ specifications is intended to ensure best 

performance. 

We understand that many times a facility may have an 

independent quality assurance expert certify the 

installation, operation, and maintanece of abatement 

equipment. We are considering the inclusion in the final 

rule a requirement for annual, on-site independent 

inspections of abatement system installation, operation, 

and maintenance, which could include a review of records 

and physical inspection of installed equipment. We request 

comment on whether to require an independent quality 

assurance audit/inspection for abatement system 

installation, operation, and maintenance. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

45

Accounting for Abatement System Uptime 

We are proposing that facilities account for abatement 

systems’ uptime to report controlled emissions. Uptime is 

the total time during the reporting year when the abatement 

systems for which controlled emissions are being reporting 

was properly installed, operated, and maintained. Uptime 

is calculated as the sum of time during the reporting 

period that an abatement system is in a standby, 

productive, and engineering state as described in SEMI 

Standard E10-0304, Specification for Definition and 

Measurement of Equipment Reliability, Availability, and 

Maintainability (2004). Abatement system uptime is 

expressed as the sum of an abatement system’s operational 

productive, standby, and engineering times divided by the 

total operations time of its associated manufacturing tool. 

For example, the time during which a system is in by-pass 

mode, undergoing maintenance, or not operating with O2-flow 

(in the case of a CF4 combustion system) is not included in 

uptime. An exception to this is time during which exhaust 

flows are passed through a redundant abatement system that 

is in the same abatement system class (discussed below) as 

the primary abatement system. Such time may be included in 

the uptime of the primary system. 

We are proposing this requirement because we 

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

when abatement systems may be “bypassed” or otherwise not 

in service) will produce a more accurate emissions 

estimate. We request comment on our proposal to account 

for and report the uptime of abatement systems. We also 

request detailed information on how uptime may be monitored 

and calculated. 

EPA Default DRE Value 

In addition to certifying that an abatement system is 

installed, operated, and maintained according to 

manufacturers’ specifications, and accounting for the 

system’s uptime, the first approach we are proposing 

includes the following two key elements: (1) certification 

that the abatement system is specifically designed for 

fluorinated GHG and N2O abatement, and (2) an EPA default 

DRE value. By applying the EPA default DRE value, the 

facility is not required to measure the DRE of their 

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

DRE value of 60% if the facility certifies that the 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

46

abatement systems for which this value is applied are 

specifically designed for fluorinated GHG and N2O abatement. 

To develop the default DRE of 60%, we reviewed the 

individual DREs measured under our in-fab DRE measurement 

program and selected those that constituted discrete 

values13 for systems that had been properly installed, 

operated and maintained. Of the data from the DRE 

measurement program, those that met the stated criteria 

were values for CF4. We calculated the mean and the lower 

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

This yielded an understated, default DRE, reducing the 

likelihood that the DRE of any particular system will be 

either overestimated or greatly underestimated. For 

additional information on how the EPA default DRE was 

developed, please refer to the Electronics Manufacturing 

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

While we are now proposing the use of an EPA default 

DRE value, consistent with our initial proposal we are not 

planning to permit use of the 2006 IPCC default factors or 

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

use because once installed, abatement equipment may fail to 

achieve the default or a supplier’s claimed DRE for two 

reasons. First, the equipment may not be properly operated 

and maintained. Second, the DRE itself may have been 

incorrectly measured due to a failure to account for the 

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

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

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

industry assessments as presented in Beu, 2005. 

We are permitting the use of our default DRE value 

because we estimate that it strikes an appropriate balance 

between being conservative and being representative where 

equipment is properly operated and maintained. Our default 

DRE value was calculated using data from measurements 

assured to properly account for the effects of dilution. 

In addition, the tested systems were properly installed, 

operated, and maintained. 

We request comment on our proposed default DRE value, 

and additional data and supporting documentation on DREs 

from studies that have been conducted on properly 

installed, operated, and maintained abatement systems and 

consistent with EPA’s DRE Protocol. 

 

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

selected discrete numbers rather than the lower bound (e.g., ≥ 99%). 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

47

Proper Measurement of the Abatement DRE 

The second proposed approach for quantifying, 

documenting, and reporting controlled emissions from 

abatement systems, described below, would require proper 

measurement of the abatement system DRE in addition to 

documentation to certify that the abatement system is 

installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with 

manufacturers’ specifications, and accounting for uptime. 

Consistent with our initial proposal, this second 

proposed method permits facilities to account for 

destruction if the abatement system performance is measured 

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

propose requiring facilities to conduct annual sampling 

through a random sampling abatement system testing program 

(RSASTP), spanning all abatement classes using the methods 

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

category of abatement systems grouped by manufacturer model 

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

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

all other fluorinated GHG gas direct and by-product 

formation.14 “Classes” may also include any other abatement 

systems for which the reporting entity wishes to report 

controlled emissions provided that class is identified. For 

each class, the representative or average DRE factors would 

then be applied to the yet unmeasured abatement devices of 

that class. 

An annual representative sample as part of the RSASTP 

would consist of three or 20% of installed abatement 

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

measuring the DRE for a different three or 20% set of 

systems each year. Where 20% of total abatement systems 

did not equal a whole number, the number of systems to be 

tested would be rounded up to the nearest integer (e.g., 16 

abatement devices, 20% of which equals 3.2; therefore, four 

abatement systems would be measured each year). Using the 

RSASTP and our rounding convention, all systems in each 

class would be tested within a five-year period. EPA is 

seeking comment on the required frequency of abatement 

system performance measurement. 

 

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

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

of other fluorinated GHG process reactions. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

48

When reporting controlled emissions from 

manufacturing, we propose that the facility either use the 

measured DRE or, in those instances where an individual 

abatement system has not yet undergone proper DRE testing, 

a simple average of the measured DREs for systems of that 

class would be used. If redundant abatement systems were 

used during periods of maintenance or repair, then we 

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

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

to report emissions would be adjusted to account for the 

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

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

measured DRE (or class average of measured DREs when a 

system has not yet been measured) would be multipled by 

0.98. 

Under the RSASTP all systems in each class would be 

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

would be repeated as long as controlled emissions were 

reported. There are two reasons for requiring the DRE to 

be measured for each abatement device over a time period 

and by specific class. Some flurinated GHGs, particularly 

CF4, are harder to destroy than others; thus, the 

performance of abatement systems with one flurinated GHG 

cannot necessarily be assumed to apply to other fluorinated 

GHGs15. 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.16 Moreover, maintenance 

that is adequate for abatement devices in some applications 

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

those that handle high volumes of etched or cleaned 

material, which can be deposited inside abatement equipment 

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

the abatement systems within a class, and for retesting 

individual abatement systems over time. 

 

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

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

While some abatement devices may be capable of destroying some 

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

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

flurinated GHGs exhaust composition (EPA, 2006). 

16 Some variability in performance may be partially attributable to 

installation as well as operating and maintenance practices although 

variations in how destruction is measured may also contribute to this 

variability (Beu, 2005). 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

49

We request comment on the method proposed for proper 

measurement of DRE at a facility and the proposed RASP for 

abatement systems by class. 

6. Selection of Procedures for Estimating Missing Data 

In general, it is not expected that data to estimate 

emissions from electronics manufacturing would be missing; 

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

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

reason, we are not proposing procedures for estimating 

missing data from emissions from cleaning, etching or 

deposition processes. Because our proposal includes an EPA 

default DRE value for estimating and reporting controlled 

emissions, we propose that no missing data procedures would 

apply. 

When estimating heat transfer fluid emissions during 

semiconductor manufacture, the use of the mass-balance 

approach requires facilities to correct records for all 

inputs. Should the facility be missing records for a given 

input, heat transfer fluid emissions may be estimated using 

the arithmetic average of the emission rates for the year 

immediately preceding the period of missing data and the 

months immediately following the period of missing data. 

Alternatively it may be possible that the heat transfer 

fluid supplier has information in their records for the 

facility. 

7. Selection of Data Reporting Requirements 

We are proposing that owners and operators be required 

to report fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions for the facility 

for all plasma etching, chemical vapor deposition, chamber 

cleaning, and wafer cleaning processes as well as all heat 

transfer fluid use. In addition, facilities would be 

required to report the following: method used to calculate 

emissions; factors used for gas utilization and by-product 

formation rates and the source for each factor for each 

fluorinated GHG and N2O; production in terms of substrate 

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

fluorinated GHG and N2O, annual gas consumed during the 

reporting year and gas-and facility-specific heel factors 

used; the apportioning factors used, a description of the 

engineering model used for apportioning gas usage, and 

facility-wide consumption estimates based upon development 

of the apportioning factors, independent of the consumption 

value calculated using purchase records; fraction of each 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

50

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

abatement systems; descriptions and information about 

abatement systems through which fluorinated GHGs and N2O 

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

transfer fluid emissions); and example calculations. Where 

process categories defined in the Refined Method and/or 

default gas utilization and by-product formation rates are 

not used, we propose that facilities provide descriptions 

of individual processes or processes categories used to 

estimate emissions. 

For each abatement system for which a facility is 

reporting controlled emissions, we propose that facilities 

be required to report the following: certification that the 

abatement device is installed, operated, and maintained 

according to manufacturers’ specifications; the uptime and 

the calculations to determine uptime for that reporting 

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

or a properly measured DRE); and required documentation to 

use the EPA default DRE value or a properly measured DRE. 

These data form the basis of the calculations and are 

needed for us to understand the reported emissions and 

verify their reasonableness. 

8. Selection of Records That Must Be Retained 

We propose that facilities keep records of data used 

to estimate emissions, records supporting values used to 

estimate emissions, purchase records, and invoices for gas 

purchases and sales. For those facilities that use 

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

following records be maintained: documentation that the 

rates were measured using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines, 

documentation that the measurements made are representative 

of fluorinated GHG and N2O emitting processes at the 

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

subsequent tests to determine process tool gas utilization 

and by-product formation rates. 

For those facilities that are reporting controlled 

emissions, we propose that the following records be kept: 

documentation to certify that each abatement device used at 

the facility is installed, maintained, and operated in 

accordance with manufacturers’ specifications; records of 

the uptime and the calculations to determine uptime; 

abatement system calibration and maintenance records; 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

51

required documentation to use either the EPA default DRE 

value or a properly measured DRE. 

These records consist of values that are directly used 

to calculate the emissions that are reported and are 

necessary to enable verification that the GHG emissions 

monitoring and calculations are done correctly. 

B. Fluorinated Gas Production

1. Overview of Reporting Requirements 

Under this proposal, subpart L would require 

facilities that produce fluorinated gases to report their 

fluorinated GHG emissions from fluorinated gas production, 

transformation, and destruction. Fluorinated gases include 

fluorinated GHGs (HFCs, PFCs, SF6, NF3, HFEs, etc.), CFCs, 

and HCFCs. Certain emissions subject to other subparts or 

authorities are excluded from this subpart. Specifically, 

emissions of HFC-23 from HCFC-22 production are addressed 

under subpart O and are therefore excluded from this 

subpart. Similarly, as discussed in the Final MRR, 

emissions of ozone depleting substances (e.g., CFCs and 

HCFCs) are subject to Title VI of the Clean Air Act and are 

therefore excluded from this subpart. 

Under this proposed rule, facilities would be required 

to estimate their emissions from fluorinated GHG production 

processes using either a mass-balance approach or an 

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

emission factors. Facilities would be required to estimate 

their emissions from CFC and HCFC production processes and 

from fluorinated gas transformation processes using an 

emission-factor-based approach. Consistent with the Final 

MRR, this proposal would establish an annual frequency for 

reporting and would include provisions to ensure the 

accuracy of emissions data through monitoring, reporting, 

and recordkeeping requirements. Reporting would be at the 

facility level. 

2. Summary of Major Changes Since Initial Proposal 

In the April 2009 proposed mandatory GHG reporting 

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

production source category was included as proposed subpart 

L. That initial proposal would have required reporting 

from facilities emitting more than 25,000 mtCO2e from 

fluorinated GHG production and other source categories 

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

based on a daily mass balance or yield approach that 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

52

included measurements of the reactants and the fluorinated 

GHG product and byproducts. Under that approach, 

facilities would have had to calculate the difference 

between the expected production of each fluorinated GHG 

based on the consumption of reactants and the measured 

production of that fluorinated GHG, accounting for yield 

losses related to byproducts and wastes and accounting for 

streams that were recaptured and destroyed. Facilities 

would have been required to measure the various inputs and 

outputs daily using scales and flow meters with an accuracy 

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

concentrations in streams using methods with an accuracy 

and precision of 5 percent. (For more detailed information 

on the initial proposal, see the fluorinated gas production 

section of the April 10, 2009 proposed rule.) 

We received numerous comments on the proposed 

approach. Commenters stated that there may be significant 

uncertainty associated with the mass balance approach, that 

EPA’s stated accuracy and precision requirement of 0.2 

percent for flow meters and weigh equipment was costly and 

not technically achievable for many streams, that daily 

calculations were excessive and likely to introduce errors, 

that it was sometimes impracticable to perform a massbalance for more than one reactant, and that the mass 

balance approach was not appropriate for batch processes. 

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

site-specific or process-specific emission factors. These 

commenters noted that many facilities in this source 

category already measure emissions during performance 

testing to verify compliance with their emission limits 

under other EPA regulations. Commenters also noted that 

some fluorinated GHG producers currently estimate their 

emissions of fluorinated GHG using the emission factor 

approach and that this approach is both more cost effective 

and more accurate than the mass balance approach. One 

commenter using the emission factor approach stated that 

the estimated uncertainty of its overall fluorinated GHG 

emissions estimate was 13 percent (expressed as one 

standard deviation) and that the uncertainty associated 

with the estimates that it would develop using the proposed 

mass-balance approach would be significantly higher. 

Commenters suggested both use of emissions testing and use 

of chemical engineering calculations as appropriate 

techniques to develop site-specific emissions factors. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

53

Partly in response to the comments received on the 

April 2009 proposed mandatory GHG reporting rule (74 FR 

16448; April 10, 2009), today’s proposed subpart L rule 

incorporates a number of changes compared to the original 

proposal, including but not limited to: 

• Inclusion of additional emission estimation 

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

estimate emissions using methods that may already be 

in place; 

• Revisions to the mass-balance approach, including 

provisions to allow monthly rather than daily 

monitoring; greater flexibility in the accuracy and 

precision of flowmeters, weigh scales, and 

concentration measurements (as long the final estimate 

meets an overall accuracy and precision requirement); 

and the use of one rather than two reactants in the 

mass-balance equation; 

• Inclusion of fluorinated GHGs emitted as a by-product 

of the production of CFCs and HCFCs, and 

• Inclusion of fluorinated GHGs emitted as a by-product 

of transformation processes that are not intended to 

produce any fluorinated gases (when those 

transformation processes are co-located with 

fluorinated gas production processes). 

3. Definition of Source Category 

This source category covers emissions of fluorinated 

GHGs that occur during the production of fluorinated gases, 

where fluorinated gases include fluorinated GHGs (HFCs, 

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

and HCFCs (except HCFC-22)17. It also covers emissions of 

 

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

emissions of fluorinated GHGs from CFC and HCFC production processes 

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

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

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

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

significant. According to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and fluorinated gas 

producers, production of CFCs and HCFCs can generate and emit 

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

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

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

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

and CFCs and the common use of halogen replacement chemistry to produce 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

54

fluorinated GHGs from transformation and destruction 

processes that occur at fluorinated gas production 

facilities. EPA estimates that total emissions from this 

source category were 10.6 million metric tons of CO2e in 

2006. 

Emissions from fluorinated gas production facilities 

can occur from vents, from leaks at flanges and connections 

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

thermal oxidizers). Undesired by-products may be 

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

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

occur during occasional service work on the production 

equipment, during blending and recycling of fluorinated 

GHGs, and during the evacuation and filling of tanks or 

other containers that are distributed by the producer 

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

Fluorinated GHG Emissions from Fluorinated GHG 

Production. Emissions that occur during fluorinated GHG 

production include fluorinated GHG products that are 

emitted before the production measurement and fluorinated 

GHG byproducts that are generated and emitted either 

without or despite recapture or destruction.18 These 

emissions are not counted as “mass produced” under the 

final requirements for suppliers of industrial GHGs in 40 

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

Fluorinated GHG emissions from U.S. facilities 

producing fluorinated GHGs are estimated to range from 0.8 

percent to 2 percent of the amount of fluorinated GHG 

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

facilities produced over 350 million metric tons CO2e of 

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

produced approximately 1 million metric tons CO2e of 

fluorinated anesthetics. Based on an emission rate of 1.5 

percent, facilities are estimated to have emitted 

approximately 5.3 million metric tons CO2e of HFCs, PFCs, 

SF6, and NF3, and approximately 15,000 metric tons CO2e of 

fluorinated anesthetics. 

 

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

under Subpart O. 

18 Byproducts that are emitted or destroyed at the production facility 

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

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

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

However, other fluorinated GHG byproducts that are recaptured for any 

reason are considered to be “produced.” 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

55

Fluorinated GHG Emissions from CFC and HCFC 

Production. Our proposal to include fluorinated GHG 

emissions that occur during CFC and HCFC production 

processes is based on two important considerations. First, 

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

believe that it is significant and could be similar to 

total estimated emissions from fluorinated GHG production. 

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

allowing for efficiencies in the application of estimation 

methods and monitoring and reporting infrastructures. 

These issues are discussed in more detail in the Technical 

Support Document. 

Although we do not have precise estimates of the 

magnitude of fluorinated GHG emissions from production of 

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

processes emitted fluorinated GHGs equivalent to one 

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

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

mtCO2e, the same as from fluorinated GHG production. EPA 

requests comment on the extent to which fluorinated GHGs 

are generated and emitted during CFC and HCFC production. 

EPA also requests comment on the extent to which 

fluorinated GHGs may be generated and emitted during 

production of other ozone-depleting substances such as 

methyl chloroform and carbon tetrachloride and on whether 

such emissions should be reported under this rule. 

CFCs and HCFCs are often produced at the same 

facilities that produce fluorinated GHGs. In these cases, 

these facilities would need to quantify their fluorinated 

GHG emissions from a few processes in addition to those 

producing fluorinated GHGs. In other cases, CFCs or HCFCs 

are produced at facilities that do not produce fluorinated 

GHGs. In these cases, which EPA estimates include 2 

facilities, the facilities would not have been covered by 

the initially proposed subpart L, but would be covered by 

today’s proposal. This coverage is reflected in the 

threshold analysis discussed below. 

Fluorinated GHG Emissions from Other Processes. 

Facilities producing fluorinated gases would also be 

required to report emissions of fluorinated GHG feedstocks 

that occur during production of other fluorinated 

substances such as fluoropolymers, as well as emissions of 

fluorinated GHGs that occur during destruction of 

fluorinated gases that are removed from the supply of 

industrial gases. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

56

The reasons for requiring reporting of fluorinated GHG 

emissions from transformation processes that are co-located 

with fluorinated gas production processes are similar to 

those for requiring reporting of fluorinated GHG emissions 

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

have precise estimates of the magnitude of fluorinated GHG 

emissions from transformation processes, discussions with 

fluoropolymer producers indicate that these emissions do 

occur. Second, facilities could apply similar methods and 

monitoring approaches to estimate emissions from both 

fluorinated gas production and fluorinated gas 

transformation. 

EPA is also considering requiring reporting of 

fluorinated GHG emissions from fluorinated gas 

transformation processes that are not co-located with 

fluorinated gas production facilities. EPA requests 

comment on this option. 

Relationship between emissions covered under subpart L 

and those covered under subpart OO. Subpart L would 

require reporting from many of the same facilities 

(fluorinated GHG producers) that are required to report 

under subpart OO, which contains the industrial gas supply 

reporting provisions of the mandatory GHG reporting rule. 

In general, subpart OO is intended to capture the 

quantities of fluorinated GHGs that are entering and 

leaving the U.S. supply of industrial gases,19 while subpart 

L is intended to capture the quantities of fluorinated GHGs 

emitted at fluorinated gas production facilities. 

There are several areas of possible overlap between 

the emissions that could be reported under this subpart and 

those reported under subpart OO. The areas of overlap all 

concern emissions that occur at the fluorinated GHG 

production facility after (downstream of) the fluorinated 

GHG production measurement. These include emissions from 

• fluorinated GHG transformation processes 

(including polymerization), 

• destruction of fluorinated GHGs that are removed 

from the supply of industrial gases, 

• cylinder filling (if this occurs after the 

production measurement), 

 

19 Specifically, subpart OO tracks the quantities of F-GHGs that are (1) 

produced, (2) transformed, (3) destroyed, (4) imported, and (5) 

exported. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

57

• blending of fluorinated GHGs, 

• recycling or reclamation of fluorinated GHGs, and 

• evacuation of fluorinated GHG heels from returned 

cylinders. 

The MRR is intended to inform a range of possible 

policies for reducing emissions of GHGs, including both 

upstream and downstream approaches. Under a policy that 

focused primarily on supply, the fluorinated GHGs added to 

and subtracted from the gas supply would be tracked, and 

only the on-site emissions that occurred before (upstream 

of) the fluorinated GHG production measurement would need 

to be covered for completeness. On-site emissions that 

occurred after the production measurement would be assumed 

to be captured by the production measurement. Under a 

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

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

occurred both before and after the production measurement 

would need to be tracked. 

Maintaining flexibility to adopt either upstream or 

downstream approaches argues for some counting under L of 

emissions that are counted upstream (as supply) under OO.20 

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

discussion of the rationale for including both upstream and 

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

is proposing to require reporting of fluorinated GHG 

emissions from transformation and destruction processes 

that are located at fluorinated gas production facilities. 

However, EPA is also considering requiring reporting of 

fluorinated GHG emissions from the other activities that 

occur at fluorinated GHG production facilities downstream 

of the production measurement. EPA requests comment on the 

magnitude of these other on-site emissions and on whether 

or not they should be required to be reported under subpart 

L. 

 

 

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

transformation and destruction simply using quantities reported under 

OO. However, this would require that (1) F-GHGs that are produced only 

to be transformed or destroyed be tracked separately, (2) production, 

transformation, and destruction be measured to very good precision and 

accuracy (e.g., 0.2 percent), and (3) that no by-products be formed or 

emitted during these processes. If all of these conditions were met, 

emissions could be equated to the differences between production and 

transformation and production and destruction. In practice, however, 

it would be difficult to meet all of these conditions. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

58

4. Selection of Reporting Threshold 

Under today’s proposed rule, owners and operators of 

fluorinated gas production facilities would be required to 

estimate and report GHG emissions if those emissions, 

including both combustion and fluorinated GHG emissions, 

would exceed 25,000 mtCO2e in the absence of control 

technology (e.g., thermal oxidation)21. 

In developing the threshold, we considered multiple 

controlled and uncontrolled emissions thresholds, including 

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

fluorinated GHG production processes (including fluorinated 

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

of 3 percent by the estimated production at each facility. 

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

production processes), uncontrolled emissions were 

estimated by multiplying a factor of 2 percent by the 

estimated production at each facility. Uncontrolled 

emissions are strongly influenced by by-product generation 

rates, which are known to vary between zero and several 

percent for fluorinated gas production processes; thus, 

these estimates are uncertain. Controlled emissions were 

assumed to be half of uncontrolled emissions at each 

facility. Because EPA has little information on 

combustion-related emissions at fluorinated gas production 

facilities, these emissions were not included in the 

analysis. The results of the analysis for production of 

HFCs, PFCs, SF6, NF3, CFCs, and HCFCs are shown in Tables L1 and L-2. 

Table L-1. Threshold Analysis for Fluorinated GHG 

Emissions from Production of HFCs, PFCs, SF6, NF3, CFCs, 

and HCFCs (Uncontrolled Emissions) 

Threshold Emissions Covered Facilities Covered 

Level 

(metric 

tons 

CO2e/r) 

Total 

National 

Emissions 

(metric tons 

CO2e) 

Number 

of 

Facilities 

Metric tons 

CO2e 

Percent Number Percent 

 

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

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

Specifically, EPA is proposing to define “uncontrolled fluorinated GHG 

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

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

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

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

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

emissions.” 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

59

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

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

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

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

Table L-2. Threshold Analysis for Fluorinated GHG 

Emissions from Production of HFCs, PFCs, SF6, NF3, CFCs, 

and HCFCs (Controlled Emissions) 

Threshold Emissions Covered Facilities Covered 

Level 

(metric 

tons 

CO2e/r) 

Total 

National 

Emissions 

(metric tons 

CO2e) 

Number 

of 

Facilities 

Metric tons 

CO2e 

Percent Number Percent 

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

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

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

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

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

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

all the thresholds considered. Although we do not have 

facility-specific production information for producers of 

fluorinated anesthetics, we believe that few or none of 

these facilities are likely to have uncontrolled emissions 

above the proposed threshold. 

EPA is proposing to use a threshold based on 

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

significant quantities fluorinated GHGs fully characterize 

and quantify their emissions, even if they initially 

believe those emissions to be small. Discussions with 

fluorinated gas manufacturers indicate that occasionally, 

fluorinated GHG by-products may be generated and emitted 

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

facilities’ post-control emissions may be significantly 

higher than expected.22 The initial scoping test described 

 

22It is important to note that even if a threshold based on controlled 

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

actual emissions were above that threshold would be a violation of 

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

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

is a strict liability statute 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

60

in the next section is intended to identify the full range 

of fluorinated GHGs in potentially emitted streams. 

Applying the full methodologies on the basis of the initial 

scoping study will provide EPA and the facilities with 

critical information on the extent to which control 

technologies are actually reducing emissions and therefore 

on the actual emissions from the facility. 

EPA is requesting comment on an alternative approach 

in which all fluorinated gas production facilities, 

regardless of their estimated pre-control emissions, would 

analyze their emissions using the initial scoping test 

discussed in the next section. This approach would ensure 

that facilities understood the identities, and therefore 

the GWPs, of the fluorinated GHGs potentially emitted. EPA 

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

of simply eliminating the threshold for fluorinated gas 

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

As is true for the source categories covered by the 

Final MRR, fluorinated GHG production facilities could 

cease reporting if their controlled (post-control)

emissions were less than 25,000 mtCO2e per year for five 

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

three consecutive years. This approach may be appropriate 

if control technologies are effective and there is no 

evidence of unexpected uncontrolled emissions. However, 

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

source category. Under this alternative approach, the 

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

level of emissions that is estimated before accounting for 

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

oxidation). EPA is requesting comment on this approach 

because emissions can become quite large if the destruction 

device malfunctions, is not operated properly, or is not 

used for some other reason. 

As noted above, EPA estimates that under this 

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

would be covered, and few or no anesthetics producing 

facilities would be covered. However, it is possible that 

EPA has underestimated total pre-control emissions from 

anesthetics. In its threshold analysis for fluorinated GHG 

production, EPA has assumed that emissions have GWPs 

similar to those of the product produced. However, 

fluorinated anesthetics are hydrofluoroethers, and other 

HFE production processes of which EPA is aware generate byproducts with higher GWPs than the product. EPA requests 

comment on this issue. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

61

A full discussion of the threshold selection analysis 

is available in the revised Fluorinated GHG Production TSD 

(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-012). For specific information on 

costs, including unamortized first year capital 

expenditures, please refer to Economic Analysis (EA) for 

this rulemaking. 

5. Selection of Proposed Monitoring Methods 

a. Summary of Proposed Monitoring Methods 

We are proposing to allow facilities to use either a 

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

fluorinated GHG emissions from fluorinated GHG production. 

Facilities would be required to use the PSEF approach to 

estimate their fluorinated GHG emissions from CFC and HCFC 

production or from fluorinated gas transformation. The 

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

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

comments. Facilities using either approach would be 

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

fluorinated GHGs in certain emitted streams and to verify 

the destruction efficiency (DE) of any destruction devices 

every five years. These approaches are discussed in more 

detail below. 

b. Initial Scoping Test of Potentially Emitted fluorinated 

GHGs 

In today’s action, we are proposing that facilities 

that produce fluorinated gases perform an initial scoping 

test (proposed §98.124(a)). The purpose of the survey is to 

ensure that all of the fluorinated GHGs that occur in 

emitted streams are properly identified. EPA is concerned 

that without the survey, efforts to quantify emissions 

could mischaracterize the set of fluorinated GHGs that was 

emitted, leading to inaccurate emissions estimates. We are 

aware that in general, most if not all of the fluorinated 

GHGs occurring in emitted streams will have already been 

identified during process design and bench and pilot scale 

testing. However, as noted above, we are also aware of 

situations in which producers have analyzed process streams 

and found fluorinated GHGs that they were not expecting. 

Such by-product fluorinated GHGs can have high GWPs, making 

their CO2-equivalent emissions significant. 

 Under this requirement, which would be one-time for 

any given process, facilities would be required to sample 

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

expected to contain all the fluorinated GHG by-products of 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

62

the process. Facilities would be required to use EPA 

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

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

concentrations above 0.1 percent in emitted streams. 

For facilities using the mass-balance approach, the 

survey could be used to determine whether some emissions 

that are assumed to occur in the form of the product are 

actually occurring as by-products. For facilities using 

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

the survey would identify by-products to measure in 

subsequent emissions testing to develop emission factors. 

To avoid the need to survey a large number of 

processes with relatively small fluorinated GHG emissions, 

EPA is proposing to limit the survey requirement to 

processes that would emit more than one metric ton per year 

of fluorinated GHGs before the imposition of control 

technologies. We are proposing a limit in tons of 

fluorinated GHGs rather than in tons of CO2e because the 

identities, and therefore the GWPs, of some fluorinated GHG 

constituents of the stream may not be known. Acquiring 

this information is the purpose of the survey. We 

developed the one-ton limit by starting with a limit of 

10,000 mtCO2e for each process and making the reasonably 

conservative assumption that the unknown fluorinated GHG 

could have a GWP of 10,000. For purposes of estimating the 

mass of fluorinated GHG emitted from the process, 

facilities could use the same types of engineering 

calculations that they would use to determine whether 

process vent testing was required under the PSEF approach 

(described in more detail below). They could assume that 

the mass of carbon, fluorine, or another relevant element 

is emitted in the form of fluorinated GHGs that were 

previously identified in bench- or pilot-scale testing. 

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

applied to emissions before rather than after control 

because some byproducts, particularly CF4, are very 

difficult to destroy. If these by-products occurred 

unexpectedly in a stream and if the trigger were applied to 

emissions after control, the facility would underestimate 

controlled emissions. Consequently, the facility could 

fail to undertake the survey when it was actually 

appropriate and could overlook the occurrence and emissions 

of the by-products.23 We are proposing that facilities test 

 

23 For example, suppose that a facility believed that all of the F-GHG 

by-products from a certain process consisted of HFCs, which its 

destruction device destroyed with a destruction efficiency of 99.9 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

63

the streams before the control device because emissions 

streams are often diluted during destruction processes 

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

difficult to detect and identify fluorinated GHGs that 

survived the destruction process. However, we request 

comment on this requirement as well as on the survey 

requirement as a whole. 

c. Mass Balance Approach 

We are proposing that facilities producing fluorinated 

GHGs have the option of monitoring emissions using the mass 

balance approach. In this approach, facilities would 

calculate the difference between the expected production of 

each fluorinated GHG based on the consumption of reactants 

and the measured production of that fluorinated GHG, 

accounting for yield losses related to byproducts 

(including intermediates permanently removed from the 

process) and wastes. Yield losses that could not be 

accounted for would be attributed to emissions of the 

fluorinated GHG product. This calculation could be 

performed for any fluorine- or carbon-containing reactant 

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

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

balance may be based on a carbon balance or a fluorine 

balance). If fluorinated GHG byproducts were produced and 

were not completely recaptured or completely destroyed, 

facilities would also estimate emissions of each 

fluorinated GHG byproduct. 

Because the mass-balance approach assumes that losses 

from the process are emissions of the product, EPA believes 

that the mass-balance approach would only be appropriate 

for estimating emissions from fluorinated GHG production, 

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

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

However, EPA requests comment on this issue. 

To be eligible to use the mass balance approach, 

facilities would have to demonstrate that their planned 

measurements could meet a statistical error limit required 

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

demonstrate that it could meet the error limit, it would 

have to improve the accuracy and/or precision of its 

 

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

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

this case, the facility could underestimate its F-GHG emissions by more 

than an order of magnitude, neither seeking nor finding the CF4 that it 

was actually emitting. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

64

monitoring and measurement devices or opt to use another 

monitoring approach offered in the rule. 

To carry out the mass balance approach, the facility 

would choose a reactant for yield calculation purposes. 

