[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 16, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63537-63601]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22348]



[[Page 63537]]

Vol. 77

Tuesday,

No. 200

October 16, 2012

Part III





 Environmental Protection Agency





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





40 CFR Part 98





 Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program: Proposed Amendments and 
Confidentiality Determinations for Subpart I; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 63538]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 98

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028; FRL-9726-7]
RIN 2060-AR61


Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program: Proposed Amendments and 
Confidentiality Determinations for Subpart I

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; Grant of Reconsideration.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action proposes amending the calculation and monitoring 
methodologies for the Electronics Manufacturing, of the Greenhouse Gas 
Reporting Rule. Proposed changes include revising certain calculation 
methods and adding a new method, amending data reporting requirements, 
and clarifying terms and definitions. This action also proposes 
confidentiality determinations for the reporting of the new and revised 
data elements. Many of these proposed actions are in response to a 
petition to reconsider specific aspects of our regulations. This 
document also proposes amendments to the General Provisions of the 
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule to reflect proposed changes to the 
reporting requirements for the Electronics Manufacturing sector.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before December 17, 
2012.
    Public Hearing. The EPA does not plan to conduct a public hearing 
unless requested. To request a hearing, please contact the person 
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by October 23, 
2012. Upon such request, the EPA will hold the hearing on October 31, 
2012 in the Washington, DC area starting at 9 a.m., local time. The EPA 
will provide further information about the hearing on its Web page if a 
hearing is requested.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2011-0028, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Email: GHGReportingCBI@epa.gov.
     Fax: (202) 566-1741.
     Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center 
(EPA/DC), Mailcode 6102T, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028, 
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-
2011-0028. The 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 confidential business information (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 email. Send or deliver 
information identified as CBI to only the mail or hand/courier delivery 
address listed above, attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028. 
The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' 
system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact 
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you 
send an email comment directly to the 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, the 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 the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical 
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the 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 B102, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. 
This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the 
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the 
Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER GENERAL INFORMATION CONTACT: Carole Cook, Climate Change 
Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC-6207J), Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; 
telephone number: (202) 343-9263; fax number: (202) 343-2342; email 
address: GHGReportingRule@epa.gov. For technical information, contact 
the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule Hotline at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrule_contactus.htm Alternatively, contact 
Carole Cook at (202) 343-9263.

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, email address: 
GHGReportingRule@epa.gov.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of this proposal, memoranda to the docket, and all 
other related information will also be available through the WWW on the 
EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule Web site at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/.
    Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and 
abbreviations are used in this document.

BAMM best available monitoring methods
CAA Clean Air Act
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
CBI confidential business information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CVD chemical vapor deposition
DRE destruction or removal efficiency
EIA Economic Impact Analysis
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F-GHG fluorinated greenhouse gas
FDL field detection limit
FTIR Fourier transform infrared
GHG greenhouse gas
GWP global warming potential
HTF heat transfer fluid
ICR Information Collection Request
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ISBN International Standard Book Number
ISMI International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative

[[Page 63539]]

LCD liquid crystal display
MEMS micro-electro-mechanical systems
mtCO2e metric ton carbon dioxide equivalent
NAICS North American Industrial Classification System
N2O nitrous oxide
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
OMB Office of Management & Budget
PFC perfluorocarbon
POU point of use
ppbv parts per billion by volume
QMS quadrupole mass spectroscopy
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RSASTP random sampling abatement system testing program
RSD relative standard deviation
SEMATECH SEmiconductor MAnufacturing TECHnology
SIA Semiconductor Industry Association
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
U.S. United States
VCS voluntary consensus standard
WWW Worldwide Web

    Organization of This Document. The following outline is provided to 
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. General Information
     A. What is the purpose of this action?
     B. Does this action apply to me?
     C. Legal Authority
     D. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to the EPA?
 II. Background for Proposed Amendments to GHG Monitoring and 
Calculation Methodologies and Other Technical Revisions
     A. Background for Proposed Amendments
     B. How would these amendments apply to 2012 and 2013 reports?
 III. Summary and Rationale for Proposed Amendments to GHG 
Monitoring and Calculation Methodologies and Other Revisions
     A. Summary of Proposed Rule Amendments in Response to Petition 
for Reconsideration
     B. Rationale for Proposed Amendments
     C. Proposed Rule Changes to Reporting and Recordkeeping 
Requirements
     D. Proposed Changes to Remove BAMM Provisions and Language 
Specific to Reporting Years 2011, 2012, and 2013.
 IV. Background for Confidentiality Determinations for Subpart I of 
Part 98
     A. Overview and Background
     B. Approach to Proposed CBI Determinations for New or Revised 
Subpart I Data Elements
     C. Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for Individual Data 
Elements in Two Direct Emitter Data Categories
     D. Request for Comments on Proposed Confidentiality 
Determinations
 V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
     A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory 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 Low-Income 
Populations

I. General Information

A. What is the purpose of this action?

     The EPA is proposing amendments to the calculation and monitoring 
methodologies for Subpart I, Electronics Manufacturing, of the 
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (``subpart I''). In addition, the EPA is 
proposing conforming changes to the reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements of subpart I. Changes include revising certain calculation 
methods and adding a new method, amending data reporting requirements, 
and clarifying terms and definitions. The EPA is proposing these 
amendments to (1) Modify calculation methods and data requirements to 
better reflect new industry data and current practice; (2) provide 
additional calculation methods to allow individual facilities to choose 
the method best suited for their operations; (3) reduce the burden 
associated with existing requirements; and (4) address sensitive 
business information concerns raised by members of the Semiconductor 
Industry Association (SIA). Amendments being proposed today affect all 
facilities that manufacture electronics including those that 
manufacture semiconductors (including light emitting diodes), micro-
electro-mechanical systems (MEMS), liquid crystal displays (LCDs), or 
photovoltaic (PV) cells. Because we are planning an effective date of 
January 1, 2014 for the final amendments, we are also proposing to 
remove the rule language for certain provisions that will not apply 
after 2013. Sections II and III of this preamble contain more detailed 
information on the background and rationale for these proposed 
amendments. Many of the proposed changes are in response to a petition 
to reconsider specific aspects of subpart I.
     The EPA is also proposing confidentiality determinations for the 
new and revised data elements under the proposed amendments to subpart 
I. Section IV of this preamble provides the background and rationale 
for these proposed confidentiality determinations. Finally, Section V 
of this preamble describes the statutory and executive order 
requirements applicable to this action.

B. Does this action apply to me?

    This proposal affects entities that are required to submit annual 
greenhouse gas (GHG) reports under subpart I of 40 CFR part 98 (``Part 
98''). The Administrator determined that this action is subject to the 
provisions of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(d). See CAA section 
307(d)(1)(V) (the provisions of CAA section 307(d) apply to ``such 
other actions as the Administrator may determine''). Part 98 and this 
action affect owners and operators of electronics manufacturing 
facilities. Affected categories and entities include those listed in 
Table 1 of this preamble.

            Table 1--Examples of Affected Entities by Category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Examples of affected
             Category                 NAICS            facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronics Manufacturing........       334111  Microcomputers
                                                 manufacturing
                                                 facilities.
                                        334413  Semiconductor,
                                                 photovoltaic (solid-
                                                 state) device
                                                 manufacturing
                                                 facilities.
                                        334419  Liquid crystal display
                                                 unit screens
                                                 manufacturing
                                                 facilities.
                                        334419  Micro-electro-mechanical
                                                 systems manufacturing
                                                 facilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Table 1 of this preamble lists the types of entities that 
potentially could be affected by the reporting requirements under the 
subpart covered by this proposal. However, this list is not intended to 
be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding 
facilities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of 
facilities not listed in the table could also be subject to reporting 
requirements. To determine whether you are affected by this action,

[[Page 63540]]

you should carefully examine the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR 
part 98, subpart A as well as 40 CFR part 98, subpart I. If you have 
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular 
facility, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section of this preamble.

C. Legal Authority

    The EPA is proposing rule amendments to Part 98 under its existing 
CAA authority, specifically authorities provided in CAA section 114. As 
stated in the preamble to the 2009 final rule (74 FR 56260, October 30, 
2009) and the Response to Comments on the Proposed Rule, Volume 9, 
Legal Issues, CAA section 114 provides the EPA broad authority to 
obtain the information in Part 98, including subpart I, because such 
data would inform and are relevant to the EPA's carrying out a wide 
variety of CAA provisions. As discussed in the preamble to the initial 
Part 98 proposal (74 FR 16448, April 10, 2009), CAA section 114(a)(1) 
authorizes the Administrator to require emissions sources, persons 
subject to the CAA, manufacturers of control or process equipment, or 
persons whom the Administrator believes may have necessary information 
to monitor and report emissions and provide such other information the 
Administrator requests for the purposes of carrying out any provision 
of the CAA.
    In addition, the EPA is proposing confidentiality determinations 
for proposed data elements in subpart I, under its authorities provided 
in sections 114, 301, and 307 of the CAA. As mentioned, CAA section 114 
provides the EPA authority to obtain the information in Part 98, 
including those in subpart I. Section 114(c) requires that the EPA make 
publicly available information obtained under section 114 except for 
information (excluding emission data) that qualify for confidential 
treatment.
    The Administrator has determined that this action (proposed 
amendments and confidentiality determinations) is subject to the 
provisions of section 307(d) of the CAA.

D. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to the EPA?

1. Submitting Comments That Contain CBI
    Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to 
be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the 
EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify 
electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that 
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment 
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that 
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for 
inclusion in the public docket. Information marked as CBI will not be 
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 
2.
    Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise 
protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Send or deliver 
information identified as CBI to only the mail or hand/courier delivery 
address listed above, attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028.
    If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming 
CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
    When submitting comments, remember to:
    Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying 
information (e.g., subject heading, Federal Register date and page 
number).
    Follow directions. The EPA may ask you to respond to specific 
questions or organize comments by referencing a CFR part or section 
number.
    Explain why you agree or disagree, and suggest alternatives and 
substitute language for your requested changes.
    Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
    If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived 
at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow us to reproduce your 
estimate.
    Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest 
alternatives.
    Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of 
profanity or personal threats.
    Make sure to submit your information and comments by the comment 
period deadline identified in the preceding section titled DATES. To 
ensure proper receipt by the EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID 
number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of 
your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal 
Register citation.
    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, email 
GHGReportingCBI@epa.gov. You are also encouraged to send a separate 
copy of your CBI information to Carole Cook at the provided mailing 
address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Please do not 
send CBI to the electronic docket or by email.

II. Background for Proposed Amendments to GHG Monitoring and 
Calculation Methodologies and Other Technical Revisions

A. Background for Proposed Amendments

    The GHG reporting requirements for subpart I were finalized on 
December 1, 2010 (75 FR 74774, hereafter referred to as ``final subpart 
I rule''). Following the publication of the final subpart I rule in the 
Federal Register, the SIA (hereafter referred to as ``the Petitioner'') 
submitted on January 31, 2011 an administrative petition titled 
``Petition for Reconsideration and Request for Stay Pending 
Reconsideration of Subpart I of the Final Rule for Mandatory Reporting 
of Greenhouse Gases'' (hereafter referred to as the ``Petition for 
Reconsideration'', available in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927), 
requesting reconsideration of numerous provisions in the final subpart 
I rule. Since that petition was filed, the EPA has published five 
actions related to subpart I.
     Additional Sources of Fluorinated GHGs: Extension of Best 
Available Monitoring Provisions for Electronics Manufacturing (76 FR 
36339, published June 22, 2011). Granted the Petition for 
Reconsideration with respect to the provisions for the use of Best 
Available Monitoring Methods (BAMM). Extended three of the deadlines in 
subpart I related to using the BAMM provisions from June 30, 2011 to 
September 30, 2011.
     Changes to Provisions for Electronics Manufacturing to 
Provide Flexibility (76 FR 59542, published September 27, 2011). 
Amended the calculation and monitoring provisions for the largest 
semiconductor manufacturing facilities to provide flexibility through 
the end of 2013 and extended two deadlines in the BAMM provisions.
     Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for Subpart I and 
Proposed Amendments to Subpart I Best Available Monitoring Methods 
Provisions (77 FR 10434, published February 22, 2012). Re-proposed 
confidentiality determinations for data elements in subpart I and 
proposed amendments to the provisions regarding

[[Page 63541]]

the calculation and reporting of emissions from facilities that use 
BAMM.
     Revisions to Heat Transfer Fluid Provisions (77 FR 10373, 
published February 22, 2012). Amended the definition of fluorinated 
heat transfer fluids (fluorinated HTFs) and the provisions to estimate 
and report emissions from fluorinated HTFs.
     Final Confidentiality Determinations for Nine Subparts and 
Amendments to Subpart A and I under the Mandatory Reporting of 
Greenhouse Gases Rule; Final Rule (77 FR 48072, published August 13, 
2012). Final confidentiality determinations for data elements in 
subpart I and final amendments to the provisions regarding the 
calculation and reporting of emissions from facilities that use BAMM.

B. How would these amendments apply to 2012 and 2013 reports?

    The EPA intends to address the comments on these proposed 
amendments and publish any final amendments in 2013. Facilities would 
be required to follow one of the new or revised methods to estimate 
emissions beginning in 2014. The first reports of emissions estimated 
using the new methods would be submitted in 2015. For the reports for 
reporting years 2012 and 2013, reporters would be expected to calculate 
emissions and other relevant data using the existing requirements under 
Part 98. These existing requirements include the flexibility for the 
largest semiconductor manufacturing facilities added in the September 
27, 2011 rule titled ``Changes to Provisions for Electronics 
Manufacturing to Provide Flexibility.''
    Given the timing and extent of the proposed changes, and the 
likelihood that the final rule will not be published until the second 
half of 2013, we have determined that it is not feasible for sources to 
implement these changes for reporting year 2013. The proposed revisions 
would change and replace existing calculation methods and regulatory 
requirements, and would greatly affect how emissions are calculated and 
the data that would be reported. For example, we are proposing to add a 
new stack testing option to measure and calculate fab-level fluorinated 
greenhouse gas (F-GHG) emissions, revise process categories and 
associated gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates, and 
eliminate existing methods that require using recipe-specific gas 
utilization rates and by-product formation rates to calculate 
emissions. Because of the different data collection requirements 
compared to the current subpart I requirements, we do not anticipate 
that facilities would have enough time after the final rule is 
published to schedule stack tests, revise their current tracking and 
monitoring methods, or revise the data collection methods for reporting 
year 2013.
    Thus, reporters using the current methods in subpart I would 
continue to use these methods for collecting data and calculating 
emissions for 2013 that are reported in 2014. Reporters would be 
required to select calculation methods based on any final revisions to 
the rule to calculate the emissions for 2014 that are reported in 2015.

III. Summary and Rationale for Proposed Amendments to GHG Monitoring 
and Calculation Methodologies and Other Revisions

A. Summary of Proposed Rule Amendments in Response to Petition for 
Reconsideration

    In this action, we are granting reconsideration on all issues in 
the Petition for Reconsideration not already addressed in the final 
rules published June 22, 2011 (Additional Sources of Fluorinated GHGs: 
Extension of Best Available Monitoring Provisions for Electronics 
Manufacturing); September 27, 2011 (Changes to Provisions for 
Electronics Manufacturing to Provide Flexibility); and August 13, 2012 
(Confidentiality Determinations for Subpart I and Amendments to Subpart 
I Best Available Monitoring Methods Provisions). Those final rules are 
described in Section II.A of this preamble. Section III.B of this 
preamble discusses the specific issues raised in the Petition for 
Reconsideration that are addressed in this action and the changes the 
EPA is proposing in response to the petition. The EPA intends to 
complete its response to the Petition for Reconsideration through this 
rulemaking.
    Following consideration of the issues raised in the Petition for 
Reconsideration and data presented by the Petitioner, the EPA is 
proposing certain amendments to subpart I. Table 2 of this preamble 
presents a summary of the outstanding issues raised by the Petitioner 
and the corresponding proposed changes to the rule. Section III.B of 
this preamble provides further detail including the EPA's rationale for 
each proposed change.

       Table 2--Proposed Changes to the Rule Based on Petition for
 Reconsideration and the Petitioner's May 26, 2011 Letter Supporting the
    Development of the Rule Changes To Provide Flexibility That Were
                      Finalized September 27, 2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Technical issue                  Proposed changes to rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rows 2 and 12 apply to semiconductor facilities only. All other rows
 apply to all electronics manufacturing facilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Addition of an emission estimation  Revising 40 CFR 98.93 to provide
 method as an alternative to recipe-    an option for using stack
 specific emission factors. (See        testing as an alternative method
 Section III.B.1).                      for determining fab-level
                                        emission factors for determining
                                        fab-level F-GHG emissions for
                                        all electronics manufacturing
                                        facilities.
                                       Revising 40 CFR 98.94 to 98.98 to
                                        include the monitoring methods,
                                        QA/QC, missing data, reporting,
                                        recordkeeping, and definition
                                        requirements for the stack
                                        testing alternative.
2. Revision of default gas             Revise 40 CFR 98.92(a) and 40 CFR
 utilization rates and by-product       98.93(a)(2) and (a)(4) to
 formation rates for the plasma etch    combine wafer cleaning and
 process type for semiconductor         plasma etch emission processes
 manufacturing. (See Section III.B.2).  and associated gas utilization
                                        rates and by-product formation
                                        rates. Revise Tables I-3 and I-4
                                        for semiconductor manufacturing
                                        with new gas utilization rates
                                        and by-product formation rates
                                        based on gas type and process
                                        type or sub-type using
                                        additional data submitted by the
                                        Petitioner.

[[Page 63542]]

 
3. Removing recipe-specific emission   Revising 40 CFR 98.93, 98.94,
 factors: Requirements for (1)          98.96, and 98.97 to remove
 Largest semiconductor manufacturing    provisions to use recipe-
 facilities (defined as those           specific gas utilization rates
 facilities with annual manufacturing   and by-product formation rates
 capacity of greater than 10,500 m\2\   and to combine the wafer
 of substrate) to use recipe-specific   cleaning process type with the
 gas utilization rates and by-product   plasma etch process type. Under
 formation rates to estimate            this proposal, all semiconductor
 emissions from plasma etch             manufacturing facilities,
 processes; and (2) semiconductor       regardless of manufacturing
 facilities using wafers greater than   capacity, would have the option
 300 mm diameter to estimate all of     to use default gas utilization
 their emissions from processes that    rates and by-product formation
 use fluorinated GHGs using recipe-     rates to estimate emissions from
 specific gas utilization rates and     the plasma etching/wafer
 by-product formation rates. (See       cleaning process type and from
 Section III.B.3).                      the following three subtypes of
                                        the chamber cleaning process
                                        type: in-situ plasma chamber
                                        cleaning, remote plasma chamber
                                        cleaning, and in-situ thermal
                                        chamber cleaning.
4. Calculation for determining         Revising the terminology and
 manufacturing capacity. (See Section   definition of maximum designed
 III.B.4).                              substrate starts in 40 CFR 98.98
                                        to be maximum substrate starts,
                                        meaning for the purposes of
                                        Equation I-5 in subpart I, the
                                        maximum quantity of substrates,
                                        expressed as surface area, that
                                        could be started each month in a
                                        reporting year based on the
                                        equipment installed in that
                                        facility and assuming that the
                                        equipment were fully utilized.
                                        Manufacturing equipment would be
                                        considered installed when it is
                                        on the manufacturing floor and
                                        connected to the required
                                        utilities.
5. Reporting provisions for            Facilities would be allowed to
 facilities that have integrated        report integrated production and
 production and research and            R&D emissions and, if doing so,
 development (R&D) activities. (See     would be required to provide an
 Section III.B.5).                      estimate of the fraction of
                                        total emissions from their R&D
                                        activities under 40 CFR 98.96.
6. Requirements for the accuracy and   Removing the requirement for one
 precision of the equipment measuring   percent of full-scale accuracy
 gas consumption. (See Section          for ``all flow meters, weigh
 III.B.6).                              scales, pressure gauges and
                                        thermometers* * *'' in 40 CFR
                                        98.93(i) and referencing the
                                        calibration accuracy
                                        requirements in 40 CFR 98.3(i)
                                        for all measurement devices used
                                        to measure quantities that are
                                        monitored in subpart I.
7. Provisions for re-calculating the   Revising the criteria for an
 facility-wide gas specific heel        ``exceptional circumstance'' in
 factor and handling exceptional        40 CFR 98.94(b)(4) from 20
 circumstances. (See Section III.B.7).  percent of the original trigger
                                        point for change out to 50
                                        percent for small cylinders
                                        (containing less than 9.08
                                        kilograms (20 pounds) of gas).
                                        For large containers, the
                                        ``exceptional circumstance''
                                        would remain as a change out
                                        point that differs by 20 percent
                                        of the trigger point used to
                                        calculate the gas specific heel
                                        factor. Clarifying the
                                        requirements for recalculating
                                        the facility-wide heel factor.
8. Requirements for verifying the      Revising 40 CFR 98.94(c) to allow
 model used to apportion gas            for development of apportioning
 consumption. (See Section III.B.8).    factors by using direct
                                        measurements using gas flow
                                        meters or weigh scales, to
                                        measure process sub-type,
                                        process type, stack system, or
                                        fab-specific input gas
                                        consumption.
                                       Revising 40 CFR 98.94(c)(2)(i) to
                                        allow reporters to select a
                                        period of the reporting year and
                                        its duration that is
                                        representative of normal
                                        operations for the model
                                        verification. The representative
                                        period would be at least 30 days
                                        in duration, and may be as long
                                        as one year. The model would be
                                        verified using the F-GHG used in
                                        the greatest quantity, and would
                                        be corrected if it does not meet
                                        the verification requirements. A
                                        facility would be able to use
                                        two F-GHG for model verification
                                        if they both meet the criteria
                                        and if at least one of them is
                                        used in the greatest quantity.
                                       Increasing the maximum allowed
                                        difference between the modeled
                                        and actual gas consumption in
                                        the verification process from 5
                                        percent to 20 percent.
9. Provisions for calculating N2O      Revising 40 CFR 98.93(b), 40 CFR
 emissions. (See Section III.B.9).      98.96(c)(3) and 40 CFR 98.96(k)
                                        to clarify that facilities must
                                        calculate annual fab-level N2O
                                        emissions from the chemical
                                        vapor deposition (CVD) process
                                        type and from the aggregate of
                                        other electronics manufacturing
                                        production processes using
                                        default emission factors
                                        (facilities are not required to
                                        report emissions from each CVD
                                        process and from each other N2O
                                        using process).
10. Provisions for reporting           Revising 40 CFR 98.94(f) to allow
 controlled emissions from abatement    facilities to use either revised
 systems. (See Section III.B.10).       default destruction or removal
                                        efficiency (DRE) values or to
                                        establish a site-specific DRE
                                        value for each combination of
                                        input gas or by-product gas and
                                        process type or sub-type using
                                        directly measured DREs.
                                        Providing alternative methods
                                        for a facility to directly
                                        measure DRE.

[[Page 63543]]

 
11. Provisions for determining and     Revising Equation I-15 to allow
 calculating abatement system uptime.   reporters to calculate the
 (See Section III.B.11).                average uptime for the group of
                                        systems for each combination of
                                        input gas or by-product gas and
                                        process type or sub-type, using
                                        the same process categories in
                                        which F-GHG use and emissions
                                        are calculated. Abatement system
                                        uptime monitoring and
                                        calculation would be simplified
                                        by assuming that connected
                                        process tools operate with F-
                                        GHGs or N2O flowing continuously
                                        once they are installed; this
                                        would apply for all methods
                                        (both default emission factors
                                        and stack testing).
12. Absence of a method for updating   Revising the data reporting
 gas utilization rates and by-product   requirements in 40 CFR 98.96 to
 formation rates and DRE values for     require certain semiconductor
 semiconductor manufacturing. (See      manufacturing facilities to
 Section III.B.12).                     provide a report to the EPA
                                        every 3 years covering
                                        technology changes at the
                                        facility that may affect gas
                                        utilization rates and by-product
                                        formation rates or DRE values.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is not staying subpart I pending reconsideration as 
requested in the Petition for Reconsideration because the EPA believes 
that the concerns prompting the stay request have been addressed 
through the BAMM process and through the September 27, 2011 final rule 
(Changes to Provisions for Electronics Manufacturing to Provide 
Flexibility), which amended the calculation and monitoring provisions 
for the largest semiconductor manufacturing facilities to provide 
flexibility through the end of 2013. As stated in the preamble to the 
September 27, 2011 final rule, the EPA intends to finalize revisions to 
subpart I in 2013 so that semiconductor manufacturing facilities can 
implement the revised subpart I beginning in 2014. The EPA is not 
reopening the entirety of subpart I for comment but is taking comment 
only on the remaining issues raised by the Petitioner, as listed in 
Table 2 of this preamble, and the proposed amendments described in 
Section III.B of this preamble, with the exception that we request 
comment on whether new data are available to update the default gas 
utilization rates and by-product formation rates for the facilities 
that manufacture MEMS, LCDs, or PV cells (see Section III.B.2 of this 
preamble), and whether new data are available on measured DRE values 
for abatement systems used at MEMS, LCD, or PV cell manufacturing 
facilities (see Section III.B.10 of this preamble).
    In summary, the major changes we are proposing are to revise the 
calculation methods to provide all electronics manufacturing facilities 
the choice of two methods to calculate annual emissions and to remove 
the option for electronics manufacturing facilities to determine and 
use recipe-specific gas utilization rates and by-product formation 
rates. The proposed rule would provide the option for reporters to use 
either default gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates, 
which the EPA is proposing to revise for semiconductor manufacturing 
facilities to reflect new industry data provided to the EPA, or to 
conduct stack testing to establish site-specific emission factors for 
F-GHGs that would be used to calculate F-GHG emissions. The proposed 
amendments would ensure that the EPA receives accurate and current 
facility-specific data. The proposed amendments also include provisions 
for the periodic review of industry advances and changes that may 
impact the default gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates 
and default DRE values used to estimate emissions, to encourage the 
continued collection of data that represent current industry practices. 
Additionally, the proposed stack testing approach allows for estimation 
of emissions based on periodic direct measurements of stack emissions 
from facilities. These proposed amendments would allow the EPA to 
accurately characterize and analyze GHG emissions from facilities in 
the electronics manufacturing industry while reducing burden to the 
industry.

B. Rationale for Proposed Amendments

1. Stack Testing as an Alternative Emission Monitoring Method for 
Facilities that Manufacture Electronics
    After subpart I was promulgated, the Petitioner expressed interest 
in developing a method to use stack testing to quantify F-GHG emissions 
from electronics manufacturing facilities as an alternative to the 
recipe-specific method in the final subpart I rule. Specifically, the 
Petitioner proposed an approach in which they would (1) develop 
emission factors by measuring emissions from their stacks over a 
certain period and dividing them by an activity metric (e.g., gas 
consumption) measured over the same period; and (2) estimate annual 
emissions by multiplying the emission factors by the appropriate annual 
activity. They noted that stack testing is already widely accepted in 
the industry and commonly used to quantify non-F-GHG emissions for 
compliance with other state and federal air programs. They also noted 
that in most facilities, a large number of tools using F-GHGs are 
exhausted through a relatively small number of stacks, and stack 
testing in such a situation could be at least as accurate as the other 
methods in the final subpart I rule, and could be more cost-effective 
for the facility depending on how often testing is conducted (see 
``Technical Support for the Stack Test Option for Estimating 
Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Electronics Manufacturing 
Facilities under Subpart I,'' Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028).
    The EPA recognizes that stack testing is an important tool that has 
historically been required for specified non-F-GHG pollutants to 
determine a facility's compliance with emission limits, capture or 
control efficiencies, or monitoring parameters established pursuant to 
certain provisions of the CAA. Stack testing performed and verified 
according to the procedures in validated EPA methods is considered a 
reliable method to quantify facility emissions as long as a robust and 
predictable relationship is found between emissions and the selected 
activity metric. Because stack testing is a direct measurement of 
facility emissions, it has the potential to provide a high-quality 
characterization

[[Page 63544]]

of the emissions from the electronics manufacturing industry. 
Electronics manufacturers are already using stack testing to comply 
with other air rules and operating permit requirements. For example, 
semiconductor manufacturers subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBB, 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Semiconductor Manufacturing, are already required to perform stack 
testing using EPA Method 320 at 40 CFR part 63, appendix A (hereafter 
``EPA Method 320''), among others, to comply with subpart BBBBB, 
although they are not required to use EPA Method 320 to quantify F-GHG 
emissions.
    To determine whether stack testing might be appropriate to quantify 
F-GHG emissions from electronics manufacturing, EPA evaluated whether 
it demonstrates (1) The ability of a method and technology to 
accurately measure F-GHG emissions from electronics manufacturing 
facilities during the test; (2) the ability to accurately measure a 
corresponding activity metric during the test; and (3) the existence of 
a reasonably constant and predictable relationship between F-GHG 
emissions and the chosen activity metric. The first and third factors 
were particularly important given the relatively low concentrations of 
F-GHGs in exhaust streams at electronics facilities and the potential 
variability of emission factors over time at those facilities as the 
mix of products and processes changed over time.
    The Petitioner provided data from stack testing and supporting data 
on F-GHG consumption and production to demonstrate that that stack 
testing can be used to estimate annual emissions. These data were 
provided to the EPA in support of the Petitioner's request in the 
petition for reconsideration to add a stack testing option to subpart I 
for semiconductor manufacturing. The data were collected using EPA 
Method 320, ``Measurement Of Vapor Phase Organic And Inorganic 
Emissions By Extractive Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) 
Spectroscopy'' (40 CFR part 63, appendix A), at three companies 
manufacturing a variety of semiconductor products on different sized 
wafers. The data provided to the EPA demonstrated that F-GHG emissions 
are a direct and reasonably constant function of F-GHG consumption over 
the test period. Moreover, data from multiple tests at two facilities 
showed that emission factors (kg gas emitted/kg gas consumed) did not 
vary widely in the absence of significant technology and abatement 
level changes, even though the mix of products at one of the facilities 
appeared likely to have changed during the months since the previous 
test. This indicates that emissions from one period at a facility, when 
converted to emission factors based on F-GHG consumption, can be used 
to determine emissions at the same facility over an extended period of 
time (i.e., one year, and longer under certain circumstances), and can 
be scaled to estimate annual F-GHG emissions.
    The data provided by the Petitioner (see ``Technical Support for 
the Stack Test Option for Estimating Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas 
Emissions from Electronics Manufacturing Facilities under Subpart I,'' 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028) demonstrated that current FTIR 
methods, such as EPA Method 320, have sufficient sensitivity, when used 
in conjunction with detectors optimized to detect F-GHGs, to provide 
accurate measurements of F-GHG emissions. EPA Method 320 can be used to 
measure concentrations of the commonly emitted F-GHGs down to a few 
parts per billion by volume (ppbv), and the field detection limits for 
the same F-GHGs can be as low as 1 or 2 ppbv.
    The same data provided by the Petitioner provided evidence that F-
GHG consumption can be accurately measured or estimated over the 
proposed test period of 8 hours as long as varying temperatures, non-
ideal gas behavior, and low drawdown rates are appropriately accounted 
for. (Methods for accounting for these are discussed in ``Stack testing 
requirements'' in Section III.B.1 of this preamble.) This ensures that 
gas consumption can be accurately determined, either directly for the 
test period or by interpolating from longer-term consumption data. 
Accurate gas consumption measurements ensure that gas consumption can 
be used with the stack emission measurements as the basis for emission 
factors to calculate annual emissions.
    Finally, the data provided by the Petitioner demonstrated that 
emissions estimated from stack testing were in agreement with emissions 
for the same facilities estimated using other methods, such as the 
default gas utilization rates and by-product formation rate method in 
subpart I (see ``Technical Support for the Stack Test Option for 
Estimating Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Electronics 
Manufacturing Facilities under Subpart I,'' Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0028).
    The EPA is proposing to revise subpart I to include a stack testing 
option for estimating annual F-GHG emissions at 40 CFR 98.93(i). This 
option would apply to all electronic manufacturing facilities, 
including those making semiconductors, MEMS, LCDs, and PV cells. We are 
not proposing this option for estimating N2O emissions; a 
review of the stack test data provided to the EPA revealed inconsistent 
results for stack measurements of N2O emissions for which 
the cause could not be determined (see ``Technical Support for the 
Stack Test Option for Estimating Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Emissions 
from Electronics Manufacturing Facilities under Subpart I,'' Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028). Therefore, we do not have sufficient data to 
show that stack testing is appropriate for development of 
N2O emission estimates. However, the rule already includes 
an option based on default emission factors for estimating 
N2O emissions (see 40 CFR 98.93(b)). (Proposed amendments to 
the provisions and emission factors for estimating N2O 
emissions are discussed in Section III.B.9 of this preamble.)
    In this action, we are also proposing to allow all electronics 
manufacturing facilities to use separate methods (i.e., stack testing 
or default utilization and by-product formation rates) to estimate 
emissions from each fab within a single facility. Facilities would 
report GHG emissions on a fab basis. Many electronics manufacturing 
facilities are divided into separate fabs, which generally consist of 
separate buildings constructed at different times in which the 
processing tools are located. Most facilities have only one fab, but 
some facilities have two or more fabs. Each fab may be dedicated to a 
different product type, or may represent different generations of 
manufacturing technology because they were built at different times. In 
the semiconductor manufacturing industry, separate fabs may use 
different size wafers.
    Because of differences among fabs (e.g., differences in the number 
of stacks), a reporter may wish to use different methods to estimate 
emissions from each fab. We are proposing to allow reporters to use 
different methods for separate fabs, but would also require that 
emissions be reported at the fab level. We are proposing to define a 
``fab'' in 40 CFR 98.98 as ``the portion of an electronics 
manufacturing facility located in a separate physical structure that 
began manufacturing on a certain date.''
    Selection of Stack Systems for Testing. The EPA recognizes that 
given the diversity of facility designs among electronics 
manufacturers, some facilities may have some stacks that account for 
only a small percent of total facility emissions. In order to avoid the 
burden of testing a large number of stacks, the proposed amendments

[[Page 63545]]

would not require that all stacks be tested. Instead, the reporter 
would develop a preliminary estimate of the annual emissions from each 
``stack system'' in a fab and would not be required to test those stack 
systems that account for relatively small emissions. A stack system 
would be considered to be one or more stacks that are connected by a 
common header or manifold, through which a fluorinated GHG-containing 
gas stream originating from one or more fab processes is, or has the 
potential to be, released to the atmosphere. For purposes of subpart I, 
stack systems would not include emergency vents or bypass stacks 
through which emissions are not usually vented under typical operating 
conditions.
    Under the proposed rule, the reporter would develop a preliminary 
estimate of F-GHG emissions from each stack system on a metric ton 
carbon dioxide equivalent (mtCO2e) basis using the gas 
consumption in the tools associated with the stack system and gas 
utilization rates and by-product formation rates in proposed Tables I-
11 through I-15, and accounting for the DRE of the ``point of use'' 
(POU) abatement systems and the uptime (the fraction of time the system 
is operating within manufacturer's specifications) of the POU systems. 
The gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates in proposed 
Tables I-11 through I-15 are based on the 2006 Intergovernmental Panel 
on Climate Change (IPCC) Tier 2a factors.\1\ The factors in proposed 
Tables I-11 and I-12 for semiconductor manufacturing facilities were 
updated from the 2006 IPCC factors based on additional data collected 
by the Petitioner (see ``Technical Support for Modifications to the 
Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimation Method Option for 
Semiconductor Facilities under Subpart I,'' Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0028).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas 
Inventories, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 
Programme, Eggleston H.S., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T. and Tanabe 
K. (eds). Hayama, Kanagawa, Japan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the preliminary estimate, reporters would be required to use 
data from the previous reporting year for the DRE of abatement and the 
total uptime of all abatement systems in each stack system. The 
consumption of each F-GHG in each stack system would be estimated as 
the total gas consumption of that F-GHG times the ratio of the number 
of tools using that F-GHG that are feeding to that stack system to the 
total number of tools in the fab using that F-GHG. The reporter would 
convert the F-GHG emissions to CO2e using the global warming 
potential (GWP) values for F-GHG in Table A-1 of subpart A of Part 98. 
For F-GHG in Tables I-11 through I-15 for which Table A-1 of subpart A 
of Part 98 does not list a GWP value, reporters would use a default 
value of 2,000 for the GWP. Based on this preliminary estimate, the 
reporter would rank the F-GHG emitting stack systems at the facility 
from the lowest to highest emitting. The reporter would not have to 
test emissions from low-emitting stack systems, defined as those F-GHG 
emitting stack systems meeting all of the following three criteria:
    (1) The sum of the F-GHG emissions from all combined stack systems 
in the fab that are not tested is less than 10,000 mtCO2e 
per year;
    (2) Each of the stack systems that are not tested are within the 
fab's lowest F-GHG emitting stack systems that together emit 15 percent 
or less of total CO2e F-GHG emissions from the fab; and
    (3) The F-GHG emissions from each of the stack systems that are not 
tested can be attributed to only one particular collection of process 
tools during the test (i.e., the stack cannot be used as a bypass from 
other tools that are normally vented through a stack system that does 
not meet these criteria).
    For those low-emitting stack systems that are not tested, the 
reported F-GHG emissions would be the preliminary estimate made using 
the gas consumption and the gas utilization rates and by-product 
formation rates in proposed Tables I-11 through I-15 in subpart I, 
accounting for the DRE and uptime of the POU abatement systems. The 
default emission factors in proposed Tables I-11 through I-15 are 
simplified default emission factors based on just F-GHG species, and do 
not account for different rates by process type or sub-type. This 
approach minimizes reporting burden to industry because it does not 
require allocation of gas consumption between process types or sub-
types (e.g., etch and chamber clean), as is required for the default 
emission factor based method. However, we recognize that there may be a 
need for facilities to reconfigure low-emitting stack systems following 
testing for production reasons. As a result, we are specifically 
requesting comment on how often such stack flow configuration changes 
occur. In addition, we are specifically requesting comment on whether 
reporters should be allowed to calculate emissions for low-emitting 
stack systems that are not tested using average fab-specific emission 
factors developed for the stack systems that are tested. We are 
specifically requesting comment on how such a provision would affect 
emission calculations from differences in gas and process types, and in 
DRE abatement system uptime between stack systems that are tested and 
stack systems that are not tested.
    Stack testing requirements. For those higher-emitting stack systems 
in each fab that are not exempt from measurement, the reporter would 
measure each F-GHG concentration (parts per million by volume, ppmv) 
and the total stack flow to determine the hourly mass flow rate (kg/hr) 
of each F-GHG emitted from each applicable stack system. If a stack 
system has more than one stack from a common header, the reporter would 
be required to measure F-GHG concentration and flow in each stack from 
that header because it is known from prior testing that F-GHG 
concentrations and flow rates are not consistent in such systems 
because of incomplete mixing. The reporter would use EPA Method 320 or 
another validated method to measure F-GHG concentration, and EPA 
Methods 1 through 4 at 40 CFR part 60, appendices A-1, A-2, and A-3 to 
measure other stack gas parameters needed to convert F-GHG 
concentration to mass emissions for the test period. Reporters would 
also be required to measure the fab-specific consumption of each F-GHG 
for the test period.
    Reporters would be required to determine the F-GHGs expected to be 
emitted from the stack system, including by-product F-GHG, based on a 
facility analysis of all F-GHGs consumed or emitted in the previous 
reporting year, and all F-GHGs expected to be consumed or emitted in 
the current reporting year by process tools vented to the stack system. 
Documented results of the analysis would be kept as a record by the 
facility. The facility would not be required to test for all F-GHG 
consumed in the previous year if they are no longer being used, but 
only to consider the use of those F-GHG in the analysis of the F-GHG 
previously consumed or emitted and expected to be consumed or emitted. 
The reporter would also need to consider in the analysis the by-product 
gases that are included in Tables I-3 to I-7 that are applicable to the 
reporter's industry segment (semiconductors, PV, MEMS, or LCD). Based 
on this analysis, reporters would be required to measure emissions for 
all F-GHG used as input gases and any expected by-product F-GHG, except 
for any intermittent low-use F-GHG. Intermittent low-use F-GHGs would 
be defined as F-GHG that meet all of the following:
    (1) The F-GHG is used by the fab but was not used on the day of the 
actual stack testing;

[[Page 63546]]

    (2) The emissions of that F-GHG do not constitute more than 5 
percent of the total annual F-GHG emissions from the fab on a 
CO2e basis; and
    (3) The sum of all F-GHG that are considered intermittent low-use 
F-GHGs does not exceed 10,000 mtCO2e for that year.
    We are proposing that reporters would specifically test for 
CF4 and C2F6 as by-product F-GHG from 
all stack systems that are subject to testing. These two F-GHG are 
commonly formed by-product gases in the electronics manufacturing 
industry from the plasma etch and chamber cleaning process types, and 
some may also be formed in the abatement systems.
    We are also considering an option that would require testing for 
all F-GHGs that have been identified as by-products of any input gas in 
previous testing throughout the electronics industry. This set would 
include C3F8, C4F6, 
C4F8, and CHF3 in addition to 
CF4 and C2F6. We are considering this 
option because the identities and quantities of by-products generated 
at a particular facility at a particular time can be difficult to 
predict, and the costs of testing for additional by-products are 
expected to be modest. In the one set of semiconductor facility stack 
tests that tested for the full range of potential by-products listed 
above, a perfluorocarbon (PFC) by-product was found, 
C3F8, which accounted for up to 40 percent of the 
GWP-weighted by-product emissions of the fab (and up to two percent of 
the total GWP-weighted emissions). If unexpected by-products occur in 
similar proportions at other facilities, failing to measure for them 
could lead to routine underestimates of emissions at those facilities. 
This option is discussed further in the memorandum ``Technical Support 
for the Stack Test Option for Estimating Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas 
Emissions from Electronics Manufacturing Facilities under Subpart I,'' 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028. We are specifically requesting 
comment on the option of requiring facilities to test for the six by-
products listed above.
    Reporters would calculate annual emissions of intermittent low-use 
F-GHGs using the gas consumption and the gas utilization rates and by-
product formation rates in proposed Tables I-11 through I-15 in the 
rule, accounting for the DRE and uptime of the POU systems during the 
year for which emissions are being estimated.
    The testing period would be 8 hours for each stack, with the option 
for a longer duration. The EPA understands that a 24-hour testing 
duration may be burdensome and may increase testing costs; however, 
reporters could elect to conduct longer testing to improve the accuracy 
of gas consumption and F-GHG concentration measurements for gases used 
in smaller quantities.
    Reporters would not be required to measure all stacks 
simultaneously, but reporters would be required to certify there are no 
changes between tests in the stack flow configuration (i.e., the 
relationship between sets of process tools and any connected POU 
systems and their corresponding waste streams that are ultimately 
vented through the stack). Reporters would also be required to certify 
there are no changes in the centralized abatement systems; if any are 
present. The tests would have to be conducted during a period in which 
the fab is operating at a representative operating level and with the 
POU abatement systems connected to the stack being tested operating 
with at least 90 percent uptime during the 8-hour (or longer) period, 
or at no less than 90 percent of the average uptime measured during the 
previous reporting year. The representative operating level would be 
considered to be operating the fab, in terms of substrate starts for 
the period of testing, at no less than 50 percent of installed 
production capacity or no less than 70 percent of the average 
production rate for the reporting year, where production rate for the 
reporting year is represented in average monthly substrate starts. For 
the purposes of stack testing, the period for determining the 
representative operating level must be the 30-day period ending on the 
same date on which testing is concluded.
    To convert the measured F-GHG emission rates into fab-specific 
emission factors, the reporter would measure the consumption of each F-
GHG used in the tools associated with the stack systems being tested, 
excluding gas consumption allocated to tools venting to low-emitting 
stack systems that are not tested. Consumption could be measured using 
gas flow meters, weigh scales, or pressure measurements (corrected for 
temperature and non-ideal gas behavior). For gases with low volume 
consumption for which it is infeasible to measure consumption 
accurately over the 8-hour testing duration, short-term consumption 
could be estimated by using one or more of the following:
    (1) Drawing from single gas containers in cases where gas is 
normally drawn from a series of containers supplying a manifold;
    (2) Increasing the length of the test period to greater than 8 
hours; or
    (3) Calculating consumption from long-term consumption (e.g., 
monthly) that is pro-rated to the test duration.
    F-GHGs not detected by Method 320. The EPA is proposing that the 
concentrations of F-GHG in stacks systems be measured using EPA Method 
320. This has been shown to be a valid method for measuring these 
target compounds, but it is expected that some F-GHG may occur in 
concentrations that are below the field detection limit (FDL), as 
defined in EPA Method 320. Therefore, we are proposing that the 
following procedures be followed to account for different scenarios in 
which a F-GHG is used, but not detected by Method 320 measurements:
     If a F-GHG is consumed during testing, but emissions are 
not detected, the reporter would use one-half of the FDL for the 
concentration of that F-GHG in calculations.
     If a F-GHG is consumed during testing and detected 
intermittently during the test run, the reporter would use the detected 
concentration for the value of that F-GHG when available and use one-
half of the FDL for the value when the F-GHG is not detected.
     If a F-GHG is not consumed during testing but is detected 
intermittently as a by-product gas, the reporter would use the measured 
concentration when available and use one-half of the FDL for the value 
when the F-GHG is not detected.
     If a F-GHG is an expected by-product gas (e.g., 
CF4, C2F6, and other gases listed as 
by-products in Tables I-3, I-4, I-5, I-6, I-7, and proposed Tables I-11 
to I-15) of the stack system tested and is not detected during the test 
run, use one-half of the FDL for the value of that F-GHG.
     If a F-GHG is not used, and is not an expected by-product 
of the stack system and is not detected, then assume zero emissions for 
that F-GHG for the tested stack system.
    We are specifically requesting comment on the option of listing 
specific by-product gases as ``expected'' to be emitted even when they 
are not detected. Based on a review of the default emission factor 
tables listed above, CF4 and C2F6 are 
almost always generated as by-products (that is, they are generated by 
a wide range of process types and input gases), and CHF3 is 
frequently generated. Other by-products appear to be generated less 
frequently. Thus, it may be appropriate to specify CF4 and 
C2F6, and possibly also CHF3, as the 
set of by-products for which a value of one half of the FDL should be 
assumed in calculating emissions during the test. This approach would 
simplify the rule, provide certainty for purposes of implementation, 
and relieve facilities of the burden of determining

