[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 13, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68162-68238]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23804]



[[Page 68161]]

Vol. 78

Wednesday,

No. 219

November 13, 2013

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Part 98





Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program: Final Amendments and Confidentiality 
Determinations for Electronics Manufacturing; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 68162]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 98

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028; FRL-9845-6]
RIN 2060-AR61


Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program: Final Amendments and 
Confidentiality Determinations for Electronics Manufacturing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; Notice of Final Action on Reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is amending the calculation and monitoring 
methodologies for electronics manufacturers covered by the Greenhouse 
Gas Reporting Rule. These changes include revising certain calculation 
methods and adding a new method, amending data reporting requirements, 
and clarifying terms and definitions. The EPA is also making 
confidentiality determinations for new and revised data elements 
pertaining to electronics manufacturing. This rule also finalizes 
amendments to the general provisions of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting 
Rule to remove entries for data elements that are being moved from 
reporting to recordkeeping.

DATES: This final rule is effective on January 1, 2014. The 
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule 
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 1, 
2014.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028. 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., confidential 
business information (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 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: 
[email protected]. For technical information and implementation 
materials, please go to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule Program Web 
site at http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/. To submit a question, select 
Rule Help Center, followed by ``Contact Us.''
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of this final rule will also be available through 
the WWW. Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of this action 
will be posted on the EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program Web site 
at http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. The Administrator 
determined that this action is subject to the provisions of Clean Air 
Act (CAA) section 307(d). These amended regulations may affect owners 
or operators of certain electronic manufacturing facilities. Regulated 
categories and entities may include those listed in Table 1 of this 
preamble:

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

    Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but 
rather provides a guide for readers regarding facilities likely to be 
affected by this action. Table 1 of this preamble lists the types of 
facilities of which the EPA is aware may be potentially affected by the 
reporting requirements. Other types of facilities not listed in the 
table may also be affected. To determine whether you are affected by 
this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria 
found in 40 CFR part 98, subpart A and 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 preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Judicial Review. Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of 
this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the 
Court) by January 13, 2014. Under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), only an 
objection to this final rule that was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during 
judicial review. Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA also provides a 
mechanism for the EPA to convene a proceeding for reconsideration, 
``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate to EPA that it 
was impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for public 
comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period 
for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) 
and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the 
rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration to us should 
submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the 
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Room 3000, Ariel Rios 
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy 
to the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation 
Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW. Washington, DC 20004. 
Note that under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established

[[Page 68163]]

by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or 
criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce these requirements.
    Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and 
abbreviations are used in this document.

ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials
BAMM best available monitoring methods
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI confidential business information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
CVD chemical vapor deposition
DRE destruction or removal efficiency
EIA Economic Impact Analysis
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FDL field detection limit
F-GHG fluorinated greenhouse gas
FR Federal Register
FTIR Fourier transform infrared
GHG greenhouse gas
GHGRP Greenhouse gas reporting period
GWP global warming potential
HQ Headquarters
HTF heat transfer fluid
IBM International Business Machines Corporation
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ISMI International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative
kg kilograms
LCD liquid crystal display
MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology
MEMS micro-electro-mechanical systems
mtCO2e metric ton carbon dioxide equivalent
N2O nitrous oxide
NAICS North American Industrial Classification System
NF3 nitrogen trifluoride
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
OMB Office of Management & Budget
POU point of use
ppbv parts per billion by volume
ppm parts per million
PV photovoltaic
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QMS quadrupole mass spectroscopy
R&D research and development
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RICE Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines
RIN Regulatory Information Number
RSASTP random sampling abatement system testing program
RSD relative standard deviation
SEMATECH Semiconductor Manufacturing Technology
SIA Semiconductor Industry Association
TI Texas Instruments Incorporated
U.S. United States
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
VCS voluntary consensus standard
VOC volatile organic compound
WWW Worldwide Web

I. General Information

A. Organization of This Preamble

    The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in 
this preamble.

I. General Information
    A. Organization of this Preamble
    B. Background
    C. Legal Authority
    D. How do these amendments apply to 2013 and 2014 reports?
II. Overview of Final Amendments to the Electronics Manufacturing 
Source Category and Responses to Major Public Comments
    A. Final Amendments to the Electronics Manufacturing Source 
Category
    B. Responses to Major Comments Submitted on the Electronics 
Manufacturing Source Category
III. Confidentiality Determinations for New and Revised Subpart I 
Data Elements and Responses to Public Comments
    A. Final Confidentiality Determinations for New and Revised 
Subpart I Data Elements
    B. Public Comments on the Proposed Confidentiality 
Determinations
IV. 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
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    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
    K. Congressional Review Act

B. Background

    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 Semiconductor Industry Association (hereafter 
referred to as the ``SIA'' or ``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 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 Subparts 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.
    In response to the Petition for Reconsideration, the EPA published 
a proposal to amend provisions in subpart I related to calculation and 
monitoring methodologies, data reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, clarifying terms and definitions, and confidentiality 
determinations to provide greater flexibility to facilities. The 
proposal was published on October 16, 2012 (77 FR 63538). The public

[[Page 68164]]

comment period for the proposed rule amendments was initially scheduled 
to end on December 17, 2012. The EPA received a request to extend the 
public comment period and published a notice in the Federal Register on 
November 20, 2012 (77 FR 69585) extending the public comment period to 
January 16, 2013.
    In this action, the EPA is finalizing amendments to provisions in 
the final subpart I that were proposed in the October 16, 2012 notice. 
Responses to comments submitted on the proposed amendments can be found 
in Sections II.B and III.B of this preamble and the document, 
``Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule--Technical Revisions to the Electronics 
Manufacturing Category of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's 
Responses to Public Comments'' (see Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-
0028).

C. Legal Authority

    The EPA is promulgating these 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 has made confidentiality determinations for 
subpart I data elements that are added or revised by this rule under 
its authorities provided in sections 114, 301, and 307 of the CAA. As 
mentioned in the previous paragraph, 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 qualifies for confidential treatment.
    The Administrator has determined that this action (finalized 
amendments and confidentiality determinations) is subject to the 
provisions of section 307(d) of the CAA.

D. How do these amendments apply to 2013 and 2014 reports?

    These final amendments are effective on January 1, 2014. Facilities 
are required to follow one of the methods in subpart I as amended 
through this action to estimate emissions beginning in 2014. The first 
reports of emissions estimated using the new methods will be submitted 
in early 2015. As a result of these finalized amendments, the EPA does 
not expect reporters will need to purchase and install any new 
monitoring equipment to continue to comply with subpart I since 
reporters will still have the option to use default utilization and by-
product formation rates. Additionally, unless reporters choose to 
estimate F-GHG emissions using the optional stack test method, the EPA 
does not expect reporters will be required to make any substantial 
modifications to their recordkeeping procedures. For the reasons 
discussed here, in addition to the absence of any opposition to the 
timeline received during the public comment period, the EPA believes 
that the effective date of January 1, 2014 is reasonable.
    For the reports of emissions in calendar year 2013 (reporting year 
2013) that are to be submitted in early 2014, reporters must calculate 
emissions and other relevant data using the requirements under Part 98 
that predated today's revisions. Those 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.''

II. Overview of Final Amendments to the Electronics Manufacturing 
Source Category and Responses to Major Public Comments

    The EPA is finalizing amendments to the calculation and monitoring 
methodologies in the final subpart I rule. In addition, the EPA is 
finalizing 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 finalizing 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 potential 
disclosure concerns raised by members of the SIA. Amendments being 
finalized today affect all facilities subject to subpart I 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 the effective date of these final amendments is January 1, 
2014, those provisions that apply to reporting year 2013, but not 
thereafter, will no longer appear in the text of the regulation.
    Section II.A describes the final amendments to the subpart I rule, 
including a detailed summary of the changes in the final amendments 
since proposal. Section II.B, Response to Major Comments Submitted on 
the Electronics Manufacturing Source Category, discusses the EPA's 
responses to major comments on the proposed amendments. For a full 
description of the rationale for these and any other amendments to the 
final subpart I rule, please refer to the ``Greenhouse Gas Reporting 
Rule--Revisions to the Electronics Manufacturing Category of the 
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comment'' in 
addition to Sections II.A and II.B of this preamble.

A. Final Amendments to the Electronics Manufacturing Source Category

    In this rulemaking, the EPA is taking final action on its proposed 
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 I.B of this 
preamble. Section II.A discusses the final amendments to the subpart I 
rule in response to the petition. The EPA is completing its response to 
the Petition for Reconsideration through this rulemaking.
    The major changes to the final rule since proposal are the 
following:
    Default Emission Factors:
     Etch emission factors: The proposed etch emission factors 
and by-product

[[Page 68165]]

formation rates for semiconductor manufacturing have been updated since 
proposal to account for new data submitted in public comments.
     Nitrous oxide (N2O) emission factors: The 
proposed revised emission factor for all ``other'' (e.g., non-CVD) 
N2O emitting processes is not being adopted in the final 
rule.
    Abatement System Requirements:
     The proposed default abatement system destruction or 
removal efficiency (DRE) factors have been updated since proposal to 
account for new data submitted in public comments and for a revised 
statistical approach to calculating the default DRE factors.
     The certification requirements for abatement systems have 
been revised to refer to the site maintenance plan for abatement 
systems.
     The abatement system requirements have been revised to 
allow the use of either default DREs or site-specific measured DRE 
values; however, if an abatement system was not specifically designed 
for F-GHG removal and the reporter elects to account for the effect of 
that abatement system when using either the emission factors and 
calculation methods in 40 CFR 98.93(a) and (b) or the stack testing 
alternative in 40 CFR 98.93(i), site-specific DRE values must be used.
     The calculation of abatement system uptime has been 
revised so that only a single equation is used to calculate uptime for 
both input gases and their associated by-product gases for a given 
input gas and process combination.
    Stack Testing Alternative:
     The rule designates a list of five ``expected'' by-product 
gases (CF4, CHF3, CH3F, 
C2F6, and CH2F2) and four 
``possible'' by-product gases (C3F8, 
C4F6, c-C4F8, and 
C5F8) that must be measured in stack testing. 
These two lists replace the proposed requirement to perform an analysis 
to identify potential by-products to include in testing. The proposed 
analysis would have considered for testing the by-products from the 
applicable gas and process combinations in Tables I-3 to I-7 of subpart 
I.
     The maximum allowed field detection limits (FDLs) have 
been increased by a factor of four compared to the proposed FDLs.
     The final rule allows the use of ASTM D6348-03, Standard 
Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct 
Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, as an 
alternative to EPA Method 320.
     The Tier 2a emission factors on Tables I-11 and I-12 for 
semiconductors have been updated since proposal to account for new data 
submitted in public comments, and to include weighting by the amount of 
gas used in each process type (as opposed to not being weighted).
    Facility-Wide DRE Calculation:
     Equations I-26, I-27, and I-28 have been revised to 
calculate only a fab-wide DRE, not a facility-wide DRE, when more than 
one fab is present.
    The following sections of this preamble summarize the final 
amendments to subpart I.
1. Stack Testing as an Alternative Emission Monitoring Method for 
Facilities That Manufacture Electronics
    The EPA is promulgating amendments to revise subpart I to include a 
stack testing option for estimating annual F-GHG emissions at 40 CFR 
98.93(i). This option applies to all electronic manufacturing 
facilities, including those making semiconductors, MEMS, LCDs, and PV 
cells. The stack testing option is not available for estimating 
N2O emissions. The finalized amendments to the provisions 
and emission factors for estimating N2O emissions are 
discussed in Section II.A.9 of this preamble.
    In this action, we are also finalizing the option 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. (A facility 
must use only a single method for each fab.) Additionally, we are also 
finalizing the requirements for facilities to report GHG emissions on a 
fab basis but submit reports on a ``facility'' basis, as defined in 40 
CFR 98.6. There may be one or more fabs at each facility. A ``fab'' is 
defined in subpart I 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. Under the final amendments, 
reporters are required to develop a preliminary estimate of the annual 
emissions from each ``stack system'' in a fab and are not required to 
test those stack systems that account for relatively small emissions. A 
stack system is considered to be one or more stacks that are connected 
by a common header or manifold, through which a F-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 do not include emergency vents or bypass stacks through 
which emissions are not usually vented under typical operating 
conditions.
    The reporter must develop a preliminary estimate of F-GHG emissions 
from each stack system on a metric ton carbon dioxide equivalent 
(mtCO2e) basis. To develop the preliminary estimate, the 
reporter must use the gas consumption in the tools associated with the 
stack system and gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates 
in Tables I-11 through I-15. Facilities must also include any 
intermittent low-use F-GHGs in the preliminary estimate. The reporter 
must also account for the DRE of the ``point of use'' (POU) abatement 
systems and the uptime of the POU systems (the fraction of time the 
system is operating within the parameters specified in the facility's 
site maintenance plan for abatement systems). The gas utilization rates 
and by-product formation rates in Tables I-13 and I-14 are based on the 
2006 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Tier 2a factors 
\1\ for LCD and PV manufacturing, respectively. The factors in Table I-
13 for MEMs manufacturing are based on the 2006 IPCC Tier 2a factors 
for semiconductor manufacturing due to the similarities in the 
manufacturing processes. The factors in Tables I-11 and I-12 for 
semiconductor manufacturing facilities were updated from the 2006 IPCC 
factors based on utilization rate and by-production formation rate 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) in addition to data submitted to the EPA during the comment 
period. The default factors for each gas in Tables I-11 and I-12 were 
also updated by weighting the emission factor data for each gas and 
process type or subtype based on the gas consumption for that process 
type or sub-type. The EPA did not update the factors in Tables I-13 
through I-15 based on the data collected by the Petitioner or submitted 
during the comment period because none of the data were for LCD, PV, or 
MEMS manufacturing. The EPA did not receive additional data on LCD, PV, 
or MEMs manufacturing processes, therefore, it was not feasible to 
propose revised factors for these processes. Furthermore, because MEMS 
are generally

[[Page 68166]]

manufactured on older semiconductor manufacturing tools (i.e., 150 mm 
and 200 mm wafer sizes), we have determined that the 2006 IPCC factors 
for semiconductor manufacturers remain appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 are required to use data 
from the previous reporting year for the total uptime of all abatement 
systems in each stack system, and either a default DRE or measured 
site-specific DRE; the reporter must use the measured site-specific DRE 
if the abatement system was not specifically designed to abate F-GHG. 
If uptime data from the previous reporting year are not available 
(either because the fab is new or the facility was not required to 
report in the previous reporting year), the reporter must use 
representative operating data from a period of 30 days or more. The 
reporter must account for any anticipated change in activity for the 
fab (i.e., an increase or decrease in the annual consumption and 
emissions of any F-GHG) greater than 10 percent for the current 
reporting year compared to the previous reporting year. To estimate the 
expected change in activity, the reporter must use a quantifiable 
metric (e.g., the ratio of the number tools that are expected to be 
vented to the stack system in the current year as compared to the 
previous reporting year), engineering judgment, or other industry 
standard practice.
    The consumption of each F-GHG in each stack system is estimated as 
the total gas consumption of that F-GHG in the fab, 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 must convert the F-GHG emissions to CO2e using the 
global warming potential (GWP) values for F-GHGs in Table A-1 of 
subpart A of Part 98. For F-GHGs 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 
must use a default value of 2,000 for the GWP for the purposes of this 
estimate. Based on this preliminary estimate, the reporter must rank 
the F-GHG emitting stack systems at the facility from the lowest to 
highest emitting. The reporter is not required to test emissions from 
low-emitting stack systems if those F-GHG emitting stack systems meet 
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 are calculated using the annual gas 
consumption in the tools vented to those stacks and the gas utilization 
rates and by-product formation rates in Tables I-11 through I-15 in 
subpart I, accounting for the DRE and uptime of the POU abatement 
systems, as discussed above.
    Stack testing requirements. For those higher-emitting stack systems 
in each fab that are not exempt from measurement, the reporter must 
measure each F-GHG concentration (in parts per billion by volume, or 
ppbv) 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 
is required to measure F-GHG concentration and flow in each stack from 
that header. The reporter must use EPA Method 320, ASTM D6348-03 or 
another approved method to measure F-GHG concentration (per the 
requirements of 40 CFR 98.94(k)), 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 must also measure the fab-specific 
consumption of each F-GHG for the test period.
    Reporters are required to measure emissions for all F-GHGs used as 
input gases and any expected or possible by-product F-GHGs listed in 
Table I-17 to subpart I. Reporters are not required to measure 
emissions for any intermittent low-use F-GHGs. Intermittent low-use F-
GHGs are defined as F-GHGs 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;
    (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;
    (3) The sum of all F-GHGs that are considered intermittent low-use 
F-GHGs does not exceed 10,000 mtCO2e for that year; and
    (4) The F-GHG is not an expected or possible by-product identified 
in Table I-17 of subpart I.
    Reporters must calculate annual emissions of intermittent low-use 
F-GHGs using the gas consumption and the gas utilization rates and by-
product formation rates in 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 must be at least 8 hours for each stack, 
although reporters may choose to conduct testing over a longer period.
    Reporters are not required to measure all stacks simultaneously, 
but reporters must certify that no significant changes in stack flow 
configuration occur during and in between tests conducted for any 
particular fab in a reporting year. Specifically, reporters must 
certify that no more than 10 percent of the total number of F-GHG 
emitting process tools have been connected or disconnected from the 
stack system during testing. Reporters must also certify that no 
process tools that were in operation at the start of the testing period 
were moved to a different stack system during testing and that no POU 
abatement systems have been permanently removed from service during the 
testing period. Reporters must document and keep records of any changes 
in the number of tools connected to or disconnected from the stack 
system and the uptime of each POU abatement system during the testing 
period for each system.
    The tests must 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 average uptime during the 8-hour (or longer) period, 
or at no less than 90 percent of the uptime measured during the 
previous reporting year, averaged over all abatement systems connected 
to the stack being tested. The representative operating level is 
defined in subpart I as 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

[[Page 68167]]

factors, the reporter must 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 may be measured using gas flow 
meters, weigh scales, or pressure measurement equipment (with 
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 may 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.
    Stack test methods. The EPA is finalizing the requirement that the 
F-GHG concentrations in stacks systems be measured using EPA Method 
320. We are also allowing the use of ASTM D6348-03 as an alternative to 
EPA Method 320 with the following additional requirements: (1) The test 
plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to ASTM D6348-03, 
Sections A1 through A8 are mandatory; and (2) In ASTM D6348-03 Annex A5 
(Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent recovery (%R) must be 
determined for each target analyte (Equation A5.5). The reporter must 
also follow Section 4.1 of ASTM D6348-03 to ensure the F-GHG remains in 
the gas phase. In order for the test data to be acceptable for a 
compound, the percent recovery must be between 70 and 130 percent. If 
the percent recovery does not meet this criterion for a target 
compound, the test data are not acceptable for that compound and the 
test must be repeated for that analyte (i.e., the sampling and/or 
analytical procedure should be adjusted before a retest). The percent 
recovery value for each compound must be reported in the test report, 
required under 40 CFR 98.94(j)(4), and all field measurements must be 
corrected with the calculated percent recovery value for that compound. 
The use of ASTM D6348-03 was added since proposal, as discussed in 
section II.B of this preamble.
    F-GHGs not detected. We are also finalizing the following 
provisions to account for different scenarios in which a F-GHG is used, 
expected to be emitted as a by-product, or possibly emitted as a by-
product, but may occur in concentrations that are below the FDL. The 
FDL of a by-product is the lowest concentration of the by-product that 
should be detectable through measurements, as defined in Method 320.
     If a F-GHG is consumed during testing, but emissions are 
not detected, the reporter must 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 must use the measured 
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 must 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 as listed in Table I-
17 to subpart I 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 a possible by-product as listed in Table I-
17 to subpart I and is not detected during the test run, then assume 
zero emissions for that F-GHG for the tested stack system.
     If a F-GHG is not used, and is not an expected or possible 
by-product of the stack system and is not detected, then assume zero 
emissions for that F-GHG for the tested stack system.
    Under the stack testing option, reporters are required to achieve 
FDLs that are less than or equal to the maximum FDLs in Table I-10 of 
the regulatory textAlso since proposal, the maximum values for FDLs for 
stack testing have been increased by a factor of four. The rationale 
for these changes is discussed in Section II.B of this preamble.
    Alternative stack test methods. We are finalizing the option for 
reporters to use an alternative stack test method (other than EPA 
Method 320 or ASTM D6348-03) to measure the concentration of each 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 promulgated approval process in 40 CFR 98.94(k), the 
reporter is required to notify the Administrator (or authorized 
representative) of the intent to use an alternative test method. The 
notification must 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 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 must 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 will 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 is 
required to respond to any of the Administrator's questions on the test 
plan before obtaining approval and to take into account the 
Administrator's comments on the test plan in conducting the test using 
the alternative method. The reporter must 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 will not extend that review 
period. Therefore, it is the reporter's obligation to respond in a 
timely manner. If an alternative test plan is not approved within the 
120-day period and the reporter still opts to use that method, a 
reporter must recommence the process to have an alternative test method 
approved starting with the notification of intent to use an alternative 
test method.
    The reporter must report the results of stack testing using the 
alternative method and procedure specified in the approved test plan. 
The report must include all methods, calculations and data used to 
determine F-GHG emissions. 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 the EPA. 
During this 120-day period, the reporter is 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 finds reasonable grounds to dispute the results obtained 
by the alternative method, the Administrator may require the use of the 
method specified in subpart I instead of the alternative method.
    Once the Administrator approves the use of the alternative method, 
that method may be used by any other facility for the same F-GHGs and 
types