The facility would then weigh or meter the mass of that 

reactant fed into the process, any primary fluorinated GHG 

produced by the process, the mass of the reactant 

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

thermal oxidizer or other equipment, not immediately 

recycled back into the process), any fluorinated GHG 

byproducts generated, and any streams that contain the 

product or fluorinated GHG byproducts and that are 

recaptured or destroyed. These measurements would be 

tracked monthly or more frequently and consolidated and 

recorded on a monthly basis. If monitored process streams 

included more than one component (product, byproducts, or 

other materials) in more than trace concentrations,24 the 

facility would be required to monitor concentrations of 

products and byproducts in these streams. Finally, the 

facility would be required to perform monthly mass balance 

calculations for each product produced. 

Statistical Error Estimate. To estimate the 

statistical error associated with use of the mass-balance 

approach, facilities would be required to use error 

propagation, considering the accuracy and precision of 

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

detail in the TSD for this proposal (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-

XXX). Under this approach, EPA would not specify precision 

and accuracy requirements for individual mass or 

concentration measurements. Instead, EPA would require 

that the error associated with the overall estimate of 

fluorinated GHG emissions fall under 30 percent (relative 

error) or under 3,000 mt CO2e (absolute error). (Both 

errors are expressed as halves of 95 percent confidence 

intervals; for normal distributions, this is quite close to 

two standard deviations). Facilities could achieve this 

level of precision however they chose. 

We are proposing to require the error estimate to 

ensure that the use of the mass-balance approach yields 

accurate emission estimates. As observed by several groups 

that commented on the initial proposal, the mass-balance 

approach can result in large errors if measurements of the 

 

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

less than 0.1 percent by mass of the process stream. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

65

flow of fluorinated GHGs in one or more process streams 

have significant errors25. We recognize that the proposed 

approach requires facilities to calculate the overall error 

of their own estimates, which adds complication and 

introduces opportunities for mistakes. We therefore plan 

to develop a calculation tool that would permit reporters 

to develop an error estimate, reducing both their burden 

and the likelihood of errors. 

We are proposing a maximum relative error of 30 

percent because this error is comparable to that cited by 

the facility that has used an emission factor approach to 

estimate its fluorinated GHG emissions.26 It is also 

comparable to the error that EPA calculates for a facility 

with an emission rate of two percent and with good 

precisions and accuracies for its mass flow measurements 

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

10 percent) of a waste stream constituting five percent of 

the process’s fluorinated GHG output flow. 

For facilities whose emissions constitute a very small 

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

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

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

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

may be smaller than the absolute error of a facility that 

meets the relative error test but that has a higher 

emission rate. EPA is therefore proposing a maximum 

permissible absolute error of 3,000 mtCO2e for facilities 

whose estimates have relative errors greater than 30 

percent. This absolute error is equivalent to 30 percent 

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

the subpart to establish requirements for different sources 

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

whose emissions were lower than 10,000 mtCO2e could have 

 

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

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

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

difference between them. Errors are particularly a concern for streams 

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

therefore, F-GHG concentrations must be measured. In general, the 

accuracy and precision of concentration measurements is expected to be 

approximately +/- 10 percent, although this can be as low as five 

percent and as high as 20 percent, depending on the circumstances. If 

this 10 percent error applies to a stream that constitutes a 

significant input or (more likely) output of the process, it can lead 

to an emissions estimate with a high relative error. 

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

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

interval. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

66

relative errors higher than 30 percent so long as they met 

the limit on absolute error. This approach avoids 

penalizing processes and facilities with low emissions. 

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

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

mtCO2e. 

Another approach that would avoid penalizing 

facilities with low emission rates would be to express the 

maximum relative error as a fraction of the total mass of 

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

given process, this mass would remain constant regardless 

of the emission rate. For the model facility described 

above, with errors of 0.2 percent in its mass flow 

measurements and of 10 percent in its concentration 

measurements, the error of the emissions estimate relative 

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

advantage of this approach compared to the absolute limit 

is that this approach limits the relative errors for 

processes with small throughputs, while the absolute limit 

could permit very large relative errors for processes with 

small throughputs. EPA requests comment on this approach. 

In developing the approach to specifying maximum 

absolute and/or relative errors for the overall emissions 

estimate, we considered the alternative of specifying the 

maximum allowable errors (precisions and accuracies) of the 

individual measurements that feed into the mass-balance 

equation. This is the approach that EPA took in the 

initial proposal. This approach limits error, but it also 

limits flexibility, a concern raised by several commenters. 

Even a facility with a relatively large error in one stream 

may be able to bring the total error of its emissions 

estimate to a tolerable level by improving the accuracy and 

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

products. Nevertheless, EPA requests comment on the option 

of reverting to specific tolerances for individual 

measurements that feed into the mass-balance equation, as 

originally proposed. 

Choice of Reactant Whose Yield Is Measured. EPA is 

today proposing to allow facilities to estimate emissions 

under the mass-balance approach using one of the reactants 

rather than both as originally proposed.27 Some fluorinated 

 

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

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

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

two results as the emissions estimate. This would be expected to lead 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

67

GHG producers noted that, for various reasons, it is 

sometimes considerably more difficult to track the yields 

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

feedstock). EPA notes that facilities estimating their 

emissions based on the yield of one reactant would still 

need to be able to demonstrate that their estimate passed 

the statistical error test discussed above. EPA requests 

comment on this approach. 

Frequency of Measurement and Calculation. In today’s 

proposed rule, EPA is proposing to require that facilities 

using the mass-balance approach measure and calculate their 

emissions monthly. A number of fluorocarbon producers who 

commented on the initial proposal noted that daily 

measurements were burdensome and led to large errors in the 

estimates of daily emissions. They observed that many 

process streams contain acidic and reactive constituents 

such as HF, and that sampling from these streams can create 

safety hazards. They also noted that daily yield 

measurements can vary significantly (sometimes exceeding 

100 percent) for three reasons. First, when continuous 

processes are first started, there is a lag time between 

the time the reactants are fed into the process and the 

time products emerge. Second, even after the process has 

been running for a while, the quantity of material in the 

process can vary based on weather, changes in production 

rates, and other conditions. Third, the relatively large 

errors in measurements of in-process product holding tanks 

(e.g., based on sight-glass readings) have a significant 

impact on daily mass-balances. Over time, all of these 

effects smooth out, making longer term mass-balances far 

more reliable than daily mass-balances. 

EPA has carefully considered these comments. The goal 

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

emissions. The advantage of more frequent measurements and 

calculations is that, where mass flows and concentrations 

are variable, more frequent measurements and calculations 

will lead to more accurate and precise estimates than less 

frequent measurements and calculations. However, in this 

case the disadvantages of daily measurement and calculation 

appear to outweigh the advantages. EPA believes that 

monthly mass-balance calculations will lead to acceptably 

accurate estimates at reasonable cost. Nevertheless, EPA 

requests comment on whether the variability of the mass 

 

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

uncertainty) if the uncertainties in both yield calculations were 

similar. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

68

flows or concentrations in some production processes may be 

sufficiently large to justify more frequent measurement and 

calculation, e.g., weekly. 

EPA also requests comment on whether annual or less 

frequent characterizations of fluorinated GHG 

concentrations in some streams should be permitted under 

the mass-balance approach. Some fluorinated GHG producers 

have stated that it is difficult to measure fluorinated GHG 

concentrations in some streams. In some cases, this is 

because waste streams contain hydrofluoric acid (HF), 

which, due to its acidity and reactivity, can damage 

sampling and analytical equipment. As discussed in the 

Technical Support Document, there may be technical 

solutions to this problem. To the extent that these 

approaches could be relatively difficult or expensive to 

implement, however, it might be appropriate to permit very 

infrequent measurements. The disadvantage of this approach 

is that it might lead to large errors, particularly for 

processes that vary over time. A series of measurements 

might be required to (l) reduce the error and (2) quantify 

the error for purposes of the statistical error test. Such 

measurements would be analogous to those used to develop 

emission factors. 

Reactant and Byproduct Emissions. EPA recognizes that 

the proposed mass-balance approach would assume that all 

yield losses that are not accounted for are attributable to 

emissions of the fluorinated GHG product. In some cases, 

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

reactants or fluorinated by-products. In general, EPA 

understands that reactant flows are measured at the inlet 

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

between the point of measurement and the reactor are likely 

to be small. However, reactants that are recovered from 

the process, whether they are recycled back into it or 

removed permanently, may experience some losses that the 

proposed method does not account for. 

Fluorocarbon by-products, according to the IPCC 

Guidelines, generally have “radiative forcing properties 

similar to those of the desired fluorochemical.” However, 

EPA is aware of at least one facility where byproducts 

often have much larger GWPs than the products. In this 

case, assuming by-product emissions are product emissions 

would lead to large errors in estimating overall 

fluorinated GHG emissions. EPA believes that the initial 

scoping test of emitted streams that is discussed above 

would help to determine whether this was an issue for a 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

69

given process.28 If it was, then the facility could elect 

to pursue the PSEF approach rather than the mass-balance 

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

interested in pursuing the mass balance approach, it could 

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

the mass-balance approach (e.g., by increasing calculated 

by-product emissions by some percentage). Such emissions 

testing would be similar to that performed for the PSEF 

approach below, except it would focus on the partitioning 

of emissions among the various fluorinated GHGs. EPA 

requests comment on this and other possible approaches for 

distinguishing between emissions of fluorinated GHG 

products and emissions of fluorinated by-products under the 

mass-balance approach. 

Alternative approach based on measurements of balanced 

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

alternative to the mass-balance approach described above in 

which facilities would not be required to speciate their 

by-product streams monthly. Instead, they could measure 

the total fluorine (or other element of interest other than 

carbon) in the by-product streams, e.g., by burning them. 

(An initial survey of the fluorinated GHGs in the stream 

would still be required to ensure that emissions were 

properly allocated among by-products.) This approach, 

which is described in more detail in the Technical Support 

Document, could be particularly useful for processes with 

multiple by-products. One potential concern regarding this 

variant of the mass-balance approach is the potential 

difficulty of performing analysis of combustion products 

that are likely to include HF and HCl. It may be 

appropriate to require facilities to validate this approach 

against the mass-balance method described above. EPA 

requests comment on this approach. 

d. Process-Specific Emission Factor Approach 

EPA is proposing an additional monitoring approach 

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

This approach includes either calculation or measurement of 

process vent emissions depending on the size and fate of 

the emissions from the vent. Under this approach, 

facilities would develop preliminary emissions estimates to 

determine the level of uncontrolled emissions from each 

 

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

for losses to product emissions would lead to more than a ten percent 

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

emissions estimate to account for by-product losses. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

70

process vent in processes subject to this subpart. For 

process vents with uncontrolled emissions of less than 

10,000 mt CO2e (or less than 1 metric ton for emissions 

that include a fluorinated GHG whose GWP does not appear in 

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

engineering calculations or emissions testing to develop 

emission factors. Facilities could also conduct either 

engineering calculations or emissions testing to develop 

emission factors for emissions that were vented to a 

destruction device demonstrated to achieve a destruction 

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

as equipment or procedures29 were in place to ensure that 

uncontrolled emissions did not occur. For other vented 

emissions, facilities would be required to conduct 

emissions testing to determine the process vent emission 

factor. 

To estimate annual fluorinated GHG emissions from each 

vent, facilities would multiply each emission factor by the 

appropriate activity data and account for the use (and 

uptime) of destruction devices. The fluorinated GHG 

emissions for all vents at the facility would be summed to 

obtain the total emissions from process vents for the 

facility as a whole. 

To ensure that the emissions estimate encompassed all 

sources of emissions within the processes that would be 

subject to this subpart, facilities using the emission 

factor approach would also be required to estimate 

emissions from equipment leaks.30 Leaks would be monitored 

annually using EPA Method 21 and the Protocol for Equipment 

Leak Estimates (EPA-453/R-95-017). 

EPA is proposing less demanding measurement 

requirements for small and destroyed emission streams to 

ensure that the effort and resources expended to measure 

emissions are commensurate with the size of those 

emissions. This principle has been adopted both for other 

source categories in the GHG Reporting Rule and for 

 

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

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

shutdowns in the event the destruction device remains off line. 

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

emissions from production, transformation, and destruction processes. 

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

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

supplemented with equipment leak assessment because it accounts for all 

emissions between the measurements of inputs and outputs, whether these 

emissions occur from vents or leaks. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

71

numerous other EPA programs. However, EPA is requesting 

comment on some aspects of its proposed approaches. 

First, we request comment on the appropriateness of 

the CO2e cutoff below which calculations are permitted. 

One potential concern associated with this approach is that 

10,000 mtCO2e equates to relatively low mass emissions of 

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

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

Emissions at this level may be difficult to detect, 

depending on the overall mass flow of the emissions stream. 

Another option on which we are requesting comment is to 

relax the CO2e emissions cutoff and to include an unweighted 

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

with it. For example, for process vents with less than 

25,000 mt CO2e uncontrolled and less than 10,000 pounds of 

fluorinated GHG uncontrolled, facilities would have the 

option to conduct emissions testing or engineering 

calculations or assessments. 

Second, EPA requests comment on its criteria for 

allowing use of engineering calculations to characterize 

the emissions of process vents that vent to destruction 

devices. EPA understands that many and perhaps most 

destruction devices used at fluorinated GHG production 

facilities can achieve DEs of 99.9 percent or better. EPA 

also understands that many facilities have equipment or 

procedures in place to prevent uncontrolled emissions, 

though some do not. It is important to note that 

uncontrolled emissions during device downtime can reduce 

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

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

However, one alternative to the proposed approach would be 

to allow the use of engineering calculations for any vent 

whose emissions, considering both the DE and the historical 

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

mtCO2e cutoff. For purposes of this calculation, the 

annual time of uncontrolled emissions could be equated to 

the longest annual time of uncontrolled emissions observed 

over the previous five years. EPA requests comment on this 

alternative approach. 

Preliminary estimates. To develop preliminary 

emissions estimates for each vent, facilities would be 

permitted to use the same types of previous measurements, 

engineering calculations, and engineering assessments that 

they would be permitted to use to develop emission 

calculation factors. These are described below under 

“Process-specific Emission Calculation Factor Approach.” 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

72

Process vent emissions testing. For process vent 

emissions testing, facilities would be required to use EPA 

reference methods, including EPA Method 18 and EPA Method 

320, or ASTM D6348-03.31 Alternative testing methods could 

be used if validated using EPA Method 301. EPA reference 

methods are included in the rule requirements for 

determining sample and velocity traverses, velocity and 

volumetric flow rates, gas analysis, and stack gas 

moisture, along with several alternative flow rate 

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

Commenters who have previously estimated their emissions of 

fluorinated GHGs stated that they used these approaches to 

do so. 

The testing periods would be required to include 

representative process operation and to exclude atypical 

events (such as process upsets or malfunctions).32 Within 

any given operating scenario (discussed further below), the 

full range of process operation would be required to be 

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

of typical process operation while also including process 

variability. Facilities would be required to consider 

process parameters that may potentially cause variability 

of the emissions, such as catalyst degradation, seasonal 

variability, raw material suppliers, etc. For example, 

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

be conducted at various points over the life of the 

catalyst. The production level during the testing periods 

would be required to be representative of normal operation. 

To develop process-specific emissions factors, 

facilities would be required to conduct at least three test 

runs and to analyze the relative standard deviation (RSD) 

of the emission factors corresponding to each run to 

determine whether additional runs were necessary. The 

emission factors and their RSD would be calculated across 

all fluorinated GHGs emitted from the vent in CO2e terms. 

If the RSD exceeded twenty percent, the facility would be 

required to conduct an additional three tests. The 

 

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

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

characteristic spectra, and libraries providing spectra for the range 

of compounds likely to be found in emissions streams can greatly 

facilitate analysis. EPA requests comment on whether such spectral 

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

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

GHGs. 

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

ensure that such events are not overrepresented in the emission factor. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

73

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

population or parameter is large, then more samples are 

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

of that parameter. EPA estimates that at a relative 

standard deviation of 20 percent, an emission factor 

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

chance of being within 50 percent of the actual mean 

emission rate of the process. The reasoning and 

calculations behind this conclusion are discussed in more 

detail in the TSD. 

An alternative approach would be to conduct additional 

runs until the change in the running average emission 

factor fell under 10 percent. This approach is similar to 

requirements for measuring emission factors (slope 

coefficients) in Subpart F (Primary Aluminum) and could 

provide representative emissions from the process and 

address variability. However, it has two potential 

drawbacks in the context of fluorinated gas production. 

First, for processes whose variability is predictable 

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

sample could satisfy the running average requirement but 

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

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

facilities could find it inconvenient to analyze samples 

and calculate emission factors between each test run after 

the first three. EPA requests comment on this alternative 

approach. 

For continuous process vents, facilities would conduct 

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

would test during emissions episodes of the batch. We 

request comment on the appropriate number of test runs to 

conduct for continuous and batch process vents and the 

appropriate RSD that facilities should meet. We also 

request comment of the appropriateness of testing batch 

process vents during emissions episodes only. Another 

option is to require testing of vents for the full duration 

of the batch process, but this could significantly increase 

the expense of the emissions test without necessarily 

improving its accuracy. 

Where multiple processes vent into a common vent or 

control device, EPA is proposing that facilities do one of 

the following: sample each process in the ducts before the 

emissions are combined, sample when only one process is 

operating, or sample the combined emissions at 

representative combinations of capacity utilizations for 

all the processes. If the last option were selected, 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

74

facilities would be required to perform 3 times n test 

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

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

would be calculated by dividing the total emissions by the 

summed activity across the processes venting to the common 

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

the processes was operating. 

Process activity data would have to be collected 

simultaneously with the emissions data during the emissions 

test. The process activity data would be used to develop 

the emissions factor. Process activity data that could be 

used in development of the emissions factor includes raw 

material feed, amount of product produced, or other process 

activity known to have a direct effect on emissions. 

Facilities would be required to define the operating 

scenario that encompasses the range of operating conditions 

that represent typical operation for the process and to 

develop representative emissions factors for each operating 

scenario. To define the process operating scenario, a 

facility would include information including the process 

description and the specific process equipment used; the 

process vents, emission episodes and durations, and the 

quantity of uncontrolled fluorinated GHG emissions; the 

control device or destruction device used to control 

emissions; and the manifolding of process vents within the 

process and from other processes. Alternative operating 

scenarios would also be defined for differences in 

operating conditions that affect emissions. Examples of 

situations where process differences may warrant separate 

operating scenarios include the following: making small 

volumes of a product in one set of batch process equipment 

part of the year and making larger volumes in larger batch 

process equipment part of the year; use of two different 

types of catalyst in the same process; deliberate 

alterations in process conditions such as temperature or 

pressure to shift the reaction to a particular product; and 

making small volumes of a product in a batch process part 

of the year and making large volumes in a continuous 

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

a representative emissions factor for each process 

operating scenario because each operating scenario for a 

process will result in different emissions levels. 

In general, emissions testing during process startups 

and shutdowns would not be expected to lead to 

representative emission factors, because emission rates 

tend to fluctuate during such events. Exceptions to this 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

75

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

emission factor, and monitoring specifically to obtain 

emission factors for startups and shutdowns conditions. 

Several companies indicated that they have analyzed the 

emissions profile during startup events and during shutdown 

events. They found that the emission rates during these 

events departed from those at steady state conditions, but 

that emissions profiles were consistent between one startup 

event and another. 

The uncertainty of the process-vent-specific emission 

factor approach is anticipated to be roughly 10 percent; 

the uncertainty of the emissions testing is estimated to be 

approximately 10 percent (as calibration requirements for 

most test methods require ±10 percent accuracy and 

precision), and the uncertainty of the process activity 

measurement is ±1 percent. While emissions testing must 

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

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

variability of the process rather than the error of the 

measurement. 

EPA is proposing that emission factors would need to 

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

year of reporting under this subpart. Throughout 2011, 

facilities would be responsible for gathering monthly 

activity data to which the emission factors, once 

developed, would be applied to estimate monthly and annual 

emissions from each process. 

Updates to Emission Factors. After developing their 

initial process-vent-specific emission factors, facilities 

would be required to update them every 5 years or when 

there was a process or equipment change that would alter 

the process operating scenario. Process or equipment 

changes would include changes in raw materials, equipment, 

production levels, or operating conditions that would be 

expected to affect the level of emissions. EPA is 

proposing periodic updates of the emission factors because 

facilities that have measured and re-measured their 

emission factors over a period of several years have found 

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

improve yields) have significantly changed emission factors 

over time. The proposed five-year frequency is consistent 

with that required for some source categories covered in 

the mandatory reporting rule (e.g., for process vents used 

in HCFC-22 production processes under Subpart O) but is 

higher than that required for others (e.g., the 10-year 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

76

frequency for measurement of slope factors for aluminum 

processes). EPA requests comment on the proposed frequency 

of measurement. 

An alternative to regular updates to emission factors 

would be updates triggered by changes to other indicators 

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

approach, facilities could calculate how their emission 

factor would change if the change in yield were 

attributable solely to a change in the emission rate. If 

this change exceeded 15 percent (as a fraction of the 

current emission factor), the emission factor would need to 

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

Measurements performed before the effective date of 

this rule. We are proposing that emission factor 

measurements performed before the effective date of this 

rule could be used to estimate GHG emissions if the 

measurements were performed in accordance with the 

requirements of the rule less than five years before the 

effective date. We believe that it may also be appropriate 

to permit use of previously measured emission factors whose 

measurement departed in some particulars from the 

requirements of the rule but still substantially met most 

of the requirements, making it likely that the emission 

factors were representative. In this case, facilities 

could submit information to EPA on areas where measurements 

departed from the requirements from the rule, and EPA could 

review the measurements to verify that they still 

substantially met most of the requirements. We request 

comment on this issue. 

Process-Specific Emission Calculation Factor Approach. 

As noted above, facilities could use engineering 

calculations to estimate emissions from vents that either 

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

to a control device with a destruction efficiency of 99.9% 

and had equipment and procedures in place to prevent 

uncontrolled emissions. We are proposing an emission 

factor approach that includes both emissions testing and 

engineering calculations, with the required approach 

depending on the magnitude of uncontrolled emissions from 

the process vent. 

Engineering calculations use basic chemical 

engineering principles and component property data to 

calculate emissions (and develop emission factors) rather 

than actually measuring emissions. Calculations for 

various emissions episodes could be conducted using 

standard equations presented in EPA’s Emissions Inventory 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

77

Improvement Process guidance documents, Pharmaceutical 

NESHAP, and Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP. Calculations 

highlighted in these documents and in codified rule text 

include vapor displacement, purging, heating, 

depressurization, vacuum systems, gas evolution, air 

drying, and empty vessel purging. 

Engineering assessments may be conducted using 

previous test data or other information available on the 

process. Engineering assessments include use of previous 

test reports where the emissions are representative of 

current operating practices; bench-scale or pilot-scale 

test data that are representative of full-scale process 

operating conditions; design analysis based on chemical 

engineering principles, measurable process parameters, or 

physical or chemical laws or properties. The data used in 

engineering assessments must be documented. 

Process activity data must be measured in conjunction 

with the emissions estimate based on calculations and 

assessments. This process activity data is needed to 

develop the emissions calculation factor. 

Just as for emission factor development, facilities 

are required to define the operating scenario for the 

emission calculation factor development. Alternative 

operating scenarios would also be defined for differences 

in operating conditions that affect emissions. As 

discussed previously for the emission factor approach, a 

facility would be required to develop a representative 

emission calculation factor for each process operating 

scenario because each operating scenario for a process will 

result in different emission levels (see discussion above). 

Facilities would update the process-vent-specific 

emission calculation factors every five years or when there 

is a process or equipment change that would alter the 

process operating scenario. 

Potential use of continuous emissions monitors to 

measure emissions from vents. Another option we are 

considering is to require that facilities measure emissions 

from fluorinated gas production facilities using continuous 

emissions monitors (CEMS). Under this approach, facilities 

would be required to install and operate CEMS capable of 

measuring fluorinated GHGs to measure process emissions. 

The requirements for the CEMs would be similar to those in 

subpart C, adjusted, as appropriate, to accommodate CEMS 

for fluorinated gases. One possible option is to use 

Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometers (FTIRs) in 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

78

scrubber stacks to measure emissions. FTIR spectroscopy is 

presently used to conduct short-term fluorinated GHG 

emission measurements from processes. 

If properly selected and maintained, CEMS would be 

expected to provide estimates of emissions more accurate 

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

However, potential drawbacks to requiring CEMS are that 

they would be relatively expensive to install and they may 

not tolerate the acidic and reactive environments found in 

vents at many fluorinated gas production facilities. (The 

latter concern might be mitigated by installing CEMS after 

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

concerns, it may be appropriate to require CEMS for 

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

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

requests comment on the use and implementation of CEMS at 

fluorinated gas production facilities. We also request 

data or other information evaluating the use of CEMS in 

fluorinated gas production facilities to determine 

fluorinated GHG emissions. 

Equipment Leak Emissions Estimates. For completeness, 

EPA is proposing that monitoring of process vents be 

supplemented by monitoring of equipment leaks, whose 

emissions do not occur through process vents. To estimate 

emissions from equipment leaks, we would require use of EPA 

Method 21 and the Protocol for Equipment Leak Estimates

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

annually. The Protocol includes four methods for 

estimating equipment leaks. These are, from least to most 

accurate, the Average Emission Factor Approach, the 

Screening Ranges Approach, EPA Correlation Approach, and 

the Unit-Specific Correlation Approach. We are proposing 

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

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

develop) Response Factors relating concentrations of the 

target fluorinated GHG (or surrogate gas co-occurring in 

the stream) to concentrations of the gas with which the 

leak detector is calibrated. Our understanding is that 

flame ionization detectors (FIDs) are generally insensitive 

to fluorinated GHGs, and that they are therefore not likely 

to be effective for detecting and quantifying fluorinated 

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

which the fluorinated GHG occurred in a stream along with a 

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

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

as a surrogate to quantify leaks from the stream. We 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

79

understand that at least two fluorocarbon producers 

currently use methods in the Protocol to quantify their 

emissions of fluorinated GHGs with different levels of 

accuracy and precision.33 Other analytical techniques that 

are sensitive to fluorinated compounds may be available to 

monitor concentrations of equipment leaks, including 

photoionization, ultraviolet, infrared, and others. EPA 

requests comment on the availability and use of portable 

monitoring instruments for equipment leak monitoring of 

fluorinated GHG. 

Another approach for monitoring leaks from pieces of 

equipment includes use of the Alternative Work Practice 

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

under 40 CFR part 60, subpart A, §60.18; 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart A, §63.11; or 40 CFR part 65, subpart A, §65.7). 

This approach would include monitoring leaking equipment 

with an optical gas imaging instrument. Emissions from 

those pieces of equipment found to be leaking could be 

estimated based on emission factors. Under this approach, 

facilities would be required to image each piece of 

equipment associated with processes covered under subpart L 

and in fluorinated GHG service, and all emissions imaged by 

the optical gas imaging instrument would be considered 

leaks and would be subject to emissions estimation. EPA 

requests comment on the technical feasibility and accuracy 

of this approach for fluorinated GHG emissions. 

Other Potentially Significant Emission Points. We are 

requesting comment on the inclusion of fluorinated GHG 

emissions from storage tanks, wastewater, and container 

filling, particularly where these emissions occur before 

the production measurement at fluorinated GHG production 

facilities. We anticipate that emissions from wastewater 

and storage tanks would be small to insignificant due to 

the low solubility of most fluorinated GHGs in water and 

the use of pressurized tanks for storage. However, we 

 

33 One producer estimates HFC and other fluorocarbon emissions by using 

the Average Emission Factor Approach. This approach simply assigns an 

average emission factor to each component without any evaluation of 

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

producer estimates emissions using the Screening Ranges Approach, which 

assigns different emission factors to components based on whether the 

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

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

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

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

30, 2009 MRR.) 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

80

request comment on the emission levels expected from these 

emission points. 

Our current understanding is that most fluorinated GHG 

production facilities measure their production before 

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

of the container connection to measure the mass flowing 

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

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

connections) would have been included in the production 

(supply) measurement. However, if production is measured 

by weighing containers before and after filling, then 

emissions during container filling would not have been 

included in the production measurement. In these cases, 

facilities using the emission factor approach would need to 

quantify container filling emissions for completeness. 

Possible methods for tracking these emissions include 

engineering estimates, default or site-specific emission 

factors, and mass balances. These methods are discussed in 

more detail in the TSD. 

6. Selection of Procedures for Estimating Missing Data 

In the event that a scale or flowmeter normally used 

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

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

malfunctions, or is rendered inoperable, we are proposing 

that facilities be required to estimate these quantities 

using other measurements where these data are available. 

For example, facilities that ordinarily measure production 

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

of product charged into shipping containers for sale and 

distribution as a substitute. It is our understanding that 

the types of flowmeters and scales used to measure 

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

generally quite reliable, and therefore that it should 

rarely be necessary to rely solely on secondary production 

measurements. In general, production facilities rely on 

accurate monitoring and reporting of the inputs and outputs 

of the production process. Nevertheless, EPA is also 

proposing that if a secondary mass measurement for the 

stream is not available, producers can use a related 

parameter and the historical relationship between the 

related parameter and the missing parameter to estimate the 

flow. 

If concentration measurements are unavailable for some 

period, we are proposing that the facility use the average 

of the concentration measurements from just before and just 

after the period of missing data. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

81

We request comment on these proposed methods for 

estimating missing data. 

7. Selection of Data Reporting Requirements 

Under the proposed rule, owners and operators of 

facilities producing fluorinated gases would be required to 

report both their fluorinated GHG emissions and the 

quantities used to estimate them on a process-specific 

basis. They would also be required to report the results 

of each scoping study, specifically, the chemical 

identities of the contents of potentially emitted streams. 

Facilities using the mass-balance approach would report the 

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

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

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

the facility). The chemical identities of reactants, 

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

with the chemical equations used to estimate emissions. 

Facilities using the emission factor approach would report 

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

quantity produced, transformed, or destroyed) and the 

emission factors used to estimate them. We are proposing 

that owners and operators report annual totals of these 

quantities by process and facility. 

Where fluorinated GHG production facilities have 

estimated missing data, the facility would be required to 

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

the data were missing, the method used to estimate the 

missing data, and the estimates of those data. 

We propose that facilities report these data because 

the data are necessary to verify facilities’ calculations 

of fluorinated GHG emissions. We request comment on these 

proposed reporting requirements. 

8. Selection of Records That Must Be Retained. 

Maintaining records of the information used to 

determine the reported GHG emissions is necessary to enable 

us to verify that the GHG emissions monitoring and 

calculations were done correctly. Under the proposed rule, 

owners and operators of facilities producing fluorinated 

GHGs would be required to retain records documenting the 

data reported, including records of monthly emission 

estimation calculations, all data that went in to the 

calculations, calibration records for flowmeters, scales, 

and gas chromatographs, and documentation of emission 

factor development activities. These records are necessary 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

82

to verify that the GHG emissions monitoring and 

calculations were performed correctly. 

C. Electric Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use

 In the April 2009 proposed mandatory GHG reporting 

rule (74 FR 16448; April 10, 2009), EPA proposed mandatory 

reporting of SF6 and PFC emissions from electric power 

transmission and distribution system equipment in subpart 

DD. As initially proposed, this source category would be 

comprised of electric power transmission and distribution 

systems that operate using gas-insulated substations, 

circuit breakers and other switchgear, or power 

transformers containing sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) or 

perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and emissions would represent the 

annual facility-wide emissions of SF6 and PFCs for the 

reporting facility. 

EPA received comment from approximately 22 entities, 

many of whom requested elaboration on what is included in 

an electric power system for purposes of this source 

category as well as the relationship of an electric power 

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

apply to owners and operators of any “facility”34. EPA is 

issuing this supplemental proposal to provide additional 

detail on this source category. 

In doing so, our objective is to clarify and solicit 

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

and what constitutes a facility for this subpart. We 

provide further detail on options we considered. We are 

proposing to integrate the Energy Information 

Administration of the Department of Energy (EIA) list of 

examples of electric power entities into the definition of 

a facility for this subpart. The EIA lists the following 

as electric power entities: “a company; an electric 

cooperative; a public electric supply corporation as the 

Tennessee Valley authority; a similar Federal department or 

agency such as the Bonneville Power Administration; the 

Bureau of Reclamation or the Corps of Engineers; a 

 

34 Unless otherwise specified in an individual subpart, facility means 

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

stationary equipment located on one or more contiguous or adjacent 

properties in actual physical contact or separated solely by a public 

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

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

of military installations may classify such installations as more than 

a single facility based on distinct and independent functional 

groupings within contiguous military properties. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

83

municipally owned electric department offering service to 

the public; or an electric public utility district (a 

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

as the Keystone.35 We are proposing to incorporate the EIA 

list of electric power entities because it is widely used 

in the industry and includes the spectrum of energy supply 

participants with relevant operations, i.e. vertically 

integrated, generate and transmit only, transmit and 

distribute only, transmit only and distribute only. We are 

also seeking comment on whether it would be appropriate to 

use the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) 

definition of a transmission and/or distribution entity in 

our definition of electric power system.36 That definition 

is the assets and equipment used to transmit and distribute 

electricity from an electric generator to the electrical 

load of a customer. It includes all related assets and 

equipment located within the service territory of the 

entity, defined as the service territory of a load-serving 

entity specified by the applicable state regulatory agency. 