[[Page 63547]]

which by-products are ``expected'' to be emitted.
    EPA Method 320 requires the specification of maximum FDLs because 
the FDLs achieved by a method and detector can have a significant 
impact on the quality of the measurements. For example, if the FDL for 
a F-GHG were so high that large emissions of that GHG were never 
detected, the uncertainty of the resulting emissions estimate (i.e., 
one-half the FDL), would be correspondingly high. The EPA is proposing 
maximum FDLs based on (1) review of the FDLs that have been achieved at 
three different semiconductor facilities, and (2) analysis of the 
magnitude of the emissions that would occur (in CO2e) at 
various possible maximum FDLs. The latter provides an indication of the 
uncertainty of emissions measurements using methods and detectors with 
those FDLs. The proposed maximum FDLs can be found in proposed Table I-
10 of the regulatory text.
    The EPA expects that the proposed treatment of these non-detect 
values using one-half of the FDL will avoid any potential under-
counting of any F-GHGs that are expected to be in the emissions from a 
given process and F-GHG input gas combination. At the same time, the 
proposed treatment will provide a reasonable estimate of emissions of 
F-GHGs that occur in concentrations that are below the FDL. The EPA's 
analysis of testing data provided by the Petitioner has shown that 
emission measurements of gases known to be used and for which the 
concentration was below the FDL accounted for about 0.1 percent of F-
GHG consumption and would account for about 0.1 percent of emissions on 
a CO2e basis if the concentration was assumed to be one-half 
of the FDL as outlined in this section (see ``Technical Support for the 
Stack Test Option for Estimating Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Emissions 
from Electronics Manufacturing Facilities under Subpart I,'' Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028).
    Alternative stack test methods. To provide flexibility for 
facilities utilizing the stack test option, we are proposing that 
reporters may use an alternative stack test method to measure the 
concentration of F-GHG in each stack provided that the method is 
validated using EPA Method 301 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A (hereafter 
``EPA Method 301''), and the EPA approves its use.
    Under the proposed approval process in 40 CFR 98.94(k), the 
reporter would be required to notify the Administrator of the intent to 
use an alternative test method. The notification would need to include 
a test plan describing the alternative method and procedures, the range 
of test conditions over which the validation is intended to be 
applicable, and also an alternative means of calculating the fab-level 
F-GHG emissions if the Administrator denies the use of the results of 
the alternative method. The reporter would be required to validate the 
alternative method using EPA Method 301 and submit the results of the 
Method 301 validation process along with the notification of intention 
and a rationale for not using the specified method.
    The Administrator would review and determine whether the validation 
of the proposed alternative method is adequate and issue an approval or 
disapproval of the alternative test plan within 120 days of the 
reporter submitting the notification and test plan. The reporter would 
be required to respond to any of the Administrator's questions on the 
test plan before obtaining approval and take into account the 
Administrator's comments on the test plan in conducting the test using 
the alternative method. The reporter would be required to respond to 
the Administrator's questions or request for additional information on 
the plan during the 120-day review period and the Administrator's 
questions or request for additional information would not extend that 
review period. Therefore, it would be the reporter's obligation to 
respond in a timely manner. If an alternative test plan were not 
approved, a reporter would need to begin the process to have an 
alternative test method approved starting with the notification of 
intent to use an alternative test method.
    The reporter would report the results of stack testing using the 
alternative method and procedure specified in the approved test plan. 
The report would include all methods, calculations and data used to 
determine F-GHG emissions. The Administrator would review the results 
of the test using the alternative methods and procedure and then 
approve or deny the use of the results of the alternative test method 
and procedure no later than 120 days after they are submitted to the 
EPA. During this 120-day period, the reporter would be required to 
respond to any of the Administrator's questions on the test report 
before obtaining approval of the final test results using the 
alternative method. If the Administrator were to find reasonable 
grounds to dispute the results obtained by the alternative method, the 
Administrator could require the use of the method specified in subpart 
I instead of the alternative method.
    Once the Administrator approved the use of the alternative method, 
that method could be used by any other facility for the same F-GHGs and 
types of stack systems, if the approved conditions apply to that 
facility. In granting approval, the Administrator would limit the range 
of test conditions and emission characteristics for which that approval 
is granted and under which the alternative method could be used without 
seeking further approval. The Administrator would specify those 
limitations, if any, in the approval of the alternative method.
    Accounting for Abatement System Downtime. To account for the effect 
of POU abatement system downtime in estimating emissions using the 
stack testing method, reporters would record the abatement system 
downtime in each fab during testing and for the entire reporting year. 
Using the downtime measured during testing, the reporters would correct 
the measured emission factors to assume no abatement system downtime 
(i.e., 100 percent abatement system uptime). The downtime measured over 
the entire reporting year would be used to calculate the excess F-GHG 
emissions that occur as a result of abatement system downtime events.
    The reporter would measure the amount of POU abatement system 
downtime (in minutes) during the emission tests for any tools that are 
vented to the stacks being tested. For example, if five POU abatement 
systems are down for times of 10, 15, 25, 30, and 40 minutes during an 
8-hour test, the total POU system downtime would be 120 minutes, or 5.0 
percent of the total possible abatement system and tool operating time 
for the five tools (2,400 minutes). Using these data and the average 
DRE for the POU abatement systems, the emission factor measured during 
the testing would be adjusted to an emission factor representing POU 
abatement systems with 100 percent uptime (zero percent downtime).
    The downtime measured over the year would be used to determine an 
uptime factor that would be an aggregate for all abatement systems in 
the fab, and calculated using proposed Equation I-23 in subpart I. 
Abatement system downtime would be considered any time during which the 
abatement system was not operating according to the manufacturer's 
specifications. The reporter would determine the sum of the downtime 
for all abatement systems during the year, and divide this sum by the 
sum of the possible annual operating time for each of the tools 
connected to those abatement systems in the fab to determine the 
downtime fraction. The downtime fraction would be the

[[Page 63548]]

decimal fraction of operating time that the abatement systems were not 
operating according to the manufacturer's specifications. The uptime 
fraction used in the emissions calculations would be equal to 1 minus 
the downtime fraction.
    The total possible annual tool operating time would be calculated 
by assuming that tools that were installed for the whole of the year 
were operated for the entire year. The total possible tool operating 
time would be prorated to account for the days in which a tool was not 
installed; any partial day that a tool was installed would be treated 
as a full day of tool operation. For an abatement system with more than 
one connected tool, the tool operating time would be equivalent to a 
full year if at least one tool was installed at all times throughout 
the year. The reporter would also be able to account for time that 
tools are idle and no gas is flowing through the tools to the abatement 
system.
    It is important to note that the proposed calculation of the uptime 
factor is different when a reporter would be using the proposed stack 
testing method than when the reporter would be using the default gas 
utilization rate and by-product formation rate method. In the proposed 
stack testing method, the uptime would not be determined for each gas 
and process type combination, as it would be under the proposed 
revisions to the default emission factor method. Instead, the uptime 
factor would be based on an aggregate for all tools in the fab for 
which the stack testing method is being used. This aggregate method is 
possible because the emissions measured at the stack already account 
for the fact that the emissions have been abated, and the uptime factor 
is only needed to account for the relatively small percent of time that 
the abatement systems are not operating and excess emissions need to be 
calculated. In contrast, the default gas utilization rates and by-
product formation rates in the current rule and in the proposed 
amendments are for ``unabated emissions'' and the uptime factor needs 
to be determined for each gas and process type combination to determine 
the relatively large percent of emissions that have been abated.
    To calculate an unabated emission factor during periods of downtime 
in the stack testing method, the reporter would divide the abated 
emission factor by (1-dif), where dif is the average weighted fraction 
of F-GHG i destroyed or removed in the POU abatement system(s) in the 
fab. The factor dif would be calculated using proposed Equation I-24 in 
subpart I, based on the gas consumption and destruction and removal 
efficiency (DRE) for the abatement system(s) for each gas and process 
type combination.
    When calculating annual emissions, the reporter would continue to 
collect abatement system downtime data and calculate the fraction of 
abatement system uptime for the fab. Excess emissions from abatement 
system downtime events would be determined based on the actual amount 
of downtime as a percent of the total annual abatement system operating 
time for the reporting year. If a fab had 2.0 percent downtime for the 
year, then the unabated emission factor would be applied to 2.0 percent 
of the gas consumption for the year to calculate the excess emissions. 
The abated emission factor would be applied to the other 98 percent of 
gas consumption for the fab. The excess emissions and the abated 
emissions would be added together to determine the total annual 
emission from the fab.
    Calculating an average fab-specific emission factor. The reporter 
would calculate an average fab-specific emission factor using proposed 
Equation I-19 in subpart I for each input F-GHG and proposed Equation 
I-20 for each by-product F-GHG, based on the testing results (average 
kg/hr) and the F-GHG gas consumption (average kg/hr). The fab-specific 
emission factor for each input F-GHG and each F-GHG formed as a by-
product would take into account the mass emission rate, the gas 
consumption, the abatement system uptime, and the F-GHG destroyed or 
removed from the abatement systems. The fab-specific emission factor 
for input gases would be in units of kg gas emitted per kg of the same 
gas consumed (kg/kg).
    For gases generated as by-products, we are proposing that the fab-
specific emission factor would be the mass of the by-product emitted 
divided by the summed masses of all the F-GHGs consumed, as presented 
in proposed Equation I-20. This equation would apply to those F-GHGs 
that are emitted only as by-products and not consumed as input gases.
    The reporter would calculate annual emissions for each F-GHG by-
product gas as the product of the fab-specific emission factor and the 
total annual amount of F-GHG consumed, corrected for any POU abatement 
system downtime as described in this section of the preamble.
    In some cases, emissions of a particular F-GHG input gas may exceed 
consumption of that gas because the F-GHG is generated as a by-product 
of the other input gases. This is often the case for CF4. In 
these cases, we are proposing that the reporter use 1.0 as the input F-
GHG emission factor and treat the remainder of that F-GHG's emissions 
as a by-product of the other input gases. The reporter would use 
Equation I-20 to calculate the emission factor for the by-product 
emissions. For example, if during the testing, the fab consumed 100 kg 
of an F-GHG, but the stack testing measured 300 kg of that gas, the 
reporter would assign 100 kg of that F-GHG as an input gas used in 
proposed Equation I-19, and 200 kg of that gas as a by-product gas used 
in proposed Equation I-20. In this instance, we are also proposing that 
the denominator in Equation I-20 would include the consumption of all 
other F-GHGs, with the exception of the F-GHG being included in the 
numerator. This treatment of the denominator reflects the fact that we 
are assuming that the F-GHG in the numerator is formed as a by-product 
from all other F-GHGs, while the emissions from the actual consumption 
of that F-GHG as an input are being accounted by proposed Equation I-
19. For calculating emissions from an F-GHG with an input emission 
factor equal to 1.0 and with a by-product emission factor, the input F-
GHG emissions would be assumed to equal consumption of that F-GHG, and 
the by-product emissions would be determined by multiplying the by-
product emission factor by the sum of the consumption of all F-GHGs 
excluding the by-product F-GHG.
    The advantage of this approach is that it reflects the physical 
mechanism through which emissions of an input gas exceed consumption of 
that gas. Because mass is conserved, the emissions of an input gas that 
are in excess of consumption of that gas must be attributable to the 
other input gases. These ``excess'' emissions are expected to vary with 
the facility's consumption of the other input gases rather than with 
the facility's consumption of the ``excessively'' emitted gas. 
Reflecting this in the by-product emission factor will lead to more 
accurate emission estimates and will help to prevent large swings in 
emission factors that could result when consumption of the 
``excessively'' emitted gas varies from test to test. For example, this 
could help a facility to avoid a 20 percent or greater relative 
standard deviation in its CF4 emission factor, which would 
otherwise prevent the facility from qualifying to skip testing for five 
years (see ``Testing frequency'' in Section III.B.1 of this preamble).
    Note that the proposed approach includes a simplification that 
would in some cases affect the ``extra'' emissions

[[Page 63549]]

that are reassigned as by-products of other input gases. This 
simplification, and its potential impacts are discussed in more detail 
in the document entitled ``Technical Support for the Stack Test Option 
for Estimating Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Electronics 
Manufacturing Facilities under Subpart I,'' Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0028. Although we expect that the effect of this simplification 
will generally be small, we are specifically requesting comment on the 
simplification.
    We are also specifically seeking comment on the proposed treatment 
of F-GHGs whose emissions exceed consumption, and comment on which F-
GHG should be included in the denominator of proposed Equation I-20 for 
calculating the emission factor for by-product F-GHG. The currently 
proposed equation includes all F-GHG used in the fab in the denominator 
for the calculation of all by-product F-GHGs, except when the emission 
factor for an input F-GHG exceeds 1.0. If the emission factor for a F-
GHG exceeds 1.0, the emissions greater than 1.0 would be assumed to be 
by-product F-GHG instead of un-utilized input F-GHG. This proposed 
approach is based on the assumption that all F-GHG used as inputs could 
be contributors of fluoride (F) atoms that could be involved in the 
formation of F-GHG by-product gases, which are primarily carbon 
containing F-GHG, even if those input F-GHG do not contain carbon, such 
as SF6 or NF3. An alternative approach on which 
the EPA is seeking comment is not to include in the denominator 
SF6, NF3, and other F-GHG that do not contain 
carbon (C) atoms, assuming that they are less involved in the formation 
of carbon containing by-product F-GHG than the F-GHG used as inputs 
that contain carbon.
    Testing frequency. Based on the potential for multiple process 
changes and numerous R&D activities that may affect emissions at an 
individual facility, as discussed in the Petition for Reconsideration, 
the EPA is proposing in 40 CFR 98.94(j)(5)(i) to require annual testing 
of each stack system and annual calculation of emission factors, 
excluding those low-emitting stack systems that are exempt from 
testing. However, to offer flexibility, the EPA is also proposing in 40 
CFR 98.94(j)(5)(ii) to allow reduced testing frequency based on 
variability in measured emission factors. If the reporter meets 
criteria for low measured variability in emission factors calculated 
from the test results, then testing frequency could be reduced to every 
5 years instead of annually. Under this option, a reporter would 
conduct a minimum of three emission tests for each non-exempt stack, 
with at least 2 months between the tests on a single stack system. All 
tests could be done in one year, or the reporter could use three annual 
tests for this analysis. If the relative standard deviation (RSD) of 
the emission factors calculated from each of the three tests, expressed 
as CO2e for all F-GHG combined, was less than or equal to 15 
percent, and the RSD of the emission factors for each single F-GHG that 
individually accounts for 5 percent or more of CO2e 
emissions was less than 20 percent, the facility could use the averages 
of the three emission factors for each F-GHG for annual reporting for 
that year and the next 4 years without testing, unless conditions 
change that affect the emission factors and trigger retesting, as 
specified in proposed 40 CFR 98.94(j)(8) and described in this section 
of the preamble. If the variability between the three tests did not 
meet these criteria, then the facility would use the emission factors 
from the most recent testing for reporting for that year and continue 
the annual testing. Facilities could repeat the RSD analysis each year 
using the previous three sets of data. We anticipate that this 
provision will provide additional incentive for careful measurements of 
emissions and gas consumption during each stack test to maximize the 
repeatability of the results in subsequent tests.
    In addition, previously completed tests that were performed and 
verified according to EPA Method 320 or an alternative method validated 
using EPA Method 301 could be applied towards the three tests required 
under this option, as long as all three tests were completed no earlier 
than the date 3 years before the date of publication of the final rule 
amendments and they meet the final rule requirements for stack testing, 
which are being proposed under 40 CFR 98.94(j). Allowing facilities to 
use prior completed tests would allow them to use data that were 
collected in support of developing this proposed stack testing option, 
and in support of developing the revised default gas utilization rates 
and by-product formation rates that are also being proposed in this 
action. The reporter would be required to conduct testing of each stack 
system, regardless of the results of the most recent stack tests, if 
certain changes take place in the reporter's annual consumption of F-
GHGs or in the equipment and processes at the fab. Testing would need 
to be repeated to develop a new fab-specific emission factor if 
consumption of a specific input gas used during the emissions test 
changes by more than 10 percent of total annual gas consumption in 
CO2e, relative to gas consumption in CO2e for 
that gas during the year in which the most recent emissions test was 
conducted. For example, if use of a single gas goes from 25 percent of 
CO2e to more than 35 percent of CO2e, that would 
trigger the need for a new test. If there is a change in the reporter's 
use of an intermittent low-use F-GHG that was not used during the 
emissions test and not reflected in the fab-specific emission factor, 
such that it no longer meets the proposed definition of intermittent 
low-use F-GHG (see ``Stack testing requirements'' in Section III.B.1 of 
this preamble), the reporter would also be required to re-test using 
that gas. Additionally, if there is: (1) A decrease by more than 10 
percent in the fraction of tools with abatement systems, compared to 
the fraction of tools with abatement systems during the most recent 
emissions test; (2) a change in the wafer or substrate size used by the 
fab since the most recent emissions test; or (3) a change in a stack 
system that formerly met the criteria for not being subject to testing 
such that it no longer meets those criteria, then the reporter would 
also be required to re-test.
    Finally, if a reporter is using a F-GHG that was not used during 
the emissions test, the reporter would be required to conduct 
additional stack tests in that year during a period when that gas is 
being used to determine an emission factor for that gas. If a F-GHG is 
no longer used or is an intermittent low-use gas, re-testing would not 
be required, and F-GHG emissions would be calculated according to the 
process for intermittent low-use gases.
    The EPA is specifically soliciting comment on other changes that 
may occur at a fab, including the adoption of specific new process 
technologies that should be included in the list of activities that 
would be expected to affect emissions to the point that those changes 
should require a fab to retest the stacks to develop new emission 
factors.
    As stacks are re-tested, reporters would update the fab-specific 
emission factors with the new data from those stacks, replacing the 
data from the earlier testing of the same stack. The reporters would 
also be required to annually review the current data for determining 
which stacks were exempt from testing to ensure that the low-emitting 
stacks still qualify for exemption. If a stack no longer meets the 
criteria for exemption from testing as a low-emitting stack, it would 
need

[[Page 63550]]

to be tested and the fab-specific emission factor would need to be 
recalculated including those data. This provision would ensure that the 
fab-specific emission factors determined through testing are based on 
approximately 85 percent of the F-GHG consumed in the fab on a 
CO2e basis. Finally, if a requirement to re-test stacks were 
triggered, facilities would also be required to re-evaluate the RSD of 
the emission factors including the most recent test results and the 
previous two test results to see if they still complied with the 
provisions that allow them to skip testing. If they did not meet those 
provisions, they would have to resume annual testing for at least the 
next 3 years to complete a new RSD analysis. Even if they met those 
requirements, they still would be required to resume annual testing no 
later than the fifth year after the original RSD analysis that was 
performed before the retesting requirement was triggered.
    We specifically request comment on the proposed option to allow 
less frequent emission testing (i.e., the 5-year testing exemption). 
Commenters are encouraged to supply rationale and any available data in 
support of submitted comments.
2. Revise the Default Gas Utilization Rates and By-Product Formation 
Rates for the Plasma Etch Process Category for Facilities That 
Manufacture Semiconductors
    The EPA is proposing to amend the default plasma etch and chamber 
cleaning gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates and the 
requirements in 40 CFR 98.93(a)(2) for estimating F-GHG emissions from 
plasma etch processes at semiconductor manufacturing facilities. The 
EPA is not proposing to amend the default emission factors for other 
types of electronics manufacturing facilities. As discussed in this 
section of this preamble, the current provisions allow certain 
facilities the option to use default plasma etch and chamber cleaning 
rates based on wafer size, gas input, and process type/sub-type. The 
default emission factors are based on two different wafer size classes 
(one set of default emission factors for both 150 mm and 200 mm wafers 
combined, and a second set of default emission factors for 300 mm 
wafers) and five process types/sub-types (plasma etching; chamber 
cleaning including in situ plasma cleaning, remote plasma cleaning, in 
situ thermal cleaning; and wafer cleaning).
    As discussed in this section of this preamble, following the 
promulgation of the final subpart I rule, the Petitioner submitted 
additional utilization and by-product formation data for various size 
wafers (200 mm and 300 mm) from semiconductor manufacturing facilities. 
The Petitioner requested that the EPA consider revising the default gas 
utilization rates and by-product formation rates based on gas input, 
process type, and wafer size. They also requested that the rule be 
revised to allow all semiconductor manufacturing facilities to use the 
revised default emission factors in lieu of requiring certain 
manufacturers to develop recipe-specific utilization rates and by-
product formation rates (see ``Technical Support for Modifications to 
the Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimation Method Option for 
Semiconductor Facilities under Subpart I,'' Docket ID. No EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0028).
    The Petitioner, in documents submitted to the EPA after the 
Petition for Reconsideration, also questioned the EPA's establishment 
of separate default gas utilization rates and by-product formation 
rates for the wafer cleaning process type in the final subpart I rule. 
The Petitioner stated that the wafer cleaning process represents a very 
small fraction of overall semiconductor manufacturing GHG consumption 
and emissions. At 12 facilities analyzed by the Petitioner, wafer 
cleaning represented 1 percent or less of the gas used at each 
facility. The Petitioner also noted that wafer cleaning is basically 
the same process as the wafer plasma etch process (see ``Technical 
Support for Modifications to the Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Emission 
Estimation Method Option for Semiconductor Facilities under Subpart 
I,'' Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028). Plasma etching is defined in 
40 CFR 98.98 as ``a process type that consists of any production 
process using fluorinated GHG reagents to selectively remove materials 
from a substrate during electronics manufacturing.'' Wafer cleaning is 
defined in 40 CFR 98.98 as ``a process type that consists of any 
production process using fluorinated GHG reagents to clean wafers at 
any step during production.'' The Petitioner stated in documents 
submitted to the EPA that the tools specifically designated for wafer 
cleaning are using the same gases in plasma to remove materials as used 
in the tools designated for plasma etching. The Petitioner also noted 
that the gas utilization rates for wafer cleaning and plasma etching in 
subpart I are similar for the four gases most commonly used in both 
plasma etch and wafer cleaning (CF4, 
CH2F2, NF3, and SF6), 
especially for SF6 and CF4. The Petitioner also 
provided additional data to support their recommendation to combine the 
wafer cleaning process type with the plasma etch process type (see 
``Technical Support for Modifications to the Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas 
Emission Estimation Method Option for Semiconductor Facilities under 
Subpart I,'' Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028).
    In response to the concerns raised in the Petition for 
Reconsideration about the recipe-specific measurements, the EPA is 
proposing to amend the default utilization and by-product formation 
rates for the semiconductor manufacturing industry. Based on the 
amendments in the September 27, 2011 final rule titled ``Changes to 
Provisions for Electronics Manufacturing to Provide Flexibility,'' the 
larger semiconductor facilities that manufacture wafers measuring 300 
mm or less may use the default utilization and by-product formation 
rates currently in subpart I to estimate emissions, instead of the 
recipe-specific method that would have otherwise been required, only 
through December 31, 2013.
    First, the EPA is proposing that all semiconductor manufacturing 
facilities, regardless of manufacturing capacity, would have the option 
to calculate F-GHG emissions from the plasma etching process type using 
the appropriate default gas utilization rates and by-product formation 
rates provided in Tables I-3 and I-4 of subpart I. We would no longer 
distinguish between ``large'' and ``other'' semiconductor manufacturing 
facilities based on the calculated annual manufacturing capacity. That 
distinction exists in the current subpart I because the EPA chose not 
to require the recipe-specific method for the ``other'' semiconductor 
manufacturing facilities. However, the calculation methods we are 
proposing in today's action would apply to all semiconductor 
manufacturing facilities. Under this proposal, no electronics 
manufacturing facility would have the option to determine and use 
recipe-specific gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates 
for the plasma etch process type, as described in Section III.B.3 of 
this preamble. The EPA is proposing to remove the distinction between 
large and other semiconductor facilities, such that all semiconductor 
manufacturing facilities could use the default gas utilization rates 
and by-product formation rates, independent of facility size. The EPA 
had required only the largest semiconductor manufacturing facilities to 
use the recipe-specific plasma etch method to ensure that smaller 
facilities

[[Page 63551]]

had a lower burden consistent with their lower expected F-GHG 
emissions. However, in proposing to remove the recipe-specific plasma 
etch method, the burden on the largest facilities would be reduced 
significantly and would eliminate the need to distinguish between 
``large'' and ``other'' semiconductor manufacturing facilities.
    Second, we are proposing to revise the default emission factors for 
the plasma etch process type in Tables I-3 and I-4 of subpart I. The 
proposed revised default emission factors are based on an expanded data 
set provided to the EPA by semiconductor manufacturing facilities after 
subpart I was originally promulgated in December 2010. The data were 
provided to the EPA in support of the Petitioner's request to develop 
alternatives to the recipe-specific method. The proposed revised plasma 
etch default emission factors are based on 976 data records 
(representing additional data submitted after December 1, 2010; see the 
EPA's analysis in ``Technical Support for Modifications to the 
Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimation Method Option for 
Semiconductor Facilities under Subpart I,'' Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0028), whereas the plasma etch default emission factors in the 
final subpart I are based on 93 records. As in the final rule, the 
proposed plasma etch default emission factors were developed using data 
characterizing un-abated emissions for specific process equipment that 
follows a version of the International SEMATECH Manufacturing 
Initiative (ISMI) measurement guidelines. Because the set of tool 
manufacturers and processes included in the 976 data records is larger 
than that included in the 93 records, the proposed revised plasma etch 
default emission factors are expected to be more representative of the 
F-GHG emitting processes and tools than the default emission factors in 
the final subpart I rule promulgated in December 2010. However, please 
see the ``Technical Support for Modifications to the Fluorinated 
Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimation Method Option for Semiconductor 
Facilities under Subpart I,'' Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028, for 
more discussion of this issue and of the estimated uncertainty 
associated with the use of the default emission factor approach.
    In developing the proposed revised default emission factors for the 
plasma etch process type in semiconductor manufacturing, the EPA 
considered alternatives that would reduce the burden compared to the 
recipe-specific approach in the current rule, while still providing F-
GHG emission estimates with generally acceptable uncertainty.\2\ The 
EPA considered including film type as a variable in the tables of 
default emission factors for the plasma etch process type, in addition 
to the input gas type and wafer size. However, based on the EPA and the 
Petitioner's analysis of the available data, the EPA determined that 
including film type would provide only a marginal improvement (about 4 
percent) in the uncertainty of the emission estimates, but it would 
also introduce a potential for error because F-GHG consumption would 
need to be apportioned to plasma etch processes based on the film type 
being etched. The potential error introduced by apportioning F-GHG 
consumption by film type would offset the reduction in uncertainty by 
including the film type. In addition, including film type would also 
increase the burden associated with this approach because facilities 
would need to apportion gas consumption by film type. The EPA also 
considered establishing default emission factors for different sub-
types of the plasma etch process type. However, based on an analysis of 
the available data, no difference in default emission factors could be 
accurately determined for any identifiable sub-type of the plasma etch 
process type. Based on these findings, the EPA concluded that including 
only input F-GHG type and wafer size in the default emission factors 
for the plasma etch process type would achieve the best balance between 
the burden and uncertainty in estimating F-GHG emissions from the 
plasma etch process type. (See ``Technical Support for Modifications to 
the Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimation Method Option for 
Semiconductor Facilities under Subpart I,'' Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0028.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The EPA performed an uncertainty analysis that found that, 
depending on the wafer size and gas usage patterns of the fab, the 
default emission factor approach would result in estimates with 
uncertainties between approximately 10 and 40 percent; see 
``Technical Support for Modifications to the Fluorinated Greenhouse 
Gas Emission Estimation Method Option for Semiconductor Facilities 
under Subpart I,'' Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA also considered two averaging conventions in developing the 
proposed revised default by-product emission factors for etch process 
input F-GHG for multi-gas processes. The first convention used the 
simple arithmetic mean of all available by-product emission factor data 
where a non-zero measurement was recorded. This method averaged all 
available non-zero by-product emission factor data (by by-product) for 
each gas, wafer size, process type or sub-type combination. This 
approach is appropriate if zeros indicate that a by-product was not 
looked for during the test.
    The second convention used the simple arithmetic mean of all 
available by-product emission factor data, but included the use of 
zeros when by-product emissions were not recorded. This method averaged 
all available by-product emissions factor data (by by-product) 
including records that did not indicate by-product emissions (zeros) 
for each gas, wafer size, process type or sub-type combination. This 
approach is appropriate if zeros indicate that a by-product was looked 
for during the test, but was not detected.
    The EPA compared the resulting by-product emission factors from 
using both averaging conventions. The comparison showed that including 
versus not including the zeros for cases where no detected by-product 
was reported resulted, on average, in a 38 to 45 percent difference in 
the by-product emission factors (see ``Technical Support for 
Modifications to the Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimation 
Method Option for Semiconductor Facilities Under Subpart I,'' Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028).
    Because the EPA was not certain whether zeros indicate that 
particular by-products were not looked for or whether they were looked 
for but not detected, we are conservatively proposing by-product 
emission factors that do not include zeros. We specifically request 
comment on whether and to what extent zeros in the emission factor data 
indicate that a by-product was looked for, but not detected. We also 
specifically request comment on what the detection limits were for such 
by-products. To the extent that zeros represent instances where a by-
product was looked for, but not detected, we recognize that not 
including zeros in the by-product emission factor development may 
result in overstating by-product emissions. Therefore, we are 
specifically requesting comment on the method for averaging the 
available by-product emission factor data to determine the default by-
product emission factors.
    Third, the EPA is proposing to revise the default by-product 
formation rates for the chamber cleaning process type/sub-types in 
Tables I-3 and I-4 of subpart I. In developing the proposed default 
utilization and by-product emission factors for etch processes, the EPA 
also reviewed emissions from chamber cleaning processes for 
completeness. The EPA did not receive new data to support revised 
default

[[Page 63552]]

utilization rates for the chamber cleaning process type/sub-types 
established in the final subpart I rule. However, the EPA evaluated the 
averaging conventions used to develop the proposed revised default by-
product emission factors for etch processes for use in developing 
default by-product emission factors for the chamber cleaning process 
type/sub-types. Using data from the final subpart I rule, the EPA 
analyzed the emission estimates from chamber cleaning process type/sub-
types using the two averaging conventions described in this section of 
this preamble. Again, for simplicity, we are proposing to not include 
zeros for the development of by-product emission factors. As with the 
proposed revised default etch emission factors, the averaging 
comparison showed that including versus not including the zeros for 
cases where no detected by-product was reported could result in 
overstating by-product emissions. Therefore, we are proposing to follow 
the same averaging convention for chamber cleaning process type/sub-
types. The revised default by-product formation rates for the chamber 
cleaning process type/sub-types in Tables I-3 and I-4 of subpart I 
reflect the simple arithmetic mean of the available by-product emission 
factor data, without the use of zeros. As for the revised default etch 
emission factors, we are specifically seeking comment on the method for 
averaging the available by-product emission factor data to determine 
the default by-product emission factors for chamber cleaning process 
type/sub-types.
    Finally, the EPA is proposing to combine the semiconductor wafer 
cleaning process type with the plasma etch process type; the amended 
rule would not have separate default emission factors for semiconductor 
wafer cleaning in the revised Table I-3 and I-4 of subpart I. The EPA 
has reviewed the available data (see ``Technical Support for 
Modifications to the Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimation 
Method Option for Semiconductor Facilities under Subpart I,'' Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028), and believes that it is appropriate to 
combine these process types. The same gases are used for plasma etch 
and wafer clean, with similar gas utilization rates and by-product 
formation rates, and the wafer clean process represents 1 percent or 
less of gas consumption at a typical facility. Furthermore, the burden 
associated with apportioning gas consumption to the various process 
types is expected to be reduced by combining the wafer cleaning and the 
plasma etch process types because some gases used for wafer cleaning 
are also used in etching processes.
    For the chamber clean process type, we are not proposing any 
changes to the three chamber clean sub-types. Under the revised default 
emission factors, semiconductor manufacturing facilities would estimate 
emissions from chamber clean and plasma etch processes using the 
following four process types/sub-types: (1) Plasma etch/wafer cleaning 
process type; and (2) chamber cleaning process type, including (2a) in 
situ plasma chamber cleaning; (2b) remote plasma chamber cleaning; and 
(2c) in situ thermal chamber cleaning.
    If gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates are not 
available for a gas/process combination in Tables I-3 or I-4 of subpart 
I, we are proposing that reporters would assume that the utilization 
and by-product formation rates are zero (i.e., assume that emissions of 
a gas equal consumption of that gas). This approach is consistent with 
the methodology in the current subpart I rule, except that we are 
proposing to remove the option for facilities to develop recipe-
specific factors.
    All other provisions related to the method using default gas 
utilization rates and by-product formation rates, such as the wafer 
size classes used for the default emission factors in Tables I-3 and I-
4, would remain the same. The only exception would be that the default 
emission factors in Table I-4 that apply to 300 mm wafers would also 
apply to wafers greater than 300 mm (e.g., 450 mm wafers). As more data 
(i.e., utilization and by-product formation rates) become available for 
the semiconductor manufacturing industry in the future, the EPA would 
consider adding new default emission factors to Tables I-3 and I-4 for 
new gas and process type/sub-type combinations, including adding any 
new default emission factors specifically for semiconductor 
manufacturing facilities using wafers greater than 300 mm diameter 
(e.g., 450 mm wafers). However, for this proposal, facilities using 
wafers greater than 300 mm diameter would use the same default emission 
factors as those using 300 mm wafers. Section III.B.12 of this preamble 
describes the proposed process for updating default emission factors as 
more information is collected from the electronics manufacturing 
industry.
    We request comment on whether new data are available for gas 
utilization and by-product formation rates for any of the process types 
or sub-types in the semiconductor manufacturing industry that could be 
used to further update the default emission factors for semiconductor 
manufacturing. Commenters are encouraged to submit available data with 
their comments using the ``Electronics Manufacturing Data Request 
Sheet'' (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028). Commenters can fill 
out the ``Electronics Manufacturing Data Request Sheet'' and submit the 
data to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028 for consideration by the EPA 
on whether to update the proposed default emission factors for 
semiconductor manufacturing. If the EPA does update the proposed 
default emission factors using such new data, if approved by the EPA, 
for the final rule, it will do so using the same methodologies as 
described in the ``Technical Support for Modifications to the 
Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimation Method Option for 
Semiconductor Facilities under Subpart I,'' Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0028). The EPA will use the same criteria for accepting new data 
that were used in accepting data as specified in that document.
    The EPA has not developed any specific changes to the default gas 
utilization rates and by-product formation rates for MEMS, LCD, and PV 
in Tables I-5 (MEMS), I-6 (LCD), and I-7 (PV) of subpart I because we 
have not received any new utilization and by-product formation rate 
data. However, we request comment on whether new data are available to 
update the default emission factors for the facilities that manufacture 
MEMS, LCD, or PV cells; commenters are encouraged to submit available 
data and supporting information with their comments using the 
``Electronics Manufacturing Data Request Sheet'' (see Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028). Commenters can fill out the ``Electronics 
Manufacturing Data Request Sheet'' and submit the data to Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028 for consideration by the EPA on whether to update 
the default emission factors for MEMS, LCD, or PV manufacturing. If the 
EPA does update the default emission factors using such new data, if 
approved by the EPA, it will do so using the same methodologies as 
described in the ``Technical Support for Modifications to the 
Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimation Method Option for 
Semiconductor Facilities under Subpart I,'' Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0028). The EPA will use the same criteria for accepting new data 
that were used in accepting data as specified in that document.