[[Page 68168]]

of stack systems, if the approved conditions apply to that facility. In 
granting approval, the Administrator will 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 further approval. The Administrator will 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 must record the abatement system 
downtime in each fab during testing and for the entire reporting year. 
Using the downtime measured during testing, reporters are required to 
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 is then used to calculate the 
excess F-GHG emissions that occur as a result of abatement system 
downtime events.
    The reporter is required to 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 is adjusted to an emission factor 
representing POU abatement systems with 100 percent uptime (zero 
percent downtime). The DRE for the abatement systems may be a default 
DRE or a site-specific measured DRE; however, the reporter must use a 
site-specific measured DRE if the abatement system is not specifically 
designed for F-GHG abatement.
    The downtime measured over the year is used to determine an average 
uptime factor that is an aggregate for all abatement systems in the 
fab, and calculated using Equation I-23 in subpart I. Abatement system 
downtime is considered any time during which the abatement system was 
not operating according to the site maintenance plan for abatement 
systems. The reporter must 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 is the decimal fraction of operating time that 
the abatement systems were not operating according to the site 
maintenance plan for abatement systems. The average uptime factor used 
in the emissions calculations is equal to 1 minus the downtime 
fraction.
    The total possible annual tool operating time is calculated by 
assuming that tools that were installed for the whole of the reporting 
year were operated for the entire year. The total possible tool 
operating time is prorated to account for the days in which a tool was 
not installed; any partial day that a tool was installed is treated as 
a full day of tool operation. For an abatement system with more than 
one connected tool, the tool operating time is equivalent to a full 
year if at least one tool was installed at all times throughout the 
year. The reporter has the option 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 calculation of the uptime factor 
is different when a reporter is using the promulgated stack testing 
method than when the reporter is using the default gas utilization rate 
and by-product formation rate method. In the stack testing method, 
uptime is not determined for each gas and process type combination, as 
it is under the final revisions to the default emission factor method. 
Instead, the uptime factor is based on an aggregate for all tools and 
gases in the fab for which the stack testing method is being used. In 
contrast, the default gas utilization rates and by-product formation 
rates are based on ``unabated emissions'' of each gas, and the uptime 
factor needs to be determined for each gas and process type combination 
to determine the portion of emissions that have been abated. ``Unabated 
emissions'' are gas streams containing F-GHG or N2O which 
has exited the process, but which has not yet been introduced into an 
abatement system to reduce the mass of F-GHG or N2O in the 
stream. If the emissions from the process are not routed to an 
abatement system, or are routed to an abatement device that is not in 
an operation mode, unabated emissions are those F-GHG or N2O 
released to the atmosphere.
    To calculate an unabated emission factor during periods of downtime 
in the stack testing method, the reporter must divide the abated 
emission factor by (1--dif), where dif) is the average weighted 
fraction of F-GHG is destroyed or removed in the POU abatement 
system(s) in the fab. The factor dif) is calculated using 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 must 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 are determined based on the actual amount of 
downtime as a percent of the total annual abatement system operating 
time for the reporting year. For example, if a fab had 2.0 percent 
downtime for the year, then the unabated emission factor is applied to 
2.0 percent of the gas consumption for the year to calculate the excess 
emissions. The abated emission factor is applied to the other 98 
percent of gas consumption for the fab. The excess emissions and the 
abated emissions are added together to determine the total annual 
emission from the fab.
    Calculating an average fab-specific emission factor. The reporter 
must calculate an average fab-specific emission factor using Equation 
I-19 in subpart I for each input F-GHG and 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 takes 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 is in units 
of kilograms (kg) gas emitted per kg of the same gas consumed (kg/kg).
    For gases generated as by-products, the fab-specific emission 
factor is the mass of the by-product emitted divided by the summed 
masses of all the F-GHGs consumed, as presented in Equation I-20. This 
equation applies to those F-GHGs that are emitted as by-products and is 
not used for gases consumed as input gases.
    The reporter must 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

[[Page 68169]]

other input gases. This is often the case for CF4. In these 
cases, the reporter must 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 must 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 must 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, the denominator in Equation I-20 includes 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 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 
are assumed to equal consumption of that F-GHG, and the by-product 
emissions are determined by multiplying the by-product emission factor 
by the sum of the consumption of all F-GHGs excluding the by-product F-
GHG.
    Testing frequency. The EPA is finalizing in 40 CFR 98.94(j)(5)(i) 
the requirement for 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 promulgating in 40 CFR 98.94(j)(5)(ii) an option 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 may be reduced to every 5 years instead of annually. 
Under this option, a reporter must 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 may be done in one year, or 
the reporter may 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, is 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 is less than 20 percent, 
the facility may 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 40 CFR 98.94(j)(8) and 
described in this section of the preamble. If the variability among the 
three tests does not meet these criteria, then the facility must use 
the emission factors from the most recent testing for reporting for 
that year and continue the annual testing. Facilities may repeat the 
RSD analysis each year using the previous three sets of data.
    In addition, previously completed tests that were performed and 
verified according to EPA Method 320, ASTM D6348-03, or an alternative 
method validated using EPA Method 301 may be applied towards the three 
tests required under this option, as long as all three tests were 
completed no earlier than January 1, 2011 and they meet the final rule 
requirements for stack testing under 40 CFR 98.94(j). We are also 
allowing reporters to use previously completed tests that include minor 
deviations from the requirements for stack testing. However, the use of 
such data must be approved by the Administrator (or an authorized 
representative) on a case-by-case basis, according to the review 
procedure specified in 40 CFR 98.94(j)(7). This procedure is similar to 
that specified for review and approval of an alternative stack testing 
method in 40 CFR 98.94(k), but it does not require the use of EPA 
Method 301 to validate the prior test data. The EPA retains the right 
to not approve the use of data that do not meet the data quality 
requirements in 40 CFR 98.94(j)(7).
    Reporters are required to conduct testing of each stack system that 
is not a low-emitting stack system, regardless of the results of the 
most recent stack tests, if certain changes take place in the 
reporters' annual consumption of F-GHGs or in the equipment and 
processes at the fab. Testing must 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 definition 
of intermittent low-use F-GHG (see ``Stack testing requirements'' in 
Section II.A.1 of this preamble), the reporter is 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 as a low-emitting stack system 
for not being subject to testing, such that it no longer meets those 
criteria, then the reporter is also required to re-test.
    Finally, if a reporter is using a F-GHG that was not used during 
the emissions test, the reporter is 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 is not required, and F-
GHG emissions must be calculated according to the process for 
intermittent low-use gases.
    As stacks are re-tested, reporters must 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 are also 
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 must be tested 
and the fab-specific emission factor must be recalculated including 
those data.
    Finally, if a requirement to re-test stacks is triggered, the 
reporter must re-evaluate the RSD of the emission factors, including 
the most recent test results and the previous two test results, to 
determine if the fab still complies with the provisions that allow the 
fab to skip testing. If the fab does not meet those provisions, annual 
testing must resume and three stack tests must be completed and a new 
RSD analysis must be performed. Even if the fab meets those 
requirements to skip testing, annual testing still must resume no later 
than the fifth year after the original RSD analysis that was performed 
before the retesting requirement was triggered.

[[Page 68170]]

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 amending 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 amending the default emission factors for other types of 
electronics manufacturing facilities.
    First, the EPA is providing that all semiconductor manufacturing 
facilities, regardless of manufacturing capacity, 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. Under these final 
amendments, no electronics manufacturing facility has the option to 
determine and use recipe-specific gas utilization rates and by-product 
formation rates for the plasma etch process type. The EPA is removing 
the distinction between large and other semiconductor facilities, such 
that all semiconductor manufacturing facilities may use the default gas 
utilization rates and by-product formation rates, independent of 
facility size.
    Second, we are revising the default emission factors for the plasma 
etch process type in Tables I-3 and I-4 of subpart I. The 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 in addition to data provided by 
commenters during the public comment period. The revised emission 
factors have been updated since proposal to account for the new data 
that were submitted during the public comment period, as discussed in 
Section II.B of this preamble. For more information regarding the 
revised by-product emission factor calculation methodology, please 
refer to ``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.
    Finally, as the EPA proposed, the EPA is combining the 
semiconductor wafer cleaning process type with the plasma etch process 
type; the amended rule does not have separate default emission factors 
for semiconductor wafer cleaning in the revised Table I-3 and I-4 of 
subpart I.
    For the chamber clean process type, semiconductor manufacturing 
facilities must 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, reporters must assume that the utilization and by-product formation 
rates are zero (i.e., assume that emissions of a gas equals consumption 
of that gas). This approach is consistent with the methodology in the 
current subpart I rule, except that we are removing 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, remain the same. The only exception is that the default emission 
factors in Table I-4 that apply to 300 mm wafers also apply to 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 will 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 450 mm wafers. However, 
for these final amendments, facilities using wafers greater than 300 mm 
diameter must use the same default emission factors as those using 300 
mm wafers. Section II.A.12 of this preamble describes the process that 
EPA will follow for updating default emission factors as more 
information is collected from the electronics manufacturing industry.
3. Removing the Provisions for Using Recipe-Specific Gas Utilization 
Rates and By-Product Formation Rates for Facilities That Manufacture 
Electronics
    The EPA is removing 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), as proposed.
    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), as a result of these final 
amendments, no semiconductor manufacturing facility has the option to 
use the recipe-specific method or report those data elements after the 
end of 2013. In addition, we are removing the recipe-specific method as 
an option for other electronics manufacturing facilities.
    No facilities have used the recipe-specific emission factor methods 
in 40 CFR 98.93(a)(2)(ii)(A), (a)(3), (a)(4), or (a)(6) for reporting 
emissions for 2011 or 2012. According to information the EPA has 
received from industry members, no facilities are known to be planning 
to use the recipe specific methods in 2013 for emissions reported in 
2014. All comments received by the EPA supported removing the recipe 
specific method, and the EPA received no comments asking that this 
method be retained in Subpart I. However, reporters may still use the 
recipe-specific methods for estimating 2013 emissions reported in 2014. 
Following the January 1, 2014 effective date of this rule, reporters 
are required to select calculation methods to estimate emissions for 
2014 reported in 2015, and thereafter, based on the options in these 
final amendments to subpart I.
    Finally, we are revising 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. We are also revising 40 CFR 98.93(b)(1)(i) and 
(b)(2)(i) to remove the option to develop facility-specific 
N2O emission factors. Under 40 CFR 98.93(a)(6), for gas and 
process combinations without default factors, facilities must assume 
that F-GHG emissions equal F-GHG consumption, which is equivalent to 
treating the utilization and by-product formation rates as both zero. 
Under the final revisions to 40 CFR 98.93(b), facilities must use 
default N2O emission factors for both CVD processes and for 
the aggregate of all other manufacturing production processes, and do 
not have the option to develop facility-specific N2O 
emission factors. EPA is not revising the current default 
N2O emission factors in this final rule. The emission factor 
for CVD processes is 0.8 and the emission factor for the aggregate of 
all other manufacturing production processes is 1.0.
4. Applicability and Calculating Annual Manufacturing Capacity for 
Facilities That Manufacture Electronics
    The EPA is revising the calculation to determine annual capacity 
for

[[Page 68171]]

electronics manufacturing facilities, which is used in the calculation 
to determine whether a facility meets the reporting threshold. First, 
we are revising Equation I-5 to clarify that reporters must sum the 
annual manufacturing across each fab to determine the annual 
manufacturing capacity of the facility. This is a change since proposal 
to reflect other changes in the rule that calculate emissions per fab. 
The EPA is replacing the phrase ``maximum designed substrate starts of 
a facility'' in Equation I-5 with the phrase ``maximum substrate starts 
of the fab,'' as proposed. Likewise, as proposed, we are replacing the 
definition in 40 CFR 98.98 of ``maximum designed substrate starts'' 
with that for ``maximum substrate starts,'' which is defined as ``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 fab 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 reporter must continue to use Equation I-5, with these revisions, 
to determine the annual manufacturing capacity of the facility to 
determine if they meet the threshold for reporting under subpart I.
    The final rule includes revised requirements, as proposed, in 40 
CFR 98.96(a) and (b) to calculate and report the maximum annual 
capacity and the actual annual production, respectively, for each fab 
in the facility, and to 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 changes do not affect the applicability of subpart I to any 
facility that is already reporting GHG emissions under subpart I. The 
mere fact that a facility that is already reporting would not meet the 
applicability test in 40 CFR 98.91 under the revised subpart I does not 
relieve its obligation to report. Facilities may cease reporting only 
if they meet the criteria in 40 CFR 98.2(i).
    We are also removing the requirement, as proposed, 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 m2 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 II.A.1 through II.A.3 of this 
preamble, we are revising the calculation methodologies for 
semiconductor manufacturers. The calculation methods apply to all 
semiconductor manufacturers and there is no longer a need to 
distinguish ``large'' facilities based on manufacturing capacity.
5. Integrated Production and R&D Activities for Facilities That 
Manufacture Electronics
    The EPA is finalizing provisions, as proposed, to allow all 
electronics manufacturing facilities covered by subpart I 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 requiring facilities that report 
integrated R&D emissions to report an estimate of the range of the 
percentage of total emissions from their R&D activities as part of 
their annual report (40 CFR 98.96(x)), and to keep records documenting 
that determination (40 CFR 98.97(j)).
6. Accuracy and Precision of Monitoring Instrumentation for Facilities 
That Manufacture Electronics
    The EPA is removing the requirements in 40 CFR 98.94(i) that all 
measuring devices meet an accuracy and precision of 1 percent of full 
scale or greater. Instead, as proposed, we are requiring electronics 
manufacturing facilities subject to subpart I to meet the existing 
General Provision calibration accuracy requirements in subpart A (40 
CFR 98.3(i)). The calibration accuracy requirements for gas flow 
measurement devices are 5 percent, as specified in 40 CFR 98.3(i). 
Further, other measuring devices (e.g., weigh scales and thermometers) 
are 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 (40 CFR 
98.3(i)(1)(i)).
7. Facility-Wide Gas Specific Heel Factor for Facilities That 
Manufacture Electronics
    The EPA is amending, as proposed, the requirements in subpart I 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. We 
are amending 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.
    We are also clarifying, since proposal, that the facility is not 
required to estimate the fab-specific heel factor for F-GHGs or 
N2O that are used in quantities of less than 50 kg in one 
reporting year and for which emissions are calculated as equal to 
consumption, or for any intermittent low-use F-GHG.
    The EPA is also revising, as proposed, the ``exceptional 
circumstance'' criteria at 40 CFR 98.94(b)(4) with respect to small 
containers. Specifically, we are revising 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 defining a small cylinder as a container that 
contains less than 9.08 kg (20 pounds) of gas. For large containers, 
the ``exceptional circumstance'' remains as a change out point that 
differs by 20 percent of the trigger point used to calculate the gas-
specific heel factor. The revisions still require facilities to 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 must still be measured, in lieu of using the 
established heel factor, if the difference in the change out point is 
greater than 1 pound. In this example, this 1 pound difference (based 
on the 50-percent criteria for an exceptional circumstance) represents 
less than 8 percent of the usable gas in the cylinder.
8. Apportioning Model Verification for Facilities That Manufacture 
Electronics
    The EPA is amending the apportioning model verification 
requirements. First, the final amendments, as proposed, 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

[[Page 68172]]

type, sub-type, stack system, or fab using gas flow meters or weigh 
scales. The final amendments also retain the option to use an 
apportioning model and the verification requirements. Reporters opting 
to use the apportioning model must verify the model by comparing actual 
gas consumption to modeled gas consumption. The reporter must select 
for comparison the F-GHG that corresponds to the largest quantity, on a 
mass basis, of F-GHG used at the fab that has to be apportioned. 
Reporters may alternatively 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 that is required to be apportioned. In this 
option, the predicted total mass consumed of the two gases combined 
must match the actual total mass consumed within the verification 
percent difference requirements for the apportioning model.
    Second, where a facility opts to develop and use an apportioning 
model, we are revising, as proposed, 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.
    We are finalizing changes, as proposed, to allow facilities to 
select a period of the reporting year when the fab is at a 
``representative operating level,'' as defined in 40 CFR 98.98, for the 
model verification, instead of at a minimum percent of design capacity, 
or instead of at the highest 30-day average utilization. Under these 
final amendments, the representative period must still be at least 30 
days, but we are clarifying that it can be up to the whole calendar 
reporting year in duration.
9. Calculating N2O Emissions for Facilities That Manufacture 
Electronics
    The EPA is revising the language for calculating N2O 
emissions in 40 CFR 98.93(b) to require reporting at the fab level, as 
proposed. We are finalizing, as proposed, the requirement that 
facilities must only use the default N2O utilization factors 
in Table I-8 of subpart I, and removing the option to measure and use 
facility-specific N2O emission factors. However, the EPA is 
not revising the default factors of 0.8 for CVD processes and 1.0 for 
all other N2O-using manufacturing processes in the current 
Table I-8 of subpart I. The reasons for not adopting the default 
N2O emission factors that were proposed are described in 
section II.B of this preamble.
    The EPA is revising 40 CFR 98.93(b), as proposed, to clarify that 
facilities must report two N2O emission values for each fab 
at a facility: one for the aggregate of all CVD processes and one for 
the aggregate of all other N2O using manufacturing 
processes. We are finalizing similar changes to the reporting 
requirements in 40 CFR 98.96(c) for consistency and clarification.
10. Abatement System Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE) for 
Facilities That Manufacture Electronics
    The EPA is revising provisions for directly measuring abatement 
system DRE, and the basis for determining average DRE values for groups 
of similar abatement systems. These amendments apply to all electronics 
manufacturers. All reporters covered under subpart I still have the 
option of using either default DRE factors or a measured DRE value to 
calculate abated emissions.
    We are finalizing the option, as proposed, to allow reporters to 
establish a measured DRE value for gas and process type combinations, 
rather than for each abatement system or ``class'' of abatement 
systems. Reporters may measure the DRE for a 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. 
Reporters may use a combination of measured and default DRE values; 
however, if a reporter develops a measured DRE value for abatement 
systems for a specific gas and process type combination for a fab, the 
resulting measured DRE must be used for that gas and process type 
combination and a default DRE factor cannot be used for that fab. In 
addition, the default DRE values may only be used for abatement systems 
specifically designed for F-GHG or N2O abatement. If a 
reporter elects to claim abatement for a system that is not 
specifically designed for F-GHG or N2O abatement, they must 
use a measured site-specific DRE for that system.
    We are also amending subpart I to allow reporters, as proposed, to 
use methods adapted from the 2009 ISMI Guideline tracer release/FTIR 
monitoring approach for determining abatement system DRE (hereafter, 
the ``2009 ISMI Guideline'') \2\ and also an alternative method to 
locate sampling sites. These alternatives are included in Appendix A to 
subpart I. We are also promulgating, as proposed, provisions that allow 
facilities to 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 must be measured at three traverse 
points at 16.7, 50.0, and 83.3 percent of the diameter of the duct and 
must 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 may be considered un-
stratified and the facility is allowed 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, a facility may take samples from two 
points and use the average of the two measurements. The two points must 
be spaced at 16.7, 50.0, or 83.3 percent of the 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, the 
facility must 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 is found to be stratified because the 
20.0 percent criterion for a three-point test is not met, 
the facility must 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 finalized 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 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.

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

    In addition, we are also allowing reporters, as proposed, to 
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 process to obtain the Administrator's 
approval specified in 40 CFR 98.94(k). The approval process is the same 
process used to obtain the Administrator's approval to use an 
alternative stack testing method (see ``Alternative stack test 
methods'' in Section II.A.1 of this preamble).
    We are amending the random sampling abatement system testing

[[Page 68173]]

program (RSASTP), as proposed, to reduce the amount of testing that 
must be performed by an individual facility. These final amendments 
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 must be randomly selected. A 
facility may test 20 percent of abatement systems in the first year. 
Until the facility measures 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 must 
use the default DRE factors to calculate emissions. For every 3-year 
period after, facilities are required to randomly select and test 15 
percent of the systems to validate the site-specific DRE. The reporter 
may 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 is 
disruptive to production, the reporter may replace that system with 
another randomly selected system and return the other to the sampling 
pool for subsequent testing. We are finalizing the requirement 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 finalizing the requirement, as proposed, that the average 
DRE for each gas and process type combination must be calculated first 
as the arithmetic mean of the first 2 years of measurements. Beginning 
in the third year of testing, the average DRE must be the arithmetic 
mean of all test results for that gas and process type combination, 
until the facility tests 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 must 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 must be used as follows: (1) Where 
the DRE of some abatement units is below the design and default DRE, 
and the abatement system is installed, operated, and maintained in 
accordance with the site maintenance plan for abatement systems, the 
data from the low DRE test must be included in calculating the fab-
specific DREs; (2) If proper maintenance and operation procedures have 
not been not followed, then the facility must implement the appropriate 
operational change or system maintenance (per the site maintenance plan 
for abatement systems), and retest that device within the same 
reporting year. In this case, a reporter is not 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, instead of retesting that device within the reporting 
year, the reporter may 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. Regardless of 
whether or not the reporter uses the low DRE value in calculating the 
average measured DRE, the reporter must count the period during which 
the proper maintenance and operation procedures were not being followed 
toward that abatement system's downtime for the year for the purposes 
of calculating emissions.
    For reporters who do not measure facility-specific DRE values, we 
are also allowing electronics manufacturing facilities to use a default 
DRE for abatement systems that are specifically designed for F-GHG or 
N2O abatement (as applicable) and that are operated and 
maintained according to the facility's abatement system site 
maintenance plan that is based on the abatement system(s) 
manufacturer's recommendations and specifications for installation, 
operation, and maintenance. For semiconductor manufacturing facilities, 
we are revising and expanding the available DRE default values that may 
be used to calculate emissions. The revised default DREs for 
semiconductor manufacturing facilities are included in Table I-16. We 
are not revising or expanding default DRE factors for other electronics 
manufacturers (MEMS, LCDs, and PV cells); no changes to these DRE 
factors were proposed. Facilities manufacturing MEMS, LCDs, and PV 
cells must use the 60 percent default DRE if they do not develop 
facility-specific DRE values and elect to account for abatement system 
DRE in their reported emissions.
    We are revising the default DRE factors for semiconductors since 
proposal to reflect the results of the EPA's analysis of DRE test data 
for specific gas and process type combinations, which includes data 
that were submitted to the EPA during the comment period. The final 
default DRE factors also reflect a change since proposal in the 
statistical method used to calculate the default DRE factors as a 
result of public comments. The change in the method and EPA's rationale 
for adopting the different method is discussed in more detail in 
section II.B.5 of this preamble. The revised default DRE factors for 
the gas and process type combinations for semiconductor manufacturing 
are shown in Table I-16 of Subpart I. The EPA will add new or revised 
default DRE factors when appropriate data become available in the 
future. See Section II.A.12 of this preamble for the process for 
updating default emission factors and default DRE factors as more data 
are collected for the semiconductor manufacturing industry.
    In order to ensure that the abatement systems used are performing 
in a way that meets the default DRE or the measured DRE, we are 
requiring, as proposed, that facilities certify that abatement systems 
are properly installed, operated, and maintained according to the site 
maintenance plan for abatement systems (40 CFR 98.97(d)(9)). The site 
maintenance plan for abatement systems must define the required 
operation and maintenance procedures for each type of abatement system 
used at the facility, and must include corrective action procedures for 
when an abatement unit is not operating properly. The site maintenance 
plan must be based on the manufacturer's recommendations and 
specifications for installation, operation, and maintenance, where 
available. The site maintenance plan for abatement systems must also 
include documentation where the operation and maintenance deviate from 
the manufacturer's specifications, including an explanation of how the 
deviations have a positive or neutral effect on the performance or 
destruction or removal efficiency of the abatement system. For example, 
a reporter may include documentation of more frequent maintenance 
checks or tighter operating parameters that optimize system 
performance. The site maintenance plan for abatement systems must be 
kept as part of the GHG monitoring plan required by 40 CFR 98.3(g)(5).
    We are also specifying that if the manufacturer's recommendations 
and specifications for installation, operation, and maintenance are not 
available (e.g., for older fabs that want to claim abatement in their 
reported emissions), then facilities may not use the default DRE 
factors found in Table I-16 for