In particular, EPA seeks comment on whether the RGGI 

definition includes the spectrum of entities identified in 

the EIA list and captures the full universe of SF6-emitting 

entities in the U.S. 

EPA is only requesting comment on Subpart DD. 98.300 

Definition of the Source Category. EPA is not seeking 

further comment on other elements of the initial proposal 

such as the selection of the threshold and the proposed 

monitoring methods. 

1. Definition of the Source Category 

The largest use of SF6 is as an electrical insulator 

and interrupter in equipment intended for use in connection 

with generation, transmission, distribution, and conversion 

of electric energy. The gas has been employed by the 

electric power industry in the U.S. since the 1950s because 

of its dielectric strength and arc-quenching 

characteristics. SF6 has replaced flammable insulating oils 

in many applications and allows for more compact 

substations in dense urban areas. It has also facilitated 

expansion of the electric power grid through long-distance 

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

gas-insulated substations, circuit breakers and other 

 

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

Energy Glossary: Energy terms and definitions; http://www.eia.gov/glossary

36 Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative Model Rule, 2008. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

84

switchgear, transformers, and gas-insulated lines. The 

types and location of gas-insulated equipment used varies 

depending on a number of technical, system design, 

geographic and historic factors. Currently, there are no 

available substitutes for SF6 in high-voltage applications. 

For further information, see the SF6 from Electrical 

Equipment TSD (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-030). 

Since SF6 is used in pressurized equipment, unintended 

emissions of SF6 occur over the life cycle of the equipment. 

SF6 can escape from gas-insulated substations and switchgear 

through seals, especially from older equipment. The gas can 

also be released during installation, servicing, and 

equipment disposal. Emissions of SF6 from electric power 

systems were estimated to be 12.4 million metric tons of 

CO2e in 2006. Emissions from electrical equipment 

manufacture and refurbishing are being covered in Subpart 

SS. 

PFCs are sometimes used as dielectric and as heat 

transfer fluids in power transformers. PFCs are also used 

for retrofitting CFC-113 cooled transformers. The common 

PFC used in this application is perfluorohexane (C6F14). In 

terms of both absolute and carbon-weighted emissions, PFC 

emissions from electrical equipment are generally believed 

to be much smaller than SF6 emissions. EPA does not 

currently have an estimate of PFC emissions from this 

source category. PFCs, however, are very potent and 

persistent greenhouse gases and an accurate inventory of 

use and emissions from all sources is important. 

Consequently, as stated in our initial proposal, we are 

proposing to include emissions of PFCs in this Subpart. 

Reference to gas-insulated equipment implies SF6 and PFCs. 

The electric transmission and distribution equipment 

use source category includes all gas-insulated electrical 

equipment such as gas-insulated substations, circuit 

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

transformers. This equipment is used as part of an 

interconnected group of electric transmission lines and 

associated equipment for the movement or transfer of 

electric energy in bulk between points of supply and points 

at which it is transformed for delivery to the ultimate 

customer. This equipment, along with lines and other 

associated equipment used for the movement or transfer of 

electric energy, operates as part of a contemporaneous 

network in real-time and in a synchronous manner to provide 

stable and reliable electricity to customers. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

85

A clear definition of a facility for this source 

category is important in order to determine whether a 

collection of electrical equipment meets the reporting 

threshold and to ensure that double or under reporting of 

emissions is minimized. In defining a facility, we 

reviewed current definitions used in the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) and by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC), North American Energy Reliability Council (NERC), 

California Air Resources Board (CARB), REGGI and EIA; 

consulted with industry; and reviewed current regulations 

relevant to the industry. Typically, the various 

regulations under the Clean Air Act define a facility as a 

group of emissions sources all located in a contiguous area 

and under the control of the same person (or persons under 

common control). The Subpart A definition of facility would 

require all SF6 equipment included in the facility be 

located on contiguous or adjacent properties. We are 

proposing not to use the exact definition of “facility” 

found in Subpart A because the completeness and accuracy of 

emissions data for this source category are dependent on 

reporting on all equipment regardless of location. For 

completeness, reporting needs to account for and report on 

all sources and activities within the facility. The purpose 

of transmission is to move energy over long distances. 

Similarly, distribution can occur over large geographical 

areas. Therefore, it is neither practical nor appropriate 

to exclude certain types of equipment solely based on its 

physical proximity. Emissions from gas-insulated equipment 

occur during installation, operation, servicing and 

decommissioning. Accuracy of reporting requires that 

emissions are systematically neither over nor under actual 

emissions, consequently including all equipment at all 

periods of the life cycle is necessary. Consequently, EPA 

has concluded that strict adherence to the Subpart A 

definition is not appropriate for this source category. 

In deciding where to draw the boundary between one 

facility and the next, we considered the following levels 

of reporting: per piece of equipment, by substation or 

switchyard, corporate-level, and aggregation of total 

equipment by system. Reporting per piece of equipment was 

deemed costly and highly impractical for reporters. 

Reporting by substation or switchyard, where multiple 

pieces of equipment is often located, would also be 

burdensome, given that a specific reporting protocol using 

the proposed mass-balance reporting method would have to be 

set up for each substation, requiring cylinder inventory 

and other data collection to be done on a per substation 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

86

basis. Although this may be practical for some system 

owners, others have responsibility for dozens or hundreds 

of substations. Finally, EPA considered corporate-level 

reporting based on comments submitted on our initial 

proposal. We concluded, however, that given the complex 

and varied corporate structures within the electric power 

industry that approach would not be practical and 

appropriate for this source. The full results of our 

assessment can be found in the SF6 from Electrical Equipment 

TSD (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-030). 

For this source category, EPA is proposing to define 

the facility as an “electric power system”, which would 

mean that reporting would occur at a “system-wide” level. 

The electric power system would be defined as all electric 

power equipment insulated with SF6 or PFCs regardless of 

location linked through electric power transmission or 

distribution lines and operated as an integrated unit by 

one electric power entity or several entities that have a 

single owner. Reporting by the electric power system would 

comprise all gas-insulated equipment located between the 

point of generation and the point at which the ultimate 

customer receives the electricity. Such equipment includes 

gas-insulated substations, circuit breakers, other 

switchgear, gas-insulated lines, or power transformers 

containing SF6 or PFCs. Electric power entities consist of 

a company; an electric cooperative; a public electric 

supply corporation as the Tennessee Valley Authority; a 

similar Federal department or agency such as the Bonneville 

Power Administration; the Bureau of Reclamation or the 

Corps of Engineers; a municipally owned electric department 

offering service to the public; or an electric public 

utility district (a “PUD”); also a jointly owned electric 

supply project such as the Keystone. Although the size of 

these facilities will vary, and some are expected to cross 

state lines, a facility is likely to encompass more than a 

thousand miles of lines and hundreds of pieces of equipment 

located at multiple substations or switchyards. Equipment 

also includes gas containers such as pressurized cylinders, 

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

other containers. 

EPA believes the proposed definition of “facility” for 

this source category is appropriate and analogous to the 

Subpart A definition of a “facility” used for other source 

categories due to the physical interconnection and 

operational dependence of the components of the system. It 

is also consistent with the concept of a “transmission and 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

87

distribution system,” which is a standard term used by the 

industry. The transfer of energy is dependent on the 

collective functioning of all components of the system 

which must operate as a contemporaneous network in realtime and in a synchronous manner. Without system-wide use 

of gas-insulated equipment, operation and system 

reliability is not possible. Furthermore, system-wide 

reporting is consistent with the reported servicing and 

maintenance practices of many SF6-insulated equipment 

owners making this approach less burdensome and more 

efficient than using a substation or per piece of equipment 

source definition. This is also consistent with the 

approach used by over 80 systems from across the U.S. that 

are participating in the “EPA SF6 Emission Reduction 

Partnership for Electric Power Systems”, and has proven to 

be a practical and reasonable approach for the collection 

of emissions data. In addition, the burden of using the 

mass-balance method proposed for monitoring is lowest at a 

system-wide level. 

EPA is requesting comment on whether one electric 

power system should be distinguished from the next on the 

basis of operation, ownership, or some combination of the 

two. EPA is proposing that the electric power system be 

the collection of equipment operated as an integrated unit 

by one electric power entity or several entities that have 

a single owner because it best reflects the functional 

aspect of the system (transmitting and distributing power) 

and emphasizes the physical interconnection and operational 

dependence of the system components. It also reflects 

current voluntary best practices for GHG reporting from 

this source category. This proposed definition would not 

relieve entities that own but do not operate equipment of 

the obligation to report under 40 CFR 98.3. Regardless of 

the role that operation or ownership plays in the final 

source category definition, the obligation to report will 

apply to both owners and operators. 

Under the proposed definition of facility, total 

emissions would be derived from the entire collection of 

servicing inventory (cylinders stored) and gas-insulated 

equipment. Reporting would be based on the aggregation of 

emissions of all servicing inventory and equipment. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

88

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

1. Overview of Reporting Requirements 

Under today’s proposed rule, importers and exporters 

of pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams would be 

required to report their imports and exports to EPA if 

either their imports or their exports contained a total of 

more than 25,000 mtCO2e of fluorinated GHGs. The reports 

would be similar to those required of importers and 

exporters of bulk GHGs under Subpart OO of the Mandatory 

Reporting Rule published on October 28, 2009. In addition, 

equipment importers would be required to report the types 

and charge sizes of equipment and the number of pieces of 

each type of equipment that they imported or exported, 

while foam importers would be required to report the volume 

of foam and fluorinated GHG density of the foam that they 

imported. Importers and exporters would report at the 

corporate level. 

2. Summary of Initial Proposed Rule and Comments 

Received 

In the initial proposed rule published on April 10, 

2009, we did not propose to require reporting of the 

quantities of GHGs imported and exported inside products. 

We were concerned that it would be difficult for importers 

and exporters to identify and quantify the quantities of 

GHGs inside some products and that the number of importers 

and exporters would be high. However, we requested comment 

on the option of requiring reporting of imports and exports 

of HFCs and SF6 contained in pre-charged air-conditioning, 

refrigeration, and electrical equipment and in closed cell 

foams. We noted that for these products, information on 

the size and chemical identity of the charge or blowing 

agent is likely to be readily available to importers and 

exporters (e.g., from nameplates affixed to equipment, 

servicing manuals, and product information for foams). 

Moreover, as noted above, the total quantities of imported 

and exported fluorinated GHGs in pre-charged equipment and 

foams are significant. 

We received a range of comments on whether or not we 

should require reporting of fluorinated GHGs imported or 

exported inside of pre-charged equipment and closed-cell 

foams. Several manufacturers and importers of fluorinated 

GHGs supported such a requirement, noting that the 

identities and quantities of fluorinated GHGs inside 

equipment and foams are well-known, that imported and 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

89

exported quantities are significant in aggregate, that the 

number of importers and exporters is small, and that 

information on fluorinated GHGs imported or exported inside 

of equipment could help to inform legislation being 

considered by Congress, which would include fluorinated 

GHGs imported in pre-charged equipment under emissions 

caps. Some of these commenters stated that failure to 

require reporting of imported equipment and foams would be 

unfair to domestic manufacturers, who would be subject to 

reporting from which foreign manufacturers would be 

exempted. They observed that this inequity could drive 

production offshore, harming the U.S. economy and possibly 

increasing global GHG emissions if less efficient 

manufacturers in developing countries took over the lost 

U.S. production. 

Equipment importers and a fluorocarbon producer 

opposed a requirement to report imports and exports of 

fluorinated GHGs in pre-charged equipment and foams, 

stating that such a requirement would be unnecessary and 

costly. These commenters stated that the quantities of 

fluorinated GHGs inside individual pieces of equipment are 

small, ranging from ounces to pounds, and that emissions 

from such equipment are extremely small because the systems 

are hermetically sealed. 

After carefully considering the comments and available 

information on imports and exports of fluorinated GHGs 

inside pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams, we are 

proposing to require reporting of these imports and 

exports. 

3. Definition of the Source Category 

This source category includes importers and exporters 

of pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams that contain 

fluorinated GHGs. Pre-charged equipment includes airconditioning equipment or equipment components that contain 

HFCs and electrical equipment or equipment components that 

contain SF6 or PFCs. Closed-cell foams include closed-cell 

foams blown with HFC blowing agents. 

Air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment generally 

uses HFC refrigerants. In this application, HFCs serve as 

substitutes for ozone-depleting substances (ODSs), which 

are being phased out under the Montreal Protocol and Title 

VI of the Clean Air Act. Because some ODSs (i.e., HCFCs) 

are only beginning to be phased out, the use of HFCs in 

equipment such as window and residential air-conditioners 

is expected to grow very quickly over the next decade. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

90

Imports and exports of HFC pre-charged equipment may grow 

as well. Although the quantities of chemical contained in 

each unit are small in absolute terms (i.e., a few pounds 

or less), they are more significant in CO2-equivalent 

terms, ranging up to eleven mtCO2e per unit for pre-charged 

commercial air-conditioners. This significance is due to 

the high GWPs of the HFCs. 

HFCs are also used as blowing agents during the 

manufacture of foams. Open-cell foams are assumed to emit 

100 percent of the blowing agent in the year they are 

manufactured, whereas closed-cell foams emit only a 

fraction of their total HFC content upon manufacture. Foam 

products that are closed-cell and imported or exported as a 

finished foam product therefore have potential to emit the 

blowing agent remaining in the foam after manufacture. 

Closed cell foams that are imported or exported include: 

polyurethane (PU) rigid foam used as insulation in domestic 

refrigerators and freezers; commercial refrigeration foam; 

PU rigid sandwich panel continuous and discontinuous foam; 

extruded polystyrene (XPS) sheet foam; and XPS boardstock 

foam. 

SF6 is used as an electrical insulator and arcquenching gas in electrical transmission equipment, 

including circuit breakers and gas-insulated substations. 

Again, the quantities of SF6 in each unit are often small 

in absolute terms (around 14 pounds per circuit breaker), 

but are larger in CO2-equivalent terms (around 150 mtCO2e 

per circuit breaker).37 

Our analysis indicates that the quantities of 

fluorinated GHGs imported and exported inside of precharged equipment and foams are significant. Imports are 

estimated to total about 21 million mtCO2e, while exports 

are estimated to total about 8 million mtCO2e. For further 

information, please see the Technical Support Document for 

Imports and Exports of Pre-Charged Equipment and Foams 

(Revised), (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-XXX). 

We are proposing to require reporting for a number of 

reasons. First, we have determined that exports and 

particularly imports of pre-charged equipment and foam have 

a substantial impact on the total U.S. supply of 

fluorinated GHGs and of industrial GHGs generally. Based 

on the estimates above, imports constitute between seven 

 

37 Emissions from use and manufacture of electrical equipment are 

addressed under subparts DD and SS of this rule; subpart OOa addresses 

only the import and export of such equipment. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

91

and ten percent of the net U.S. supply of fluorinated GHGs, 

while exports are equivalent to between three and four 

percent of that total. (The range is based on slightly 

different estimates of the net U.S. supply based on bottomup and top-down approaches.) We estimate that 22 million 

pieces of equipment and 66 million board-feet of foam are 

imported annually. Although the quantities of HFCs and SF6

in individual pieces of equipment may be small in terms of 

the mass of chemical, the high GWPs of these chemicals can 

make them significant in CO2-equivalent terms. For 

example, a pre-charged residential air conditioner 

(unitary) contains about 7 tons of CO2e, while an average 

size circuit breaker with a shipping charge of SF6 (20 

percent of a full, operational charge) contains over 150 

tons of CO2e. 

Imported and exported fluorinated GHGs are added to or 

subtracted from the U.S. supply of fluorinated GHGs 

regardless of whether they are imported in bulk or in 

equipment. Every year, a part of the U.S. fluorinated GHG 

supply is used to charge new equipment or to blow closedcell foams. If equipment is imported already containing a 

charge, that charge offsets demand that would otherwise 

have occurred for fluorinated GHGs that are produced 

domestically or imported in bulk. Accounting for the 

quantities of fluorinated GHGs in equipment therefore 

significantly improves our understanding of the U.S. supply 

of fluorinated GHGs. Although commenters who opposed 

reporting noted that leak rates from some types of imported 

equipment are low, this does not distinguish fluorinated 

GHGs imported inside of equipment from fluorinated GHGs 

that are charged into the same type of equipment after its 

import or domestic manufacture. Any imported or 

domestically produced fluorinated GHG may be stored for 

many years inside equipment before being emitted or 

destroyed.38 

The second reason that we are proposing to require 

reporting of imports and exports of fluorinated GHGs inside 

pre-charged equipment and foams is that discussions with 

industry experts indicate that the numbers of importers and 

exporters are relatively small, limiting the administrative 

burden of the rule and increasing the cost-effectiveness of 

the data gathering. Experts from the air-conditioning and 

 

38 Even if the F-GHG is recovered from the equipment at the end of the 

equipment’s life, it will ultimately be either emitted or destroyed. 

Recycling delays emission or destruction (and reduces demand for new FGHG), but it does not avoid it. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

92

refrigeration industry estimate that there are 

approximately 50 importers and 25 exporters of pre-charged 

air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment, and experts 

from the electrical equipment industry estimate that there 

are approximately 8 importers and 10 exporters of precharged electrical equipment. Based on the membership of 

various trade organizations including foam manufacturers 

and distributors, EPA estimates that there are 

approximately 50 entities that import and 25 entities that 

export foams. These numbers are considerably smaller than 

the number of importers and exporters of bulk fluorinated 

GHGs that are covered by the final rule published October 

30, 2009. 

Third, we estimate that the costs associated with 

identifying, quantifying, and reporting the quantities of 

fluorinated GHGs imported and exported inside pre-charged 

products and foams are reasonably modest. As noted above, 

information on the chemical identities and sizes of 

equipment charges should be readily available to importers 

and exporters, and the same is true for the identities and 

densities of the HFCs in foams, which strongly influence 

the insulating capacities of the foams. 

Inclusion of other products that contain fluorinated 

GHGs. EPA’s understanding is that pre-charged equipment 

and closed-cell foams account for the great majority of 

fluorinated GHGs that are imported in or exported from the 

U.S. inside of products. However, a variety of products 

containing fluorinated greenhouse gases (fluorinated GHGs), 

nitrous oxide (N2O), and carbon dioxide (CO2) are imported 

into and exported from the United States, including, for 

example, aerosols containing HFCs. EPA requests comment on 

the magnitude of imports and exports of these other 

products and on whether such imports and exports should be 

reported under this subpart. 

4. Selection of Reporting Threshold 

We are proposing to require that importers and 

exporters of fluorinated GHGs contained in pre-charged 

equipment and closed cell foams report their imports and 

exports if either their total imports or their total 

exports, in equipment, foams, and in bulk, exceed 25,000 

mtCO2e per year. This threshold is the same as that for 

bulk imports and exports. 

Tables OOa-1 and Ooa-2 shows the estimated imports and 

exports (in mtCO2e) and facilities (corporations) that 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

93

would be covered under the various thresholds for imports 

and exports of equipment and foam. 

In the absence of importer- and exporter-specific 

information, we assumed that within the three general 

categories of products, each importer and exporter imported 

or exported the same quantity of fluorinated GHGs. 

(Exports of SF6 in electrical equipment were the sole 

exception to this.) This assumption led to the conclusion 

that 100 percent of imported and exported pre-charged 

equipment and foams (except exported electrical equipment) 

would be reported at the 25,000 mtCO2e threshold. In fact, 

imports and exports are likely to be concentrated among a 

subset of importers and exporters, and fewer entities are 

therefore likely to report at the 25,000 mtCO2e threshold. 

We request comment on the distribution of imports and 

exports among importers and exporters and on the likely 

coverage (in percentage terms) of imported and exported 

equipment and foams at the 25,000 mtCO2e threshold. An 

alternative approach would be to lower the threshold or to 

require reporting by all importers and exporters of precharged equipment and closed cell foams, but EPA is 

concerned that this approach could burden many small 

importers and exporters with reporting while gaining little 

additional coverage of imports and exports in equipment and 

foams. 

5. Selection of Proposed Monitoring Methods. 

We are proposing to require importers and exporters of 

equipment and foams to estimate their imports and exports 

 

HFC Refrigeration/AC 

Equipment SF6 Electrical Equipment Closed-cell Foams 

Threshold 

Level Imports Covered

Importers 

Covered Imports Covered 

Importers 

Covered 

Imports 

Covered 

Importers 

Covered 

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

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

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

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

Threshold 

Level 

Exports 

Covered 

Exporters 

Covered Exports Covered 

Exporters 

Covered 

Exports 

Covered 

Exporters 

Covered 

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

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

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

100,000 5,247,905 25 0 3,025,285 25 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

94

of each fluorinated GHG by multiplying the mass of the 

fluorinated GHG contained in each type of equipment or foam 

by the number of pieces of equipment or by the volume of 

foam, as appropriate. As noted above, we believe that 

information on fluorinated GHG identity and charge size (or 

density, for foams) should be readily available to 

importers and exporters. 

Under the current mandatory GHG reporting rule, bulk 

importers and exporters of fluorinated GHGs are not 

required to report individual shipments totaling less than 

250 mtCO2e of fluorinated GHGs. This exemption was 

intended to exclude small shipments, e.g., of chemical 

samples being shipped for analysis, from reporting. We 

established the exemption after an analysis of import and 

export shipments showed that it would decrease reporting by 

less than 0.1 percent. We are not proposing a similar 

exemption for small shipments of equipment and foams 

because we do not believe it would be necessary and because 

we are concerned that it might lead to the exclusion of a 

significant share of imports and exports of these products. 

We do not believe the small-shipment exemption would be 

necessary because the definition of import in subpart A 

already excludes the bringing into the U.S. of household 

effects such as refrigerators and window air conditioners. 

We are concerned that the exemption may result in excluding 

a significant share of imports and exports because 250 

mtCO2e equates to a large number of pieces of some types of 

equipment (e.g., over 1,300 household refrigerators). 

6. Selection of Data to Be Reported. 

EPA is proposing to require importers and exporters of 

pre-charged equipment and closed cell foams to report the 

following: 

(1) The total mass in metric tons of each fluorinated 

GHG imported or exported in pre-charged equipment or 

closed-cell foams. 

(2) For each type of pre-charged equipment, the 

identity of the fluorinated GHG used as a refrigerant or 

electrical insulator, charge size (holding charge39, if 

applicable), and number imported or exported 

(3) For closed-cell foams that are imported or 

exported inside of appliances, the identity of the 

 

39 This refers to any holding charge consisting of a fluorinated GHG. 

Holding charges consisting of other gases, such as nitrogen, are not 

included. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

95

fluorinated GHG contained in the foam, the quantity of 

fluorinated GHG contained in the foam in each appliance, 

and the number of appliances imported for each type of 

appliance. 

(4) For closed cell-foams that are not inside of 

appliances, the identity of the fluorinated GHG, the 

density of the fluorinated GHG in the foam (kg fluorinated 

GHG/cubic foot), and the quantity of foam imported or 

exported (cubic feet) for each type of closed-cell foam. 

(5) Dates on which the pre-charged equipment or 

closed-cell foams were imported or exported. 

(6) Ports of entry through which the pre-charged 

equipment or closed-cell foams passed. 

(7) Countries from or to which the pre-charged 

equipment or closed-cell foams were imported or exported. 

We are proposing to collect this information because 

it is necessary either to understand the total volume of 

fluorinated GHGs imported or exported inside of pre-charged 

equipment and foams (and thereby contributing to the U.S. 

supply of fluorinated GHGs) or to verify submitted 

information. 

7. Selection of Recordkeeping Requirements. 

EPA is proposing to require importers and exporters of 

equipment and closed cell foams to retain the following 

records: 

(1) A copy of the bill of lading for the import or export, 

(2) The invoice for the import or export, and 

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

This information is necessary to verify submitted 

information. 

E. Electrical Equipment Manufacture or Refurbishment 

1. Definition of the Source Category 

This source category comprises electrical equipment 

manufacturers and refurbishers of SF6 or PFC-insulated 

closed-pressure equipment and sealed-pressure equipment 

including gas-insulated substations, circuit breakers and 

other switchgear, gas-insulated lines, or power 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

96

transformers containing sulfur-hexafluoride (SF6) or 

perfluorocarbons (PFCs). 

Electrical equipment employed to transmit and 

distribute electricity constitutes the largest use of SF6 in 

the world. The dielectric strength and arc-quenching 

characteristics of SF6 make it an extremely effective 

electrical insulator and interrupter. For this reason, the 

electric power industry in the U.S. has used this gas since 

the 1950s in both closed-pressure and sealed-pressure 

equipment including gas-insulated substations, circuit 

breakers and other switchgear, and gas-insulated lines. 

Closed-pressure equipment requires periodic refilling 

(topping up) with gas during its lifetime, whereas sealedpressure equipment generally does not. SF6 has replaced 

flammable insulating oils in many applications and allows 

for more compact substations in dense urban areas. SF6

insulated equipment has also made expansion of the grid 

through transmission over significantly longer distances 

economically practical. Currently, there are no available 

substitutes for SF6 in this application. For further 

information, see the SF6 from Electrical Equipment 

Manufacturers TSD (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-XXX). 

Manufacturers of gas insulated electrical equipment 

purchase bulk SF6 gas to (1) install a holding or shipping 

charge in high-voltage closed-pressure equipment, (2) ship 

alongside closed-pressure equipment for topping off at 

installation site, (3) fill sealed-pressure equipment with 

its intended lifetime supply of SF6, and (4) develop and 

test equipment. 

Emissions of SF6 from equipment manufacturers can occur 

during the development and testing of equipment and during 

equipment filling, but emissions can also occur during the 

other uses of SF6 at manufacturing facilities. Refurbishment 

of equipment generally occurs at facilities used to 

manufacture new equipment and emissions typically occur 

during the leak test operations for gas-containing 

components as well as the disassembly and reassembly of 

equipment. 

PFCs are sometimes used as dielectrics and heat 

transfer fluids in power transformers. PFCs are also used 

for retrofitting CFC-113 cooled transformers. The most 

common PFC used in this application is perfluorohexane 

(C6F14). In terms of both absolute and carbon-weighted 

emissions, PFC emissions from electrical equipment are 

generally believed to be much smaller than SF6 emissions 

from electrical equipment. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

97

According to the U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007 (EPA 2009), total U.S. 

estimated emissions of SF6 from electrical equipment 

manufacturers were 0.81 million metric tons CO2e in 2006. 

EPA is proposing to require reporting from electrical 

equipment manufacture and refurbishment facilities because 

these operations represent a significant source, 

approximately 5% of U.S. SF6 emissions. It is estimated that 

ten equipment manufacturers were responsible for these 

emissions. 

EPA is seeking comment on whether transformers using 

PFCs are currently manufactured in the U.S. EPA is also 

seeking comment on whether PFC emissions associated with 

the production of this equipment occur at the same rate as 

SF6 emissions from equipment manufacture and whether 

emissions occur during the same processes. EPA is proposing 

to include emissions of PFCs emitted during the manufacture 

or refurbishment of PFC-containing power transformers 

because while PFCs are known to be used in this 

application, the National Inventory has no information on 

the magnitude of this source. PFCs are very potent and 

persistent greenhouse gases and an accurate inventory of 

use and emissions from all sources is important. 

2. Selection of Reporting Threshold 

We propose to require electrical equipment 

manufacturers to report their SF6 and PFC emissions if their 

total annual purchases of SF6 and PFCs exceed 23,000 lbs. 

This consumption-based threshold is equivalent to an 

emissions-based threshold of 25,000 Mt CO2 Eq., assuming an 

average manufacturer emission rate of 10%.40

In developing this proposed threshold, we considered 

several emission-based threshold options including 1,000 

metric tons CO2e; 10,000 metric tons CO2e; 25,000 metric 

tons CO2e: and 100,000 metric tons CO2e. SF6 and PFC 

consumption thresholds of 922; 9,220; and 92,200 lbs of SF6

and PFC were also considered, corresponding to the emission 

threshold options of 1,000; 10,000; and 100,000 metric tons 

CO2e, respectively. Summaries of the threshold options 

 

40 The 10 percent emission rate is the average of the “ideal” and 

“realistic” manufacturing emission rates (4 percent and 17 percent, 

respectively) identified in a paper prepared under the auspices of the 

International Council on Large Electric Systems (CIGRE) in February 

2002 (O’Connell et al. 2002). 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

98

(consumption-based and emissions-based) and the number of 

equipment manufacturers and emissions covered under each 

threshold are presented in Table 1 of this preamble. 

 Table 1. Threshold Analysis 

 

Emission Emissions Covered Facilities Covered 

Threshold 

Level 

metric tons 

CO2e/yr 

Total 

National 

Emissions 

Total 

Number of 

Facilities

metric 

tons 

CO2e/yr Percent Facilities Percent

1,000 814,128 10 814,128 100% 10 100% 

10,000 814,128 10 814,128 100% 10 100% 

25,000 814,128 10 814,128 100% 10 100% 

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

 The proposed consumption threshold and the 

corresponding emissions threshold level is consistent with 

general requirements of the Final Mandatory Reporting rule 

(74 FR 56260) and provides comprehensive coverage of 

emissions for this sector. A consumption-based threshold 

was selected because it permits equipment manufacturers to 

quickly determine whether they are covered by referring to 

SF6 and PFC purchase records. 

3. Selection of Proposed Monitoring Methods 

We are proposing that all electrical equipment 

manufacturing facilities where SF6 and PFC purchases exceed 

23,000 lbs per year report all SF6 and PFC emissions using a 

mass-balance approach. This would include all emissions 

from equipment testing, manufacturing (including filling), 

decommissioning and disposal, refurbishing, and from 

storage cylinders. We are proposing this approach because 

it is the most accurate and because all equipment 

manufacturers should be able to conduct the mass balance 

analysis using readily available information. 

The proposed monitoring methods are similar to the 

methodologies described in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines Tier 3 

methods for emissions from electrical equipment 

manufacturing. These methodologies outline a mass-balance 

approach that is comparable to the proposed approach for 

subpart DD Electric Power System Equipment. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

99

The mass-balance approach we are proposing for 

electrical equipment manufacturers works by tracking and 

systematically accounting for all facility uses of SF6 and 

PFCs during the reporting year. The quantities of SF6 and 

PFCs that cannot be accounted for are assumed to have been 

emitted to the atmosphere. The emissions of SF6 and PFCs 

would be estimated and reported separately. 

The following equation describes the proposed 

facility-level mass-balance approach. (For brevity, the 

equation refers only to SF6; however, the method would also 

apply to PFCs in power transformers.) 

Equipment Manufacturing Emissions = Decrease in SF6

Inventory + Acquisitions of SF6 – Disbursements of SF6 

Where: 

Decrease in SF6 Inventory = SF6 stored in 

containers at the beginning of the year – SF6

stored in containers at the end of the year 

Acquisitions of SF6 = SF6 purchased from chemical 

producers or distributors in bulk + SF6 returned 

by equipment users or distributors with or inside 

equipment + SF6 returned to site after off-site 

recycling 

Disbursements of SF6 = SF6 contained in new 

equipment delivered to customers + SF6 delivered 

to equipment users in containers + SF6 returned to 

suppliers + SF6 sent off-site for recycling + SF6 

sent to destruction facilities 

EPA is seeking comment on the proposed methods for 

determining disbursements of SF6 or PFCs, specifically, with 

respect to SF6 or PFCs contained in new equipment delivered 

to customers and SF6 or PFCs delivered to equipment users in 

cylinders. Two methods are being proposed. Disbursement 

of SF6 or PFCs to customers in new equipment or cylinders 

could be estimated by weighing containers before and after 

gas from the containers was used to fill equipment or 

cylinders, or by using flow meters to measure the amount of 

gas used to fill equipment or cylinders. If the first 

method of weighing containers were used, emissions 

downstream of the containers that dispensed SF6 or PFCs into 

new equipment or cylinders (i.e., losses from hoses or 

other flow lines that connected the container to the 

equipment that is being filled) would be required to be 

estimated separately and subtracted from the disbursement 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

100

total. Similarly, if the second method of flow meters were 

used and the flow meter was not located at the equipment’s 

fill valve, emissions downstream of the containers would be 

required to be estimated separately and subtracted from the 

disbursement total. If the flow meter was located at the 

valve, the flow meter reading would be sufficient for 

determining any emissions downstream of the containers 

dispensing SF6 or the PFC. 