[[Page 63553]]

3. Removing the Provisions for Using Recipe-Specific Gas Utilization 
Rates and By-Product Formation Rates for Facilities That Manufacture 
Electronics
    The EPA is proposing to remove the provisions to use recipe-
specific gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates in 40 CFR 
98.93(a)(2)(ii)(A), (a)(3), and (a)(4). Under 40 CFR 98.93(a)(2)(ii)(A) 
of the final subpart I rule, semiconductor manufacturing facilities 
with an annual manufacturing capacity greater than 10,500 square meters 
of substrate per year manufacturing wafers with a diameter of 300 mm or 
less were required to use recipe-specific gas utilization rates and by-
product formation rates to estimate emissions for the plasma etch 
process. However, the September 27, 2011 final rule titled ``Changes to 
Provisions for Electronics Manufacturing to Provide Flexibility'' 
provided these facilities the option to use the default emission 
factors in lieu of recipe-specific rates for emissions estimated for 
the 2011, 2012, and 2013 reporting years. Under the current provisions 
(40 CFR 98.93(a)(3)), all electronics manufacturing facilities 
(including PV, MEMS, LCD, and semiconductor manufacturers) are given 
the option to estimate their F-GHG emissions using recipe-specific 
rates. Under 40 CFR 98.93(a)(4), semiconductor manufacturers are 
required to use recipe-specific rates for all F-GHG processes if 
manufacturing on wafers that are greater than 300 mm in diameter.
    After subpart I was promulgated on December 1, 2010 (75 FR 75774), 
the Petitioner requested the EPA to reconsider and remove the 
requirement to develop and use recipe-specific gas utilization rates 
and by-product formation rates for certain semiconductor manufacturing 
processes and facilities. The Petitioner cited three primary concerns 
with using recipe-specific rates in place of other methods:
     The technical burden of determining rates for numerous 
recipes used at a facility, which could number in the hundreds.
     The technical and logistical burden of tracking gas 
consumption and other facility parameters on a recipe-specific basis to 
accurately implement recipe-specific rates.
     Recipe-specific information could be used to reverse 
engineer individual recipes and otherwise compromise trade secrets.
    The Petitioner noted that the recipes used at a facility could 
number in the hundreds. In the Petition for Reconsideration, the 
Petitioner provided industry survey results for 19 facilities each 
having over 200 recipes, in which three facilities had over 500 
recipes, and two facilities had greater than 800 recipes. For 
facilities with R&D activities, the Petitioner noted that the number of 
unique recipes could run ``into the thousands.'' The Petitioner 
explained in the petition that the EPA defined individual recipes in a 
way that presumed that each recipe has a ``specific combination of 
gases'' ``used repeatedly'' and ``under specific conditions of reactor 
temperature, pressures, flow, radio frequency (RF) power and 
duration.'' The Petitioner stated that a manufacturer may have many 
complex recipes that are comprised of upwards of 20 or more individual 
steps that could each meet the rule definition of ``individual 
recipe,'' and that manufacturing facilities may run hundreds to 
thousands of such recipes per year. Because of the nature of the 
fabrication process, for each step, a recipe could specify a varying 
``combination of gases'' or a variety of distinct ``specific 
conditions.'' The petition stated that the EPA's definition of 
individual recipes could be interpreted to render each step in a 
complex recipe as a separate ``individual recipe'' that would need to 
be tracked and measured to determine recipe-specific utilization and 
by-product formation rates.
    The Petitioner also stated that the EPA's definition of ``similar 
recipes'' could result in each step of a complex recipe to be 
considered an ``individual recipe'' under subpart I, due to changes in 
the chemicals used and the specific conditions for each step. 
Furthermore, as discussed in Section III.B.5 of this preamble, the 
Petitioner asserted that many facilities integrate research and 
development activities into their production lines, and research 
requires an iterative process and introduces hundreds of recipe 
variations that would need to be accounted for. The Petitioner stated 
in the Petition for Reconsideration that the equipment and personnel do 
not currently exist in most facilities to perform the measurements, 
testing, and data collection that would be required under subpart I to 
develop gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates for every 
recipe or each recipe step. Specifically, the Petitioner provided an 
industry analysis with the Petition for Reconsideration that stated 
that only 5 of 24 surveyed facilities had the available equipment, and 
only one facility had personnel with the expertise to perform the 
testing to quantify emissions from individual recipes.
    The Petitioner further stated in the Petition for Reconsideration 
that tracking gas consumption and other facility parameters on a 
recipe-specific basis would present technical and logistical challenges 
to manufacturers. The Petitioner said that the infrastructure does not 
currently exist to perform the data collection and testing that would 
be required on a recipe-specific basis. The Petitioner stated in the 
petition that many facilities would need to make significant equipment 
expenditures in order to have the capability to measure and collect the 
gas consumption data at the recipe-specific level.
    In the Petition for Reconsideration, the Petitioner also stated 
that it is difficult to estimate the quantities of gas used in 
individual production processes and steps, and it is currently not 
possible to measure actual consumption because the points at which 
gases are used (the individual tools) are widely distributed throughout 
a facility. Although each individual process chamber has a mass flow 
controller to control the actual flow of each gas introduced in the 
chamber, collecting this information would require software 
modifications and the implementation of data gathering capability on 
the level of each tool at the facility, and then managing the data 
collected for all tools across the facility. In subsequent information 
provided to the EPA, the Petitioner stated that apportioning gas 
consumption to these points on a recipe-specific basis would introduce 
significant degrees of error that could affect the uncertainty of 
estimated emissions.
    In discussions with the EPA, the Petitioner also suggested that as 
an alternative to the recipe-specific approach, facilities may be able 
to estimate emissions using the allocation of F-GHG to specific process 
types, and an estimate of the overall DRE for those process types. 
However, because the Petitioner and EPA developed the other F-GHG 
estimation approaches being proposed today, this alternative method was 
not developed beyond an initial concept.
    In 2010, the EPA's goal was to publish default utilization rates 
and by-product formation rates for the electronics manufacturing 
industry that would provide accurate facility-level F-GHG emissions 
data. This would avoid the need for facilities to determine these rates 
on a recipe-specific basis. At that time, however, the emission data 
available to the agency was very limited, particularly with regard to 
F-GHG emissions from the plasma etch process for the semiconductor 
industry. At the final rule stage, we decided that we still had 
insufficient data for estimating

[[Page 63554]]

plasma etch process emissions using default emission factors for the 
largest facilities. For that reason, we required the largest facilities 
to report their facility-specific plasma etch data using a recipe-
specific approach. We intended to use these data to develop emission 
factors for incorporation into the rule at a later date. Subsequent to 
the publication of the final rule, the Petitioner provided a 
substantial amount of plasma etch data as described in this section of 
the preamble. We have used these data to develop improved emission 
factors for plasma etch processes. Thus, the recipe-specific approach 
is no longer a critical part of the rule. As described in Section 
III.B.12 of this preamble, we are also proposing a mechanism for 
gathering data from facilities on changes to their processes that may 
necessitate updates to the default emission factors. We anticipate this 
addition will ensure that the default emission factors continue to 
reflect facility emissions going forward.
    It is the EPA's position that the recipe-specific requirements in 
40 CFR 98.93(a)(2)(ii)(A), (a)(3), and (a)(4) are no longer necessary 
given the substantial amount of data submitted by the Petitioner 
following promulgation of subpart I, together with today's proposal to 
revise the default utilization and by-product formation rate method and 
introduce a stack testing method. Furthermore, the EPA believes the 
revised and alternative methods proposed today would provide reliable 
facility-specific data while avoiding in large part the potential 
concerns raised regarding the recipe-specific requirements with respect 
to technical difficulty, burden, and the protection of trade secret 
information. The EPA is proposing to remove the recipe-specific 
requirements and revise corresponding requirements in 40 CFR 98.94, 
98.96, and 98.97 to remove recipe-specific provisions.
    As described in Section III.B.2 of this preamble, after subpart I 
was promulgated, the EPA received additional data characterizing 
emissions from the semiconductor manufacturing industry and supporting 
revised default gas utilization and by-product formation rates for the 
plasma etch process. As discussed in Section III.B.2 of this preamble, 
we are proposing revised default utilization rate and by-product 
formation rates for the plasma etch and chamber cleaning process types. 
The EPA believes that the revised default emission factors (based on 
process type, gas, and wafer size) would provide reliable facility-
specific GHG data. Like other semiconductor manufacturing facilities, 
new facilities manufacturing semiconductors on wafers greater than 300 
mm diameter would not be required to develop recipe-specific gas 
utilization rates and by-product formation rates and would use either 
the default factors for 300 mm wafers or stack testing. In the future, 
the EPA will likely develop default gas utilization rates and by-
product formation rates specifically for facilities using wafers 
greater than 300 mm as that technology is implemented and emissions 
data are available and collected by the EPA (see Section III.B.12 of 
this preamble).
    As described in Section III.B.1 of this preamble, the EPA is also 
proposing to include a method using stack testing to develop fab-
specific F-GHG emission factors for all electronics manufacturing 
facilities. The EPA believes that the addition of the stack testing 
method would also provide representative facility-specific GHG data for 
all types of electronics manufacturing facilities, including new 
facilities manufacturing semiconductors on wafers greater than 300 mm 
diameter. Allowing a stack test approach in addition to the revised 
default emission factor approach would give reporters flexibility to 
choose from alternative methods if the recipe-specific approach is 
removed as the EPA is proposing. For example, facilities with a large 
number of stacks may prefer the default emission factor approach, 
whereas a facility with a small number of stacks may desire the stack 
test method. Compared to the recipe-specific approach, the default 
emission factor and stack test options would reduce or eliminate the 
burden, technical, and logistical feasibility concerns raised by the 
Petitioner.
    Finally, the proposed default gas utilization rates and by-product 
formation rate and stack test alternatives are more compatible with the 
existing infrastructure, equipment, data management, and recordkeeping 
systems currently used by the industry than the recipe-specific 
approach. The proposed approaches would ensure that the EPA would 
continue to receive representative data for characterizing the F-GHG 
emissions from the industry while reducing burden on reporting 
facilities.
    Although the EPA has deferred the mandatory use of recipe-specific 
gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates through the end of 
2013 (76 FR 59542, September 27, 2011), we are proposing that the 
requirements to use recipe-specific rates in 40 CFR 98.93(a)(2)(ii)(A), 
(a)(3), and (a)(4) would be removed and therefore no longer be 
effective beginning January 1, 2014. Under the proposed amendments, no 
semiconductor manufacturing facility would have the option to use the 
recipe-specific method or report those data elements after the end of 
2013. In addition, the recipe-specific method would be removed as an 
option for other electronics manufacturing facilities for the same 
reasons related to burden and technical feasibility that it would be 
removed for semiconductor manufacturing facilities.
    As described in Section II.B of this preamble, the proposed rule 
may not be finalized until the second half of 2013. Therefore, 
reporters currently using the recipe-specific methods of 40 CFR 
98.93(a)(2)(ii)(A), (a)(3), and (a)(4), if any, would be allowed to 
continue to use these methods for estimating 2013 emissions reported in 
2014. Following the January 1, 2014 effective date, reporters would be 
required to select new calculation methods to estimate emissions for 
2014 reported in 2015, and thereafter, based on the options in the 
final amendments to subpart I.
    Finally, we are also proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.93(a)(6) to 
remove the option to develop recipe-specific gas utilization rates and 
by-product formation rates for F-GHG and process combinations for which 
no default emission factors are available, and to revise 40 CFR 
98.93(b)(1)(i) and (b)(2)(i) to remove the option to develop facility-
specific N2O emission factors. These options would present 
essentially the same technical problems as the provisions for 
developing recipe-specific F-GHG rates elsewhere in the rule, including 
for the facility-specific N2O factors.
    Under 40 CFR 98.93(a)(6), facilities would assume that F-GHG 
emissions equal F-GHG consumption, which is equivalent to treating the 
utilization and by-product formation rates for gas and process 
combinations without default factors as both zero. However, the number 
of default gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates for 
different gas and process combination is sufficiently broad that the 
fraction of total emissions represented by emissions estimated under 40 
CFR 98.93(a)(6) would be minimal. Under the proposed revisions to 40 
CFR 98.93(b), facilities would use default N2O emission 
factors for both CVD processes and for the aggregate of all other 
manufacturing production processes, and would not have the option to 
develop facility-specific N2O emission factors.
    We specifically request comment on whether facilities are currently 
using or plan to use the recipe-specific approach from the final 
subpart I rule in 40 CFR 98.93(a)(6), or the facility-specific approach 
for N2O emissions in 40 CFR

[[Page 63555]]

98.93(b), for the 2013 reporting year or beyond and whether removal of 
these methods would significantly impact facilities.
4. Applicability and Calculating Annual Manufacturing Capacity for 
Facilities That Manufacture Electronics
    The EPA is proposing to revise the calculation to determine annual 
capacity for electronics manufacturing facilities, which is used in the 
calculation to determine whether a facility meets the reporting 
threshold. The current subpart I applicability threshold for 
semiconductor, MEMS, and LCD manufacturing relies on 2006 IPCC Tier 1 
emission factors \3\ and the annual manufacturing capacity of the 
facility. (For PV manufacturing, emissions for applicability 
determinations are determined by multiplying annual F-GHG purchases or 
consumption by the gas-appropriate GWPs.) Electronics manufacturing 
facilities with total facility emissions equal to or greater than 
25,000 mtCO2e must report under subpart I. For the 
applicability determination, emissions from the electronics 
manufacturing operations at the facility are calculated using the 
methods in 40 CFR 98.91 instead of the methods in 40 CFR 98.93. The 
current methods under 40 CFR 98.91 calculate emissions based on the 
maximum designed capacity of the facility (measured in surface area of 
substrate produced) and do not account for the effect of GHG abatement 
systems. Facilities whose total reported emissions, including the 
emissions from electronics manufacturing calculated according to 40 CFR 
98.93, are below the 25,000 mtCO2e threshold can stop 
reporting if they meet the criteria in 40 CFR 98.2(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas 
Inventories, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 
Programme, Eggleston H.S., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T. and Tanabe 
K. (eds). Hayama, Kanagawa, Japan. Available at: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current subpart I also requires different methods for 
semiconductor facilities to calculate and report their F-GHG emissions 
based on the annual manufacturing capacity of the semiconductor 
facility and the size of wafers the semiconductor facility is 
manufacturing.\4\ The facility's manufacturing capacity is calculated 
using Equation I-5, which specifies the manufacturing capacity as 100 
percent of the annual manufacturing capacity of a facility, as 
determined by summing the area of maximum designed substrate starts of 
a facility per month over the reporting period. ``Maximum designed 
substrate starts'' is currently defined in 40 CFR 98.98 as ``the 
maximum quantity of substrates, expressed as surface area, that could 
be started each month during a reporting year if the facility were 
fully equipped as defined in the facility design specifications and if 
the equipment were fully utilized. It denotes 100 percent of annual 
manufacturing capacity of a facility.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Facilities manufacturing MEMS, PVs, and LCDs use the same 
method regardless of facility manufacturing capacity. Facility 
manufacturing capacity is still used to determine applicability 
according to 40 CFR 98.91.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the publication of the final subpart I rule, the 
Petitioner stated in the Petition for Reconsideration that the maximum 
capacity calculation methods assume that a facility has both a full 
complement of equipment that corresponds to its design, and that the 
full complement of equipment is utilized to a maximum degree. The 
Petitioner stated that the reliance on a ``fully equipped'' facility 
and ``fully utilized'' equipment does not reflect the majority of 
semiconductor facilities, which may increase or reduce production to 
meet market demands or update their process to create new products. In 
the Petition for Reconsideration, the Petitioner noted that many 
facilities are built to reach a certain maximum capacity but are only 
equipped in stages (for example, one production line at a time), and 
that older facilities may have been built for a certain capacity but 
may only be used partially as part of the original equipment is sold or 
moved to a newer facility. The Petitioner requested that the method for 
calculating manufacturing capacity, including the definition of 
``maximum designed substrate starts,'' correlate to a facility's actual 
current equipped capacity.
    The EPA agrees that a facility's annual capacity may not be 
reflected by the designed capacity of a ``fully equipped'' and ``fully 
utilized'' facility, because some equipment that is part of the 
original design configuration may not yet be installed, or some 
equipment may be removed and not replaced. Therefore, the EPA is 
proposing to replace the phrase ``maximum designed substrate starts'' 
in Equation I-5 with the phrase ``maximum substrate starts.'' Likewise, 
we are proposing to replace the definition in 40 CFR 98.98 of ``maximum 
designed substrate starts'' with that for ``maximum substrate starts,'' 
which would mean ``the maximum quantity of substrates, expressed as 
surface area, that could be started each month during a reporting year 
based on the equipment installed in that facility and assuming that the 
installed equipment were fully utilized. Manufacturing equipment is 
considered installed when it is on the manufacturing floor and 
connected to required utilities.''
    A facility would continue to use Equation I-5, with this revision, 
to determine the annual manufacturing capacity of the facility to 
determine if they meet the threshold for reporting under subpart I.
    The proposed changes retain the requirement to calculate and report 
the maximum annual capacity of the facility (see 40 CFR 98.96(a)), but 
clarify that the maximum capacity is based on the equipment on-site in 
the reporting year, assuming it is fully utilized, rather than the 
design capacity.
    The proposed changes would not affect the applicability of subpart 
I to any facility that is already reporting GHG emissions under subpart 
I. If the proposed changes become final, facilities that are already 
reporting would not be able to re-calculate emissions using the 
procedures under 40 CFR 98.91 and cease reporting if they do not meet 
the revised applicability criteria. Facilities may cease reporting only 
if they meet the criteria in 40 CFR 98.2(i).
    We are also proposing to remove the requirement that semiconductor 
manufacturing facilities calculate and report their F-GHG emissions 
based on the annual manufacturing capacity of the facility and the size 
of wafers that the facility is manufacturing. Subpart I currently 
distinguishes between ``large'' and ``other'' semiconductor facilities 
based on the calculated annual manufacturing capacity. Except as 
provided in the September 27, 2011 final rule titled ``Changes to 
Provisions for Electronics Manufacturing to Provide Flexibility in 2011 
to 2013,'' subpart I requires ``large'' semiconductor facilities 
(facilities with an annual manufacturing capacity of greater than 
10,500 m\2\ of substrate) and those facilities that manufacture wafers 
greater than 300 mm in diameter to calculate emissions using recipe-
specific utilization and by-product formation rates. As discussed in 
Sections III.B.1 through III.B.3 of this preamble, we are proposing to 
revise the calculation methodologies for semiconductor manufacturers. 
The proposed calculation methods would apply to all semiconductor 
manufacturers and there is no longer a need to distinguish ``large'' 
facilities based on manufacturing capacity.

[[Page 63556]]

5. Integrated Production and R&D Activities for Facilities That 
Manufacture Electronics
    The October 30, 2009 final GHG reporting rule (74 FR 56260) defined 
research and development (R&D) activities as ``those activities 
conducted in process units or at laboratory bench-scale settings whose 
purpose is to conduct research and development for new processes, 
technologies, or products and whose purpose is not for the manufacture 
of products for commercial sale, except in a de minimis manner.'' (See 
40 CFR 98.6.) At that time, emissions from R&D were expected to be 
small, and these activities were not expected to significantly 
contribute to the total emissions from a reporting facility. The final 
subpart I rule (75 FR 74774, December 1, 2010) did not change the 
provisions for R&D activities, but deferred to the requirements found 
in 40 CFR part 98, subpart A.
    Following the publication of the final subpart I rule, the 
Petitioner stated in the Petition for Reconsideration that the final 
subpart I rule does not account for semiconductor manufacturing 
facilities that are unable to segregate their R&D activities from 
production manufacturing. The Petitioner stated in the petition that in 
order to remain globally competitive, semiconductor companies must 
engage in robust R&D efforts aimed at innovating new manufacturing 
processes and new recipes. The petition further stated that many 
semiconductor facilities integrate their R&D processes into their 
manufacturing facilities to better consider process manufacturability. 
The Petitioner stated that many facilities that have integrated R&D 
cannot segregate gas consumption and emissions from regular production 
activities.
    To date, no facilities covered by other source categories have 
requested a change to the R&D exemption. However, based on the 
additional information provided by facilities subject to subpart I, the 
EPA believes that certain facilities in the electronics manufacturing 
industry may have unique R&D activities that are integrated into 
production. In some cases, facilities with integrated R&D may use the 
same gases from the same containers for both R&D activities and normal 
production. The EPA agrees that for these electronics manufacturing 
facilities, it is not feasible to accurately segregate gas consumption 
for R&D activities from production activities without measuring 
consumption at the level of the individual tool, or by the individual 
wafer. (See ``Technical Support for Other Technical Issues Addressed in 
Revisions to Subpart I,'' Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028.) Because 
gas consumption is the basis for estimating emissions from the 
electronics industry, segregating gas consumption for R&D and 
production would be essential to segregating the emissions from the 
respective processes, and this is not currently feasible at many 
facilities. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to allow all electronics 
manufacturing facilities covered by subpart I who cannot segregate R&D 
emissions to report R&D emissions with their total facility emissions 
and to identify that emissions associated with R&D activities are 
included in their overall emissions estimates. We are also proposing 
that facilities reporting integrated R&D emissions must report an 
estimate of the range of the percentage of total emissions from their 
R&D activities as part of their annual report (see proposed 40 CFR 
98.96(x) and 40 CFR 98.97(j)).
6. Accuracy and Precision of Monitoring Instrumentation for Facilities 
That Manufacture Electronics
    Subpart I currently requires all flow meters, weigh scales, 
pressure gauges, and thermometers used for measurements to have an 
accuracy and precision of one percent of full scale or better (40 CR 
98.94(i)). In comments to the April 12, 2010 proposed subpart I rule 
(75 FR 18652), the Petitioner stated that many older facilities in the 
electronics manufacturing industry do not have the ability or the 
available instrumentation to measure all quantities, primarily F-GHG 
and N2O gas consumption, used to calculate GHG emissions to 
an accuracy and precision of 1 percent of full scale or better (see 
``Response to Public Comments, Subpart I--Electronics Manufacturing,'' 
Docket ID. No EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-0228). Therefore, these facilities 
would have difficulty achieving compliance with the accuracy and 
precision requirements of the subpart without purchasing and installing 
new measurement equipment. The Petitioner provided additional data in 
these comments and in the Petition for Reconsideration that these older 
facilities typically have accuracies of 2 to 4 percent, and requested 
that the accuracy requirements for subpart I account for the technical 
capabilities of older facilities, who may find installing new 
measurement equipment problematic based on existing equipment 
configurations.
    The EPA recognizes that some of the older facilities required to 
report under subpart I may have difficulty achieving compliance with 
the current accuracy and precision requirements. Additionally, the EPA 
evaluated the existing accuracy and precision requirements in 40 CFR 
part 98, subpart A, which require flow meters to have a calibration 
error of not more than 5 percent of the reference value (not full 
scale) (see 40 CFR 98.3(i)). The 5 percent calibration error 
requirements of 40 CFR 98.3(i) apply only to gas and liquid flow meters 
used to measure fuel, process streams, or feedstocks; they do not apply 
to weigh scales, pressure gauges, and thermometers. Under 40 CFR 
98.3(i), these latter measurement devices must be calibrated to meet 
the accuracy requirement specified for the device in the applicable 
source category subpart, or, in the absence of an accuracy requirement, 
the device must be calibrated based on other available standards, such 
as manufacturer's specifications and industry standards.
    The EPA is proposing to remove the 1 percent accuracy and precision 
requirements in subpart I (40 CFR 98.94(i)). Instead, we are proposing 
that electronics manufacturing facilities subject to subpart I would be 
required to meet the existing General Provision calibration accuracy 
requirements in subpart A (40 CFR 98.3(i)). This would provide a 
balance between the technical issues raised by the Petitioner and the 
need to gather data for F-GHGs and N2O with a reasonable 
degree of accuracy. The EPA believes that the subpart A requirements 
would be appropriate for electronics manufacturing facilities and would 
address the concerns of the older facilities. Under this proposal, the 
calibration accuracy requirements for gas flow measurement devices 
would be 5 percent, as specified in 40 CFR 98.3(i). Further, other 
measuring devices (e.g., weigh scales and thermometers) would be 
required to be calibrated to an accuracy based on an applicable 
operating standard, including, but not limited to, device 
manufacturer's specifications and industry standards (see 40 CFR 
98.3(i)(1)(i)).
    The EPA does not expect that this change will impact the accuracy 
of facility F-GHG and N2O emission estimates at facilities 
that are using measurement equipment that meets the one percent of full 
scale standard. It may affect the accuracy of F-GHG and N2O 
emission estimates at older facilities that have less accurate 
measurement equipment. However, the subpart A requirements, which 
appear in 40 CFR 98.3(i), still require an appropriate amount of 
accuracy in measurement equipment used for compliance. The accuracy 
requirements in subpart A that we propose to apply

[[Page 63557]]

to subpart I are a minimum requirement. Facilities that are currently 
meeting the higher accuracy standard in subpart I would be expected to 
continue to use the same monitoring equipment and achieve the same 
level of accuracy, and would not be expected to ``fall back'' to the 
minimum accuracy requirement in subpart A by, for example, replacing 
current equipment with less accurate monitoring equipment.
7. Facility-Wide Gas Specific Heel Factor for Facilities That 
Manufacture Electronics
    The 2010 final subpart I rule requires electronics manufacturing 
facilities to calculate emissions from gas consumption and account for 
the residual amount of gas left in containers that are returned to the 
gas supplier. This residual amount of gas is referred to as a ``heel.'' 
Facilities establish a trigger point based on cylinder weight or gas 
pressure for each gas and type or size of container used by the 
facility to indicate that the cylinder should be changed for a full 
one.
    Specifically, the final subpart I rule requires electronics 
manufacturing facilities to calculate a facility-wide heel factor for 
each gas to account for the amount of gas represented by the heel in 
the emissions calculations. Subpart I also requires facilities to ``re-
calculate a facility-wide gas-specific heel factor if you use a trigger 
point for change out for a gas and container type that differs by more 
than 5 percent from the previously used trigger point for change out 
for that gas and container type.'' Additionally, the final subpart I 
rule requires measuring the pressure or weight of the container when an 
exceptional circumstance occurs; an ``exceptional circumstance'' is a 
change out point that differs by more than 20 percent from the trigger 
point for change out used to calculate the facility-wide gas-specific 
heel factor for that gas and container type. See 40 CFR 98.94(b).
    The requirement to re-calculate the facility-wide gas-specific heel 
factor if the trigger point for change out differs by more than 5 
percent is one of the issues identified in the Petition for 
Reconsideration. In the Petition for Reconsideration, the Petitioner 
stated that the requirement is technically infeasible for certain 
facilities using small containers, because the level of accuracy 
associated with these measurements may not be achievable. Specifically, 
the Petitioner provided the example of a facility using a 20-pound 
cylinder with a trigger point of 2 pounds. The Petitioner stated that 
any change in this trigger point of more than 0.1 pounds would require 
a facility to ``recalculate a facility-wide gas specific heel factor,'' 
and any deviation in the actual change out point of more than 0.4 
pounds would require handling as an ``exceptional circumstance.'' The 
Petitioner stated that, in the context of using hundreds of cylinders, 
the re-calculation requirement presents a significant amount of 
management in terms of tracking and administrative tasks, for a minimal 
difference in the accuracy of the emission estimates reported.
    The EPA did not intend to require facilities to recalculate the 
facility-wide heel factor whenever the actual heel in a container 
deviated from trigger point by more than 5 percent. The EPA is 
proposing to amend the requirements to clarify that recalculating the 
heel factor is only needed when the trigger point for a specific gas 
and cylinder type is changed, and not as a result of variation in the 
actual heel remaining in a cylinder. The trigger point is changed by 
the facility operators to account for changes in the type or size of 
containers, or to reflect changes in the process operating requirements 
that would allow for a lower heel factor to be used to utilize a 
greater fraction of the gas in a container, or that may require a 
larger heel factor as a more conservative margin before a container is 
empty. Subpart I has separate provisions at 40 CFR 98.94(b)(4) to 
address exceptional circumstances in which the amount of heel in a 
cylinder deviates substantially from the usual trigger point. We are 
proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.94(b)(5) to clarify that a gas-specific 
heel factor must be recalculated when the facility executes a process 
change to modify the trigger point for a gas and container type that 
differs by more than 5 percent from the previously used trigger point 
for that gas and container type. The proposed amendments would clarify 
the EPA's intent that facilities recalculate the heel factor when there 
are process changes that would substantially alter the trigger point, 
and that facilities do not need to recalculate the heel factor to 
reflect variation in the actual heel quantities in cylinders.
    The EPA is also proposing to revise the ``exceptional 
circumstance'' criteria at 40 CFR 98.94(b)(4) with respect to small 
containers because while the current criteria are appropriate for large 
cylinders, treating small containers in the same manner may be 
burdensome. Specifically, we are proposing to revise the criteria for 
an ``exceptional circumstance'' in 40 CFR 98.94(b)(4) from 20 percent 
of the original trigger point for change out to 50 percent for small 
cylinders. We are proposing to define a small cylinder as a container 
that contains less than 9.08 kg (20 pounds) of gas. For large 
containers, the ``exceptional circumstance'' would remain as a change 
out point that differs by 20 percent of the trigger point used to 
calculate the gas-specific heel factor. We are proposing to revise the 
criteria for small containers to 50 percent to reduce the burden for 
facilities using small containers and still maintain the accuracy 
needed for accounting for the heel in both small and large containers. 
These proposed changes take into account the fact that a small amount 
of F-GHGs can account for a large fraction of the heel factor in a 
small container, and that normal variation in day-to-day container 
management could be more likely to trigger an ``exceptional 
circumstance.'' At the same time, the proposed revisions would still 
require facilities to directly measure the heel in cases where the 
cylinder change out deviated from the established trigger point. For 
example, a small 15-pound cylinder with a 2-pound trigger point would 
still need to be measured, in lieu of using the established heel 
factor, if the difference in the change out point was greater than 1 
pound. In this example, this 1-pound difference (based on the proposed 
50-percent criteria for an exceptional circumstance) represents less 
than 8 percent of the usable gas in the cylinder. Under the current 20-
percent criteria, a difference from the actual trigger point of 0.4 
pounds (20 percent of the 2-pound trigger point), would represent about 
3 percent of the usable gas in the cylinder. These small cylinders for 
which we are proposing to change the exceptional circumstance criteria 
generally represent a small percentage of overall gas consumption. The 
EPA understands that cylinder size is generally chosen to reflect 
overall consumption, with larger cylinder sizes chosen by the facility 
for those gases used in larger quantities.
8. Apportioning Model Verification for Facilities That Manufacture 
Electronics
    Subpart I requires electronics manufacturing facilities to estimate 
emissions from gas consumption and report the input gas consumed for 
each individual process sub-type or process type using Equation I-13. 
Equation I-13 requires the use of an apportioning factor, which is 
developed for F-GHG and N2O input gases using a facility-
specific engineering model, and is expressed as a fraction of the input 
gas used for each process sub-type or process type. Reporters have the 
flexibility to develop the model based on any quantifiable metric 
selected by the facility (such as wafer passes or wafer starts), but 
must verify the model

[[Page 63558]]

by comparing the modeled and actual gas use for the largest gas used 
for plasma etch and the largest gas used for chamber cleaning. 
Additionally, the difference between actual and modeled plasma etch gas 
consumption must not exceed 5 percent. The provisions of 40 CFR 
98.94(c)(2)(i) also require that for verifying the model, facilities 
analyze a 30-day period of operation during which the utilized capacity 
of the facility equals or exceeds 60 percent of its design capacity, or 
if the utilized capacity is less than 60 percent during the reporting 
year, a period during which the facility experiences its highest 30-day 
average utilization. This approach allows reporters to select the most 
appropriate quantifiable metric for their facility while providing 
consistent verification methods.
    The Petition for Reconsideration raised concerns that the 
verification requirements for the apportioning engineering model were 
overly burdensome. The Petitioner stated that the hardware and 
infrastructure for apportioning gas consumption by process type or sub-
type to meet this requirement are not in place at most facilities, and 
would require installation of additional equipment to measure and 
record gas consumption at the individual tool level for developing and 
confirming the model at the 5 percent accuracy level.
    However, the Petitioner also noted that some facilities may be 
configured such that they are able to apportion gas consumption to one 
or more process types or process sub-types based on gas connections and 
measured flow rates (see ``Technical Support for Other Technical Issues 
Addressed in Revisions to Subpart I,'' Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-
0028). They requested that the rule accommodate both a modeling and a 
measurement approach.
    The Petitioner also stated that the verification period criteria in 
40 CFR 98.94(c)(2)(i) are not practicable. Specifically, the Petitioner 
pointed out that the data needed to assess the period with the highest 
30-day average utilization may not be available until the end of the 
reporting year. As a result, facilities may not have enough time to 
identify and select the assessment period, complete and compare the 
modeling and measurement analysis, or make corrections prior to the 
applicable reporting deadline in the following year (see ``SIA Revised 
Proposal to Amend the Apportionment Model Validation Criteria in 40 CFR 
98.94(c),'' Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028). Based on these 
concerns, the Petitioner requested that the rule be revised to allow 
facilities to select a period of operation for model verification that 
is representative of normal operation, up to and including the full 
calendar year of operation.
    Additionally, in the Petition for Reconsideration the Petitioner 
questioned the requirement to demonstrate that the model provides a 
measurement of gas consumption that is accurate to within 5 percent of 
the actual measurement. The petition stated that data provided from one 
manufacturer showed that, for a single tool running two recipes, the 
difference between modeled gas consumption and actual gas consumption 
was greater than 5 percent (see ``Verification Tests to Demonstrate 
Difficulty of Achieving 5 percent Limit,'' Docket ID. No EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0028). The Petitioner explained that facilities running a number 
of tools with a larger number of recipes would have greater 
uncertainties and would be unable to meet the verification requirements 
of the final rule. Furthermore, they stated that some facilities would 
require monitoring, collecting, and analyzing data from the mass flow 
meters for all tools to accurately model, verify, and achieve the 5 
percent verification requirement.
    The EPA received comments with similar concerns in response to the 
June 22, 2011 proposed rule titled ``Changes to Provisions for 
Electronics Manufacturing (Subpart I) To Provide Flexibility'' (76 FR 
36472). In the preamble to the corresponding final rule (76 FR 59542, 
September 27, 2011), the EPA responded that apportioning is a 
particularly important component in estimating emissions of F-GHGs from 
electronics manufacturing because the consumption of gas by process 
type or sub-type is one of the major sources of error in estimating GHG 
emissions. The EPA also noted in that response that facilities that 
could not meet the apportioning model verification requirements in 
subpart I had the option to apply for, and if approved by the 
Administrator, use BAMM in 2011, 2012, and 2013. The EPA reported in 
that preamble that we had received only a small number of requests to 
use BAMM, relative to the number of facilities expected to report under 
subpart I. The EPA concluded that while some facilities were unable to 
meet the model verification requirements, the problem was limited.
    Despite the problem being limited to particular facilities, the EPA 
wants to ensure that all facilities can comply with subpart I. The EPA 
recognizes that some facilities may still not be able to meet the 
present apportioning model verification requirements in 40 CFR 
98.94(c)(2), even though other changes being proposed today would 
reduce the need to apportion gas consumption. For example, the proposed 
stack test alternative and the revised default utilization and by-
product formation rates would reduce the need to apportion gas among 
tools or process types. According to the Petitioner, the situation 
would be most complicated for semiconductor facilities using 150 or 200 
mm wafers because they would typically need to apportion three to five 
different gases between plasma etch and chamber cleaning process types. 
At 300 mm fabs, NF3 appears to be the only gas that needs to 
be apportioned between plasma etch and chamber cleaning process types, 
based on information provided by the Petitioner.
    Even though facilities would have a reduced need to apportion gas 
consumption between the plasma etch and chamber clean process types, 
the EPA recognizes that many would still need to apportion gas 
consumption between abated and unabated tools and, if they were to use 
the proposed stack testing option, they may also need to apportion gas 
consumption between stack systems that are tested and those that are 
not. As a result, certain facilities would still face issues of 
technical feasibility in meeting the apportioning model verification 
requirement requiring a 5 percent maximum difference between modeled 
and actual F-GHG consumption.
    In light of these concerns, the EPA is proposing to amend the 
verification requirements. First, the proposed amendments would allow 
reporters the option to use direct measurements of gas consumption to 
avoid the need to develop an apportioning model, and to develop an 
apportioning factor for each process type, sub-type, stack system, or 
fab using gas flow meters or weigh scales because direct measurements 
would provide the most accurate data for analysis. However, the 
proposed rule would retain the option to use an apportioning model to 
allow for greater flexibility for electronics manufacturers and reduce 
the burden for facilities with a larger number of tools, gases, or 
process types and sub-types. The model verification requirements would 
be retained to ensure that reporters across the industry are providing 
data of consistent quality. Reporters opting to use the apportioning 
model would be required to verify the model by comparing actual gas 
consumption to modeled gas consumption. The reporter would select for 
comparison the F-GHG that corresponds to the largest quantity, on a 
mass basis, of F-GHG used at the

[[Page 63559]]

fab that has to be apportioned. Reporters would have the flexibility to 
verify the model for two F-GHGs on an aggregate use basis if one of the 
gases selected is used in the largest quantity at each fab. In this 
option, the predicted total volume consumed of the two gases combined 
would be required to match the actual total volume consumed within the 
verification percent difference requirements for the apportioning 
model. Reporters would use this latter option to account for the fact 
that they may not be able to predict which gas will be used in the 
largest quantity as of the end of the year, but they want to verify the 
model at some point early in the year. For example, a facility may 
predict that one of two gases, CF4 and 
C2F6, would be used in the largest quantity as of 
the end of the year, but they do not know which one. However, they 
believe that the two-month period from March to April is the most 
representative period of operations, and they may select that period 
because that is when they will be performing stack testing. The 
facility could verify the model for both gases based on data from March 
and April. At the end of the year, the facility would confirm that at 
least one of those two gases was used in the highest quantity and both 
gases met the verification criteria on an aggregate basis. Reporters 
would be required to correct the model if it did not meet the 
verification requirements.
    Second, where a facility opts to develop and use an apportioning 
model, we are also proposing to revise the verification standard to 
increase the allowable difference between the actual and modeled gas 
consumption from a maximum 5 percent difference to a maximum of 20 
percent difference. The data provided in an industry analysis submitted 
with the Petition for Reconsideration have shown that the 5 percent 
difference criterion would be difficult to achieve under most operating 
scenarios and would require installation of additional equipment. 
Increasing the allowable difference between the actual and modeled gas 
consumption from a maximum 5 percent difference to a maximum 20 percent 
difference would also reduce the burden on facilities by providing 
greater flexibility in the methods they use for modeling gas 
consumption. This will reduce the potential that they will need to 
purchase and install new equipment to measure, record, and analyze data 
for gas consumption at the level of the individual tool, process type, 
or process sub-type.
    As a result of other rule changes being proposed today, including 
the combining of the wafer clean and plasma etch process categories for 
semiconductor manufacturing and the elimination of the use of recipe-
specific gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates for 
semiconductor manufacturing, the number of gases that would need to be 
apportioned among process types and sub-types would be reduced for 
semiconductor manufacturing facilities, especially for semiconductor 
manufacturing facilities using 300 mm wafers. For facilities that are 
using 300 mm, only NF3 is commonly used in both the plasma 
etch and chamber clean process types. For facilities that are using 150 
mm or 200 mm wafers, several F-GHG are used in both the plasma etch and 
chamber clean process types. Therefore, the potential effect of the 
proposed increase in the allowable difference between modeled and 
actual gas consumption on overall uncertainty of the GHG emission 
estimates has been minimized for semiconductor manufacturing facilities 
using 300 mm wafers that need to apportion gas usage among process 
types or sub-types compared to the standards promulgated in December 
2010. However, it is not clear what effect this change will have on 
facilities using 150 mm and 200 mm wafers because of the number of 
gases that are used in both plasma etching and chamber cleaning process 
types.
    The proposed change in the apportioning model criteria would also 
apply to LCD, MEMS, and PV manufacturing facilities. For LCD 
manufacturing, only SF6 is commonly used in both the plasma 
etching and chamber cleaning process types and would need to be 
apportioned between those process types. For both MEMS and for PV, 
several F-GHGs are typically used in both the plasma etching and 
chamber cleaning process types and would need to be apportioned between 
the two process types.
    It is also important to note that facilities would be required to 
apportion gas consumption between tools and processes for which they 
are claiming emission reductions as a result of abatement systems, and 
some facilities do not have abatement systems on all of their tools. 
For these reasons, we are specifically seeking comment on the need to 
change the verification model criterion from 5 percent maximum allowed 
difference to 20 percent, and the effect that this proposed change may 
have on the error or uncertainty associated with the F-GHG emission 
estimates at facilities that need to apportion several gases between 
process types, or between tools that do or do not have abatement 
systems.
    We also agree with the Petitioner that facilities should be able to 
select a longer period of operation as the basis for verifying their 
apportioning models. We agree that they should be able to compare 
modeled to actual gas consumption for the whole year to verify the 
model, because it may be difficult to identify in advance a shorter 
period that meets the production criteria in 40 CFR 98.94(c)(2)(i). The 
current rule specifies that facilities analyze a period of at least 30-
days operation to verify the model, but does not specify a maximum 
allowed period; it specifies a minimum of 30 days to ensure that data 
are representative of normal operation.
    We are also proposing to allow the facility to select a period of 
the reporting year when the fab is at a ``representative operating 
level'' for the model verification, instead of at a minimum percent of 
design capacity, or instead of at the highest 30-day average 
utilization. The concept of a representative operating level would 
replace the current requirement in 40 CFR 98.94(c)(2)(i) that the 
facility be operating at 60 percent or more of its design capacity 
during the model verification, or that the verification occur during 
the period with the highest 30-day average for facility utilization if 
the facility operates below 60 percent of design capacity. The 
Petitioner pointed out that, under the current rule, it is difficult 
for a facility operating below 60 percent capacity to determine which 
30-day period would have the highest average facility utilization. 
Furthermore, a facility that performs a validation early in the year 
while operating at less than 60 percent capacity may need to repeat the 
verification if production dramatically increased later in the year 
such that the facility was operating above 60 percent of design 
capacity. (The proposed amendment to adopt the definition of a 
``representative operating level'' is described in detail in Section 
III.B.1 of this preamble.)
    Under this proposal, the representative period would still be at 
least 30 days, but we are proposing to clarify that it can be up to the 
whole calendar reporting year in duration. Because the proposed 
requirements would allow the use of a representative operating level, 
facilities would be able to determine the assessment period with less 
chance of having to repeat the verification, complete and compare the 
modeling and measurement analysis, and make corrections to the model, 
if needed, prior to the March report submittal deadline for a given 
reporting year.