[[Page 68174]]

those abatement systems, but do have the option to properly measure 
site-specific DREs following the requirements of 40 CFR 98.94(f)(4). 
Facilities also have the option to report their annual emissions 
without accounting for abatement. This is a change since proposal, and 
the rationale for this change is discussed in more detail in section 
II.B of this preamble.
    Furthermore, we are also requiring that facilities using the 
default emission factors who elect to claim abatement for reporting 
purposes and elect to use the default DRE values must also certify that 
the abatement systems are specifically designed for F-GHG abatement (or 
N2O abatement, as appropriate) in addition to the 
requirement that the manufacturer's recommendations and specifications 
for installation, operation, and maintenance be incorporated into the 
site maintenance plan. In response to public comments, we have revised 
the definition of ``abatement system'' since proposal to be clear that 
we meant a device or equipment that is designed to destroy or remove F-
GHGs (or N2O, as appropriate) in exhaust streams from one or 
more electronics manufacturing production processes, or for which a 
site-specific DRE has been measured according to 40 CFR 98.94(f). We 
are also revising 40 CFR 98.94(f), in response to comments since 
proposal, to clarify that if facilities elect to use the stack test 
alternative in 40 CFR 98.93(i) and elect to account for abatement, they 
must certify that the system is designed to abate F-GHGs, or they must 
measure a site-specific DRE according to 40 CFR 98.94(f). We have also 
included a requirement that facilities using the stack test alternative 
must certify that that all abatement systems that are designed to abate 
F-GHGs or for which a site-specific DRE has been measured are fully 
accounted for when calculating annual emissions and accounting for 
excess emissions from downtime using the methods in 40 CFR 98.93(i)(3). 
If an abatement system is not designed to abate F-GHG, then reporters 
may elect to not account for any incidental F-GHG abatement from that 
system under the stack testing alternative.
11. Abatement System Uptime for Facilities That Manufacture Electronics
    The EPA is revising the methods used to calculate abatement system 
uptime. For facilities that are using the default gas utilization rates 
and by-product formation rates, we are amending 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. We are revising Equation 
I-15 to calculate the average uptime factor for all abatement system 
connected to process tools for a given input gas and process type or 
subtype. The same uptime factor will be used for both input gases and 
the associated by-product gases for that input gas and process 
combination. However, since proposal we have removed the separate 
equations for uptime of abatement systems applied to input gases and 
by-product gases and the final rule has only a single equation for 
uptime applicable to all gases. The reason for this change since 
proposal is discussed in more detail in Section II.B of this preamble.
    Reporters are required, as proposed, 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 
site maintenance plan 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 may 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 must 
prorate the operating time to account for the days in which the tool 
was not installed; any partial day that a tool was installed must 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 has 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 must be considered to be equivalent to a full year if at 
least one tool was installed and operating at all times throughout the 
year.
12. Triennial Technology Report for Semiconductor Manufacturing
    We are requiring certain semiconductor manufacturing facilities, as 
proposed, to provide a report to the EPA every 3 years, beginning in 
2017, that addresses technology and process changes at the facility 
that could affect GHG emissions. The report must address how technology 
and processes have changed in the industry over the previous 3 years 
and the extent to which any of the identified changes are likely to 
have affected the GHG emissions characteristics (i.e., the identity, 
amount, frequency, concentration, or other characteristics related to 
GHG emissions) of semiconductor manufacturing processes in such a way 
that the default gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates 
and/or default DRE factors in subpart I may need to be updated or 
augmented. The EPA plans to have reporters submit this report using the 
Electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool (e-GGRT) system.
    We are requiring, as proposed, that the first 3-year report 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 CO2e are required to submit the 
report. The requirement to submit the first report in 2017 is based on 
the facility's emissions in 2015 (which would be reported in 2016), and 
the requirement to submit subsequent reports is 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 must 
submit the 3-year report due in 2017. To reduce burden, we are allowing 
the option for multiple semiconductor manufacturing facilities 
(regardless of whether they are owned by the same parent company) to 
submit a single consolidated 3-year report. Facilities with reported 
emissions at or below 40,000 mtCO2e per year may voluntarily 
prepare and submit a report. Facilities that are not subject to 
reporting under subpart I based on the applicability criteria in 
subparts A and I are not required to submit a 3-year report.
    The 3-year report must include, as proposed, the following: (1) 
Whether and how the gases and technologies used in 200 mm and 300 mm 
wafer semiconductor 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 factors 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

[[Page 68175]]

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 (i.e., the 
identity, amount, frequency, or concentration), the report must 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 will 
review the reports received and determine whether it is necessary to 
update the default gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates 
in Tables I-3, I-4, I-11, and I-12, and default DREs in I-16 based on 
the following: (1) Whether the revised default gas utilization rates 
and by-product formation rates and DREs would result in a projected 
shift in emissions of 10 percent or greater for each gas and process 
type or process subtype; (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 will 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 will 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.
13. Final Amendments to Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
    In this action, the EPA is finalizing several changes (additions as 
well as revisions) to the data reporting and recordkeeping requirements 
in subpart I. Table 2 of this preamble summarizes the changes to the 
reporting elements, and notes those elements that were changed since 
proposal.

                                   Table 2--Changes to Reporting Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               New or revised
          Data element                    Change/revision             Original  citation          citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual manufacturing capacity    Revised to report manufacturing    98.96(a).............  NA.
 of facility as determined in     capacity on a fab basis, rather
 Equation I-5.                    than facility \1\.
The diameter of wafers           Revised to report wafer size on a  98.96(b).............  NA.
 manufactured at the facility.    fab basis, rather than facility
                                  \1\.
Annual emissions of each F-GHG   Revised to apply only when         98.96(c)(1)..........  NA.
 emitted from each process type   default gas utilization rate and
 for which your facility is       by-product formation rate
 required to calculate            procedures in 40 CFR 98.93(a)
 emissions as calculated in       are used to calculate emissions.
 Equations I-6 and I-7.           Revised so that requirement
                                  applies to ``fab'' instead of
                                  facility.
Annual emissions of each F-GHG   Removed requirement to report      98.96(c)(2)..........  NA.
 emitted from each individual     emissions by individual recipe
 recipe (including those in a     (including those in a set of
 set of similar recipes) or       similar recipes). Revised so
 process sub-type.                that requirement applies to
                                  ``fab'' instead of facility.
Emissions of N2O emitted from    Revised to clarify that            98.96(c)(3)..........  NA.
 each chemical vapor deposition   facilities report N2O emitted
 process and from other N2O       from the aggregate of all
 using manufacturing processes    chamber cleaning processes and
 as calculated in Equation I-10.  from the aggregate of other N2O-
                                  using manufacturing processes.
                                  Revised so that requirement
                                  applies to ``fab'' instead of
                                  facility.
Annual emissions of each F-GHG   Added reporting requirement in     NA...................  98.96(c)(5).
 emitted from each fab when you   conjunction with the stack
 use the procedures specified     testing option.
 in 40 CFR 98.93(i).
Data elements reported when you  Removed and reserved all of        98.96(f).............  NA.
 use factors for F-GHG process    98.96(f) because of changes to
 utilization and by-product       remove the use of recipe-
 formation rates other than the   specific gas utilization rates
 defaults provided in Tables I-   and by-product formation rates.
 3, I-4, I-5, I-6, and I-7 to
 this subpart and/or N2O
 utilization factors other than
 the defaults provided in Table
 I-8 to subpart I.
Annual gas consumption for each  Changed to recordkeeping           98.96(g).............  98.97(k).
 F-GHG and N2O as calculated in   requirement. Revised so that
 Equation I-11 of this subpart,   requirement applies to ``fab''
 including where your facility    instead of facility. Added
 used less than 50 kg of a        applicable equation references
 particular F-GHG or N2O during   for the stack testing option.
 the reporting year. For all F-
 GHGs and N2O used at your
 facility for which you have
 not calculated emissions using
 Equations I-6, I-7, I-8, I-9,
 and I-10, the chemical name of
 the GHG used, the annual
 consumption of the gas, and a
 brief description of its use.

[[Page 68176]]

 
All inputs used to calculate     Changed to recordkeeping           98.96(h).............  98.97(k)(1).
 gas consumption in Equation I-   requirement.
 11 for each F-GHG and N2O used.
Disbursements for each F-GHG     Changed to recordkeeping           98.96(i).............  98.97(n).
 and N2O during the reporting     requirement.
 year, as calculated using
 Equation I-12.
All inputs used to calculate     Change to recordkeeping            98.96(j).............  98.97(n).
 disbursements for each F-GHG     requirement.
 and N2O used in Equation I-12
 including all facility-wide
 gas-specific heel factors used
 for each F-GHG and N2O.
Annual amount of each F-GHG      Changed to recordkeeping           98.96(k).............  98.97(m).
 consumed for each recipe,        requirement. Removed ``recipe-
 process sub-type, or process     specific'' requirements. Revised
 type, as appropriate, and the    to refer to the annual amount of
 annual amount of N2O consumed    N2O consumed for the aggregate
 for each chemical vapor          of all CVD processes and for the
 deposition and other             aggregate of all other
 electronics manufacturing        electronics manufacturing
 production processes, as         production processes \1\.
 calculated using Equation I-13.
All apportioning factors used    Changed to recordkeeping           98.96(l).............  98.97(c)(1).
 to apportion F-GHG and N2O       requirement.
 consumption.
Identification of the            Corrected citation and revised to  98.96(m)(i)..........  98.96(m)(1).
 quantifiable metric used in      indicate whether direct
 your facility-specific           measurements used.
 engineering model to apportion
 gas consumption, and an
 indication if direct
 measurements were used in
 addition to, or instead of, a
 quantifiable metric.
Start and end dates selected     Corrected citation...............  98.96(m)(ii).........  98.96(m)(2).
 under 40 CFR 98.94(c)(2)(i).
Certification that the gases     Corrected 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    Corrected citation and revised to  98.96(m)(iv).........  98.96(m)(4).
 comparing the actual and         refer to modeled gas consumption
 modeled gas consumption under    under 40 CFR 98.94(c)(2)(iii)
 40 CFR 98.94(c)(2)(iii).         and (iv), as applicable.
If you are required to           Added 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    Moved to recordkeeping, and        98.96(n).............  98.97(o).
 fed into recipe, process sub-    removed recipe-specific
 type, or process type that is    references.
 fed into tools connected to
 abatement systems.
Fraction of each F-GHG or N2O    Moved to recordkeeping, removed    98.96(o).............  98.97(p).
 destroyed or removed in          recipe-specific references, and
 abatement systems connected to   revised to apply to the stack
 process tools where recipe,      testing option.
 process sub-type, or process
 type j is used, as well as all
 inputs and calculations used
 to determine the inputs for
 Equation I-14.

[[Page 68177]]

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

[[Page 68178]]

 
If your semiconductor            Added 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.
\1\ Data element revised from proposed rule (77 FR 635380, October 16, 2012).

    The EPA is amending subpart I such that, with the addition of 
certain new data elements, several previous data reporting elements are 
not required to be reported to the EPA and, instead, are to be kept as 
records, as proposed.\3\ These records must be made available to the 
EPA for review upon request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ These reporting elements include data elements that have 
been designated as ``inputs to emissions equations'' in the August 
25, 2011 final rul 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 final amendments to subpart I, we are 
removing these subpart I inputs to emissions equations data elements 
from table A-7 so that they are not required to be reported by March 
31, 2015. More information on this final change can be found in 
Section III of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is amending 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 stack testing approach involves 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 are required to monitor and keep 
records of the fab-specific emission factor, the amount of each F-GHG 
consumed, and data on the operating time and performance of abatement 
systems, but they are not required to report these data. Other data 
needed to determine the amount of F-GHG used in a process type or sub-
type are not reported, but rather kept as records. The EPA has also 
included additional recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 98.97 to 
verify compliance with the factors that trigger a retest, including the 
identity and total annual consumption of each gas identified as an 
intermittent, low-use F-GHG, and the total number of tools at each 
stack in the fab.
    The final amendments to the default gas utilization rate and by-
product formation rate approach 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 do not require facilities to report these data.
    The final amendments to the reporting requirements move the 
information on the number and DRE of abatement systems at each facility 
from the reporting requirements to the recordkeeping requirements as 
proposed. In order to determine the extent to which GHG emissions from 
this category are being abated, we are including in 40 CFR 98.96(r) a 
requirement for reporters to calculate and report effective fab-wide 
DRE factors for the emissions from the electronics manufacturing 
processes at each fab. In the October 16, 2012 proposed amendments to 
subpart I, the EPA proposed to require facilities to report facility-
wide DRE factors in order to assist in our verification of reported GHG 
emissions (77 FR 63569). Following proposal, the EPA determined that 
because facilities are already collecting information to determine 
emissions on a fab-level basis using either the methods in 40 CFR 
98.93(a), (b), or (i), a fab-wide DRE factor (instead of facility-wide) 
is more appropriate to ascertain the extent to which GHGs are being 
abated. The fab-wide DRE factor is calculated as 1 minus the ratio of 
reported emissions to the emissions that would occur if there were no 
abatement. The emissions are already reported under subpart A and 
subpart I.
    For calculating the effective fab-wide DRE factors, reporters have 
two methods for calculating emissions that would occur if there were no 
abatement. The first method is used to calculate the emissions without 
abatement in cases where the reporter calculated emissions using 
default utilization and by-product formation rates. This includes cases 
in which the reporter calculated emissions under 40 CFR 98.93(a) and 
also those emissions that were calculated for stack systems that are 
exempt from testing, under 40 CFR 98.93(i)(3). In this method, 
emissions without abatement are 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 does not 
require reporters 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 revised default emission factor approach or the stack testing 
option. This reporting requirement, 40 CFR 98.96(r), requires a 
calculation with these existing data, including the current reported 
emissions and the emissions that would occur if there were no 
abatement. The latter must 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 is used to calculate the emissions without 
abatement from stack systems in cases where the reporter calculated 
emissions based on stack testing conducted according to 40 CFR 
98.93(i)(4). In this method, reporters must 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 uses default values or values that are already measured and used 
in the equations that a reporter uses to calculate GHG emissions in the 
stack testing option.
    In this notice we are also finalizing changes, as proposed, 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

[[Page 68179]]

reporting years. We are revising 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 are moved from reporting in 40 CFR 98.96 
to recordkeeping under 40 CFR 98.97, or that are removed entirely from 
subpart I because of the removal of the relevant emission calculation 
requirement. Since these data elements were originally deferred until 
2015 and reporters are no longer required to report these data elements 
after January 1, 2014, this final rule revises these data elements from 
reporting requirements to recordkeeping requirements for 2011, 2012, 
and 2013, as well as 2014 and beyond. Reporters are still required to 
maintain records of these data elements according to the procedures 
outlined in 98.97.
14. Changes To Remove BAMM Provisions and Language Specific to 
Reporting Years 2011, 2012, and 2013
    We are removing the provisions in 40 CFR 98.94(a) for best 
available monitoring methods (BAMM), as proposed. 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 quality assurance/quality control (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 I.D of this preamble, these amendments will 
become effective on January 1, 2014. Facilities are 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) will 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 removing all the BAMM provisions in the current subpart I, because 
they will no longer be applicable starting in 2014, which is when this 
final rule will be effective. We are not promulgating any new BAMM 
provisions because we expect that all facilities will be in compliance 
with the monitoring and QA/QC methods required under subpart I for the 
2014 calendar year.
    We are also removing 40 CFR 98.93(h)(2), as proposed, which 
provided 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 removing language in 40 CFR 98.94(h)(3) that is 
specific to the monitoring of fluorinated heat transfer fluids in 2012. 
These provisions will no longer be applicable on the effective date of 
these final amendments, since both data elements are specific to 2012.

B. Responses to Major Comments Submitted on the Electronics 
Manufacturing Source Category

    This section contains a brief summary of the major comments and 
responses on the proposed changes to the final subpart I rule. The EPA 
received comments on the proposed changes from the SIA, five 
semiconductor manufacturers (GlobalFoundries, IBM, Intel, Samsung, and 
Texas Instruments), and Environmental Defense Fund (an environmental 
advocacy group).
    A summary of all of the comments and the responses thereto that are 
not included in this preamble can be found in the document, ``Reporting 
of Greenhouse Gases--Technical Revisions to the Electronics 
Manufacturing Category of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's 
Responses to Public Comments'' (see EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028).
1. Stack Testing as an Alternative Emission Monitoring Method for 
Facilities That Manufacture Electronics
    Comment: One commenter could not duplicate the EPA's calculation 
for all of the Tier 2a emission factors in Tables I-11 and I-12 of 
subpart I that are to be used to screen which stacks are to be tested 
under the stack testing alternative, and for calculating emissions from 
certain low-emitting stacks in that alternative. Based on their review 
of the EPA's explanation of how the factors in Tables I-11 and I-12 of 
subpart I were derived (see EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0090), the commenter 
recommended the following changes for the final amendments to subpart 
I:
     EPA should continue to use the default factors by process 
type and process sub-type in Tables I-3 and I-4 of subpart I, or the 
underlying data, as the starting point for the derivation of the 
simpler factors in Tables I-11 and I-12 of subpart I. To the extent the 
factors in Tables I-3 and I-4 are updated between proposal and final 
rulemaking, those updated factors should be used to update the factors 
in Tables I-11 and I-12.
     The commenter noted that the EPA used the arithmetic 
averages of the different process specific factors when deriving the 
factors in Tables I-11 and I-12 of subpart I. The commenter stated that 
weighting the individual factors for each process type by the amount of 
gas used in that process type is technically more appropriate than 
sample weighting (i.e., taking the arithmetic average of all the data 
points for that gas and process type). The commenter encouraged the EPA 
to re-compute the Table I-11 and I-12 factors with gas-use weighting. 
Where gas use information is not available, the commenter noted that 
sample weighting of available emission factor data would be acceptable.
     The commenter recommended that the EPA should revise the 
nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) emission factors to give proper 
weighting to the emissions factor for remote clean, which represents 
the largest use of NF3.
    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that the factors in 
Tables I-11 and I-12 of subpart I should be updated in light of the 
additional emission factor data received during the public comment 
period for the proposed amendments to subpart I. The EPA also agrees 
with the commenter that gas-use weighting is more appropriate than 
sample-weighted averaging in developing the revised Tier 2a factors. 
Therefore, the EPA is promulgating revised Tier 2a factors in Tables I-
11 and I-12 using gas consumption-weighted averages where consumption 
data were available (see Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0028-0090) and 
sample weighted averages where gas use information was not available. 
The EPA is also updating the NF3 emission factor to give 
proper weighting to the emissions factor for remote clean, which, as 
the commenter notes, represents the largest use of NF3.
    Comment: One commenter noted that some facilities may not be able 
to comply with the proposed requirements in 40 CFR 98.93(i)(1)(ii) and 
(iii) which require reporters to use data from the previous reporting 
year to estimate the consumption of input gas and total uptime of all 
abatement systems. For example, a new facility or a facility that just 
crossed the reporting threshold will not have data from a ``prior 
reporting year'' for estimating gas consumption and abatement system 
uptime. The commenter recommended that both 40 CFR 98.93(i)(1)(ii) and 
(iii) be revised to allow a facility, where a previous reporting year's 
data are not available, to estimate annual gas usage and abatement 
system uptime based on

[[Page 68180]]

representative operating data from a previous period covering 30 days 
or more.
    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that instances will 
occur where there will be no data from a prior reporting year 
available. As a result, the EPA is including in the final amendments to 
subpart I, the commenter's suggested changes to 40 CFR 98.93(i)(1)(ii) 
and (iii) to allow a facility to estimate annual gas usage and 
abatement system uptime based on representative operating data from a 
period covering 30 days or more, when data from a prior reporting year 
are not available, with the exception that the option is only available 
for a fab that did not report in the previous reporting year. If there 
is an anticipated change in activity for the fab (i.e., in an increase 
or decrease in the annual consumption or emissions of any F-GHG) 
greater than 10 percent for the current reporting year compared to the 
previous reporting year, reporters are required to identify and account 
for the change in their preliminary estimate. Reporters must use a 
quantifiable metric (e.g., the ratio of the number tools that are 
expected to be vented to the stack system in the current year as 
compared to the previous reporting year), engineering judgment, or 
other industry standard practice.
    The EPA has determined that this exception is necessary so that any 
fab that collected and reported data in the previous reporting year is 
required to estimate consumption and uptime based on the data from the 
previous reporting year. Recognizing that the previous reporting year 
may not represent a complete year (i.e., the fab may have started 
operations during the previous year), partial data from the prior year 
may be used if the reporter accounts for changes in activity. The EPA 
established activity changes that are greater than 10 percent for the 
current reporting year compared to the previous reporting year, because 
it is the same threshold criterion for conducting a re-test under the 
stack test method, as discussed in Section II.A.1 of this preamble.
    Comment: One commenter requested that the EPA include ASTM D6348-
03, ``Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface 
Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' in subpart I as an alternative 
to EPA Method 320. The commenter stated that the ASTM method is more 
straight-forward than EPA Method 320 and, as such, is easier to 
understand/implement. The commenter stated that EPA Method 320 requires 
performing a validation of 12 spiked/unspiked pairs in addition to the 
three Quality Assurance (QA) spikes whereas ASTM D6348-03 requires only 
three analyte spikes to demonstrate acceptable performance. The 
commenter noted that when using the ASTM method one loses the ability 
to generate compound-specific correction factors should the system not 
sufficiently recover the analytes. The commenter indicated that using 
the ASTM method will save time during collection and data processing. 
The QA spike procedure and recovery requirements for EPA Method 320 and 
ASTM D6348-03 are essentially the same. In both methods, one cannot 
spike at more than 10 percent of the extracted flow rate and must 
demonstrate recoveries within 30 percent of expected amounts, 
respectively.
    The commenter stated that testing companies have collected data 
using the ASTM method. The commenter noted that although none of these 
data involved F-GHG measurements at semiconductor facilities, the ASTM 
method has been successfully used in semiconductor fabs for other 
determinations (e.g., hazardous air pollutants) and was used in Intel 
stack testing for F-GHG emissions conducted in 2011 to support rule 
development. The commenter also noted that several existing EPA 
regulations list both EPA Method 320 and ASTM D6348-03 as acceptable 
methods: The Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE) Maximum 
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) (40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ) and 
the Turbine MACT (40 CFR part 63 subpart YYYY) list both methods.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that ASTM D6348-03 is an 
acceptable method and are including it in this final rule. At proposal 
the EPA stated that ASTM D6348-03 had been reviewed as a potential 
alternative to EPA Method 320 (77 FR 63575). In the preamble to the 
proposed amendments, the EPA stated, ``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.''
    Since this rule was proposed, we have revisited this assessment 
based on the comments received. We acknowledge that several existing 
regulations list both EPA Method 320 and ASTM D6348-03 as acceptable 
methods, as noted by the commenter. We also acknowledge the efficiency 
of ASTM D6348-03 as compared to EPA Method 320, although it may pose a 
greater risk for the need to perform a retest, as discussed below in 
this response. However, ASTM D6348-03 is also ``self-validating,'' as 
is EPA Method 320, and contains quality assurance procedures that, when 
adhered to, provide an acceptable level of confidence in the measured 
concentrations. For these reasons, along with the additional 
information provided in the comment on testing conducted in 
semiconductor facilities, we are allowing in the final rule amendments 
the use of ASTM D6348-03, Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform 
Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, as an alternative to EPA Method 320 with 
the following requirements:
    (1) The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to 
ASTM D6348-03, Sections A1 through A8 are mandatory; and
    (2) In ASTM D6348-03 Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the 
percent recovery (%R) must be determined for each target analyte 
(Equation A5.5).
    The reporter must also follow Section 4.1 of ASTM D6348-03 to 
ensure the F-GHG remains in the gas phase. In order for the test data 
to be acceptable for a compound, the percent recovery must be between 
70 and 130 percent. If the percent recovery does not meet this 
criterion for a target compound, the test data are not acceptable for 
that compound and the test must be repeated for that analyte (i.e., the 
sampling and/or analytical procedure should be adjusted before a 
retest). The percent recovery value for each compound must be reported 
in the test report, required under 40 CFR 98.94(j)(4), and all field 
measurements must be corrected with the calculated percent recovery 
value for that compound by using the following equation:
    Reported result = measured concentration in the stack x (100/%R). 
As noted by the commenter, the use of ASTM D6348-03 could result in the 
loss of the ability to generate compound-specific correction factors if 
the system does not sufficiently recover the analytes (i.e., the 
percent recovery value is not between 70 and 130 percent). In this 
case, the testing facility would be required to perform a retest for 
the target analyte. Therefore, although the use of ASTM D6348-03 
provides some efficiency, facilities must assume this risk when using 
the ASTM method.
    Comment: One commenter noted that a facility may choose to report 
emissions as equal to consumption for a gas if consumption of that gas 
is less