In addition to seeking comment on these two proposed 

options, EPA is also seeking comment on the methods and 

calculations for determining emission losses downstream of 

the containers dispensing SF6 or the PFC. EPA is proposing 

to require that these emissions be estimated using 

measurements and/or engineering assessments or calculations 

based on chemical engineering principles or physical or 

chemical laws or properties. Such assessments or 

calculations could be based on, as applicable, the internal 

volume of the hose or line that was open to the atmosphere 

during coupling and decoupling activities, the internal 

pressure of the hose or line, the time the hose or line was 

open to the atmosphere during coupling and decoupling 

activities, the frequency with which the hose or line was 

purged and the flow rate during purges. Such methods could 

also include the use of leak detection methods (e.g., EPA 

Method 21 and the Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission 

Estimates) to determine a loss factor appropriate to 

calculate emissions. Unexpected or accidental emissions 

from the filling lines or hoses would be required to be 

included in the total. 

EPA is seeking comment on the specific methods that 

should be employed to estimate emission losses from hoses 

or flow lines and on whether a particular method or set of 

methods should be required for this estimate. In addition, 

EPA requests comment on whether emissions downstream of the 

containers dispensing the SF6 or PFCs consist solely of 

emissions from lines or hoses. EPA’s understanding is that 

electrical equipment is at a vacuum and is sealed prior to 

being filled with SF6 or PFCs; however, if it contains air 

or nitrogen and this gas is purged during the filling 

process, then the method should also account for SF6 and PFC 

emissions that occur during such purging. 

EPA is also considering other options for accurately 

measuring the quantities of SF6 or PFCs disbursed to 

equipment users in equipment. (These options are described 

in more detail in the Technical Support Document.) One 

option being considered is to assume that the mass of SF6 or 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

101

PFCs disbursed to customers in equipment is equal to the 

nameplate capacity of the equipment (or, where the 

equipment is shipped with a partial charge, equal to the 

nameplate capacity of the equipment times the ratio of the 

densities of the partial charge and the full charge.) 

Although the nominal nameplate capacity could be used for 

this calculation, EPA is concerned that the actual mass of 

SF6 or PFCs charged into each piece of equipment may vary by 

a few percent from the nominal capacity (e.g., because 

there is some variability in the internal volume of the 

equipment or in the density to which the equipment is 

charged). Because the mass-balance approach requires 

precise inputs, inaccuracies of even two or three percent 

could lead to very large inaccuracies in the facility’s 

emissions estimate. 

One way of developing a more precise estimate of the 

nameplate capacity of equipment would be to fill the 

equipment with a fluid and then to carefully recover the 

fluid, measuring what was recovered. This fluid could be 

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

equipment would be charged to its operational or shipping 

SF6 density using the facility’s usual methods and then 

emptied. The mass of the SF6 recovered, adjusted slightly 

for the residual pressure of the SF6 that would remain in 

the equipment even at a deep vacuum, could be equated to 

the full or shipping charge, as applicable. One advantage 

of this approach is that it would reflect the actual SF6

charging practices of the facility; one disadvantage is 

that it could result in small SF6 emissions during the 

charging and recovery steps. 

If a liquid was used, the equipment would be filled 

carefully, ensuring that the full volume was filled, and 

then emptied. The volume of the liquid recovered would be 

equated to the internal volume of the equipment.41 This 

volume times the SF6 density at the full charge would yield 

the nameplate capacity of the equipment. 

To account for variability, a certain number of these 

measurements would need to be performed to develop a robust 

and representative average nameplate capacity (or shipping 

charge) for each make and model. The specific number of 

measurements would depend on the variability of the 

nameplate capacity within each make and model, as discussed 

in the Technical Support Document. It may be appropriate 

 

41 The temperature of the liquid would need to be kept constant 

throughout this exercise to obtain an accurate measurement of the 

volume. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

102

to select equipment samples filled at different times to 

reflect day-to-day variability in the facility’s filling 

practices and conditions. EPA seeks comment on these other 

options for accurately measuring the quantities of SF6 and 

PFCs disbursed to customers in equipment and/or cylinders. 

Another option is to require that the equipment filled 

with SF6 or the PFC from the container be weighed before and 

after filling. The tare weight of the equipment would then 

be subtracted from the weight of the filled equipment to 

determine the weight of the gas in the equipment, and 

therefore, the weight of the actual disbursement. One 

potential concern regarding this option is that the mass of 

the SF6 or PFC charged into the equipment is likely to be 

low relative to the mass of the equipment; thus, it may be 

difficult to obtain a precise measurement of the mass of 

the SF6 or PFC using this method (i.e., within 1 percent) 

even if the scale is precise and accurate to within 1 

percent of full scale. EPA requests comment on this 

approach. 

EPA also requests comment on whether an equipment 

installation mass-balance equation is required to measure 

emissions from equipment installation and commissioning 

that is performed by equipment manufacturers at utility 

locations. Where the manufacturer filled the equipment 

before transferring custody to the equipment user, EPA is 

assuming that the manufacturer would be responsible for the 

associated emissions. This would also apply to equipment 

that was filled at the factory but whose charge leaked out 

before being delivered to the customer. Quantitative 

methods for addressing these issues are discussed in more 

detail in the Technical Support Document. 

Other Options Considered. In developing the proposed 

approach, we reviewed the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, the U.S. 

GHG Inventory, DOE 1605(b), EPA’s Climate Leaders Program, 

and The Climate Registry. In our review of the IPCC 

Guidelines, we also considered the IPCC Tier 1 and the IPCC 

Tier 2 methods for calculating and reporting SF6 and PFC 

emissions. Although the IPCC Tier 1 and IPCC Tier 2 methods 

are simple, IPCC does not provide default emission factors 

for the U.S. due to lack of data. Furthermore, SF6 use in 

electrical equipment manufacturing is largely dependent on 

the type of equipment being produced and the specific 

handling practices at facilities. Applying an emission 

factor to all equipment manufacturers would not take into 

account the different types of equipment being produced at 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

103

each facility or the variation in handling practices among 

facilities. Nor would it provide data of sufficient 

accuracy for the source or on a per facility basis. As a 

result, we are not proposing the IPCC Tier 1 or Tier 2 

method. 

We are not proposing to require continuous emissions 

monitoring (CEMs) because of insufficient information on 

which to base a decision and because CEMS is not expected 

to be practical for this source category at this time due 

to the intermittent and widespread nature of the emissions. 

EPA seeks comment on whether continuous emissions 

monitoring is technically feasible for this source 

category. 

4. Selection of Procedures for Estimating Missing Data 

It is expected that equipment manufacturers should be 

able to obtain 100 percent of the data needed to perform 

the mass balance calculations for both SF6 and PFCs. The use 

of the mass-balance approach requires correct records for 

all inputs. However, if needed, missing data can be 

replaced using data from similar manufacturing operations, 

and from similar equipment testing and decomissioning 

activities for which data are available. 

5. QA/QC Requirements 

 We propose that electrical equipment manufacturers be 

required to use flowmeters or scales that are accurate and 

precise to within one percent of full scale. In addition, 

we are proposing to require manufacturers to establish 

procedures for and document their measurements and 

calculations under this subpart, including check-out sheets 

and weigh-in procedures for cylinders, residual gas amounts 

in cylinders sent back to suppliers, invoices for gas and 

equipment purchases or sales, and documentation of 

recycling and destruction. The records that are being 

proposed are the minimum needed to reproduce and confirm 

emission calculations. 

6. Selection of Data Reporting Requirements 

We propose annual reporting for the electrical 

equipment manufacturing and refurbishing industry. 

Equipment manufacturers would report all SF6 and PFC 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

104

emissions, including those from equipment testing, 

equipment manufacturing, and bulk SF6 and PFC handling. 

However, the emissions would not need to be broken down and 

reported separately for testing, manufacturing, or bulk SF6

and PFC handling. Along with their emissions, electrical 

equipment manufacturers would be required to submit the 

following supplemental data: SF6 and PFCs with or inside 

equipment delivered to customers, the nameplate capacity of 

the equipment delivered to customers, SF6 and PFCs returned 

by customers with or inside equipment, bulk SF6 and PFC 

purchases, SF6 and PFCs sent off-site for destruction or to 

be recycled, SF6 and PFC returned from offsite after 

recycling, SF6 and PFCs stored in containers at the 

beginning and end of the year, SF6 and PFCs returned to 

suppliers. For any missing data, manufacturers would be 

required to report the reason the data were missing, the 

length of time the data were missing, the method used to 

estimate emissions in their absence, and the quantity of 

emissions thereby estimated. 

These data would be submitted because they are the 

minimum data that are needed to understand and reproduce 

the emission calculations that are the basis of the 

reported emissions. 

 

7. Selection of Records That Must Be Retained 

We propose that electrical equipment manufacturers be 

required to keep records documenting (1) their adherence to 

the QA/QC requirements specified in the proposed rule, and 

(2) the data that would be included in their emission 

reports, as specified above. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

105

 

 

F. Subpart A Revisions 

Proposed Amendments to the General Provisions. EPA is 

proposing harmonizing changes to the general provisions for 

the mandatory GHG reporting rule (40 CFR part 98, subpart 

A) to accommodate the addition of the proposed 40 CFR part 

98, subparts I, L, DD, OOa, and SS. The changes affect 

paragraphs on rule applicability, schedule, definitions, 

and incorporation by reference. 

In particular, we propose to revise 40 CFR 98.2(a) to 

add the facilities and suppliers covered by the proposed 

subparts to the list of source categories that must report 

their annual emissions starting with calendar year 2011. In 

a separate rulemaking (XX FR XXXXX), EPA is issuing minor 

harmonizing changes to the general provisions for the GHG 

reporting rule (40 CFR part 98, subpart A) to accommodate 

the addition of source categories not included in the 2009 

final rule (e.g., subparts proposed in April 2009 but not 

finalized in 2009, any new subparts that may be proposed in 

the future). These changes update 98.2(a) on rule 

applicability and 98.3 regarding the reporting schedule to 

accommodate any additional subparts and the schedule for 

their reporting obligations (e.g., source categories 

finalized in 2010 would not begin reporting until 2011 and 

reporting in 2012). 

In particular, we are restructuring 40 CFR 98.2(a) to 

move the lists of source categories from the text into 

tables. The rationale for this restructuring is explained 

in more detail in the rulemaking implementing the 

harmonizing changes. The text below identifies where the 

source categories would be added within 40 CFR 98.2. The 

rationales for the applicability thresholds for each source 

category are contained in the source-category sections of 

this preamble. 

The following source categories would be added to 

Table A-3, the table of “all-in” source categories 

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

production capacity or gas consumption threshold rather 

than a CO2e emission threshold: 

Χ Electric power systems that include electrical 

equipment with a total nameplate capacity that exceeds 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

106

17,820 lbs (7,838 kg) of SF6 or perfluorocarbons 

(PFCs)(subpart DD) 

Χ Electric power equipment manufacturing with total 

annual SF6 and PFC purchases (combined) that exceed 

23,000 lbs per year. 

The following source categories would be subject to 

the rule if facility emissions exceed 25,000 metric tons 

CO2e per year. Therefore, these source category would be 

added to Table A-4, the table of emission threshold source 

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

Χ Fluorinated gas production facilities whose emissions 

would exceed 25,000 mtCO2e in the absence of control 

technologies (subpart L) 

Χ Facilities with electronics manufacturing processes 

(as defined in proposed 40 CFR part 98, subpart I) 

In addition, 40 CFR 98.2(a)(5) would be added to 

provide the applicability requirements for suppliers (as 

defined in proposed subpart OOa) that import or export precharged equipment or closed-cell foam products containing 

fluorinated GHGs, N2O , and CO2. The paragraph previously 

numbered 98.2(a)(5) would be renumbered as (a)(6). 

The introductory text of 40 CFR 98.2(a)(1), (2), 

and(3) and a few other sentences throughout 40 CFR part 98, 

subpart A that reference “subparts C through JJ” or 

“subparts KK through PP” would be reworded to accommodate 

proposed new subparts such as SS that are outside of these 

ranges of letters. These rewordings are also necessary to 

make these references correct in terms of which source 

categories are considered for applicability determination 

and reporting for calendar years 2010, 2011, and future 

years. These rewordings either refer to the source 

category tables (which list the applicable subparts for 

each calendar year) or otherwise correct the range of 

subparts referenced, as appropriate. 

We propose to amend 40 CFR 98.6 to add definitions for 

several terms used in the proposed subparts and to clarify 

the meaning of certain terms for purposes of the proposed 

subparts covered by this notice. We also propose to amend 

40 CFR 98.7 (incorporation by reference) to include 

standard methods used in the proposed subparts. In 

particular, we would add the 2006 International SEMATECH 

Manufacturing Initiative’s Guidelines for Environmental 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

107

Characterization of Semiconductor Process Equipment, which 

is referenced in proposed 40 CFR 98.94 (monitoring and 

QA/QC requirements for 40 CFR part 98, subpart I, 

electronics manufacturing). In addition, we would alter 

the paragraphs listing several ASME standards that are 

already contained in 40 CFR 98.7 to indicate that these 

standards are also referenced by proposed 40 CFR 98.124 

(monitoring and QA/QC requirements in proposed 40 CFR part 

98, subpart L, fluorinated gas production). 

III. Economic Impacts on the Rule 

This section of the preamble examines the costs and 

economic impacts of the proposed rulemaking and the 

estimated economic impacts of the rule on affected 

entities, including estimated impacts on small entities. 

Complete detail of the economic impacts of the proposed 

rule can be found in the text of the economic impact 

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

A. How were compliance costs estimated?

1. Summary of Method Used to Estimate Compliance Costs 

EPA used available industry and EPA data to 

characterize conditions at affected sources. Incremental 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting activities were 

then identified for each type of facility and the 

associated costs were estimated. The annual costs reported 

in 2006$. EPA’s estimated costs of compliance are 

discussed below and in greater detail in section 4 of the 

economic impact analysis (EIA) (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927): 

Labor Costs. The vast majority of the reporting costs 

include the time of managers, technical, and administrative 

staff in both the private sector and the public sector. 

Staff hours are estimated for activities, including: 

• Monitoring (private): staff hours to operate and 

maintain emissions monitoring systems. 

• Recordkeeping and Reporting (private): staff 

hours to gather and process available data and 

reporting it to EPA through electronic systems. 

• Assuring and releasing data (public): staff hours 

to quality assure, analyze, and release reports. 

Staff activities and associated labor costs will 

potentially vary over time. Thus, cost estimates are 

developed for start-up and first-time reporting, and 

subsequent reporting. Wage rates to monetize staff time 

are obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

108

Equipment Costs. Equipment costs include both the 

initial purchase price and any facility modification that 

may be required. Based on expert judgment, the engineering 

costs analyses annualized capital equipment costs with 

appropriate lifetime and interest rate assumptions. Onetime capital costs are amortized over a 10-year cost 

recovery period at a rate of 7 percent. 

B. What are the costs of the rule?

1. Summary of Costs 

The total annualized costs incurred under the 

reporting rule would be approximately $7.2 million in the 

first year and $4.0 million in subsequent years ($2006). 

This includes a public sector burden estimate of $384,000 

for program implementation and verification activities. EPA 

also considered an alternative national cost scenario in 

order to assess national cost estimates if selected Subpart 

I facilities validate the DRE of abatement devices. Under 

this scenario, the total annualized costs incurred under 

the reporting rule would be approximately $1.7 million 

higher (or $8.9 million first year; $5.7 million subsequent 

years). 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

109

Table III-1.National Annualized Mandatory Reporting Costs 

Estimates (2008$): Subparts I, L, OO and SS 

First Year Subsequent Years 

Subpart 

Millions 

2006$ $/ton Share 

Millions 

2006$ $/ton Share 

Subpart I - 

Electronics 

Industry $2.9 $0.51 42% $2.6 $0.45 71% 

Subpart L - 

Fluorinated Gas 

Production $3.2 $0.60 47% $0.4 $0.08 11% 

Subpart OO - 

Imports and Exports 

of Fluorinated GHGs $0.7 $0.02 10% $0.6 $0.02 17% 

Subpart SS - 

Electrical 

Equipment 

Manufacture and 

Refurbishment and 

Manufacturing of 

Electrical 

Components $0.02 $0.01 0.3% $0.02 $0.01 1% 

Private Sector, 

Total $6.8 99% $3.6 99% 

Public Sector, 

Total $0.4 <1% $0.4 <1% 

Total $7.2 100% $4.0 100% 

 

C. What are the economic impacts of the rule?

1. Summary of Economic Impacts 

EPA prepared an economic analysis to evaluate the 

impacts of the proposed rule on affected industries. To 

estimate the economic impacts, EPA first conducted a 

screening assessment, comparing the estimated total 

annualized compliance costs by industry, where industry is 

defined in terms of North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) code, with industry average revenues. 

Average cost-to-sales ratios for establishments in affected 

NAICS codes are typically less than 1 percent. 

These low average cost-to-sales ratios indicate that 

the rule is unlikely to result in significant changes in 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

110

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 III-2 of this preamble 

summarizes cost-to-sales ratios for affected industries. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

111

Table III-2. Estimated Cost-To-Sales Ratios for Affected 

Entities (First Year, 2006$) 

NAICS NAICS Description Sub-part 

Average Cost 

Per Entity 

($/ 

entity) 

All 

Enterprises 

334413 

Semiconductor and Related Device 

Manufacturing (Semiconductors) I $31,748 0.05%

334413 

Semiconductor and Related Device 

Manufacturing (MEMS) I $5,239 0.01%

334413 

Semiconductor and Related Device 

Manufacturing (LCD) I $7,598 0.01%

334119 

Other Computer Peripheral Equipment 

Manufacturing (Photovoltaics) I $8,777 0.04%

325120 Industrial Gas Manufacturing L $151,045 1.44%

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

326150 

Urethane and Other Foam Product (except 

Polystyrene) 

Manufacturing 

OO $3,364 0.03%

333415 

Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating 

Equipment 

and Commercial and Industrial 

Refrigeration 

Equipment Manufacturing 

OO $3,364 0.01%

335313 Switchgear and Switchboard Apparatus 

Manufacturing OO $3,364 0.02%

336391 Motor Vehicle Air-Conditioning 

Manufacturing OO $3,364 0.01%

423610 

Electrical Apparatus and Equipment, 

Wiring Supplies, 

and Related Equipment Merchant 

Wholesalers 

OO $3,364 0.05%

423620 

Electrical and Electronic Appliance, 

Television, and 

Radio Set Merchant Wholesalers 

OO $3,364 0.02%

423720 

Plumbing and Heating Equipment and 

Supplies 

(Hydronics) Merchant Wholesalers 

OO $3,364 0.05%

423730 

Warm Air Heating and Air-Conditioning 

Equipment 

and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 

OO $3,364 0.07%

423740 

Refrigeration Equipment and Supplies 

Merchant 

Wholesalers 

OO $3,364 0.10%

443111 Household Appliance Stores OO $3,364 0.27%

443112 Radio, Television and Other Electronics 

Stores OO $3,364 0.15%

424610b

Plastics Materials and Basic Forms and 

Shapes 

Merchant Wholesalers 

OO $3,364 0.04%

33361 Engine, Turbine, and Power Transmission 

Equipment Manufacturing SS $2,213 0.01%

33531 Electrical Equipment Manufacturing SS $2,213 0.02%

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

422610. 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

112
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

113

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

1. Summary of Impacts on Small Businesses 

As required by the RFA and SBREFA, EPA assessed the 

potential impacts of the rule on small entities (small 

businesses, governments, and non-profit organizations). 

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

entities.) 

EPA conducted a screening assessment comparing 

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

businesses. This ratio constitutes a “sales” test that 

computes the annualized compliance costs of this rule as a 

percentage of sales and determines whether the ratio 

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

The cost-to-sales ratios were constructed at the 

establishment level (average reporting program costs per 

establishment/average establishment receipts) for several 

business size ranges. This allowed EPA to account for 

receipt differences between establishments owned by large 

and small businesses and differences in small business 

definitions across affected industries. The results of the 

screening assessment are shown in Table VII-3 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). 
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

Table III-3. Estimated Cost-To-Sales Ratios by Industry and Enterprise Size (First Year,2006$)a

Owned by Enterprises with:

NAICS NAICS Description

Subpart 

SBA Size 

Standard 

(effective 

March 11, 

2008)

Average 

Cost Per 

Entity 

($/ 

entity) 

All 

Enterprises 

1 to 20 

Employees 

20 to 99 

Employees 

100 to 499 

Employees 

500 to 

749 

Employees 

750 to 999 

Employees 

1,000 to 

1,499 

Employees 

334413

Semiconductor and 

Related Device 

Manufacturing

(Semiconductors) I 500 $31,748 0.05% 2.07% 0.40% 0.12% 0.08% 0.02% 0.04%

334413

Semiconductor and 

Related Device 

Manufacturing

(MEMS) I 500 $5,239 0.01% 0.34% 0.07% 0.02% 0.01% 0.00% 0.01%

334413

Semiconductor and 

Related Device 

Manufacturing

(LCD) I 500 $7,598 0.01% 0.50% 0.10% 0.03% 0.02% 0.01% 0.01%

334119

Other Computer 

Peripheral 

Equipment 

Manufacturing

(Photovoltaics) I 1,000 $8,777 0.04% 0.56% 0.09% 0.03% 0.01% 0.02% 0.01%

325120 Industrial Gas 

Manufacturing L 1,000 $151,045 1.44% 31.03% 1.03% 4.26% NA NA NA

326140

Polystyrene Foam 

Product 

Manufacturing OO 500 $3,364 0.03% 0.28% 0.07% 0.04% NA NA 0.01%

326150

Urethane and 

Other Foam 

Product (except 

Polystyrene)

Manufacturing OO 500 $3,364 0.03% 0.21% 0.06% 0.02% 0.02% NA NA
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

115

333415

Air-Conditioning 

and Warm Air 

Heating 

Equipment

and Commercial 

and Industrial 

Refrigeration

Equipment 

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

335313

Switchgear and 

Switchboard 

Apparatus 

Manufacturing OO 750 $3,364 0.02% 0.26% 0.06% 0.02% NA NA NA

336391

Motor Vehicle 

AirConditioning 

Manufacturing OO 750 $3,364 0.01% 0.37% 0.08% NA NA NA NA

423610

Electrical 

Apparatus and 

Equipment, 

Wiring 

Supplies,

and Related 

Equipment 

Merchant 

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

423620

Electrical and 

Electronic 

Appliance, 

Television, and

Radio Set 

Merchant 

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

423720

Plumbing and 

Heating 

Equipment and 

Supplies

(Hydronics) 

Merchant 

Wholesalers OO 100 $3,364 0.05% 0.12% 0.02% 0.04% 0.07% 0.03% 0.10%
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

116

423730

Warm Air Heating 

and AirConditioning 

Equipment

and Supplies 

Merchant 

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

423740

Refrigeration 

Equipment and 

Supplies 

Merchant

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

443111

Household 

Appliance 

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

443112

Radio, 

Television and 

Other 

Electronics 

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

424610b

Plastics 

Materials and 

Basic Forms and 

Shapes

Merchant 

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

33361

Engine, Turbine, 

and Power 

Transmission 

Equipment 

Manufacturing SS

500 -

1,000 $2,213 0.01% 0.19% 0.03% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01%

33531

Electrical 

Equipment 

Manufacturing SS

750 -

1,000 $2,213 0.02% 0.22% 0.04% 0.01% 0.01% 0.00% 0.01%
OMB DRAFT—Please do not quote, cite, or distribute. 

117

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% for 

all enterprises. The following enterprise categories have 

sales test results over 1% 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%. EPA collected 

information on the entities likely to be covered by the 

rule as part of the expert sub-group process. 

Industrial Gas Manufacturing (325120) 

Subpart L covers facilities included in NAICS codes 

for Industrial Gas Manufacturing (NAICS 325120). Within 

this subpart, EPA identified 13 ultimate parent company 

names covered by the proposed rule. Using publicly 

available sources (e.g., Hoovers.com), we collected parent 

company sales and employment data and found that only one 

company could be classified as a small entity. Using the 

cost data for a representative entity (see Section 4), EPA 

determined the small entity's cost-to-sales ratio is below 

one percent. 

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% of total receipts, while the 

proposed threshold excludes 6% 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 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

119 

reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. For 

example, EPA is proposing monitoring and reporting 

requirements that build off of the UIC program. In 

addition, EPA is proposing equipment and methods that may 

already be in use by a facility for compliance with its UIC 

permit. Also, EPA is requiring annual reporting instead of 

more frequent reporting. 

In addition to the public hearing that EPA plans to 

hold, EPA has an open door policy, similar to the outreach 

conducted during the development of the proposed and final 

Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule. Details of these meetings are 

available in the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508). 

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

EPA examined the potential benefits of the Carbon 

Dioxide Injection and Geologic Sequestration Reporting 

Rule. EPA’s previous analysis of the GHG reporting rule 

discussed the benefits of a reporting system with respect 

to policy making relavence, transparency issues, market 

efficiency. Instead of a quantitative analysis of the 

benefits, EPA conducted a systematic literature review of 

existing studies including government, consulting, and 

scholarly reports. 

A mandatory reporting system will benefit the public 

by increased transparency of facility emissions data. 

Transparent, public data on emissions allows for 

accountability of polluters to the public stakeholders who 

bear the cost of the pollution. Citizens, community 

groups, and labor unions have made use of data from 

Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers to negotiate 

directly with polluters to lower emissions, circumventing 

greater government regulation. Publicly available 

emissions data also will allow individuals to alter their 

consumption habits based on the GHG emissions of producers. 

The greatest benefit of mandatory reporting of 

industry GHG emissions to government will be realized in 

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

Emissions Trading System, a lack of accurate monitoring at 

the facility level before establishing CO2 allowance permits 

resulted in allocation of permits for emissions levels an 

average of 15 percent above actual levels in every country 

except the United Kingdom. 

Benefits to industry of GHG emissions monitoring 

include the value of having independent, verifiable data to 

present to the public to demonstrate appropriate 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

120 

environmental stewardship, and a better understanding of 

their emission levels and sources to identify opportunities 

to reduce emissions. Such monitoring allows for inclusion 

of standardized GHG data into environmental management 

systems, providing the necessary information to achieve and 

disseminate their environmental achievements. 

Standardization will also be a benefit to industry, 

once facilities invest in the institutional knowledge and 

systems to report emissions, the cost of monitoring should 

fall and the accuracy of the accounting should improve. A 

standardized reporting program will also allow for 

facilities to benchmark themselves against similar 

facilities to understand better their relative standing 

within their industry. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not by 

itself an “economically significant regulatory action” 

because it is unlikely to have an annual economic effect of 

less than $100 million. EPA’s cost analysis, presented in 

Section 4 of the Economic Impact Analysis (EIA), estimates 

that for the minimum reporting under the recommended 

regulatory option, the total annualized cost of the rule 

will be approximately $7.2 million (in 2006$) during the 

first year of the program and $4.0 million in subsequent 

years (including $0.4 million of programmatic costs to the 

Agency). This proposed action adds Subparts I, L, OO, and 

SS to the mandatory GHG reporting rule, which was a 

significant regulatory action. Thus, EPA has chosen to 

analyze the impacts of this proposed rule as if it were 

significant. EPA submitted this proposed action to the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under 

Executive Order 12866, and any changes made in response to 

OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for 

this proposed action. 

In addition, EPA prepared an analysis of the potential 

costs associated with this proposed action. This analysis 

is contained in the Economic Impact Analysis (EIA), 

“Economic Impact Analysis for the Mandatory Reporting of 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions F-Gases Subparts I, L, OO, and SS 

” (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508). 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 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

121 

emissions that would likely be reported under each option, 

and explained the selection of the option chosen for the 

rule. Overall, EPA has concluded that the costs of the FGases Rule are outweighed by the potential benefits of more 

comprehensive information about GHG emissions. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this 

proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork 

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

Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been 

assigned EPA ICR number [2373.01]. 

EPA has identified the following goals of the 

mandatory GHG reporting system: 

• Obtain data that is of sufficient quality that it can 

be used to analyze and inform the development of a 

range of future climate change policies and potential 

regulations. 

• Balance the rule’s coverage to maximize the amount of 

emissions reported while excluding small emitters. 

• Create reporting requirements that are, to the extent 

possible and appropriate, consistent with existing GHG 

reporting programs in order to reduce reporting burden 

for all parties involved. 

The information from F-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 Sections 114. Information identified 

and marked as Confidential Business Information (CBI) will 

not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set 

forth in 40 CFR Part 2. However, emissions information 

collected under CAA Sections 114 generally cannot be 

claimed as CBI and will be made public.42

 

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

EPA has issued guidance in an earlier Federal Register notice on what 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

122 

The projected cost and hour respondent burden in the 

ICR, averaged over the first three years after 

promulgation, is $4.96 million and 89,400 hours per year. 

The estimated average burden per response is 292 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 

283. 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 $66,000 per year) a total operation 

and maintenance component (averaging $36,000 per year), and 

a labor cost component (averaging $4.86 million per year). 

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

These cost numbers differ from those shown elsewhere 

in the EIA because ICR costs represent the average cost 

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

reported elsewhere in the EIA for the first year of the 

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

includes the cost to the Agency to administer the program. 

The ICR differentiates between respondent burden and cost 

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

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

not required to respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 

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

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

the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR 

part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control 

number for the approved information collection requirements 

contained in the final rule. 

To comment on the Agency’s need for this information, 

the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any 

suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, EPA has 

established a public docket for this proposed rule, which 

includes this ICR, under Docket ID number [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-

0927]. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and 

OMB. See ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice 

for where to submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB 

at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office 

of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, 

 

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

7043, February 21, 1991). As discussed in Section II.R of the preamble 

to the rule, EPA will be initiating a separate notice and comment 

process to make CBI determinations for the data collected under this 

proposed rulemaking. 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

123 

DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is 

required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 

and 60 days after [date of publication], a comment to OMB 

is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives 

it by [publication plus 30]. The final rule will respond to 

any OMB or public comments on the information collection 

requirements contained in this proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 

notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless 

the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts of today’s rule 

on small entities, For the F-GHG Reporting Rule, small 

entity is defined as a small business as defined by the 

Small Business Administration’s regulations at 13 CFR 

121.201; according to these size standards, criteria for 

determining if ultimate parent companies owning affected 

facilities are categorized as small vary by NAICS. Small 

entity criteria range from total number of employees at the 

firm fewer than 100 to number of employees fewer than 1000; 

one affected NAICS, 44311, defines small entities as those 

with sales below $9 million. EIA tables 5-6 and 5-7 present 

small business criteria and enterprise size distribution 

data for affected NAICS.EPA assessed the potential impacts 

of the proposed rule on small entities using a sales test, 

defined as the ratio of total annualized compliance costs 

to firm sales. Details are provided in section 5.3 of the 

EIA. These sales tests examine the average establishment’s 

total annualized mandatory reporting costs to the average 

establishment receipts for enterprises within several 

employment categories43. The average entity costs used to 

compute the sales test are the same across all of these 

enterprise size categories. As a result, the sales-test 

will overstate the cost-to-receipt ratio for establishments 

owned by small businesses, because the reporting costs are 

likely lower than average entity estimates provided by the 

engineering cost analysis 

 

43For the one to 20 employee category, we exclude SUSB data for 

enterprises with zero employees. These enterprises did not operate the 

entire year. 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

124 

The results of the screening analysis show that for 

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

sales in all firm size categories. For two NAICS, however, 

the costs exceed 1% of sales for the 1-20 employee size 

category; for these NAICS, a more detailed assessment was 

conducted. For NAICS 334413, firms with fewer than 20 

employees produce less than 2% of output; firms below the 

25,000 Mt CO2e threshold release approximately 6% of 

emissions. Because emissions and production levels are 

highly correlated, firms with fewer than 20 employees are 

generally not expected to be affected by the proposed rule; 

if they are, their costs are likely to be lower than the 

overall average costs used in the screening analysis. Thus, 

EPA does not expect the proposed rule to impose significant 

costs to a substantial number of small entities in NAICS 

334413.Subpart L covers facilities included in NAICS codes 

for Industrial Gas Manufacturing (NAICS 325120). Within 

this subpart, EPA identified 13 ultimate parent company 

names covered by the proposed rule. Using publicly 

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

company sales and employment data and found that only one 

company could be classified as a small entity. Using the 

cost data for a representative entity (see Section 4 of the 

EA), EPA determined the small entity's cost-to-sales ratio 

is below one percent. 

After considering the economic impacts of today’s 

proposed rule on small entities, I therefore certify that 

this proposed rule will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small entities. 