[[Page 63560]]

9. Calculating N2O Emissions for Facilities That Manufacture 
Electronics
    The EPA is proposing to revise the language for calculating 
N2O emissions in 40 CFR 98.93(b) to clarify that reporting 
is at the fab level. In the Petition for Reconsideration, the 
Petitioner requested clarification of the requirements to calculate 
annual facility-level N2O emissions for CVD processes for 
electronics manufacturing facilities. The current subpart I states in 
40 CFR 98.93(b) that facilities ``must calculate annual facility-level 
N2O emissions from each chemical vapor deposition process 
and other electronics manufacturing production processes.'' However, 40 
CFR 98.96(c)(3) specifies reporting ``N2O emitted from each 
chemical vapor deposition process and from other N2O-using 
manufacturing processes as calculated in Equation I-10 of this 
subpart.'' The Petitioner indicated that this difference in language 
led to confusion as to whether the EPA intended to require facility-
level calculation and reporting of N2O emissions for CVD 
processes, or whether facilities must apportion gas consumption to 
individual CVD processes and other individual N2O-using 
processes.
    The EPA intended to require facilities to report the N2O 
emissions from all CVD processes combined and from all other 
manufacturing processes combined, including wafer plasma etch and 
chamber cleaning, using the amount of N2O consumed, the 
process utilization factor for the process, and the fraction of 
N2O destroyed by abatement systems. The proposed amendments 
would clarify that facilities calculate and report emissions at the fab 
level for the aggregate of all CVD processes and for the aggregate of 
all other N2O-using processes. We are proposing that 
facilities will use only the default N2O utilization factors 
in proposed Table I-8 of subpart I, one for CVD processes and one for 
all other N2O-using processes. This approach is consistent 
with the requirements to calculate emissions of F-GHGs from each 
process type or sub-type.
    The EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.93(b) to read as follows: 
``You must calculate and report annual fab-level N2O 
emissions from all chemical vapor deposition processes and from the 
aggregate of other electronics manufacturing production processes.'' 
The ``aggregate of other electronics manufacturing production 
processes'' would represent the combination of wafer plasma etch and 
wafer cleaning categories using N2O, and any other 
electronics manufacturing production processes using N2O. 
Therefore, facilities would report two N2O emission values 
for each fab at a facility: One for the aggregate of the chemical vapor 
deposition processes and one for the aggregate of other electronics 
manufacturing production processes. We are proposing to make similar 
changes to the reporting requirements in 40 CFR 98.96(c) for 
consistency and clarification.
    We are also proposing to revise the default N2O emission 
factor in Table I-8 of subpart I for the aggregate of the other 
N2O-using manufacturing processes. The current default 
emission factor is 1.0 kg of N2O emitted per kg of 
N2O consumed. The proposed emission factor would be 1.14 kg 
of N2O emitted per kg of N2O consumed. This 
factor represents an average of the stack emission factors for 
N2O (total N2O emissions/total N2O 
consumption) measured at several fabs (see ``Technical Support for 
Other Technical Issues Addressed in Revisions to Subpart I,'' Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028). At this time, the EPA does not have 
sufficient information to draw conclusions about the mechanism that 
results in the apparent creation of N2O such that the 
N2O emission rate is greater than the consumption rate. The 
EPA specifically seeks comment on the existing data and analysis 
supporting the revised emission factor, and requests additional data 
and analysis. Note that the emission factor is based on total 
N2O consumption rather than just the consumption associated 
with non-CVD applications (which was not available to the EPA); thus, 
when applied only to non-CVD N2O consumption, it may not 
fully compensate for the unknown N2O source. The EPA will 
consider new information submitted by commenters in developing the 
final default emission factor. Commenters are encouraged to submit 
available data with their comments using the ``Electronics 
Manufacturing Data Request Sheet'' (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-
0028). Commenters can fill out the ``Electronics Manufacturing Data 
Request Sheet'' and submit the data to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-
0028 for consideration by the EPA in developing the final revised 
default N2O emission factors. If the EPA does update the 
proposed revised emission factor using such new data, if approved by 
the EPA, for the final rule, it will do so using the same methodologies 
as described in the ``Technical Support for Other Technical Issues 
Addressed in Revisions to Subpart I,'' Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-
0028. The EPA will use the same criteria for accepting new data that 
were used in accepting data as specified in that document.
10. Abatement System Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE) for 
Facilities That Manufacture Electronics
    Subpart I currently allows electronics manufacturers using 
abatement systems to reflect the emission reductions from abatement 
systems using either a measured or default DRE. The DRE is the 
efficiency of an abatement system to destroy or remove F-GHGs, 
N2O, or both, and is expressed as the complement of the 
ratio of the volume of F-GHGs or N2O exiting the abatement 
system divided by the volume of F-GHG or N2O entering the 
abatement system.
    Subpart I currently provides the option to use a default DRE value 
of 60 percent for all gases and process types and sub-types, or to 
directly measure the DRE for a system, or use the average of the 
measured DREs for a class of systems, as specified in the 40 CFR 
98.94(f). For facilities opting to directly measure DREs, subpart I 
currently requires that measurements be in accordance with the EPA's 
Protocol for Measuring Destruction or Removal Efficiency of Fluorinated 
Greenhouse Gas Abatement Equipment in Electronics Manufacturing 
(``EPA's DRE Protocol''), Version 1, EPA 430-R-10-003.\5\ Facilities 
are also required to measure the DREs at a frequency specified by EPA's 
random sampling abatement system testing program (RSASTP). As in the 
current rule, where a facility wishes to reflect emission reductions 
from the use of abatement systems, they must also certify that their 
abatement systems are installed, operated, and maintained according to 
manufacturers' specifications, as well as account for the uptime of the 
abatement system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Available at: http://www.epa.gov/semiconductor-pfc/documents/dre_protocol.pdf (March 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the publication of the final subpart I rule in December 
2010, the Petitioner stated that the default DRE value is too low and 
also expressed concerns about the direct DRE measurement provisions. 
They provided data from DRE testing showing that the measured DRE 
values for ``point-of-use'' abatement systems at semiconductor 
manufacturing facilities may exceed 90 percent for certain gas and 
process type combinations (see ``Technical Support for Accounting for 
Destruction or Removal Efficiency for Electronics Manufacturing 
Facilities under Subpart I'', Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028). 
Therefore, relying on the default DRE value of 60 percent would result 
in

[[Page 63561]]

overestimating emissions from controlled tools by a factor of four 
times if the actual DRE is 90 percent, or by a factor of 20 if the 
actual DRE is 98 percent.
    Furthermore, the Petitioner explained that in order to avoid 
overestimating emissions and take credit for the abatement systems 
already installed, facilities would need to use directly measured DRE 
values in lieu of the default DRE. The Petitioner explained in the 
Petition for Reconsideration that in the semiconductor manufacturing 
industry, a facility may have a hundred or more process tools, and each 
tool is fitted with its own F-GHG or N2O abatement system, 
if one is used. As a result, measuring DRE can be expensive given the 
potential number of abatement systems involved. The petition stated 
that most large semiconductor manufacturing facilities have more than 
twice the number of POU abatement systems as estimated in the final 
subpart I rule. The Petitioner provided facility data from a 
semiconductor industry analysis submitted with the petition to show 
that most large facilities have an average of 104 abatement systems.
    The Petitioner also noted that semiconductor manufacturing 
facilities would need to test a higher number of representative systems 
than estimated by the EPA if using the average of the measured DREs for 
a class of systems. The final subpart I rule defined classes of 
abatement systems by the manufacturer's model number and the gas that 
system abates. The commenters noted that with the narrow definition of 
class, facilities would have a potentially large number of ``classes'' 
with a small number of systems in each class. Therefore, a facility 
would need to test many systems to determine the average DRE for each 
class.
    The EPA has considered the Petitioner's concerns and believes the 
DRE provisions can be simplified to relieve burden associated with 
measuring DRE and provide flexibility without adversely affecting the 
error or uncertainty of the DRE values used in emission calculations. 
Therefore, the EPA is proposing to revise the current subpart I 
provisions for directly measuring abatement system DRE, and to revise 
the basis for determining average DRE values for groups of similar 
abatement systems. These proposed changes would apply to all 
electronics manufacturers. All reporters covered under subpart I would 
still have the option of using either default DRE values or a measured 
DRE value to calculate abated emissions.
    The EPA considers that the two essential parameters that affect the 
DRE performance of a system are the process category and the gas being 
abated. Therefore, we are proposing to allow reporters the option to 
establish a measured DRE value for each gas used in each process type, 
rather than each abatement system or ``class'' of abatement systems as 
currently defined in 40 CFR 98.98. Reporters would measure the DRE for 
each gas and process type combination in which F-GHG and N2O 
are used in tools with abatement systems and for which abated emissions 
are calculated. The gas and process type combination would replace the 
concept of an abatement system ``class'' used in the current rule and 
would result in fewer DRE measurements being needed to determine the 
average DRE to be used in the emission equations.
    In reviewing the available data (see ``Technical Support for 
Accounting for Destruction or Removal Efficiency for Electronics 
Manufacturing Facilities under Subpart I,'' Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0028), we believe that this approach would simplify the gas 
apportionment and uptime calculations for industry by reducing the 
number of ``classes'' of abatement systems, and would also reduce the 
burden of measuring DRE for a specific ``class'' of abatement systems. 
It is unlikely that the proposed approach would have any adverse effect 
on the error or uncertainty of the DRE values used in the emission 
equations. Rather, by simplifying the definition of abatement system 
class to the gas and process type combination, the proposed approach 
would likely encourage more testing of actual abatement systems and 
reduce the number of facilities that are using default DRE values. 
Consistent with the current subpart I, if a facility develops a 
measured DRE value for abatement systems for a gas and process type 
combination, the resulting DRE must be used for that gas and process 
type combination and a default DRE value cannot be used.
    The current subpart I provisions require facilities to measure 
abatement system DREs in accordance with the EPA's DRE Protocol. We are 
proposing to revise the current subpart I provisions to allow reporters 
to use methods adapted from the 2009 ISMI Guideline tracer release/FTIR 
monitoring approach for determining abatement system DRE (hereafter, 
the ``2009 ISMI Guideline'') \6\ and also an alternative method to 
locate sampling sites. These alternatives would be included in the 
proposed Appendix A to subpart I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Benaway, B., Hall, S., Laush, C., Ridgeway, R., Sherer, M., 
& Trammell, S. (2009). ``Guideline for Environmental 
Characterization of Semiconductor Process Equipment--Revision 2'', 
TT06124825B-ENG, International SEMATECH Manufacturing 
Initiative (ISMI), December 2009. Available at: http://www.sematech.org/docubase/document/4825beng.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After reviewing the available data (see ``Comparison of Fourier 
Transform Infrared (FTIR) and Quadrupole Mass Spectroscopy (QMS) 
Methods for Determining POU Abatement System Effluent Flow,'' 
Technology Transfer 10095115A-ENG International SEMATECH 
Manufacturing Initiative, October 30, 2010, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0028), we believe that allowing for the use of the adaptation of 
the 2009 ISMI Guideline would add flexibility to industry while 
reflecting potential improvements to the methods in the 2006 ISMI 
Guideline \7\ that are referenced in the EPA's DRE Protocol. However, 
because we have limited test data and results from the use of this 
method we are specifically seeking comment and additional data from the 
use of the 2009 ISMI Guideline and any adaptations that facilities have 
implemented in the actual measurement of DRE from abatement systems at 
electronics manufacturing facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Laush, C., Sherer, M., & Worth, W. (2006). ``Guideline for 
Environmental Characterization of Semiconductor Process Equipment'', 
TT06124825A-ENG, International SEMATECH Manufacturing 
Initiative (ISMI), December 2006. Available at: https://supplier.intel.com/static/EHS/4825aeng.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2009 ISMI Guideline includes a method to measure abatement 
system flow and to account for dilution that may occur between the 
inlet and outlet of the abatement system by measuring the concentration 
of a non-reactive tracer gas into the abatement system flow in a known 
concentration. The change in concentration is used to measure dilution 
across the abatement system. To ensure thorough mixing of the tracer 
and accurate measures of flow and dilution, the 2009 ISMI Guideline 
requires sources to measure the concentration at least eight duct 
diameters downstream of the injection site. Because of the presence of 
short ducts in POU abatement systems, it can be difficult to meet those 
criteria. Therefore, we are also proposing that facilities could use an 
adaptation of Section 8.1 of EPA Method 7E at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 
A-4 as an alternative to determine whether the injected tracer is well 
mixed in the duct system or is stratified (i.e., poorly mixed), and to 
adjust the sampling if it is stratified. The concentration of the 
tracer would be measured at three traverse points at 16.7, 50.0, and 
83.3 percent of the diameter of the duct and would have to

[[Page 63562]]

be sampled for a minimum of twice the system response time. If the 
tracer gas concentration at each traverse point differs from the mean 
concentration for all traverse points by no more than 5.0 
percent of the mean concentration, the gas stream would be considered 
un-stratified and the facility would be allowed collect samples from a 
single point that most closely matches the mean. If the 5.0 percent 
criterion were not met, but the concentration at each traverse point 
differed from the mean concentration for all traverse points by no more 
than 10.0 percent of the mean, a facility would be able to 
take samples from two points and use the average of the two 
measurements. The two points would be spaced at 16.7, 50.0, or 83.3 
percent of the line. If the concentration at each traverse point 
differed from the mean concentration for all traverse points by more 
than 10.0 percent of the mean but less than 20.0 percent, the facility would take samples from three points 
at 16.7, 50.0, and 83.3 percent of the measurement line and use the 
average of the three measurements. If the gas stream were found to be 
stratified because the 20.0 percent criterion for a three-
point test were not met, the facility would be required to locate and 
take samples from traverse points for the test in accordance with 
Sections 11.2 and 11.3 of EPA Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1. 
This proposed protocol is an adaptation of the protocol in Section 
8.1.2 of EPA Method 7E, Determination of Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from 
Stationary Sources (Instrumental Analyzer Procedure), in 40 CFR part 
60, appendix A-4. However, no data results from this were available to 
the EPA at the time of this proposal. As a result, we are specifically 
requesting that commenters submit test results, if available, using the 
proposed protocol during the comment period so that we can better 
assess the appropriateness and validity of the proposed protocol.
    In addition, to provide additional flexibility for facilities, we 
are proposing that reporters may request approval to use an alternative 
sampling and analysis method to measure abatement system DRE that is 
not included in subpart I, provided the reporter follows the proposed 
process to obtain the Administrator's approval. The approval process 
would be the same process used to obtain the Administrator's approval 
to use an alternative stack testing method (see ``Alternative stack 
test methods'' in Section III.B.1 of this preamble).
    We are also proposing to revise the RSASTP in the current subpart 
I. The rule currently requires that for each system class, the reporter 
must test the greater of three units per year or 20 percent of units 
per year. We are proposing to amend the RSASTP to reduce the amount of 
testing that must be performed by an individual facility. The proposed 
amendments would require that facilities test 10 percent of systems 
annually over a 2-year period (20 percent total) to set a baseline DRE 
for the given gas and process type combination. The systems would have 
to be randomly selected. A facility would have the option to test 20 
percent of abatement systems in the first year. Until the facility 
measured 20 percent of abatement systems for a gas and process type 
combination (e.g., for calculating emissions in the first year if they 
test only 10 percent of systems per year), they would use the default 
DRE values to calculate emissions. For every 3-year period after, 
facilities would be required to randomly select and test 15 percent of 
the systems to validate the site-specific DRE. The reporter could opt 
to test 15 percent of the systems in the first year of the 3-year 
period, but must test at least 5 percent of the systems each year until 
15 percent are tested.
    If testing of a particular randomly selected abatement system would 
be disruptive to production, the reporter could replace that system 
with another randomly selected system and return the other to the 
sampling pool for subsequent testing. To ensure that a representative 
sample of abatement systems are tested, we are proposing that a system 
cannot be returned to the subsequent testing pool for more than three 
consecutive selections and must be tested on the third selection. We 
are also allowing a reporter to specifically include in one of the next 
two sampling years a system that could not be tested when it was first 
selected so that the reporter can plan for the testing of that system 
when it will be less disruptive.
    We are proposing that the average DRE for each gas and process type 
combination would be calculated first as the arithmetic mean of the 
first 2 years of measurements. Beginning in the third year of testing, 
the average DRE would be the arithmetic mean of all test results for 
that gas and process type combination, until the facility tested at 
least 30 percent of all systems for each gas and process combination. 
After testing at least 30 percent of all systems for a gas and process 
combination, the facility would use the arithmetic mean of the most 
recent 30 percent of systems tested as the average DRE in the emissions 
calculations.
    To account for measurements that may be affected by improper 
maintenance or operation of the abatement systems during a DRE 
measurement, the measured DRE value would be used as follows: (1) Where 
the DRE of some abatement units is below the design and default DRE, 
and proper maintenance and operation procedures have been followed, the 
data from the low DRE test must be included in the fab-specific DREs; 
(2) if proper maintenance and operation procedures have not been not 
followed, then the facility would implement the appropriate operational 
change or system maintenance (per the manufacturer instructions or the 
site maintenance plan), and a retest of that device would be required 
within the same reporting year. In this case, a reporter would not be 
required to include in the average DRE calculation the DRE result from 
the device for which proper maintenance and operation procedures were 
not followed. As an alternative, we are also proposing that instead of 
retesting that device within the reporting year, the reporter could use 
the measured DRE value in calculating the average DRE for the reporting 
year, and then include the same device in the next year's abatement 
system testing in addition to the testing of randomly selected devices 
for that next reporting year. The reporter would still need to count 
the period during which the abatement system manufacturer's proper 
maintenance and operation procedures were not being followed towards 
that abatement system's downtime for the year for the purposes of 
calculating emissions.
    The proposed revisions to the RSASTP testing schedule would 
minimize the burden imposed on industry associated with annual testing 
of abatement systems. The Petitioner estimated that the current subpart 
I provisions that require facilities to test the greater of 3 or 20 
percent of abatement systems in each class of abatement systems (as 
currently defined in 40 CFR 98.98) actually results in facilities 
testing, on average, 45 percent of their installed abatement systems in 
a fab each year (see ``Technical Support for Accounting for Destruction 
or Removal Efficiency for Electronics Manufacturing Facilities under 
Subpart I,'' Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028). By revising the 
RSASTP so that facilities are required to test 20 percent of all 
abatement systems in a fab for a given gas and process type combination 
in the first two years, and 15 percent in each 3-year period 
thereafter, the Petitioner estimated a 16 to 50 percent reduction in 
the required abatement system testing. The Petitioner estimated the 
annual cost savings per facility to be

[[Page 63563]]

between $60,000 and $750,000 per year, depending on the number of 
installed systems, and would also reduce the number of personnel hours 
and production disruption associated with conducting abatement system 
testing. The EPA has reviewed the Petitioner's estimates and agrees 
with their findings regarding the burden of the current rule 
requirements and the potential savings associated with the proposed 
revisions to the RSASTP requirements.
    For reporters who do not measure facility-specific DRE values, we 
are also allowing electronics manufacturing facilities to use a default 
DRE. For semiconductor manufacturing facilities, we are proposing to 
revise and expand the available DRE default values that they may use to 
calculate emissions. The revised default DREs for semiconductor 
manufacturing facilities would be included in proposed Table I-16.
    The EPA does not have specific default DRE values to propose for 
other electronics manufacturers (MEMS, LCDs, and PV cells). Unless the 
EPA includes revised default DREs in the final rule amendments, 
facilities manufacturing MEMS, LCDs, and PV cells would still be 
required to use the 60 percent default DRE if they were not using 
measured DREs and wanted to account for abatement system DRE in their 
reported emissions. The EPA does not have any data at this time to 
support revising the default DRE value of 60 percent for these other 
electronics manufacturers. However, the EPA is specifically soliciting 
comment and supporting data on whether alternative default DRE values 
should be developed for other types of electronics manufacturing 
facilities, including data from actual DRE measurements and information 
on the methods used to measure DRE.
    The current rule offers only a single default DRE value of 60 
percent for all gas and process type combinations because, at the time 
it was proposed and promulgated, the EPA did not have sufficient DRE 
data for specific F-GHGs or process types that were measured using the 
EPA's DRE Protocol. Since that time, the Petitioner has provided data 
for semiconductor manufacturing facilities to the EPA on abatement 
system uptime, abatement system inventories, and DRE measurement, 
following the publication of the final subpart I rule (see ``Technical 
Support for Accounting for Destruction or Removal Efficiency for 
Electronics Manufacturing Facilities under Subpart I,'' Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028). We are proposing to add default DRE values which 
reflect the results of the EPA's analysis of the DRE test data for 
specific gas and process type combinations. The majority of the DRE 
testing data analyzed were collected following the EPA's DRE Protocol 
that is incorporated by reference into the current rule. The EPA also 
considered the design and model of the abatement system used for each 
gas and process combination. The available test data, which includes 
tests performed on 96 POU systems connected to plasma etch processes 
and tests on 49 POU systems connected to chamber cleaning processes, 
showed that the manufacturer's design DRE is relatively consistent 
across different designs/models. However, it should be noted that the 
vast majority (about 97 percent) of the DRE data came from tests of one 
vendor's equipment. The data also supports the concept that achievable 
DREs vary by gas and process type (see ``Technical Support for 
Accounting for Destruction or Removal Efficiency for Electronics 
Manufacturing Facilities under Subpart I,'' Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0028). Therefore, where sufficient test data are available, the 
EPA is proposing to establish revised default DRE values for the gas 
and process type combinations for semiconductor manufacturing shown in 
Table 3 of this preamble:

  Table 3--Proposed Default DRE Values for Semiconductor Manufacturing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Proposed default
                   Process type/gas                      DREs (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Plasma etch/Wafer Cleaning
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHF3, CH2F2, C4F8, NF3, SF6, C4F6.....................                98
All other plasma etch/wafer clean fluorinated GHG.....                60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Chamber Clean
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NF3...................................................                75
All other gases.......................................                60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   N2O
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CVD and all other N2O-using processes.................                60
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Overall, the EPA found sufficient data to propose revised default 
DRE values for systems abating CHF3, 
CH2F2, C4F8, 
NF3, SF6, and C4F6 from 
plasma etching/wafer cleaning processes in semiconductor manufacturing. 
The abatement DRE test results for systems abating CF4 from 
plasma etch processes were lower than expected and below the 
manufacturer's DRE, which suggests improper abatement system operation; 
based on these results and the difficulty of abating CF4, we 
are proposing to retain the current subpart I default DRE value of 60 
percent for these systems. Additionally, in some cases there were few 
or no test data available for a gas and process type combination, 
including systems abating C2F6, 
C3F8, CH3F, and 
C5F8 for plasma etch. For 
C2F6, only one data point was provided. Since 
this gas is difficult to abate, the EPA proposes to retain the current 
subpart I default DRE value of 60 percent until additional data or 
technical information is available. We have followed the same approach 
for C3F8, CH3F, 
C5F8, and chamber cleaning processes using gases 
other than NF3, because no data were available that could 
support altering the current default value of 60 percent for these gas 
and process type combinations. Further discussion of the EPA's analysis 
of the submitted DRE data is in the memorandum ``Technical Support for 
Accounting for Destruction or Removal Efficiency for Electronics 
Manufacturing Facilities under Subpart I'' (see Docket

[[Page 63564]]

ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028). The EPA is specifically requesting 
comment and supporting DRE data on the proposed default DRE values, and 
whether any default DRE values should be developed for other gas and 
process type combinations.
    Commenters are encouraged to submit available DRE data for all of 
the electronics manufacturing industry segments (semiconductors, MEMS, 
PV cells, and LCDs) with their comments using the ``Electronics 
Manufacturing Data Request Sheet'' (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-
0028). Commenters can fill out the ``Electronics Manufacturing Data 
Request Sheet'' and submit the data to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-
0028 for consideration by the EPA in developing the final revised 
default DRE values. If EPA does update the proposed default DRE values 
using such new data, if approved by the EPA, for the final rule, it 
will do so using the same methodologies as described in the ``Technical 
Support for Accounting for Destruction or Removal Efficiency for 
Electronics Manufacturing Facilities under Subpart I,'' Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028. The EPA will use the same criteria for accepting 
new data that were used in accepting data as specified in that 
document.
    The EPA would also add new or revised DRE values as part of the 
proposed process for updating the table of default gas utilization 
rates and by-product formation rates, when the data become available in 
the future. See Section III.B.12 of this preamble for the proposed 
process for updating default emission factors and default DRE values as 
more data are collected for the semiconductor manufacturing industry.
    In order to ensure that the abatement systems used are performing 
to the default DRE or the initial measured DRE, the rule currently 
requires that facilities certify that abatement systems are properly 
installed, operated, and maintained according to the manufacturer's 
recommended requirements (40 CFR 98.94(f)(1)). Abatement equipment 
suppliers have established set-up, operation, and maintenance 
procedures to maintain system performance at the expected DREs. In 
addition to those existing requirements, we are proposing to require 
that where a facility wishes to account for abatement system DRE in 
calculating emissions, reporters would establish and maintain an 
abatement system preventative maintenance plan. The abatement system 
maintenance plan would define the required maintenance procedures for 
each type of abatement system used at the facility, and would include 
corrective action procedures for when an abatement unit is not 
operating properly. The abatement unit maintenance plan would be kept 
as part of the GHG monitoring plan required by 40 CFR 98.3(g)(5).
11. Abatement System Uptime for Facilities That Manufacture Electronics
    The current subpart I requires facilities opting to report 
controlled emissions from abatement systems to calculate the ``uptime'' 
of each abatement system using Equation I-15 of subpart I. In the 
current rule, uptime is calculated as the ratio of time the abatement 
system is operating while F-GHG or N2O are flowing through 
the process tool(s) connected to the system, to the total time during 
which F-GHG or N2O are flowing through the process tool(s) 
connected to the abatement system.
    In the Petition for Reconsideration, the Petitioner questioned the 
uptime requirements, stating that the EPA's definition of uptime 
differs substantially from how uptime is actually measured in 
semiconductor facilities. They maintained the industry is better able 
to estimate the uptime of an abatement system by measuring and tracking 
``unplanned downtime.'' Further, the industry petition reports that 
most facilities do not currently have the data collection and 
management capability to track the time that F-GHG or N2O 
are flowing through a tool and match it to the time when the abatement 
system for each tool is not operating, because the data loggers for the 
tools and the abatement systems do not interface.
    Based on a review of the Petitioner's concerns, the EPA is 
proposing to revise the methods used to calculate abatement system 
uptime. The EPA agrees that most electronics manufacturing facilities 
do not have the equipment, data collection, and management capability 
to track the time that F-GHG or N2O are flowing through a 
tool and match it to the time when the abatement system is not 
operating. Therefore, requiring facilities to calculate the ratio of 
time that each abatement system is operating to the total time during 
which gases flow through the process tool would present challenges for 
compliance. In addition, the EPA understands that many tools do not 
have an interlock between the gas supply and the abatement system to 
stop F-GHG or N2O flow to the tool if the abatement unit 
stops operating.
    For facilities that are using the default gas utilization rates and 
by-product formation rates, we are proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.93(g) 
to allow reporters to calculate the uptime of all the abatement systems 
for each combination of input gas or by-product gas and each process 
type or sub-type combination, using the same process categories in 
which F-GHG use and emissions are calculated. Since reporters would 
calculate uptime for groups of abatement systems instead of each 
individual abatement system, we are proposing to revise Equation I-15 
into two separate equations to specify how reporters must calculate 
uptime for each group of abatement systems: Those emitting input gases 
and those emitting by-product gases.
    Reporters would use proposed Equation I-15a to calculate the uptime 
of all the abatement systems for each combination of input gas and 
process type or sub-type combination. Reporters would use proposed 
Equation I-15b to calculate the uptime of all the abatement systems for 
each combination of by-product gas and process type or sub-type 
combination.
    Reporters would be required to determine the average abatement 
system uptime factor for a given gas/process type or sub-type 
combination by: (1) Calculating the total time that the abatement 
system connected to process tools in the fab is not operating within 
manufacturer's specifications as a fraction of the total time in which 
the abatement system has at least one associated tool in operation 
during the reporting year for each gas/process type combination; and 
(2) by subtracting this fraction from 1.0 to calculate the uptime 
fraction. For determining the amount of tool operating time, reporters 
would be able to assume that tools that were installed for the entire 
reporting year were operated for 525,600 minutes per year. For tools 
that were installed or uninstalled during the year, reporters would be 
required to prorate the operating time to account for the days in which 
the tool was not installed; any partial day that a tool was installed 
would be treated as a full day (1,440 minutes) of tool operation. If a 
tool is ``idle'' with no gas flowing through it to the abatement 
system, the reporter would have the option to count only the time that 
the tool has gas flowing through it for purposes of determining the 
tool operating time. For an abatement system that has more than one 
connected tool, the tool operating time would be considered to be 
equivalent to a full year if at least one tool was installed and 
operating at all times throughout the year. Because the uptimes for the 
tools in electronics manufacturing facilities are typically very high, 
the proposed approach would reduce the technical burden associated with 
measuring uptime for individual

[[Page 63565]]

tools while still maintaining the accuracy of the uptime calculation 
used in the emissions calculations.
    Reporters would then calculate the excess emissions during periods 
of downtime by using the gas consumption for each gas, the default gas 
utilization rates and by-product formation rates, and the fraction of 
operating time that is represented by POU abatement system downtime. 
Emissions during periods of POU abatement system uptime would be 
calculated using the gas consumption for each gas, the default emission 
factors, the fraction of gas removed or destroyed through abatement, 
and the fraction of operating time that is represented by POU abatement 
system uptime. The proposed amendments would reduce the burden on 
industry because they would allow facilities to use uptime calculated 
through existing maintenance management systems as a representative 
uptime, while still ensuring that unabated (excess) emissions are 
accounted for in annual emissions as a result of downtime events.
    In proposing these amendments, the EPA acknowledges that 
significant investment would be required by facilities to install 
hardware and/or software to track when gas is flowing to a tool and to 
identify if the abatement system is or is not operating while gas flow 
is occurring as required by the current subpart I. By assuming that 
tools that were installed for the whole reporting year were operated 
for 525,600 minutes per year, and using this in the denominator of the 
abatement system uptime calculation, the proposed abatement system 
uptime calculations would conservatively estimate the uptime fraction 
that is used in accounting for abatement system effects on emissions. 
This conservative approach avoids the added expense of additional data 
collection and analysis to match abatement system uptime periods to the 
same periods during which gas is flowing through the associated tool. 
Further discussion of accounting for abatement system uptime is in the 
memorandum ``Technical Support for Modifications to the Fluorinated 
Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimation Method Option for Semiconductor 
Facilities under Subpart I'' (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028).
12. Updating Default Gas Utilization Rates and By-Product Formation 
Rates and DRE Values for Semiconductor Manufacturing
    The semiconductor manufacturing industry has historically been 
fast-evolving, achieving exponentially increasing processor speeds and 
improving manufacturing efficiencies through the rapid adoption of new 
manufacturing processes. These innovations have resulted in changes in 
F-GHG emissions and emission factors, which have been recognized in the 
IPCC Guidelines and in subpart I by, for example, the establishment of 
different emission factors for fabs manufacturing 200 mm vs. 300 mm 
wafer sizes. This evolution is continuing at the present time with the 
introduction of 450 mm wafer technology, as well as other new process 
technologies that could affect emissions. As a result, EPA considers 
appropriate that subpart I should include a mechanism for collecting 
information on changes in the semiconductor industry that would 
potentially affect emissions and new data and that could be used for 
the updating of default gas utilization rates and by-product formation 
rates and abatement system DRE values so that they are representative 
of current emissions and abatement system performance.
    In order to provide for consistent review of technology changes in 
the semiconductor manufacturing industry and helping to ensure that the 
proposed default gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates 
and DRE values accurately reflect the industry's practices in future 
years, we are proposing to add a new paragraph (y) to the data 
reporting requirements in 40 CFR 98.96. We are proposing to require 
certain semiconductor manufacturing facilities to provide a report to 
the EPA every 3 years, beginning in 2017, that addresses technology 
changes at the facility that could affect GHG emissions. The report 
would address how technology in the industry has changed over the 
previous 3 years and the extent to which any of the identified changes 
are likely to have affected the emissions characteristics of 
semiconductor manufacturing processes in such a way that the default 
gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates and/or default DRE 
values in subpart I may need to be updated or augmented.
    We are proposing that the first 3-year report would be due with the 
annual GHG emissions report submitted in 2017. Only semiconductor 
manufacturing facilities subject to subpart I and with emissions from 
subpart I processes greater than 40,000 mtCO2e per year 
would be required to submit the report. The requirement to submit the 
first report in 2017 would be based on the facility's emissions in 2015 
(which would be reported in 2016), and the requirement to submit 
subsequent reports would be based on emissions in the most recently 
submitted annual GHG report. For example, any facility that reported 
GHG emissions from the subpart I source category of greater than 40,000 
mtCO2e for reporting year 2015 would submit the 3-year 
report due in 2017. Facilities with reported emissions at or below 
40,000 mtCO2e per year could voluntarily prepare and submit 
a report. Facilities that are not subject to reporting under subpart I 
based on actual emissions would not be required to submit a 3-year 
report.
    We are proposing that the 3-year report must include the following: 
(1) Whether and how the plasma etch gases and plasma technologies used 
in 200 mm and 300 mm wafer manufacturing in the United States have 
changed and whether any of the identified changes are likely to have 
affected the emissions characteristics of semiconductor manufacturing 
processes in such a way that the default gas utilization rates and by-
product formation rates or default DRE values may need to be updated; 
(2) the effect of the implementation of new products, process 
technologies, and/or finer line width processes in 200 mm and 300 mm 
technologies, the introduction of new tool platforms and process 
chambers, and the introduction of new processes on previously tested 
platforms or process chambers; (3) the status of implementing 450 mm 
wafer technology and the potential need to create or update gas 
utilization rates and by-product formation rates compared to 300 mm 
technology; and (4) the submission of any gas utilization rates and by-
product formation rate or DRE data that have been collected in the 
previous 3 years that support the changes or continuities in 
semiconductor manufacturing processes described in the report. If the 
report indicates that the emissions characteristics of semiconductor 
manufacturing processes may have changed, the report would be required 
to include a data gathering and analysis plan describing the testing of 
tools to determine the potential effect on current gas utilization 
rates and by-product formation rates and DRE values under the new 
conditions, and a planned analysis of the effect on overall facility 
emissions using a representative gas-use profile for a 200 mm, 300 mm, 
or 450 mm fab (depending on which technology is under consideration).
    The EPA would review the reports received and determine whether it 
is necessary to update the default gas utilization rates and by-product 
formation rates and default DREs in Tables I-3, I-4, I-11, I-12, and I-
16 based on the following: (1) Whether the revised default gas 
utilization rates and

[[Page 63566]]

by-product formation rates and DREs would result in a projected shift 
in emissions of 10 percent of greater; (2) whether new platforms, 
process chambers, processes, or facilities that are not captured in 
current default gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates 
and DRE values should be included in revised values; and (3) whether 
new data are available that would expand the existing data set to 
include new gases, tools, or processes not included in the existing 
data set (i.e. gases, tools, or processes for which no data are 
currently available).
    The EPA would review the report(s) within 120 days and notify the 
facilities that submitted the report(s) whether the Agency determined 
it was appropriate to update the default emission factors and/or DRE 
values. If the EPA determines it is necessary to update the default 
emission factors and/or DRE values, those facilities would then have 
180 days following the date they receive notice of the determination to 
execute the data collection and analysis plan described in the report 
and submit those data to the EPA. The EPA would then determine whether 
to issue a proposal to amend the rule to update the default emission 
factors and/or DRE values using the newly submitted data.
    These proposed requirements would establish consistent procedures 
for the update and renewal of default gas utilization rates and by-
product formation rates and DRE values of the rule, helping to ensure 
that the subpart I rule accurately reflects advances in technology and 
characterizes industry emissions for semiconductor manufacturing. The 
EPA is specifically seeking comment on whether any other topics, 
besides the four proposed topics listed, should be included in the 
proposed triennial report. For example, some new manufacturing 
technologies, substrates, or films, such as the use of elemental 
fluorine gas for chamber cleaning or the use of organosilicate films, 
may affect F-GHG emissions without changes in the actual consumption of 
F-GHG as input gases. The EPA is soliciting comment on whether those 
types of changes would already be addressed by the four topics listed 
or whether more specific topics for those types of changes should be 
specified for the triennial report.
    The EPA is also specifically seeking comment on whether triennial 
reports should include additional information. For example, the 
triennial report could include a specific set of measurements of gas 
utilization rates, by-product formation rates, and/or DRE values. This 
could include the gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates 
measured for all new tools acquired by the facility over the previous 3 
years as well as gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates 
measured for new processes run on existing tools at the facility. 
Measurement of emission rates from the introduction of new processes on 
existing tools could result in increased burden; however, the EPA could 
limit this burden by requesting a set number of measurements (e.g., 5) 
for new processes that were significantly different \8\ from existing 
processes and/or that accounted for the largest fractions of the 
facility's GWP-weighted fluorinated GHG consumption. Specifying the 
data to submit in the final rule would ensure that consistent, 
comparable, and objective data sets were submitted by all affected 
facilities, and would permit the EPA to examine the data directly to 
ascertain whether a change in default emission factors or default DRE 
values was warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ``Significantly different'' could be defined as using a 
markedly different gas mixture than the mixture used by previous 
processes applied to achieve the same end (i.e., etch the same film 
or feature), similar to the criteria used to determine when new 
stack testing is warranted. Other possible criteria include radio 
frequency (RF) power and flow rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Proposed Rule Changes to Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

    In this action, the EPA is proposing several changes (additions as 
well as revisions) to the data reporting and recordkeeping requirements 
in subpart I. Table 4 of this preamble summarizes the proposed changes 
to the reporting elements.

                               Table 4--Proposed Changes to Reporting Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Proposed new or revised
          Data element             Change/Revision         Original citation                  citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual emissions of each F-GHG   Revise to apply     98.96(c)(1)..................  NA.
 emitted from each process type   only when default
 for which your facility is       gas utilization
 required to calculate            rate and by-
 emissions as calculated in       product formation
 Equations I-6 and I-7.           rate procedures
                                  in 40 CFR
                                  98.93(a) are used
                                  to calculate
                                  emissions. Revise
                                  so that
                                  requirement
                                  applies to
                                  ``fab'' instead
                                  of facility.
Annual emissions of each F-GHG   Remove requirement  98.96(c)(2)..................  NA.
 emitted from each individual     to report
 recipe (including those in a     emissions by
 set of similar recipes) or       individual recipe
 process sub-type.                (including those
                                  in a set of
                                  similar recipes).
                                  Revise so that
                                  requirement
                                  applies to
                                  ``fab'' instead
                                  of facility.
Emissions of N2O emitted from    Revise to clarify   98.96(c)(3)..................  NA.
 each chemical vapor deposition   that facilities
 process and from other N2O       report N2O
 using manufacturing processes    emitted from the
 as calculated in Equation I-10.  chemical vapor
                                  deposition
                                  process and from
                                  the aggregate of
                                  other N2O-using
                                  manufacturing
                                  processes. Revise
                                  so that
                                  requirement
                                  applies to
                                  ``fab'' instead
                                  of facility.
Annual emissions of each F-GHG   Add reporting       NA...........................  98.96(c)(5).
 emitted from each fab when you   requirement in
 use the procedures specified     conjunction with
 in 40 CFR 98.93(i).              the stack testing
                                  option.
Data elements reported when you  Remove and reserve  98.96(f).....................  NA.
 use factors for F-GHG process    all of 98.96(f)
 utilization and by-product       because of
 formation rates other than the   proposed changes
 defaults provided in Tables I-   to remove the use
 3, I-4, I-5, I-6, and I-7 to     of recipe-
 this subpart and/or N2O          specific gas
 utilization factors other than   utilization rates
 the defaults provided in Table   and by-product
 I-8 to subpart I.                formation rates.

[[Page 63567]]

 
Annual gas consumption for each  Change to           98.96(g).....................  98.97(k).
 F-GHG and N2O as calculated in   recordkeeping
 Equation I-11 of this subpart,   requirement.
 including where your facility    Revise so that
 used less than 50 kg of a        requirement
 particular F-GHG or N2O during   applies to
 the reporting year. For all F-   ``fab'' instead
 GHGs and N2O used at your        of facility. Add
 facility for which you have      applicable
 not calculated emissions using   equation
 Equations I-6, I-7, I-8, I-9,    references for
 and I-10, the chemical name of   the stack testing
 the GHG used, the annual         option.
 consumption of the gas, and a
 brief description of its use.
All inputs used to calculate     Change to           98.96(h).....................  98.97(k)(1).
 gas consumption in Equation I-   recordkeeping
 11 for each F-GHG and N2O used.  requirement.
Disbursements for each F-GHG     Change to           98.96(i).....................  98.97(n).
 and N2O during the reporting     recordkeeping
 year, as calculated using        requirement.
 Equation I-12.
All inputs used to calculate     Change to           98.96(j).....................  98.97(n).
 disbursements for each F-GHG     recordkeeping
 and N2O used in Equation I-12    requirement.
 including all facility-wide
 gas-specific heel factors used
 for each F-GHG and N2O.
Annual amount of each F-GHG      Change to           98.96(k).....................  98.97(m).
 consumed for each recipe,        recordkeeping
 process sub-type, or process     requirement.
 type, as appropriate, and the    Remove ``recipe-
 annual amount of N2O consumed    specific''
 for each chemical vapor          requirements.
 deposition and other             Revise to read
 electronics manufacturing        ``* * * annual
 production processes, as         amount of N2O
 calculated using Equation I-13.  consumed for the
                                  chemical vapor
                                  deposition
                                  processes and
                                  from the
                                  aggregate of
                                  other electronics
                                  manufacturing
                                  production
                                  processes* * *''.
All apportioning factors used    Change to           98.96(l).....................  98.97(c)(1).
 to apportion F-GHG and N2O       recordkeeping
 consumption.                     requirement.
Identification of the            Correct citation..  98.96(m)(i)..................  98.96(m)(1).
 quantifiable metric used in
 your facility-specific
 engineering model to apportion
 gas consumption.
Start and end dates selected     Correct citation..  98.96(m)(ii).................  98.96(m)(2).
 under 40 CFR 98.94(c)(2)(i).
Certification that the gases     Correct citation..  98.96(m)(iii)................  98.96(m)(3).
 you selected under 40 CFR
 98.94(c)(2)(ii) correspond to
 the largest quantities
 consumed on a mass basis, at
 your facility in the reporting
 year for the plasma etching
 process type and the chamber
 cleaning process type.
The result of the calculation    Correct citation    98.96(m)(iv).................  98.96(m)(4).
 comparing the actual and         and revise to
 modeled gas consumption under    read ``* * *
 40 CFR 98.94(c)(2)(iii).         modeled gas
                                  consumption under
                                  40 CFR
                                  98.94(c)(2)(iii)
                                  and (iv), as
                                  applicable.''.
If you are required to           Add requirement...  NA...........................  98.96(m)(5).
 apportion F-GHG consumption
 between fabs, certification
 that the gases you selected
 under 40 CFR 98.94(c)(2)(ii)
 correspond to the largest
 quantities consumed on a mass
 basis, of F-GHG used at your
 facility during the reporting
 year for which you are
 required to apportion.
Fraction of each F-GHG or N2O    Move to             98.96(n).....................  98.97(o).
 fed into recipe, process sub-    recordkeeping,
 type, or process type that is    and remove recipe-
 fed into tools connected to      specific
 abatement systems.               references.
Fraction of each F-GHG or N2O    Move to             98.96(o).....................  98.97(p).
 destroyed or removed in          recordkeeping,
 abatement systems connected to   remove recipe-
 process tools where recipe,      specific
 process sub-type, or process     references, and
 type j is used, as well as all   revise to apply
 inputs and calculations used     to the stack
 to determine the inputs for      testing option.
 Equation I-14.

[[Page 63568]]

 
Inventory and description of     Revise the          98.96(p).....................  NA.
 all abatement systems through    inventory to
 which F-GHGs or N2O flow at      include only
 your facility, including the     those systems for
 number of systems of each        which the
 manufacturer, model numbers,     facility is
 manufacturer claimed F-GHG and   claiming F-GHG or
 N2O destruction or removal       N2O destruction
 efficiencies, if any, and        or removal.
 records of destruction or       Revise to report
 removal efficiency               only (1) the
 measurements over their in-use   number of devices
 lives. The inventory of          controlling
 abatement systems must           emissions for
 describe the tools with model    each process
 numbers and the recipe(s),       type, for each
 process sub-type, or process     gas used in that
 type for which these systems     process for which
 treat exhaust.                   control credit is
                                  being taken; and
                                  (2) the basis of
                                  the DRE being
                                  used (default or
                                  site specific
                                  testing) for each
                                  process type and
                                  for each gas..
                                 Revise to not
                                  require reporting
                                  the model number
                                  of the tools
                                  associated with
                                  each abatement
                                  system, and to
                                  remove the recipe-
                                  specific
                                  references..
Certification that each          The certification   98.96(q).....................  98.97(d).
 abatement system is installed,   would be revised
 maintained, and operated         to include that
 according to manufacturer        all systems are
 specifications. All inputs to    installed,
 abatement system uptime          maintained, and
 calculations, the default or     operated also
 measured DRE used for each       according to the
 abatement system, and the        site maintenance
 description of the               plan for
 calculations and inputs used     abatement systems.
 to calculate class averages     All inputs to
 for measured DRE values.         abatement system
                                  uptime
                                  calculations, the
                                  default or
                                  measured DRE used
                                  for each
                                  abatement system,
                                  and the
                                  description of
                                  the calculations
                                  and inputs used
                                  to calculate
                                  class averages
                                  for measured DRE
                                  values would be
                                  moved to
                                  recordkeeping in
                                  98.97(d)..
                                 In place of
                                  reporting the
                                  information and
                                  data on uptime
                                  and DRE
                                  calculations for
                                  abatement
                                  systems, the
                                  reporter would
                                  calculate and
                                  report an
                                  effective
                                  facility-wide
                                  DRE, proposed in
                                  98.96(r)..
Inputs to the F-HTF mass         Change to           98.96(r).....................  98.97(r).
 balance equation, Equation I-    recordkeeping.
 16, for each F-HTF.
An effective facility-wide DRE   Add requirement...  NA...........................  98.96(r).
 calculated using Equation I-
 26, I-27, and I-28, as
 appropriate.
Estimates of missing data where  Change to           98.96(s).....................  98.97(s).
 missing data procedures were     recordkeeping.
 used to estimate inputs into
 the F-HTF mass balance
 equation under 40 CFR 98.95(b).
A brief description of each      Remove the          98.96(t).....................  NA.
 ``best available monitoring      reporting
 method'' used according to 40    requirement
 CFR 98.94(a), the parameter      because the BAMM
 measured or estimated using      provisions in
 the method, and the time         98.94(a) will be
 period during which the ``best   obsolete by the
 available monitoring method''    time these
 was used.                        proposed
                                  amendments are
                                  final and are
                                  being proposed to
                                  be deleted.
For reporting year 2012 only,    Remove requirement  98.96(v).....................  NA.
 the date on which you began      because these
 monitoring emissions of F-HTF    provisions will
 whose vapor pressure falls       be obsolete by
 below 1 mm of Hg absolute at     the time these
 25 degrees C.                    proposed
                                  amendments are
                                  final.
The date of any stack testing    Add requirement in  NA...........................  98.96(w)(1).
 conducted during the reporting   conjunction with
 year, and the identity of the    stack testing
 stack tested.                    option.
An inventory of all stacks from  Add requirement in  NA...........................  98.96(w)(2).
 which process F-GHG are          conjunction with
 emitted. For each stack          stack testing
 system, indicated whether the    option.
 stack is among those for which
 stack testing was performed as
 per 40 CFR 98.3(i)(3) or not
 performed per 40 CFR
 98.93(i)(2).
If emission reported under 40    Add requirement...  NA...........................  98.96(x).
 CFR 98.96(c) include emission
 from research and development
 activities, the approximate
 percentage of total GHG
 emissions that are
 attributable to research and
 development activities.

[[Page 63569]]

 
If your semiconductor            Add requirement...  NA...........................  98.96(y).
 manufacturing facility emits
 more than 40,000 mtCO2e, a
 triennial technology
 assessment report that
 includes information such as
 how gases and technologies
 have changed, the effect on
 emissions of the
 implementation of new process
 technologies, and default
 utilization and by-product
 formation rates collected in
 the previous 3 years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NA--Not applicable.