[[Page 68181]]

than 50 kg per year in a fab, if using the default emission factor 
method, as specified in 40 CFR 98.93(a). The commenter asserted that, 
under the stack testing alternative, a facility should also not be 
required to test for a gas that is not one of the listed ``expected by-
products'' if consumption of that gas is less than 50 kg per year in a 
fab. To ensure clarity on this point, the commenter requested that the 
EPA modify 40 CFR 98.93(a) to state that, if a fab uses less than 50 kg 
of a F-GHG in one reporting year, the reporter may calculate emissions 
as equal to the fab's annual consumption for that specific gas as 
calculated in Equation I-11 of subpart I. If this is done and the stack 
testing method under 40 CFR 98.94(j) is used, the commenter stated that 
testing for the gas should not be required unless it is one of the 
expected by-products.
    Response: In the proposed rule, EPA neglected to update 40 CFR 
98.93(a) to clarify that the provision allowing fabs to calculate 
emissions as equal to consumption if their fab consumes less than 50 kg 
of a F-GHG only applies to facilities using the estimation methods in 
40 CFR 98.93(a)(1) and (a)(2). For the stack testing method, our intent 
at proposal was to minimize the burden by providing reporters a method 
to calculate emissions of F-GHGs used in small quantities that was 
similar but not equal to that of the provisions under the default 
emission factor method for gases consumed in quantities of less than 50 
kg. To achieve this burden reduction, we proposed provisions for 
intermittent low-use gases at 40 CFR 98.93(i)(4)(i). Additionally, we 
specified under 40 CFR 98.94(j)(1)(ii) of the proposed amendments, 
``you must measure for . . . 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.'' 
We did not intend for the provisions under 40 CFR 98.93(a) regarding 
input gases consumed in quantities less than 50 kg per reporting year 
to apply to fabs using the stack testing method because they would have 
been duplicative of the provisions for intermittent low-use gases 
specified at 40 CFR 98.93(i)(4)(i).
    To clarify that reporters may only calculate emissions as equal to 
consumption if their fab consumes less than 50 kg of a F-GHG in one 
reporting year and they are using default emission factors for that 
fab, we have moved the provision from 40 CFR 98.93(a) and placed it in 
40 CFR 98.93(a)(1) and (a)(2). We have also clarified the provision by 
specifying that the reporter must also include any by-product emissions 
of the gas as calculated in 40 CFR 98.93(a).
    Additionally, in our review of the emissions estimation 
requirements for intermittent low-use gases for facilities using the 
stack testing method in 40 CFR 98.93(i), we have determined that in 
some cases, a facility may use an intermittent low-use gas that does 
not have associated default gas utilization and by-product formation 
rates in Tables I-11 through I-15. For example, if a facility uses 
C4F8O in manufacturing semiconductors on 300 mm 
wafers, Table I-12 of subpart I does not have applicable default 
utilization and by-product formation rate factors. For these cases, we 
have included a provision in 40 CFR 98.93(i)(4) for facilities to 
calculate emissions of these gases by assuming utilization and by-
product formation rates of zero for those gases. Facilities will also 
account for abatement of these gases, if abatement systems are present 
on the tools associated with those stacks.
    Comment: Two commenters questioned the applicability of the 
definition of the time interval in Equations I-17 and I-18 at 40 CFR 
98.93(i)(3)(ii), which specifies that ``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).'' One commenter observed that the sum of the average 
concentrations in Equations I-17 and I-18 are numerically equivalent 
whether the minimum time interval is one hour or one minute. The 
commenters requested that the requirement for minimum time intervals 
(tm) over the duration of the 8-hour (minimum) stack test 
either be removed entirely, or be made specific to the use of the FTIR 
method.
    The commenters further explained that when the FTIR method is used, 
the sampling period time intervals are typically on the order of 
minutes, and so the requirement for a minimum of a 60 minute time 
interval is easily achieved. However, in the future GC-MS or similar 
types of appropriately validated methods may be used that collect 
composite samples continuously over the 8-hour sampling period. In 
these situations, the EPA requirement as currently worded would 
obligate the sampling technician to collect a minimum of 8 one-hour 
time-integrated samples. The commenters contended that such an 
obligation would be excessive, and would provide little benefit because 
the 8-hour composite sample itself provides an appropriate average.
    The commenters requested that 40 CFR 98.93(i)(3)(ii) either delete 
the requirement for a minimum time interval, or make it specific to the 
FTIR method, by specifying that each time interval in an FTIR 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). Another 
commenter recommended that the language in the final rule be revised to 
allow for continuous 8-hour testing rather than 8 individual one-hour 
runs.
    Response: The EPA agrees with comments regarding sampling times 
when using the stack test option. The EPA recognizes that in typical 
FTIR sampling, which is the method incorporated into the proposed use 
of EPA Method 320, the sampling period time intervals are typically on 
the order of minutes; however, instead of specifying a potentially 
restrictive sampling period (i.e., a 1 minute basis), the EPA chose to 
allow facilities and their testing contractors to decide the most 
appropriate sampling period. Additionally, the EPA's intention was to 
require facilities to collect concentration measurement data that were 
representative of the entire 8-hour (or more) sampling period. As a 
result, the EPA proposed that concentration measurement data be 
collected, at a minimum, on an hourly basis. The EPA agrees with the 
commenter that, if a composite sampling method was used to conduct 
stack testing, either through the use of an approved alternative method 
or through future rule amendments, the requirement to collect a minimum 
of 8 one-hour time integrated samples would not apply since the 
composite sample itself would provide a time integrated sample. As a 
result, the EPA is incorporating the commenters' suggested revision to 
40 CFR 98.93(i)(3)(ii). However, the EPA notes that the GC/MS method is 
not an approved method in this final rule and thus any reporter 
preferring to use that method would need to follow the procedures found 
in 40 CFR 98.94(k).
    Comment: Two commenters expressed concern with the requirement to 
certify that no changes in stack flow configuration occur between tests 
conducted for any particular fab in a reporting year. The commenters 
recognized that it is important to ensure that the system is relatively 
static over the course of a round of testing, but stated that a 
certification of ``no changes'' goes beyond what is necessary and 
reasonable. The commenters noted that a fab may readily be able to 
certify that no significant changes have occurred over the relatively 
short time

[[Page 68182]]

required to complete the consecutive testing of multiple stacks. 
However, a facility may not be able to certify that no changes occurred 
during testing because one or more process tools might have been added 
to or subtracted from a stack system during that time period because, 
as part of normal operation, a process tool might be disconnected or 
added during a week of testing, but such an action should not 
invalidate the test. Such an action would not cause a significant 
change in emissions, since a single process tool (or small number of 
them) would represent a small fraction of the total. The commenter 
stated that, in addition, there is typically a time lag between the 
time a process tool connection is made and the time the process tool is 
up to full production and emissions.
    The commenters proposed that the certification criterion in 40 CFR 
98.94(j)(1)(iv) be modified so that reporters must identify any changes 
that occurred over the course of testing, including any GHG emitting 
process tools newly connected to or disconnected from the system. The 
reporter must also certify that no process tools that were in operation 
at the start of the test period have been moved to a different stack 
during the test period and that no point-of-use abatement systems on 
active process tools have been permanently removed from service during 
the test period.
    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenters' suggestions regarding 
stack flow configuration certification requirements. Our original 
intent of requiring reporters to certify that no changes in stack flow 
configuration occur between tests was to ensure that emission factors 
developed as a result of testing are representative of normal 
operations, and to avoid under or over reporting of emissions as a 
result of reporters directing emissions from one stack to another stack 
between testing of separate stack systems, or by taking process tools 
with lower utilization efficiencies offline during testing.
    Based on the information provided by the commenters, the EPA agrees 
that the addition and removal of a limited number of process tools to a 
stack system is a common occurrence under normal operating conditions. 
As a result, we are revising the certification requirement under 40 CFR 
98.94(j)(1)(iv) to require reporters to certify that no significant 
changes in stack flow configuration occur between tests conducted for 
any particular fab in a reporting year. Specifically, reporters must 
certify that no more than 10 percent of the total number of F-GHG or 
N2O emitting process tools are connected or disconnected 
from a stack system during testing. Although the commenters did not 
provide a quantitative limit when referring to ``a small fraction of 
the total,'' we determined that it is necessary to limit the number of 
tools connected or disconnected to a single stack system during testing 
to ensure there are no significant changes in emissions. Additionally, 
we agree with the commenters' suggestion to require reporters to 
certify that no process tools that were in operation at the start of 
the test period have been moved to a different stack during the test 
period, and that no point of use abatement systems have been 
permanently removed from service during the test period. We also agree 
with the commenters that any changes during the test period must be 
identified. Therefore, we are requiring reporters to document and 
record such changes in the emissions test data and report required 
under 40 CFR 98.97(i)(3).
    Comment: Two commenters requested that the final rule include a 
specific list of by-products that are to be included in the testing 
instead of the requirement for a facility-specific analysis of 
``expected'' or ``possible'' by products for each series of tests. This 
approach would eliminate uncertainty for the facility that the analysis 
was sufficient for purposes of the rule. The commenter noted that the 
EPA suggested a list of six chemicals that would be treated as 
potential by-products: CF4, C2F6, 
CHF3, C3F8, 
C4F6, and C4F8 (77 FR 
63546). The commenter stated that the latest round of data gathering 
also found CH2F2, CH3F, and 
C5F8 as by-products in some instances. The 
commenter recommended that these three gases be added to the list of 
``possible'' by-product gases to be tested for under the stack test 
alternative. The commenter further recommended that the list of 
``expected'' by-product gases, that will be assumed to be present at 
half the FDL even if they are not detected, be limited to the five C1 
and C2 compounds (CF4, C2F6, 
CHF3, CH2F2, and CH3F) 
because the four C3, C4 and C5 by-products (C3F8, 
C4F6, c-C4F8 and 
C5F8) were found in only a handful of tests. The 
commenter stated that the four ``possible'' by-products would be tested 
for and, if detected, they would be reported as detected and at half 
the FDL for any interval in that round of testing where they are not 
detected. If not detected, they would be reported as zero.
    A third commenter supported the EPA's proposal to require that all 
fabs using the stack testing method test for the most common six by-
product gases (CF4, C2F6, 
C3F8, C4F6, 
C4F8, and CHF3). The commenter 
supported the EPA's rationale that the cost of testing for six, as 
opposed to two, of these gases is expected to be low, because the tests 
would be conducted at the same time, with the same equipment and 
personnel.
    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenters' suggestion to 
designate specific F-GHGs as ``expected'' and ``possible'' by-products. 
In the final rule, we are adding Table I-17, which includes a list of 
expected by-products and a list of possible by-products. Facilities are 
required to test for both expected and possible by-products. If 
expected by-products are not detected during a round of testing, 
facilities are required to assume that they are emitted at one-half of 
the FDL. If possible by-products are not detected during a round of 
testing, facilities are required to equate their emissions to zero for 
that round of testing.
    This approach simplifies the rule, provides certainty for purposes 
of implementation, and relieves facilities of the burden of determining 
which by-products should be tested for or assumed to be emitted if they 
are not detected. By establishing a comprehensive list of by-products 
to include in testing, it also avoids routine underestimates of 
emissions that could result if a facility did not test for a by-product 
that was in fact emitted.
    We agree with the commenter's suggestion to add CHF3, 
CH2F2, and CH3F to the list of 
expected by-products. With these additions, the list of expected by-
products includes CF4, C2F6, 
CHF3, CH2F2, and CH3F. 
Based on all the emission factor data available to the EPA, 
CF4 was identified as a by-product in 532 instances, 
C2F6 in 589 instances, CHF3 in 297, 
CH2F2 in 21, and CH3F in seven 
instances out of a total of 1,149 data sets.
    The EPA also agrees with the commenters' recommendation to include 
the four C3 to C5 compounds (C3F8, 
C4F6, c-C4F8 and 
C5F8) in the list of ``possible'' by-products in 
the final rule. Based on all the emission factor data available to the 
EPA, C3F8 was identified in four instances, 
C4F6 in three, c-C4F8 in 
five, and C5F8 in four of 1,149 data sets.
    Comment: Three commenters asserted that the maximum FDL values in 
Table I-10 of the proposed amendments to subpart I have been achieved 
in very limited circumstances with specifically enhanced FTIR 
measurement systems. The commenters stated that the FDLs are not 
achievable with conventional FTIR systems in normal usage. The 
commenters noted that stack testing at

[[Page 68183]]

three fabs was completed in support of the testing alternative and the 
emissions reports appear in the docket and that the proposed maximum 
FDLs were not always met. The commenters noted that when the proposed 
maximum FDLs were met, it was with customized enhanced measurement 
systems. The commenters stated that these maximum FDLs should be either 
dropped from the rule or raised substantially. The commenters asserted 
that if they are not removed or raised, the number of available testing 
contractors and equipment will be severely limited. If the maximum FDLs 
are not met during a test and the test results are consequently 
considered invalid, very expensive efforts and arrangements for data 
gathering will be wasted. In light of these concerns, the commenters 
recommended that the maximum FDLs be increased by a factor of five. 
With that change, the fully fluorinated gases would have a maximum FDL 
of 25 ppbv, SF6 would have a maximum FDL of 5 ppbv, and other F-GHG 
would have a maximum FDL of 50 ppbv. These values would be considered 
maximum allowable FDLs. However, if stack testing at a site achieves 
lower FDLs, the lower FDLs determined for that stack test would be used 
for estimating emissions of expected, but not detected gases.
    The commenters stated that allowing facilities to use higher FDLs 
would not affect testing results in a significant way. One commenter 
provided a comparison of emissions based on stack test results by 
Intel, International Business Machines (IBM) and Texas Instruments 
Incorporated (TI) using different FDL assumptions (Docket ID. No EPA-
HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0095). The commenter asserted that, based on their 
analysis, the impact when accounting for five expected C1 and C2 by-
products is minor and does not change appreciably for the higher FDLs 
except in the case of one facility that had very low concentrations in 
the stacks resulting from the fact that facility's tools are fully 
abated.
    One commenter supported the proposed maximum FDLs, and agreed that 
FDLs should be lower for F-GHGs with higher GWPs.
    Response: The EPA acknowledges the industry commenters' concerns 
with respect to the proposed maximum FDLs. The FDL is the lowest 
concentration at which at which an F-GHG can be detected during a 
specific field measurement. The maximum allowed FDL is the 
concentration at which an F-GHG should be detectable when the method is 
conducted properly and the analytical instruments are used correctly 
and of reasonable quality. Maximum FDLs are specified to ensure that 
the field measurements of F-GHG emissions are of adequate quality and 
accuracy, and that the fraction of total emissions that are below the 
FDL (and which have to be assumed to be one-half the FDL) is minimized. 
As discussed in the proposed amendments (77 FR 63547), EPA Method 320 
requires the specification of maximum FDLs because the FDLs achieved by 
a method and analytical instruments can have a significant impact on 
the quality of the measurements. Maximum FDLs are necessary because if 
the FDL for a F-GHG is too high, it may capture a relatively large 
fraction of the fab's emissions of that F-GHG may occur at 
concentrations that are lower than what is detectable by the 
instrumentation. This results in the uncertainty of the emission 
estimates being correspondingly high. Due to this fact, the proposed 
amendments required that facilities must use FDLs that are less than or 
equal to the maximum FDLs in Table I-10 to reduce the uncertainty 
associated with the emissions estimates under the stack test method. 
The maximum FDLs in the proposed amendments were based on FDLs achieved 
at three different semiconductor facilities and an analysis of the 
magnitude of the emissions that would occur (in CO2e) at 
various possible maximum FDLs (see docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028-
0085, section 5.1.2). The proposed FDLs were generally, though not 
always, close to the average FDLs achieved across all three facilities 
that submitted FDL information to the EPA.
    The EPA acknowledges the industry commenters' assertion that two of 
the three facilities that submitted information on FDLs (see IBM, 
Intel, and TI test reports in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028) used 
enhanced FTIR technology during stack testing and that not all stack 
testing contractors have the capability to perform these enhanced FTIR 
measurements. The EPA re-analyzed the available information to assess 
the FDL levels that were achievable by the facilities using other 
accurate and well-maintained FTIR, including a facility that did not 
use enhanced FTIR. Upon review of the FDLs included in the three test 
reports, we determined that increasing the proposed FDLs by a factor of 
four increases the values to a level that should be consistently 
achievable by testers using FTIR equipment under EPA Method 320, even 
if the tester does not use enhanced FTIR techniques. At these levels 
(four times the proposed maximum FDLs), all of the three stack tests 
that were conducted in support of the proposed amendments comply with 
the final FDLs for each of the F-GHGs specified in Table I-10. In 
contrast, only two of the three facilities that submitted data would 
have been able to achieve FDLs that were equal to or lower than the 
proposed maximum FDLs. We anticipate that the FTIR equipment and 
techniques used by these three facilities are representative of what 
would be used by the field of reporters and represent accurate and 
well-maintained equipment and techniques in the industry. As a result, 
the EPA is promulgating revised FDL values in Table I-10 to subpart I 
that are equivalent to the proposed values multiplied by a factor of 
four. The EPA determined that it was not necessary to increase the 
maximum allowed FDLs by a factor of five, as suggested by the industry 
commenter, to establish levels that could be achieved by testing 
companies using EPA Method 320 because the analysis of data and 
information provided to EPA on this topic demonstrated that an increase 
by a factor of four represents the appropriate FDL values. The final 
FDLs achieve the necessary balance between achievable FDLs and minimum 
uncertainty in the emission measurements derived from stack testing.
    The EPA appreciates the support of the one commenter for the 
proposed maximum FDLs. However, as explained earlier in this response, 
the maximum FDLs were revised since proposal to a level that better 
reflects the FDLs that can be achieved by testing companies using the 
methods included in the final rule. The EPA would also like to clarify 
that the maximum FDLs that were included in the proposed and final rule 
were based primarily on the technical achievability of those levels. 
The GWP of the corresponding gases was used only to determine the 
overall effect on emissions (in CO2e) of the different 
maximum FDL, and it was observed that the achieved FDLs were lower for 
gases with higher GWPs that were also easier to detect (see EPA-HQ-OAQ-
2011-0028-0085, section 5.1.2).
    Comment: Two commenters supported the proposed provisions to allow 
facilities subject to Subpart I to use prior stack testing completed in 
support of rule development to establish initial emissions factors 
under the stack test alternative, as long as the tests were completed 
no earlier than the date 3 years before the date of publication of the 
final rule amendments. The commenters noted that stack testing at three 
facilities in support of the

[[Page 68184]]

proposed rule was completed in 2011. The commenters requested that the 
EPA clarify that all data collected during the calendar year 2011 
regardless of the month that the final rule is published will meet the 
``within 3-year'' criterion for pre-rule data collection.
    One commenter further explained that for testing conducted prior to 
the final rule, a fab may not have collected all required data elements 
and/or may not have collected all data elements in a manner consistent 
with all criteria in the final rule, and abatement systems may not have 
been certified in the 2011 testing as specified in the final rule. As a 
result, the commenter requested that the final rule be explicit that a 
fab may use prior stack test data to set emissions factors under the 
stack test alternative if the key substantive requirements were met, 
any deviations from the final rule are reported to the EPA and the EPA 
provides concurrence with the use of the data. The commenter stated 
that in evaluating whether to accept the earlier test results, the EPA 
should exercise its discretion to allow the use of data recorded during 
earlier testing, even if the procedures used do not match exactly what 
appears as a requirement in the final rule.
    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter's suggestions regarding 
the use of data collected in calendar year 2011 in the stack testing 
alternative. In the final amendments to subpart I, under 40 CFR 
98.94(j)(7), the EPA is clarifying that data collected on or after 
January 1, 2011 may be used in the relative standard deviation 
calculation in 40 CFR 98.94(j)(5)(ii) if the previous results were 
determined using a method meeting the requirements in paragraph 40 CFR 
98.94(j)(2). The EPA is also allowing reporters to use data collected 
on or after January 1, 2011 but before January 1, 2014, using a method 
that did not meet all the requirements of 40 CFR 98.94(j), on a case-
by-case basis, contingent on Administrator (or an authorized 
representative's) approval. Reporters would describe any deviations 
from the methods and provisions in the final rule and the EPA would 
review and approve or disapprove the use of those data in the stack 
testing alternative, according to a review procedure that is similar to 
that followed for review and approval of an alternative stack testing 
method specified in 40 CFR 98.94(k). However, this procedure does not 
require the use of EPA Method 301 to validate the prior test data. The 
EPA would retain the right to not approve the use of data that does not 
meet the data quality requirements in 40 CFR 98.94(j)(7). See 40 CFR 
98.94(j)(7) for more details regarding the use of data collected prior 
to the promulgation of the final amendments in the relative standard 
deviation calculation.
    Comment: One commenter asked the agency to reconsider its proposal 
to allow facilities to conduct multiple tests in a single year with the 
aim of demonstrating low variability and becoming exempt from annual 
testing. The commenter stated that given the magnitude and rate of 
change in the semiconductor industry, facilities should, at a minimum, 
be required to do annual tests for a period of 3 years before 
qualifying for an exemption of up to 5 years. The commenter expressed 
concern that the measured emission factors could be stable over a one-
year period but not over a three-year period.
    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that it is possible an 
emission factor determined from three tests in one year could be 
representative of a fab's emissions over a one-year period, but not 
over a three-year period. However, the types of factors that could 
affect the emissions over a three-year period, such that the emission 
factors developed from conducting three tests in one year are no longer 
representative, are likely to be the same types of factors that would 
trigger the requirements to perform a new test, as promulgated at 40 
CFR 98.94(j)(8). Therefore, it is unlikely that a reporter could 
substantially change a facility in such a way that the emissions would 
change substantially without triggering the requirement to perform a 
retest.
    If a facility is required to perform a re-test, the results of that 
test will not extend the date of the next scheduled test. If a facility 
is required to conduct a re-test, the facility must also use the data 
from the re-test and the two most recent previous stack tests to 
evaluate whether the facility still meets the criteria to skip annual 
testing. If the facility no longer meets those criteria, the facility 
must resume testing regardless of when the facility qualified to skip 
annual testing. The facility may perform annual testing or may perform 
multiple tests in a single year to collect sufficient new data to see 
if they again qualify to skip annual testing. Therefore, the option for 
facilities to perform multiple emissions tests within the same year 
would not allow facilities to use data that are not representative of 
current emissions, provided they adhere to the provisions in 40 CFR 
98.94(j)(5).
    Comment: One commenter agreed with the list of changes at a fab 
included in 40 CFR 98.94(j)(8) that trigger the requirement that a 
stack system be retested. The commenter suggested additional fab 
changes identified in the context of the triennial technology 
assessment report required under 40 CFR 98.96(y) that should also 
trigger retesting (e.g., implementation of new process technologies, 
introduction of new tool platforms, and introduction of new processes 
on existing platforms). Another commenter stated that potential new 
process technologies that would change the nature of the emissions of 
GHGs from semiconductor manufacturing would trigger one or more of the 
six triggers for retesting included in 40 CFR 98.94(j)(8). The second 
commenter predicted that the triggers that would most likely be 
affected by new process technologies would be the change in the 
consumption of a F-GHG by more than 10 percent of the total annual F-
GHG consumption (in CO2e), the change in the consumption of 
an intermittent low-use F-GHG, or a decrease by more than 10 percent in 
the fraction of process tools with abatement systems.
    Response: Based on the comments on the proposal, the EPA has 
concluded that the re-test triggers that were proposed and promulgated 
under 40 CFR 98.94(j)(8) are adequate to capture changes in fab 
emissions as a result of new process technologies, new tool platforms, 
and new processes on existing platforms. These types of changes are 
already accounted for by the criteria that that are specified in 40 CFR 
98.94(j)(8), and no new criteria have been added in the final rule. 
However, the EPA has included additional recordkeeping requirements in 
40 CFR 98.97 to verify compliance with the factors that would trigger a 
retest. Specifically, we are revising 40 CFR 98.97(i)(3) to require 
records of the identity and total annual consumption of each gas 
identified as an intermittent low use F-GHG, to verify any change in 
the consumption 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 definition of an 
intermittent low-use F-GHG. We are also adding a new provision at 40 
CFR 98.97(i)(9) to require records of the total number of tools at each 
stack in the fab which, along with the number of abatement systems, is 
needed to verify if a facility has 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.