Although this rule would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 

the Agency nonetheless tried to reduce the impact of this 

rule on small entities, including seeking input from a wide 

range of private- and public-sector stakeholders. When 

developing the rule, the Agency took special steps to 

ensure that the burdens imposed on small entities were 

minimal. The Agency conducted several meetings with 

industry trade associations to discuss regulatory options 

and the corresponding burden on industry, such as 

recordkeeping and reporting. The Agency investigated 

alternative thresholds and analyzed the marginal costs 

associated with requiring smaller entities with lower 

emissions to report. The Agency also selected a hybrid 

method for reporting, which provides flexibility to 

entities and helps minimize reporting costs. 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

125 

In addition to the public hearing that EPA plans to 

hold, EPA has an open door policy, similar to the outreach 

conducted during the development of the proposed and final 

Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule. 

Details of these meetings are available in the docket 

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

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA), P.L. 104-4, establishes requirements for federal 

agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions 

on state, local, and tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must 

prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for final rules with “federal mandates” that may 

result in expenditures to state, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more in any one year. 

This proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate 

that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for 

State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

the private sector in any one year. Overall, EPA estimates 

that the total annualized costs of this proposed rule are 

approximately $7.2 million in the first year, and $4.0 

million per year in subsequent years. Thus, this proposed 

rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 

205 of UMRA. 

This proposed rule is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no 

regulatory requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. Facilities subject to 

the proposed rule include facilities that manufacture, 

sell, import or export F-GHG related products. None of the 

facilities currently known to undertake these activities 

are owned by small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

126 

Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 

43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input 

by state and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” 

“Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in 

the executive order to include regulations that have 

“substantial direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national government and the 

states, or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various levels of government.” 

This proposed rule does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial direct effects 

on the states, on the relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the distribution of power 

and responsibilities among the various levels of 

government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. 

This regulation applies to facilities that 

manufacture, sell, import, or export F-GHG related 

products. Few state or local government facilities would be 

affected. This regulation also does not limit the power of 

states or localities to collect GHG data and/or regulate 

GHG emissions. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this proposed rule. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent 

with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and 

State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits 

comment on this proposed action from State and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments

Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951, 

November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal 

officials in the development of regulatory policies that 

have tribal implications.” 

This proposed rule is not expected to have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This 

regulation applies to facilities that manufacture, sell, 

import, or export F-GHG related products. Few facilities 

expected to be affected by the rule are likely to be owned 

by tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this proposed rule. 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

127 

Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this 

proposed rule, EPA sought opportunities to provide 

information to tribal governments and representatives 

during development of the MRR rule. In consultation with 

EPA’s American Indian Environment Office, EPA’s outreach 

plan included tribes. During the proposal phase, EPA staff 

provided information to tribes through conference calls 

with multiple Indian working groups and organizations at 

EPA that interact with tribes and through individual calls 

with two tribal board members of TCR. In addition, EPA 

prepared a short article on the GHG reporting rule that 

appeared on the front page of a tribal newsletter—Tribal 

Air News—that was distributed to EPA/OAQPS’s network of 

tribal organizations. EPA gave a presentation on various 

climate efforts, including the mandatory reporting rule, at 

the National Tribal Conference on Environmental Management 

in June, 2008. In addition, EPA had copies of a short 

information sheet distributed at a meeting of the National 

Tribal Caucus. EPA participated in a conference call with 

tribal air coordinators in April 2009 and prepared a 

guidance sheet for Tribal governments on the proposed rule. 

It was posted on the MRR website and published in the 

Tribal Air Newsletter. For a complete list of tribal 

contacts, see the “Summary of EPA Outreach Activities for 

Developing the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule,” in the 

Docket for this proposed rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-

055). In addition to the consultation activities supporting 

the MRR, EPA continues to provide requested information to 

tribal governments and representatives during development 

of the Track II rules such as this proposed rulemaking. EPA 

specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed 

action from tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 F.R. 19885, April 23, 

1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that 

concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis 

required under section 5-501 of the EO has the potential to 

influence the regulation. This proposed action is not 

subject to EO 13045 because it does not establish an 

environmental standard intended to mitigate health or 

safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly 

Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

This proposed rule is not a “significant energy 

action” as defined in EO 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

128 

because it is not likely to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

Further, we have concluded that this proposed rule is not 

likely to have any adverse energy effects. This proposed 

rule relates to monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping at 

facilities that manufacture, sell, import, or export F-GHG 

related products and does not impact energy supply, 

distribution or use. Therefore, we conclude that this 

proposed rule is not likely to have any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use. 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113 (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so 

would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business practices) that are 

developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through 

OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. 

This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. 

EPA will use voluntary consensus standards from at least 

seven different voluntary consensus standards bodies, 

including the following: ASTM, ASME, ISO, Gas Processors 

Association, American Gas Association, American Petroleum 

Institute, and National Lime Association. These voluntary 

consensus standards will help facilities monitor, report, 

and keep records of GHG emissions. No new test methods 

were developed for this proposed rule. Instead, from 

existing rules for source categories and voluntary 

greenhouse gas programs, EPA identified existing means of 

monitoring, reporting, and keeping records of greenhouse 

gas emissions. The existing methods (voluntary consensus 

standards) include a broad range of measurement techniques, 

such as methods to measure gas or liquid flow; and methods 

to gauge and measure petroleum and petroleum products. The 

test methods are incorporated by reference into the 

proposed rule and are available as specified in 40 CFR 

98.7. 

By incorporating voluntary consensus standards into 

this proposed rule, EPA is both meeting the requirements of 

the NTTAA and presenting multiple options and flexibility 

in complying with the proposed rule. EPA welcomes comments 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

129 

on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, 

specifically, invites the public to identify potentiallyapplicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why 

such standards should be used in this proposed regulation. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations

EO 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 

Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its 

main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest 

extent practicable and permitted by law, to make 

environmental justice part of their mission by identifying 

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 U.S. 

EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not 

have disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not affect the level of protection provided 

to human health or the environment. This proposed rule 

does not affect the level of protection provided to human 

health or the environment because it is a rule addressing 

information collection and reporting procedures. 

 

Date: 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Additional 

Sources of Fluorinated GHGs (Page 130 of 235) 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

130 

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, 

chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed 

to be amended as follows: 

PART 98—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 98 continues to 

read as follows: 

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

2. Subpart A—[Amended] 

2. Section 98.1 is amended by revising paragraph (b) 

to read as follows: 

§98.1 Purpose and Scope. 

* * * * * 

(b) Owners and operators of facilities and suppliers 

that are subject to this part must follow the requirements 

of subpart A and all applicable subparts of this part. If 

a conflict exists between a provision in subpart A and any 

other applicable subpart, the requirements of the 

applicable subpart shall take precedence. 

3. Section 98.2 is amended by revising paragraph (a) 

to read as follows: 

§98.2 Who must report? 

(a) The GHG reporting requirements and related 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of 

this part apply to the owners and operators of any facility 

that is located in the United States and that meets the 

requirements of either paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) 

of this section; and any supplier that meets the 

requirements of paragraph (a)(4) or (a)(5) of this section: 

(1) A facility that contains any source category that 

is listed in Table A-3 of this subpart in any calendar year 

starting in 2010. For these facilities, the annual GHG 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

131 

report must cover stationary fuel combustion sources 

(subpart C), miscellaneous use of carbonates (subpart U), 

and all applicable source categories listed in Table A-3 of 

this subpart. 

(2) A facility that contains any source category that 

is listed in Table A-4 of this subpart in any calendar year 

starting in 2010 and that emits 25,000 metric tons CO2e or 

more per year in combined emissions from stationary fuel 

combustion units, miscellaneous uses of carbonate, and all 

applicable source categories that are listed in Table A-4 

of this subpart. For these facilities, the annual GHG 

report must cover stationary fuel combustion sources 

(subpart C), miscellaneous use of carbonates (subpart U), 

and all applicable source categories listed in Table A-4 of 

this subpart. 

* * * * * 

(4) A supplier (as defined in subparts KK through PP 

of this part) that meets the requirements listed in Table 

A-5 of this subpart in any calendar year starting in 2010. 

For these suppliers, the annual GHG report must cover all 

applicable supplier categories listed in Table A-5 of this 

subpart. * * * * * 

 (f) To calculate GHG quantities for comparison to 

the 25,000 metric ton CO2e per year threshold under 

paragraph (a)(4) or (a)(5) of this section for importers 

and exporters of industrial greenhouse gases, importers and 

exporters of CO2, and importers and exporters of pre-charged 

equipment or closed-cell foam products; the owner or 

operator shall calculate the mass in metric tons per year 

of CO2e imports and exports as described in paragraphs 

(f)(1) through (f)(3) of this section. 

* * * * * 

4. Section 98.3 is amended by revising paragraphs 

(b), (c), and (i) to read as follows: 

§98.3 What are the general monitoring, reporting, 

recordkeeping and verification requirements of this part? 

* * * * * 

(b) Schedule. The annual GHG report must be 

submitted no later than March 31 of each calendar year for 

GHG emissions in the previous calendar year. As an 

example, for a facility that is subject to the rule in 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

132 

calendar year 2010, the first report must be submitted on 

March 31, 2011. 

(1) [Reserved] 

(2) For a new facility or supplier that begins 

operation on or after January 1, 2010 and becomes subject 

to the rule in the year that it becomes operational, report 

emissions beginning with the first month that the facility 

or supplier begins operation and ending on December 31 of 

that year. Each subsequent annual report must cover 

emissions for the calendar year, beginning on January 1 and 

ending on December 31. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(i) Annual emissions (excluding biogenic CO2) 

aggregated for all GHG from all applicable source 

categories listed in Tables A-3 and Table A-4 of this 

subpart and expressed in metric tons of CO2e calculated 

using Equation A-1 of this subpart. 

(ii) Annual emissions of biogenic CO2 aggregated for 

all applicable source categories in listed in Tables A-3 

and Table A-4 of this subpart. 

(iii) Annual emissions from each applicable source 

category listed in Tables A-3 and Table A-4 of this 

subpart, expressed in metric tons of each GHG listed in 

this paragraph (4)(iii)(A) through (4)(iii)(E). 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(1) Except as provided paragraphs (i)(4) through 

(i)(6) of this section, flow meters and other devices 

(e.g., belt scales) that measure data used to calculate GHG 

emissions shall be calibrated using the procedures 

specified in this paragraph and each relevant subpart of 

this part. All measurement devices must be calibrated 

according to the manufacturer’s recommended procedures, an 

appropriate industry consensus standard, or a method 

specified in a relevant subpart of this part. All 

measurement devices shall be calibrated to an accuracy of 5 

percent. For facilities and suppliers that are subject to 

this part on January 1, 2010, the initial calibration shall 

be conducted by April 1, 2010. For facilities and 

suppliers that become subject to this part after April 1, 

2010, the initial calibration shall be conducted by the 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

133 

date that data collection is required to begin. Subsequent 

calibrations shall be performed at the frequency specified 

in each applicable subpart. 

* * * * * 

5. Section 98.7 is amended by revising paragraph (d), 

revising paragraph (e), and adding paragraphs (k) and (l) 

to read as follows: 

 (d) The following material is available for purchase 

from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), 

Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990, (800) 843-2763, 

http://www.asme.org. 

(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(b), 

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

(2) ASME MFC-4M–1986 (Reaffirmed 1997) Measurement of 

Gas Flow by Turbine Meters, IBR approved for §98.34(b), 

§98.124(b), §98.244(b), §98.254(c), §98.344(c), and 

§98.364(e). 

(3) ASME MFC-5M–1985 (Reaffirmed 1994) Measurement of 

Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits Using Transit-Time 

Ultrasonic Flowmeters, IBR approved for §98.34(b), 

§98.124(b), and §98.244(b). 

(4) ASME MFC-6M–1998 Measurement of Fluid Flow in 

Pipes Using Vortex Flowmeters, IBR approved for §98.34(b), 

§98.124(b), §98.244(b), §98.254(c), §98.344(c), and 

§98.364(e). 

(5) ASME MFC-7M–1987 (Reaffirmed 1992) Measurement of 

Gas Flow by Means of Critical Flow Venturi Nozzles, IBR 

approved for §98.34(b), §98.124(b), §98.244(b), §98.254(c), 

§98.344(c), and §98.364(e). 

(6) ASME MFC-9M–1988 (Reaffirmed 2001) Measurement of 

Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits by Weighing Method, IBR 

approved for §98.34(b), §98.124(b), and §98.244(b). 

(7) ASME MFC-11M-2006 Measurement of Fluid Flow by 

Means of Coriolis Mass Flowmeters, IBR approved for 

§98.124(b), §98.244(b), §98.254(c), and §98.344(c). 

(8) ASME MFC-14M-2003 Measurement of Fluid Flow Using 

Small Bore Precision Orifice Meters, IBR approved for 

§98.124(b), §98.244(b), §98.254(c), §98.344(c), and 

§98.364(e). 

* * * * * 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

134 

(e) The following material is available for purchase 

from the American Society for Testing and Material (ASTM), 

100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box CB700, West Conshohocken, 

Pennsylvania 19428-B2959, (800) 262-1373, 

http://www.astm.org. 

* * * * * 

(30) ASTM D6348-03 Standard Test Method for 

Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct 

Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, 

IBR approved for §98.54(b), §98.124(c), and §98.224(b). 

* * * * * 

 (k) The following material is available from the 

International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative, 

http://ismi.sematech.org/docubase/wrappers/5.htm

(1) Guideline for Environmental Characterization of 

Semiconductor Process Equipment, International SEMATECH 

Manufacturing Initiative Technology Transfer #06124825BENG. 

(l) The following material is available for purchase from 

SEMI, 3081 Zanker Road, San Jose, CA 95134, (408) 943-6900, 

http://www.semi.org. 

(1) SEMI E10-0304 Specification for Definition and 

Measurement of Equipment Relizability, Availability, and 

Maintainability (RAM) (2004). 

* * * * * 

7. Table A-3 is amended by adding the following 

source categories under Additional Source Categories 

Applicable in 2011 and Future Years: 

Electric power systems that include electrical equipment 

with a total nameplate capacity that exceeds 17,820 lbs 

(7,838 kg) of SF6 or perfluorocarbons (PFCs)(subpart DD) 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

135 

Electric equipment manufacturing with total annual 

purchases of SF6 and PFCs (combined) that exceed 23,000 

pounds per year (subpart SS) 

8. Table A-4 is amended by adding the following 

source categories under Additional Source Categories 

Applicable in 2011 and Future Years: 

Electronics manufacturing (subpart I) 

Fluorinated gas production (subpart L) 

9. Table A-5 is amended by adding the following source 

category under Additional Source Categories Applicable 

in 2011 and Future Years: 

Pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foam product 

suppliers (subpart OOa): 

(A) Importers with annual imports that are equivalent to 

25,000 metric tons CO2e or more of GHG from the combined 

imports of the following products: fluorinated GHG in precharged equipment; fluorinated GHG in closed-cell foams; 

and bulk N2O, CO2, and fluorinated GHG 

(B) Exporters with annual exports that are equivalent to 

25,000 metric tons CO2e or more of GHG from the combined 

exports of the following products: fluorinated GHG in precharged equipment; fluorinated gas in closed-cell foams; 

and bulk N2O, CO2, and fluorinated GHG 

10. Add subpart I to read as follows: 

§98.90 Definition of the source category. 

(a) The electronics source category consists of any 

of the processes listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(6) 

of this section. Electronics manufacturing facilities 

include, but are not limited to, facilities that 

manufacture semiconductors, liquid crystal displays (LCDs), 

microelectromechanical systems (MEMS), and photovoltaic 

cells (PV). 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

136 

(1) Each electronics manufacturing production process 

in which the etching process uses plasma-generated fluorine 

atoms and other reactive fluorine-containing fragments, 

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

dielectric, metals) and silicon to selectively remove 

portions of material. 

(2) Each electronics manufacturing production process 

in which chambers used for depositing thin films are 

cleaned periodically using plasma-generated fluorine atoms 

and other reactive fluorine-containing fragments from 

fluorinated and other gases. 

(3) Each electronics manufacturing production process 

in which wafers are cleaned using plasma generated fluorine 

atoms or other reactive fluorine-containing fragments to 

remove residual material from wafer surfaces. 

(4) Each electronics manufacturing production process 

in which some fluorinated compounds can be transformed in 

the plasma processes into different fluorinated compounds 

which are then exhausted, unless abated, into the 

atmosphere. 

(5) Each electronics manufacturing production process 

in which the chemical vapor deposition process and other 

manufacturing processes use N2O. 

(6) Each electronics manufacturing production process 

in which fluorinated GHGs are used as heat transfer fluids 

to cool process equipment, control temperature during 

device testing, and solder semiconductor devices to circuit 

boards. 

§98.91 Reporting threshold. 

You must report GHG emissions under this subpart if your 

facility contains an electronics manufacturing process and 

the facility meets the requirements of either §98.2(a)(1) 

or (a)(2). To calculate GHG emissions for comparison to 

the 25,000 metric ton CO2e per year emission threshold in 

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

electronics manufacture by using either paragraph (a), 

(b),(c), or (d) of this section, as appropriate. 

(a) Semiconductor manufacturers shall calculate 

process emissions for applicability purposes using default 

emission factors shown in Table I-1 of subpart I, and 

Equation I-1 of this section. 

 E 1.1* * EF *0.001 T i

S

i

= ∑ Eq. I-1 

Where: 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

137 

ET = Total annual process emissions for applicability 

purposes (metric tons). 

1.1 = Factor accounting for heat transfer fluid 

emissions, estimated as 10% of total clean and etch 

emissions at a facility. 

S = 100% of manufacturing capacity of a facility (m2). 

EFi = Emission factor for input gas i. 

0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons. 

(b) LCD manufacturers shall calculate process 

emissions for applicability purposes using default emission 

factors shown in Table I-1 of subpart I, and Equation I-2 

of this section. 

 E *EF *0.000001 T i

S

i

= ∑ Eq. I-2 

Where: 

ET = Total annual process emissions for applicability 

purposes (metric tons). 

S = 100% of manufacturing capacity of a facility (m2). 

EFi = Emission factor for input gas i. 

0.000001 = Conversion factor from g to metric tons. 

(c) MEMS manufacturers shall calculate process 

emissions for applicability purposes using default emission 

factors shown in Table I-1 of subpart I, and Equation I-3 

of this section. 

 E *EF *0.001 T i

S

i

= ∑ Eq. I-3 

Where: 

ET = Total annual process emissions for applicability 

purposes (metric tons). 

S = 100% of manufacturing capacity of a facility (m2). 

EFi = Emission factor for input gas i. 

0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons. 

(d) PV manufacturers shall calculate process emissions 

for applicability purposes using gas-appropriate GWP values 

shown in Table A-1 to subpart A, and equation I-4 of this 

section. 

E * *0.001 T i i

i

= ∑ C GWP Eq. I-4 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

138 

Where: 

ET = Total annual process emissions for applicability 

purposes (metric tons). 

Ci = Annual fluorinated GHG (gas i) purchases or 

consumption (kg). 

GWPi = Gas-appropriate GWP. 

0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons. 

§98.92 GHGs to report. 

(a) You shall report emissions of N2O and fluorinated 

GHGs (as defined in §98.6). The fluorinated GHGs that are 

emitted from electronics production processes include, but 

are not limited to, those listed in Table I-2 of subpart I. 

You must report: 

(1) Fluorinated GHGs from plasma etching. 

(2) Fluorinated GHGs from chamber cleaning. 

(3) Fluorinated GHGs from wafer cleaning. 

(4) N2O from chemical vapor deposition and other 

manufacturing processes. 

(6) Fluorinated GHGs from heat transfer fluid use. 

(b) CO2, CH4, and N2O combustion emissions from each 

stationary combustion unit. You must calculate and report 

these emissions under subpart C of this part (General 

Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources) by following the 

requirements of subpart C. 

§98.93 Calculating GHG emissions. 

(a) You shall calculate annual facility-level 

emissions for each fluorinated GHG used at your facility, 

for each process type used at your facility as appropriate, 

using equations I-5 and I-6 and according to procedures in 

either paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section. 

 ∑==

N

j

i Eij processtypeE

1

 (Eq. I-5) 

Where: 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

139 

processtypeEi = Annual emissions of input gas i from 

individual processes j or process categories 

j (metric tons). 

Eij = Annual emissions of input gas i from 

individual process j or process category j 

(metric tons). 

N = The total number of individual processes j 

or process categories j, which will depend 

on the electronics manufacturing facility, 

process type, and emission calculation 

methodology. 

 ∑∑==

N

j i

k BEkij processtypeBE

1

(Eq. I-6) 

Where: 

processtypeBEk = Annual emissions of by-product gas k 

from individual processes j or process 

categories j (metric tons). 

BEkij = Annual emissions of by-product k formed from 

input gas i during individual process j or 

process category j (metric tons). 

N = The total number of individual processes j 

or process categories j, which will depend 

on the electronics manufacturing facility, 

process type, and emission calculation 

methodology.

(1) Semiconductor facilities shall calculate annual 

facility-level emissions of each fluorinated GHG used at a 

facility for each fluorinated GHG-using process type, from 

all individual processes at that facility in accordance with 

§98.94(d), or from process categories as defined in 

paragraphs (1)(i) through (1)(iii) of this section. 

Semiconductor facilities that fabricate 450 mm or greater 

than 450 mm wafers shall caclculate annual facility-level 

emissions of each fluorinated GHG used at a facility from all 

individual processes at that facility in accordance with 

§98.94(d). 

(i) All etching process categories for which annual 

fluorinated GHG emissions shall be calculated are defined in 

paragraphs (i)(A) through (i)(D) of this section. 

(A) Oxide etch means any process using fluorinated GHG 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

140 

reagents to selectively remove SiO2, SiOx-based or fully 

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

a wafer during semiconductor device manufacturing. 

(B) Nitride etch means any process using fluorinated 

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

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

formula, SiwOxNyXz where w,x,y and z are zero or integers and 

X can be some other element such as carbon) that has been 

deposited on a wafer during semiconductor manufacturing. 

(C) Silicon etch also often called polysilicon etch 

means any process using fluorinated GHG reagents to 

selectively remove silicon during semiconductor 

manufacturing. 

(D) Metal etch means any process using fluorinated GHG 

reagents associated with removing metal films (such as 

aluminum or tungsten) that have been deposited on a wafer 

during semiconductor manufacturing. 

(ii) All chamber cleaning process categories for which 

annual fluorinated GHG emissions shall be calculated are 

defined in paragraphs (ii)(A) through (ii)(C) of this 

section. 

(A) In situ plasma means cleaning thin-film 

production chambers, after processing one or more wafers, 

with a fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent that is dissociated 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

141 

into its cleaning constituents by a plasma generated inside 

the chamber where the film was produced. 

(B) Remote plasma system means cleaning thin-film 

production chambers, after processing one or more wafers, 

with a fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent dissociated by a 

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

(C) In situ thermal means cleaning thin-film 

production chambers, after processing one or more wafers, 

with a fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent that is thermally 

dissociated into its cleaning constituents inside the 

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

produced. 

(iii) All wafer cleaning process categories for which 

annual fluorinated GHG emissions shall be calculated are 

defined in paragraphs (iii)(A) and (iii)(B) of this 

section. 

 (A) Bevel cleaning means any process using 

fluorinated GHG reagents with plasma to clean the edges of 

wafers during semiconductor manufacture. 

(B) Ashing means any process using fluorinated GHG 

reagents with plasma to remove photoresist materials during 

wafer manufacture. 

(2) All other electronics facilities shall calculate 

annual facility-level emissions of each fluorinated GHG 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

142 

used at a facility for each process type, including etching 

and chemical vapor deposition chamber cleaning. 

(b) You shall calculate annual facility-level 

emissions for each fluorinated GHG used at your facility, 

for each individual process or process cateogry used at 

your facility as appropriate, using equations I-7 and I-8, 

and according to procedures in either paragraph (b)(1) or 

(b)(2) of this section. 

Eij = Cij*(1− Uij)*(1− aij*dij)*0.001 (Eq. I-7) 

Where: 

Eij = Annual emissions of input gas i from 

individual process j or process category j 

(metric tons). 

Cij = Amount of input gas i consumed in individual 

process j or process category j, as 

calculated in Equation I-10 (kg). 

Uij = Process utilization for input gas i during 

individual process j or process category j. 

aij = Fraction of input gas i used in individual 

process j or process category j with 

abatement systems. 

dij = Fraction of input gas i destroyed in 

abatement systems connected to individual 

process j or process category j, accounting 

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

This is zero unless the facility adheres to 

requirements in §98.94(f) of subpart I. 

0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons. 

* *(1 * ) BEijk = Bijk Cij − aij dkj *0.001 (Eq. I-8) 

Where: 

BEijk = Annual emissions of by-product k formed from 

input gas i during individual process j or 

process category j (metric tons). 

Bijk = Amount of gas k created as a by-product per 

amount of input gas i (kg) consumed in 

individual process j or process category j 

(kg). 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

143 

Cij = Amount of input gas i consumed in individual 

process j or process category j, as 

calculated in Equation I-10 (kg). 

aij = Fraction of input gas i used in individual 

process j or process category j with 

abatement systems. 

dkj = Fraction of by-product gas k destroyed in 

abatement systems connected to individual 

process j or process category j, accounting 

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

This is zero unless the facility adheres to 

requirements in §98.94(f) of subpart I. 

0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons. 

 (1) Semiconductor facilities shall use the procedures 

in either paragraph (1)(i) or (1)(ii) of this section. 

(i) Except as provided in paragraph (1)(ii), you shall 

use default process category emission factors for process 

utilization and by-product formation rates shown in Tables 

I-6, I-7, and I-8 of Subpart I as appropriate. 

(ii) You may use recipe-specific measurements instead 

of the process cateogory default factors provided that you 

follow methods in §98.94(d). 

(2) All other electronics facilities shall use the 

default process category specific emission factors for 

process utilization and by-product formation rates shown in 

Tables I-3, I-4, and I-5 of subpart I for MEMS, LCD, and PV 

manufacturing, respectively. 

(c) Semiconductor facilities that fabricate 450 mm or 

greater than 450 mm wafers shall use recipe-specific 

measurements and follow methods in §98.94(d) to calculate 

emissions from each fluorinated GHG-using process type. 

You shall use equations I-5 through I-8 of this section to 

calculate fluorinated GHG emissions from all fluorinated 

GHG using process recipes. 

(d) You shall calculate annual facility-level N2O 

emissions from electronics manufacturing processes, using 

Equation I-9 and the methods in paragraphs (d)(1) through 

(d)(4) of this section. 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

144 

(1) You shall use an emisssion factor for utilization 

for chemical vapor deposition processes pursuant to either 

paragraph (1)(i) or (1)(ii) of this section. 

(i) You shall develop a facility-specific N2O 

utilization factor averaged over all N2O-using recipes used 

for chemical vapor deposition processes in accordance with 

§98.94(e). 

(ii) If you do not use a facility-specific N2O 

utilization factor for chemical vapor deposition processes, 

you shall use 20% as the default utilization factor for N2O 

from chemical vapor deposition processes. 

(2) You shall use an emission factor for utlization 

for other manufacturing processes pursuant to either either 

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

(i) You shall develop a facility-specific N2O 

utilization factor averaged over all N2O-using recipes used 

for manufacturing processes other than chemical vapor 

deposition processes in accordance with §98.94(e). 

(ii) If you do not use a facility-specific N2O 

utilization factor for manufacturing processes other than 

chemical vapor deposition, you shall use the default 

utilization factor of 0% for N2O from manufacturing 

processes other than chemical vapor deposition. 

(3) If your facility employs abatement systems and 

you wish to quantify and document N2O emission reductions 

due to these systems, you must adhere to the requirements 

in §98.94(f). 

(4) You shall calculate annual facility-level N2O 

emissions for all processes at your facility using Equation 

I-9 of this section. 

E(N O) *(1 U ) *(1 a *d )*0.001 2 N , N , N , N , 2 2 2 2 O i O i O i O i

i

= ∑ C − − (Eq. I-9) 

Where: 

E(N2O) = Annual emissions of N2O (metric tons/year). 

CN2O,i = Amount of N2O consumed for N2O using process 

i, as calculated in Equation I-10 (kg). 

UN2O,i = Process utilization for N2O using process i. 

a N2O,i = Fraction of N2O used in N2O using process i 

with abatement systems. 

dN2O,i = Fraction of N2O for N2O using process i 

destroyed by abatement systems connected to 

process i, accounting for uptime as 

specified in §98.94(f)(2). This is zero 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

145 

unless the facility adheres to requirements 

in §98.94(f) of subpart I. 

0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons. 

(e) You shall calculate gas consumption for each 

fluorinated GHG and N2O used at your facility using 

facility-wide gas-specific heel factors, as determined in 

§98.94(b), and using Equation I-10 of this section. 

Ci = (1-hi) * (IBi – IEi + Ai – Di) * 0.001 (Eq. I-10) 

Where: 

Ci = Annual consumption of input gas i (metric 

tons/year). 

hi = Facility-wide gas-specific heel factor for input 

gas i (%), as determined in §98.94(b). 

IBi = Inventory of input gas i stored in cylinders or 

other containers at the beginning of the year, 

including heels (kg). 

IEi = Inventory of input gas i stored in cylinders or 

other containers at the end of the year, 

including heels (kg). 

Ai = Acquisitions of gas i during the year through 

purchases or other transactions, including heels 

in cylinders or other containers returned to the 

electronics production facility (kg). 

Di = Disbursements under exceptional circumstances of 

gas i through sales or other transactions during 

the year. This excludes standard heels in 

cylinders or other containers returned by the 

electronics production facility to the gas 

distributor (kg). 

0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons. 

(f) For facilities that use fluorinated heat transfer 

fluids, you shall report the annual emissions of 

fluorinated GHG heat transfer fluids using the mass balance 

approach described in Equation I-11 of this section. 

* ( ) *0.001 i io it it it it Dit EH = density I + P − N + R − I − (Eq. I-11) 

Where: 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

146 

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 

at the end of previous reporting year (l). 

Pit = Net purchases of fluorinated heat transfer 

fluid i during the current reporting year (l). 

Nit = Total nameplate capacity [charge] of equipment 

that contains fluorinated heat transfer fluid I 

and that is newly installed during the 

reporting year. 

Rit = Total nameplate capacity [charge] of equipment 

that contains fluorinated heat transfer fluid i 

and that is removed from service during the 

current reporting year. 

Iit = Inventory of fluorinated heat transfer fluid i 

at the end of current reporting year (l). 

Dit = Amount of fluorinated heat transfer fluid i 

properly recovered, stored, and sent off site 

for verifiable recycle or destruction during 

current reporting year (l). 

0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons. 

§98.94 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements. 

(a) For calendar year 2011 monitoring, you may follow 

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

available monitoring methods rather than follow the 

monitoring requirements of this section. For purposes of 

subpart I, any reference to the year 2010 in §98.3(d)(1) 

through (3) shall mean 2011. 

(b) For purposes of Equation I-10, you must estimate 

facility-wide gas-specific heel factors for each 

cylinder/container type for each gas used. 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

147 

(1) You shall base your facility-wide gas-specific 

heel factors on the residual weight or pressure of a gas 

cylinder/container that your facility uses to change out 

that cylinder/container for each cylinder/container type 

for each gas used. 

 (2) The residual weight or pressure you use for 

§98.94 (b)(1) shall be determined by monitoring the weight 

or the pressure of your cylinders/containers. If by 

pressure, the value shall be converted to mass using the 

ideal gas law, as displayed in Equation I-12 of this 

section, with an appropriately selected Z value. 

pV=ZnRT (Eq. I-12) 

Where: 

p = Absolute pressure of the gas 

V = Volume of the gas 

Z = Compressibility factor 

n = Amount of substance of the gas (moles) 

R = Gas constant (8.314 J/K mol) 

T = Absolute temperature 

(3) You shall use the facility-wide gas–specific 

cylinder/container residual weight, determined from §98.94 

(b)(1) and (b)(2), to calculate the unused gas for each 

container, which when expressed as fraction of the initial 

mass in the cylinder/container is the heel factor. 

(4) The intial mass used to calculate the facilitywide gas-specific heel factor may be based on the weight of 

the gas provided to you in the gas supplier documents; 

however, you remain responsible for the accuracy of these 

masses and weights under this subpart. 

 (5) In the exceptional circumstance that you change a 

cylinder/container at a residual mass or pressure that 

differs by more than 20 percent from your facility-wide 

gas-specific determined values, you shall weigh that 

cylinder, or measure the pressure of that cylinder with a 

pressure gauge, in place of using a heel factor. 

(6) You shall recalculate facility-wide gas-specific 

heel factors applied at your facility in the event that the 

residual weight or pressure of the gas cylinder/container 

that your facility uses to change out that 

cylinder/container differs by more than 1 percentage point 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

148 

from that used to calculate the previous gas-specific heel 

factor. 