    The EPA is proposing to amend subpart I such that, with the 
addition of certain new data elements, several current data reporting 
elements would not be reported to the EPA and would, instead, be kept 
as records.\9\ These records would be made available to the EPA for 
review upon request. The EPA has determined that under the proposed 
amendments, as described in Sections III.A and III.B of this preamble, 
it is no longer necessary to require reporting of these data elements. 
Specifically, the EPA is proposing to amend subpart I to add a stack 
testing option and to revise the method that uses default gas 
utilization rates and by-product formation rates. The EPA has 
determined that the new stack testing option and the revised default 
emission factor method represent simplified methods compared to the 
current default emission factor method in subpart I and provide 
accurate fab-level GHG data that can be verified using other data 
elements that are also reported. Other data that would be reported, 
such as the annual manufacturing capacity of the facility reported 
under 40 CFR 98.96(a) and the proposed effective facility-wide DRE 
factor that would be calculated and reported under proposed 40 CFR 
98.96(r), would be used to verify the reported GHG emissions by 
comparing them to other data reported by the facility as well as 
statistically analyzing the reported information for the population of 
facilities reporting under subpart I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ These reporting elements include data elements that have 
been designated as ``inputs to emissions equations'' in the August 
25, 2011 final rule titled, ``Change to the Reporting Date for 
Certain Data Elements Required Under the Mandatory Reporting of 
Greenhouse Gases Rule'' (76 FR 53057), and listed in Table A-7 of 
subpart A. Consistent with the proposed amendments to subpart I, we 
are proposing to remove these subpart I inputs to emissions 
equations data elements from table A-7 so that they would not be 
required to be reported by March 31, 2015. More information on this 
proposed change can be found at the end of Section III.C of this 
preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the proposed amendments to the methods in 40 CFR 98.93, the 
EPA has determined that fewer data elements would be needed to verify 
the GHG emissions data and, therefore, would not require the reporting 
of the data elements that the EPA is proposing to move to 
recordkeeping. Requiring reporting of these data elements would create 
an unnecessary burden for all facilities, because a requirement to 
maintain the same data as records would provide sufficient information 
to confirm reported GHG emissions through an on-site review of those 
records in individual circumstances, if necessary.
    The proposed stack testing option would take advantage of the fact 
that facilities with dozens of individual tools often have only a few 
emission stacks because emissions from many tools are consolidated into 
a shared stack system instead of having individual stacks. Therefore, 
at many facilities, testing a few stacks is less of a burden than 
tracking gas consumption and other parameters for multiple tools. The 
stack testing approach would involve the development of fab-specific 
emission factors in terms of kg of F-GHG emitted per kg of F-GHG 
consumed based on measured stack emissions. Using this approach, 
facilities would be required to monitor and keep records of the amount 
of each F-GHG consumed and data on the operating time and performance 
of abatement systems, but they would not be required to report these 
data for the reasons specified above. Other data needed to determine 
the amount of F-GHG used in a process type or sub-type would not be 
reported, but would be kept as records. The EPA has determined that 
these detailed data are not needed for verification of the GHG data 
under the proposed stack testing option because the EPA could use other 
reported data to verify the GHG data.
    The proposed amendments to the default gas utilization rate and by-
product formation rate approach would require facilities to monitor and 
keep records of the amount of each F-GHG consumed in each process type 
and sub-type, and data on the operating time and performance of 
abatement systems, but they would not need to report these data. The 
EPA has determined that GHG emissions estimated using the revised 
default emission factor method can be verified using statistical and 
other types of analysis of the reported data elements. Reported GHG 
emissions can be confirmed through an on-site review of those records 
in individual circumstances, if necessary.
    The proposed amendments to the reporting requirements would move 
the information on the number and DRE of abatement systems at each 
facility from the reporting requirements to the recordkeeping 
requirements. In order to determine the extent to which GHG emissions 
from this category are being abated, we are proposing to include in 40 
CFR 98.96(r) a requirement for each facility to calculate and report an 
effective facility-wide DRE factor for the emissions from the 
electronics manufacturing processes at the facility. This factor would 
be calculated as 1 minus the ratio of actual reported emissions to the 
emissions that would occur if there were no abatement. The actual 
emissions are already reported under subpart A and subpart I.
    For calculating the effective facility-wide DRE, facilities would 
have two methods for calculating emissions that would occur if there 
were no abatement. The first method would be used to calculate the 
emissions without abatement in cases where the facility calculated 
reported emissions using default utilization and by-product formation 
rates. This includes cases in which the facility would calculate 
emissions under 40 CFR 98.93(a) and also those emissions that were 
calculated for stack systems that are

[[Page 63570]]

exempt from testing, under 40 CFR 98.93(i)(3). In this method emissions 
without abatement would be calculated using the consumption of each F-
GHG and N2O in each process type or sub-type, and the 
default gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates in Tables 
I-3 to I-8, and I-11 to I-15 of subpart I. This calculation would not 
require facilities to collect any additional information because the 
information on F-GHG and N2O consumption is already required 
to perform the calculations needed to estimate emissions using either 
the proposed revised default emission factor approach or the proposed 
stack testing option. This proposed reporting requirement, 40 CFR 
98.96(r), would require a new calculation with these existing data, 
including the current reported actual emissions and the emissions that 
would occur if there were no abatement. The latter would be calculated 
using the consumption of each F-GHG and N2O in each process 
type or sub-type and the appropriate default gas utilization rates and 
by-product formation rates in Tables I-3 to I-8 and I-11 to I-15 of 
subpart I.
    The second method would be used to calculate the emissions without 
abatement from stack systems in cases where the facility calculated 
emissions based on stack testing conducted according to 40 CFR 
98.93(i)(4). In this method, facilities would calculate emissions 
without abatement from the reported GHG emissions using the inverse of 
the DRE and the fraction of each gas in each process type that is 
abated. This method would use default values or values that would 
already be measured and used in the equations that a facility would use 
to calculate GHG emissions in the proposed stack testing option.
    In this notice we are also proposing changes to Table A-7 of 
subpart A, General Provisions. Table A-7 lists those data elements for 
which the reporting date has been deferred to March 31, 2015 for the 
2011 to 2013 reporting years. We are proposing to revise Table A-7 for 
the rows specific to subpart I to remove the references to those data 
elements described in Table 4 of this preamble that would be moved from 
reporting in 40 CFR 98.96 to recordkeeping under 40 CFR 98.97, or that 
would be removed entirely from subpart I because of the proposed 
removal of the relevant emission calculation requirement. If the EPA 
finalizes the proposed changes to the reporting requirements, reporters 
would no longer be required to report these elements in 2014 and 
beyond, and thus there would be no reporting requirement to defer.

D. Proposed Changes To Remove BAMM Provisions and Language Specific to 
Reporting Years 2011, 2012, and 2013

    We are proposing to remove the provisions in 40 CFR 98.94(a) for 
best available monitoring methods (BAMM). The requirements of 40 CFR 
98.94(a)(1) through (a)(3) provide an option for reporters to request 
and use BAMM for calendar year 2011 reporting for monitoring parameters 
that cannot be reasonably measured according to the monitoring and QA/
QC methods provided in subpart I. The provisions require that, starting 
no later than January 1, 2012, the reporter must discontinue using BAMM 
and begin following all applicable monitoring and QA/QC requirements of 
this part, unless the EPA has approved the use of BAMM beyond 2011 
under 40 CFR 98.98(a)(4).
    As discussed in Section II.B of this preamble, the EPA intends to 
finalize the proposed revisions to subpart I in 2013 so that 
semiconductor manufacturing facilities can implement the revised 
subpart I beginning in 2014. The proposed amendments would become 
effective on January 1, 2014. Facilities would be required to follow 
one of the new methods to estimate emissions beginning in 2014, 
submitting the first reports of emissions estimated using the new 
methods in 2015. The BAMM provisions of 40 CFR 98.94(a) would be 
outdated on the effective date. The provisions of 40 CFR 98.94(a)(1) to 
(a)(3) are limited to 2011, and the deadline for requesting an 
extension under 40 CFR 98.94(a)(4) also occurred in 2011. Therefore, we 
are proposing to remove all the BAMM provisions in the current subpart 
I, because they would no longer be applicable in 2014. We are not 
proposing any new BAMM provisions because we expect that all facilities 
would be in compliance with the monitoring and QA/QC methods required 
under subpart I by the time the 2014 calendar year reports are 
submitted in 2015.
    We are also proposing to remove 40 CFR 98.93(h)(2), which provides 
an option for reporters to calculate and report emissions of 
fluorinated heat transfer fluids using select time periods in 2012, and 
the corresponding reporting requirement at 40 CFR 98.96(v). In 
addition, we are proposing to remove language in 40 CFR 98.94(h)(3) 
that is specific to the monitoring of fluorinated heat transfer fluids 
in 2012. These provisions would no longer be applicable on the 
effective date of the proposed amendments.

IV. Background for Confidentiality Determinations for Subpart I of Part 
98

A. Overview and Background

    In this notice we are also proposing confidentiality determinations 
for the new and revised reporting data elements in the proposed subpart 
I rule amendments. For information on the history of confidentiality 
determinations for subpart I data elements, see the following notices:
     Proposed Confidentially Determinations for Data Required 
Under the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and Proposed 
Amendment to Special Rules Governing Certain Information Under the 
Clean Air Act; Proposed Rule (75 FR 39094, July 7, 2010); hereafter 
referred to as the ``July 7, 2010 CBI proposal.'' Proposed 
confidentiality determinations for Part 98 data elements, including 
data elements contained in subpart I.
     Confidentiality Determinations for Data Required Under the 
Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and Proposed Amendment to 
Special Rules Governing Certain Information Under the Clean Air Act; 
Final Rule (76 FR 30782, May 26, 2011) hereafter referred to as the 
``2011 Final CBI Rule.'' Assigned data elements to data categories and 
published the final CBI determinations for the data elements in 34 Part 
98 subparts, except for those data elements that were assigned to the 
``Inputs to Emission Equations'' data category. Final CBI 
determinations for subpart I were not included because of substantial 
changes to data elements and the addition of new data elements in the 
final subpart I.
     Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule: Proposed 
Confidentiality Determinations for Subpart I and Proposed Amendments to 
Subpart I Best Available Monitoring Methods Provisions; Proposed Rule 
(77 FR 10434, February 22, 2012), hereafter referred to as ``Subpart I 
CBI re-proposal.'' The EPA re-proposed for public comment the 
confidentiality determinations for the data elements in subpart I to 
reflect the reporting data elements in the 2010 final subpart I and all 
subsequent proposed and final amendments to subpart I up to the date of 
the CBI re-proposal.
     Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule: Final 
Confidentiality Determinations for Nine Subparts and Amendments to 
Subpart A and I under the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule; 
Final Rule (77 FR 48072, August 13, 2012), hereafter referred to as 
``Final Subpart I CBI Determinations Rule.'' The EPA published the 
final confidentiality determinations for the data elements in subpart I 
to reflect the

[[Page 63571]]

reporting data elements in the 2010 final subpart I and all subsequent 
final amendments to subpart I up to the date of the Subpart I CBI re-
proposal.
    In this action, the EPA is proposing confidentiality determinations 
for the new and revised data elements under the proposed subpart I 
amendments that are described in Section III of this preamble. These 
proposed confidentiality determinations would be finalized based on 
public comment. The EPA currently plans to finalize these 
determinations at the same time rule amendments to subpart I described 
in Section III of this preamble are finalized.

B. Approach to Proposed CBI Determinations for New or Revised Subpart I 
Data Elements

    In this action, we are proposing to add or revise 25 new data 
reporting requirements in subpart I. We propose to assign each of the 
newly proposed or revised data elements in subpart I, a direct emitter 
subpart, to one of the direct emitter data categories created in the 
2011 Final CBI Rule.\10\ The 25 new or revised data elements were 
assigned to one of the 10 data categories listed in Table 5 of this 
preamble. Please see the memorandum titled ``Proposed Data Category 
Assignments for Subpart I 2012 Amendments'' in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-
0028 for a list of the 25 newly proposed or revised data elements in 
this subpart and their proposed category assignments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The 2011 Final CBI Rule created 11 direct emitter data 
categories, including the 10 data categories listed in Table 5 of 
this preamble and an inputs to emissions equations data category. 
However, EPA has not made final confidentiality determinations for 
any data element assigned to the inputs to emissions equations data 
category either in the 2011 Final CBI Rule or any other rulemaking.

           Table 5--Summary of Final Confidentiality Determinations for Direct Emitter Data Categories
                                     [Based on May 26, 2011 final CBI rule]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Confidentiality determination for data elements in each
                                                                              category
                                                  --------------------------------------------------------------
                  Data category                                          Data that are not    Data that are not
                                                    Emission data \a\    emission data and    emission data but
                                                                              not CBI            are CBI \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility and Unit Identifier Information.........                   X   ...................  ...................
Emissions........................................                   X   ...................  ...................
Calculation Methodology and Methodological Tier..                   X   ...................  ...................
Data Elements Reported for Periods of Missing                       X   ...................  ...................
 Data that are Not Inputs to Emission Equations..
Unit/Process ``Static'' Characteristics that are   ...................                X\c\                 X\c\
 Not Inputs to Emission Equations................
Unit/Process Operating Characteristics that are    ...................                X\c\                 X\c\
 Not Inputs to Emission Equations................
Test and Calibration Methods.....................  ...................                   X   ...................
Production/Throughput Data that are Not Inputs to  ...................  ...................                   X
 Emission Equations..............................
Raw Materials Consumed that are Not Inputs to      ...................  ...................                   X
 Emission Equations..............................
Process-Specific and Vendor Data Submitted in      ...................  ...................                   X
 BAMM Extension Requests.........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Under CAA section 114(c), ``emission data'' are not entitled to confidential treatment. The term ``emission
  data'' is defined at 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i).
\b\ Section 114(c) of the CAA affords confidential treatment to data (except emission data) that are considered
  CBI.
\c\ In the 2011 Final CBI Rule, this data category contains both data elements determined to be CBI and those
  determined not to be CBI. See discussion in Section IV.B of this preamble for more details.

    As shown in Table 5 of this preamble, the EPA made categorical 
confidentiality determinations for data elements assigned to eight 
direct emitter data categories. For two data categories, ``Unit/Process 
`Static' Characteristics That are Not Inputs to Emission Equations'' 
and ``Unit/Process Operating Characteristics That are Not Inputs to 
Emission Equations,'' the EPA determined in the 2011 Final CBI Rule 
that the data elements assigned to those categories are not emission 
data but did not make categorical CBI determinations. Rather, the EPA 
made CBI determinations for individual data elements assigned to these 
two data categories.
    We are following the same approach in this proposed rule. 
Specifically, we are proposing to assign each of the 25 new or revised 
data elements in the proposed subpart I amendment to the appropriate 
direct emitter data category. For the 13 data elements being assigned 
to categories with categorical confidentiality determinations, we 
propose to apply the categorical determinations made in the 2011 Final 
CBI Rule to the assigned data elements. For the 12 new or revised 
subpart I reporting elements assigned to the ``Unit/Process `Static' 
Characteristics That are Not Inputs to Emission Equations'' and the 
``Unit/Process Operating Characteristics That are Not Inputs to 
Emission Equations'' data categories, consistent with our approach 
towards data elements previously assigned to these data categories, we 
propose that these data elements are not emission data. Section IV.C of 
this preamble discusses the proposed CBI determinations and supporting 
rationale for these data elements. All 25 new and revised subpart I 
data elements in the proposed subpart I amendment are listed in the 
memorandum titled ``Proposed Data Category Assignments for Subpart I 
2012 Amendments'' in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028.

C. Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for Individual Data Elements 
in Two Direct Emitter Data Categories

    As described in Section IV.B of this preamble, the EPA is proposing 
individual CBI determinations for the 12 data elements assigned to the 
``Unit/Process `Static' Characteristics That are Not Inputs to Emission 
Equations'' and ``Unit/Process Operating Characteristics That are Not 
Inputs to Emission Equations'' data categories.
    One new subpart I reporting element is being proposed that would be 
assigned to the ``Unit/Process `Operating' Characteristics That are Not 
Inputs to Emission Equations'' data category. This proposed new data 
element would be the effective facility-

[[Page 63572]]

wide DRE factor that is calculated and reported according to 40 CFR 
98.96(r). We are proposing that this data element not be considered CBI 
because it does not reveal any information that is likely to cause 
competitive harm if publicly released. Facilities would be required to 
report the calculated facility-wide DRE factor, but would not be 
required to report any additional data used to calculate the facility-
wide DRE factor, except the actual emissions values that are already 
reported under subpart A and subpart I. The effective facility-wide DRE 
would indicate the approximate fraction of a facility's emissions that 
are abated. However, it would not provide any insight into the design 
or operating conditions of any individual process because the effective 
facility-wide DRE would be an aggregate value indirectly calculated 
from, among other things, actual emissions, abatement system DRE, 
abatement system uptime, apportioning factors, gas consumption, and 
default gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates. Because 
of the large number of variables that would go into calculating the 
effective facility-wide DRE that would not be reported under the 
proposed changes to 40 CFR 98.96, competitors would not be able to use 
the reported effective facility-wide DRE factor together with other 
reported data elements (such as emissions) to calculate any data 
element that would otherwise not be reported and considered sensitive, 
such as the amount of F-GHG used in an individual process type or sub-
type. Therefore, public disclosure of this data element through the 
required reporting proposed here is not likely to cause substantial 
competitive harm to the reporting company; the EPA is proposing that 
this data element not be protected as CBI.
    One new data element under the proposed 40 CFR 98.96(p)(2) would be 
assigned to the ``Unit/Process `Static' Characteristics That Are Not 
Inputs to Emission Equations'' data category. Proposed 40 CFR 
98.96(p)(2) would require the basis of the DRE value used (either 
default or site specific measurement according to proposed 40 CFR 
98.94(f)(4)(i) through (vi)) for each process sub-type or process type 
and for each gas. We are proposing that this data element not be 
considered CBI, because it does not reveal any information that is 
likely to cause competitive harm if publicly released. Specifying 
whether default or site-specific DRE values were used would reveal that 
a fab did or did not use a default DRE value. However, it would not 
provide any insight into the design or operating conditions of any 
individual process since the default DRE is used in combination with 
fab-specific apportioning factors and consumption information to 
calculate annual emissions. Because fab-specific consumption and 
apportioning data used as inputs to emissions equations are not 
required to be reported under the proposed subpart I, competitors would 
be unable to derive any sensitive information based on the knowledge 
that a particular fab used a default DRE value for a gas and process 
type or sub-type combination. Therefore, public disclosure of this data 
element through the required reporting proposed here is not likely to 
cause substantial competitive harm to the reporting company; the EPA is 
proposing that this data element not be protected as CBI.
    Five new data elements to be reported under the proposed 40 CFR 
98.96(y)(2) and (y)(3) are part of the triennial (every 3 years) 
technology assessment report and would be assigned to the ``Unit/
Process `Static' Characteristics That Are Not Inputs to Emission 
Equations'' data category. These data elements would be required for 
facilities that emit more than 40,000 mtCO2e of GHG 
emissions in 2015 from the electronics manufacturing processes subject 
to reporting. Proposed 40 CFR 98.96(y)(2)(i) would require, as part of 
the triennial technology assessment report, a description of how the 
gases and technologies used in semiconductor manufacturing using 200 mm 
and 300 mm wafers in the United States have changed in the past 3 years 
and whether any of the identified changes are likely to have affected 
the emissions characteristics of semiconductor manufacturing processes 
in such a way that the default emission factors or default DRE values 
may be required to be updated. Proposed 40 CFR 98.96(y)(2)(ii) would 
require a description of the effect of the implementation of new 
process technologies and/or finer line width processes in 200 mm and 
300 mm technologies, the introduction of new tool platforms, and the 
introduction of new processes on previously tested platforms. Proposed 
40 CFR 98.96(y)(2)(iii) would require a description of the status of 
implementing 450 mm wafer technology and the potential need to create 
or update emission factors compared to 300 mm technology. Proposed 40 
CFR 98.96(y)(2)(v) would require a description of the use of a new gas, 
the use of an existing gas in a new process type or sub-type, or a 
fundamental change in process technology. Proposed 40 CFR 98.96(y)(3) 
would require a data gathering and analysis plan that includes the 
testing of tools to determine the potential effect on current emission 
factors and DRE values under new conditions, and a planned analysis of 
the effect on overall facility emissions using a representative gas-use 
profile for a 200 mm, 300 mm, or 450 mm fab (depending on which 
technology is under consideration). We are proposing that each of these 
five new data elements be protected as CBI because the proposed data 
elements are likely to reveal information regarding recipe-specific 
data, new technologies, or advances in production processes that could 
be used by a competitor. The EPA intends to use the information 
collected in the triennial report for consideration of updating default 
emission factors or DRE values in future rulemakings. This information 
is not emission data and is likely to reveal potentially sensitive 
information about individual facilities because it is likely to include 
information about recent process technology developed and adopted by 
the facilities, including proprietary process technology that would not 
be revealed otherwise. Therefore, public disclosure of these five data 
elements through the required reporting proposed here is likely to 
cause substantial competitive harm to the reporting company; the EPA is 
proposing that these data elements be protected as CBI.
    We are proposing to revise an additional five data elements in 
subpart I that would be assigned to the ``Unit/Process `Operating' 
Characteristics That Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations'' and ``Unit/
Process `Static' Characteristics That Are Not Inputs to Emission 
Equations'' data category. These five data elements are being revised 
to clarify the basis for the data element (e.g., fab-specific instead 
of facility-specific), to clarify applicability, or to conform to 
amendments in other rule sections. EPA made categorical assignments and 
confidentiality determinations for these five data elements in Final 
Subpart I CBI Determinations Rule. The proposed amendment does not 
change the nature or type of the data to be collected. Therefore, we 
are not proposing to change the data categorical assignments or CBI 
categorical determinations for these five data elements. Additional 
information on these five revised subpart I data elements in the 
proposed subpart I amendment can be found in the memorandum titled 
``Proposed Data Category Assignments for Subpart I 2012 Amendments'' in 
Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028.

[[Page 63573]]

D. Request for Comments on Proposed Confidentiality Determinations

    Today's action provides affected businesses subject to Part 98, 
other stakeholders, and the general public an opportunity to provide 
comment on several aspects of this proposal. For the CBI component of 
this rulemaking, we are soliciting comment on the following specific 
issues.
    First, we specifically seek comment on the proposed data category 
assignment for each of the 25 new or revised data elements in the 
proposed amendments to subpart I. If you believe that the EPA has 
improperly assigned certain new data elements in this subpart to any of 
the existing data categories, please provide specific comments 
identifying which of the new data elements may be mis-assigned along 
with a detailed explanation of why you believe them to be incorrectly 
assigned and in which data category you believe they belong.
    Second, we specifically seek comment on our proposal to apply the 
same categorical confidentiality determinations made in the 2011 Final 
CBI Rule for eight direct emitter data categories to the new or revised 
data elements in the proposed amendments to subpart I that are assigned 
to those categories.
    We seek comment on the proposed confidentiality status of the 12 
newly proposed or revised data elements in the direct emitter data 
categories for ``Unit/Process `Static' Characteristics That Are Not 
Inputs to Emission Equations'' and ``Unit/Process Operating 
Characteristics That Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations.''
    By proposing confidentiality determinations prior to data reporting 
through this proposal and rulemaking process, we provide potential 
reporters an opportunity to submit comments identifying data they 
consider sensitive and their rationales and supporting documentation; 
this opportunity is the same as that which is afforded submitters of 
information in case-by-case confidentiality determinations. We will 
evaluate claims of confidentiality before finalizing the 
confidentiality determinations. Please note that this will be 
reporters' only opportunity to substantiate your confidentiality claim. 
Upon finalizing the confidentiality determinations of the subpart I 
data elements in this rule, the EPA will release or withhold these 
subpart I data in accordance with 40 CFR 2.301, which contains special 
provisions governing the treatment of 40 CFR part 98 data for which 
confidentiality determinations have been made through rulemaking.
    Please consider the following instructions in submitting comments 
on the newly proposed data elements in subpart I.
    Please identify each individual proposed new or revised data 
element you do or do not consider to be CBI or emission data in your 
comments. Please explain specifically how the public release of that 
particular data element would or would not cause a competitive 
disadvantage to a facility. Discuss how this data element may be 
different from or similar to data that are already publicly available. 
Please submit information identifying any publicly available sources of 
information containing the specific data elements in question. Data 
that are already available through other sources would not be 
considered to be CBI. In your comments, please identify the manner and 
location in which each specific data element you identify is publicly 
available, including a citation. If the data are physically published, 
such as in a book, industry trade publication, or federal agency 
publication, provide the title, volume number (if applicable), 
author(s), publisher, publication date, and International Standard Book 
Number (ISBN) or other identifier. For data published on a Web site, 
provide the address of the Web site and the date you last visited the 
Web site and identify the Web site publisher and content author.
    If your concern is that competitors could use a particular data 
element to discern sensitive information, specifically describe the 
pathway by which this could occur and explain how the discerned 
information would negatively affect your competitive position. Describe 
any unique process or aspect of your facility that would be revealed if 
the particular proposed new or revised data element you consider 
sensitive were made publicly available. If the data element you 
identify would cause harm only when used in combination with other 
publicly available data, then describe the other data, identify the 
public source(s) of these data, and explain how the combination of data 
could be used to cause competitive harm. Describe the measures 
currently taken to keep the data confidential. Avoid conclusory and 
unsubstantiated statements, or general assertions regarding potential 
harm. Please be as specific as possible in your comments and include 
all information necessary for the EPA to evaluate your comments.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    Under section 3(f)(4) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 
October 4, 1993), this action is not a ``significant regulatory 
action'' and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 
12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
    The EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs associated with 
this proposal. This analysis is contained in the Economics Impact 
Analysis (EIA), ``Proposed Amendments and Confidentiality 
Determinations for Subpart I EIA.'' A copy of the analysis is available 
in the docket for this action and the analysis is briefly summarized 
here. Overall, the EPA has concluded that the costs of the proposed 
changes would significantly reduce subpart I compliance costs. 
Specifically, the proposed changes would reduce nationwide compliance 
costs in the first year by 37 percent ($2.7 million to $1.7 million) 
and by 73 percent in the second year ($6.4 million to $1.7 million).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not increase information collection burden. As 
previously mentioned, this action proposes amended reporting 
methodologies in subpart I, confidentiality determinations for reported 
data elements, and amendments to subpart A to reflect proposed changes 
to the reporting requirements in subpart I. The Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information collection 
requirements contained in subpart I, under 40 CFR part 98, under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and 
has assigned OMB control number 2060-0650 for subpart I. The OMB 
control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed at 40 
CFR part 9. Additional information can be found in the docket (see file 
``Proposed Amendments and Confidentiality Determinations for Subpart I 
Information Collection Burden''). We continue to be interested in the 
potential impacts of this action on the burden associated with the 
proposed amendments and welcome comments on issues related to such 
impacts.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

[[Page 63574]]

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 this re-proposal on small 
entities, ``small entity'' is defined as: (1) A small business as 
defined by the Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR 
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of 
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; or (3) a small organization that is any 
not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and 
is not dominant in its field.
    This action proposes to (1) Amend monitoring and calculation 
methodologies in subpart I; (2) assign subpart I data reporting 
elements into CBI data categories; and (3) amend subpart A to reflect 
proposed changes to the reporting requirements in subpart I. After 
considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small 
entities, I certify that this action would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The small 
entities that would be directly regulated by this proposed rule are 
facilities included in NAICS codes for Semiconductor and Related Device 
Manufacturing (334413) and Other Computer Peripheral Equipment 
Manufacturing (334119). In determining whether a rule has a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact 
of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small 
entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility 
analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives ``which 
minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on small 
entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or 
otherwise has a positive economic effect on small entities subject to 
the rule.
    The EPA is proposing to take several steps to reduce the impact of 
Part 98 on small entities. For example, the EPA is proposing to remove 
the recipe-specific reporting requirements for subpart I, which were 
identified by the Petitioner as economically and technically 
burdensome. In addition, the EPA has provided a number of flexibilities 
in this proposed rule, which would allow reporters to choose the 
methodologies that are least burdensome for their facility. Finally, 
the EPA continues to conduct significant outreach on the mandatory GHG 
reporting rule, and subpart I specifically, and maintains an ``open 
door'' policy for stakeholders to help inform the EPA's understanding 
of key issues for the industries. Additional information can be found 
in the docket (see file ``Proposed Amendments and Confidentiality 
Determinations for Subpart I EIA''). We continue to be interested in 
the potential impacts of this action on small entities and welcome 
comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 
U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires federal agencies, unless otherwise 
prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on 
state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Federal 
agencies must also develop a plan to provide notice to small 
governments that might be significantly or uniquely affected by any 
regulatory requirements. The plan must enable officials of affected 
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 
development of the EPA regulatory proposals with significant federal 
intergovernmental mandates and must inform, educate, and advise small 
governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    This action proposes to: (1) Amend monitoring and calculation 
methodologies in subpart I; (2) assign subpart I data reporting 
elements into CBI data categories; and (3) amend subpart A to reflect 
proposed changes to the reporting requirements in subpart I. This 
action does not contain a federal mandate that may result in 
expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. 
In some cases, the EPA has increased flexibility in the selection of 
methods used for calculating and reporting GHGs. Also in this action, 
the EPA is revising specific provisions to provide clarity on what is 
to be reported. These revisions do not add additional burden on 
reporters but offer flexibility. As part of the process of finalization 
of the subpart I rule, the EPA undertook specific steps to evaluate the 
effect of those final rules on small entities. Based on the proposed 
amendments to subpart I provisions, burden will stay the same or 
decrease, therefore the EPA's determination finding of no significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities has not 
changed. Thus, this action is not subject to the requirements of 
sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. This rule is also not subject to the 
requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments.
    However, in developing Part 98, the EPA consulted with small 
governments pursuant to a plan established under section 203 of the 
UMRA to address impacts of regulatory requirements in the rule that 
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. For a summary 
of the EPA's consultations with state and/or local officials or other 
representatives of state and/or local governments in developing Part 
98, see Section VIII.D of the preamble to the final rule (74 FR 56370, 
October 30, 2009).

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132. However, for a more detailed 
discussion about how Part 98 relates to existing state programs, please 
see Section II of the preamble to the final rule (74 FR 56266, October 
30, 2009).
    This action, which is proposing amended calculation and reporting 
methodologies in subpart I, proposing new confidentiality 
determinations for data elements required under subpart I, and 
proposing amendments to subpart A to reflect proposed changes to the 
reporting requirements in subpart I, would only apply to certain 
electronics manufacturers. No state or local government facilities are 
known to be engaged in the activities that would be affected by the 
provisions in this proposed rule. This action also does not limit the 
power of states or localities to collect GHG data and/or regulate GHG 
emissions. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with the EPA 
policy to promote communications between the EPA and state and local 
governments, the EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed 
action from state and local officials. For a summary of the EPA's 
consultation with state and local organizations and representatives in 
developing Part 98, see Section VIII.E of

[[Page 63575]]

the preamble to the final rule (74 FR 56371, October 30, 2009).

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action 
proposes to: (1) Amend monitoring and calculation methodologies in 
subpart I; (2) assign subpart I data reporting elements into CBI data 
categories; and (3) amend subpart A to reflect proposed changes to the 
reporting requirements in subpart I. This action does not have tribal 
implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 
November 9, 2000). No tribal facilities are known to be engaged in the 
activities affected by this action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does 
not apply to this action. For a summary of the EPA's consultations with 
tribal governments and representatives, see Section VIII.F of the 
preamble to the final rule (74 FR 56371, October 30, 2009). The EPA 
specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action from 
tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health 
or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of 
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This 
action proposes to: (1) Amend monitoring and calculation methodologies 
in subpart I; (2) assign subpart I data reporting elements into CBI 
data categories; and (3) amend subpart A to reflect proposed changes to 
the reporting requirements in subpart I. This action is not subject to 
Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental 
standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action, which proposes to: (1) Amend monitoring and 
calculation methodologies in subpart I, (2) assign subpart I data 
reporting elements into CBI data categories, and (3) amend subpart A to 
reflect proposed changes to the reporting requirements in subpart I, is 
not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), 
because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 
12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 
the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory 
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, 
explanations when the agency decides not to use available and 
applicable VCS.
    This action, which is proposing to amend monitoring and calculation 
methodologies in subpart I, involves technical standards. The EPA is 
proposing to include a stack testing option that would involve using 
the following EPA reference methods:
     Method 1 or 1A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1, to select 
sampling port locations and the number of traverse points in the 
exhaust stacks.
     Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G at 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A-1 and A-2, to determine gas velocity and volumetric flow 
rate in the exhaust stacks.
     Method 3, 3A, or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2, to 
determine the gas molecular weight of the exhaust using the same 
sampling site and at the same time as the F-GHG sampling is performed.
     Method 4 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3, to measure gas 
moisture content in the exhaust stacks.
     Method 301 at 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, to perform field 
validations of alternative methods of measuring F-GHG emissions and 
abatement system DRE.
     Method 320 at 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, to measure the 
concentration of F-GHG in the stack exhaust.
    Consistent with the NTTAA, the EPA conducted searches to identify 
VCS in addition to these EPA methods. The EPA conducted searches for 
VCS from at least three different voluntary consensus standards bodies, 
including the following: ASTM, ASME, and International SEMATECH 
Manufacturing Initiative (ISMI). No applicable VCS were identified for 
EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, or 2G. The method, ASME PTC 19.10-1981, 
Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses, is not cited in this proposed rule for 
its manual method for measuring the oxygen, carbon dioxide and carbon 
monoxide content of the exhaust gas. ASME PTC 19.10-1981 is an 
acceptable alternative to EPA Methods 3A and 3B for the manual 
procedures only, and not the instrumental procedures. The VCS ASTM 
D6348-03 (2010), Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive 
Direct Interface Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy, has been 
reviewed by the EPA as a potential alternative to EPA Method 320. All 
data and information EPA has received in support of the stack testing 
method used EPA Method 320. Since this industry contains specialized 
gases in low concentrations, EPA would prefer to have supporting data 
prior to approving another test method. Because of this, we are not 
proposing this standard as an acceptable alternative for EPA Method 320 
in this proposed rule. We note that reporters have the option to obtain 
approval for this method under the procedures outlines in 98.94(k). We 
specifically seek comment on whether or not ASTM D6348-03 should be 
included in as an option for the stack testing method.
    The EPA is proposing to revise the current subpart I provisions for 
determining abatement system DRE to incorporate language based on 
methods adapted from the ISMI 2009 Guideline for Environmental 
Characterization of Semiconductor Process Equipment--Revision 2. We are 
proposing to incorporate applicable portions of the ISMI 2009 Guideline 
into the rule in proposed Appendix A to Subpart I. The EPA is not 
proposing to incorporate by reference the entire ISMI 2009 Guideline 
because the ISMI 2009 Guidelines have not been subject to the same 
level of peer review and validation as other alternative standards 
(e.g., ASTM or ASME standards). Therefore, we are proposing to 
incorporate only those portions of the 2009 ISMI Guideline that the EPA 
has determined are needed to provide flexibility and reduce burden in 
subpart I.
    The EPA identified no other VCS that were potentially applicable 
for subpart I in lieu of EPA reference methods. Therefore, the EPA does 
not intend to adopt other standards for this purpose. For the methods 
required or referenced by the proposed rules, a source may apply to the 
EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or alternative 
monitoring requirements in place of any required testing methods, 
performance specifications or procedures, as specified in proposed 40 
CFR part 98, subpart I.
    The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking 
and, specifically, invites the public to

[[Page 63576]]

identify potentially applicable VCS and to explain why such standards 
should be used in this regulation. Commenters should also explain why 
this proposed rule should adopt these VCS in lieu of, or in addition 
to, EPA standards. Emission test methods submitted for evaluation 
should be accompanied with a basis for the recommendation, including 
method validation data and the procedure used to validate the candidate 
method (if a method other than Method 301 was used).

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    This action is proposing to: (1) Amend monitoring and calculation 
methodologies in subpart I; (2) assign subpart I data reporting 
elements into CBI data categories; and (3) amend subpart A to reflect 
proposed changes to the reporting requirements in subpart I. The EPA 
has determined that this action 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 action addresses only 
reporting and recordkeeping procedures.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 98

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Greenhouse gases, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

     Dated: August 31, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set out 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.

Subpart A--[Amended]

    2. Section 98.7 is amended by revising paragraph (m)(3) and 
removing and reserving paragraph (n).
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  98.7  What standardized methods are incorporated by reference 
into this part?

* * * * *
    (m) * * *
    (3) Protocol for Measuring Destruction or Removal Efficiency (DRE) 
of Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Abatement Equipment in Electronics 
Manufacturing, Version 1, EPA-430-R-10-003, March 2010 (EPA 430-R-10-
003), http://www.epa.gov/semiconductor-pfc/documents/dre_protocol.pdf, 
IBR approved for Sec.  98.94(f)(4)(i), Sec.  98.94(g)(3), Sec.  
98.97(d)(4), Sec.  98.98, Appendix A to subpart I of this part, Sec.  
98.124(e)(2), and Sec.  98.414(n)(1).
* * * * *

Table A-7 to Subpart A of Part 98 [Amended]

    3. Table A-7 to subpart A of part 98 is amended by removing the 
entries for ``98.96(f)(1),'' ``98.96(g),'' ``98.96(h),'' ``98.96(i),'' 
``98.96(j),'' ``98.96(k),'' ``98.96(l),'' ``98.96(n),'' ``98.96(o),'' 
``98.96(q)(2),'' ``98.96(q)(3),'' ``98.96(q)(5)(iv),'' and 
``98.96(r).''

Subpart I--[Amended]

    4. Section 98.91 is amended by revising the definitions of 
``Ci'' in Equation I-3 of paragraph (a)(3) and 
``Wx'' in Equation I-5 of paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  98.91  Reporting threshold.

    (a) * * *
    (3) * * *
* * * * *
    Ci = Annual fluorinated GHG (input gas i) purchases 
or consumption (kg). Only gases that are used in PV manufacturing 
processes listed at Sec.  98.90(a)(1) through (a)(4) that have 
listed GWP values in Table A-1 to subpart A of this part must be 
considered for threshold applicability purposes.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
* * * * *
WX = Maximum substrate starts of a facility in month x 
(m\2\ per month).
* * * * *
    5. Section 98.92 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (a)(1).
    b. Removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(2) and (3).
    c. Revising paragraph (a)(6).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  98.92  GHGs to report.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Fluorinated GHGs emitted.
* * * * *
    (6) All fluorinated GHGs and N2O consumed.
* * * * *
    6. Section 98.93 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b).
    b. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text and the definitions of 
``Ci'', ``IBi'', ``IEi'', 
``Ai'', and ``Di'' in Equation I-11 of paragraph 
(c).
    c. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text and the definitions of 
``Di'', ``hil'', ``Nil'', 
``Fil'', ``Xi'', and ``M'' in Equation I-12 of 
paragraph (d).
    d. Revising paragraph (e) introductory text and the definitions of 
``Ci,j'', ``fi,j'', ``Ci'', and ``j'' 
in Equation I-13 of paragraph (e).
    e. Removing and reserving paragraph (f).
    f. Revising paragraph (g).
    g. Revising paragraph (h) introductory text and the definitions of 
``EHi'', ``IiB'', ``Pi'', 
``Ni'', ``Ri'', ``IiE'', and 
``Di'' in Equation I-16 of paragraph (h).
    h. Removing and reserving paragraph (h)(2).
    i. Adding paragraph (i).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  98.93  Calculating GHG emissions.

    (a) You must calculate total annual emissions of each fluorinated 
GHG emitted by electronics manufacturing production processes from each 
fab (as defined in Sec.  98.98) at your facility, including each input 
gas and each by-product gas, for each process type or process sub-type. 
You must use either default gas utilization rates and by-product 
formations rates according to the procedures in paragraphs (a)(1), 
(a)(2), (a)(4), or (a)(6) of this section, as appropriate, or the stack 
test method according to paragraph (i) of this section, to calculate 
emissions of each input gas and each by-product gas. If your fab uses 
less than 50 kg of a fluorinated GHG in one reporting year, you may 
calculate emissions as equal to your fab's annual consumption for that 
specific gas as calculated in Equation I-11 of this subpart. If your 
fab is required to perform calculations using default emission factors 
for gas utilization and by-product formation rates according to the 
procedures in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(4) of this section, and 
default values are not available for a particular input gas and process 
type or sub-type combination in Tables I-3, I-4, I-5, I-6, or I-7, you 
must follow the procedures in paragraph (a)(6) of this section. If you 
calculate emissions of fluorinated GHG input gases and by-product gases 
by process type or sub-type using the methods in paragraphs

[[Page 63577]]

(a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(4) of this section, you must calculate annual 
emissions of each input fluorinated GHG and of each by-product 
fluorinated GHG using Equations I-6 and I-7, respectively.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16OC12.068

Where:

ProcesstypeEi = Annual emissions of input gas i from the processes 
type on a fab basis (metric tons).
Eij = Annual emissions of input gas i from process sub-
type or process type j as calculated in Equation I-8 of this subpart 
(metric tons).
N = The total number of process sub-types j that depends on the 
electronics manufacturing fab and emission calculation methodology. 
If Eij is calculated for a process type j in Equation I-8 
of this subpart, N = 1.
i = Input gas.
j = Process sub-type or process type.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16OC12.069

Where:

ProcesstypeBEk = Annual emissions of by-product gas k 
from the processes type on a fab basis (metric tons).
BEijk = Annual emissions of by-product gas k formed from 
input gas i used for process sub-type or process type j as 
calculated in Equation I-9 of this subpart (metric tons).
N = The total number of process sub-types j that depends on the 
electronics manufacturing fab and emission calculation methodology. 
If BEijk is calculated for a process type j in Equation 
I-9 of this subpart, N = 1.
i = Input gas.
j = Process sub-type, or process type.
k = By-product gas.