[[Page 68185]]

2. Revisions to the Default Gas Utilization Rates and By-Product 
Formation Rates for the Plasma Etch Process Category for Facilities 
That Manufacture Semiconductors
    Comment: One commenter provided additional input on the merging of 
the default gas utilization and by-product formation rates for wafer 
clean and etch processes. The commenter provided data from industry 
publications for the total F-GHG usage for these processes. The 
commenter stated that wafer cleaning is between 0.8 and 2 percent of 
total 200 mm F-GHG usage. The commenter stated that five gases are used 
in 200 mm wafer cleaning. The commenter noted that four of the five 
gases are also used in 200 mm chamber cleaning and etch processes, and 
one gas is used in etch and wafer cleaning. The commenter asserted that 
because wafer cleaning is a low percentage of 200 mm F-GHG usage, 
combining wafer cleaning and etch processes will have a minor impact on 
the accuracy of the emissions estimates under Subpart I.
    Response: The EPA proposed to combine the etch and wafer cleaning 
categories, which could reduce the apportioning required of a facility 
and potentially reduce gas apportioning errors if the facility uses the 
same F-GHGs for wafer cleaning and etch. Facilities using 150 mm and 
200 mm wafers typically need to apportion three to five gases between 
the plasma etch and chamber cleaning process types/subtypes. As noted 
by the commenter, five gases are typically used in 200 mm wafer 
cleaning (C2F6, CF4, CHF3, 
NF3, and SF6) and each of these gases are also 
used in either the etch and/or chamber cleaning process types.
    The effect of gas apportioning errors on GHG emissions accuracy 
depends upon the difficulty of the gas apportionment by gas and process 
type/subtype. For example, no apportionment error would be present for 
gases used only in one process and little apportionment error would 
result if only small portions of gas use are allocated to processes 
other than the dominant one. The overall impact of apportioning on the 
accuracy of the GHG estimate depends on each gas's GWP value and its 
contribution to the total fab emissions. As noted in the preamble to 
the proposed amendments to subpart I (77 FR 63552), the gases used for 
plasma etch and wafer clean have similar gas utilization rates and by-
product formation rates. Furthermore, as provided in the ``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-2011-0028-0083) and supported in the 
data provided by commenters, wafer cleaning is expected to represent a 
small percentage of total gas consumption for facilities manufacturing 
wafers 200 mm or smaller. Because the gases used in wafer cleaning at 
200 mm facilities represent only a small portion of total fab 
emissions, the EPA does not anticipate that merging the etch and wafer 
clean subcategories will greatly impact the accuracy of GHG emission 
estimates. Therefore, the final rule will combine the wafer clean and 
etch process types for fabs using 150 and 200 mm diameter wafers. The 
final rule will also combine the wafer clean and etch process types for 
fabs using 300 and 450 mm diameter wafers.
    Comment: Several commenters supported the use of default gas 
utilization rates and by-product formation rates under subpart I. One 
commenter claimed that the method allows for the use of emissions 
factors and abatement efficiency factors that have been derived from 
extensive testing and provide the basis for high quality emissions 
estimates without disruptive testing in the fab environment where 
operating uptime is critical to the productivity of the fab. The 
commenter stated that much of the data used to derive the factors in 
the proposed rule came from the efforts of the semiconductor industry 
in advance of the proposed rule. The commenter noted that SIA and ISMI 
continued emissions factor data collection activities during settlement 
discussions to improve the representativeness of the emissions factor 
database.
    The commenter provided 168 additional gas utilization and by-
product formation rate data sets, noting that the data were provided by 
semiconductor process equipment suppliers and device manufacturers for 
200 mm and 300 mm plasma etch equipment. The commenter asserted that 
the 2012 data closed gaps in the emissions factor database and allowed 
for establishment of default emission factors for every gas used in 
semiconductor plasma etch processes, as identified in a 2011 ISMI 
survey. The commenter provided an analysis of the integrated database 
and the resulting emission factors (see Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-
0028-0095). The commenter further stated that a minimum of 23 data sets 
for each gas were used to develop emission factors for each gas that is 
1 percent or more of the total F-GHG usage for each wafer size. The 
commenter stated that the four gases with four or less data sets are 
either not used for etch or are much less than 0.1 percent of total F-
GHG usage for that wafer size.
    The commenter also provided a comparison of default emission 
factors based on the added data to the default emission factors in the 
2012 proposed rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0095). The commenter noted 
that when a large dataset was previously available to establish the 
proposed revised default emission factors, the addition of the 2012 
data did not appreciably change the proposed revised default factors. 
The commenter also provided a list of the revised default by-product 
emission factors for 200 mm and 300 mm etch based on the additional 
data (EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0095). The commenter noted that several by-
products, namely C5F8, CH3F, and 
CH2F2, that were not detected previously, were 
observed during this round of testing. The commenter reasoned that this 
may be the result of data being provided for tool and gas combinations 
that were not previously tested. The commenter suggested that these new 
by-products would have no discernible effect on reported emissions 
because the by-product emission factors are small and the GWPs of these 
gases are less than 200.
    Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for the additional data 
provided during the public comment period. The EPA incorporated the 
provided data into the existing etch process type emissions factor 
database to calculate new and revised gas utilization and by-product 
formation rates for the final rule. The EPA used the emission factor 
calculation methodology outlined in the proposed rule to evaluate the 
new and revised emission factors. Specifically, the EPA:
    (1) Used a simple arithmetic averaging method to develop default 
utilization and by-product emission factors by gas for the etch process 
type; and
    (2) Used the ``all inputs gas'' convention for assigning by-product 
formation rates (emission factors) for etch gases. This convention 
assigns by-product emissions to input F-GHGs used in a process by 
dividing the measured mass emitted of a specific by-product by the 
total mass of all input F-GHGs for that process and assigning this by-
product factor to each input F-GHG used in that process. This is the 
same approach used in developing the proposed revised emission factors 
in the 2012 proposed rule.
    For semiconductor manufacturing using 200 mm wafers, the data 
provided by the commenter added one gas utilization rate for 
semiconductor manufacturing for which no data were

[[Page 68186]]

previously available (for C5F8 as an input gas) 
and revised the utilization rates of nine F-GHGs. For semiconductor 
manufacturing using 300 mm wafers, the new data added two gas 
utilization rates, for C3F8 and CH3F, 
and revised the utilization rates of 10 F-GHGs.
    The new data also provided 75 revised by-product formation rates, 
including three new by-products not previously identified (for the by-
products C5F8, CH3F, and 
CH2F2).
    The EPA's analysis of the new emission factor data for input gases 
and by-product gases is included in the docket for the final rulemaking 
in the item entitled ``Technical Support for Final Modifications to the 
Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors and By-Product Formation 
Rates for Semiconductor Facilities under Subpart I'' (EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-
0028).
    Comment: A commenter noted that in the preamble to the proposed 
rule (77 FR 63551), the EPA asked for an explanation of the zeros in 
the data previously collected and provided by SIA and used by the EPA 
to calculate the default emissions factors. The commenter noted that 
because the data came from a wide range of sources, the commenter 
cannot be certain of the basis of the zero entries in the data base. 
The commenter suggested that the zeros most likely mean that a gas was 
not present above the detection limit achieved during the test, but 
there is a small chance that the tester did not look for the gas. The 
commenter stated that in the interest of conservative emissions 
reporting, they agree that it is appropriate to err on the ``high 
side'' by determining by-product factors only using the non-zero 
results. The commenter stated that the default factors would be less if 
the zeros were included in determining the average emissions factor and 
that it is likely that the default by-product emissions factors would 
also be lower if the zeros were included at half the detection limit, 
using the practice proposed by the EPA for measuring the presence of 
certain gases when implementing the stack alternative. The commenter 
stated however, that it is not possible to do so for the default by-
product emissions factors based on the data collected by the commenter 
because the field detection limits (FDLs) for each test were not 
previously collected. For these reasons, the commenter recommended that 
the EPA retain the approach used in the proposed rule for determining 
default by-product emissions factors from the available data.
    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter on the method for 
averaging the available by-product emission factor data and with the 
likely basis for the zeros in the data collected. The EPA considered 
averaging the available emissions data using either the zeros in the 
available data or half the detection limit for the by-product gas if 
the data gatherer looked for, but did not detect, by-product emissions. 
However, because it is not apparent that the basis of the zeros in the 
data represent instances where a by-product was looked for, but not 
detected, and because the field detection limits for each test were not 
previously collected, the EPA agrees with the commenter that the 
averaging approach used in the proposed amendments to subpart I is 
appropriate. In determining revised default by-product emission factors 
for the final rule, the EPA used the simple arithmetic mean of all 
available non-zero by-product emission factor data for each gas, wafer 
size, and process-type or subtype using the revised etch emissions 
database. If additional by-product emission factor data are made 
available to the EPA in the future, and those data include instances 
where a by-product was looked for, but not detected, and field 
detection limits are provided, the EPA may reassess the by-product 
emission factor calculation methodology.
    Comment: One commenter stated that Equation I-15b should be 
eliminated. The commenter stated that the calculated abatement unit 
uptime for the process gases for which the abatement system is 
certified for treatment is the same for by-product treatment. The 
commenter further noted that where the unit is not effective for one or 
more of the by-product gases, it will not be certified to treat that 
gas and the DRE will be zero, and where a unit has a lower uptime for a 
subset of the certified gases, that lower, gas specific uptime would be 
applied to applicable by-product gas(es). The commenter stated that 
companies will have abatement uptime data organized by input gas type, 
and the uptime for the input gases will match the uptime for the by-
product gases. The commenter contended that there is no need to perform 
a separate calculation of abatement system uptime for by-product gases, 
and enabling companies to calculate uptime by the combination of input 
and by-product gas would simplify calculations and recordkeeping while 
not reducing the accuracy of the uptime data.
    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that only a single 
uptime equation is needed and has removed Equation I-15b from the final 
rule, and modified Equation I-15a (Equation I-15 in the final rule) so 
that it is applicable to both abatement systems treating input gases 
and by-product gases.
    In developing the proposed rule amendments, the EPA developed 
separate equations under the assumption that the population of 
abatement systems treating a particular input gas could be different 
from the population of abatement systems treating a by-product gas 
because not all input gas and process combinations create the same by-
product gases. However, the uptime calculated by Equations I-15a and I-
15b is used in Equations I-8 and I-9, respectively, and in those latter 
two equations, emissions are tied to the consumption of the same input 
gas, Cij. Therefore, uptime only needs to be calculated for the 
abatement systems receiving the input gas, Cij, and separate uptime 
does not need to be calculated for the by-product gas. As the commenter 
correctly notes, where an abatement system is not certified for the 
treatment of a particular by-product gas from an input gas, the DRE for 
that gas will be zero, and the uptime of the system will be irrelevant.
    The EPA has also made the other conforming changes in other 
sections of the final rule to remove the references to Equation I-15b 
as noted by the commenter.
3. Apportioning Model Verification for Facilities that Manufacture 
Electronics
    Comment: One commenter noted that in the proposed amendments at 40 
CFR 98.94(c)(2)(iv), the period of representative gas consumption used 
to verify the apportioning model when using the stack method would be 
required to end exactly on the day that stack testing is completed. The 
commenter noted that most gas use accounting is managed on a monthly 
basis, so it would not be practical to end the period on the same day 
that testing is completed. The commenter suggested that the rule should 
allow the apportioning model to be validated over a period that ends 
between the first and last day of the accounting month(s) in which the 
stack testing takes place because this would simplify the data 
collection for locations without significantly affecting the accuracy 
of the gas use estimates used in the verification. The commenter noted 
that 40 CFR 98.94(c)(2)(i), which is referenced by 40 CFR 
98.94(c)(2)(iv), allows the representative period to be `` . . . at 
least 30 days but not more than the reporting year.'' Enabling 
locations to use an end date within the accounting month, instead of 
tying it to the last day of stack testing, would simplify the data 
collection without

[[Page 68187]]

introducing error, particularly if the verification period is more than 
90 days. The gas usage accounting systems at some semiconductor 
facilities are based on accounting months (e.g., 13-4 week months) 
rather than calendar months. The commenter asked that 40 CFR 
98.94(c)(2)(iv) be revised to allow that the time period specified in 
40 CFR 98.94(c)(2)(i) ends on a day between the first and last day of 
the accounting month for the period that includes the last day the 
facility performs stack testing, or that is a defined period ending on 
the last day of sampling event.
    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that it is reasonable 
that the period selected for apportioning model verification, when a 
facility is using the stack testing method, should be allowed to 
coincide with the accounting period used at the fab for normally 
tracking gas consumption, and should not be tied to the day on which 
testing is completed. The EPA's proposal was intended to ensure that 
the representative period selected to validate the apportioning model 
coincided with the period during which the stack testing was being 
performed to ensure that gas consumption during stack testing was being 
estimated as accurately as possible. The commenter's suggested change 
to 40 CFR 98.94(c)(2)(iv) would achieve the same objective and would 
also be consistent with the facility's normal accounting periods for 
gas usage.
4. Calculating N2O Emissions for Facilities That Manufacture 
Electronics
    Table I-8 of subpart I provides two default N2O emission 
factors. One factor is for CVD processes using N2O, and the 
other is for the aggregate of all other N2O-using 
electronics manufacturing processes. The EPA proposed to revise the 
default N2O emission factor in Table I-8 of subpart I for 
the aggregate of the ``other'' (non-CVD) N2O-using 
manufacturing processes (77 FR 63560). The current default emission 
factor is 1.0 kg of N2O emitted per kg of N2O 
consumed. The proposed emission factor was 1.14 kg of N2O 
emitted per kg of N2O consumed, and represented an average 
of the stack emission factors for N2O (total N2O 
emissions/total N2O consumption) measured in nine tests at 
three fabs. (See EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0084, section 5, for a summary of 
the data used to develop the proposed default emission factor.) The EPA 
did not propose to revise the N2O emission factor for CVD 
processes. The EPA specifically sought comment on the existing data and 
analysis supporting the proposed emission factor, and requested 
additional data and analysis. The preamble noted that the average 
N2O emissions from the stack testing appeared to be greater 
than the N2O consumption and, as a result, the emission 
factor is greater than 1.0. The preamble also noted that the proposed 
emission factor was based on emissions associated with total 
N2O consumption, rather than just emissions and consumption 
data associated with non-CVD applications (which were not available to 
the EPA). Thus, the EPA noted at proposal that when these data were 
applied only to non-CVD N2O consumption, they may not have 
fully compensated for the unknown N2O source that resulted 
in an emission factor greater than 1.0, and that EPA did not have an 
explanation for the apparent creation of N2O. The preamble 
requested comment on the existing data and analysis supporting the 
proposed revised default emission factor, and noted that the EPA would 
consider new information and data submitted by commenters in developing 
the final default emission factor.
    Comment: No commenters offered an explanation for the apparent 
creation of N2O reflected by the average N2O 
emission factor greater than 1.0, nor did any commenters provide any 
additional N2O emission factor data.
    Two commenters recommended that the N2O process 
categories should be aligned with the F-GHG categories to ensure 
consistency and reduce the potential for confusion. The commenters 
suggested that the use of the term CVD (chemical vapor deposition) in 
the current rule does not align with the established process categories 
of chamber clean and/or plasma etch/wafer cleaning. The commenters 
proposed that the EPA replace the terms ``chemical vapor deposition'' 
or ``CVD'' where they appear in Section 98.93(b)(1) and Table I-8 with 
the following phrase: ``processes associated with the chamber clean 
process type.'' The commenters noted that N2O is sometimes 
used in the deposition processes associated with the in-situ, remote, 
and thermal chamber cleaning tools and recipes, and suggested that the 
application of N2O in these circumstances is very similar 
and the utilization rates are consistent. The commenters suggested that 
the EPA should continue to categorize those N2O-using 
processes that do not fall into the processes associated with the 
chamber clean process type as ``other manufacturing processes.''
    Response: The EPA did not receive any new N2O emission 
factor data that can be used to resolve the uncertainties associated 
with the data used to develop the proposed emission factor for the 
other N2O-using manufacturing processes of 1.14 kg of 
N2O emitted per kg of N2O consumed. As stated 
above, at proposal the EPA had data from nine tests of N2O 
emission rates from three fabs owned by two companies. Six measurements 
were from one fab, two measurements were from a second fab, and one 
measurement was from a third fab. The second and third fab were owned 
by the same company. In four of the nine measurements, N2O 
emissions were greater than N2O consumption, and the 
emission factors were highly variable both within and across fabs, 
ranging from 0.34 to 1.89 kg emitted per kg consumed. The EPA could not 
explain the cause of the emission factors that are greater than 1.0. 
Given the highly variable nature of the measured emission factor data, 
the small number of tests, and the lack of information on the specific 
processes represented by those data, the EPA is not confident that 
those data accurately represent emissions from non-CVD processes used 
in electronics manufacturing. Therefore, the EPA is not finalizing the 
proposed change to the emission factor that was based on those data. 
The N2O emission factors will remain as they are in the 
current Table I-8 of subpart I. The emission factor for CVD will remain 
at 0.8 and for all other N2O using processes at 1.0 kg of 
N2O emitted per kg of N2O consumed. The EPA does 
not have, at this time, a sufficient amount of data to support any 
changes to these emission factors.
    The EPA is also not accepting the suggestion at this time to revise 
the N2O categories in Table I-8 of subpart I to include CVD 
and chamber clean under a single category of ``processes associated 
with the chamber clean process type.'' The EPA does not have data at 
this time to demonstrate that the utilization rates in the deposition 
processes associated with the in-situ, remote, and thermal cleaning 
process types are similar to those in the CVD process type and should, 
therefore, be combined into a single category.
    The EPA will continue to work with industry to understand these 
N2O-emitting processes and to gather additional data and 
information for potential future revisions. One potential avenue for 
gathering information and data will be through the triennial technology 
assessment report specified in 40 CFR 98.96(y), although the EPA may 
accept new data at any time they are available.