(c) Semiconductor facilities shall apportion gas 

consumption by process category, as defined in §98.93 

(a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(iii), or by individual process 

using a facility-specific engineering model based on wafer 

passes. 

(d) If you use fluorinated GHG emission factors for 

process utilization and by-product formation rates other 

than the defaults provided in Tables I-6 through I-8 of 

subpart I, you must use factors that have been measured 

using the International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative’s 

Guideline for Environmental Characterization of 

Semiconductor Process Equipment (December 2006). You may 

use fluorinated GHG emission factors for process 

utilization and by-product formation rates measured by 

manufacturing equipment suppliers if the conditions in 

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

(1) The manufacturing equipment supplier has measured 

the GHG emission factors for process utilization and byproduct formation rates using the International SEMATECH 

Manufacturing Initiative’s Guideline for Environmental 

Characterization of Semiconductor Process Equipment 

(December 2006). 

(2) The conditions under which the measurements were 

made are representative of your facility’s fluorinated GHG 

emitting processes. 

(e) If you use N2O utilization factors other than 

those defaults provided in §98.93(d)(1)(ii) or (d)(2)(ii), 

you must use factors that have been measured using the 

International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative’s Guideline 

for Environmental Characterization of Semiconductor Process 

Equipment (December 2006). You may use utilization factors 

measured by manufacturing equipment suppliers if the 

conditions in paragraph (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this section 

are met. 

(1) The manufacturing equipment supplier has measured 

the N2O utilization factors using the International SEMATECH 

Manufacturing Initiative’s Guideline for Environmental 

Characterization of Semiconductor Process Equipment 

(December 2006). 

(2) The conditions under which the measurements were 

made are representative of your facility’s N2O emitting 

processes. 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

149 

(f) If your facility employs abatement systems and you 

wish to reflect the emission reductions due to these 

systems in appropriate calculations in §98.93, you must 

adhere to the procedures in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of 

this section. If you use the default destruction or 

removal efficiency of 60%, you must adhere to procedures in 

paragraph (f)(3) of this section. If you use either a 

properly measured destruction or removal efficiency, or a 

class average of properly measured destruction or removal 

efficiencies during a reporting year, you must adhere to 

procedures in paragraph (f)(4) of this section. 

(1) You must certify and document that the systems are 

properly installed, operated, and maintained according to 

manufacturers’ specifications by adhering to the procedures 

in paragraphs (1)(i) and (1)(ii) of this section. 

(i) Proper installation must be verified by certifying 

the systems are installed in accordance with the 

manufacturers’ specifications. 

(ii) Proper operation and maintenance must be verified 

by cetifying the systems are operated and maintained in 

accordance with the manufacturers’ specifications. 

(2) You shall take into account and report the uptime 

of abatement systems when using destruction or removal 

efficiencies to reflect emission reductions. Abatement 

system uptime is expressed as the sum of an abatement 

system’s operational productive, standby, and engineering 

times divided by the total operations time of its 

associated manufacturing tool(s) as referenced in SEMI 

Standard E-10-0340 (Specification for Definition and 

Measurement of Equipment Reliability, Availability, and 

Maintainability (2004). 

(3) To report controlled emissions, you shall certify 

and document that the abatement systems at the facility for 

which you are reporting controlled emissions are 

specifically designed for fluorinated GHG and N2O abatement 

and you shall use a default destruction or removal 

efficiency of 60% for those abatement systems. 

(4) If you do not use the default destruction or 

removal efficiency value, to report controlled emissions, 

you shall use either a properly measured destruction or 

removal efficiency, or a class average of properly measured 

destruction or removal efficiencies during a reporting 

year, determined in accordance with procedures in 

paragraphs (1)(i) through (1)(v) of this section. 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

150 

(i) Destruction or removal efficiencies must be 

properly measured in accordance with EPA’s Protocol for 

Measuring Destruction or Removal Efficiency of Fluorinated 

Greenhouse Gas Abatement Equipment in Electronics 

Manufacturing. 

(ii) A facility must annually select and properly 

measure the destruction or removal efficiency for a random 

sample of abatement systems to include in a random sampling 

abatement system testing program (RSASTP). The RSASTP 

consists of the following: 

(A) Each reporting year a random sample of three or 

20% of installed abatement systems, whichever is greater, 

for each abatement system class shall be tested. In 

instances where 20% of the total number of abatement 

systems in each class does not equate to a whole number, 

the number of systems to be tested shall be determined by 

rounding up to the nearest integer. 

(B) You shall select the random sample each reporting 

year for the RSASTP without repetition of systems in the 

sample, until all systmes in each class are properly 

measured in a 5-year period. 

(iii) If a facility has measured individual abatement 

destruction or removal efficiency during the previous twoyear period, the facility shall calculate emissions from 

that system using the most resent measured destruction or 

removal efficiency. 

(iv) If an individual abatement system has not yet 

undergone proper destruction or removal efficiency testing 

during the previous two-year period, the facility may apply 

a simple average of the properly measured destruction or 

removal efficiencies for all systems of that class, in 

accordance with the sampling RSASTP. The facility shall 

maintain or exceed the RSASTP schedule and regime if it 

wishes to apply class average destruction or removal 

efficiency factors to abatement systems awaiting proper 

measurement. 

(v) In the case that redundant abatement systems are 

used in the random sample in the 5 year period, you shall 

use the measured destruction or removal efficiency for that 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

151 

system or average destruction or removal efficiency for 

that abatement system class. 

(f) You shall adhere to the QA/QC procedures of this 

paragraph when estimating fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions 

from all electronics manufacutring processes: 

(1) You shall follow the QA/QC procedures in the 

International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative’s Guideline 

for Environmental Characterization of Semiconductor Process 

Equipment (December 2006) when estimating facilityspecific, receipe-specific fluorinated GHG and N2O 

utilization and by-product formation rates. 

(2) You shall follow the QA/QC procedures in the 

EPA’s Protocol for Measuring Destruction or Removal 

Efficiency of Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Abatement 

Equipment in Electronics Manufacturing when estimating 

abatement systems destruction or removal efficiency. 

(3) You shall certify that gas consumption is tracked 

to a high degree of precision as part of normal facility 

operations taking into account beginning and end of year 

gas inventories and that further QA/QC is not required. 

(g) You shall adhere to the QA/QC procedures of this 

paragraph when estimating fluorinated GHG emissions from 

heat transfer fluid use: 

(1) You shall review all inputs to Equation I-11 of 

this section to ensure that all inputs and outputs to the 

facility’s system are accounted for. 

(2) You shall not enter negative inputs into the mass 

balance Equation I-11 of this section and shall ensure that 

no negative emissions are calculated. 

(3) You shall ensure that the beginning of year 

inventory matches the end of year inventory from the 

previous year. 

(h) All instruments (e.g., mass spectrometers and 

fourier transform infrared measuring systems) used to 

determine the concentration of fluorinated GHG and N2O in 

process streams shall be calibrated just prior to 

destruction or removal efficiency, gas utilization, or byproduct formation measurement through analysis of certified 

standards with known concentrations of the same chemicals 

in the same ranges (fractions by mass) as the process 

samples. Calibration gases prepared from a highconcentration certified standard using a gas dilution 

system that meets the requirements specified in Test Method 

205, 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix M may also be used. 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

152 

§98.95 Procedures for estimating missing data. 

(a) If you use heat transfer fluids at your facility 

and are missing data for one or more of the parameters in 

Equation I-11, you shall estimate heat transfer fluid 

emissions using the arithmetic average of the emission 

rates for the year immediately preceding the period of 

missing data and the months immediately following the 

period of missing data. Alternatively, you may estimate 

missing information using records from the heat transfer 

fluid supplier. You shall document the method used and 

values estimated for all missing data values. 

§98.96 Data reporting requirements. 

In addition to the information required by §98.3(c), 

you shall include in each annual report the following 

information for each electronics facility. 

(a) Annual emissions of each fluorinated GHG and N2O 

emitted from all etching processes, all chamber cleaning 

processes, all wafer cleaning processes, all chemical vapor 

deposition processes, and all heat transfer fluid use. 

(b) The method of emissions calculation used in 

§98.93. 

(c) Production in terms of substrate surface area 

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

(d) Emission factors used for process utilization and 

by-product formation rates and the source for each factor 

for each fluorinated GHG and N2O. 

(e) Where process categories for semiconductor 

facilities as defined in §98.93 (a)(1)(i) through (iii) are 

not used, descriptions of individual processes or process 

categories used to estimate emissions. 

(f) For each fluorinated GHG and N2O, annual gas 

consumed during the reporting year and facility-wide gasspecific heel-factors used. 

(g) The apportioning factors (i.e., fractions of each 

gas fed into each individual process or process category 

used to calculate fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions) and a 

description of the engineering model used for apportioning 

gas usage per §98.94(b). If the method used to develop the 

apportioning factors permits the development of facilitywide consumption estimates that are independent of the 

estimates calculated in Equation I-10 (e.g., that are based 

on wafer passes for each individual process or process 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

153 

category), you shall report the independent facility-wide 

consumption estimate for each fluorinated GHG and N2O. 

 (h) Fraction of each gas fed into each process type 

that is fed into tools with abatement systems. 

(i) Description of all abatement systems through 

which fluorinated GHGs or N2O flow at your facility, 

including the number of devices of each manufacturer, model 

numbers, manufacturers guaranteed destruction or removal 

efficiencies, if any, and record of destruction or removal 

efficiency measurements over its in-use life. The 

inventory of abatement systems shall also include a 

description of the associated tools and/or processes for 

which these systems treat exhaust. 

(j) For each abatement system through which 

fluorinated GHGs or N2O flow at your facility, for which you 

are reporting controlled emissions, the following: 

(1) Certification that each abatement system used at 

your facility is installed, maintained, and operated in 

accordance with manufacturers’ specifications. 

(2) The uptime and the calculations to determine 

uptime for that reporting year. 

(3) The default destruction or removal efficiency 

value or properly measured destruction or removal 

efficiencies for each abatement system used in that 

reporting year to reflect controlled emissions. 

(4) Where the default destruction or removal 

efficiency value is used to report controlled emissions, 

certication that the abatement systems for which controlled 

emissions are being reported are specifically designed for 

fluorinated GHG and N2O abatement. 

 (5) Where properly measured destruction or removal 

efficiencies or class averages of destruction or removal 

efficiences are used to report controlled emissions, the 

following: 

(i) A description of the class including the abatement 

system manufacturer and model number, and the fluorinated 

GHG and N2O in the process effluent stream; 

(ii) The total number of systems in that class for the 

reporting year. 

(iii) The total number of systems for which 

destruction or removal efficiency was measured in that 

class for the reporting year. 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

154 

(v) A description of the calculation used to determine 

the class average, including all inputs of the calculation. 

(vi) A description of method of randomly selecting 

class members for testing. 

(k) For heat transfer fluid emissions, inputs in the 

mass-balance equation, equation I-11 of subpart I for each 

fluorinated GHG. 

(l) Example calculations for fluorinated GHG, N2O, and 

heat transfer fluid emissions. 

§98.97 Records that must be retained. 

In addition to the information required by §98.3(g), 

you must retain the following records: 

(a) Data and copies of calculations used to estimate 

emissions including all spreadsheets. 

(b) Documentation for the values used for fluorinated 

GHG and N2O utilization and by-product formation rates. If 

you use facility-specific, receipe-specific gas utilization 

and by-product formation rates the following records must 

be retained: 

(1) Documentation that these were measured using the 

the International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative’s 

Guideline for Environmental Characterization of 

Semiconductor Process Equipment (December 2006). 

(2) Documentation that the measurements made are 

representative of fluorinated GHG and N2O emitting processes 

at your facility. 

(3) The date and results of the initial and any 

subsequent tests to determine process tool gas utilization 

and by-product formation rates. 

(c) For each abatement system through which 

fluorinated GHGs or N2O flows at your facility, for which 

you are reporting controlled emissions, the following: 

(1) Documentation to certify that each abatement 

system used at your facility is installed, maintained, and 

operated in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications. 

(2) Records of the uptime and the calculations to 

determine how the uptime was accounted for at your 

facility. 

(3) Abatement system calibration and maintenance 

records. 

(4) Where the default destruction or removal 

efficiency value was used, documentation from the abatement 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

155 

system supplier describing the equipment’s designed purpose 

and emission control capabilities. 

(5) Where properly measured destruction or removal 

efficiency is used to report controlled emissions, dated 

certification, by the technician who made the measurement, 

that the destruction or removal efficiency was calculated 

according to methods in the EPA’s Protocol for Measuring 

Destruction or Removal Efficiency of Fluorinated Greenhouse 

Gas Abatement Equipment in Electronics Manufacturing, and 

documentation of the results of any initial and subsequent 

tests. 

(d) Purchase records for gas purchased. 

(e) Invoices for gas purchases and sales. 

§98.98 Definitions. 

Any term used in this subpart that is not defined in 

this subpart or in §98.6 has the same meaning given it in 

the Clean Air Act. If a conflict exists between a 

definition provided in this subpart and a definition 

provided in §98.6, the definition in this subpart shall 

take precedence for the reporting requirements of this 

subpart. 

Abatement system means a device or equipment that 

destroys or removes fluorinated GHGs and/or N2O in waste 

streams from one or more electronics manufacturing tool 

chamber(s). 

By-product formation means the creation of fluorinated 

GHGs during electronics manufacturing processes or the 

creation of fluorinated GHGs by an abatement system. Byproduct formation is expressed as rate of the mass of the 

by-product formed to the mass of the fluorinated GHG used 

with the largest flow rate. 

Destruction or removal efficiency means the efficiency 

of a control system to destroy or remove fluorinated GHGs, 

N2O, or both. The destruction or removal efficiency is 

equal to one minus the ratio of the mass of all relevant 

GHGs exiting the emission abatement system to the mass of 

GHG entering the emission abatement system. When 

fluorinated GHGs are formed in an abatement system, 

destruction or removal efficiency is expressed as one minus 

the ratio of amounts of exiting GHGs to the amounts 

entering the system in units of CO2-equivalents. 

Gas utilization means the fraction of input N2O or 

fluorinated GHG converted to other substances during the 

etching, deposition, and/or wafer and chamber cleaning 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

156 

processes. Gas utilization is expressed as a rate or 

factor for specific manufacturing processes. 

Heat transfer fluids are fluorinated GHGs used for 

temperature control, device testing, and soldering in 

certain types of electronic manufacturing. Heat transfer 

fluids used in the electronics sector include 

perfluoropolyethers, perfluoroalkanes, perfluoroethers, 

tertiary perfluoroamines, and perfluorocyclic ethers. Heat 

transfer fluids commonly used in electronics manufacturing 

include those sold under the tradenames "Galden® " and 

"FluorinertTM." Electronics manufacturers may also use 

these same fluorinated chemicals to clean substrate 

surfaces and other parts. 

Heel means the amount of gas that remains in a gas 

cylinder or container after it is discharged or off-loaded 

(this may vary by cylinder or container type and facility). 

Nameplate capacity means the full and proper charge of 

gas specified by the equipment manufacturer to achieve the 

equipment’s specified performance. The nameplate capacity 

is typically indicated on the equipment’s nameplate; it is 

not necessarily the actual charge, which may be influenced 

by leakage and other emissions. 

Proper destruction or removal efficiency measurement

means measured in accorance with EPA’s Protocol for 

Measuring Destruction or Removal Efficiency of Fluorinated 

Greenhouse Gas Abatement Equipment in Electronics 

Manufacturing. 

Uptime means the total time during the reporting year 

when the abatement system for which controlled emissions 

will be reported was properly installed, operatated, and 

maintained. 

Wafer passes is a count of the number of times a 

silicon wafer is processed in a specific process category. 

The total number of wafer passes over a reporting year is 

the number of wafer passes per tool times the number of 

operational process tools in use during the reporting year. 

Process category is a set of similar manufacturing 

steps, performed for the same purpose, associated with 

substrate (e.g. wafer) processing during device manufacture 

for which fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions and fluorinated 

GHG and N2O usages are calculated and reported. 

Table I-1 of Subpart I— Default Emission Factors for 

Threshold Applicability Determination 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

157 

 

Emission Factors EFi

Product Type CF4 C2F6 CHF3 C3F8 NF3 SF6

Semiconductors 

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

LCD 

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

MEMs 

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

Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently 

available information. 

Table I-2 of Subpart I—Examples of Fluorinated GHGs Used by 

the Electronics Industry 

Product Type Fluorinated GHGs Used During Manufacture 

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

CHF3, CH2F2, NF3, SF6, and HTFs (CF3-(OCF(CF3)-CF2)n-(O-CF2)m-O-CF3, CnF2n+2, 

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

Table I-3 of Subpart I—Default Emission Factors for MEMS 

Manufacturing 

Factors 

Process 

Gases 

Etch 

1-Ui 

CVD 

1-Ui 

Etch 

BCF4

Etch 

BC2F6 CVD BCF4

CVD 

BC3F8

CF4 0.7 0.9 NA NA NA NA 

C2F6 0.4* 0.6 0.4* NA 0.1 NA 

CHF3 0.4* NA 0.07* NA NA NA 

CH2F2 0.06* NA 0.08* NA NA NA 

C3F8 NA 0.4 NA NA 0.1 NA 

c-C4F8 0.2* 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 NA 

NF3

Remote 

NA 0.02 NA NA 0.02† NA 

NF3 0.2 0.2 NA NA 0.1† NA 

SF6 0.2 NA NA NA NA NA 

C4F6

a 0.1 NA 0.3* 0.2* NA NA 

C5F8

a 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 NA 

C4F8O

a NA 0.1 NA NA 0.1 0.4 

Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available 

information. 

* Estimate includes multi-gas etch processes. 

† Estimate reflects presence of low-k, carbide and multi-gas etch 

processes that may contain a C-containing fluorinated GHG 

additive. 

Table I-4 of Subpart I—Default Emission Factors for LCD 

Manufacturing 

Process 

Gases

Factors 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

158 

Etch 

1-Ui 

CVD 

1-Ui 

Etch 

BCF4

Etch 

BCHF3 Etch BC2F6

CF4 0.6 NA NA NA NA 

C2F6 NA NA NA NA NA 

CHF3 0.2 NA 0.07 NA 0.05 

CH2F2 NA NA NA NA NA 

C3F8 NA NA NA NA NA 

c-C4F8 0.1 NA 0.009 0.02 NA 

NF3

Remote 

NA 0.03 NA NA NA 

NF3 NA 0.3 NA NA NA 

SF6 0.3 0.9 NA NA NA 

Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available 

information. 

Table I-5 of Subpart I—Default Emission Factors for PV 

Manufacturing 

Factors 

Process 

Gases 

Etch 

1-Ui 

CVD 

1-Ui 

Etch 

BCF4 Etch BC2F6

CVD 

BCF4

CF4 0.7 NA NA NA NA 

C2F6 0.4 0.6 0.2 NA 0.2 

CHF3 0.4 NA NA NA NA 

CH2F2 NA NA NA NA NA 

C3F8 NA 0.1 NA NA 0.2 

c-C4F8 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 

NF3

Remote 

NA NA NA NA NA 

NF3 NA 0.3 NA NA NA 

SF6 0.4 0.4 NA NA NA 

Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently 

available information. 

Table I-6 of Subpart I-Default Emission Factors for Refined 

Process Categories for Semiconductor Manufacturing for 150 

mm Wafer Size 

Process Gas i Refined 

Process 

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

Oxide etch

 1-Ui

0.2 – 1 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.8 0 - 1 NA 0 - 0.6 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.4 0 - 0.6 NA

 BCF4

NA 0 - 1 0 - 1 0 - 1 NA 0 - 0.6 NA NA 0 - 0.9 0 - 0.6 NA

 BC2F6

NA NA NA NA NA 0 - 0.6 NA NA 0 - 0.6 0 - 0.6 NA

 BC3F8

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Nitride etch 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

159 

Process Gas i Refined 

Process 

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

 1-Ui

0.2 – 1 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.8 0 - 1 NA 0 - 0.6 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.4 0 - 0.6 NA

 BCF4

NA 0 - 1 0 - 1 0 - 1 NA 0 - 0.6 NA NA 0 - 0.9 0 - 0.6 NA

 BC2F6

NA NA NA NA NA 0 - 0.6 NA NA 0 - 0.6 0 - 0.6 NA

 BC3F8

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Silicon etch 

 1-Ui

0.2 – 1 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.8 0 - 1 NA 0 - 0.6 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.4 0 - 0.6 NA

 BCF4

NA 0 - 1 0 - 1 0 - 1 NA 0 - 0.6 NA NA 0 - 0.9 0 - 0.6 NA

 BC2F6

NA NA NA NA NA 0 - 0.6 NA NA 0 - 0.6 0 - 0.6 NA

 BC3F8

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Metal etch

 1-Ui

0.2 – 1 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.8 0 - 1 NA 0 - 0.6 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.4 0 - 0.6 NA

 BCF4

NA 0 - 1 0 - 1 0 - 1 NA 0 - 0.6 NA NA 0 - 0.9 0 - 0.6 NA

 BC2F6

NA NA NA NA NA 0 - 0.6 NA NA 0 - 0.6 0 - 0.6 NA

 BC3F8

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

In situ plasma cleaning 

 1-Ui

0.8 – 1 0.4 - 0.8 NA NA 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.3 NA NA 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.2

 BCF4

NA 0 - 0.2 NA NA 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.3 NA NA 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.2

 BC2F6

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

 BC3F8

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0 - 0.1

Remote plasma cleaning 

 1-Ui

0.8 – 1 0.4 - 0.8 NA NA 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.3 NA NA 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.2

 BCF4

NA 0 - 0.2 NA NA 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.3 NA NA 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.2

 BC2F6

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

 BC3F8

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0 - 0.1

In situ thermal cleaning 

 1-Ui

0.8 – 1 0.4 - 0.8 NA NA 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.3 NA NA 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.2

 BCF4

NA 0 - 0.2 NA NA 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.3 NA NA 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.2

 BC2F6

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

 BC3F8

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0 - 0.1

Bevel cleaning

 1-Ui 0.2 – 1 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.8 0 - 1 NA 0 - 0.6 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.4 0 - 0.6 NA

 BCF4

NA 0 - 1 0 - 1 0 - 1 NA 0 - 0.6 NA NA 0 - 0.9 0 - 0.6 NA

 BC2F6

NA NA NA NA NA 0 - 0.6 NA NA 0 - 0.6 0 - 0.6 NA

 BC3F8

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Ashing 

 1-Ui 0.2 – 1 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.8 0 - 1 NA 0 - 0.6 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.4 0 - 0.6 NA

 BCF4

NA 0 - 1 0 - 1 0 - 1 NA 0 - 0.6 NA NA 0 - 0.9 0 - 0.6 NA

 BC2F6

NA NA NA NA NA 0 - 0.6 NA NA 0 - 0.6 0 - 0.6 NA

 BC3F8

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

160 

Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently 

available information. 

Table I-7 of Subpart I-Default Emission Factors for Refined 

Process Categories for Semiconductor Manufacturing for 200 

mm Wafer Size 

Process Gas i Refined 

Process 

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

Oxide etch

 1-Ui

0.2 – 1 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.8 0 - 1 NA 0 - 0.6 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.4 0 - 0.6 NA

 BCF4

NA 0 - 1 0 - 1 0 - 1 NA 0 - 0.6 NA NA 0 - 0.9 0 - 0.6 NA

 BC2F6

NA NA NA NA NA 0 - 0.6 NA NA 0 - 0.6 0 - 0.6 NA

 BC3F8

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Nitride etch 

 1-Ui

0.2 – 1 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.8 0 - 1 NA 0 - 0.6 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.4 0 - 0.6 NA

 BCF4

NA 0 - 1 0 - 1 0 - 1 NA 0 - 0.6 NA NA 0 - 0.9 0 - 0.6 NA

 BC2F6

NA NA NA NA NA 0 - 0.6 NA NA 0 - 0.6 0 - 0.6 NA

 BC3F8

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Silicon etch 

 1-Ui

0.2 – 1 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.8 0 - 1 NA 0 - 0.6 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.4 0 - 0.6 NA

 BCF4

NA 0 - 1 0 - 1 0 - 1 NA 0 - 0.6 NA NA 0 - 0.9 0 - 0.6 NA

 BC2F6

NA NA NA NA NA 0 - 0.6 NA NA 0 - 0.6 0 - 0.6 NA

 BC3F8

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Metal etch

 1-Ui

0.2 – 1 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.8 0 - 1 NA 0 - 0.6 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.4 0 - 0.6 NA

 BCF4

NA 0 - 1 0 - 1 0 - 1 NA 0 - 0.6 NA NA 0 - 0.9 0 - 0.6 NA

 BC2F6

NA NA NA NA NA 0 - 0.6 NA NA 0 - 0.6 0 - 0.6 NA

 BC3F8

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

In situ plasma cleaning 

 1-Ui

0.8 – 1 0.4 - 0.8 NA NA 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.3 NA NA 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.2

 BCF4

NA 0 - 0.2 NA NA 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.3 NA NA 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.2

 BC2F6

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

 BC3F8

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0 - 0.1

Remote plasma cleaning 

 1-Ui

0.8 – 1 0.4 - 0.8 NA NA 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.3 NA NA 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.2

 BCF4

NA 0 - 0.2 NA NA 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.3 NA NA 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.2

 BC2F6

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

 BC3F8

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0 - 0.1
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

161 

Process Gas i Refined 

Process 

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

In situ thermal cleaning 

 1-Ui

0.8 – 1 0.4 - 0.8 NA NA 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.3 NA NA 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.2

 BCF4

NA 0 - 0.2 NA NA 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.3 NA NA 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.2

 BC2F6

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

 BC3F8

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0 - 0.1

Bevel cleaning

 1-Ui 0.2 – 1 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.8 0 - 1 NA 0 - 0.6 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.4 0 - 0.6 NA

 BCF4

NA 0 - 1 0 - 1 0 - 1 NA 0 - 0.6 NA NA 0 - 0.9 0 - 0.6 NA

 BC2F6

NA NA NA NA NA 0 - 0.6 NA NA 0 - 0.6 0 - 0.6 NA

 BC3F8

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Ashing 

 1-Ui 0.2 – 1 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.8 0 - 1 NA 0 - 0.6 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.4 0 - 0.6 NA

 BCF4

NA 0 - 1 0 - 1 0 - 1 NA 0 - 0.6 NA NA 0 - 0.9 0 - 0.6 NA

 BC2F6

NA NA NA NA NA 0 - 0.6 NA NA 0 - 0.6 0 - 0.6 NA

 BC3F8

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently 

available information. 

Table I-8 of Subpart I-Default Emission Factors for Refined 

Process Categories for Semiconductor Manufacturing for 300 

mm Wafer Size

Process Gas i Refined 

Process 

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

Oxide etch

 1-Ui

0.2 – 1 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.8 0 - 1 NA 0 - 0.6 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.4 0 - 0.6 NA

 BCF4

NA 0 - 1 0 - 1 0 - 1 NA 0 - 0.6 NA NA 0 - 0.9 0 - 0.6 NA

 BC2F6

NA NA NA NA NA 0 - 0.6 NA NA 0 - 0.6 0 - 0.6 NA

 BC3F8

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Nitride etch 

 1-Ui

0.2 – 1 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.8 0 - 1 NA 0 - 0.6 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.4 0 - 0.6 NA

 BCF4

NA 0 - 1 0 - 1 0 - 1 NA 0 - 0.6 NA NA 0 - 0.9 0 - 0.6 NA

 BC2F6

NA NA NA NA NA 0 - 0.6 NA NA 0 - 0.6 0 - 0.6 NA

 BC3F8

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Silicon etch 

 1-Ui

0.2 – 1 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.8 0 - 1 NA 0 - 0.6 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.4 0 - 0.6 NA

 BCF4

NA 0 - 1 0 - 1 0 - 1 NA 0 - 0.6 NA NA 0 - 0.9 0 - 0.6 NA

 BC2F6

NA NA NA NA NA 0 - 0.6 NA NA 0 - 0.6 0 - 0.6 NA

 BC3F8

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

162 

Process Gas i Refined 

Process 

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

Metal etch

 1-Ui

0.2 – 1 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.8 0 - 1 NA 0 - 0.6 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.4 0 - 0.6 NA

 BCF4

NA 0 - 1 0 - 1 0 - 1 NA 0 - 0.6 NA NA 0 - 0.9 0 - 0.6 NA

 BC2F6

NA NA NA NA NA 0 - 0.6 NA NA 0 - 0.6 0 - 0.6 NA

 BC3F8

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

In situ plasma cleaning 

 1-Ui

0.8 – 1 0.4 - 0.8 NA NA 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.3 NA NA 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.2

 BCF4

NA 0 - 0.2 NA NA 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.3 NA NA 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.2

 BC2F6

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

 BC3F8

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0 - 0.1

Remote plasma cleaning 

 1-Ui

0.8 – 1 0.4 - 0.8 NA NA 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.3 NA NA 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.2

 BCF4

NA 0 - 0.2 NA NA 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.3 NA NA 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.2

 BC2F6

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

 BC3F8

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0 - 0.1

In situ thermal cleaning 

 1-Ui

0.8 – 1 0.4 - 0.8 NA NA 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.3 NA NA 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.2

 BCF4

NA 0 - 0.2 NA NA 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.3 NA NA 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.2

 BC2F6

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

 BC3F8

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0 - 0.1

Bevel cleaning

 1-Ui 0.2 – 1 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.8 0 - 1 NA 0 - 0.6 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.4 0 - 0.6 NA

 BCF4

NA 0 - 1 0 - 1 0 - 1 NA 0 - 0.6 NA NA 0 - 0.9 0 - 0.6 NA

 BC2F6

NA NA NA NA NA 0 - 0.6 NA NA 0 - 0.6 0 - 0.6 NA

 BC3F8

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Ashing 

 1-Ui 0.2 – 1 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.8 0 - 1 NA 0 - 0.6 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.8 0 - 0.4 0 - 0.6 NA

 BCF4

NA 0 - 1 0 - 1 0 - 1 NA 0 - 0.6 NA NA 0 - 0.9 0 - 0.6 NA

 BC2F6

NA NA NA NA NA 0 - 0.6 NA NA 0 - 0.6 0 - 0.6 NA

 BC3F8

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently 

available information. 

11. Add subpart L to read as follows: 

 

Subpart L-Fluorinated Gas Production 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

163 

Sec. 

98.120 Definition of the source category. 

98.121 Reporting threshold. 

98.122 GHGs to report. 

98.123 Calculating GHG emissions. 

98.124 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements. 

98.125 Procedures for estimating missing data. 

98.126 Data reporting requirements. 

98.127 Records that must be retained. 

98.128 Definitions. 

§98.120 Definition of the source category.

(a) The fluorinated gas production source category 

consists of processes that produce a fluorinated gas from 

any raw material or feedstock chemical, except for 

processes that generate HFC-23 during the production of 

HCFC-22. 

(b) To produce a fluorinated gas means to manufacture a 

fluorinated gas from any raw material or feedstock 

chemical. Producing a fluorinated gas includes 

producing a fluorinated GHG as defined at §98.410(b). 

Producing a fluorinated gas also includes the 

manufacture of a chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) or 

hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) from any raw material 

or feedstock chemical, including manufacture for use 

in a process that will result in the transformation of 

the CFC or HCFC either at or outside of the production 

facility. Producing a fluorinated gas does not 

include the reuse or recycling of a fluorinated gas, 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

164 

the creation of HFC-23 during the production of HCFC22, or the creation of by-products that are released 

or destroyed at the production facility. 

§98.121 Reporting threshold. 

You must report GHG emissions under this subpart if 

your facility contains a fluorinated gas production process 

that generates or emits fluorinated GHG and the facility 

meets the requirements of either §98.2(a)(1) or (a)(2) of 

this part. To calculate GHG emissions for comparison to 

the 25,000 metric ton CO2e per year emission threshold in 

§98.2(a)(2) of this part, 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 40 CFR 98, subpart O (HCFC22 Production and HFC-23 Destruction) the emissions of HFC23 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 subpart L. 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

165 

(c) You must report the total mass of each 

fluorinated GHG from: 

(1) Each fluorinated gas production process and all 

fluorinated gas production processes combined. 

(2) Each fluorinated gas transformation process and 

all fluorinated gas transformation processes combined. 

(3) Each fluorinated gas destruction process and all 

fluorinated gas destruction processes combined. 

§98.123 Calculating GHG emissions. 

You must calculate the fluorinated GHG emissions from 

each process using either the mass balance method specified 

in paragraphs (a) or the emission factor or emission 

calculation factor methods specified in paragraphs (b), 

(c), and (d) of this section, as appropriate. Processes 

that manufacture CFCs or HCFCs subject to this subpart must 

use the procedures in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of the 

subpart. 