    (1) If you manufacture MEMS, LCDs, or PVs, you must calculate 
annual fab-level emissions of each fluorinated GHG used for the plasma 
etching and chamber cleaning process types using default utilization 
and by-product formation rates as shown in Table I-5, I-6, or I-7 of 
this subpart, as appropriate, and by using Equations I-8 and I-9 of 
this subpart.
    (2) If you manufacture semiconductors on wafers measuring 300 mm or 
less in diameter, you must adhere to the procedures in paragraphs 
(a)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) You must calculate annual fab-level emissions of each 
fluorinated GHG used for the plasma etching/wafer cleaning process type 
using default utilization and by-product formation rates as shown in 
Table I-3 or I-4 of this subpart, and by using Equations I-8 and I-9 of 
this subpart.
    (ii) You must calculate annual fab-level emissions of each 
fluorinated GHG used for each of the process sub-types associated with 
the chamber cleaning process type, including in-situ plasma chamber 
clean, remote plasma chamber clean, and in-situ thermal chamber clean, 
using default utilization and by-product formation rates as shown in 
Table I-3 or I-4 of this subpart, and by using Equations I-8 and I-9 of 
this subpart.
    (3) [Reserved.]
    (4) If you manufacture semiconductors on wafers measuring greater 
than 300 mm in diameter, you must adhere to the procedures in 
paragraphs (a)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) You must calculate annual fab-level emissions of each 
fluorinated GHG used for the plasma etching/wafer cleaning process type 
using default utilization and by-product formation rates as shown in 
Table I-4 of this subpart, and by using Equations I-8 and I-9 of this 
subpart.
    (ii) You must calculate annual fab-level emissions of each 
fluorinated GHG used for each of the process sub-types associated with 
the chamber cleaning process type, including in-situ plasma chamber 
clean, remote plasma chamber clean, and in-situ thermal chamber clean, 
using default utilization and by-product formation rates as shown in 
Table I-4 of this subpart, and by using Equations I-8 and I-9 of this 
subpart.
    (5) [Reserved.]
    (6) If your facility is required to perform calculations using 
default emission factors for gas utilization and by-product formation 
rates according to the procedures in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), or 
(a)(4) of this section, and default values are not available for a 
particular input gas and process type or sub-type combination in Tables 
I-3, I-4, I-5, I-6, or I-7, you must use the utilization and by-product 
formation rates of zero and use Equations I-8 and I-9 of this subpart.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16OC12.070

Where:

Eij = Annual emissions of input gas i from process sub-
type or process type j, on a fab basis (metric tons).
Cij = Amount of input gas i consumed for process sub-type 
or process type j, as calculated in Equation I-13 of this subpart, 
on a fab basis (kg).
Uij = Process utilization rate for input gas i for 
process sub-type or process type j (expressed as a decimal 
fraction).
aij = Fraction of input gas i used in process sub-type or 
process type j with abatement systems, on a fab basis (expressed as 
a decimal fraction).
dij = Fraction of input gas i destroyed or removed in 
abatement systems connected to process tools where process sub-type, 
or process type j is used, on a fab basis(expressed as a decimal 
fraction). This is zero unless the facility adheres to the 
requirements in Sec.  98.94(f).
UTij = The average uptime factor of all abatement systems 
connected to process tools in the fab using input gas i in process 
sub-type or process type j, as calculated in Equation I-15a of this

[[Page 63578]]

subpart, on a fab basis (expressed as a decimal fraction).
0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons.
i = Input gas.
j = Process sub-type or process type.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16OC12.071

Where:

BEijk = Annual emissions of by-product gas k formed from 
input gas i from process sub-type or process type j, on a fab basis 
(metric tons).
Bijk = By-product formation rate of gas k created as a 
by-product per amount of input gas i (kg) consumed by process sub-
type or process type j (kg).
Cij = Amount of input gas i consumed for process sub-
type, or process type j, as calculated in Equation I-13 of this 
subpart, on a fab basis (kg).
aij = Fraction of input gas i used for process sub-type, 
or process type j with abatement systems, on a fab basis (expressed 
as a decimal fraction).
djk = Fraction of by-product gas k destroyed or removed 
in abatement systems connected to process tools where process sub-
type, or process type j is used, on a fab basis (expressed as a 
decimal fraction). This is zero unless the facility adheres to the 
requirements in Sec.  98.94(f).
UTjk = The average uptime factor of all abatement systems 
connected to process tools in the fab emitting by-product gas k in 
process sub-type or process type j, as calculated in Equation I-15b 
of this subpart, on a fab basis (expressed as a decimal fraction).
0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons.
i = Input gas.
j = Process sub-type or process type.
k = By-product gas.

    (b) You must calculate annual fab-level N2O emissions 
from all chemical vapor deposition processes and from the aggregate of 
other electronics manufacturing production processes using Equation I-
10 of this subpart and the methods in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of 
this section. If your fab uses less than 50 kg of N2O in one 
reporting year, you may calculate fab emissions as equal to your fab's 
annual consumption for N2O as calculated in Equation I-11 of 
this subpart.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16OC12.072

Where:

E(N2O)j = Annual emissions of N2O 
for N2O-using process j, on a fab basis (metric tons).
CN2O,j = Amount of N2O consumed for 
N2O-using process j, as calculated in Equation I-13 of 
this subpart and apportioned to N2O process j, on a fab 
basis (kg).
UN2O,j = Process utilization factor for N2O-
using process j (expressed as a decimal fraction) from Table I-8 of 
this subpart.
aN2O,j = Fraction of N2O used in 
N2O-using process j with abatement systems, on a fab 
basis (expressed as a decimal fraction).
dN2O,j = Fraction of N2O for N2O-
using process j destroyed or removed in abatement systems connected 
to process tools where process j is used, on a fab basis (expressed 
as a decimal fraction). This is zero unless the facility adheres to 
the requirements in Sec.  98.94(f).
UTN2O = The average uptime factor of all the abatement 
systems connected to process tools in the fab that use 
N2O, as calculated in Equation I-15a of this subpart, on 
a fab basis (expressed as a decimal fraction). For purposes of 
calculating the abatement system uptime for N2O using 
process tools, in Equation I-15a of this subpart, the only input gas 
i is N2O, j is the N2O using process, and p is 
the N2O abatement system connected to the N2O 
using tool.
0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons.
j = Type of N2O-using process, either chemical vapor 
deposition or all other N2O-using manufacturing 
processes.

    (1) You must use the factor for N2O utilization for 
chemical vapor deposition processes as shown in Table I-8 to this 
subpart.
    (2) You must use the factor for N2O utilization for all 
other manufacturing production processes other than chemical vapor 
deposition as shown in Table I-8 to this subpart.
    (c) You must calculate total annual input gas i consumption on a 
fab basis for each fluorinated GHG and N2O using Equation I-
11 of this subpart.
* * * * *
Ci = Annual consumption of input gas i, on a fab basis 
(kg per year).
IBi = Inventory of input gas i stored in containers at 
the beginning of the reporting year, including heels, on a fab basis 
(kg). For containers in service at the beginning of a reporting 
year, account for the quantity in these containers as if they were 
full.
IEi = Inventory of input gas i stored in containers at 
the end of the reporting year, including heels, on a fab basis (kg). 
For containers in service at the end of a reporting year, account 
for the quantity in these containers as if they were full.
Ai = Acquisitions of input gas i during the year through 
purchases or other transactions, including heels in containers 
returned to the electronics manufacturing facility, on a fab basis 
(kg).
Di = Disbursements of input gas i through sales or other 
transactions during the year, including heels in containers returned 
by the electronics manufacturing facility to the chemical supplier, 
as calculated using Equation I-12 of this subpart, on a fab basis 
(kg).
* * * * *
    (d) You must calculate disbursements of input gas i using fab-wide 
gas-specific heel factors, as determined in Sec.  98.94(b), and by 
using Equation I-12 of this subpart.
* * * * *
Di = Disbursements of input gas i through sales or other 
transactions during the reporting year on a fab basis, including 
heels in containers returned by the electronics manufacturing fab to 
the gas distributor (kg).
hil = Fab-wide gas-specific heel factor for input gas i 
and container size and type l (expressed as a decimal fraction), as 
determined in Sec.  98.94(b). If your fab uses less than 50 kg of a 
fluorinated GHG or N2O in one reporting year, you may 
assume that any hil for that fluorinated GHG or 
N2O is equal to zero.
Nil = Number of containers of size and type l returned to 
the gas distributor containing the standard heel of input gas i.
Fil = Full capacity of containers of size and type l 
containing input gas i, on a fab basis (kg).
Xi = Disbursements under exceptional circumstances of 
input gas i through sales or other transactions during the year, on 
a fab basis (kg). These include returns of containers whose contents 
have been weighed due to an exceptional circumstance as specified in 
Sec.  98.94(b)(4).
* * * * *
M = The total number of different sized container types on a fab 
basis. If only one size and container type is used for an input gas 
i, M=1.

    (e) You must calculate the amount of input gas i consumed, on a fab 
basis, for each process sub-type or process type j, using Equation I-13 
of this subpart.
* * * * *
Ci,j = The annual amount of input gas i consumed, on a 
fab basis, for process sub-type, or process type j (kg).
fi,j = Process sub-type-specific, or process type-
specific j, input gas i apportioning factor (expressed as a decimal 
fraction),

[[Page 63579]]

as determined in accordance with Sec.  98.94(c).
Ci = Annual consumption of input gas i, on a fab basis, 
as calculated using Equation I-11 of this subpart (kg).
* * * * *
j = Process sub-type, or process type.

    (f) [Reserved.]
    (g) If you report controlled emissions pursuant to Sec.  98.94(f), 
you must calculate the uptime of all the abatement systems for each 
combination of input gas or by-product gas, and process sub-type or 
process type, by using Equation I-15a or I-15b of this subpart. Use 
Equation I-15a for the calculation of uptime for tools using each input 
gas, and Equation I-15b for the calculation of uptime for tools 
emitting each by-product gas.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16OC12.073

Where:

UTij = The average uptime factor of all abatement systems 
connected to process tools in the fab using input gas i in process 
sub-type or process type j (expressed as a decimal fraction).
Tdijp = The total time, in minutes, that abatement system 
p, connected to process tool(s) in the fab using input gas i in 
process sub-type or process type j, is not in operational mode, as 
defined in Sec.  98.98, when at least one of the tools connected to 
abatement system p is in operation.
UTijp = Total time, in minutes per year, in which 
abatement system p has at least one associated tool in operation. 
For determining the amount of tool operating time, you may assume 
that tools that were installed for the whole of the year were 
operated for 525,600 minutes per year. For tools that were installed 
or uninstalled during the year, you must prorate the operating time 
to account for the days in which the tool was not installed; treat 
any partial day that a tool was installed as a full day (1,440 
minutes) of tool operation. For an abatement system that has more 
than one connected tool, the tool operating time is 525,600 minutes 
per year if at least one tool was installed at all times throughout 
the year. If you have tools that are idle with no gas flow through 
the tool, you may calculate total tool time using the actual time 
that gas is flowing through the tool.
i = Input gas.
j = Process sub-type or process type.
p = Abatement system.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16OC12.074

Where:

UTjk = The average uptime factor of all abatement systems 
connected to process tools in the fab which emit by-product gas k, 
in process sub-type or process type j (expressed as a decimal 
fraction).
Tdjkp = The total time, in minutes, that abatement system 
p, connected to process tool(s) in the fab which emit by-product gas 
k, in process sub-type or process type j, is not in operational 
mode, as defined in Sec.  98.98, when at least one of the tools 
connected to abatement system p is in operation.
UTkp = Total time, in minutes per year, in which 
abatement system p has at least one associated tool in operation. 
For determining the amount of tool operating time, you may assume 
that tools that were installed for the whole of the year were 
operated for 525,600 minutes per year. For tools that were installed 
or uninstalled during the year, you must prorate the operating time 
to account for the days in which the tool was not installed; treat 
any partial day that a tool was installed as a full day (1,440 
minutes) of tool operation. For an abatement system that has more 
than one connected tool, the tool operating time is 525,600 minutes 
per year if at least one tool was installed at all times throughout 
the year. If you have tools that are idle with no gas flow through 
the tool, you may calculate total tool time using the actual time 
that gas is flowing through the tool.
j = Process sub-type or process type.
k = By-product gas.
p = Abatement system.

    (h) If you use fluorinated heat transfer fluids, you must calculate 
the annual emissions of fluorinated heat transfer fluids on a fab basis 
using the mass balance approach described in Equation I-16 of this 
subpart.
* * * * *
EHi = Emissions of fluorinated heat transfer fluid i, on 
a fab basis (metric tons/year).
* * * * *
IiB = Inventory of fluorinated heat transfer fluid i, on 
a fab basis, in containers other than equipment at the beginning of 
the reporting year (in stock or storage) (l). The inventory at the 
beginning of the reporting year must be the same as the inventory at 
the end of the previous reporting year.
Pi = Acquisitions of fluorinated heat transfer fluid i, 
on a fab basis, during the reporting year (l), including amounts 
purchased from chemical suppliers, amounts purchased from equipment 
suppliers with or inside of equipment, and amounts returned to the 
facility after off-site recycling.
Ni = Total nameplate capacity (full and proper charge) of 
equipment that uses fluorinated heat transfer fluid i and that is 
newly installed in the fab during the reporting year (l).
Ri = Total nameplate capacity (full and proper charge) of 
equipment that uses fluorinated heat transfer fluid i and that is 
removed from service in the fab during the reporting year (l).
IiE = Inventory of fluorinated heat transfer fluid i, on 
a fab basis in containers other than equipment at the end of the 
reporting year (in stock or storage)(l).
Di = Disbursements of fluorinated heat transfer fluid i, 
on a fab basis, during the reporting year, including amounts 
returned to chemical suppliers, sold with or inside of equipment, 
and sent off-site for verifiable recycling or destruction (l). 
Disbursements should include only amounts that are properly stored 
and transported so as to prevent emissions in transit.
* * * * *

    (i) Stack test method. As an alternative to the default emission 
factor method in paragraph (a) of this section, you may calculate fab-
level fluorinated GHG emissions using fab-specific emission factors 
developed from stack testing. To use the method in this paragraph, you 
must first make a preliminary estimate of the fluorinated GHG emissions 
from each stack system in the fab under paragraph (i)(1) of this 
section. You must then compare the

[[Page 63580]]

preliminary estimate for each stack system to the criteria in paragraph 
(i)(2) of this section to determine whether the stack system meets the 
criteria for using the stack test method described in paragraph (i)(3) 
of this section or whether the stack system meets the criteria for 
using the method described in paragraph (i)(4) of this section to 
estimate emissions from the stack systems that are not tested.
    (1) Preliminary estimate of emissions by stack system in the fab. 
You must calculate a preliminary estimate of the annual emissions of 
each fluorinated GHG from each stack system in the fab using default 
utilization and by-product formation rates as shown in Table I-11, I-
12, I-13, I-14, or I-15 of this subpart, as applicable, and by using 
Equations I-8 and I-9 of this subpart. When using Equations I-8 and I-9 
of this subpart for the purposes of this paragraph (i)(1), you must 
also adhere to the procedures in paragraphs (i)(1)(i) to (iii) of this 
section to calculate preliminary estimates.
    (i) When you are calculating preliminary estimates for the purpose 
of this paragraph (i)(1), you must consider the subscript ``j'' in 
Equations I-8 and I-9, and I-13 of this subpart to mean ``stack 
system'' instead of ``process sub-type or process type.'' For the value 
of aij, the fraction of input gas i that is used in tools 
with abatement systems, for use in Equations I-8 and I-9, you may use 
the ratio of the number of tools using input gas i that have abatement 
systems that are vented to the stack system for which you are 
calculating the preliminary estimate to the total number of tools using 
input gas i that are vented to that stack system, expressed as a 
decimal fraction. You may use this approach to determining 
aij only for this preliminary estimate.
    (ii) You must use data from the previous reporting year to estimate 
the consumption of input gas i as calculated in Equation I-13 of this 
subpart and the fraction of input gas i destroyed in abatement systems 
for each stack system as calculated by Equation I-24 of this subpart. 
When calculating the consumption of input gas i as calculated in 
Equation I-13 of this subpart, the term ``fij'' is replaced 
with the ratio of the number of tools using input gas i that are vented 
to the stack system for which you are calculating the preliminary 
estimate to the total number of tools in the fab using input gas i, 
expressed as a decimal fraction. You may use this approach to 
determining fij only for this preliminary estimate.
    (iii) You must use data from the previous reporting year to 
estimate the total uptime of all abatement systems for the stack system 
as calculated by Equation I-23 of this subpart, instead of using 
Equation I-15a or Equation I-15b of this subpart to calculate the 
average uptime factor.
    (2) Method selection for stack systems in the fab. If the 
calculations under paragraph (i)(1) of this section, as well as any 
subsequent annual measurements and calculations under this subpart, 
indicate that the stack system meets the criteria in paragraph 
(i)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section, then you may comply with 
either paragraph (i)(3) of this section (stack test method) or 
paragraph (i)(4) of this section (method to estimate emissions from the 
stack systems that are not tested). If the stack system does not meet 
all three criteria in paragraph (i)(2)(i) through (iii) of this 
section, then you must comply with the stack test method specified in 
paragraph (i)(3) of this section.
    (i) The sum of annual emissions of fluorinated GHGs from all of the 
combined stack systems that are not tested in the fab is less than 
10,000 metric ton CO2e per year. For those fluorinated GHG 
in Tables I-11, I-12, I-13, I-14, and I-15 of this subpart for which 
Table A-1 to subpart A of this part does not define a GWP value, you 
must use a value of 2,000 for the GWP in calculating metric ton 
CO2e for that fluorinated GHG.
    (ii) When all stack systems in the fab are ordered from lowest to 
highest emitting in metric ton CO2e of fluorinated GHG per 
year, each of the stack systems that is not tested is within the set of 
the fab's lowest emitting fluorinated GHG stack systems that together 
emit 15 percent or less of total CO2e fluorinated GHG 
emissions from the fab. For those fluorinated GHG that do not have GWP 
values listed in Table A-1 to subpart A of this part, you must use a 
GWP value of 2,000 in calculating CO2e.
    (iii) Fluorinated GHG emissions from each of the stack systems that 
is not tested can only be attributed to particular process tools during 
the test (that is, the stack system that is not tested cannot be used 
as an alternative emission point or bypass stack system from other 
process tools not attributed to the untested stack system).
    (3) Stack system stack test method. For each stack system in the 
fab for which testing is required, measure the emissions of each 
fluorinated GHG from the stack system by conducting an emission test. 
In addition, measure the fab-specific consumption of each fluorinated 
GHG by the tools that are vented to the stack systems tested. Measure 
emissions and consumption of each fluorinated GHG as specified in Sec.  
98.94(j). Develop fab-specific emission factors and calculate fab-level 
fluorinated GHG emissions using the procedures specified in paragraph 
(i)(3)(i) through (viii) of this section. All emissions test data and 
procedures used in developing emission factors must be documented 
according to Sec.  98.97.
    (i) You must measure, and, if applicable, apportion the fab-
specific fluorinated GHG consumption of the tools that are vented to 
the stack systems that are tested during the emission test as specified 
in Sec.  98.94(j)(3). Calculate the consumption for each fluorinated 
GHG for the test period.
    (ii) You must calculate the emission of each fluorinated GHG 
consumed as an input gas using Equation I-17 of this subpart and each 
fluorinated GHG formed as a by-product gas using Equation I-18 of this 
subpart and the procedures specified in paragraphs (i)(3)(ii)(A) 
through (E) of this section. If a stack system has more than one stack 
emitting to the atmosphere from a common header, you must measure the 
fluorinated GHG concentration and flow in each stack from that header 
to the atmosphere, and sum the emissions from each stack in the stack 
system when using Equation I-17 or Equation I-18 of this subpart.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16OC12.075

Where:

Eis = Total fluorinated GHG input gas i, emitted from 
stack system s, during the sampling period (kg).
Xism = Average concentration of fluorinated GHG input gas 
i in stack system s, during the time interval m (ppmv).
MWi = Molecular weight of fluorinated GHG input gas i (g/
g-mole).
Qs = Flow rate of the stack system s, during the sampling 
period (m\3\/min).

[[Page 63581]]

SV = Standard molar volume of gas (0.02240 m\3\/g-mole at 68 [deg]F 
and 1 atm).
[Delta]tm = Length of time interval m (minutes). Each 
time interval in the sampling period must be less than or equal to 
60 minutes (for example an 8 hour sampling period would consist of 
at least 8 time intervals).
1/10\3\ = Conversion factor (1 kilogram/1,000 grams).
i = Fluorinated GHG input gas.
s = Stack system.
N = Total number of time intervals m in sampling period.
m = Time interval.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16OC12.076

Where:

Eks = Total fluorinated GHG by-product gas k, emitted 
from stack system s, during the sampling period (kg).
Xks = Average concentration of fluorinated GHG by-product 
gas k in stack system s, during the time interval m (ppmv).
MWk = Molecular weight of the fluorinated GHG by-product 
gas k (g/g-mole).
Qs = Flow rate of the stack system s, during the sampling 
period (m\3\/min).
SV = Standard molar volume of gas (0.02240 m\3\/g-mole at 68 [deg]F 
and 1 atm).
[Delta]tm = Length of time interval m (minutes). Each 
time interval in the sampling period must be less than or equal to 
60 minutes (for example an 8 hour sampling period would consist of 
at least 8 time intervals).
1/10\3\ = Conversion factor (1 kilogram/1,000 grams).
k = Fluorinated GHG by-product gas.
s = Stack system.
N = Total number of time intervals m in sampling period.
m = Time interval.

    (A) If a fluorinated GHG is consumed during the sampling period, 
but emissions are not detected, use one-half of the field detection 
limit you determined for that fluorinated GHG according to Sec.  
98.94(j)(2) for the value of ``Xism'' in Equation I-17.
    (B) If a fluorinated GHG is consumed during the sampling period and 
detected intermittently during the sampling period, use the detected 
concentration for the value of ``Xism'' in Equation I-17 
when available and use one-half of the field detection limit you 
determined for that fluorinated GHG according to Sec.  98.94(j)(2) for 
the value of ``Xism'' when the fluorinated GHG is not 
detected.
    (C) If a fluorinated GHG is not consumed during the sampling period 
but is detected intermittently as a by-product gas, use the measured 
concentration for ``Xksm'' in Equation I-18 when available 
and use one-half of the field detection limit you determined for that 
fluorinated GHG according to Sec.  98.94(j)(2) for the value of 
``Xksm'' when the fluorinated GHG is not detected.
    (D) If a fluorinated GHG is an expected by-product gas of the stack 
system tested and is not detected during the sampling period, use one-
half of the field detection limit you determined for that fluorinated 
GHG according to Sec.  98.94(j)(2) for the value of ``Xksm'' 
in Equation I-18.
    (E) If a fluorinated GHG is not an expected by-product of the stack 
system and is not detected during the sampling period, then assume zero 
emissions for that fluorinated GHG for the tested stack system.
    (iii) You must calculate a fab-specific emission factor for each 
fluorinated GHG input gas consumed (in kg of fluorinated GHG emitted 
per kg of input gas i consumed) in the tools that vent to stack systems 
that are tested, as applicable, using Equation I-19 of this subpart. If 
the emissions of input gas i exceed the consumption of input gas i 
during the sampling period, then equate ``Eij'' to the 
consumption of input gas i and treat the difference between the 
emissions and consumption of input gas i as a by-product of the other 
input gases, using Equation I-20 of this subpart.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16OC12.077

Where:

EFif = Emission factor for fluorinated GHG input gas i, 
from fab f, representing 100 percent abatement system uptime (kg 
emitted/kg input gas consumed).
Eis = Mass emission of fluorinated GHG input gas i from 
stack system s, during the sampling period (kg emitted).
Activityif = Consumption of fluorinated GHG input gas i, 
for fab f, in the tools vented to the stack systems being tested, 
during the sampling period, as determined following the procedures 
specified in Sec.  98.94(j)(3) (kg consumed).
UTf = The total uptime of all abatement systems for fab 
f, during the sampling period, as calculated in Equation I-23 of 
this subpart (expressed as decimal fraction). If the stack system 
does not have abatement systems on the tools vented to the stack 
system, the value of this parameter is zero.
aif = Fraction of fluorinated GHG input gas i used in fab 
f in tools with abatement systems (expressed as a decimal fraction).
dif = Fraction of fluorinated GHG input gas i destroyed 
or removed in abatement systems connected to process tools in fab f, 
as calculated in Equation I-24 of this subpart (expressed as decimal 
fraction). If the stack system does not have abatement systems on 
the tools vented to the stack system, the value of this parameter is 
zero.
f = Fab.
i = Fluorinated GHG input gas.
s = Stack system.

    (iv) You must calculate a fab-specific emission factor for each 
fluorinated GHG formed as a by-product (in kg of fluorinated GHG per kg 
of total fluorinated GHG consumed) in the tools vented to stack systems 
that are tested, as applicable, using Equation I-20 of this subpart. 
When calculating the by-product emission factor for an input gas for 
which emissions exceeded its consumption, exclude the consumption of 
that input gas from the term ``[sum](Activityif).''

[[Page 63582]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16OC12.078

Where:

EFkf = Emission factor for fluorinated GHG by-product gas 
k, from fab f, (kg emitted/kg of all input gases consumed in tools 
vented to stack systems that are tested).
Eks = Mass emission of fluorinated GHG by-product gas k, 
emitted from stack system s, during the sampling period (kg 
emitted).
Activityif = Consumption of fluorinated GHG input gas i 
for fab f in tools vented to stack systems that are tested, during 
the sampling period as determined following the procedures specified 
in Sec.  98.94(j)(3) (kg consumed).
UTf = The total uptime of all abatement systems for fab 
f, during the sampling period, as calculated in Equation I-23 of 
this subpart (expressed as decimal fraction).
af = Fraction of all input gases used in fab f in tools 
with abatement systems (expressed as a decimal fraction).
dkf = Fraction of fluorinated GHG by-product gas k 
destroyed or removed in abatement systems connected to process tools 
in fab f, as calculated in Equation I-24 of this subpart (expressed 
as decimal fraction).
f = Fab.
i = Fluorinated GHG input gas.
k = Fluorinated GHG by-product gas.
s = Stack system.

    (v) You must calculate annual fab-level emissions of each 
fluorinated GHG consumed using Equation I-21 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16OC12.079

Where:

Eif = Annual emissions of fluorinated GHG input gas i 
(kg/year) from the stack systems that are tested for fab f.
EFif = Emission factor for fluorinated GHG input gas i 
emitted from fab f, as calculated in Equation I-19 of this subpart 
(kg emitted/kg input gas consumed).
Cif = Total consumption of fluorinated GHG input gas i in 
tools that are vented to stack systems that are tested, for fab f, 
for the reporting year, as calculated using Equation I-13 of this 
subpart (kg/year).
UTf = The total uptime of all abatement systems for fab 
f, during the reporting year, as calculated using Equation I-23 of 
this subpart (expressed as a decimal fraction).
aif = Fraction of fluorinated GHG input gas i used in fab 
f in tools with abatement systems (expressed as a decimal fraction).
dif = Fraction of fluorinated GHG input gas i destroyed 
or removed in abatement systems connected to process tools in fab f 
that are included in the stack testing option, as calculated in 
Equation I-24 of this subpart (expressed as decimal fraction).
f = Fab.
i = Fluorinated GHG input gas.

    (vi) You must calculate annual fab-level emissions of each 
fluorinated GHG by-product formed using Equation I-22 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16OC12.080

Where:

Ekf = Annual emissions of fluorinated GHG by-product k 
(kg/year) from the stack systems that are tested for fab f.
EFkf = Emission factor for fluorinated GHG by-product k, 
emitted from fab f, as calculated in Equation I-20 of this subpart 
(kg emitted/kg of all input gases consumed).
Cif = Total consumption of fluorinated GHG input gas i in 
tools that are vented to stack systems that are tested, for fab f, 
for the reporting year, as calculated using Equation I-13 of this 
subpart.
UTf = The total uptime of all abatement systems for fab 
f, during the reporting year as calculated using Equation I-23 of 
this subpart (expressed as a decimal fraction).
af = Fraction of input gases used in fab f in tools with 
abatement systems (expressed as a decimal fraction).
dkf = Fraction of fluorinated GHG by-product k destroyed 
or removed in abatement systems connected to process tools in fab f 
that are included in the stack testing option, as calculated in 
Equation I-24 of this subpart (expressed as decimal fraction).
f = Fab.
i = Fluorinated GHG input gas.
k = Fluorinated GHG by-product.

    (vii) When using the stack testing method described in this 
paragraph (i), you must calculate abatement system uptime on a fab 
basis using Equation I-23 of this subpart. When calculating abatement 
system uptime for use in Equation I-19 and I-20 of this subpart, you 
must evaluate the variables ``Tdpj'' and ``UTpf'' 
for the sampling period instead of the reporting year.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16OC12.081

Where:

UTf = The total uptime of all abatement systems, for fab 
f (expressed as a decimal fraction).
Tdpf = The total time, in minutes, that abatement system 
p, connected to process tool(s) in fab f, is not in operational mode 
as defined in Sec.  98.98.
UTpf = Total time, in minutes per year, in which the 
tool(s) connected at any point during the year to abatement system 
p, in fab f could be in operation. For determining the amount of 
tool operating time, you may assume that tools that were installed 
for the whole of the year were operated for 525,600 minutes per

[[Page 63583]]

year. For tools that were installed or uninstalled during the year, 
you must prorate the operating time to account for the days in which 
the tool was not installed; treat any partial day that a tool was 
installed as a full day (1,440 minutes) of tool operation. For an 
abatement system that has more than one connected tool, the tool 
operating time is 525,600 minutes per year if there was at least one 
tool installed at all times throughout the year. If you have tools 
that are idle with no gas flow through the tool, you may calculate 
total tool time using the actual time that gas is flowing through 
the tool.
f = Fab.
p = Abatement system.

    (viii) When using the stack testing option described in this 
paragraph (i), you must calculate the weighted average fraction of 
input gas i destroyed or removed in abatement systems for each fab f, 
as applicable, by using Equation I-24 of this subpart.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16OC12.082

Where:

dif = The average weighted fraction of fluorinated GHG 
input gas i destroyed or removed in abatement systems in fab f 
(expressed as a decimal fraction).
Cijf = The amount of fluorinated GHG input gas i consumed 
for process type j fed into abatement systems in fab f (kg).
DREij = Destruction or removal efficiency for fluorinated 
GHG input gas i in abatement systems connected to process tools 
where process type j is used (expressed as a decimal fraction) 
determined according to Sec.  98.94(f).
f = fab.
i = Fluorinated GHG input gas.
j = Process type.

    (4) Method to calculate emissions from stack systems that are not 
tested. You must calculate annual fab-level emissions of each input and 
by-product fluorinated GHG for those fluorinated GHG listed in 
paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section using default utilization 
and by-product formation rates as shown in Tables I-11, I-12, I-13, I-
14, or I-15 of this subpart, as applicable, and by using Equations I-8, 
I-9, and I-13 of this subpart. When using Equations I-8, I-9, and I-13 
of this subpart to fulfill the requirements of this paragraph, you must 
use, in place of the term Cij in each equation, the total 
consumption of each fluorinated GHG meeting the criteria in paragraph 
(i)(4)(i) of this section or that is used in tools vented to the stack 
systems that meet the criteria in paragraph (i)(4)(ii) of this section. 
You also must use the results of Equation I-24 of this subpart in place 
of the terms dij in Equation I-8 of this subpart and 
djk in Equation I-9 of this subpart, and use the results of 
Equation I-23 of this subpart in place of the results of Equation I-15a 
or Equation I-15b of this subpart for the terms UTij and 
UTjk.
    (i) Calculate emissions from consumption of each intermittent low-
use fluorinated GHG as defined in Sec.  98.98 of this subpart using the 
default utilization and by-product formation rates and equations 
specified in paragraph (i)(4) of this section. If a fluorinated GHG was 
not being used during the stack testing and does not meet the 
definition of intermittent low-use fluorinated GHG in Sec.  98.98, then 
you must test the stack systems associated with the use of that 
fluorinated GHG at a time when that gas is in use at a magnitude that 
would allow you to determine an emission factor for that gas according 
to the procedures specified in paragraph (i)(3) of this section.
    (ii) Calculate emissions from consumption of each fluorinated GHG 
used in tools vented to stack systems that meet the criteria specified 
in paragraphs (i)(2)(i) through (i)(2)(iii) of this section, and were 
not tested according to the procedures in paragraph (i)(3) of this 
section. Calculate emissions using the default utilization and by-
product formation rates and equations specified in paragraph (i)(4) of 
this section.
    (5) To determine the total emissions of each fluorinated GHG from 
each fab under this stack testing option, you must sum the emissions of 
each fluorinated GHG determined from the procedures in paragraph (i)(3) 
of this section with the emissions of the same fluorinated GHG 
determined from the procedures in paragraph (i)(4) of this section.
    7. Section 98.94 is amended by:
    a. Removing and reserving paragraph (a).
    b. Revising paragraph (b), paragraph (c) introductory text, and 
paragraph (c)(2).
    c. Adding paragraph (c)(3).
    d. Removing and reserving paragraphs (d) and (e).
    e. Revising paragraph (f) introductory text and paragraph (f)(1) 
introductory text, (f)(1)(ii), (f)(2), (f)(3) and (f)(4).
    f. Removing and reserving paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2).
    g. Revising paragraphs (g)(3) and (g)(4).
    h. Revising paragraph (h) introductory text and paragraphs (h)(3) 
and (i).
    i. Adding paragraphs (j) and (k).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  98.94  Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.

    (a) [Reserved.]
    (b) For purposes of Equation I-12 of this subpart, you must 
estimate fab-wide gas-specific heel factors for each container type for 
each gas used, except for fluorinated GHGs or N2O which your 
fab uses in quantities less than 50 kg in one reporting year, according 
to the procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this section.
    (1) Base your fab-wide gas-specific heel factors on the trigger 
point for change out of a container for each container size and type 
for each gas used. Fab-wide gas-specific heel factors must be expressed 
as the ratio of the trigger point for change out, in terms of mass, to 
the initial mass in the container, as determined by paragraphs (b)(2) 
and (3) of this section.
    (2) The trigger points for change out you use to calculate fab-wide 
gas-specific heel factors in paragraph (b)(1) of this section must be 
determined by monitoring the mass or the pressure of your containers. 
If you monitor the pressure, convert the pressure to mass using the 
ideal gas law, as displayed in Equation I-25 of this subpart, with the 
appropriate Z value selected based upon the properties of the gas.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16OC12.083

Where:

p = Absolute pressure of the gas (Pa).
V = Volume of the gas container (m\3\).
Z = Compressibility factor.
n = Amount of substance of the gas (moles).
R = Gas constant (8.314 Joule/Kelvin mole).
T = Absolute temperature (K).

    (3) The initial mass you use to calculate a fab-wide gas-specific 
heel factor in paragraph (b)(1) of this section may be based on the 
weight of the gas provided to you in gas supplier documents; however, 
you remain responsible for the accuracy of these masses and weights 
under this subpart.

[[Page 63584]]

    (4) If a container is changed in an exceptional circumstance, as 
specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section, you must 
weigh that container or measure the pressure of that container with a 
pressure gauge, in place of using a heel factor to determine the 
residual weight of gas. When using mass-based trigger points for change 
out, you must determine if an exceptional circumstance has occurred 
based on the net weight of gas in the container, excluding the tare 
weight of the container.
    (i) For containers with a maximum storage capacity of less than 
9.08 kg (20 lbs) of gas, an exceptional circumstance is a change out 
point that differs by more than 50 percent from the trigger point for 
change out used to calculate your fab-wide gas-specific heel factor for 
that gas and container type.
    (ii) For all other containers, an exceptional circumstance is a 
change out point that differs by more than 20 percent from the trigger 
point for change out used to calculate your fab-wide gas-specific heel 
factor for that gas and container type.
    (5) You must re-calculate a fab-wide gas-specific heel factor if 
you execute a process change to modify the trigger point for change out 
for a gas and container type that differs by more than 5 percent from 
the previously used trigger point for change out for that gas and 
container type.
    (c) You must develop apportioning factors for fluorinated GHG and 
N2O consumption (including the fraction of gas consumed by 
process tools connected to abatement systems as in Equations I-8, I-9, 
I-10, and I-24 of this subpart), to use in the equations of this 
subpart for each input gas i, process sub-type, process type, stack 
system, and fab as appropriate, using a fab-specific engineering model 
that is documented in your site GHG Monitoring Plan as required under 
Sec.  98.3(g)(5). This model must be based on a quantifiable metric, 
such as wafer passes or wafer starts, or direct measurement of input 
gas consumption as specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this section. To 
verify your model, you must demonstrate its precision and accuracy by 
adhering to the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this 
section.
* * * * *
    (2) You must demonstrate the accuracy of your fab-specific model by 
comparing the actual amount of input gas i consumed and the modeled 
amount of input gas i consumed in the fab, as follows:
    (i) You must analyze actual and modeled gas consumption for a 
period when the fab is at a representative operating level (as defined 
in Sec.  98.98) lasting at least 30 days but no more than the reporting 
year.
    (ii) You must compare the actual gas consumed to the modeled gas 
consumed for one fluorinated GHG reported under this subpart for the 
fab. You must certify that the fluorinated GHG selected for comparison 
corresponds to the largest quantity, on a mass basis, of fluorinated 
GHG consumed at the fab during the reporting year for which you are 
required to apportion following the procedures specified in Sec.  
98.93(a), (b), or (i). You may compare the actual gas consumed to the 
modeled gas consumed for two fluorinated GHGs and demonstrate 
conformance according to paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section on an 
aggregate use basis for both fluorinated GHGs if one of the fluorinated 
GHGs selected for comparison corresponds to the largest quantities, on 
a mass basis, of fluorinated GHGs used at each fab during the reporting 
year.
    (iii) You must demonstrate that the comparison performed for the 
largest quantity of gas(es), on a mass basis, consumed in the fab in 
paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section, does not result in a difference 
between the actual and modeled gas consumption that exceeds 20 percent 
relative to actual gas consumption, reported to two significant figures 
using standard rounding conventions.
    (iv) If you are required to apportion gas consumption and use the 
procedures in Sec.  98.93(i) to calculate annual emissions from a fab, 
you must verify your apportioning factors using the procedures in 
paragraphs (c)(2)(ii) and (iii) of this section such that the time 
period specified in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section ends on the 
last day you perform the sampling events specified under Sec.  
98.93(i)(3).
    (v) If your facility has multiple fabs with a single centralized 
fluorinated-GHG supply system and two or more fabs that use different 
methods to calculate annual emissions of fluorinated GHGs, you must 
verify that your apportioning model can apportion fluorinated GHG 
consumption among the fabs by adhering to the procedures in paragraphs 
(c)(2)(ii) through (c)(2)(iv) of this section.
    (3) As an alternative to developing apportioning factors for 
fluorinated GHG and N2O consumption using a fab-specific 
engineering model, you may develop apportioning factors through the use 
of direct measurement using gas flow meters and weigh scales to measure 
process sub-type, process type, stack system, or fab-specific input gas 
consumption. You may use a combination of apportioning factors 
developed using a fab-specific engineering model and apportioning 
factors developed through the use of direct measurement, provided this 
is documented in your site GHG Monitoring Plan as required under 
98.3(g)(5).
* * * * *
    (f) You must adhere to the procedures in paragraphs (f)(1) and 
(f)(2) of this section if your facility employs abatement systems and 
you use Sec.  98.93(a) and/or Sec.  98.93(b) to calculate emissions and 
wish to reflect emission reductions due to these systems. You must also 
adhere to the procedures in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this 
section if you use Sec.  98.93(i) to calculate emissions. If you use 
the default destruction or removal efficiencies in Table I-16 of this 
subpart, you must adhere to procedures in paragraph (f)(3) of this 
section. If you use an average of properly measured destruction or 
removal efficiencies for a gas and process sub-type or process type 
combination, as applicable, during a reporting year, you must adhere to 
procedures in paragraph (f)(4) of this section.
    (1) You must certify and document that the abatement systems are 
properly installed, operated, and maintained according to 
manufacturers' specifications by adhering to the procedures in 
paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
* * * * *
    (ii) You must certify and document your abatement systems are 
operated and maintained in accordance with the manufacturers' 
specifications and according to the site maintenance plan for abatement 
systems that is developed and maintained in your records as specified 
in Sec.  98.97(d).
    (2) You must calculate and document the uptime of abatement systems 
using Equations I-15a, I-15b, or I-23 of this subpart, as applicable.
    (3) To report emissions using the default destruction or removal 
efficiencies in Table I-16 of this subpart, you must certify and 
document that the abatement systems at your facility are specifically 
designed for fluorinated GHG and N2O abatement.
    (4) If you do not use the default destruction or removal efficiency 
values to calculate and report controlled emissions, you must use an 
average of properly measured destruction or removal efficiencies for 
each gas and process sub-type or process type combination, as 
applicable, determined in accordance with procedures in paragraphs 
(f)(4)(i) through (vi) of this

[[Page 63585]]

section. You must not use a default value from Table I-16 of this 
subpart for any gas and process type combination for which you have 
measured the destruction or removal efficiency according to the 
requirements of paragraphs (f)(4)(i) through (vi) of this section.
    (i) A properly measured destruction or removal efficiency value 
must be determined in accordance with EPA 430-R-10-003 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  98.7), or according to an alternative method 
approved by the Administrator as specified in paragraph (k) of this 
section. If you are measuring destruction or removal efficiency 
according to EPA 430-R-10-003, you may follow the alternative 
procedures specified in Appendix A to this subpart.
    (ii) You must 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 in accordance 
with procedures in paragraphs (f)(4)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section.
    (A) For the first 2 years for which your fab is required to report 
emissions of fluorinated GHG and N2O, for each abatement 
system gas and process sub-type or process type combination, as 
applicable, a random sample of 10 percent of installed abatement 
systems must be tested annually for a total of 20 percent, or 20 
percent may be tested in the first year. For every 3-year period 
following the initial 2-year period, a random sample of 15 percent of 
installed abatement systems must be tested for each gas and process 
sub-type or process type combination; you may test 15-percent in the 
first year of the 3-year period, but you must test at least 5 percent 
each year until 15 percent are tested. If the required percent of the 
total number of abatement systems to be tested for each gas and process 
sub-type or process type combination does not equate to a whole number, 
the number of systems to be tested must be determined by rounding up to 
the nearest integer.
    (B) If testing of a randomly selected abatement system would be 
disruptive to production, you may replace that system with another 
randomly selected system for testing and return the system to the 
sampling pool for subsequent testing. Any one abatement system must not 
be replaced by another randomly selected system for more than three 
consecutive selections. When you have to replace a system in one year, 
you may select that specific system to be tested in one of the next two 
sampling years so that you may plan testing of that abatement system to 
avoid disrupting production.
    (iii) You must use default destruction or removal efficiencies for 
a gas and process type combination, until you complete testing on 20 
percent of the abatement systems for that gas and process sub-type or 
process type combination, as applicable. Following testing on 20 
percent of abatement systems for that gas and process sub-type or 
process type combination, you must calculate the average destruction or 
removal efficiency as the arithmetic mean of all test results for that 
gas and process sub-type or process type combination, until you have 
tested at least 30 percent of all abatement systems for each gas and 
process sub-type or process type combination. After testing at least 30 
percent of all systems for a gas and process sub-type or process type 
combination, you must use the arithmetic mean of the most recent 30 
percent of systems tested as the average destruction or removal 
efficiency.
    (iv) If a measured destruction or removal efficiency is below the 
manufacturer-claimed fluorinated GHG or N2O destruction or 
removal efficiency and the abatement system is installed, operated, and 
maintained in accordance with the manufacturers' specifications, the 
measured destruction or removal efficiency must be included in the 
calculation of the destruction or removal efficiency value for that gas 
and process sub-type or process type, as applicable.
    (v) If a measured destruction or removal efficiency is below the 
manufacturer-claimed fluorinated GHG or N2O destruction or 
removal efficiency and the abatement system is not installed, operated, 
or maintained in accordance with the manufacturers' specifications, you 
must implement corrective action and perform a retest to replace the 
measured value within the reporting year. In lieu of retesting within 
the reporting year, you may use the measured value in calculating the 
average destruction or removal efficiency for the reporting year, and 
then include the same system in the next year's abatement system 
testing in addition to the testing of randomly selected systems for 
that next reporting year.
    (vi) If your fab uses redundant abatement systems, you may account 
for the total abatement system uptime calculated for a specific exhaust 
stream during the reporting year.
    (g) * * *
    (3) Follow the QA/QC procedures in accordance with those in EPA 
430-R-10-003 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  98.7), or the 
applicable QA/QC procedures specified in an alternative method approved 
by the Administrator according to paragraph (k) of this section, when 
calculating abatement systems destruction or removal efficiencies. If 
you are measuring destruction or removal efficiency according to EPA 
430-R-10-003, and you elect to follow the alternative procedures 
specified in Appendix A to this subpart according to paragraph 
(f)(4)(i) of this section, you must follow any additional QA/QC 
procedures specified in Appendix A to this subpart.
    (4) Demonstrate that, as part of normal operations for each fab, 
the inventory of gas stored in containers at the beginning of the 
reporting year is the same as the inventory of gas stored in containers 
at the end of the previous reporting year.
    (h) You must adhere to the QA/QC procedures of this paragraph (h) 
when calculating annual gas consumption for each fluorinated GHG and 
N2O used at each fab and emissions from the use of each 
fluorinated heat transfer fluid on a fab basis.
* * * * *
    (3) Ensure that the inventory at the beginning of one reporting 
year is identical to the inventory reported at the end of the previous 
reporting year.
* * * * *
    (i) All flowmeters, weigh scales, pressure gauges, and thermometers 
used to measure quantities that are monitored under this section or 
used in calculations under Sec.  98.93 must meet the calibration and 
accuracy requirements specified in Sec.  98.3(i).
    (j) Stack test methodology. For each fab for which you calculate 
annual emissions for any fluorinated GHG emitted from your facility 
using the stack test method according to the procedure specified in 
Sec.  98.93(i)(3), you must adhere to the requirements in paragraphs 
(j)(1) through (8) of this section. You may request approval to use an 
alternative stack test method and procedure according to paragraph (k) 
of this section.
    (1) Stack system testing. Conduct an emissions test for each 
applicable stack system according to the procedures in paragraphs 
(j)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.
    (i) You must conduct an emission test during which the fab is 
operating at a representative operating level, as defined in Sec.  
98.98, and with the abatement systems connected to the stack system 
being tested operating with at least 90 percent uptime during the 8-
hour (or longer) period for each stack system, or at no less than 90 
percent of the abatement system uptime rate