[[Page 68188]]

5. Abatement System Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE) for 
Facilities That Manufacture Electronics
    Comment: One commenter suggested revising the definition of 
abatement system to clarify which abatement systems are covered under 
the requirements in Subpart I as follows: ``Abatement system means a 
device or equipment that is designed to destroy or remove F-GHGs and 
N2O in waste exhaust streams from one or more electronics 
manufacturing production processes.''
    The commenter explained that there are abatement units installed in 
fabs for purposes other than GHG abatement, including but not limited 
to solids removal, pyrophoric destruction, and volatile organic 
compound (VOC) emissions control. The commenter noted that under the 
current rule language, it appears that if any of the regulated GHGs are 
exhausted to these units, one is technically required to manage them 
under the requirements of Subpart I. These types of units are not 
designed for F-GHG treatment and any treatment which does occur is 
incidental and would not be capable of being certified under the rule 
requirements. The commenter stated that inclusion of the ``designed 
to'' phrase clarifies that only systems designed to treat F-gas 
emissions are covered by the requirements of the regulation.
    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter and has revised the 
definition of abatement system as suggested by the commenter. However, 
in response to other comments, the EPA has also revised the definition 
to include abatement systems for which the F-GHG or N2O DRE 
has been measured according to 40 CFR 98.94(f). The EPA recognizes that 
some systems that were not specifically designed for F-GHG or 
N2O abatement may still achieve substantial F-GHG or 
N2O abatement for certain gases and some facilities may wish 
to account for this abatement in calculating emissions.
    The EPA notes that only data from abatement systems that were 
specifically designed to abate F-GHG or N2O emissions were 
used to develop the final default DREs. As a result, those default DREs 
will be applied only to those systems specifically designed to abate F-
GHGS or N2O, as appropriate, under the requirements of 
subpart I.
    To account for abatement systems that may have been installed to 
abate other gases, such as volatile organic compounds or hazardous air 
pollutants, but achieve some level of F-GHG abatement, the final rule 
will also allow facilities to account for the DRE of systems if a site-
specific DRE has been measured as specified in 40 CFR 98.94(f).
    Because the final rule allows facilities to account for the DRE of 
systems that are specifically designed for F-GHG or N2O 
abatement, and for those for which a site-specific DRE has been 
measured, including those that were not designed for F-GHG or 
N2O abatement, the definition of abatement system in the 
final rule has been modified to account for both situations.
    In each situation, facilities will be required to certify these 
systems according to the applicable requirements of 40 CFR 98.94(f), 
include these systems in the abatement system inventory included in the 
annual report (40 CFR 98.96(q)), and meet the recordkeeping 
requirements of 40 CFR 98.97 for abatement systems.
    Comment: One commenter noted that the abatement system count in a 
particular gas and process type will change over time. The commenter 
asserted that a change in the number of systems may lead to uncertainty 
in the number of abatement systems that should be included in the 
random sampling abatement system testing program specified in 40 CFR 
98.94(f)(4)(ii)(A). In the proposed rule amendments, the facility must 
test 20 percent of systems in a given gas and process combination in 
the first 2 years (a minimum of 10 percent per year until reaching a 
minimum of 20 percent), and at least 15 percent in each following 3-
year period (a minimum of five percent per year until reaching at least 
15 percent). The commenter requested that the final rule clarify the 
number that should be used as the basis for the percentages and 
suggested that it should be based on the number present at the time the 
testing begins for the given period of the testing. The commenter 
explained that if five percent are tested a year and units are added or 
removed between that year and the next, that round of testing still 
counts as five percent.
    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that the final rule 
should clarify the number of abatement systems to be tested on a yearly 
basis, because the abatement system count for a particular gas and 
process type could change over time. The final rule specifies that 
reporters determine the number of abatement systems to be tested based 
on the average number present over the period required to test the 
minimum percent of systems for a gas and process type. For example, if 
a facility completes testing of the minimum 15 percent in a single year 
instead of three years, then the number tested would be based on the 
systems present in that year. If testing were completed over 3 years, 
the number tested would be determined based on the average number in 
that three year period. If a facility adds abatement systems during 
that time, they may need to increase the number tested in the second or 
third year to meet the minimum for the 3-year average. If a facility 
tested the minimum of 15 percent in 1 year, and then added systems in 
years 2 and 3, the higher number of systems would be accounted for in 
the number to be tested in the next 3-year period.
    We are not adopting the commenter's suggestion that reporters 
should determine the number of abatement systems to be tested for the 
3-year period based only on the count at the beginning of testing. 
Allowing a facility to use only the number of abatement systems at the 
beginning of the period may result in a non-representative site-
specific DRE for a particular gas and process type/sub-type 
combination, especially if a facility began a program of adding 
substantial numbers of abatement systems after the first year of the 
RSASTP. Facilities that have not completed testing when abatement 
systems are added must include those abatement systems in determining 
the number to be tested. For example, if a facility installs abatement 
systems in years 2 or 3, and is still testing DRE in those years, then 
the number of systems tested must be adjusted to reflect the increased 
number of systems. However, if testing of 15 percent of systems is 
already completed for that 3-year period, the facility does not need to 
resume testing to account for the change in percentages. If a facility 
has completed testing for that period and then installs abatement 
systems for a gas and process combination that was not included in the 
testing, the facility would have the option of testing the DRE for that 
newly abated gas and process combination, or using the default DRE 
until that gas and process combination is included in the next round of 
testing.
    Comment: One commenter requested that the EPA add a sentence to the 
end of 40 CFR 98.94(f)(4)(iii) to clarify that all DRE test data 
collected in 2011, or later, will qualify for use in determining site 
specific DREs for the locations where the testing occurred.
    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter regarding the use of 
data collected in calendar year 2011. In the final rule under 40 CFR 
98.94(f)(4)(iii), the EPA is clarifying that data collected on or after 
January 1, 2011 may be used

[[Page 68189]]

in the average DRE calculation if the previous results were obtained 
following the requirements in 40 CFR 98.94(f)(4)(i).
    Comment: One commenter suggested changes to the provisions under 40 
CFR 98.94(f)(4)(v) regarding the use of a DRE value below the 
manufacturer-claimed DRE measured when the abatement system is not 
installed, operated, or maintained in accordance with the site 
maintenance plan. The commenter proposed two options:
    (1) Include the measured DRE for the unit in the calculation of the 
site-specific DRE for the gas and process combination. The measured DRE 
for that unit must be included in the site-specific DRE average until 
corrective action is completed and the abatement system is retested. 
Corrective action must be completed in a reasonable time, but retesting 
can be deferred to the next testing period. Any affected abatement 
units that are being re-tested must be in addition to the randomly 
selected minimum sample for that testing period, or
    (2) Exclude the measured DRE for that unit in the site-specific DRE 
average until corrective action is completed and the abatement system 
is retested. However, in that instance the abatement system will be 
treated as down for purposes of calculating abatement system uptime 
until the retest is completed.
    The commenter claimed that allowing inclusion of the lower DRE in 
the site-specific average would enable a facility to choose whether it 
wants to accept a lower DRE for its site-specific value for a given gas 
(even though a low DRE value will have an inordinate impact on the 
site-specific DRE because the average is based on measurements from 35 
percent of the units), or whether the facility wants to manage its 
uptime number for different units. The commenter stated that the 
benefit of choosing the lower DRE is being able to maintain a 
consistent uptime across all the gases, simplifying management of the 
calculations.
    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that facilities should 
have the flexibility to either include or exclude DRE data from a 
system that is operating outside the established parameters for that 
system and not meeting the definition of ``operational mode'' in 40 CFR 
98.98. However, the EPA disagrees with the commenter's implication that 
the facility can treat that system as meeting the definition of 
operational mode, even if it is not, for the purposes of calculating 
uptime. If a facility has abatement systems that are operating outside 
the established parameters and not meeting the definition of 
``operational mode'', the facility must treat that system as being 
``down'' for purposes of calculating uptime and emissions, even if the 
facility is using the lower measured DRE in calculating an average 
measured DRE. This approach would allow a facility to use a lower DRE 
value and avoid the expense of immediately repeating a system's DRE 
measurement, but it would also recognize that facilities should not 
treat an abatement system as meeting the definition of ``operational 
mode'' when it is operating outside established parameters and could 
have variable and unpredictable performance. Therefore, in both 
situations suggested by the commenter, the final rule requires that the 
facility treat the system as being down for purposes of calculating 
uptime until the system operation is restored to the established 
parameters and it is meeting the definition of operational mode.
    The EPA also agrees with the commenter that some facilities may 
complete the testing needed to establish measured average DRE values in 
the first or second year of each three year period, and would not be 
required to perform any additional DRE testing until the start of the 
next three-year period. The final rule has been revised since proposal 
to allow a facility to postpone retesting of the affected unit with low 
DRE until the next required testing period, instead of the next 
reporting year.
    Comment: One commenter (an industry organization) stated that it 
and its member companies have worked at considerable expense to 
generate an extensive DRE test database, in support of this rule, so 
that accurate default DREs could be incorporated into the rule. The 
commenter noted that the additional data they collected increased the 
number of fabs contributing data and the representativeness of the data 
across the installed base of systems inventoried, compared to the data 
available to develop the default DREs that were in the proposed 
amendments.
    The commenter provided a summary of the member companies' abatement 
system inventory and the number of individual abatement devices that 
have been tested in support of the alternative default DRE calculations 
proposed by the commenter. The commenter contended that the EPA should 
not utilize any data from devices that were not designed to abate F-GHG 
or N2O in the EPA assessment of abatement device performance 
and the determination of default DREs for the final rule.
    The commenter further explained that the testing represented a 
substantial fraction of the installed base of devices at the companies 
responding to a 2011 survey of industry association member companies. 
The survey referenced by the commenter included results from five 
companies representing nine facilities and approximately 50 percent of 
the estimated number of abatement systems in U.S. fabs, based on a 2010 
ISMI survey.\4\ The commenter noted that although the testing is 
predominantly of one manufacturer's devices (i.e., greater than 95 
percent of DRE measurements), this is representative because the U.S. 
industry's installed base is predominantly that same manufacturer's 
devices. The commenter explained that in a statistical sense, the 
sample of devices tested exceeds the usual 10 percent threshold at 
which a sample is deemed ``large'' and brings into play the ``finite 
sample correction'' for variance, meaning that the sample is more than 
a statistical representation and has begun to enumerate the population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The survey results were reported on page 2 of EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0028-0045, SIA Briefing Paper on abatement Issues: Destruction 
Removal Efficiency (DRE), January 10, 2012. Submitted as part of 
settlement documents for SIA v. EPA (D.C. cir. No. 1024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter stated that the revised default DREs in the proposed 
rule were based primarily on the results of testing carried out by SIA 
members and their contractors. The information was provided to the EPA 
and used to develop the revised defaults in the proposed rule 
amendments. The commenter noted that since that initial submittal, SIA 
members have carried out additional testing and collected additional 
test results. The supplemental data reflect an additional 208 tests of 
POU abatement device performance, including 143 new tests of etch gas 
abatement and 65 new tests of NF3 abatement in chamber 
cleaning. The complete data set with the initial data and the 
additional data represents three companies and nine different fabs, 
similar to the previously submitted data. The commenter provided the 
additional data, as well as a detailed analysis, as attachments to 
their comment letter, which are available in the docket (docket item 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0095).
    The commenter also noted that they were not able to use the EPA 
data collection template for new DRE test results because much of the 
data gathering had either been completed or was underway before the 
template was provided in the docket to the proposed rule. The commenter 
stated that they had already begun using an alternative template based 
on the data template SIA

[[Page 68190]]

used to provide data to the EPA previously. The commenter provided the 
DRE data in an attachment to their comment letter and claimed that the 
information in the attachment was sufficient to assess the 
applicability and usefulness of the data while avoiding the 
confidentiality issues inherent in the template the EPA provided.
    Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for the additional DRE data 
and appreciates the effort expended to generate the DRE test database. 
We acknowledge the similarities between the EPA data request sheet and 
the SIA template and have accepted the data provided as meeting the 
EPA's information needs. We have evaluated the additional data provided 
and have incorporated the data into the existing abatement device 
inventory to develop the default DRE factors in Table I-16 of the final 
rule. The default DRE factors in the final rule are based on an 
analysis of the average DREs from 343 performance tests, including 11 
data points from the EPA's DRE dataset from the Technical Support 
Document for Process Emissions from Electronics Manufacture (Revised 
November 2010), 125 tests provided to the EPA from SIA after the 
finalization of the December 2010 subpart I rule, and the 207 tests 
provided to the EPA by SIA during the public comment period for this 
rulemaking.
    EPA agrees with the commenter that data collected from abatement 
devices that are not designed to abate F-GHGs should not be included in 
the DRE testing database, and the EPA has not considered these data in 
the development of the default DREs in the final rule. The EPA agrees 
with the commenter that it is inappropriate to include devices that 
only incidentally abate F-GHGs and N2O in the calculation of 
default DREs, as these devices are unlikely to have the same emissions 
reductions as systems specifically designed to abate F-GHGs. For the 
same reason, we have revised 40 CFR 98.94(f)(3) such that facilities 
may take credit for abatement using the default DREs only if they can 
certify that the abatement systems were specifically designed to abate 
F-GHGs or N2O and have a site maintenance plan that includes 
the manufacturer's recommendations and specifications for installation, 
operation, and maintenance for each abatement system. However, the 
final rule also allows facilities to use measured site-specific DREs to 
account for emission reductions from systems that were not specifically 
designed to abate F-GHGs or N2O.
    The EPA remains interested in obtaining more information about 
whether the abatement system data are fully representative of the 
abatement system technologies currently installed in the U.S. industry. 
As discussed in the next response to comment, the EPA generally agrees 
with the commenter's conclusion that the data provided are 
representative of the facilities required to report under subpart I. 
The EPA intends to collect and review additional data to improve the 
DRE database in the future. The EPA's analysis of the DRE data provided 
by the commenter and the method used to calculate the default DREs in 
the final rule are discussed in the response to the next comment.
    Comment: Several commenters disagreed with the EPA's method for 
calculating the default DRE factors that were included in the proposed 
rule. The EPA calculated the proposed default DRE factors as the 
arithmetic mean DRE value for a gas and process combination, minus two 
standard deviations of the population.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ p. 3 of Technical Support for Accounting for Destruction or 
Removal Efficiency for Electronics Manufacturing Facilities under 
Subpart I, EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0082.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters proposed an alternative method for calculating 
default DRE factors. The commenters claimed that the suggested approach 
is conservative, mirrors the approach SIA used in the facility level 
error analysis for emissions factors (see docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-
0028-0074, section 3.4.1), and recognizes that the number of individual 
devices in a typical fab is an important determinant of variability. 
The commenter provided data from an industry association survey on the 
number of abatement systems used at each fab for each gas and process 
type. The commenter's approach attempted to estimate the lowest average 
DRE value that any fab could be expected to achieve (``lowest fab-
average''). Specifically, it placed the default DRE at the bottom of 
the distribution of fab averages, by discounting two standard 
deviations below the observed fab-average DRE. It is important to note 
the standard deviation used by the commenter is one that described the 
combined variation of fab-averages and the variation of devices, unlike 
the EPA method that used only the standard deviation of individual 
device performance (i.e., the population of all devices).
    The commenters stated that fab-level averages should be the basis 
of emissions reporting because no fab has just one POU device, and 
site-specific DREs developed under the rule would be applied as fab-
averages. They stated that discounting the default to the lowest 
expected fab-average would still fully protect against the risk of 
under-estimating emissions in reporting due to a default DRE that is 
too high. The commenters suggested that the majority of fabs would have 
a higher average and would still have an incentive and mechanism to 
obtain site-specific DREs.
    The commenters asserted that their approach uses a well-accepted 
statistical methodology called Components of Variance Analysis to model 
the variance in the DRE data and separately identify the variation in 
the average DRE among fabs versus the variation in DRE among individual 
devices in a fab. The variance components method applies a random 
effects model to the data for the purpose of identifying the sources of 
variance in a sample and making inferences regarding the size 
(magnitude) of each source of variance. A random effects model is used 
because it is unknown in advance whether a particular fab or device is 
above or below the average for fabs or for devices within the fab. The 
commenter provided references for background information on the 
components of variance analysis.
    The commenter provided a detailed description of their approach and 
a summary of default DREs calculated using their approach and compared 
to the EPA's proposed default values.\6\ The commenter contended that 
for each gas and process combination, the alternative defaults were 
conservative representations of the average performance of abatement 
devices in the test data because, by design, they targeted the fab with 
the lowest average DRE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0095.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter urged the EPA to reconsider its method for 
discounting the available data to develop default DRE values. The 
commenter recommended that the EPA adopt their procedure documented in 
their comment letter and establish revised default DREs comparable to 
their developed alternative DREs for the following reasons:
    (1) The EPA method of default DRE calculation in the proposed rule 
was overly conservative because it discounted for the entire 
variability of individual device performance that resulted from the 
varied operating conditions existing in a semiconductor manufacturing 
fab. The commenter claimed their method is designed to discount to a 
similar degree, but only for the variability that exists in fab-average 
DREs.
    (2) In determining the average DRE for a fab, the individual device 
variability is attenuated by the large number of

[[Page 68191]]

abatement devices in service in each fab. As with the variability in 
the emissions factors, considering the large number of individual 
devices in an abated fab brings the overall fab average DRE much closer 
to the overall average of the entire database.
    (3) For all of the gas/process type combinations, the alternative 
default DREs developed using the commenters' recommended approach are 
less than the average DREs observed in the majority of the fabs that 
provided testing, demonstrating sufficient conservatism to prevent an 
under-estimation of emissions when the alternative default DREs are 
used in reporting. While they are higher than the default DREs in the 
proposed rule, the commenters stated they are designed to represent the 
fab with the lowest average DRE. They stated that very few fabs would 
have lower average DREs and, due to the expense of testing, fabs would 
not obtain site-specific DREs in all cases where their actual DREs are 
higher. The commenter asserted that by using their default DREs, 
reported GHG emissions would not be understated.
    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenters' proposed ``Components 
of Variance Analysis'' averaging method for developing the default DREs 
in Table I-16 of the proposed rule. The EPA acknowledges that the 
averaging method used in the proposed rule may result in a lower 
default DRE than may be present at fabs using many individual abatement 
devices. This approach was used in the development of the proposed rule 
based on the limitations in the information available at the time of 
the proposed rulemaking. About 95 percent of the data available for the 
proposed DRE values came from systems from a single manufacturer, and 
the EPA was concerned that the data might not be representative of the 
performance of other device manufacturers. However, for the 2011 data 
reporting year, 50 facilities reported GHG emissions to the EPA under 
subpart I. Of those 50 facilities, 17 reported having abatements 
systems and the vast majority of those 17 reported abatement systems 
from the same manufacturer. Only four facilities with abatement systems 
had no systems from the manufacturer that represented greater than 95 
percent of the DRE test data points. Therefore, the EPA generally 
agrees with the commenter's conclusion that the data provided are 
representative of the facilities required to report under subpart I 
that have abatement systems. In addition, as noted in comments earlier 
in this section, the EPA received additional data during the public 
comment period that was incorporated into the DRE database. The 
expanded data provide average DREs from 343 performance tests. This 
more robust dataset provides greater confidence for the establishment 
of default DREs for specific gas and process types/subtypes.
    The EPA agrees that the approach recommended by the commenters is a 
valid statistical method that will account for the variance in the 
average DRE from each fab in addition to the variance in the average 
DRE from individual devices in each fab. The EPA also agrees with the 
commenter that this approach is more appropriate for the final rule 
than the approach used at proposal because the survey data provided by 
the commenter and the results of the 2011 GHGRP reporting year have 
demonstrated that the large majority of abatement systems in use are 
from the same manufacturer for which the majority of the data were 
collected. Therefore, the EPA's concerns with the representativeness of 
the DRE data documented at proposal have been largely addressed by the 
data received in the public comments and by the results of the 2011 
annual GHG reports. The EPA remains interested in working with industry 
stakeholders to develop a more robust DRE dataset that includes all 
abatement system manufacturers.
    The approach recommended by commenters takes the average minus two 
times the standard deviation of the average observed DRE (See Docket 
Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0095). The standard deviation used is one 
that describes the variation of fab-averages. The method first 
discounts the observed average for the standard deviation among fabs, 
and places the default at the bottom of the statistical distribution 
for the lowest fab-average, then accounts for the effect of individual 
device performance. As noted by the commenter, using the recommended 
approach, the calculated DREs represent the fab with the lowest average 
DRE, which still results in a conservative estimate. The EPA agrees 
that this approach is appropriate and has adopted the method to 
determine the default DREs for each gas and process type/subtype in the 
final rule. In cases where no new data were received (e.g., for 
N2O using processes and other F-GHGs not listed), we have 
retained the default DRE in the current subpart I of 60 percent, as 
described in Table 3 to the preamble to the proposed amendments (see 77 
FR 63563). The following table shows the sample size, mean, standard 
deviation, and the calculated default DRE for each gas and process type 
using the final expanded dataset.

                 Table 3--Summary of Calculated Default DRE Where Additional Data Were Provided
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Standard deviations       Calculated DRE
                                  Number of data                 --------------------------------      (using
        Gas/process type              points           Mean                                       components  of
                                     available                         Fabs           Devices        variance
                                                                                                     analysis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Etch
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CF4.............................              66           83.56            0.0            18.31            75.4
CH3F............................               4           99.24            0.0             0.93            98.4
CHF3............................              43           99.10            0.69            1.14            97.4
CH2F2...........................              30           98.74            0.62            1.59            96.8
C2F6............................               5           98.84            1.85            0.50            95.1
C4F6............................               9           98.55            0.0             2.54            96.3
C4F8............................              24           98.50            0.75            1.69            96.4
C5F8............................               1           96.59          n/a             n/a               96.6
SF6.............................              20           98.69            0.66            1.01            97.2
NF3.............................              31           98.51            0.0             4.20            96.3
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Chamber Clean
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 68192]]

 
NF3 (All sub-types combined)....             110           93.32            1.83            9.38            87.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, as described in the response to another comment in this 
section of the preamble, the EPA is including in the final rule a 
single combined default DRE value for all carbon-based F-GHG used in 
the etch process, other than CF4, instead of individual DRE 
values.
    The EPA also notes that the final rule provides provisions for 
gathering additional DRE performance data in future years for updating 
and revising the default DREs (see 40 CFR 98.96(y)). The EPA would 
consider additional data that is representative of other abatement 
system designs and manufacturers for update of the default DREs, when 
those data become available.
    The final rule also provides for facilities who do not wish to use 
the default DREs for reporting purposes by including the option to 
perform site-specific DRE testing. We have revised the final rule to 
clarify that facilities have the option to develop site specific DREs 
for specific gas and process combinations on a fab-basis, while also 
using default DREs for other gas and process combinations. These final 
rule options allow flexibility and reduce burden for facilities who 
wish to reflect the emission reductions from abatement systems for 
reporting purposes.
    Comment: One commenter asked that EPA revisit the conclusion that a 
lack of DRE data for C3F8 and 
C5F8 requires that they be subject to default DRE 
factors of 60 percent. The current data set includes one DRE value for 
C5F8 and no DRE values for 
C3F8. The commenter noted that the chemistry of 
C3F8 is very similar to 
C2F6 because both are fully fluorinated 
molecules, although C3F8 will be more amenable to 
abatement because of weaker molecular bonds associated with its 
additional carbon atom when compared to C2F6. 
Because of the similarity, the commenter stated the 
C2F6 DRE data should be recognized as applicable 
to C3F8.
    The commenter made a similar argument for 
C5F8, and compared it to 
C4F8 with an average DRE of 98.5 percent, and 
also noted the one DRE measurement for C5F8 of 
96.6 percent.
    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that for these two 
compounds, the availability of DRE data for similar compounds justifies 
the use of a higher default DRE than the 60 percent included in the 
current rule and in the proposed amendments. The 
C3F8 and C5F8 compounds are 
more amenable to combustion than the C2F6 and 
C4F8, respectively, because of the presence of 
the additional carbon atom in the case of C3F8, 
and the presence of an additional carbon and the C=C double bond in the 
case of C5F8. Therefore, the same default DREs 
for C2F6 and C4F8 can be 
applied to C3F8 and C5F8, 
respectively (See Table 4 of this preamble).
    Comment: One commenter asked that the EPA consider a single shared 
DRE value for the carbon-based etch gases (besides CF4) to 
simplify calculations. The commenter noted that based on the 
commenter's method of calculating the default DREs, a single default of 
97 percent would be appropriate. The commenter noted that in the 
proposed amendments, the EPA proposed a single default of 98 percent in 
proposed Table I-16 of subpart I for the gases for which the EPA had 
DRE data (CHF3, CH2F2, 
C4F8, and C4F6).
    Response: In the proposed rule, the EPA included NF3 and 
SF6 among the etch gases CHF3, 
CH2F2, C4F8, and 
C4F6 and assigned a DRE of 98 percent due to 
similarities in the calculated DREs for each gas. As discussed in this 
section, the EPA has incorporated the additional DRE data submitted 
during the public comment period into the existing dataset to calculate 
default DREs for the individual compounds. The EPA recognizes that the 
calculated DREs for the carbon-based etch gases (other than 
CF4) are grouped in the range of 95 to 98 percent, using the 
most recent data and methodology discussed earlier in this section. The 
EPA agrees with the commenter that it would simplify calculations to 
group together the carbon-based etch gases (other than CF4) 
and assign a single default DRE to theses etch gases.
    For the combined carbon-based etch gases, the default DRE for 
combined gases is calculated similarly to the default DRE for 
individual gases, with the exception that a fixed number of DRE counts, 
fab counts, and abatement systems per fab are assumed for each gas so 
that the variance components for fabs and devices are the same for each 
gas. This approach is used in lieu of the raw DRE average for each gas 
(and the associated number of data DRE values, fabs, and abatement 
systems) because the raw averages for each gas include variations 
between fabs, and are therefore less precise. For example, even if a 
high raw average is observed for an individual gas, this may be caused 
by the fact that a disproportionate number of the observations are 
coming from a fab which has ``above average'' DRE.
    The EPA calculated the variance components ([sigma](Fabs) and 
[sigma](Devices)) for the carbon-based etch gases using statistical 
software. The results are shown in Table 4 below. The variance 
components only describe the variability between fabs and between 
devices (any difference between gases is already accounted for by the 
gas effect, which is assumed to be fixed). Therefore, these values do 
not change for each gas. The default DREs are averaged over all the 
carbon-based etch gases (other than CF4) to produce a group-
average DRE of 96.7 percent, which the EPA has rounded to a value of 97 
percent in Table I-16 in the final rule. This default value will also 
apply to C3F8 and C5F8, as 
discussed in the response to the previous comment, even though there 
were no DRE data for C3F8 and only one DRE data 
point for C5F8.