(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, L-2, L-3, and L-4 in 

conjunction with equations L-7 through L-12. If this 

calculation shows that use of the mass-balance approach to 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

166 

estimate emissions from the process will result in an 

absolute error exceeding 3,000 metric tons CO2e per year and 

a relative error exceeding 30 percent, then you cannot use 

the mass-balance approach to estimate emissions from the 

process. Instead, you must use the emission factor 

approach detailed in paragraph (b) of this section to 

estimate emissions from the process. To perform the 

calculation, you shall first calculate the absolute and 

relative errors associated with the quantities calculated 

using equations L-8, L-9, L-10, and L-11. Once errors have 

been calculated for the quantities in these equations, 

those errors shall be used to calculate the errors in 

equations L-7 and L-12. Where the measured quantity is a 

mass, the error in the mass shall be equated to the 

accuracy or precision (whichever is larger) of the 

flowmeter, scale, or combination of volumetric and density 

measurements at the flowrate or mass measured. Where the 

measured quantity is a concentration, the error of the 

concentration shall be equated to the accuracy or precision 

(whichever is larger) of the analytical technique used to 

measure the concentration at the concentration measured. 

(1) Equation L-1 provides the general formula for 

calculating the absolute errors of sums and differences 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

167 

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. 

Where: 

eSA = absolute error of the sum 

ea = relative error of a 

eb = relative error of b 

ec = relative error of c 

(2) Equation L-2 provides the general formula for 

calculating the relative errors of sums and 

differences: 

(a b c)

e

e

sA

s

+ +

= (Eq. L-2) 

(3) Equation L-3 provides the general formula for 

calculating the absolute errors of products (e.g., 

flow rates of GHGs calculated as the product of the 

flow rate of the stream and the concentration of the 

GHG in the stream), where the product, P, is the 

result of multiplying the variables measured, a, b, c, 

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

ep = (a*b*c)(ea

2 + eb2 + ec2)1/2 (Eq. L-3) 

Where 

ep = absolute error of the product 

ea = relative error of a 

eb = relative error of b 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

168 

ec = relative error of c 

(4) Equation L-4 provides the general formula for 

calculating the relative errors of products: 

(a b c)

e

e

pA

p

* *

= (Eq. L-4) 

(5) The total mass of each fluorinated GHG product 

emitted annually from all fluorinated gas production 

processes shall be estimated by using Equation L-5 of this 

section: 

∑ ∑= =

=

m

i

Pip

n

p

EP E

1 1

(Eq. L-5) 

Where: 

EP = Total mass of each fluorinated GHG product emitted 

annually from all production processes (metric 

tons). 

EPip = Total mass of the fluorinated GHG product emitted 

from production process i over the period p (metric 

tons, defined in Equation L-7 of this section). 

n = Number of concentration and flow measurement periods 

for the year. 

m = Number of production processes. 

(6) The total mass of fluorinated GHG by-product k 

emitted annually from all fluorinated gas production 

processes shall be estimated by using Equation L-6 of this 

section: 

∑ ∑= =

=

m

i

Bkip

n

p

EBk E

1 1

(Eq. L-6) 

Where: 

EBk = Total mass of fluorinated GHG by-product k 

emitted annually from all production processes 

(metric tons). 

EBkip = Total mass of fluorinated GHG by-product k 

emitted from production process i over the period 

p (metric tons, defined in Equation L-8 on this 

section). 

n = Number of concentration and flow measurement 

periods for the year. 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

169 

m = Number of production processes. 

(7) The total mass of each fluorinated GHG product 

emitted from production process i over the period p shall 

be estimated at least monthly by calculating the difference 

between the expected production of the fluorinated GHG 

based on the consumption of one of the reactants (e.g., HF 

or a chlorocarbon reactant) and the measured production of 

the fluorinated GHG, accounting for yield losses related to 

by-products and wastes. This calculation shall be 

performed using Equation L-7 of this section. 

∑( ) ∑ = =

= − − −

u

k

Bkip

q

j

P Dj

R R

P P

Pip P C W L

MW SC

R MW SC

E

1 1

*

*

* *

(Eq.L-7) 

Where: 

EPip = Total mass of each fluorinated GHG product 

emitted from production process i over the period 

p (metric tons). 

P = Total mass of the fluorinated GHG produced by 

production process i over the period p (metric 

tons). 

R = Total mass of the reactant that is consumed by 

production process i over the period p (metric 

tons, defined in Equation L-8). 

MWR = Molecular weight of the reactant. 

MWP = Molecular weight of the fluorinated GHG produced. 

SCR = Stoichiometric coefficient of the reactant. 

SCP = Stoichiometric coefficient of the fluorinated GHG 

produced. 

cP = Concentration (mass fraction) of the fluorinated 

GHG product in stream j of destroyed wastes. If 

this concentration is only a trace concentration, 

cP is equal to zero. 

WDj = Mass of wastes removed from production process i 

in stream j and destroyed over the period p 

(metric tons, defined in Equation L-9 of this 

section). 

LBkip = Yield loss related to by-product k for production 

process i over the period p (metric tons, defined 

in Equation L-10 of this section). 

q = Number of waste streams destroyed in production 

process i. 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

170 

u = Number of by-products generated in production 

process i. 

(8) The total mass of the reactant that is consumed 

by production process i over the period p shall be 

estimated by using Equation L-8 of this section: 

R = RF − RR (Eq.L-8) 

Where: 

R = Total mass of the reactant that is consumed by 

production process i over the period p (metric 

tons). 

RF = Total mass of the reactant that is fed into 

production process i over the period p (metric 

tons). 

RR = Total mass of the reactant that is permanently 

removed from production process i over the period 

p (metric tons). 

(9) The mass of wastes removed from production 

process i in stream j and destroyed over the period p shall 

be estimated using Equation L-9 of this section: 

WDj = WFj* DE (Eq. L-9) 

Where: 

WDj = The mass of wastes removed from production 

process i in stream j and destroyed over the 

period p (metric tons). 

WFj = The total mass of wastes removed from production 

process i in stream j and fed into the 

destruction device over the period p (metric 

tons). 

DE = Destruction Efficiency of the destruction device 

(fraction). 

(10) Yield loss related to by-product k for 

production process i over period p shall be estimated using 

Equation L-10 of this section: 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

171 

( )

( ) Bk P

kip P Bk

Bkip MW ME

B MW ME

L

*

* *

= (Eq. L-10) 

Where: 

LBkip = Yield loss related to by-product k for production 

process i over the period p (metric tons). 

Bkip = Mass of by-product k generated by production 

process i over the period p (metric tons, defined 

in Equation L-11 of this section). 

MWP = Molecular weight of the fluorinated GHG produced. 

MWBk = Molecular weight of by-product k. 

MEBk = Moles of the element shared by the reactant, 

product, and by-product k per mole of by-product 

k. 

MEP = Moles of the element shared by the reactant, 

product, and by-product k per mole of the 

product. 

(11) If by-product k is responsible for yield loss in 

production process i and occurs in any process stream in 

more than trace concentrations, the mass of by-product k 

generated by production process i over the period p shall 

be estimated using Equation L-11 of this section: 

= ∑

q

j

kip Bjk S j B c * (Eq. L-11) 

Where: 

Bkip = Mass of by-product k generated by production 

process i over the period p (metric tons). 

cBkj = Concentration (mass fraction) of the by-product k 

in stream j of production process i over the 

period p. If this concentration is only a trace 

concentration, cBkj is equal to zero. 

Sj = Mass flow of process stream j of production 

process i over the period p. 

q = Number of streams in production process i. 

(12) If by-product k is responsible for yield loss, 

is a fluorinated GHG, occurs in any process stream in more 

than trace concentrations, and is not completely recaptured 

or completely destroyed; the total mass of by-product k 

emitted from production process i over the period p shall 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

172 

be estimated at least monthly using Equation L-10 of this 

section: 

∑ ∑ = =

= − −

x

l

Dj Bkl Rl

q

j

EBkip Bkip cBkj W c S

1 1

* * (Eq. L-12) 

Where: 

EBkip = Mass of by-product k emitted from production 

process i over the period p (metric tons). 

Bkip = Mass of by-product k generated by production 

process i over the period p (metric tons). 

cBkj = Concentration (mass fraction) of the by-product k 

in stream j of destroyed wastes over the period 

p. If this concentration is only a trace 

concentration, cBj is equal to zero. 

WDj = The mass of wastes that are removed from 

production process i in stream j and that are 

destroyed over the period p (metric tons, defined 

in Equation L-9 of this section). 

cBkl = The concentration (mass fraction) of the byproduct k in stream l of recaptured material over 

the period p. If this concentration is only a 

trace concentration, cBkl is equal to zero. 

SRl = The mass of materials that are removed from 

production process i in stream l and that are 

recaptured over the period p. 

q = Number of waste streams destroyed in production 

process i. 

x = Number of streams recaptured in production 

process i. 

(b) Emission factor and emission calculation factor

methods. To use the method in this paragraph, you must 

first make a preliminary estimate of the emissions from 

each individual process vent under paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section; then using the criteria in paragraph (b)(2) of 

this section, determine whether the process vent meets the 

criteria for developing an emissions factor based on 

emissions vent testing under paragraph (b)(3) of this 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

173 

section or meets the criteria for developing an emissions 

calculation factor based on engineering calculations or 

assessments under paragraph (b)(4) of this section. 

(1) Preliminary estimate of emissions by process 

vent. You must estimate the annual uncontrolled emissions 

of fluorinated GHG for each process vent within a process. 

You may determine uncontrolled emissions of fluorinated GHG 

by process vent using existing measurements and/or 

calculations based on chemical engineering principles and 

chemical property data or you may conduct an engineering 

assessment. You must document all data, assumptions, and 

procedures used in the calculations or engineering 

assessment and keep a record of the uncontrolled emissions 

determination (in §98.127(a)). 

(i) Engineering calculations. For process vent 

emission calculations, you may use paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A), 

(B), or (C) of this section. 

(A) Emissions Inventory Improvement Process, Volume 

II: Chapter 16, Methods for Estimating Air Emissions from 

Chemical Manufacturing Facilities. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. August 2007 (incorporated by reference, 

see §98.7); 

(B) You may determine the uncontrolled fluorinated 

GHG emissions from any process vent within the process 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

174 

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

except as specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(B)(1) through 

(b)(1)(i)(B)(7) of this section. For the purposes of this 

subpart, use of the term “HAP” in §63.1257(d)(2)(i) shall 

mean “fluorinated GHG”. 

(1) To calculate emissions caused by the heating of a 

vessel without a process condenser to a temperature lower 

than the boiling point, you must use the procedures in 

§63.1257(d)(2)(i)(C)(3). 

(2) To calculate emissions from depressurization of a 

vessel without a process condenser, you must use the 

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

(3) To calculate emissions from vacuum systems, the 

terms used in Equation 33 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG, 

are defined as follows: 

(i) Psystem= absolute pressure of the receiving 

vessel; 

(ii) Pi= partial pressure of the fluorinated GHG 

determined at the exit temperature and exit pressure 

conditions of the condenser or at the conditions of the 

dedicated receiver; 

(iii) Pj= partial pressure of condensables 

(including fluorinated GHG) determined at the exit 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

175 

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 §63.1257(d)(3)(i)(B), except as specified in 

paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(B)(4)(i) through (v) of this section. 

(i) You must determine the flowrate of gas (or volume 

of gas), partial pressures of condensables, temperature 

(T), and fluorinated GHG molecular weight (MWFluorinated GHG) at 

the exit temperature and exit pressure conditions of the 

condenser or at the conditions of the dedicated receiver. 

(ii) You must assume that all of the components 

contained in the condenser exit vent stream are in 

equilibrium with the same components in the exit condensate 

stream (except for noncondensables). 

(iii) You must perform a material balance for each 

component. 

(iv) For the emissions from gas evolution, the term 

for time, t, must be used in Equation 12 to 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart GGG. 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

176 

(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. 

or 

(C) Commercial software products that follow chemical 

engineering principles, including the calculation 

methodologies in paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(A) and (B) of this 

section. 

(ii) Engineering assessments. For process vent 

emissions determinations, you may conduct an engineering 

assessment to calculate uncontrolled emissions for each 

emission episode. An engineering assessment includes but 

is not limited to, the following: 

(A) Previous test results, provided the tests are 

representative of current operating practices of the 

process. 

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

representative of the process under representative 

operating conditions. 

(C) Maximum flow rate, fluorinated GHG emission rate, 

concentration, or other relevant parameters specified or 

implied within a permit limit applicable to the process 

vent. 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

177 

(D) Design analysis based on chemical engineering 

principles, measureable process parameters, or physical or 

chemical laws or properties. 

(2) Process vent annual mass limit and control 

determination. 

(i) For an individual process vent, you may comply 

with either paragraph (b)(3) (Emission Factor approach) or 

paragraph (b)(4) (Emission Calculation Factor approach) if 

(A) uncontrolled fluorinated GHG emissions for the 

individual process vent as estimated using procedures in 

paragraph (c)(1) are less than 10,000 metric tons CO2e per 

year or, for emissions including fluorinated GHGs whose 

GWPs are not listed in Table A-1, 1 metric ton per year, or 

(B) the individual process vent is vented to a 

destruction device demonstrated to achieve a destruction 

efficiency of 99.9 percent for fluorinated GHGs, and the 

facility has equipment (e.g., holding tank capacity; 

monitoring of by-pass streams) or procedures (e.g., 

compulsory process shutdowns) in place that ensure that 

uncontrolled emissions do not occur. For each process, you 

should either track the amount of production or other 

process activity that is vented to the destruction device 

or track production or other process activity that bypasses the destruction device. 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

178 

(ii) Otherwise, the facility must comply with 

paragraph (b)(3) (Emission Factor approach). 

(3) Process-vent-specific emission factor method. 

For each process vent, conduct an emission test and measure 

uncontrolled fluorinated GHG emissions from the process and 

measure the process activity, such as the feed rate, 

production rate, or other process activity rate, during the 

test as described below. All emissions test data and 

procedures used in developing emissions factors shall be 

documented according to §98.127. 

(i) You must measure the process activity, such as 

the process feed rate, process production rate, or other 

process activity rate, as applicable, during the emission 

test according to the procedures in §98.124 and calculate 

the rate for the test period, in kg per hour or in kg per 

batch. 

(ii) For continuous processes, you must calculate the 

hourly uncontrolled fluorinated GHG emission rate using 

Equation L-13 and determine the hourly uncontrolled 

fluorinated GHG emission rate per process vent for the test 

run. For batch processes, you must calculate the 

uncontrolled fluorinated GHG emissions during each emission 

episode over the batch using Equation L-14 and determine 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

179 

the fluorinated GHG emissions per process based on the 

batch runs conducted for the test. 

1

60 *

10

1

*

1

* * *

106 3

SV

MW Q

C

E PV

Pv

contPV = (Eq.L-13) 

Where: 

EContPV = mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from process 

vent v from production process i during the 

emission test during test run r (kg/hr). 

CPV = concentration of fluorinated GHG f during test 

run r of the emission test (ppmv). 

MW = molecular weight of fluorinated GHG f (g/g-mole). 

QPV = flow rate of the process vent stream during test 

run r of the emission test (m3/min). 

SV = standard molar volume of gas (0.0240 m3/g-mole at 

68°F and 1 atm). 

1/103= conversion factor (1 kilogram/1000 gram). 

60/1 = conversion factor (60 minutes/1 hour). 

6 3

1

10

1

*

1

* *

10

* *

SV

MW

C Q D

E

ee

Pv ee PV ee ee

batchPV

∑ − −

= (Eq. L-14) 

Where: 

EbatchPV = mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from 

process vent v from production process i during 

the emission test during test run r (kg/batch). 

CPV-ee = concentration of fluorinated GHG f during 

emission episode ee during test run r of the 

emission test (ppmv). 

QPV-ee = flow rate of the process vent stream during 

emission episode ee during test run r of the 

emission test (m3/min). 

Dee = duration of emission episode ee during test run r 

of the emission test (minutes). 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

180 

MW = molecular weight of fluorinated GHG f (g/g-mole). 

SV = standard molar volume of gas (0.0240 m3/g-mole at 

68°F and 1 atm). 

1/103= conversion factor (1 kilogram/1000 gram). 

ee = number of emission episodes ee from process vent 

v during process i. 

(iii) You must calculate a site-specific, processvent-specific emission factor for each process vent, in kg 

of uncontrolled fluorinated GHG per process activity rate 

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

Equation L-15. For continuous processes, divide the hourly 

fluorinated GHG emission rate during the test by the hourly 

process activity rate during the test runs. For batch 

processes, divide the fluorinated GHG emissions by the 

process activity rate for the batch runs. 

r

Activity

E

EF

r

EmissionTest

PV

PV

∑ 















=

1

(Eq. L-15) 

Where: 

EFPV = average emission factor for fluorinated 

GHG f emitted from process vent v 

during production process i (kg 

emitted/kg product). 

EPV = mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from 

process vent v from production process 

i during the emission test during test 

run r, for either continuous or batch 

(kg emitted/hr for continuous, kg 

emitted/batch for batch). 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

181 

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 Eqn L-13, kg 

product/batch for batch, calculated in 

Eqn L-14). 

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

performed during the emission test. 

(iv) You must calculate fluorinated GHG emissions for 

the process vent for the reporting period by multiplying 

the process-vent-specific emission factor by the total 

process activity, as applicable, for the reporting period, 

using Equation L-16. 

PV RptPeriod PV A RptPeriod E = EF * ctivity − (Eq. L-16) 

Where: 

EPV-RptPeriod = mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from 

process vent v from production process i, 

for the reporting period, either monthly 

or annually (kg/month or kg/year). 

EFPV = average emission factor for fluorinated 

GHG f emitted from process vent v during 

production process i (kg 

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

product). 

ActivityRptPeriod = process feed, process production, or other 

process activity during the reporting 

period. 

(v) If the process vent is vented to a destruction 

device, apply the demonstrated destruction efficiency of 

the device to the fluorinated GHG emissions for the process 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

182 

vent, using Equation L-17. You may apply the destruction 

efficiency to the portion of the process activity that is 

vented to the destruction device (i.e., controlled). 

 

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

Where: 

EPV-RptPeriod = mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from 

process vent v from production process 

i, for the reporting period, either 

monthly or annually, considering 

destruction efficiency (kg/month or 

kg/year). 

EFPV = emission factor for fluorinated GHG f 

emitted from process vent v during 

production process i (kg emitted/kg 

product). 

ActivityRptPeriod-U = total process feed, process production, 

or other process activity during the 

reporting period for which the process 

vent is not vented to the destruction 

device (e.g., kg product). 

ActivityRptPeriod-C = total process feed, process production, 

or other process activity during the 

reporting period for which the process 

vent is vented to the destruction 

device (e.g., kg product). 

DE = demonstrated destruction efficiency of 

the destruction device (weight 

fraction). 

(vi) Sum the emissions from all process vents in the 

process for the reporting period to estimate total 

fluorinated GHG process emissions, using Equation L-18. 

= ∑ −

v

EPfi EPV RptPeriod

1

(Eq. L-18) 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

183 

Where: 

EPfi = mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from 

production process i, for the reporting 

period, either monthly or annually (kg). 

EPV-RptPeriod = mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from 

process vent v from production process i, 

for the reporting period, either monthly or 

annually, considering destruction efficiency 

(kg/month or kg/year). 

v = number of process vents in production 

process i. 

(vii) Sum the emissions from all processes for the 

reporting period to estimate total fluorinated GHG process 

vent emissions, using Equation L-19. 

= ∑

i

EP EPfi

1

(Eq. L-19) 

Where: 

EP = mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from all 

process vents at the facility, for the reporting 

period, either monthly or annually (kg). 

EPij = mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from production 

process i, for the reporting period, either 

monthly or annually (kg). 

i = number of production processes i at the facility. 

(4) Process-vent-specific emission “calculation” 

factor method. For each process vent, determine 

fluorinated GHG emissions by calculations and determine the 

process activity rate, such as the feed rate, production 

rate, or other process activity rate, associated with the 

emission rate. 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

184 

(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), except paragraph 

(b)(1)(ii)(C). The uncontrolled emissions must be based on 

a typical batch or production rate under a defined 

operating scenario. The process activity rate associated 

with the uncontrolled emissions must be determined. All 

data, assumptions, and procedures used in the calculations 

or engineering assessment shall be documented, according to 

§98.127. 

(ii) You must calculate a site-specific, process-ventspecific 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 Eqn. L-20. 

presentative

PV

PV Activity

E

ECF

Re

= (Eq. L-20) 

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 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

185 

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). 

ActivityEmissionTest = process feed, process production, or 

other process activity rate 

corresponding to average mass of 

emissions based on calculations (e.g., 

kg product/hr for continuous, kg 

product/batch for batch). 

(iii) You must calculate fluorinated GHG emissions 

for the process vent for the reporting period by 

multiplying the process-vent-specific emission calculation 

factor by the total process activity, as applicable, for 

the reporting period, using Equation L-21. 

PV RptPeriod PV A RptPeriod E = ECF * ctivity − (Eq. L-21) 

Where: 

EPV-RptPeriod = mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from 

process vent v from production process i, 

for the reporting period, either monthly 

or annually (kg/month or kg/year). 

ECFPV = emission calculation factor for 

fluorinated GHG f emitted from process 

vent v during production process i (kg 

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

product). 

ActivityRptPeriod = process feed, process production, or other 

process activity during the reporting 

period. 

(iv) If the process vent is vented to a destruction 

device, apply the demonstrated destruction efficiency of 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

186 

the device to the fluorinated GHG emissions for the process 

vent, using Equation L-22. You may apply the destruction 

efficiency to the portion of the process activity that is 

vented to the destruction device (i.e., controlled). 

 

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

Where: 

EPV-RptPeriod = mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from 

process vent v from production process 

i, for the reporting period, either 

monthly or annually, considering 

destruction efficiency (kg/month or 

kg/year). 

ECFPV = emission calculation factor for 

fluorinated GHG f emitted from process 

vent v during production process i (kg 

emitted/kg product). 

ActivityRptPeriod-U = total process feed, process production, 

or other process activity during the 

reporting period for which the process 

vent is not vented to the destruction 

device (e.g., kg product for 

continuous, kg product for batch). 

ActivityRptPeriod-C = total process feed, process production, 

or other process activity during the 

reporting period for which the process 

vent is vented to the destruction 

device (e.g., kg product). 

DE = demonstrated destruction efficiency of 

the destruction device (weight 

fraction). 

(v) Sum the fluorinated GHG emissions from all process 

vents in the process for the reporting period to estimate 

total process emissions, using Equation L-23. 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

187 

= ∑ −

v

EPfi EPV RptPeriod

1

(Eq. L-23) 

Where: 

EPfi = mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from 

production process i, for the reporting 

period, either monthly or annually (kg). 

EPV-RptPeriod = mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from 

process vent v from production process i, 

for the reporting period, either monthly or 

annually, considering destruction efficiency 

(kg/month or kg/year). 

v = number of process vents in production 

process i. 

(vi) Sum the emissions from all processes for the 

reporting period to estimate total fluorinated GHG process 

emissions, using Equation L-24. 

= ∑

i

EP EPfi

1

(Eq. L-24) 

Where: 

EP = mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from all 

processes at the facility, for the reporting 

period, either monthly or annually (kg). 

EPij = mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from production 

process i, for the reporting period, either 

monthly or annually (kg). 

i = number of production processes i at the facility. 

 

(c) Calculate fluorinated GHG emissions for equipment 

leaks (EL). If you comply with paragraph (b) of this 

section, you must calculate the fluorinated GHG emissions 

from pieces of equipment associated with processes covered 

under this subpart and in fluorinated GHG service. The 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

188 

emissions from equipment leaks must be calculated using one 

of the following methods in the Protocol for Equipment Leak 

Emission Estimates, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

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

(incorporated by reference, see §98.7): the Screening 

Ranges Approach; the EPA Correlation Approach; or the UnitSpecific Correlation Approach. You may not use the 

procedure in the document for Average Emission Factor 

Approach. 

(1) You must develop response factors for each 

fluorinated GHG or for each surrogate to be measured using 

EPA Method 21. For each fluorinated GHG measured, the 

response factor shall be less than 10. The response factor 

is the ratio of the known concentration of a fluorinated 

GHG to the observed meter reading when measured using an 

instrument calibrated with the reference compound. 

(2) You must collect information on the number of 

each type of equipment; the service of each piece of 

equipment (gas, light liquid, heavy liquid); the 

concentration of each fluorinated GHG in the stream; and 

the time period each piece of equipment was in service. 

Depending on which approach you follow, you must collect 

information for equipment on the associated screening data 

concentrations for greater than or equal to 10,000 ppmv and 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

189 

associated screening data concentrations for less than 

10,000 ppmv; associated actual screening data 

concentrations; and associated screening data and leak rate 

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

correlation. 

(3) Calculate and sum the emissions of each 

fluorinated GHG in kg/yr for equipment pieces for all 

processes, EEL. 

(d) Calculate total fluorinated GHG emissions for the 

facility/source category. The total mass of fluorinated 

GHG emissions from process vents in either paragraph (c)(3) 

or (c)(4), as appropriate, and from equipment leak 

emissions in paragraph (d) must be estimated annually, 

using Equation L-25. 

E = EP + EEL (Eq. L-25) 

Where: 

E = total mass of each fluorinated GHG f emitted from 

the facility, annual basis (kg/year). 

EP = mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from all process 

vents at the facility, annually (kg). 

EEL = mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from equipment 

leaks for pieces of equipment for the facility, 

annually (kg/year). 

§98.124 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements. 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

190 

(a) Initial scoping test for fluorinated GHG. You 

must conduct an initial scoping test to identify all 

fluorinated GHG that may be generated from processes that 

are subject to this subpart and that have uncontrolled 

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

metric tons fluorinated GHG. For each process, you must 

conduct the initial scoping test on the process stream(s) 

or process vent(s) that would be expected to individually 

or collectively contain all of the fluorinated GHG byproducts of the process. Initial scoping testing must be 

conducted according to the procedures in paragraph 

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

(b) Mass Balance monitoring. If you determine 

fluorinated GHG emissions using the mass balance approach 

under §98.123(a), you must estimate the total mass of 

fluorinated GHG produced 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 reactant fed into the 

production process shall be measured. 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

191 

(ii) Total mass of each reactant permanently removed 

from the production process shall be measured. 

(iii) If the waste permanently removed from the 

production process and fed into the destruction device 

contains more than trace concentrations of fluorinated GHG 

product, then the mass of waste fed into the destruction 

device shall be measured. 

(iv) If a by-product is responsible for yield loss and 

occurs in any process stream in more than trace 

concentrations, then mass flow of each process stream that 

contains more than trace concentrations of the by-product 

shall be measured. 

(v) 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 process stream, occurs in 

more than trace concentrations in any stream that is 

recaptured or is fed into a destruction device, and is not 

completely recaptured or completely destroyed, then the 

mass flow of each stream that contains more than trace 

concentrations of the by-product and that is recaptured or 

is fed into the destruction device shall be measured. 

(2) The following concentration measurements shall be 

measured on a regular basis using equipment and methods 

(e.g., gas chromatography) with an accuracy and precision 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

192 

that allow the facility to meet the error criteria in 

§98.123(a): 

(i) If the waste permanently removed from the 

production process and fed into the destruction device 

contains more than trace concentrations of fluorinated GHG 

product and if the stream mass includes more than trace 

concentrations of materials other than the product, then 

the concentration of the product shall be measured. 

(ii) If a by-product is responsible for yield loss and 

occurs in any process stream 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 process stream, 

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. 

(3) Calibrate all flow meters, weigh scales, and 

combinations of volumetric and density measures using 

monitoring instruments traceable to the SI through NIST or 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

193 

other recognized national measurement institute and use 

suitable methods published by a consensus standards 

organization (e.g., ASTM, ASME, ISO, or others). 

Recalibrate all flow meters, weigh scales, and combinations 

of volumetric and density measures at the minimum frequency 

specified by the manufacturer. In addition, use any of the 

following applicable flow meter test methods or the 

calibration procedures specified by the flow meter, weighscale, or other volumetric or density measure manufacturer. 

(i) ASME MFC–3M–2004, Measurement of Fluid Flow in 

Pipes Using Orifice, Nozzle, and Venturi (incorporated by 

reference, see §98.7). 

(ii) ASME MFC–4M–1986 (Reaffirmed 1997), Measurement 

of Gas Flow by Turbine Meters (incorporated by reference, 

see §98.7). 

(iii) ASME-MFC–5M–1985, (Reaffirmed 1994), 

Measurement of Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits Using 

Transit-Time Ultrasonic Flowmeters (incorporated by 

reference, see §98.7). 

(iv) ASME MFC–6M–1998, Measurement of Fluid Flow in 

Pipes Using Vortex Flowmeters (incorporated by reference, 

see §98.7). 

(v) ASME MFC–7M–1987 (Reaffirmed 1992), Measurement 

of Gas Flow by Means of Critical Flow Venturi Nozzles 

(incorporated by reference, see §98.7). 

(vi) ASME MFC–9M–1988 (Reaffirmed 2001), Measurement 

of Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits by Weighing Method 

(incorporated by reference, see §98.7). 

(vi) ASME MFC-11M-2006, Measurement of Fluid Flow by 

Means of Coriolis Mass Flowmeters (incorporated by 

reference, see §98.7). 

(viii) ASME MFC-14M-2003, Measurement of Fluid Flow 

Using Small Bore Precision Orifice Meters (incorporated by 

reference, see §98.7). 

(4) All analytical equipment, including gas 

chromatographs, GC/MS, GC/ECD, FTIR and NMR devices, used 

to determine the concentration of fluorinated GHG in 

process streams shall be calibrated at least monthly 

through analysis of certified standards with known 

concentrations of the same chemicals in the same ranges 

(fractions by mass) as the process samples. Calibration 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

194 

gases prepared from a high-concentration certified standard 

using a gas dilution system that meets the requirements 

specified in Test Method 205, 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix M 

may also be used. 

(c) Emission factor monitoring. If you determine 

fluorinated GHG emissions using the site-specific processvent-specific emission factor, you must: 

(1) Process vent testing. Conduct an emissions test 

every 5 years that is based on representative performance 

(i.e., performance based on the normal operating scenario) 

of the affected process. For each continuous process vent, 

develop a process-vent-specific emission factor for the 

representative operating scenario. For each batch process 

vent, develop a process-vent-specific emission factor for 

the representative operating scenario, i.e., the typical 

batch process. Atypical events, such as process shutdowns 

or startups, may be included in the monitoring for batch 

processes and may be included for continuous process, if 

the monitoring is sufficiently long or comprehensive to 

ensure that such events are not overrepresented in the 

emission factor. Malfunction events shall not be included 

in the monitoring. 

(2) Different operating conditions. Develop separate 

process-vent-specific emission factor for other operating 

scenarios as needed. If your process operates under 

different conditions as part of normal operations, you must 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

195 

perform emission testing and develop separate emission 

factors for these different process operating scenarios. 

For continuous process vents, determine the emissions based 

on the number of hours the process operated and the process 

activity at each specific different condition. For batch 

process vents, determine emissions based on the process 

feed rate, process production rate, or other process 

activity rate for each typical batch operating scenario 

(i.e., each specific condition). 

(3) Number of runs. For continuous processes, sample 

the process vent for a minimum of 3 runs of 1 hour each. 

For batch processes, sample the process vent for all 

emission episodes over a minimum of 3 complete batch 

cycles. If the RSD of the emission factor calculated based 

on the first 3 runs is greater than or equal to 0.2 for the 

emissions factor, continue to sample the process vent for 

an additional 3 runs of 1 hour each or an additional 3 

batch cycles. If more than one fluorinated GHG is 

measured, and if all measured fluorinated GHGs have GWPs 

listed in Table A-1, the emissions factor and RSD shall be 

expressed in terms of total CO2 equivalents. Otherwise, the 

emissions factor and RSD shall be expressed in terms of 

kilograms of each species. 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

196 

(4) Emission Test Methods. Conduct the emissions 

testing using the following methods: 

(i) Sample and velocity traverses. Use EPA Method 1 

or 1A in Appendix A-1 of 40 CFR part 60. 

(ii) Velocity and volumetric flow rates. Use EPA 

Method 2, 2A, 2B, 2C, or 2D, 2F, or 2G in Appendix A-1 of 

40 CFR part 60. Alternatives that may be used for 

determining flow rates include Other Test Method 24 (OTM24) (incorporated by reference, see §98.7) and Emission 

Measurement Center Alternative Test Method (EMC ALT-012) 

(incorporated by reference, see §98.7). 

(iii) Gas analysis. Use EPA Method 3, 3A, or 3B 

in Appendix A-1 of 40 CFR part 60. 