[[Page 63586]]

measured over the previous reporting year.
    (ii) You must measure for tetrafluoromethane (CF4), 
hexafluoroethane (C2F6) and any other fluorinated 
GHG expected to be emitted from the stack system and those fluorinated 
GHGs used as input fluorinated GHG in process tools vented to the stack 
system, except for any intermittent low-use fluorinated GHG as defined 
in Sec.  98.98. You must calculate annual emissions of intermittent 
low-use fluorinated GHGs by adhering to the procedures in Sec.  
98.93(i)(4).
    (iii) You must determine the fluorinated GHGs expected to be 
emitted from the stack system based on a documented facility analysis 
of all fluorinated GHGs consumed and emitted in the previous reporting 
year, and all fluorinated GHGs expected to be consumed and emitted in 
the current reporting year by process tools vented to the stack system. 
You must also include in that analysis any possible fluorinated GHG by-
products formed from fluorinated GHGs consumed in the previous 
reporting year and expected to be consumed in the current reporting 
year by process tools connected to the stack system. In developing your 
facility analysis, you must also consider all fluorinated GHG by-
products listed in Tables I-3 through I-7 of this subpart, as 
applicable, to the products manufactured at your facility. If a 
fluorinated GHG being consumed in the reporting year was not being 
consumed during the stack testing and does not meet the definition of 
intermittent low-use fluorinated GHG in Sec.  98.98, then you must test 
the stack systems associated with the use of that fluorinated GHG at a 
time when that gas is in use at a magnitude that would allow you to 
determine an emission factor for that gas. If a fluorinated GHG 
consumed in the reporting year was not being consumed during the stack 
testing and is no longer in use by your fab (e.g., use of the gas has 
become obsolete or has been discontinued), then you must calculate 
annual emissions for that fluorinated GHG according to the procedure 
specified in Sec.  98.93(i)(4).
    (iv) Although all applicable stack systems are not required to be 
tested simultaneously, you must certify that no changes in stack flow 
configuration (including, for example, the number and type of tools 
vented to each stack system) occur between tests conducted for any 
particular fab in a reporting year.
    (2) Test methods and procedures. You must adhere to the applicable 
test methods and procedures specified in Table I-9 to this subpart, or 
adhere to an alternative method approved by the Administrator according 
to paragraph (k) of this section. The field detection limits achieved 
under your test methods and procedures must fall at or below the 
maximum field detection limits specified in Table I-10 to this subpart.
    (3) Fab-specific fluorinated GHG consumption measurements. You must 
determine the amount of each fluorinated GHG consumed by each fab 
during the sampling period for all process tools connected to the stack 
systems tested under Sec.  98.93(i)(3), according to the procedures in 
paragraphs (j)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section. This determination must 
include apportioning gas consumption between stack systems that are 
being tested and those that not tested under Sec.  98.93(i)(2).
    (i) Measure fluorinated GHG consumption using gas flow meters, 
scales, or pressure measurements. Measure the mass or pressure, as 
applicable, at the beginning and end of the sampling period and when 
containers are changed out. If you elect to measure gas consumption 
using pressure (i.e., because the gas is stored in a location above its 
critical temperature) you must estimate consumption as specified in 
paragraphs (j)(i)(A) and (B) of this section.
    (A) For each fluorinated GHG, you must either measure the 
temperature of the fluorinated GHG container(s) when the sampling 
periods begin and end and when containers are changed out, or measure 
the temperature of the fluorinated GHG container(s) every hour for the 
duration of the sampling period. Temperature measurements of the 
immediate vicinity of the containers (e.g., in the same room, near the 
containers) shall be considered temperature measurements of the 
containers.
    (B) Convert the sampling period-beginning, sampling period-ending, 
and container change-out pressures to masses using Equation I-25 of 
this subpart, with the appropriate Z value selected based upon the 
properties of the gas (e.g., the Z value yielded by the Redlich, Kwong, 
Soave equation of state with appropriate values for that gas). Apply 
the temperatures measured at or nearest to the beginning and end of the 
sampling period and to the time(s) when containers are changed out, as 
applicable. For each gas, the consumption during the sampling period is 
the difference between the masses of the containers of that gas at the 
beginning and at the end of the sampling period, summed across 
containers, including containers that are changed out.
    (ii) For each fluorinated GHG gas for which consumption is too low 
to be accurately measured during the sampling period using gas flow 
meters, scales, or pressure measurements as specified in paragraph 
(j)(3)(i) of this section, you must follow at least one of the 
procedures listed in paragraph (j)(3)(ii)(A) through (C) of this 
section to obtain a consumption measurement.
    (A) Draw the gas from a single gas container if it is normally 
supplied from multiple containers connected by a shared manifold.
    (B) Calculate consumption from pro-rated long-term consumption data 
(for example, calculate and use hourly consumption rates from monthly 
consumption data).
    (C) Increase the duration of the sampling period for consumption 
measurement beyond the minimum duration specified in Table I-9 of this 
subpart.
    (4) Emission test results. The results of an emission test must 
include the analysis of samples, number of test runs, the average 
emission factor for each fluorinated GHG measured, the analytical 
method used, calculation of emissions, the fluorinated GHGs consumed 
during the sampling period, an identification of the stack systems 
tested, and the fluorinated GHGs that were included in the test. The 
emissions test report must contain all information and data used to 
derive the fab-specific emission factor.
    (5) Emissions testing frequency. You must conduct emissions testing 
to develop fab-specific emission factors on a frequency according to 
the procedures in paragraph (j)(5)(i) or (ii) of this section.
    (i) Annual testing. You must conduct an annual emissions test for 
each stack system for which emissions testing is required under Sec.  
98.93(i)(3), unless you meet the criteria in paragraph (j)(5)(ii) of 
this section to skip annual testing. Each set of emissions testing for 
a stack system must be separated by a period of at least 2 months.
    (ii) Criteria to test less frequently. After the first 3 years of 
annual testing, you may calculate the relative standard deviation of 
the emission factors for each fluorinated GHG included in the test and 
use that analysis to determine the frequency of any future testing. As 
an alternative, you may conduct all three tests in less than 3 calendar 
years for purposes of this paragraph (j)(5)(ii), but this does not 
relieve you of the obligation to conduct subsequent annual testing if 
you do not meet the criteria to test less frequently. If the criteria 
specified in paragraphs (j)(5)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section are met, 
you may use

[[Page 63587]]

the arithmetic average of the three emission factors for each 
fluorinated GHG and fluorinated GHG by-product for the current year and 
the next 4 years with no further testing unless your fab operations are 
changed in way that triggers the re-test criteria in paragraph (j)(8) 
of this section. In the fifth year following the last stack test 
included in the previous average, you must test each of the stack 
systems for which testing is required and repeat the relative standard 
deviation analysis using the results of the most recent three tests. If 
the criteria specified in paragraphs (j)(5)(ii)(A) and (B) of this 
section are not met, you must use the emission factors developed from 
the most recent testing and continue annual testing. You may conduct 
more than one test in the same year, but each set of emissions testing 
for a stack system must be separated by a period of at least 2 months. 
You may repeat the relative standard deviation analysis using the most 
recent three tests to determine if you are exempt from testing for the 
next 4 years.
    (A) The relative standard deviation of the total CO2e 
emission factors calculated from each of the three tests (expressed as 
the total CO2e fluorinated GHG emissions of the fab divided 
by the total CO2e fluorinated GHG use of the fab) is less 
than or equal to 15 percent.
    (B) The relative standard deviation for all single fluorinated GHGs 
that individually accounted for 5 percent or more of CO2e 
emissions were less than 20 percent.
    (C) For those fluorinated GHG that do not have GWP values listed in 
Table A-1 to subpart A of this part, you must use a GWP value of 2,000 
in calculating CO2e in paragraphs (j)(5)(ii)(A) and (B) of 
this section.
    (6) Subsequent measurements. You must make an annual determination 
of each stack system's exemption status under Sec.  98.93(i)(2) by 
March 31 each year. If a stack system that was previously not required 
to be tested per Sec.  98.93(i)(2), no longer meets the criteria in 
Sec.  98.93(i)(2), you must conduct the emissions testing for the stack 
system during the current reporting and develop the fab-specific 
emission factor from the emissions testing.
    (7) Previous measurements. You may include the results of emissions 
testing conducted after [DATE 3 YEARS BEFORE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF 
FINAL RULE] for use in the relative standard deviation calculation in 
paragraph (j)(5)(ii) of this section if the previous results were 
determined using a method meeting the requirements in paragraph (j)(2) 
of this section.
    (8) Scenarios that require a stack system to be re-tested. By March 
31 of each reporting year, you must evaluate and determine whether any 
changes to your fab operations meet the criteria specified in 
paragraphs (j)(8)(i) through (vi) of this section. If any of the 
scenarios specified in paragraph (j)(8)(i) through (vi) of this section 
occur, you must perform a re-test of any applicable stack system, 
irrespective of whether you have met the criteria for less frequent 
testing in paragraph (j)(5)(ii) of this section, before the end of the 
year in which the evaluation was completed. You must adhere to the 
methods and procedures specified in Sec.  98.93(i)(3) for performing a 
stack system emissions test and calculating emissions. If you meet the 
criteria for less frequent testing in paragraph (j)(5)(ii) of this 
section, and you are required to perform a re-test as specified in 
paragraph (j)(8)(i) through (vi) of this section, the requirement to 
perform a re-test does not extend the date of the next scheduled test 
that was established prior to meeting the requirement to perform a re-
test. If the criteria specified in paragraph (j)(5)(ii) of this section 
are not met using the results from the re-test and the two most recent 
stack tests, you must use the emission factors developed from the most 
recent testing to calculate emissions and resume annual testing. You 
may resume testing less frequently according to your original schedule 
if the criteria specified in paragraph (j)(5)(ii) of this section are 
met using the most recent three tests.
    (i) Annual consumption of a fluorinated GHG used during the most 
recent emissions test (expressed in CO2e) changes by more 
than 10 percent of the total annual fluorinated GHG consumption, 
relative to gas consumption in CO2e for that gas during the 
year of the most recent emissions test (for example, if the use of a 
single gas goes from 25 percent of CO2e to greater than 35 
percent of CO2e, this change would trigger a re-test). For 
those fluorinated GHG that do not have GWP values listed in Table A-1 
to subpart A of this part, you must use a GWP value of 2,000 in 
calculating CO2e.
    (ii) A change in the consumption of an intermittent low-use 
fluorinated GHG (as defined in Sec.  98.98) that was not used during 
the emissions test and not reflected in the fab-specific emission 
factor, such that it no longer meets the definition of an intermittent 
low-use fluorinated GHG.
    (iii) A decrease by more than 10 percent in the fraction of tools 
with abatement systems, compared to the number during the most recent 
emissions test.
    (iv) A change in the wafer size manufactured by the fab since the 
most recent emissions test.
    (v) A stack system that formerly met the criteria specified under 
Sec.  98.93(i)(2) for not being subject to testing no longer meets 
those criteria.
    (vi) A gas is used or emitted that meets the criteria in paragraph 
(j)(1)(iii) of this section.
    (k) You may request approval to use an alternative stack test 
method and procedure or to use an alternative method to determine 
abatement system destruction or removal efficiency by adhering to the 
requirements in paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(6) of this section. An 
alternative method is any method of sampling and analyzing for a 
fluorinated GHG or N2O, or the determination of parameters 
other than concentration, for example, flow measurements, that is not a 
method specified in this subpart and that has been demonstrated to the 
Administrator's satisfaction, using Method 301 in appendix A of part 
63, to produce results adequate for the Administrator's determination 
that it may be used in place of a method specified elsewhere in this 
subpart.
    (1) You may use an alternative method from that specified in this 
subpart provided that you:
    (i) Notify the Administrator of your intention to use an 
alternative method. You must include in the notification a site-
specific test plan describing the alternative method and procedures 
(the alternative test plan), the range of test conditions over which 
the validation is intended to be applicable, and an alternative means 
of calculating the fab-level fluorinated GHG or N2O 
emissions or determining the abatement system destruction or removal 
efficiency if the Administrator denies the use of the results of the 
alternative method under paragraph (k)(2) or (3) of this section.
    (ii) Use Method 301 in appendix A of part 63 of this chapter to 
validate the alternative method. This may include the use of only 
portions of specific procedures of Method 301 if use of such procedures 
are sufficient to validate the alternative method; and
    (iii) Submit the results of the Method 301 validation process along 
with the notification of intention and the rationale for not using the 
specified method.
    (2) The Administrator will determine whether the validation of the 
proposed alternative method is adequate and issue an approval or 
disapproval of the alternative test plan within 120 days of the date on 
which you submit the notification and alternative test plan specified 
in paragraph (k)(1) of this

[[Page 63588]]

section. If the Administrator approves the alternative test plan, you 
are authorized to use the alternative method(s) in place of the methods 
described in paragraph (f)(4)(i) of this section for measuring 
destruction or removal efficiency or paragraph (j) of this section for 
conducting the stack test, as applicable, taking into account the 
Administrator's comments on the alternative test plan. Notwithstanding 
the requirement in the preceding sentence, you may at any time prior to 
the Administrator's approval or disapproval proceed to conduct the 
stack test using the methods specified in paragraph (j) of this section 
or the destruction or removal efficiency determination specified in 
(f)(4)(i) of this section if you use a method specified in this subpart 
instead of the requested alternative.
    (3) You must report the results of stack testing or destruction or 
removal efficiency determination using the alternative method and 
procedure specified in the approved alternative test plan. You must 
include in your report for an alternative stack test method and for an 
alternative abatement system destruction or removal efficiency 
determination the information specified in paragraph (j)(4) of this 
section, including all methods, calculations and data used to determine 
the fluorinated GHG emission factor or the abatement system destruction 
or removal efficiency. The Administrator will review the results of the 
test using the alternative methods and procedure and then approve or 
deny the use of the results of the alternative test method and 
procedure no later than 120 days after they are submitted to EPA.
    (4) If the Administrator finds reasonable grounds to dispute the 
results obtained by an alternative method for the purposes of 
determining fluorinated GHG emissions or destruction or removal 
efficiency of an abatement system, the Administrator may require the 
use of another method specified in this subpart.
    (5) Once the Administrator has approved the use of the alternative 
method for the purposes of determining fluorinated GHG emissions for 
specific fluorinated GHGs and types of stack systems or abatement 
system destruction or removal efficiency, that method may be used at 
any other facility for the same fluorinated GHGs and types of stack 
systems, or fluorinated GHGs and abatement systems, if the approved 
conditions apply to that facility. In granting approval, the 
Administrator may limit the range of test conditions and emission 
characteristics for which that approval is granted and under which the 
alternative method may be used without seeking approval under 
paragraphs (k)(1) through (4) of this section. The Administrator will 
specify those limitations, if any, in the approval of the alternative 
method.
    (6) Neither the validation and approval process nor the failure to 
validate or obtain approval of an alternative method shall abrogate 
your responsibility to comply with the requirements of this subpart.
    8. Section 98.96 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text and paragraphs (c)(1), 
(c)(2), and (c)(3).
    b. Adding paragraph (c)(5).
    c. Removing and reserving paragraphs (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), 
and (l).
    d. Revising paragraph (m) introductory text, redesignating 
paragraphs (m)(i) through (m)(iv) as paragraphs (m)(1) through (m)(4), 
and revising new paragraphs (m)(1), (m)(3) and (m)(4).
    e. Adding paragraph (m)(5).
    f. Removing and reserving paragraphs (n) and (o).
    g. Revising paragraph (p).
    h. Revising paragraphs (q), (r), and (s).
    i. Removing and reserving paragraphs (t) and (v).
    j. Adding paragraphs (w), (x) and (y).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  98.96  Data reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) Annual emissions, on a fab basis as described in paragraph 
(c)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) When you use the procedures specified in Sec.  98.93(a) of this 
subpart, each fluorinated GHG emitted from each process type for which 
your fab is required to calculate emissions as calculated in Equations 
I-6 and I-7 of this subpart.
    (2) Each fluorinated GHG emitted from each process type or process 
sub-type as calculated in Equations I-8 and I-9 of this subpart, as 
applicable.
    (3) N2O emitted from all chemical vapor deposition 
processes and N2O emitted from the aggregate of other 
N2O-using manufacturing processes as calculated in Equation 
I-10 of this subpart.
* * * * *
    (5) When you use the procedures specified in Sec.  98.93(i) of this 
subpart, annual emissions of each fluorinated GHG, on a fab basis.
* * * * *
    (m) For the fab-specific apportioning model used to apportion 
fluorinated GHG and N2O consumption under Sec.  98.94(c), 
the following information to determine it is verified in accordance 
with procedures in Sec.  98.94(c)(1) and (2):
    (1) Identification of the quantifiable metric used in your fab-
specific engineering model to apportion gas consumption for each fab.
* * * * *
    (3) Certification that the gas(es) you selected under Sec.  
98.94(c)(2)(ii) for each fab corresponds to the largest quantity(ies) 
consumed on a mass basis, of fluorinated GHG used at your fab during 
the reporting year for which you are required to apportion.
    (4) The result of the calculation comparing the actual and modeled 
gas consumption under Sec.  98.94(c)(2)(iii) and (iv), as applicable.
    (5) If you are required to apportion fluorinated GHG consumption 
between fabs as required by Sec.  98.94(c)(2)(v), certification that 
the gas(es) you selected under Sec.  98.94(c)(2)(ii) corresponds to the 
largest quantity(ies) consumed on a mass basis, of fluorinated GHG used 
at your facility during the reporting year for which you are required 
to apportion.
* * * * *
    (p) Inventory and description of all abatement systems through 
which fluorinated GHGs or N2O flow at your facility and for 
which you are claiming destruction or removal efficiency, including:
    (1) The number of abatement systems controlling emissions for each 
process sub-type, or process type, as applicable, for each gas used in 
the process sub-type or process type.
    (2) The basis of the destruction or removal efficiency being used 
(default or site specific measurement according to Sec.  
98.94(f)(4)(i)) for each process sub-type or process type and for each 
gas.
    (q) For all abatement systems through which fluorinated GHGs or 
N2O flow at your facility, for which you are reporting 
controlled emissions, a certification that all abatement systems at the 
facility have been installed, maintained, and operated in accordance 
with the manufacturer's specifications and according to the site 
maintenance plan for abatement systems that is developed and maintained 
in your records as specified in Sec.  98.97(d).
    (r) You must report an effective facility-wide destruction or 
removal efficiency value calculated using Equation I-26, I-27, and I-28 
of this subpart, as appropriate. For those fluorinated GHG for which 
Table A-1 to subpart A of this part does not define a GWP value, you 
must use a value of 2,000 for the GWP in calculating metric ton 
CO2e for that fluorinated GHG.

[[Page 63589]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16OC12.084

Where:

DREFAC = Facility-wide effective destruction or removal 
efficiency value, expressed as a decimal fraction.
FGHGi = Total emissions of each fluorinated GHG i emitted 
from electronics manufacturing processes in the facility, calculated 
according to the procedures in Sec.  98.93.
N2Oj = Emissions of N2O from each 
N2O-emitting electronics manufacturing process j in the 
facility, expressed in metric ton CO2 equivalents, 
calculated according to the procedures in Sec.  98.93.
UAFGHG = Total unabated emissions of fluorinated GHG emitted from 
electronics manufacturing processes in the facility, expressed in 
metric ton CO2 equivalents as calculated in Equation I-27 
of this subpart.
SFGHG = Total unabated emissions of fluorinated GHG emitted from 
electronics manufacturing processes in the facility, expressed in 
metric ton CO2 equivalents, as calculated in Equation I-
28 of this subpart.
CN2O,j = Consumption of N2O in each 
N2O emitting process j, expressed in metric ton 
CO2 equivalents.
1-UN2O,j = N2O emission factor for each 
N2O emitting process j from Table I-8 of this subpart.
GWPi = GWP of emitted fluorinated GHG i from Table A-1 of 
this part. For those fluorinated GHGs for which Table A-1 to subpart 
A of this part does not define a GWP value, use a GWP value of 
2,000.
GWPN2O = GWP of N2O from Table A-1 of this 
part.
i = Fluorinated GHG.
j = Process Type.

    (1) Use Equation I-27 of this subpart to calculate total unabated 
emissions, in metric tons CO2e, of all fluorinated GHG 
emitted from electronics manufacturing processes whose emissions of 
fluorinated GHG you calculated according to the default utilization and 
by-product formation rate procedures in Sec.  98.93(a) or Sec.  
98.93(i)(4). For each fluorinated GHG i in process j, use the same 
consumption (Cij), emission factors (1-Uij), and 
by-product formation rates (Bijk) to calculate unabated 
emissions as you used to calculate emissions in Sec.  98.93(a) or Sec.  
98.93(i)(4). For those fluorinated GHGs for which Table A-1 to subpart 
A of this part does not define a GWP value, use a GWP value of 2,000.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16OC12.085

Where:

UAFGHG = Total unabated emissions of fluorinated GHG i emitted from 
electronics manufacturing processes in the facility, expressed in 
metric ton CO2e for which you calculated total emission 
according to the procedures in Sec.  98.93(a) or Sec.  98.93(i)(4).
Cij = Total consumption of fluorinated GHG i, apportioned 
to process j, expressed in metric ton CO2e for which you 
used to calculate total emissions according to the procedures in 
Sec.  98.93(a) or Sec.  98.93(i)(4).
Uij = Process utilization rate for fluorinated GHG i, 
process type j, for which you used to calculate total emissions 
according to the procedures in Sec.  98.93(a) or Sec.  98.93(i)(4).
GWPi = GWP of emitted fluorinated GHG i from Table A-1 of 
this part. For those fluorinated GHGs for which Table A-1 to subpart 
A of this part does not define a GWP value, use a GWP value of 
2,000.
GWPk = GWP of emitted fluorinated GHG by-product k, from 
Table A-1 of this part. For those fluorinated GHGs for which Table 
A-1 to subpart A of this part does not define a GWP value, use a GWP 
value of 2,000.
Bijk = By-product formation rate of fluorinated GHG k 
created as a by-product per amount of fluorinated GHG input gas i 
(kg) consumed by process type j (kg).
i = Fluorinated GHG.
j = Process Type.
k = Fluorinated GHG by-product.

    (2) Use Equation I-28 to calculate total unabated emissions, in 
metric ton CO2e, of all fluorinated GHG emitted from 
electronics manufacturing processes whose emissions of fluorinated GHG 
you calculated according to the stack testing procedures in Sec.  
98.93(i)(3). For each set of processes, use the same input gas 
consumption (Cif), input gas emission factors 
(EFif), by-product gas emission factors (EFkf), 
fractions of tools abated (aif and af), and 
destruction efficiencies (dkf and dkf) to 
calculate unabated emissions as you used to calculate emissions. For 
those fluorinated GHGs for which Table A-1 to subpart A of this part 
does not define a GWP value, use a GWP value of 2,000.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16OC12.086

Where:

SFGHG = Total unabated emissions of fluorinated GHG i emitted from 
electronics manufacturing processes in the facility, expressed in 
metric ton CO2e for which you calculated total emission 
according to the procedures in Sec.  98.93(i)(3).
EFif = Emission factor for fluorinated GHG input gas i, 
emitted from fab f, as calculated in Equation I-19 of this subpart 
(kg emitted/kg input gas consumed).
aif = Fraction of fluorinated GHG input gas i used in fab 
f in tools with abatement systems (expressed as a decimal fraction).
dif = Fraction of fluorinated GHG i destroyed or removed 
in abatement systems connected to process tools in fab f, for which 
you used to calculate total emissions according to the procedures in 
Sec.  98.93(i)(3) (expressed as a decimal fraction).
Cif = Total consumption of fluorinated GHG input gas i, 
of tools vented to stack systems that are tested, for fab f, for the 
reporting year, expressed in metric ton CO2e for which 
you used to calculate total emissions according to the procedures in 
Sec.  98.93(i)(3) (expressed as a decimal fraction).
EFkf = Emission factor for fluorinated GHG by-product gas 
k, emitted from fab f, as

[[Page 63590]]

calculated in Equation I-20 of this subpart (kg emitted/kg of all 
input gas consumed in tools vented to stack systems that are 
tested).
af = Fraction of all input gas used in fab f in tools 
with abatement systems (expressed as a decimal fraction).
dkf = Fraction of fluorinated GHG by-product k destroyed 
or removed in abatement systems connected to process tools in fab f, 
for which you used to calculate total emissions according to the 
procedures in Sec.  98.93(i)(3) (expressed as a decimal fraction).
Uij = Process utilization rate for fluorinated GHG i, 
process type j, for which you used to calculate total emissions 
according to the procedures in Sec.  98.93(a) or Sec.  98.93(i)(4).
GWPi = GWP of emitted fluorinated GHG i from Table A-1 of 
this part. For those fluorinated GHGs for which Table A-1 of subpart 
A to this part does not define a GWP value, use a GWP value of 
2,000.
GWPk = GWP of emitted fluorinated GHG by-product k, from 
Table A-1 of this part. For those fluorinated GHGs for which Table 
A-1 to subpart A of this part does not define a GWP value, use a GWP 
value of 2,000.
i = Fluorinated GHG.
j = Process Type.
k = Fluorinated GHG by-product.

    (s) Where missing data procedures were used to estimate inputs into 
the fluorinated heat transfer fluid mass balance equation under Sec.  
98.95(b), the number of times missing data procedures were followed in 
the reporting year and the method used to estimate the missing data.
* * * * *
    (w) If you elect to calculate fab-level emissions of fluorinated 
GHG using the stack test method specified in Sec.  98.93(i), you must 
report the following in paragraphs (w)(1) and (2) for each stack 
system, in addition to the relevant data in paragraphs (a) through (v) 
of this section:
    (1) The date of any stack testing conducted during the reporting 
year, and the identity of the stack system tested.
    (2) An inventory of all stack systems from which process 
fluorinated GHG are emitted. For each stack system, indicate whether 
the stack system is among those for which stack testing was performed 
as per Sec.  98.93(i)(3) or not performed as per Sec.  98.93(i)(2).
    (x) If the emissions you report under paragraph (c) of this section 
include emissions from research and development activities, as defined 
in Sec.  98.6, report the approximate percentage of total GHG 
emissions, on a metric ton CO2e basis, that are attributable 
to research and development activities, using the following ranges: 
less than 5 percent, 5 percent to less than 10 percent, 10 percent to 
less than 25 percent, 25 percent to less than 50 percent, 50 percent 
and higher. For those fluorinated GHG that do not have GWP values 
listed in Table A-1 of subpart A of this part, you must use a GWP value 
of 2,000 in calculating CO2e.
    (y) If your semiconductor manufacturing facility emits more than 
40,000 metric ton CO2e of GHG emissions, based on your most 
recently submitted annual report (beginning with the 2015 reporting 
year) as required in paragraph (c) of this section, from the 
electronics manufacturing processes subject to reporting under this 
subpart, you must prepare and submit a triennial (every 3 years) 
technology assessment report to the Administrator that meets the 
requirements specified in paragraphs (y)(1) through (6) of this 
section. Any other semiconductor manufacturing facility may voluntarily 
submit this report to the Administrator.
    (1) The first report must be submitted with the annual GHG 
emissions report that is due no later than March 31, 2017, and 
subsequent reports must be delivered every 3 years no later than March 
31 of the year in which it is due.
    (2) The report must include the information described in paragraphs 
(y)(2)(i) through (v) of this section.
    (i) It must describe how the gases and technologies used in 
semiconductor manufacturing using 200 mm and 300 mm wafers in the 
United States have changed in the past 3 years and whether any of the 
identified changes are likely to have affected the emissions 
characteristics of semiconductor manufacturing processes in such a way 
that the default utilization and by-product formation rates or default 
destruction or removal efficiency values may need to be updated.
    (ii) It must describe the effect on emissions of the implementation 
of new process technologies and/or finer line width processes in 200 mm 
and 300 mm technologies, the introduction of new tool platforms, and 
the introduction of new processes on previously tested platforms.
    (iii) It must describe the status of implementing 450 mm wafer 
technology and the potential need to create or update default emission 
factors compared to 300 mm technology.
    (iv) It must provide any default utilization and by-product 
formation rates and/or destruction or removal efficiency data that have 
been collected in the previous 3 years that support the changes in 
semiconductor manufacturing processes described in the report.
    (v) It must describe the use of a new gas, use of an existing gas 
in a new process type or sub-type, or a fundamental change in process 
technology.
    (3) If, on the basis of the information reported in paragraph 
(y)(2) of this section, the report indicates that GHG emissions from 
semiconductor manufacturing may have changed from those represented by 
the default utilization and by-product formation rates in Tables I-3, 
I-4, or I-5, or the default destruction or removal efficiency values in 
Table I-16 of this subpart, the report must lay out a data gathering 
and analysis plan focused on the areas of potential change. The plan 
must describe:
    (i) The testing of tools to determine the potential effect on 
current default utilization and by-product formation rates and 
destruction or removal efficiency values under the new conditions, and
    (ii) A planned analysis of the effect on overall facility emissions 
using a representative gas-use profile for a 200 mm, 300 mm, or 450 mm 
fab (depending on which technology is under consideration).
    (4) Multiple semiconductor manufacturing facilities may submit a 
single consolidated 3-year report as long as the facility identifying 
information in Sec.  98.3(c)(1) and the certification statement in 
Sec.  98.3(c)(9) is provided for each facility for which the 
consolidated report is submitted.
    (5) The Administrator will review the report received and determine 
whether it is necessary to update the default utilization rates and by-
product formation rates in Tables I-3 through I-7 and I-11 through I-15 
of this subpart and default destruction or removal efficiency values 
based on the following:
    (i) Whether the revised default utilization and by-product 
formation rates and destruction or removal efficiency values will 
result in a projected shift in emissions of 10 percent or greater.
    (ii) Whether new platforms, processes, or facilities that are not 
captured in current default utilization and by-product formation rates 
and destruction or removal efficiency values should be included in 
revised values.
    (iii) Whether new data are available that could expand the existing 
data set to include new gases, tools, or processes not included in the 
existing data set (i.e. gases, tools, or processes for which no data 
are currently available).
    (6) The Administrator will review the reports within 120 days and 
will notify you of its determination whether it is

[[Page 63591]]

necessary to update any default utilization and by-product formation 
rates and/or destruction or removal efficiency values. If the 
Administrator determines it is necessary to update default utilization 
and by-product formation rates and/or destruction or removal efficiency 
values, you will then have 180 days from the date you receive notice of 
the determination to execute the data collection and analysis plan 
described in the report and submit those data to the Administrator.
    9. Section 98.97 is amended by:
    a. Removing and reserving paragraph (b).
    b. Revising paragraph (c).
    c. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text and paragraph (d)(1).
    d. Adding paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (d)(1)(iii).
    e. Removing and reserving paragraph (d)(3).
    f. Revising paragraph (d)(4).
    g. Adding paragraphs (d)(5) through (d)(9).
    h. Adding paragraphs (i) through (s).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  98.97  Records that must be retained.

* * * * *
    (c) Documentation for the fab-specific engineering model used to 
apportion fluorinated GHG and N2O consumption. This 
documentation must be part of your site GHG Monitoring Plan as required 
under Sec.  98.3(g)(5). At a minimum, you must retain the following:
    (1) A clear, detailed description of the fab-specific model, 
including how it was developed; the quantifiable metric used in the 
model; all sources of information, equations, and formulas, each with 
clear definitions of terms and variables; all apportioning factors used 
to apportion fluorinated GHG and N2O; and a clear record of 
any changes made to the model while it was used to apportion 
fluorinated GHG and N2O consumption across process sub-
types, process types, tools with and without abatement systems, stack 
systems, and/or fabs.
    (2) Sample calculations used for developing the gas apportioning 
factors (fij) for the two fluorinated GHGs used at your 
facility in the largest quantities, on a mass basis, during the 
reporting year.
    (3) If you develop apportioning factors through the use of direct 
measurement according to Sec.  98.94(c)(3), calculations and data used 
to develop each gas apportioning factor.
    (4) Calculations and data used to determine and document that the 
fab was operating at representative operating levels, as defined in 
Sec.  98.98, during the apportioning model verification specified in 
Sec.  98.94(c).
    (d) For all abatement systems through which fluorinated GHGs or 
N2O flow at your facility, and for which you are reporting 
controlled emissions, the following in paragraphs (d)(1) to (9) of this 
section:
    (1) Records of the information in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) though (iii) 
of this section:
    (i) Documentation to certify that each abatement system is 
installed, maintained, and operated in accordance with manufacturers' 
specifications.
    (ii) Documentation from the abatement system supplier describing 
the abatement system's designed purpose and emission control 
capabilities for fluorinated GHG and N2O.
    (iii) Certification that the abatement systems for which emissions 
are being reported were specifically designed for fluorinated GHG and 
N2O abatement.
* * * * *
    (4) Where properly measured site-specific destruction or removal 
efficiencies are used to report emissions, the information in 
paragraphs (d)(4)(i) though (vi) of this section:
    (i) Dated certification by the technician who made the measurement 
that the destruction or removal efficiency is calculated in accordance 
with methods in EPA 430-R-10-003 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
98.7) and, if applicable Appendix A of this subpart, or an alternative 
method approved by the Administrator as specified in Sec.  98.94(k), 
complete documentation of the results of any initial and subsequent 
tests, the final report as specified in EPA 430-R-10-003 (incorporated 
by reference, see Sec.  98.7) and, if applicable, the records and 
documentation specified in Appendix A of this subpart including the 
information required in paragraph (b)(7) of Appendix A of this subpart, 
or a final report as specified in an alternative method approved by the 
Administrator as specified in Sec.  98.94(k).
    (ii) The average destruction or removal efficiency of the abatement 
systems operating during the reporting year for each process type and 
gas combination.
    (iii) A description of the calculation used to determine the 
average destruction or removal efficiency for each process type and gas 
combination, including all inputs to the calculation.
    (iv) The records of destruction or removal efficiency measurements 
for abatement systems for all tests that have been used to determine 
the site-specific destruction or removal efficiencies currently being 
used.
    (v) A description of the method used for randomly selecting 
abatement systems for testing.
    (vi) The total number of systems for which destruction or removal 
efficiency was properly measured for each process type and gas 
combination for the reporting year.
    (5) In addition to the inventory in Sec.  98.96(p), the information 
in paragraphs (d)(5)(i) though (iii) of this section:
    (i) The number of abatement systems of each manufacturer, and model 
numbers, and the manufacturer's claimed fluorinated GHG and 
N2O destruction or removal efficiency, if any.
    (ii) Records of destruction or removal efficiency measurements over 
the in-use life of each abatement system.
    (iii) A description of the tool, with the process type or sub-type, 
for which the abatement system treats exhaust.
    (6) Records of all inputs and results of calculations made 
accounting for the uptime of abatement systems used during the 
reporting year, in accordance with Equations I-15a, I-15b, or I-23 of 
this subpart, as applicable. The inputs should include an indication of 
whether each value for destruction or removal efficiency is a default 
value or a measured site-specific value.
    (7) Records of all inputs and results of calculations made to 
determine the average weighted fraction of each gas destroyed or 
removed in the abatement systems for each stack system using Equation 
I-24 of this subpart, if applicable. The inputs should include an 
indication of whether each value for destruction or removal efficiency 
is a default value or a measured site-specific value.
    (8) Records of all inputs and the results of the calculation of the 
facility-wide emission destruction or removal efficiency factor 
calculated according to Equation I-26 of this subpart.
    (9) A maintenance plan for abatement systems, which includes a 
defined preventative maintenance process and checklist (built on the 
manufacturer's recommended maintenance program) and a corrective action 
process that you must follow whenever an abatement system is found to 
be not operating properly. The maintenance plan must be maintained on-
site at the facility as part of the facility's GHG Monitoring Plan as 
described in Sec.  98.3(g)(5).
* * * * *
    (i) Retain the following records for each stack system for which 
you elect to calculate fab-level emissions of fluorinated GHG using the 
procedures specified in Sec.  98.93(i)(3) or (4).
    (1) Document all stack systems with emissions of fluorinated GHG 
that are

[[Page 63592]]

less than 10,000 metric tons of CO2e per year and all stack 
systems with emissions of 10,000 metric tons CO2e per year 
or more. Include the data and calculation used to develop the 
preliminary estimate of emissions for each stack system.
    (2) For each stack system, identify the method used to calculate 
annual emissions; either Sec.  98.93(i)(3) or (4).
    (3) The emissions test data and reports (see Sec.  98.94(j)(4)) and 
the calculations used to determine the fab-specific emission factor, 
including the actual fab-specific emission factor, the average hourly 
emission rate of each fluorinated GHG from the stack system during the 
test and the stack system activity rate during the test.
    (4) The fab-specific emission factor and the calculations and data 
used to determine the fab-specific emission factor for each fluorinated 
GHG and by-product, as calculated using Equations I-19 and I-20 of 
Sec.  98.93(i)(3).
    (5) Calculations and data used to determine annual emissions of 
each fluorinated GHG for each fab.
    (6) Calculations and data used to determine and document that the 
fab was operating at representative operating levels, as defined in 
Sec.  98.98, during the stack testing period.
    (7) A copy of the certification that no changes in stack system 
flow configuration occurred between tests conducted for any particular 
fab in a reporting year as required by Sec.  98.94(j)(1)(iv) and any 
calculations and data supporting the certification.
    (j) If you report the approximate percentage of total GHG emissions 
from research and development activities under Sec.  98.96(x), 
documentation for the determination of the percentage of total 
emissions of each fluorinated GHG and/or N2O attributable to 
research and development, as defined in Sec.  98.6, activities.
    (k) Annual gas consumption for each fluorinated GHG and 
N2O as calculated in Equation I-11 of this subpart, 
including where your fab used less than 50 kg of a particular 
fluorinated GHG or N2O used at your facility for which you 
have not calculated emissions using Equations I-6, I-7, I-8, I-9, I-10, 
I-21, or I-22 of this subpart, the chemical name of the GHG used, the 
annual consumption of the gas, and a brief description of its use.
    (l) All inputs used to calculate gas consumption in Equation I-11 
of this subpart, for each fluorinated GHG and N2O used.
    (m) Annual amount of each fluorinated GHG consumed for process sub-
type, process type, stack system, or fab, as appropriate, and the 
annual amount of N2O consumed for the chemical vapor 
deposition processes and from the aggregate of other electronics 
manufacturing production processes, as calculated using Equation I-13 
of this subpart.
    (n) Disbursements for each fluorinated GHG and N2O 
during the reporting year, as calculated using Equation I-12 of this 
subpart and all inputs used to calculate disbursements for each 
fluorinated GHG and N2O used in Equation I-12 of this 
subpart, including all fab-wide gas-specific heel factors used for each 
fluorinated GHG and N2O. If your fab used less than 50 kg of 
a particular fluorinated GHG during the reporting year, fab-wide gas-
specific heel factors do not need to be reported for those gases.
    (o) Fraction of each fluorinated GHG or N2O fed into a 
process sub-type, process type, stack system, or fab that is fed into 
tools connected to abatement systems.
    (p) Fraction of each fluorinated GHG or N2O destroyed or 
removed in abatement systems connected to process tools where process 
sub-type, process type j is used, or to process tools vented to stack 
system j or fab f.
    (q) All inputs and results of calculations made accounting for the 
uptime of abatement systems used during the reporting year, or during 
an emissions sampling period, in accordance with Equations I-15a, I-15b 
and/or I-23 of this subpart, as applicable.
    (r) For fluorinated heat transfer fluid emissions, inputs to the 
fluorinated heat transfer fluid mass balance equation, Equation I-16 of 
this subpart, for each fluorinated heat transfer fluid used.
    (s) Where missing data procedures were used to estimate inputs into 
the fluorinated heat transfer fluid mass balance equation under Sec.  
98.95(b), the estimates of those data.
    10. Section 98.98 is amended by:
    a. Removing the definitions of ``Class,'' ``Individual recipe,'' 
and ``Similar, with respect to recipes.''
    b. Adding a definition for ``Fab,'' ``Fully Fluorinated GHGs,'' 
``Input gas,'' ``Intermittent low-use fluorinated GHG,'' 
``Representative operating levels,'' and ``Stack system.''
    c. Revising the definitions of ``By-product formation,'' ``Gas 
utilization,'' ``Operational mode,'' ``Process types,'' ``Properly 
measured destruction or removal efficiency,'' ``Trigger point for 
change out,'' ``Uptime,'' and ``Wafer passes.''
    d. Revising the definition of ``Maximum designed substrate starts'' 
to ``Maximum substrate starts.''
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  98.98  Definitions.

* * * * *
    By-product formation means the creation of fluorinated GHGs during 
electronics manufacturing production processes or the creation of 
fluorinated GHGs by an abatement system. Where the procedures in Sec.  
98.93(a) are used to calculate annual emissions, by-product formation 
is the ratio of the mass of the by-product formed to the mass flow of 
the input gas. Where the procedures in Sec.  98.93(i) are used to 
calculate annual emissions, by-product formation is the ratio of the 
mass of the by-product formed to the total mass flow of all input 
fluorinated GHGs.
* * * * *
    Fab means the portion of an electronics manufacturing facility 
located in a separate physical structure that began manufacturing on a 
certain date.
* * * * *
    Fully Fluorinated GHGs means fluorinated GHGs that contain only 
single bonds and in which all available valence locations are filled by 
fluorine atoms. This includes, but is not limited to, saturated 
perfluorocarbons, SF6, NF3, 
SF5CF3, C4F8O, fully 
fluorinated linear, branched, and cyclic alkanes, fully fluorinated 
ethers, fully fluorinated tertiary amines, fully fluorinated 
aminoethers, and perfluoropolyethers.
    Gas utilization means the fraction of input N2O or 
fluorinated GHG converted to other substances during the etching, 
deposition, and/or wafer and chamber cleaning processes. Gas 
utilization is expressed as a rate or factor for specific electronics 
manufacturing process sub-types or process types.
* * * * *
    Input gas means a fluorinated GHG or N2O used in one of 
the processes described in Sec.  98.90(a)(1) through (4).
    Intermittent low-use fluorinated GHG, for the purposes of 
determining fluorinated GHG emissions using the stack testing option, 
means a fluorinated GHG that meets all of the following:
    (1) The fluorinated GHG is used by the fab but is not used during 
the period of stack testing for the fab/stack system.
    (2) The emissions of the fluorinated GHG, estimated using the 
methods in Sec.  98.93(i)(4) do not constitute more than 5 percent of 
the total fluorinated GHG emissions from the fab on a CO2e 
basis.
    (3) The sum of the emissions of all fluorinated GHGs that are 
considered intermittent low-use gases does not exceed 10,000 metric 
tons CO2e for the fab for that year, as calculated using the 
procedures specified in Sec.  98.93(i)(1) of this subpart.