[[Page 68193]]



                                                Table 4--Combined Etch DRE for Non-CF4 Carbon-Based F-GHG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            DRE fixed                                                                                           Group-
                Input gas                     effect     DRE count       Fabs     [sigma](Fabs)  [sigma](Devices)       N       Default DRE  average DRE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C2F6.....................................         98.6          116            5         0.631             1.523             5        96.76  ...........
C4F6.....................................         98.6          116            5         0.631             1.523             5        96.74  ...........
C4F8.....................................         98.7          116            5         0.631             1.523             5        96.80  ...........
C5F8.....................................         96.8          116            5         0.631             1.523             5        94.97        96.71
CH2F2....................................         98.9          116            5         0.631             1.523             5        97.00  ...........
CH3F.....................................         99.2          116            5         0.631             1.523             5        97.33  ...........
CHF3.....................................         99.2          116            5         0.631             1.523             5        97.35  ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Several commenters expressed concern regarding the 
certification requirements for abatement systems under proposed 40 CFR 
98.94(f) and 40 CFR 98.96(q).
    In regards to the requirement that reporters who wish to account 
for abatement must certify and document/verify that the abatement 
devices were installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with 
manufacturer recommendations and specifications, one commenter stated 
that manufacturer's specifications may no longer be available. The 
comment explained that even when they are available, the specifications 
can be general and do not specifically call out how to manage and 
maintain the abatement devices. Typically, this requires the fab to 
create a site-specific maintenance plan, which will be based on a 
combination of available manufacturer's updated specifications and/or 
the fab-specific procedures developed through subsequent operating and 
maintenance experience. Material changes to the manufacturer's 
specification requirements for their abatement systems may be necessary 
to address process or equipment specific requirements in an operating 
fab.
    The commenter noted that for existing older abatement systems, it 
is not always possible to determine that they were installed in 
accordance with manufacturer specifications at the time of their 
original installation, which in many cases preceded this rule. Records 
of the manufacturer's intent and installation requirements may not have 
existed and, if they did exist, they were not kept. Importantly, 
process tool(s) and gases/liquid precursors may have changed since the 
initial installation. It is critical that abatement systems be operated 
and maintained properly in the periods when emissions are being 
reported and that the current infrastructure and system configuration 
are appropriate for the abatement application. It is not germane 
whether the abatement systems were installed in a particular way in the 
past, as some of the systems at specific fabs have been in operation 
for up to a decade.
    The commenter further explained that some process types may require 
parameters outside of the manufacturer's specification requirements to 
address complications introduced by specific material types, reaction 
products, or to meet specific safety requirements. ``Tuning'' of 
operating parameters and/or maintenance schedules different from the 
abatement system manufacturer's recommendations are required to 
optimize system operation in these cases. The commenter noted that 
examples of maintenance plan adjustments beyond the original 
manufacturer's recommendations to maximize the DRE for CF4 
abatement were discussed in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0046 item 
4a.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Questions Generated from SIA/EPA Conference Calls and 
Outstanding Questions from Work Plan appendices, March 29, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter contended that the purpose of the site maintenance 
plan is to ensure that the abatement devices are operated and 
maintained correctly. The commenter stated that the plan should be a 
dynamic document that incorporates improvements in how the abatement 
devices are serviced and maintained, including corrective actions that 
are taken when the causes of abatement system failure or outage are 
determined. In addition, proper set-up of abatement device in GHG 
abatement mode after maintenance will be addressed. The commenter 
reasoned that, by their nature, these plans may depart from the 
original manufacturer's specifications.
    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that there are 
scenarios in which a facility may not be able to rely on manufacturer's 
specifications (e.g., if they are unavailable), or where the facility 
may have a need to adopt fab-specific procedures to optimize system 
performance. As such, we have revised 40 CFR 98.94(f)(1) and 40 CFR 
98.96(q) to specify that facilities must certify and document that the 
abatement systems are properly installed, operated, and maintained 
according to the site maintenance plan for abatement systems that is 
developed and maintained in records as specified in 40 CFR 98.97(d).
    However, the EPA also recognizes that manufacturers specifications 
are still important to ensuring the proper installation and operation 
of abatement systems and the reference to manufacturers specifications 
has been retained in 40 CFR 98.97(d)(9). As noted in docket item EPA-
HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0046, item 4, cited by the commenter and incorporated 
into the ``Technical Support for Accounting for Destruction or Removal 
Efficiency for Electronics Manufacturing Facilities under Subpart I'' 
(see Docket ID. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0082), during the review of 
DRE test data for the revision of the default DRE, the EPA and SIA 
noted that some low CF4 and NF3 DREs in the test 
data resulted from variation in flows through the abatement system and 
from operating and maintaining the abatement systems outside of the 
manufacturer specifications. Specifically, low CF4 DREs 
associated with etch processes were found to be the result of systems 
operating outside the manufacturers' recommended set points for flow 
rate and/or pressure that should have been verified during abatement 
installation. The document cited by the commenter reported that once 
the abatement systems were returned to the manufacturer's 
specifications, the DRE also returned to higher levels comparable to 
those of other systems. Because the high variability in the available 
DRE data was directly associated with operating outside of the 
manufacturer's specifications, the EPA proposed a requirement for 
facilities to develop, follow, and keep on-site maintenance plans for 
abatement systems that are built on the manufacturer's recommended 
installation, operation, and maintenance program, and that must include 
a defined preventive maintenance process and checklist and a corrective 
action

[[Page 68194]]

process to follow whenever an abatement system fails to operate 
properly.
    Therefore, the EPA has determined that although a certification may 
rely on the implementation of site maintenance plans for abatement 
systems, it is also necessary to ensure that facilities rely on 
manufacturer's recommendations and specifications to the extent 
possible, particularly when using the default DRE values. Therefore, if 
the facility uses the emissions estimation methods in 40 CFR 98.93(a), 
(b), and (i) and uses the default DRE values when claiming abatement 
for reporting purposes, the final site maintenance plan requirements in 
40 CFR 98.97(d)(9) for abatement systems must be based on the 
manufacturer's recommendations and specifications for installation, 
operation, and maintenance. If the facility is using properly measured 
site-specific DRE values, the final site maintenance plan must include 
the manufacturer's recommendations and specifications for installation, 
operation, and maintenance, where available. For a facility to use the 
default DREs, the EPA needs assurance that the abatement system is 
installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the 
manufacturer's specifications. Otherwise, the EPA would be unable to 
verify that the default DREs are met without further validation 
testing. The site maintenance plan for abatement systems must also 
include documentation where the operation and maintenance deviates from 
the manufacturer's specifications, including an explanation of how the 
deviations do not negatively affect the performance or destruction or 
removal efficiency of the abatement system. For example, the site 
maintenance plan may include documentation where the process optimizes 
system performance (e.g., more frequent maintenance checks or tighter 
operating parameters). Finally, facilities who elect to claim abatement 
for reporting purposes and want to use the default DRE factors must 
also certify that the abatement systems are specifically designed for 
F-GHG abatement (or N2O abatement, as appropriate). (This 
certification is not needed for facilities using a measured site-
specific DRE value.) The facility must also have a site maintenance 
plan that is based on the manufacturer's recommendations and 
specifications for each abatement system These are minimal requirements 
that are necessary to verify that abatement systems are operating 
consistently at or above the default DRE. We note that the commenter 
provided several additional recommendations for changes to the proposed 
provisions for certifications regarding abatement systems and the use 
of default and site-specific DRE values. Those comments and our 
responses can be found in ``Reporting of Greenhouse Gases--Revisions to 
the Electronics Manufacturing Category of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting 
Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comment'' (see EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028).
    Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed rule requires a 
facility using the stack testing alternative to make assumptions for 
abatement system DREs in order to adjust annual emissions calculations 
for abatement downtime and does not allow one to assume a DRE of zero, 
as would be an option under the emission factor method. The commenter 
stated that this is a logical approach for a stack test method; 
however, other portions of the rule require that a DRE assumption of 
zero be used if a facility cannot meet certain requirements for 
certifying the design and installation of an abatement device. The 
commenter concluded that the net result is that, as the rule was 
proposed, a facility that is unable to meet these certification 
requirements (for example, one with older abatement equipment where 
such certification may be difficult to obtain) is effectively 
disqualified from using the stack test method as they may not assume 
zero efficiency, yet cannot meet the requirements to assume something 
other than zero. The commenter recommended revising the DRE 
certification requirements such that the use of default DRE factors is 
dependent upon certifying and documenting that the systems are 
installed, operated, and maintained according to the site maintenance 
plan, and not according to manufacturers specifications. The commenter 
stated that this is consistent with the way in which other pollution 
control devices are handled in many facility air permits.
    Response: In stack testing, the measured emissions used to 
calculate fab-specific emission factors will reflect the effect of all 
abatement systems, including those not specifically designed for F-GHG 
abatement that still achieve some incidental F-GHG abatement. However, 
the EPA recognizes that facilities using the stack testing method may 
not be able to certify that the abatement systems are specifically 
designed to abate F-GHGs, although those systems may achieve incidental 
control of F-GHGs that could have an effect on emissions. As discussed 
earlier in this section, we have revised the definition of ``abatement 
system'' to clarify that the abatement system requirements of subpart I 
only apply to abatement systems that are designed to abate F-GHGs (and/
or N2O, but N2O is not included in the stack 
testing alternative), or for which the DRE has been measured according 
to 40 CFR 98.94. Facilities using the stack testing alternative would, 
in their emissions calculations, account for the effect of abatement 
systems that are specifically designed for F-GHG abatement and for 
systems for which the facility measured the site-specific DRE according 
to 40 CFR 98.94. In the case of abatement systems that are not 
specifically designed to abate F-GHG, the reporter may elect to not 
include the effect of those systems in their emissions calculations. In 
all cases where the reporter is accounting for the effect of the 
abatement systems, the reporter must also comply with the other 
monitoring and quality assurance requirements for abatement systems in 
subpart I. In all other cases, the reporters would assume that the DRE 
is zero for abatement systems that are not designed for abatement of F-
GHG and would not account for the downtime of those systems.
    In order to ensure that the abatement systems, as defined in 40 CFR 
98.98 and included in the emission calculations, are operated properly 
and consistently following the initial stack test, the EPA is requiring 
that facilities must certify that the abatement system is operated and 
maintained in accordance with the site maintenance plan for abatement 
systems in 40 CFR 98.97(d). Facilities who elect to use the stack 
testing alternative in 40 CFR 98.93(i) and who elect to use the default 
DREs must base the site maintenance plan on the abatement system 
manufacturer's recommendations and specifications. If manufacturer's 
recommendations and specifications are unavailable, the facility using 
the stack test method must use a site-specific DRE, which can be 
developed concurrently. Facilities using the stack testing method and 
the default DREs must also certify that the abatement systems are 
designed to abate F-GHGs.
    Finally, the EPA also needs to ensure that facilities using the 
stack test alternative account for the abatement systems that are 
present when calculating their facility annual emissions. We have 
revised the final rule to clarify that facilities using the stack test 
alternative must certify that all abatement systems that are designed 
to abate F-GHGs, or for which the DRE has been measured, are fully 
accounted for when calculating annual emissions and accounting for 
excess emissions from

[[Page 68195]]

downtime (i.e., facilities are accounting for the uptime and DREs of 
these systems, either using the default DREs or site-specific DRES, in 
Equations I-21 through I-24). Facilities would only apply the default 
DREs to account for abatement from those systems that meet the 
certification requirements and are specifically designed to abate F-
GHGs. They would use a site-specific DRE for systems for which the 
facility had measured a site-specific DRE. If they elect to account for 
abatement from systems that are not specifically designed to abate F-
GHGs, they would use a site-specific DRE for these systems. These 
requirements are necessary to ensure that the calculated emission 
factors are representative and accurately reflect abatement.
6. Abatement System Uptime for Facilities That Manufacture Electronics
    Comment: One commenter proposed revisions to the definition of 
uptime such that uptime is defined as ``the ratio of the total time 
during which the abatement system is in an operational mode and 
operating in accordance with the site abatement system maintenance 
plan, to the total time during which production process tool(s) 
connected to that abatement system are normally in operation.''
    Response: The EPA is not revising the definition of ``uptime'' as 
suggested by the commenter. The EPA previously defined ``operational 
mode'' as ``the time in which an abatement system is properly 
installed, maintained, and operated according to manufacturers' 
specifications as required in 40 CFR 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.'' Consistent 
with the changes to the abatement system certification requirements in 
the final rule, the EPA has revised the definition of ``operational 
mode'' to reflect that the abatement system is properly installed, 
maintained, and operated according to the site maintenance plan for 
abatement systems. Therefore, the revisions to the definition of 
``uptime'' as requested by the commenter are not necessary, as an 
abatement system in operational mode must be operated within the 
parameters of the site maintenance plan.
7. Triennial Technology Report for Semiconductor Manufacturing
    Comment: Several commenters expressed concern with an option for 
the triennial technology report on which the EPA requested comment, 
specifically the option to require additional information beyond that 
proposed in 40 CFR 98.96(y). The preamble to the proposed amendments 
requested comment on requiring that the reports include an analysis of 
the effect of the introduction of new processes on existing tools, 
where a new process could be defined as one that used 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), 
or that included a change in the radio frequency (RF) power and gas 
flow rate (see 77 FR 63566). Commenters stated that these suggested 
requirements appear to resurrect the recipe testing requirements 
established in the original subpart I regulation published in December 
of 2010 and which were specifically called out as unworkable in SIA's 
petition for reconsideration. One commenter stated that, as described 
in the petition for reconsideration, the recipe testing requirements 
created unacceptable intellectual property risk, potential national 
security concerns, significant disruption of fab operations, and 
unreasonable and excessive economic impact. The commenters cited as 
examples the impacts (cost and business disruption) of process 
emissions factor testing that were experienced during the additional 
emissions factor testing work that was completed in support of the 
default factors that are in Subpart I. The commenters reported that in 
one fab, testing required two weeks of time and cost over $25,000 (not 
including lost production and fab staff support time) just to measure 
12 emissions factors for 5 tools. The ISMI technology transfer report 
``2010 ISMI Analysis of the Impact of Final Mandatory Reporting Rule 
Subpart I on U.S. Semiconductor Facilities'' issued January 31, 2011 
provides additional description of the impact of recipe level testing.
    The commenter further explained that the cost to test all new and 
revised process recipes is very large. On average, each large facility 
introduces 40 new etch processes per year and changes 56 etch recipes 
per year; for 29 large facilities the testing cost per year equates to 
$17 million or $51 million for three years. This assumes $35,000 for 
testing/week and six recipes tested/week, according to the commenter.
    The commenter noted that the cost for tool downtime for the testing 
over the three years would be an additional $6.9 million. (This assumes 
11 hours of downtime for an 8 hour test and 3 hours for tool 
requalification; $1.5 million per/year for etch tool downtime.) Total 
cost for testing of tools is on the order of $58 million.
    The commenter asserted that the cost of any testing of POU 
abatement devices for DRE changes would be additional. Costs for large 
leading-edge technology fabs would be significantly higher than the 
industry average numbers by a factor of 10 or more.
    The commenter stated that in the economic impact assessment for the 
proposed amendments (EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0081), the EPA does not 
include the cost for preparing the triennial report, ``. . . given that 
the EPA does not expect this requirement to significantly affect the 
compliance costs either on a per facility or a national basis . . .'' 
The commenter estimated that preparing a triennial report, as proposed 
in the preamble to the revised subpart I, would require the effort of 
several full time employees. The commenter stated that their intent 
with regards to preparing the triennial report and developing a company 
or industry plan to perform testing to assess the impact of new 
(meaning significantly different from existing) processes, equipment, 
and technologies on default emissions factors and default DRES, is to 
enable the industry to pool its resources to most efficiently measure, 
collect, and report the data needed to assess these changes. The 
commenter further added that the adoption and propagation of distinctly 
new processes, equipment, and technologies into high-volume 
manufacturing occurs slowly, allowing a reasoned, considered plan to be 
developed to assess the impact. Additionally, the commenter claimed 
that their statistical assessment of the emissions factor data for 
current manufacturing processes and equipment indicate that the 
magnitude of the emissions factor is primarily dependent on the wafer 
size and the gas type, suggesting that significant changes are unlikely 
to occur frequently because these two variables are not changed 
frequently.
    The commenter concluded that the level of information requested and 
the cost associated with measuring and collecting data according to the 
expanded scope of triennial reporting requirements described in the 
preamble are excessive and the final rule should not include more than 
what is included in the proposed 40 CFR 98.96(y).
    Response: Except for a minor technical correction, EPA is 
finalizing the requirements for the triennial technology report as 
proposed at 40 CFR 98.96(y). Facilities are not required to implement 
recipe-specific testing in the first phase of the triennial technology 
review, as some commenters inferred from the request for comment in the 
preamble to the proposed amendments.

[[Page 68196]]

Nevertheless, EPA encourages, but does not require, facilities to 
acquire measurements of gas utilization rates, by-product formation 
rates, and DREs that reflect the impact of technology changes for the 
triennial report, because such measurements would be useful for 
informing future changes to the rule.
    To the extent that facilities acquire these measurements, either 
because they perform the measurements themselves or because they 
receive them from tool manufacturers, 40 CFR 98.96(y)(2)(iv) requires 
facilities to submit them as part of the triennial report. That 
provision states facilities must ``provide any 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.'' This requirement refers to all the rate or DRE measurements 
collected in the previous 3 years that reflect the impact of any 
technology changes during that time. Submission of specific selections 
or subsets of those measurements would not meet this requirement 
because such selections or subsets may not be representative. We 
anticipate that the types of information submitted would include 
information similar to that submitted to inform the default emission 
factors and default DREs in today's rule.
    In the proposal, we also requested comment on whether triennial 
reports should include 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'' (77 
FR 63566). For these measurements, testing data for new tool models is 
often available from the manufacturer or from performance tests as new 
tool models are installed. The EPA anticipates that this information 
could be used to inform future changes to the rule and could be 
supplied through the triennial report. While the EPA is not requiring 
that this information be included in the triennial report, the agency 
encourages reporters to include this information on a voluntary basis 
where practical.
    The final rule does not require the triennial report to consider 
process or technology changes at the recipe-specific level, nor does it 
require facilities to collect any recipe-specific data. However, the 
report should address whether, over time, the facility has 
incrementally implemented process or technology changes that have now 
cumulatively resulted in a wide-spread effect on emission factors or 
DRE factors. The report would not need to consider each incremental 
change separately. For example, the report does not need to consider 
differences in flow rates among individual recipes and their effect on 
the emission rates of individual gases. However, if the industry 
implements or adopts a technology change that substantially affects the 
average flow rate for a given process type such that the current 
default emission factors may no longer be representative, the cause and 
potential impact of that change in flow rate should be addressed in the 
triennial technology review report (though not detailed at the recipe-
level). See Section II.A.12 of this preamble for additional discussion 
of the contents of the triennial report. The EPA agrees with the 
commenter that the triennial technology review should avoid the burden 
and potential disclosure concern associated with the provisions for 
reporting of recipe-specific information that appear in the December 
2010 promulgated rule and that are removed from this amended rule.
    We note that commenters provided additional input regarding the 
triennial technology report. Those comments and our responses can be 
found in ``Reporting of Greenhouse Gases--Technical Revisions to the 
Electronics Manufacturing Category of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting 
Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comment'' (see EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028).
8. Final Amendments to Reporting and Recordkeeping
    Comment: One commenter noted that a facility may have multiple 
fabs, which each process different wafer sizes. The commenter 
recommended that the language in 40 CFR 98.96(a) and (b) apply to fabs 
rather than facilities. The commenter noted that the wafer size and 
capacity could then be reported for each fab, rather than trying to 
report for the entire facility.
    Response: The EPA appreciates the input provided by the commenter 
regarding facility and fab level reporting requirements. The EPA agrees 
with the commenter that the language in 40 CFR 98.96(a) and (b) should 
apply to fabs rather than facilities. As a result, the EPA is 
promulgating the final amendments to subpart I with the proposed 
modifications to 40 CFR 98.96(a) and (b).
    Comment: One commenter asserted that the facility-wide DRE 
reporting requirement under 40 CFR 98.96(r) using Equations I-26, I-27, 
and I-28, should not apply to the stack test alternative. The commenter 
noted that the derivation of a facility-wide DRE is unnecessarily 
complicated, subject to error, and provides no material benefit to the 
reporting of emissions under the stack test option. According to the 
commenter, the EPA's proposed requirement to use these equations 
entails an artificial determination of how much of a facility's 
emissions are coming from the process tools versus the abatement 
systems, and as such is complicated, somewhat arbitrary, and 
potentially subject to errors. The commenter stated that the 
requirement to determine an effective, facility-wide or fab-wide DRE 
using equations I-26 and I-28 for facilities that choose the stack 
testing method (40 CFR 98.93(i)) is not logical and should be removed 
from the rule.
    The commenter explained that one of the benefits of the stack 
testing method is that it eliminates the need to test individual 
abatement units, which is costly. The stack test data combines the 
impact of the gas utilization factors in the equipment and the 
abatement system DREs into a single emissions factor for the facility. 
Whether a fab chooses to generate and use site-specific DREs or use the 
default DRES, the DREs will only be used to adjust fab emissions for 
abatement system downtime; adjustments which are expected to have a 
small influence on the total site emissions. The proposal to calculate 
an effective DRE for the facility would require using complicated 
calculations and apportioning gas use to abatement units.
    The commenter also stated that attempting to compute a combined DRE 
for a multi-fab facility that uses the emissions factor method at one 
or more fabs and the stack testing method at the other(s) also seems to 
be unnecessary. The commenter proposed revisions that they claimed 
simplified the reporting of a facility-wide DRE value by calculating 
only a fab-level DRE instead of a facility-wide DRE.
    The commenter suggested as an alternative that the EPA use a 
modification to proposed Equation I-24 of subpart I because Equation I-
24 calculates the average weighted fraction of F-GHG input gas i 
destroyed or removed in abatement systems. The commenter stated that 
the EPA should modify equation I-24, adding the multiplication of both 
the numerator and denominator terms by the GWP for each gas. The 
commenter stated this would provide an estimate of the site-wide DRE 
based on the removal of CO2e emissions that will have as 
much meaning as a fab-wide DRE calculated using equations I-26 and I-
28, while requiring much less work on the part of the fab.