(iv) Stack gas moisture. Use EPA Method 4 in Appendix 

A-1 of 40 CFR part 60. 

(v) Fluorinated GHG concentrations. Use EPA Method 

18 (with GC and either MS or ECD) in Appendix A-1 of 40 CFR 

part 60; EPA Method 320 in Appendix A of 40 CFR part 63; 

Draft EPA DRE Protocol; or ASTM D6348-03 (incorporated by 

reference in §98.7). 

(vi) Alternative fluorinated GHG concentration

methods. Alternatives that may be used for determining 

fluorinated GHG concentrations include EPA TO-15 or other 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

197 

alternative test methods conducted in conjunction with EPA 

Method 301 for validation. 

(5) Process activity measurements. Determine the 

mass rate of process feed, process production, or other 

process activity as applicable during the test using flow 

meters, weigh scales, or other measurement devices or 

instruments with an accuracy and precision of ±1 percent of 

full scale or better. These devices may be the same plant 

instruments or procedures that are used for accounting 

purposes (such as weigh hoppers, belt weigh feeders, 

combination of volume measurements and bulk density, etc.) 

if these devices or procedures meet the requirement. For 

monitoring ongoing process activity, use flow meters, weigh 

scales, or other measurement devices or instruments with an 

accuracy and precision of ±1 percent of full scale or 

better. 

(6) Sample each process. If process vents from 

separate processes are manifolded together to a common vent 

or to a common destruction device, you must sample each 

process in the ducts before the emissions are combined, 

sample when only one process is operating, or sample the 

combined emissions at representative combinations of 

capacity utilizations for all the processes. If the last 

option is selected, 3 times n test runs shall be required, 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

198 

where n is the number of processes feeding into the common 

vent or destruction device, and the process-vent-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 processvent-specific emission factor by averaging the 3n emission 

factors. 

(7) Emission test results. The results of an 

emission test must include the analysis of samples, 

determination of emissions, and raw data. The emissions 

test report must contain all information and data used to 

derive the 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). 

(8) Previous measurements. If you have conducted an 

emissions test less than 5 years before the effective date 

of this rule, and the emissions testing meets the 

requirements in paragraph (c)(1) through (7) of this 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

199 

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: 

(1) Revise the emission calculation factor for each 

process every 5 years based on representative operation 

(i.e., performance based on the normal operating scenario) 

of the affected process. For each continuous process vent, 

develop the emission calculation factor for the 

representative operating scenario. For each batch process 

vent, develop the emission calculation factor for the 

representative operating scenario, i.e., the typical batch 

process. 

(2) Different operating conditions. You must develop 

separate emissions calculation factors for other operating 

scenarios as needed. If your process operates under 

different conditions as part of normal operations, you must 

conduct emissions calculations and develop separate 

emission factors for these different process operating 

scenarios. For continuous process vents, determine the 

emissions based on the number of hours the process operated 

and the process activity at each specific different 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

200 

condition. For batch process vents, determine emissions 

based on the process feed rate, process production rate, or 

other process activity rate for each typical batch 

operating scenario and for each non-typical batch operating 

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

(3) Process activity measurements. Use flow meters, 

weigh scales, or other measurement devices or instruments 

with an accuracy and precision of ±1 percent of full scale 

or better for monitoring ongoing process activity. 

(e) Emission monitoring for pieces of equipment. 

Conduct the screening level concentration measurements 

using EPA Method 21 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1 to 

determine the screening level concentration data or actual 

screening level concentration data for the Screening Ranges 

Approach or the EPA Correlation Approach. Conduct the 

screening level concentration measurements using EPA Method 

21 and the bagging procedures to measure mass emissions for 

developing the Unit-Specific Correlation Approach in the 

Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates. 

Concentration measurements of bagged samples must be 

conducted using gas chromatography following EPA Method 18 

analytical procedures. Use methane as the calibration gas. 

(f) Destruction device performance testing. If you 

vent fluorinated GHG emissions to a destruction device and 

take credit for the destruction efficiency in §98.123, you 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

201 

must conduct an emissions test every 5 years to determine 

the destruction efficiency. 

(1) You must sample the inlet and outlet of the 

destruction device for a minimum of 3 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) or when destroying the most-difficult to combust 

fluorinated GHG. 

(2) Previous testing. If you have conducted an 

emissions test within the last 5 years prior to the 

effective date of this rule, and the emissions testing 

meets the test method requirements in paragraph (c)(4) of 

this section, you may use the destruction efficiency 

determined during this previous emissions testing. 

(3) Part 264, 266, and 270 principal organic 

hazardous constituent (POHC) testing. If a destruction 

device used to destroy fluorinated GHG is subject to 40 CFR 

part 264 or 266 and is permitted under 40 CFR part 270 with 

a demonstrated DRE of at least 99.99 percent, the emissions 

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

required and you may use the destruction efficiency 

determined during this previous testing. 

(4) Hazardous Waste Combustor testing. If a 

destuction device used to destroy fluorinated GHG is 

subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE and has a 

demonstrated DRE of at least 99.99 percent, the emissions 

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

required and you may use the destruction efficiency 

determined during this previous testing. 

(5) Process change. For process changes that require 

a new or revised operating scenario, you must determine 

whether the concentrations and the fluorinated gas 

compounds vented to the destruction device following the 

process change affects the DE (i.e., compare the postprocess-change fluorinated GHG load and the most-difficultto-combust fluorinated GHG with the test conditions). If 

the operating conditions and DE demonstrated in the 

destruction device performance testing are not sufficient 

to achieve the DE for the concentrations and fluorinated 

gas compounds vented to the destruction device following 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

202 

the process change then, you must conduct another emissions 

test to demonstrate the DE. 

(g) Emissions due to deviations of destruction 

device. In their estimates of the mass of fluorinated GHG 

destroyed, fluorinated GHG production facilities that 

destroy fluorinated GHGs shall account for any temporary 

reductions in the destruction efficiency that result from 

any malfunctions of the destruction device, including 

deviations from the operating conditions defined in state 

or local permitting requirements and/or oxidizer 

manufacturer specifications. 

(h) 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. 

(i) Initial scoping testing, emissions testing, and 

emissions factor development must be completed by December 

31, 2011. 

(j) For calendar year 2011 monitoring, you may follow 

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

available monitoring methods rather than follow the 

monitoring requirements of this section. For purposes of 

subpart L, any reference to the year 2010 in §98.3(d)(1) 

through (3) shall mean 2011. 

§98.125 Procedures for estimating missing data. 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

203 

(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). You must document 

and keep records of the procedures used for all such 

estimates. 

(b) For each missing value of the fluorinated GHG 

concentration, the substitute data value shall be the 

arithmetic average of the quality-assured values of that 

parameter immediately preceding and immediately following 

the missing data incident. 

(c) For each missing value of the mass produced, fed 

into the production process, fed into the transformation 

process, fed into destruction devices, sent to another 

facility for transformation, or sent to another facility 

for destruction, the substitute value of that parameter 

shall be a secondary mass measurement where such a 

measurement is available. For example, if the mass 

produced is usually measured with a flowmeter at the inlet 

to the day tank and that flowmeter fails to meet an 

accuracy or precision test, malfunctions, or is rendered 

inoperable, then the mass produced may be estimated by 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

204 

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 

process or emissions stream(s) analyzed under the initial 

scoping test of fluorinated GHG at §98.124(a), by process. 

(2) The location and function of the process or 

emissions stream(s) 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. 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

205 

(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. 

(2) The balanced chemical equation that describes the 

reaction used to manufacture the fluorinated GHG product 

(specifically, the equation that provides the 

stoichiometric coefficients in Equation L-7). 

(3) The total mass and chemical formula of each 

reactant fed into the production process in metric tons, by 

chemical. 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

206 

(4) The total mass of each reactant permanently 

removed from the production process in metric tons, by 

chemical. 

(5) The total mass of the fluorinated GHG product 

removed from the production process and destroyed. 

(6) The mass and chemical formula of each by-product 

generated. 

(7) The mass of each by-product destroyed at the 

facility. 

(9) The mass of each by-product recaptured and sent 

off-site for destruction. 

(10) The mass of each by-product recaptured for other 

purposes. 

(c) Reporting for emission factor and emission 

calculation factor approach. For processes whose emissions 

are determined using the emission factor approach under 

§98.123(b)(3) or the emission calculation factor under 

§98.123(b)(4), you shall report the following for each 

process: 

(1) The process activity used to estimate emissions 

(e.g., tons of product produced or tons of reactant 

consumed). 

(2) The emission factor for each process vent. 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

207 

(3) The mass of each fluorinated GHG emitted, 

including the mass of each fluorinated GHG emitted from 

equipment leaks. 

(d) Reporting for missing data. Where missing data 

have been estimated pursuant to §98.125, you shall report 

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

data were missing, the method used to estimate the missing 

data, and the estimates of those data. 

 

(e) Reporting of destruction device monitoring data. 

A fluorinated GHG production facility that destroys 

fluorinated GHGs shall report the monitoring results (i.e., 

continuous monitoring that demonstrates continuous 

achievement of the destruction efficiency of the device) 

for the destruction device that are deviations from the 

monitoring limit set (e.g., parametric monitoring of 

incinerator temperature, outlet concentration checks, etc.) 

during the emissions test. 

(f) Reporting of destruction device testing. A 

fluorinated GHG production facility that destroys 

fluorinated GHGs shall submit the emissions test report for 

the emission test conducted every 5 years. The emissions 

testing report must contain the following information: 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

208 

(1) Destruction efficiency (DE) of each destruction 

unit for each fluorinated GHG, or if a surrogate was used, 

the DE of the surrogate. 

(2) Test methods used to determine the destruction 

efficiency. 

(3) Methods used to record the mass of fluorinated 

GHG destroyed. 

(4) Chemical identity of the fluorinated GHG(s) used 

in the performance test conducted to determine DE, 

including surrogates, and information on why the surrogate 

is sufficient to demonstrate DE for all fluorinated GHG 

vented to the destruction unit. 

(5) Name of all applicable federal or state 

regulations that may apply to the destruction process. 

(6) If process changes affect the destruction 

efficiency of the destruction device or the methods used to 

record mass of fluorinated GHG destroyed, then the revised 

emission testing report must be submitted to reflect the 

changes. The revised report must be submitted to EPA 

within 60 days of the change. 

§98.127 Records that must be retained. 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

209 

 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 ID 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 uncontrolled emission limit 

for fluorinated GHG. 

(2) For vents above the 10,000 metric tons CO2e per 

year uncontrolled emission limit, identify those that vent 

to a destruction device demonstrated to achieve a 

destruction efficiency of 99.9 percent for fluorinated 

GHGs, and for which the facility has equipment (e.g., 

holding tank capacity; monitoring of by-pass streams) or 

procedures (e.g., compulsory process shutdowns) in place 

that ensure that uncontrolled emissions do not occur. 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

210 

(3) For each vent, identify the method used to 

develop the factor (i.e., emission factor by emissions test 

or emissions calculation factor). 

(4) The emissions test data and reports and the 

calculations used to determine the process-vent-specific 

emissions factor, including the actual process-ventspecific emission factor, the average hourly fluorinated 

GHG emission rate from the process vent during the test or 

the average fluorinated GHG emissions per batch and the 

process feed rate, process production rate, or other 

process activity rate during the test. 

(5) The calculations used to determine the processvent-specific emissions calculation factor and the actual 

emissions calculation factor. 

(6) The ongoing monthly, campaign, or batch process 

production quantity and annual process production quantity 

or other process activity information in the appropriate 

units, along with the dates and time period during which 

the process was operating. 

(7) For continuous processes, identify whether the 

process was representative or whether it was another 

operating scenario. For batch processes, identify whether 

each batch operated was considered a typical batch or 

whether it was another operating scenario. For both 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

211 

continuous and batch processes, identify and provide the 

measurements during the test of the key process parameters 

that define the operating scenario (e.g., process 

equipment, process vents, destruction device)). 

(8) Calculations used to determine annual emissions 

of each fluorinated GHG for each process and the total 

fluorinated GHG emissions for all processes, i.e., total 

for facility. 

(9) The dates and time periods when the process vent 

emissions from a campaign or batch were vented to the 

destruction device. 

(c) Missing data records. Where missing data have 

been estimated pursuant to §98.125, you shall record the 

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

were missing, the method used to estimate the missing data, 

and the estimates of those data 

 

(d) 5-year process vent emission testing. A 

fluorinated GHG production facility that conducts process 

vent emission testing to determine process-vent-specific 

emission factor for fluorinated GHGs shall retain the 

results of the emission testing, including data in 

§98.124(c)(7) and: 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

212 

(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 (c)(4) 

of this section in metric tons per activity. 

 (e) 5-year destruction efficiency testing. A 

fluorinated GHG production facility that destroys 

fluorinated GHGs shall retain the emissions performance 

testing report containing the following information: 

(1) Destruction efficiency (DE) of each destruction 

device. 

(2) Test methods used to determine the destruction 

efficiency. 

(3) Methods used to record the mass of fluorinated 

GHG destroyed. 

(4) Chemical identity of the fluorinated GHG(s) used 

in the performance test conducted to determine DE. 

(5) Name of all applicable federal or state 

regulations that may apply to the destruction process. 

(6) If process changes affect the destruction 

efficiency of the destruction device or the methods used to 

record mass of fluorinated GHG destroyed, then the revised 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

213 

emission testing report must be submitted to reflect the 

changes. The revised report must be submitted to EPA 

within 60 days of the change. 

(7) Records of test reports and other information 

documenting the facility’s five-year destruction efficiency 

report in §98.126(e) and (g). 

(f) Equipment leak records. If you are subject to 

§98.123(c) of this subpart, you must maintain information 

on the number of each type of equipment; the service of 

each piece of equipment (gas, light liquid, heavy liquid); 

the concentration of each fluorinated GHG in the stream; 

the time period each piece of equipment was in service, and 

the emission calculations for each fluorinated GHG for all 

processes. Depending on which equipment leak monitoring 

approach you follow, you must maintain information for 

equipment on the associated screening data concentrations 

for greater than or equal to 10,000 ppmv and associated 

screening data concentrations for less than 10,000 ppmv; 

associated actual screening data concentrations; and 

associated screening data and leak rate data (i.e., 

bagging) used to develop a unit-specific correlation. 

(g) All facilities. Dated records documenting the 

initial and periodic calibration of the gas chromatographs, 

GC/MS, GC/ECD, FTIR, and NMR devices, weigh scales, 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

214 

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(b)(3) and (b)(4), 

(c), (e), and (f). 

§98.128 Definitions. 

All terms used in this subpart have the same meaning 

given in the Clean Air Act and subpart A of this part. 

Batch process or batch operation means a noncontinuous 

operation involving intermittent or discontinuous feed into 

equipment, and, in general, involves the emptying of the 

equipment after the batch operation ceases and prior to 

beginning a new operation. Addition of raw material and 

withdrawal of product do not occur simultaneously in a 

batch operation. 

Batch emission episode means a discrete venting 

episode associated with a vessel in a process; a vessel may 

have more than one batch emission episode. For example, a 

displacement of vapor resulting from the charging of a 

vessel with a feed material will result in a discrete 

emission episode that will last through the duration of the 

charge and will have an average flow rate equal to the rate 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

215 

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. 

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. 

Equipment (for the purposes of 40 CFR part 98, subpart 

L only) means each pump, compressor, agitator, pressure 

relief device, sampling connection system, open-ended valve 

or line, valve, connector, and instrumentation system in 

fluorinated GHG service for a process subject to this 

subpart; and any destruction devices or closed-vent systems 

to which processes subject to this subpart are vented. 

Fluorinated gas means any fluorinated GHG, CFC, or 

HCFC. 

In fluorinated GHG service means that a piece of 

equipment either contains or contacts a feedstock, byproduct, 

or product that contains fluorinated GHG.

Isolated intermediate means a product of a process 

that is stored before subsequent processing. An isolated 

intermediate is usually a product of chemical synthesis. 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

216 

Storage of an isolated intermediate marks the end of a 

process. Storage occurs at any time the intermediate is 

placed in equipment used solely for storage. 

Operating scenario means any specific operation of a 

process and includes for each process: (1) A description 

of the process and the specific process equipment used; (2) 

An identification of related process vents, their 

associated emissions episodes and durations, and 

calculations and engineering analyses to show the annual 

uncontrolled fluorinated GHG emissions from the process 

vent; (3) The control or destruction devices used, as 

applicable, including a description of operating and/or 

testing conditions for any associated destruction device; 

(4) The process vents (including those from other 

processes) that are simultaneously routed to the control or 

destruction device(s); and (5) The applicable monitoring 

requirements and any parametric level that assures 

destruction or removal for all emissions routed to the 

control or destruction device. A change to any of these 

elements not previously reported, except for item (4) of 

this definition, shall constitute a different operating 

scenario. 

Process means all equipment which collectively 

function to produce a fluorinated gas product, including an 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

217 

isolated intermediate (which is also a fluorinated gas 

product), or to transform a fluorinated gas product. A 

process may consist of one or more unit operations. For the 

purposes of this subpart, process includes any, all, or a 

combination of reaction, recovery, separation, 

purification, or other activity, operation, manufacture, or 

treatment which are used to produce a fluorinated gas 

product. For a continuous process, cleaning operations 

conducted may be considered part of the process, at the 

discretion of the facility. For a batch process, cleaning 

operations are part of the process. Ancillary activities 

are not considered a process or part of any process under 

this subpart. Ancillary activities include boilers and 

incinerators, chillers and refrigeration systems, and other 

equipment and activities that are not directly involved 

(i.e., they operate within a closed system and materials 

are not combined with process fluids) in the processing of 

raw materials or the manufacturing of a fluorinated gas 

product. 

Process condenser means a condenser whose primary 

purpose is to recover material as an integral part of a 

process. All condensers recovering condensate from a 

process vent at or above the boiling point or all 

condensers in line prior to a vacuum source are considered 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

218 

process condensers. Typically, a primary condenser or 

condensers in series are considered to be integral to the 

process if they are capable of and normally used for the 

purpose of recovering chemicals for fuel value (i.e., net 

positive heating value), use, reuse or for sale for fuel 

value, use, or reuse. 

Process vent (for the purposes of 40 CFR part 98, 

subpart L only) means a vent from a process vessel or vents 

from multiple process vessels within a process that are 

manifolded together into a common header, through which a 

fluorinated GHG-containing gas stream is, or has the 

potential to be, released to the atmosphere. Examples of 

process vents include, but are not limited to, vents on 

condensers used for product recovery, bottoms receivers, 

surge control vessels, reactors, filters, centrifuges, and 

process tanks. Process vents do not include vents on 

storage tanks or pieces of equipment. 

Typical batch means a batch process operated within a 

range of operating conditions that are documented in an 

operating scenario. Emissions from a typical batch are 

based on the operating conditions that result in 

representative emissions. The typical batch defines the 

uncontrolled emissions for each emission episode defined 

under the operating scenario. 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

219 

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. 

12. Add subpart DD to read as follows: 

Subpart DD – Electric Transmission and Distribution 

Equipment Use 

§ 98.300 Definition of the source category 

The electric equipment use source category includes 

electric power systems as described in this paragraph. 

Notwithstanding the definition of facility in subpart A, 

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

power system. Electric power system means the collection 

of SF6- and PFC-insulated equipment linked through electric 

power transmission or distribution lines and operated as an 

integrated unit by one electric power entity or several 

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

equipment includes gas-insulated substations, circuit 

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

transformers containing SF6 or PFCs. Equipment also 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

220 

includes gas containers such as pressurized cylinders, gas 

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

containers. 

§98.98 Definitions. 

Any term used in this subpart that is not defined in 

this subpart or in §98.6 has the same meaning given it in 

the Clean Air Act. If a conflict exists between a 

definition provided in this subpart and a definition 

provided in §98.6, the definition in this subpart shall 

take precedence for the reporting requirements of this 

subpart. 

Electric power entity means a company; an electric 

cooperative; a public electric supply corporation such as 

the Tennessee Valley Authority; a similar Federal 

department or agency such as the Bonneville Power 

Administration; the Bureau of Reclamation or the Corps of 

Engineers; a municipally owned electric department offering 

serve to the public; or an electric public utility district 

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

as the Keystone. 

13. Add subpart OOa to read as follows: 

A. Subpart OOa—Importers and Exporters of Fluorinated 

Greenhouse Gases Contained in Pre-charged Equipment or 

Closed-cell Foams 

Sec. 

98.410a Definition of the source category. 

98.411a Reporting threshold. 

98.412a GHGs to report. 

98.413a Calculating GHG emissions. 

98.414a Monitoring and QA/QC requirements. 

98.415a Procedures for estimating missing data. 

98.416a Data reporting requirements. 

98.417a Records that must be retained. 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

221 

B. 98.128 Definitions.

C.

§98.410a 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. 

§98.411a 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 F-GHG 

contained in the imported or exported pre-charged 

equipment or closed-cell foams. 

§98.412a 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. 

§98.413a 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 OOa-1 of this section: 

= ∑t

t Nt

I S * * 0.001 (Eq. OOa-1) 

Where: 

I = Total mass of the fluorinated GHG imported or 

exported by the entity annually (metric tons) 

T = Type of equipment/foam containing the fluorinated 

GHG 

St = Mass of fluorinated GHG per unit of equipment or 

foam type t (charge per piece of equipment or 

kg/cubic foot of foam, kg) 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

222 

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 

 

§98.414a Monitoring and QA/QC requirements. 

(a) For calendar year 2011 monitoring, you may follow 

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

available monitoring methods rather than follow the 

monitoring requirements of this section. For purposes of 

subpart OOa, any reference to the year 2010 in §98.3(d)(1) 

through (3) shall mean 2011. 

(b) The inputs to the annual submission shall be 

reviewed against the import or export transaction records 

to ensure that the information submitted to EPA is being 

accurately transcribed as the correct chemical or blend in 

the correct pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foam in 

the correct quantities (metric tons) and units (cubic feet 

and kg/cubic foot). 

§98.415a Procedures for estimating missing data. 

(a) 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. 

 

§98.416a Data reporting requirements. 

(a) Each importer of fluorinated GHGs contained in precharged 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 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

223 

electrical insulator, charge size (holding charge, if 

applicable), and number imported. 

(3) For closed-cell foams that are imported inside of 

appliances, the identity of the fluorinated GHG contained 

in the foam, the quantity of fluorinated GHG contained in 

the foam in each appliance, and the number of appliances 

imported for each type of appliance. 

(4) For imported closed cell-foams that are not 

imported inside of appliances, the identity of the 

fluorinated GHG, the density of the fluorinated GHG in the 

foam (kg F-GHG/cubic foot), and the quantity of foam 

imported (cubic feet) for each type of closed-cell foam. 

(5) Dates on which the pre-charged equipment or 

closed-cell foams were imported. 

(6) Ports of entry through which the pre-charged 

equipment or closed-cell foams passed. 

(7) Countries from which the pre-charged equipment or 

closed-cell foams were imported. 

(b) Each exporter of fluorinated GHGs contained in precharged 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. 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

224 

(4) For exported closed cell-foams that are not 

exported inside of appliances, the identity of the 

fluorinated GHG, the density of the fluorinated GHG in the 

foam (kg F-GHG/cubic foot), and the quantity of foam 

exported (cubic feet) for each type of closed-cell foam. 

(5) Dates on which the pre-charged equipment or 

closed-cell foams were exported. 

(6) Ports of exit through which the pre-charged 

equipment or closed-cell foams passed. 

(7) Countries to which the pre-charged equipment or 

closed-cell foams were exported. 

§98.417a Records that must be retained. 

(a) In addition to the data required by §98.3(g), 

importers of F-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. 

(b) In addition to the data required by §98.3(g), 

exporters of F-GHGs in pre-charged equipment and 

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. 

(c) Persons who transship pre-charged equipment and closed 

cell foams containing fluorinated GHGs shall maintain 

records that indicated that the pre-charged equipment 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

225 

or foam originated in a foreign country and was 

destined for another foreign country and did not enter 

into commerce in the United States. 

§98.418a Definitions. 

Except as provided below, all terms used in this 

subpart have the same meaning given in the Clean Air Act 

and subpart A of this part. 

Appliance means any device which contains and uses a 

fluorinated greenhouse gas refrigerant and which is used 

for household or commercial purposes, including any air 

conditioner, refrigerator, chiller, or freezer. 

Closed cell foam means any foam product constructed with a 

closed cell structure and a blowing agent containing a 

fluorinated GHG, including but not limited to 

polyurethane (PU) appliance foam, PU continuous and 

discontinuous panel foam, PU one component foam, PU 

spray foam, extruded polystyrene (XPS) boardstock 

foam, and XPS sheet foam. 

Electrical Equipment means 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. 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

226 

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, precharged 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 an 

F-GHG prior to sale or distribution, or offer for sale 

or distribution in interstate commerce. This includes 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

227 

both equipment that contain the full charge necessary 

for operation and equipment that contain a partial 

“holding” charge of the F-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. 

14. Add subpart SS to read as follows: 

D. Subpart SS—Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) and PFCs from 

Electrical Equipment Manufacture or Refurbishment 

 

Sec. 

98.450 Definition of the source category. 

98.451 Reporting threshold. 

98.452 GHGs to report. 

98.453 Calculating GHG emissions. 

98.454 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements. 

98.455 Procedures for estimating missing data. 

98.456 Data reporting requirements. 

98.457 Records that must be retained. 

98.458 Definitions 

§ 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). 

§ 98.451 Reporting threshold. 

You must report GHG emissions under this subpart if 

your facility contains an electrical equipment 

manufacturing process and the facility meets the 

requirements of either §98.2(a)(1) or (a)(2). 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

228 

 

§98.452 GHGs to report. 

(a) You must report annual SF6 and PFC emissions 

(including emissions from equipment testing, manufacturing, 

decommissioning and disposal, refurbishing, and from 

storage cylinders and other containers) from any facility 

associated with the manufacture or refurbishment of closedpressure and sealed-pressure equipment (including 

components of such equipment). 

(b) You must report CO2, N2O and CH4 combustion-related 

emissions from each stationary combustion unit. You must 

calculate and report these emissions under subpart C of 

this part (General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources) by 

following the requirements of subpart C. 

§98.453 Calculating GHG emissions. 

(a) For each electrical equipment manufacturer, you 

must estimate the annual SF6 and PFC emissions using the 

mass-balance approach in Equation SS-1 of this section: 

User Emissions = (Decrease in 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 to 

destruction facilities). 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

229 

 (b) The mass-balance method in paragraph (a) of this 

section shall be used to estimate emissions of PFCs 

associated with the manufacture or refurbishment of power 

transformers, substituting the relevant PFC(s) for SF6 in 

equation SS-1. 

(c) The disbursements of SF6 or PFCs to customers in 

new equipment or cylinders shall be estimated using 

Equation SS-2 of this section: 

∑=

=

n

p

DGHG Qp

1

 (Eq. SS-2) 

Where: 

DGHG = The disbursment of SF6 or PFCs over the period to 

customers in new equipment or cylinders 

Qp = The mass of the SF6 or PFCs charged into equipment 

or containers over the period p sent to customers 

or sent off-site for other purposes including for 

recycling, for destruction or to be returned to 

suppliers 

n = The number of periods in the year. 

(d) The mass of SF6 or PFCs disbursed to customers in 

new equipment or cylinders over the period p may be 

estimated by monitoring the mass flow of the SF6 or PFCs 

into the new equipment or cylinders using a flow meter 

either at the equipment’s fill valve or upstream of the 

equipment’s fill valve 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: 

Qp = M B − M E − EL (Eq. SS-3) 

Where: 

Qp = The mass of SF6 or the PFC disbursed to customers over 

the period p. 

MB = The mass of the contents of the containers used to 

fill equipment or cylinders at the beginning of 

period p. 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

230 

ME = The mass of the contents of the containers used to 

fill equipment or cylinders at the end of period p. 

EL = The mass of SF6 or the PFC emitted during the period p 

downstream of the containers used to fill equipment 

or cylinders (e.g., emissions from hoses or other 

flow lines that connect the container to the 

equipment or cylinder that is being filled). 

(f) If the mass of SF6 or the PFC disbursed to 

customers in new equipment or cylinders over the period p 

is determined using a flow meter, this quantity shall be 

estimated using Equation SS-4 of this section: 

Qp = M mr − EL (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 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 (3) for best 

available monitoring methods rather than follow the 

monitoring requirements of this section. For purposes of 

subpart SS any reference to the year 2010 in §98.3(d)1) 

through (3) shall mean 2011. 

(b) Ensure that all the quantities required by the 

equations of this subpart have been measured using scales 

or flow meters that are certified with an accuracy and 

precision to within one percent of the true mass or weight 

or better, and is preiodically recalibrated per the 

maufacturer’s specifications. Account for the tare weights 

of the containers. Either measure new or residual gas (the 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

231 

amount of gas remaining in returned cylinders) or have the 

gas supplier measure them. If the gas supplier weighs the 

new or residual gas, obtain from the gas supplier a 

detailed monthly accounting, within 1 percent, of new or 

residual gas amounts in the cylinders returned to the gas 

supplier. You remain responsible for the accuracy of these 

masses and weights under this subpart. 

(c) For purposes of Equations SS-3 and SS-4, the mass

of SF6 or the PFC emitted downstream of the container or 

flowmeter during the period p shall be estimated using 

measurements and/or engineering assessments or calculations 

based on chemical engineering principles or physical or 

chemical laws or properties. Such assessments or 

calculations may be based on, as applicable, the internal 

volume of hose or line that is open to the atmosphere 

during coupling and decoupling activities, the internal 

pressure of the hose or line, the time the hose or line is 

open to the atmosphere during coupling and decoupling 

activities, the frequency with which the hose or line is 

purged and the flow rate during purges. The estimated mass 

of SF6 or the PFC emitted downstream of the container or 

flowmeter during the period p shall include unexpected or 

accidental losses. 

(d) Calibrate all flow meters, weigh scales, and 

combinations of volumetric and density measures that are 

used to measure or calculate quantities that are to be 

reported under this subpart prior to the first year for 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

232 

which GHG emissions are reported under this part. 

Calibrations performed prior to the effective date of this 

rule satisfy this requirement. Recalibrate all flow meters, 

weigh scales, and combinations of volumetric and density 

measures at the minimum frequency specified by the 

manufacturer. Use NIST-traceable standards and suitable 

methods published by a consensus standards organization 

(e.g., ASTM, ASME, ISO, or others). 

(e) Ensure the following QA/QC methods are employed 

throughout the year: 

(1) Ensure that procedures are in place and followed 

to track and weigh all cylinders or other containers at the 

beginning and end of the year. 

(2) Ensure all domestic electrical equipment 

manufacturing locations have provided information to the 

manager compiling the emissions report (if it is not 

already handled through an electronic inventory system). 

(f) You must adhere to the following QA/QC methods 

for reviewing the completeness and accuracy of reporting: 

(1) Review inputs to Equation SS-1 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 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

233 

manufacturing operations, and from similar equipment 

testing and decomissioning activities for which data are 

available. 

98.456 Data reporting requirements. 

In addition to the information required by §98.3(c), 

each annual report must contain the following information 

at each facility level, by chemical: 

(a) SF6 and PFC sales and purchases. 

(b) SF6 and PFCs sent off site for destruction. 

(c) SF6 and PFCs sent off site to be recycled. 

(d) SF6 and PFCs returned from off site after 

recycling. 

(e) SF6 and PFCs returned by equipment users with or 

inside equipment 

(f) SF6 and PFCs stored in containers at the beginning 

and end of the year. 

(g) SF6 and PFCs inside equipment delivered to 

customers. 

(h) SF6 and PFCs returned to suppliers. 

(i) The nameplate capacity of the equipment delivered 

to customers with SF6 or PFCs inside, if different from the 

quantity in (g). 

(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 if the disbursement 

determination method being used is either weighing 

containers before and after gas from storage containers is 

used to fill equipment or cylinders or using flow meters 

that are not located at the equipment’s fill valve. 

(k) For any missing data, you must report the reason 

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

missing, the method used to estimate emissions in their 

absence, and the quantity of emissions thereby estimated. 

§98.457 Records that must be retained. 

In addition to the information required by §98.3(g), 

you must retain the following records 
OMB DRAFT: Please do not cite, quote or distribute. 

234 

(a) All information reported and listed in §98.456. 

(b) Accuracy certifications and calibration records 

for all scales and monitoring equipment, including the 

method or manufacturer’s specification used for 

calibration. 

(c) Check-out and weigh-in sheets and procedures for 

cylinders. 

(d) Residual gas amounts in cylinders sent back to 

suppliers. 

(e) Invoices for gas purchases and sales. 

§98.458 Definitions. 

All terms used in this subpart have the same meaning 

given in the Clean Air Act and subpart A of this part.