[[Page 63593]]

    Maximum substrate starts means for the purposes of Equation I-5 of 
this subpart, the maximum quantity of substrates, expressed as surface 
area, that could be started each month during a reporting year based on 
the equipment installed in that facility and assuming that the 
installed equipment were fully utilized. Manufacturing equipment is 
considered installed when it is on the manufacturing floor and 
connected to required utilities.
* * * * *
    Operational mode means the time in which an abatement system is 
properly installed, maintained, and operated according to 
manufacturers' specifications as required in Sec.  98.93(f)(1). This 
includes being properly operated within the range of parameters as 
specified in the operations manual provided by the system manufacturer.
* * * * *
    Process types are broad groups of manufacturing steps used at a 
facility associated with substrate (e.g., wafer) processing during 
device manufacture for which fluorinated GHG emissions and fluorinated 
GHG consumption is calculated and reported. The process types are 
Plasma etching/Wafer Cleaning and Chamber cleaning.
    Properly measured destruction or removal efficiency means 
destruction or removal efficiencies measured in accordance with EPA 
430-R-10-003 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  98.7), and, if 
applicable, Appendix A to this subpart, or by an alternative method 
approved by the Administrator as specified in Sec.  98.94(k).
* * * * *
    Representative operating levels means (for purposes of verification 
of the apportionment model or for determining the appropriate 
conditions for stack testing) operating the fab, in terms of substrate 
starts for the period of testing or monitoring, at no less than 50 
percent of installed production capacity or no less than 70 percent of 
the average production rate for the reporting year, where production 
rate for the reporting year is represented in average monthly substrate 
starts. For the purposes of stack testing, the period for determining 
the representative operating level must be the period ending on the 
same date on which testing is concluded.
    Stack system means one or more stacks that are connected by a 
common header or manifold, through which a fluorinated GHG-containing 
gas stream originating from one or more fab processes is, or has the 
potential to be, released to the atmosphere. For purposes of this 
subpart, stack systems do not include emergency vents or bypass stacks 
through which emissions are not usually vented under typical operating 
conditions.
    Trigger point for change out means the residual weight or pressure 
of a gas container type that a facility uses as an indicator that 
operators need to change out that gas container with a full container. 
The trigger point is not the actual residual weight or pressure of the 
gas remaining in the cylinder that has been replaced.
    Uptime means the ratio of the total time during which the abatement 
system is in an operational mode, to the total time during which 
production process tool(s) connected to that abatement system are 
normally in operation.
* * * * *
    Wafer passes is a count of the number of times a wafer substrate is 
processed in a specific process sub-type, or type. The total number of 
wafer passes over a reporting year is the number of wafer passes per 
tool multiplied by the number of operational process tools in use 
during the reporting year.
* * * * *
    11. Table I-1 to subpart I is amended by revising the footnote to 
read as follows:

Table I-1 to Subpart I of Part 98--Default Emission Factors for 
Threshold Applicability Determination

* * * * *

    Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available 
information.

    12. Table I-3 to subpart I is revised to read as follows:

      Table I-3 to Subpart I of Part 98--Default Emission Factors (1-Uij) for Gas Utilization Rates (Uij) and By-Product Formation Rates (Bijk) for
                                              Semiconductor Manufacturing for 150 mm and 200 mm Wafer Sizes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Process gas i
       Process type/ sub-type       --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       CF4      C2F6     CHF3    CH2F2    C2HF5     CH3F     C3F8     C4F8     NF3      SF6      C4F6     C5F8    C4F8O
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 ETCHING/WAFER CLEANING
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-Ui...............................     0.81     0.76     0.50     0.13    0.064     0.66       NA     0.14     0.20     0.55     0.17       NA       NA
BCF4...............................       NA     0.10    0.085    0.081    0.077       NA       NA     0.12   0.0040     0.15     0.13       NA       NA
BC2F6..............................    0.048       NA    0.031    0.025    0.024       NA       NA    0.037       NA     0.17     0.11       NA       NA
BC4F6..............................       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA
BC4F8..............................       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA
BC3F8..............................       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA
BCHF3..............................     0.11       NA       NA    0.066       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA    0.066       NA       NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    CHAMBER CLEANING
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                In situ plasma cleaning
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-Ui...............................     0.92     0.55       NA       NA       NA       NA     0.40     0.10     0.18       NA       NA       NA     0.14
BCF4...............................       NA     0.21       NA       NA       NA       NA     0.20     0.11    0.050       NA       NA       NA     0.13
BC2F6..............................       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA    0.045
BC3F8..............................       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Remote plasma cleaning
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-Ui...............................       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA    0.018       NA       NA       NA       NA
BCF4...............................       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA    0.015       NA       NA       NA       NA
BC2F6..............................       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA
BC3F8..............................       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 63594]]

 
                                                                In situ thermal cleaning
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-Ui...............................       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA
BCF4...............................       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA
BC2F6..............................       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA
BC3F8..............................       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA      NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information.

    13. Table I-4 to subpart I is revised to read as follows:

      Table I-4 to Subpart I of Part 98--Default Emission Factors (1-Uij) for Gas Utilization Rates (Uij) and By-Product Formation Rates (Bijk) for
                                              Semiconductor Manufacturing for 300 mm and 450 mm Wafer Size
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Process gas i
               Process type/sub-type                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        CF4      C2F6     CHF3     CH2F2     C3F8     C4F8     NF3      SF6      C4F6     C5F8    C4F8O
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 ETCHING/WAFER CLEANING
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-Ui...............................................      0.63     0.80      0.39     0.15       NA     0.17     0.17     0.23     0.18     0.13       NA
BCF4...............................................        NA     0.21      0.10    0.059       NA    0.046    0.052    0.045    0.066     0.15       NA
BC2F6..............................................     0.092       NA     0.078    0.068       NA    0.030    0.057    0.067    0.090    0.083       NA
BC4F6..............................................        NA       NA   0.00010       NA       NA    0.018       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA
BC4F8..............................................   0.00063       NA   0.00080       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA
BC3F8..............................................        NA       NA        NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA
BCHF3..............................................     0.011       NA        NA    0.052       NA    0.028    0.035       NA    0.022    0.010       NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    CHAMBER CLEANING
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                In situ plasma cleaning
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-Ui...............................................        NA       NA        NA       NA       NA       NA     0.23       NA       NA       NA       NA
BCF4...............................................        NA       NA        NA       NA       NA       NA    0.037       NA       NA       NA       NA
BC2F6..............................................        NA       NA        NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA
BC3F8..............................................        NA       NA        NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Remote plasma cleaning
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-Ui...............................................        NA       NA        NA       NA    0.063       NA    0.018       NA       NA       NA       NA
BCF4...............................................        NA       NA        NA       NA       NA       NA    0.075       NA       NA       NA       NA
BC2F6..............................................        NA       NA        NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA
BC3F8..............................................        NA       NA        NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                In situ thermal cleaning
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-Ui...............................................        NA       NA        NA       NA       NA       NA     0.28       NA       NA       NA       NA
BCF4...............................................        NA       NA        NA       NA       NA       NA    0.010       NA       NA       NA       NA
BC2F6..............................................        NA       NA        NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA
BC3F8..............................................        NA       NA        NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA      NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information.

    14. Table I-5 to subpart I is amended by revising the entries for 
``CVD 1-Ui,'' ``CVD BCF4'' and ``CVD 
BC3F8;'' and by revising the footnote to read as 
follows:

   Table I-5 to Subpart I of Part 98--Default Emission Factors (1-Uij) for Gas Utilization Rates (Uij) and By-Product Formation Rates (Bijk) for MEMS
                                                                      Manufacturing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Process gas i
                                            ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Process type factors                                                                      NF3
                                               CF4      C2F6     CHF3    CH2F2     C3F8    c-C4F8   Remote     NF3      SF6     C4F6a    C5F8a    C4F8Oa
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Etch 1-Ui..................................      0.7   \a\0.4   \a\0.4  \a\0.06       NA   \a\0.2        NA      0.2      0.2      0.1      0.2       NA

[[Page 63595]]

 
Etch BCF4..................................       NA   \a\0.4  \a\0.07  \a\0.08       NA      0.2        NA       NA       NA   \a\0.3      0.2       NA
Etch BC2F6.................................       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA      0.2        NA       NA       NA   \a\0.2      0.2       NA
CVDChamber Cleaning 1-Ui...................      0.9      0.6       NA       NA      0.4      0.1      0.02      0.2       NA       NA      0.1      0.1
CVD Chamber Cleaning BCF4..................       NA      0.1       NA       NA      0.1      0.1   \b\0.02   \b\0.1       NA       NA      0.1      0.1
CVD Chamber Cleaning BC3F8.................       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA        NA       NA       NA       NA       NA     0.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information.
\a\Estimate includes multi-gas etch processes.
\b\Estimate reflects presence of low-k, carbide and multi-gas etch processes that may contain a C-containing fluorinated GHG additive.

    15. Table I-6 to subpart I is amended by revising the entries for 
``CVD 1-Ui'' and by revising the footnote to read as 
follows:

   Table I-6 to Subpart I of Part 98--Default Emission Factors (1-Uij) for Gas Utilization Rates (Uij) and By-
                              Product Formation Rates (Bijk) for LCD Manufacturing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Process gas i
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Process type factors                                                                NF3
                                  CF4      C2F6     CHF3    CH2F2     C3F8    c-C4F8   Remote     NF3      SF6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
CVD Chamber Cleaning 1-Ui.....       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA      0.03      0.3     0.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information.

    16. Table I-7 to subpart I is amended by revising the entries for 
``CVD 1-Ui'' and ``CVD BCF4;'' and by revising 
the footnote to read as follows:

   Table I-7 to Subpart I of Part 98--Default Emission Factors (1-Uij) for Gas Utilization Rates (Uij) and By-
                               Product Formation Rates (Bijk) for PV Manufacturing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Process gas i
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Process type factors                                                                NF3
                                  CF4      C2F6     CHF3    CH2F2     C3F8    c-C4F8   Remote     NF3      SF6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
CVD Chamber Cleaning 1-Ui.....       NA      0.6       NA       NA      0.1      0.1        NA      0.3      0.4
CVD Chamber Cleaning BCF4.....       NA      0.2       NA       NA      0.2      0.1        NA       NA      NA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information.

    17. Table I-8 to subpart I is amended by revising the entry for 
``Other Manufacturing Process 1-Ui'' to read as follows:

 Table I-8 to Subpart I of Part 98--Default Emission Factors (1-UN2O,j)
                      for N2O Utilization (UN2O,j)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Process type factors                         N2O
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                * * * * *
Other Manufacturing Process 1-Ui.................................   1.14
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. Subpart I is amended by adding Table I-9 to subpart I to read 
as follows:

[[Page 63596]]



Table I-9 to Subpart I of Part 98--Methods and Procedures for Conducting
                    Emissions Tests for Stack Systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  For each stack system for
which you use the stack test
 method to calculate annual      You must * * *          Using * * *
       emissions * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each fluorinated GHG....  Measure the           Method 320 at 40 CFR
                               concentration in      part 63, appendix
                               the stack system.     A. Conduct the test
                                                     run for a minimum
                                                     of 8 hours for each
                                                     stack system.
                              Select sampling port  Method 1 or 1A at 40
                               locations and the     CFR part 60,
                               number of traverse    appendix A-1.
                               points.
                              Determine gas         Method 2, 2A, 2C,
                               velocity and          2D, 2F, or 2G at 40
                               volumetric flow       CFR part 60,
                               rate.                 appendix A-1 and A-
                                                     2.
                              Determine gas         Method 3, 3A, or 3B
                               molecular weight.     at 40 CFR part 60,
                                                     appendix A-2 using
                                                     the same sampling
                                                     site and time as
                                                     fluorinated GHG
                                                     sampling.
                              Measure gas moisture  Method 4 at 40 CFR
                               content.              part 60, appendix A-
                                                     3, or using
                                                     FTIR.\a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Extractive FTIR is an acceptable method, in lieu of Method 4 at 40
  CFR part 60 appendix A, of determining the volumetric concentrations
  of moisture in semiconductor stack gas streams. The spectral
  calibrations employed should bracket the anticipated range of optical
  depths (H2O concentration in parts per million multiplied by FTIR
  sample cell path length) measured in the field for moisture saturated
  (relative humidity approximately 100 percent) air streams at
  temperatures characterized via Method 2 at 40 CFR part 60 appendix A,
  within the stack. The HITRAN molecular spectroscopic database is an
  example of a widely used international standard of IR absorption
  parameters that provide accurate H2O FTIR calibrations at atmospheric
  conditions. Field measurements should be verified to be in line with
  moisture saturated wet scrubber exhaust concentrations at measured
  temperatures; the use of a hygrometer can provide verification of
  accuracy, which must be 2 percent. Field measurements
  should be verified to be consistent with published water vapor
  pressure curves at the current stack temperatures (Perry, R.H. and
  D.W. Green. Perry's Chemical Engineer's Handbook (8th Edition). McGraw-
  Hill Publishing Company, Inc. New Your, New York. 2008). The use of a
  hygrometer can also be used to provide verification of accuracy.

    19. Subpart I is amended by adding Table I-10 to subpart I to read 
as follows:

   Table I-10 to Subpart I of Part 98--Maximum Field Detection Limits
   Applicable to Fluorinated GHG Concentration Measurements for Stack
                                 Systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
                                                                field
                  Fluorinated GHG analyte                     detection
                                                                limit
                                                                (ppbv)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CF4........................................................            5
C2F6.......................................................            5
C3F8.......................................................            5
C4F6.......................................................            5
C5F8.......................................................            5
c-C4F8.....................................................            5
CH2F2......................................................           10
CH3F.......................................................           10
CHF3.......................................................            5
NF3........................................................            5
SF6........................................................            1
Other fully fluorinated GHGs...............................            5
Other fluorinated GHGs.....................................          10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ppbv--Parts per billion by volume.

    Subpart I is amended by adding Table I-11 to subpart I to read as 
follows:
    20. Subpart I is amended by adding Table I-11 to subpart I to read 
as follows:

     Table I-11 to Subpart I of Part 98--Default Emission Factors (1-UIJ) for Gas Utilization Rates (UIJ) and By-Product Formation Rates (BIJK) for
                                             Semiconductor Manufacturing for Use With the Stack Test Method
                                                               [150 mm and 200 mm wafers]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Process gas i
           All processes            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       CF4      C2F6     CHF3    CH2F2    C2HF5     CH3F     C3F8     C4F8     NF3      SF6      C4F6     C5F8    C4F8O
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-Ui...............................     0.81     0.71     0.50     0.13    0.064     0.66     0.40     0.14     0.19     0.55     0.17       NA     0.14
BCF4...............................       NA     0.13    0.085    0.081    0.077       NA     0.20     0.12    0.021     0.15     0.13       NA     0.13
BC2F6..............................    0.048       NA    0.031    0.025    0.024       NA       NA    0.037       NA      .17     0.11       NA    0.045
BC4F6..............................       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA
BC4F8..............................       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA
BC3F8..............................       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA
BCHF3..............................     0.11       NA       NA    0.066       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA    0.066       NA       NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information.


[[Page 63597]]

    21. Subpart I is amended by adding Table I-12 to subpart I to read 
as follows:

      Table I-12 to Subpart I of Part 98-Default Emission Factors (1-UIJ) for Gas Utilization Rates (UIJ) and By-Product Formation Rates (BIJK) for
                                             Semiconductor Manufacturing for Use With the Stack Test Method
                                                             [300 mm and 450 mm wafer sizes]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Process gas i
                    All process                     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        CF4      C2F6     CHF3     CH2F2     C3F8     C4F8     NF3      SF6      C4F6     C5F8    C4F8O
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-Ui...............................................      0.63     0.80      0.39     0.15    0.063     0.17     0.17     0.23     0.18     0.13       NA
BCF4...............................................        NA     0.21      0.10    0.059       NA    0.046    0.062    0.045    0.066     0.15       NA
BC2F6..............................................     0.092       NA     0.078    0.068       NA    0.030    0.057    0.067    0.090    0.083       NA
BC4F6..............................................        NA       NA   0.00010       NA       NA    0.018       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA
BC4F8..............................................   0.00063       NA   0.00080       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA
BC3F8..............................................        NA       NA        NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA
BCHF3..............................................     0.011       NA        NA    0.052       NA    0.028    0.035       NA    0.022    0.010       NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information.

    22. Subpart I is amended by adding Table I-13 to subpart I to read 
as follows:

  Table I-13 to Subpart I of Part 98--Default Emission Factors (1-UIJ) for Gas Utilization Rates (UIJ) and By-
             Product Formation Rates (BIJK) for LCD Manufacturing for Use With the Stack Test Method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Process gas i
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Process gas (i)                                                                  NF3
                                  CF4      C2F6     CHF3    CH2F2     C3F8    c-C4F8   remote     NF3      SF6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-Ui..........................      0.6       NA      0.2       NA       NA      0.1      0.03      0.3      0.6
BCF4..........................       NA       NA     0.07       NA       NA    0.009        NA       NA       NA
BCHF3.........................       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA     0.02        NA       NA       NA
BC2F6.........................       NA       NA     0.05       NA       NA       NA        NA       NA       NA
BC3F8.........................       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA        NA       NA       NA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information.+

    23. Subpart I is amended by adding Table I-14 to subpart I to read 
as follows:

  Table I-14 to Subpart I of Part 98--Default Emission Factors (1-UIJ) for Gas Utilization Rates (UIJ) and By-
             Product Formation Rates (BIJK) for PV Manufacturing for Use With the Stack Test Method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Process gas i
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Process gas (i)                                                                  NF3
                                  CF4      C2F6     CHF3    CH2F2     C3F8    c-C4F8   remote     NF3      SF6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-Ui..........................      0.7      0.6      0.4       NA      0.4      0.2        NA      0.2      0.4
BCF4..........................       NA      0.2       NA       NA      0.2      0.1        NA     0.05       NA
BC2F6.........................       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA      0.1        NA       NA       NA
BC3F8.........................       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA        NA       NA       NA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information.

    24. Subpart I is amended by adding Table I-15 to subpart I to read 
as follows:

[[Page 63598]]



   Table I-15 to Subpart I of Part 98-Default Emission Factors (1-UIJ) for Gas Utilization Rates (UIJ) and By-Product Formation Rates (BIJK) for MEMS
                                                    Manufacturing for Use With the Stack Test Method
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Process Gas i
                                            ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               All processes                                                                          NF3
                                               CF4      C2F6     CHF3    CH2F2     C3F8    c-C4F8   remote     NF3      SF6      C4F6     C5F8    C4F8O
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-Ui.......................................      0.9      0.6      0.4      0.1      0.4      0.1       0.2      0.2      0.2      0.1       .1      0.1
BCF4.......................................       NA      0.2     0.07     0.08      0.1      0.1  \1\ 0.02     0.09       NA      0.3       .1      0.1
BC2F6......................................       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA      \1\        NA       NA       NA      0.2     0.04       NA
                                                                                             0.04
BC3F8......................................       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA        NA       NA       NA       NA       NA       NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information.
\1\ Estimate reflects presence of low-k, carbide and multi-gas etch processes that may contain a C-containing fluorinated GHG additive.

    25. Subpart I is amended by adding Table I-16 to subpart I to read 
as follows:


   Table I-16 to Subpart I of Part 98--Default Emission Destruction or
     Removal Efficiency (DRE) Factors for Electronics Manufacturing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Default DRE
           Manufacturing type/process type/gas                  (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEMS, LCDs, and PV Manufacturing........................              60
Semiconductor Manufacturing.............................  ..............
Plasma Etch/Wafer Clean Process Type....................  ..............
CHF3, CH2F2, C4F8, NF3, SF6, C4F6.......................              98
All other plasma etch/wafer clean fluorinated GHG.......              60
Chamber Clean Process Type..............................  ..............
NF3.....................................................              75
All other chamber clean fluorinated GHG.................              60
N2O Processes...........................................  ..............
CVD and all other N2O-using processes...................              60
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subpart I is amended by adding ``Appendix A'' to read as follows:

Appendix A to Subpart I of Part 98--Alternative Procedures for 
Measuring Point-of-Use Abatement Device Destruction or Removal 
Efficiency.

    If you are measuring destruction or removal efficiency of a 
point-of-use abatement device according to EPA 430-R-10-003 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  98.7) as specified in Sec.  
98.94(f)(4), you may follow the alternative procedures specified in 
paragraphs (a) through (c) of this appendix.
    (a) In place of the Quadrupole Mass Spectrometry protocol 
requirements specified in section 2.2.4 of EPA 430-R-10-003 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  98.7), you must conduct mass 
spectrometry testing in accordance with the provisions in paragraph 
(a)(1) through (a)(15) of this appendix.
    (1) Detection limits. The mass spectrometer chosen for this 
application must have the necessary sensitivity to detect the 
selected effluent species at or below the maximum field detection 
limits specified in Table I-10 to this subpart.
    (2) Sampling location. The sample at the inlet of the point-of-
use abatement device must be taken downstream of the process tool 
and pump package. The sample exhaust must be vented back into the 
corrosive house ventilation system at a point downstream of the 
sample inlet location.
    (3) Sampling conditions. For etch processes, destruction or 
removal efficiencies must be determined while etching a substrate 
(product, dummy, or test). For chemical vapor deposition processes, 
destruction or removal efficiencies must be determined during a 
chamber clean after deposition (destruction or removal efficiencies 
must not be determined in a clean chamber). All sampling must be 
performed non-intrusively during wafer processing. Samples must be 
drawn through the mass spectrometer source by an external sample 
pump. Because of the volatility, vapor pressure, stability, and 
inertness of CF4, C2F6, 
C3F8, CHF3, NF3, and 
SF6, the sample lines do not need to be heated.
    (4) Mass spectrometer parameters. The specific mass spectrometer 
operating conditions such as electron energy, secondary electron 
multiplier voltage, emission current, and ion focusing voltage must 
be selected according to the specifications provided by the mass 
spectrometer manufacturer, the mass spectrometer system manual, 
basic mass spectrometer textbook, or other such sources. The mass 
spectrometer responses to each of the target analytes must all be 
calibrated under the same mass spectrometer operating conditions.
    (5) Flow rates. A sample flow rate of 0.5-1.5 standard liters 
per minute must be drawn from the process tool exhaust stream under 
study.
    (6) Sample frequency. The mass spectrometer sampling frequency 
for etch processes must be in the range of 0.5 to 1 cycles per 
second, and for chemical vapor deposition processes must be in the 
range of 0.25 to 0.5 cycles per second.
    (7) Dynamic dilution calibration parameters. The quadrupole mass 
spectrometer must be calibrated for both mass location and response 
to analytes. A dynamic dilution calibration system may be used to 
perform both types of mass spectrometer system calibrations using 
two mass flow controllers. Use one mass flow controller to regulate 
the flow rate of the standard component used to calibrate the system 
and the second mass flow controller to regulate the amount of 
diluent gas used to mix with the standard to generate the 
calibration curve for each compound of interest. The mass flow 
controller must be calibrated using the single component gas being 
used with them, for example, nitrogen (N2) for the 
diluent. A mass flow controller used with calibration mixtures must 
be calibrated with the calibration mixture balance gas (for example, 
N2 or He) if the analyte components are 2 percent or less 
of the volume of the sample. All calibration mixtures must be 
National Institute of Standards and Technology Traceable gases or 
equivalent. They must be calibrated over their range of use and must 
be operated in their experimentally determined dynamic linear range. 
If compressed gas standards cannot be brought into the fab, metered 
gas flows of target compounds into the process chamber, under no 
thermal or plasma conditions and with no wafer(s) present, and with 
no process emissions from other tools contributing to the sample 
location, must then be performed throughout the appropriate 
concentration ranges to derive calibration curves for the subsequent 
destruction or removal efficiency tests.
    (8) Mass location calibration. A mixture containing 1 percent 
He, Ar, Kr, and Xe in a balance gas of nitrogen must be used to 
assure the alignment of the quadrupole mass filter (see EPA Method 
205 at 40 CFR part 51, appendix M as reference). The mass 
spectrometer must be chosen so that the mass range is sufficient to 
detect the predominant peaks of the components under study.
    (9) Quadrupole mass spectrometer response calibration. A 
calibration curve must be generated for each compound of interest.
    (10) Calibration frequency. The mass spectrometer must be 
calibrated at the start of testing a given process. The calibration 
must be checked at the end of testing.
    (11) Calibration range. The mass spectrometer must be calibrated 
over the expected concentration range of analytes using a minimum of 
five concentrations including a zero. The zero point is defined as 
diluent containing no added analyte.
    (12) Operating procedures. You must follow the operating 
procedures specified in paragraphs (a)(12)(i) through (a)(12)(v) of 
this appendix.
    (i) You must perform a qualitative mass calibration by running a 
standard (or by

[[Page 63599]]

flowing chamber gases under non-process conditions) containing 
stable components such as Ar, Kr, and Xe that provide predominant 
signals at m/e values distributed throughout the mass range to be 
used. You must adjust the quadrupole mass filter as needed to align 
with the inert gas fragments.
    (ii) You must quantitatively calibrate the quadrupole mass 
spectrometer for each analyte of interest. The analyte 
concentrations during calibration must include the expected 
concentrations in the process effluent. The calibration must be 
performed under the same operating conditions, such as inlet 
pressure, as when sampling process exhaust. If the calibration inlet 
pressure differs from the sampling inlet pressure then the 
relationship between inlet pressure and quadrupole mass spectrometer 
signal response must be empirically determined and applied to 
correct for any differences between calibration and process 
emissions monitoring data.
    (iii) To determine the response time of the instrument to 
changes in a process, a process gas such as 
C2F6 must be turned on at the process tool for 
a fixed period of time (for example, 20 seconds), after which the 
gas is shut off. The sample flow rate through the system must be 
adjusted so that the signal increases to a constant concentration 
within a few seconds and decreases to background levels also within 
a few seconds.
    (iv) You must sample the process effluent through the quadrupole 
mass spectrometer and acquire data for the required amount of time 
to track the process, as determined in paragraph (a)(12)(iii) of 
this appendix. You must set the sample frequency to monitor the 
changes in the process as specified in paragraph (a)(6) of this 
appendix. You must repeat this for at least five substrates on the 
same process and calculate the average and standard deviation of the 
analyte concentration.
    (v) You must repeat the quantitative calibration at the 
conclusion of sampling to identify any drifts in quadrupole mass 
spectrometer sensitivity. If drift is observed, you must use an 
internal standard to correct for changes in sensitivity.
    (13) Sample analysis. To determine the concentration of a 
specific component in the sample, you must divide the ion intensity 
of the sample response by the calibrated response factor for each 
component.
    (14) Deconvolution of interfering peaks. The effects of 
interfering peaks must be deconvoluted from the mass spectra for 
each target analyte.
    (15) Calculations. Plot ion intensity versus analyte 
concentration for a given compound obtained when calibrating the 
analytical system. Determine the slope and intercept for each 
calibrated species to obtain response factors with which to 
calculate concentrations in the sample. For an acceptable 
calibration, the R\2\ value of the calibration curve must be at 
least 0.98.
    (b) In place of the Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy 
protocol requirements specified in section 2.2.4 of EPA 430-R-10-003 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  98.7), you may conduct Fourier 
Transform Infrared Spectroscopy testing in accordance with the 
provisions in paragraph (b)(1) through (b)(17) of this appendix, 
including the laboratory study phase described in paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (b)(7), and the field study phase described in paragraphs 
(b)(8) through (b)(17) of this appendix.
    (1) Conformance with provisions associated with the Calibration 
Transfer Standard. This procedure calls for the use of a calibration 
transfer standard in a number of instances. The use of a calibration 
transfer standard is necessary to validate optical pathlength and 
detector response for spectrometers where cell temperature, cell 
pressure, and cell optical pathlength are potentially variable. For 
fixed pathlength spectrometers capable of controlling cell 
temperature and pressure to within +/- 10 percent of a desired set 
point, the use of a calibration transfer standard, as described in 
paragraphs (b)(2) to (b)(17) this appendix is not required.
    (2) Defining spectroscopic conditions. Define a set of 
spectroscopic conditions under which the field studies and 
subsequent field applications are to be carried out. These include 
the minimum instrumental line-width, spectrometer wave number range, 
sample gas temperature, sample gas pressure, absorption pathlength, 
maximum sampling system volume (including the absorption cell), 
minimum sample flow rate, and maximum allowable time between 
consecutive infrared analyses of the effluent.
    (3) Criteria for reference spectral libraries. On the basis of 
previous emissions test results and/or process knowledge (including 
the documentation of results of any initial and subsequent tests, 
and the final reports required in Sec.  98.97(d)(4)(i)), estimate 
the maximum concentrations of all of the analytes in the effluent 
and their minimum concentrations of interest (those concentrations 
below which the measurement of the compounds is of no importance to 
the analysis). Values between the maximum expected concentration and 
the minimum concentration of interest are referred to below as the 
``expected concentration range.'' A minimum of four reference 
spectra must be available for each analyte. When the set of spectra 
is ordered according to absorbance, the absorbance levels of 
adjacent reference spectra should not differ by more than a factor 
of six. Reference spectra for each analyte should be available at 
absorbance levels that bracket the analyte's expected concentration 
range; minimally, the spectrum whose absorbance exceeds each 
analyte's expected maximum concentration or is within 30 percent of 
it must be available. The reference spectra must be collected at or 
near the same temperature and pressure at which the sample is to be 
analyzed under. The gas sample pressure and temperature must be 
continuously monitored during field testing and you must correct for 
differences in temperature and pressure between the sample and 
reference spectra. Differences between the sample and reference 
spectra conditions must not exceed 50 percent for pressure and 70 
[deg]C for temperature.
    (4) Spectra without reference libraries. If reference spectral 
libraries meeting the criteria in paragraph (b)(3) of this appendix 
do not exist for all the analytes and interferants or cannot be 
accurately generated from existing libraries exhibiting lower 
minimum instrumental line-width values than those proposed for the 
testing, prepare the required spectra according to the procedures 
specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) and (b)(4)(ii) of this appendix.
    (i) Reference spectra at the same absorbance level (to within 10 
percent) of independently prepared samples must be recorded. The 
reference samples must be prepared from neat forms of the analyte or 
from gas standards of the highest quality commonly available from 
commercial sources. Either barometric or volumetric methods may be 
used to dilute the reference samples to the required concentrations, 
and the equipment used must be independently calibrated to ensure 
suitable accuracy. Dynamic and static reference sample preparation 
methods are acceptable, but dynamic preparations must be used for 
reactive analytes. Any well characterized absorption pathlength may 
be employed in recording reference spectra, but the temperature and 
pressure of the reference samples should match as closely as 
possible those of the proposed spectroscopic conditions.
    (ii) If a mercury cadmium telluride or other potentially non-
linear detector (i.e., a detector whose response vs. total infrared 
power is not a linear function over the range of responses employed) 
is used for recording the reference spectra, you must correct for 
the effects of this type of response on the resulting concentration 
values. As needed, spectra of a calibration transfer standard must 
be recorded with the laboratory spectrometer system to verify the 
absorption pathlength and other aspects of the system performance. 
All reference spectral data must be recorded in interferometric form 
and stored digitally.
    (5) Sampling system preparation. Construct a sampling system 
suitable for delivering the proposed sample flow rate from the 
effluent source to the infrared absorption cell. For the compounds 
of interest, the surfaces of the system exposed to the effluent 
stream must be limited to stainless steel and Teflon; because of the 
potential for generation of inorganic automated gases, glass 
surfaces within the sampling system and absorption cell must be 
Teflon-coated. You must demonstrate that the system, when sampling 
from a simulated source at the estimated effluent source pressure, 
delivers a volume of sample at least four times the maximum sampling 
system volume in a time shorter than the proposed minimum time 
between consecutive infrared analyses.
    (6) Preliminary analytical routines. For the proposed absorption 
pathlength to be used in actual emissions testing, you must prepare 
an analysis method containing of all the effluent compounds at their 
expected maximum concentrations plus the field calibration transfer 
standard compound at 20 percent of its full concentration as needed.
    (7) Documentation. The laboratory techniques used to generate 
reference spectra and to convert sample spectral information to 
compound concentrations must be

[[Page 63600]]

documented. The required level of detail for the documentation is 
that which allows an independent analyst to reproduce the results 
from the documentation and the stored interferometric data.
    (8) Spectroscopic system performance. The performance of the 
proposed spectroscopic system, sampling system, and analytical 
method must be rigorously examined during and after a field study. 
Several iterations of the analysis method may need to be applied 
depending on observed concentrations, absorbance intensities, and 
interferences. During the field study, all the sampling and 
analytical procedures envisioned for future field applications must 
be documented. Additional procedures not required during routine 
field applications, notably dynamic spiking studies of the analyte 
gases, may be performed during the field study. These additional 
procedures need to be performed only once if the results are 
acceptable and if the effluent sources in future field applications 
prove suitably similar to those chosen for the field study. If 
changes in the effluent sources in future applications are noted and 
require substantial changes to the analytical equipment and/or 
conditions, a separate field study must be performed for the new set 
of effluent source conditions. All data recorded during the study 
must be retained and documented, and all spectral information must 
be permanently stored in interferometric form.
    (9) System installation. The spectroscopic and sampling sub-
systems must be assembled and installed according to the 
manufacturers' recommendations. For the field study, the length of 
the sample lines used must not be less than the maximum length 
envisioned for future field applications. The system must be given 
sufficient time to stabilize before testing begins.
    (10) Pre-test calibration. Record a suitable background spectrum 
using pure nitrogen gas; alternatively, if the analytes of interest 
are in a sample matrix consistent with ambient air, it is beneficial 
to use an ambient air background to control interferences from water 
and carbon dioxide. For variable pathlength Fourier Transform 
Infrared Spectrometers, introduce a sample of the calibration 
transfer standard gas directly into the absorption cell at the 
expected sample pressure and record its absorbance spectrum (the 
``initial field calibration transfer standard spectrum''). Compare 
it to the laboratory calibration transfer standard spectra to 
determine the effective absorption pathlength. If possible, record 
spectra of field calibration gas standards (single component 
standards of the analyte compounds) and determine their 
concentrations using the reference spectra and analytical routines 
developed in paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(7) of this appendix; 
these spectra may be used instead of the reference spectra in actual 
concentration and uncertainty calculations.
    (11) Deriving the calibration transfer standard gas from tool 
chamber gases. The calibration transfer standard gas may be derived 
by flowing appropriate semiconductor tool chamber gases under non-
process conditions (no thermal or plasma conditions and with no 
wafer(s) present) if compressed gas standards cannot be brought on-
site.
    (12) Reactivity and response time checks. While sampling ambient 
air and continuously recording absorbance spectra, suddenly replace 
the ambient air flow with calibration transfer standard gas 
introduced as close as possible to the probe tip. Examine the 
subsequent spectra to determine whether the flow rate and sample 
volume allow the system to respond quickly enough to changes in the 
sampled gas. Should a corrosive or reactive gas be of interest in 
the sample matrix it would be beneficial to determine the reactivity 
in a similar fashion, if practical. Examine the subsequent spectra 
to ensure that the reactivities of the analytes with the exposed 
surfaces of the sampling system do not limit the time response of 
the analytical system. If a pressure correction routine is not 
automated, monitor the absorption cell temperature and pressure; 
verify that the (absolute) pressure remains within 2 percent of the 
pressure specified in the proposed system conditions.
    (13) Analyte spiking. Analyte spiking must be performed. While 
sampling actual source effluent, introduce a known flow rate of 
calibration transfer standard gas into the sample stream as close as 
possible to the probe tip or between the probe and extraction line. 
Measure and monitor the total sample flow rate, and adjust the spike 
flow rate until it represents 10 percent to 20 percent of the total 
flow rate. After waiting until at least four absorption cell volumes 
have been sampled, record four spectra of the spiked effluent, 
terminate the calibration transfer standard spike flow, pause until 
at least four cell volumes are sampled, and then record four 
(unspiked) spectra. Repeat this process until 12 spiked and 12 
unspiked spectra have been obtained. If a pressure correction 
routine is not automated, monitor the absorption cell temperature 
and pressure; verify that the pressure remains within 2 percent of 
the pressure specified in the proposed system conditions. Calculate 
the expected calibration transfer standard compound concentrations 
in the spectra and compare them to the values observed in the 
spectrum. This procedure is best performed using a spectroscopic 
tracer to calculate dilution (as opposed to measured flow rates) of 
the injected calibration transfer standard (or analyte). The 
spectroscopic tracer should be a component not in the gas matrix 
that is easily detectable and maintains a linear absorbance over a 
large concentration range. Repeat this spiking process with all 
effluent compounds that are potentially reactive with either the 
sampling system components or with other effluent compounds. The gas 
spike is delivered by a mass flow controller, and the expected 
concentration of analyte of interest (AOITheoretical) is 
calculated as follows: [Photo Equation]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16OC12.087

Where:

AOITheoretical = Theoretical analyte of interest 
concentration (ppm).
Tracersample = Tracer concentration (ppm) as seen by the 
Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometer during spiking.
Tracercylinder = The concentration (ppm) of tracer 
recorded during direct injection of the cylinder to the Fourier 
Transform Infrared Spectrometer cell.
AOIcylinder = The supplier-certified concentration (ppm) 
of the analyte of interest gas standard.
AOInative = The native AOI concentration (ppm) of the 
effluent during stable conditions.
    (14) Post-test calibration. At the end of a sampling run and at the 
end of the field study, record the spectrum of the calibration transfer 
standard gas. The resulting ``final field calibration transfer standard 
spectrum'' must be compared to the initial field calibration transfer 
standard spectrum to verify suitable stability of the spectroscopic 
system throughout the course of the field study.
    (15) Amendment of analytical routines. The presence of 
unanticipated interferant compounds and/or the observation of compounds 
at concentrations outside their expected concentration ranges may 
necessitate the repetition of portions of the procedures in paragraphs 
(b)(2) through (b)(14) of this appendix. Such amendments are allowable 
before final analysis of the data, but must be represented in the 
documentation required in paragraph (b)(16) of this appendix.
    (16) Documentation. The sampling and spiking techniques used to 
generate the field study spectra and to convert sample spectral 
information to concentrations must be documented at a level of detail 
that allows an independent analyst to reproduce the results from the 
documentation and the stored interferometric data.
    (17) Method application. When the required laboratory and field 
studies have been completed and if the results indicate a suitable 
degree of accuracy, the methods developed may be applied to practical 
field measurement tasks.

[[Page 63601]]

During field applications, the procedures demonstrated in the field 
study specified in paragraphs (b)(8) through (b)(16) of this appendix 
must be adhered to as closely as possible, with the following 
exceptions specified in paragraphs (b)(17)(i) through (b)(17)(iii) of 
this appendix:
    (i) The sampling lines employed should be as short as practically 
possible and not longer than those used in the field study.
    (ii) Analyte spiking and reactivity checks are required after the 
installation of or major repair to the sampling system or major change 
in sample matrix. In these cases, perform three spiked/unspiked samples 
with calibration transfer standard or a surrogate analyte on a daily 
basis if time permits and gas standards are easy to obtain and get on-
site.
    (iii) Sampling and other operational data must be recorded and 
documented as during the field study, but only the interferometric data 
needed to reproduce actual test and spiking data must be stored 
permanently. The format of this data does not need to be interferograms 
but may be absorbance spectra or single beams.
    (c) When using the flow and dilution measurement protocol specified 
in section 2.2.6 of EPA 430-R-10-003 (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  98.7), you may determine point-of-use abatement device total 
volume flow with the modifications specified in paragraphs (c)(1) 
through (c)(3) of this appendix.
    (1) You may introduce the non-reactive, non-native gas used for 
determining total volume flow and dilution across the point-of-use 
abatement device at a location between the thermal oxidizer of the 
point-of-use abatement device and the scrubber.
    (2) You may select a location for downstream non-reactive, non-
native gas analysis that complies with the requirements in this 
paragraph (c)(2) of this appendix. The sampling location should be 
traversed with the sampling probe measuring the non-reactive, non-
native gas concentrations to ensure homogeneity of the non-reactive gas 
and point-of-use abatement device effluent (i.e., stratification test). 
To test for stratification, measure the non-reactive, non-native gas 
concentrations at three points on a line passing through the centroidal 
area. Space the three points at 16.7, 50.0, and 83.3 percent of the 
measurement line. Sample for a minimum of twice the system response 
time, determined according to paragraph (c)(3) of this appendix, at 
each traverse point. Calculate the individual point and mean non-
reactive, non-native gas concentrations. If the non-reactive, non-
native gas concentration at each traverse point differs from the mean 
concentration for all traverse points by no more than 5.0 
percent of the mean concentration, the gas stream is considered 
unstratified and you may collect samples from a single point that most 
closely matches the mean. If the 5.0 percent criterion is not met, but 
the concentration at each traverse point differs from the mean 
concentration for all traverse points by no more than 10.0 
percent of the mean, you may take samples from two points and use the 
average of the two measurements. Space the two points at 16.7, 50.0, or 
83.3 percent of the measurement line. If the concentration at each 
traverse point differs from the mean concentration for all traverse 
points by more than 10.0 percent of the mean but less than 
20.0 percent, take samples from three points at 16.7, 50.0, or 83.3 
percent of the measurement line and use the average of the three 
measurements. If the gas stream is found to be stratified because the 
20.0 percent criterion for a 3-point test is not met, locate and sample 
the non-reactive, non-native gas from traverse points for the test in 
accordance with Sections 11.2 and 11.3 of EPA Method 1 in 40 CFR part 
60, appendix A-1. A minimum of 40 non-reactive gas concentration 
measurements will be collected at three to five different injected non-
reactive gas flow rates for determination of point-of-use abatement 
device effluent flow. The total volume flow of the point-of-use 
abatement device exhaust will be calculated consistent with the EPA 
430-R-10-003 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  98.7) Equations 1 
through 7.
    (3) You must determine the measurement system response time 
according to paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through (c)(3)(iii) of this appendix.
    (i) Before sampling begins, introduce ambient air at the probe 
upstream of all sample condition components in system calibration mode. 
Record the time it takes for the measured concentration of a selected 
compound (for example, carbon dioxide) to reach steady state.
    (ii) Introduce nitrogen in the system calibration mode and record 
the time required for the concentration of the selected compound to 
reach steady state.
    (iii) Observe the time required to achieve 95 percent of a stable 
response for both nitrogen and ambient air. The longer interval is the 
measurement system response time.

[FR Doc. 2012-22348 Filed 10-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P