[[Page 68197]]

    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the facility-
wide DRE calculated by Equations I-26, I-27, and I-28 in proposed 40 
CFR 98.96(r) is not relevant for facilities using the stack testing 
alternative. As explained in the preamble to the proposed amendments 
(77 FR 63569), the EPA included a requirement that facilities report a 
facility-wide DRE factor to assist in our verification of reported GHG 
emissions. In the amendments to subpart I, we proposed to move the 
information on the number and DRE of abatement systems at each facility 
from the reporting requirements to the recordkeeping requirements, and 
these changes are being made in the final rule. In order to determine 
the extent to which GHG emissions from this category are being abated, 
we proposed to require facilities to report a facility-wide DRE. The 
EPA's intent of requiring a facility-wide DRE is also to gain an 
understanding of the extent to which a fab or facility's emissions are 
abated in the absence of facilities reporting information that may 
raise potential disclosure concerns, such as actual DRE values for 
gases and process types. This information can also be used to help 
verify reported emissions. This rationale is equally valid for 
facilities using the default emission factor method in 40 CFR 98.93(a)
    Contrary to the reporters interpretation, the facility-wide DRE is 
calculated using inputs, emissions, and other data already collected 
and calculated to report annual F-GHG and N2O emissions and 
does not require the collection of new data. The terms used in the 
equations to calculate the facility-wide DRE for a facility using the 
stack testing alternative are already calculated by the facility to 
report emissions. Reporters using the stack testing alternative would 
not have to measure the DRE of abatement systems unless they were doing 
so to determine the DRE of systems that were not specifically designed 
to abate F-GHG. Otherwise they could use default DREs for systems that 
were specifically designed for F-GHG abatement. Similarly, facilities 
would not have to separately apportion gas usage to tools with 
abatement systems in Equation I-28 because that is already done to 
calculate emissions as part of other equations in the stack testing 
alternative. First, the commenter states that DREs are only used under 
the stack test option to adjust fab emissions for abatement system 
downtime, and that downtime is expected to have a small influence on 
the total site emissions. While we agree that the inclusion of an 
adjustment for abatement system downtime may have a small influence on 
the total site emissions as calculated, the argument made by the 
commenter does not provide justification for removing the requirement 
for a facility to report a fab-wide DRE. Even when the uptime for a fab 
is relatively high, the fact remains that the fab is abated and no 
other reporting requirement provides the EPA with an estimate of the 
extent of the abatement.
    Second, the commenter states that using Equations I-26 and I-28 for 
the stack test alternative is unnecessary and the commenter proposes 
using a modification of Equation I-24 that incorporates multiplication 
by GWP values. We disagree that the use of Equations I-26 and I-28 is 
unnecessary for fabs electing to use the stack test option. First, 
Equation I-28 is necessary to account for the fact that a fab may not 
be fully abated and a portion of the input gas consumed in the fab is 
used by tools that are unabated. The result of Equation I-24 does not 
account for apportionment between abated and unabated tools. 
Apportionment is accounted for in Equation I-28 by the 
``aif'' and ``af'' terms, just as in Equation I-
21 and I-22. Reporting the result of Equation I-24, regardless of any 
accounting for GWPs, would result in an artificially high fab-wide DRE 
because Equation I-24 does not account for the portion of gases 
consumed by tools that are not abated. Equation I-26 is also necessary 
because reporters are not allowed to calculate N2O emissions 
using the stack test method. As a result, Equation I-26 incorporates 
the abatement of N2O emissions into the effective fab-wide 
DRE calculation.
    Finally, we disagree that the equations under 40 CFR 98.96(r) are 
unnecessarily complicated. Although the equations may appear 
complicated, the equations, in fact, use many of the same data 
operations already performed to calculate emissions under either the 
default emission factor approach or the stack testing alternative. For 
example, the summation of F-GHGs and N2O contained in the 
numerator of Equation I-26 is easily calculated from the emissions 
already reported under 40 CFR 98.96(c). The first term in Equation I-28 
is the same as the second term in Equation I-21, except that the value 
``(1-UTf)'' has been replaced with ``GWPi'' for 
the input gas. The case is the same for the second term in Equation I-
28; it is identical to the second term in Equation I-22, except again 
the value ``(1-UTf)'' has been replaced with 
``GWPk'' for the by-product gas. Therefore, due to the 
similarity of terms, we believe that Equation I-28 is no more 
burdensome or complicated than Equation I-21 or I-22.
    We agree with the commenter that facilities should be required to 
report a fab-wide DRE instead of a combined DRE for a multi-fab 
facility. Reporting a fab-wide DRE, instead of a facility-wide DRE, 
will provide the EPA with a more detailed assessment of the extent to 
which GHG emissions are being abated. The fab-wide DRE will also 
simplify the calculation requirements for reporters because they will 
not have to use an extra equation to combine the DREs when a facility 
uses the emission factor method and the stack testing alternative in 
different fabs at the same facility.
    In light of the commenter's suggestion, we are finalizing the 
requirement for reporters to provide effective DRE on a fab basis, 
instead of a facility basis. We disagree, however, with the commenter's 
assertion that a facility that chooses the stack test option to 
calculate emissions from a fab should not be required to report an 
effective fab-wide DRE, and as such, we are requiring all facilities to 
report an effective fab-wide DRE, regardless of their emission 
calculation methodology.
9. Technical Corrections in Response to Public Comments
    The final rule includes numerous minor technical changes as a 
result of addressing major public comments. These changes are 
summarized in the document, ``Reporting of Greenhouse Gases--Technical 
Revisions to the Electronics Manufacturing Category of the Greenhouse 
Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comment'' (see EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0028).

III. Confidentiality Determinations for New and Revised Subpart I Data 
Elements and Responses to Public Comments

A. Final Confidentiality Determinations for New and Revised Subpart I 
Data Elements

    In this action, we have added or revised 25 new data reporting 
requirements in subpart I. We have assigned each of these new 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.\8\ The 25 new or revised data elements are assigned to one of the 
10 data categories listed in

[[Page 68198]]

Table 5 of this preamble. Please see the memorandum titled ``Final Data 
Category Assignments for Subpart I 2012 Amendments'' in Docket EPA-HQ-
OAR-2011-0028 for a list of the 25 new or revised data elements in this 
subpart and their final category assignments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The 2011 Final CBI Rule created 11 direct emitter date 
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 Data that                 X   .................  .................
 are Not Inputs to Emission Equations..................
Unit/Process ``Static'' Characteristics that are Not     .................             X \c\              X \c\
 Inputs to Emission Equations..........................
Unit/Process Operating Characteristics that are Not      .................             X \c\              X \c\
 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 Emission   .................  .................                 X
 Equations.............................................
Process-Specific and Vendor Data Submitted in BAMM       .................  .................                 X
 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 III.A 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 have followed the same approach in this final rule. 
Specifically, we have assigned each of the 25 new or revised data 
elements in the final subpart I amendments to the appropriate direct 
emitter data category. For the 13 data elements assigned to categories 
with categorical confidentiality determinations, we have applied the 
categorical determinations made in the 2011 Final CBI Rule to the 
assigned data elements. For the 12 data 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 are finalizing that these data elements are not emission 
data. All 25 new and revised subpart I data elements in the final 
subpart I amendments are listed in the memorandum titled ``Final Data 
Category Assignments for Subpart I 2012 Amendments'' in Docket EPA-HQ-
OAR-2011-0028.

B. Public Comments on the Proposed Confidentiality Determinations

    The EPA is finalizing all confidentiality determinations as they 
were proposed. Please refer to the preamble to the proposed rule (77 FR 
63570) for additional information regarding the proposed 
confidentiality determinations.
    The EPA received several comments questioning the proposed 
determination that several new or revised data elements should be 
treated as confidential, or that the confidentiality should be 
determined on a case-by-case basis.
    Comment: One commenter questioned the determination that the 
confidentiality of the identification of the quantifiable metric used 
in the fab-specific engineering model to apportion gas consumption for 
each fab should be determined on a case-by-case basis. The commenter 
asserted that EPA has not provided any justification for how release of 
this data would cause competitive harm and that it should not be 
treated as confidential.
    Response: The EPA made a final confidentiality determination for 
the identification of the quantifiable metric used in the facility-
specific engineering model to apportion gas consumption (40 CFR 
98.96(m)(i)) in an earlier Federal Register notice (77 FR 48072, August 
13, 2012), after a notice and period for public comment (77 FR 10434, 
February 22, 2012). In that final notice (77 FR 48072, August 13, 
2012), the EPA decided to evaluate the confidentiality status of that 
data element on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with existing 
confidentiality regulations in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    The EPA re-proposed the confidentiality determination for this data 
element due to the proposed revision to this data element. The proposed 
changes to this data element, which we are finalizing today, reflect 
that the apportioning model is now fab-specific instead of facility-
specific because the amendments now require gas use to be apportioned 
on a fab basis (instead of a facility basis) and a facility may have 
separate models for each fab. As mentioned above, we have determined 
that the confidentiality status of the identification of the 
quantifiable metric used in the facility-specific engineering model to 
apportion gas consumption should be determined on a case-by-case basis. 
The change in the basis of the quantifiable metric (i.e., from a 
facility to fab basis) does not fundamentally change the nature of the 
information being reported; for example, each fab at a facility may use 
the same metric, and as a result the fab-based and

[[Page 68199]]

facility-based quantifiable metrics may be the same. Because the 
commenter did not offer any compelling reasons why the EPA should now 
change course due to the change in the basis of the quantifiable 
metric, the EPA will continue to evaluate claims by facilities that 
this data element should be protected as CBI on a case-by-case basis.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern with EPA's proposed 
determinations to treat the inventory of abatement systems under 40 CFR 
98.96(p) as confidential business information. The commenter asserted 
that that if the EPA ``has better evidence that actual harm could occur 
from the release of the inventory information in certain circumstances 
than the current justification provided at 77 FR 10,440, row 3, no 
categorical determination should be made.'' (Emphasis added.) Instead, 
the commenter asserted, ``the confidentiality of the inventory should 
require specific demonstration by the company/facility involved that 
there is an actual threat of competitive harm and reverse-
engineering.'' (Emphasis added.)
    Response: The EPA originally proposed to treat the inventory of 
abatement systems data element in 40 CFR 98.96(p) as confidential 
business information in a February 22, 2012 notice of proposed 
rulemaking (77 FR 10434) followed by a period for public comment. That 
original determination was finalized as proposed in an August 13, 2012 
rulemaking (77 FR 48072). As discussed in the proposal for this action 
(77 FR 63538, October 16, 2012), the EPA re-proposed the 
confidentiality determination for this data element in conjunction with 
edits that were proposed to the data element itself. We are finalizing 
the changes to this data element as proposed to clarify that the number 
of abatement systems and the basis of the destruction or removal 
efficiency should be reported on a process sub-type or process type 
basis. Please see Table 2 of this preamble for a detailed description 
of the changes being made to the inventory of abatement systems data 
element. We are also moving the following reporting requirements to 
recordkeeping: (1) The number of abatement systems of each 
manufacturer, and model number, and the manufacturer's claimed F-GHG 
and N2O destruction or removal efficiency, if any; (2) 
records of destruction or removal efficiency measurements over the in-
use life of each abatement system; and (3) a description of the tool, 
with the process type or sub-type, for which the abatement system 
treats exhaust.
    Facilities must still report an inventory, and more specifically, 
the number of abatement systems at their facility. As a result, a 
competitor may be able to gain insight into the number of tools at the 
facility, as described above. For the same reasons stated in the prior 
confidentiality determination described above, we believe that 
confidentiality determination for this data element, as revised, should 
remain as CBI. The change in the basis of the number of abatement 
systems does not affect the rationales we previously set forth 
supporting a CBI determination for this data element, nor did the 
commenter offer any specific reasons why we should now change course 
due to the change to the basis of the number of abatement systems 
reported. The EPA also notes that the commenter's assertion that a 
company/facility should be required to demonstrate an ``actual threat 
of competitive harm'' for a data element to be determined to be CBI is 
inconsistent with 40 CFR 2.208, which states that the business must 
demonstrate that ``disclosure of the information is likely to cause 
substantial harm to the business's competitive position.'' The EPA will 
continue to treat this data element as confidential business 
information.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern with EPA's proposed 
determination to treat five of the six data elements specified in 40 
CFR 98.96(y) for the Triennial Technology Assessment as confidential. 
These data elements include all of the items to be included in the 
Triennial Technology Assessment Report, with the exception of emissions 
data that might be provided under 98.96(y)(2)(iv). The commenter asked 
EPA to reconsider the treatment for these other data elements as 
confidential and asserted that the public has a compelling need for 
access because public stakeholders outside the semiconductor industry 
will be unable to evaluate both industry claims regarding technology 
evolution and EPA's judgment regarding whether and when it is 
appropriate to update the Subpart I default values. The commenter asked 
that EPA not make a categorical determination on these five data 
elements, but instead, evaluate confidentiality claims on a case-by-
case basis.
    Other commenters supported the EPA's determination that these five 
data elements should be treated as confidential. The commenters noted 
that in these reporting requirements, EPA is requesting detailed 
information on process characteristics, equipment types and equipment 
performance parameters that are likely to represent sensitive 
intellectual property for semiconductor manufacturers and their 
equipment suppliers.
    Response: The EPA appreciates the input provided by the commenters 
regarding the CBI determinations related to the Triennial Technology 
Assessment Report. In the preamble to the proposed amendments to 
subpart I, we indicated that we were proposing five data elements under 
40 CFR 98.96(y) as CBI because the data elements are likely to reveal 
information regarding process-specific data or new technologies or 
advances in production processes that could be used by a competitor. 
The information required by these five data elements 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. The commenter questioning these determinations did not 
provide additional information that would alter the EPA's decision.
    The EPA recognizes the first commenter's concern that without 
access to the detailed information provided in those data elements, 
public stakeholders may be unable to evaluate industry claims regarding 
technology evolution and EPA's judgment regarding whether it is 
appropriate to update the Subpart I default emission factors and DRE 
values. However, the EPA has had to reach a balance between public 
access to data and the protection of confidential business information. 
Over time and based on careful consideration and analysis, EPA may be 
able to aggregate sensitive information on an industry-wide basis that 
would allow stakeholders to evaluate industry claims and EPA decisions 
regarding the effects of new technology on GHG emissions. In addition, 
annual emissions data submitted as part of regular annual reporting to 
the GHGRP and measurements of emission factors and DRE values submitted 
as part of the triennial technology reviews would not be considered CBI 
and could also be analyzed by stakeholders to evaluate industry claims 
and EPA judgments on changes in technology that affect emissions.
    For comments and responses regarding confidentiality determinations 
for other new and revised subpart I data elements, please refer to the 
document titled ``Reporting of Greenhouse Gases--Technical Revisions to 
the Electronics Manufacturing Category of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting 
Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comment'' in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-
0028.

[[Page 68200]]

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) 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 final action. This analysis is contained in the Economics Impact 
Analysis (EIA), ``Final 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 changes will significantly 
reduce subpart I compliance costs. Specifically, the proposed changes 
will 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). The confidentiality determinations for 
new and revised data elements do not increase the compliance costs of 
the final rule.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden. 
As previously mentioned, this action finalizes amended reporting 
methodologies in subpart I, confidentiality determinations for reported 
data elements, and amendments to subpart A to reflect changes to the 
reporting requirements in subpart I. However, 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.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule 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. The small entities directly regulated by 
this final rule are facilities included in NAICS codes for 
Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing (334413) and Other 
Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing (334119).
    After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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.
    This action (1) amends monitoring and calculation methodologies in 
subpart I; (2) assigns subpart I data reporting elements into CBI data 
categories; and (3) amends subpart A to reflect final changes to the 
reporting requirements in subpart I. In this final rule, the EPA is 
taking several steps to reduce the impact of Part 98 on small entities. 
For example, the EPA is removing the recipe-specific reporting 
requirements for subpart I, which the Petitioner identified by the 
Petitioner as economically and technically burdensome. In addition, the 
EPA has provided a number of flexibilities in this final rule, which 
allow reporters to choose the methodologies that are least burdensome 
for their facility. Additional information can be found in the docket 
(see file ``Economic Impact Analysis for the Mandatory Reporting of 
Greenhouse Gas Emissions F-Gases: Subpart I Final Report,'' August 
2012). We have therefore concluded that this final rule will relieve 
regulatory burden for all affected small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in 
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. 
This action (1) Amends monitoring and calculation methodologies in 
subpart I; (2) assigns subpart I data reporting elements into CBI data 
categories; and (3) amends subpart A to reflect proposed changes to the 
reporting requirements in subpart I. In some cases, the EPA has 
increased flexibility in the selection of methods used for calculating 
and reporting GHGs. This action also revises 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 final 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 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
(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. No small government 
entities are engaged in the electronics manufacturing processes that 
are subject to reporting under subpart I and which would be affected by 
these final rule amendments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132.
    This action, which amends calculation and reporting methodologies 
in subpart I, applies to only certain electronics manufacturers. No 
State or local government facilities are known to be engaged in the 
activities that are affected by the provisions in this final rule. This 
action also does not limit the

[[Page 68201]]

power of states or localities to collect GHG data and/or regulate GHG 
emissions. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. 
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, Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases (74 FR 56266, 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 (1) 
Amends monitoring and calculation methodologies in subpart I; (2) 
assigns subpart I data reporting elements into CBI data categories; and 
(3) amends subpart A to reflect changes to the reporting requirements 
in subpart I. 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, Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases (74 
FR 56371, October 30, 2009).

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 to only 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 (1) Amends monitoring and calculation methodologies in subpart 
I; (2) assigns subpart I data reporting elements into CBI data 
categories; and (3) amends subpart A to reflect 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 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 amends monitoring and calculation methodologies 
in subpart I, involves technical standards. The EPA is including a 
stack testing option that involves 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: American Society of Testing and Materials 
(ASTM), American Society of Mechanical Engineers (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 final 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, 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; and, in light of 
public comments received on the proposed rule, we acknowledge that 
several existing regulations list both EPA Method 320 and ASTM D6348-03 
as acceptable methods. We also acknowledge the efficiency of ASTM 
D6348-03 as compared to EPA Method 320. For these reasons, we are 
allowing, in the final amendments, the use of ASTM D6348-03 with the 
requirements described in Section II.A.1 of this preamble and 40 CFR 
98.94(j) of the final rule.
    This rule revises 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 incorporating 
applicable portions of the ISMI 2009 Guideline into the rule in 
Appendix A to Subpart I. The EPA is not incorporating 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 
incorporating 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 is 
not adopting other standards for this purpose. For the methods required 
or referenced by the final rule, 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.

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

[[Page 68202]]

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.
    The EPA has determined that this final rule will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not 
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the 
environment. This action addresses only reporting and recordkeeping 
procedures.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States. A 
major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in 
the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 
5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective on January 1, 2014.

List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 98

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

    Dated: August 16, 2013.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of 
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 98--MANDATORY GREENHOUSE GAS REPORTING

0
1. The authority citation for part 98 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
2. Section 98.7 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (e)(30), (m)(3), and (n)(1); and
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (n)(2).
    The revisions read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (30) ASTM D6348-03 Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform 
Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, IBR approved for Sec.  98.54(b), Table I-
9 to subpart I of this part, Sec.  98.224(b), and Sec.  98.414(n).
* * * * *
    (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).
* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (1) Guideline for Environmental Characterization of Semiconductor 
Process Equipment, International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative 
Technology Transfer 06124825A-ENG, December 22, 2006 
(International SEMATECH 06124825A-ENG), IBR approved for Sec.  
98.96(y)(3)(i).
* * * * *


Table A-7 to subpart A  [Amended]

0
3. Table A-7 to subpart A of part 98 is amended by removing the entries 
for subpart I ``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)'', ``98.96(s)''.

Subpart I--[Amended]

0
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).
    The revisions 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 fab f in month x (m\2\ 
per month).
* * * * *

0
5. Section 98.92 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and (a)(1);
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (a)(6).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  98.92  GHGs to report.

    (a) You must report emissions of fluorinated GHGs (as defined in 
Sec.  98.6), N2O, and fluorinated heat transfer fluids (as 
defined in Sec.  98.98). The fluorinated GHGs and fluorinated heat 
transfer fluids that are emitted from electronics manufacturing 
production processes include, but are not limited to, those listed in 
Table I-2 to this subpart. You must individually report, as 
appropriate:
    (1) Fluorinated GHGs emitted.
* * * * *
    (6) All fluorinated GHGs and N2O consumed.
* * * * *

0
6. Section 98.93 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b);
0
b. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text and the definitions of 
``Ci'', ``IBi''; ``IEi'', 
``Ai'', and ``Di'' in Equation I-11 of paragraph 
(c);
0
c. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text and the definitions of 
``Di'', ``hil'', ``Fil'', 
``Xi'', and ``M'' in Equation I-12 of paragraph (d);
0
d. Revising paragraph (e) introductory text and the definitions of 
``Ci,j'', ``fi,j'', ``Ci'', and ``j'' 
in Equation I-13 of paragraph (e);
0
e. Removing and reserving paragraph (f);
0
f. Revising paragraph (g);
0
g. Revising paragraph (h) introductory text and the definitions of 
``EHi'', ``IiB'', ``Pi'', ``Ni'', 
``Ri'', ``IiE'', and ``Di'' in 
Equation I-16 of introductory paragraph (h);
0
h. Removing and reserving paragraph (h)(2); and
0
i. Adding paragraph (i).
    The revisions and addition 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,

[[Page 68203]]

including each input gas and each by-product gas. You must use either 
default gas utilization rates and by-product formations rates according 
to the procedures in paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), 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.
    (1) If you manufacture semiconductors, you must adhere to the 
procedures in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section. You 
must calculate annual emissions of each input gas and of each by-
product gas using Equations I-6 and I-7, respectively. 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, plus any 
by-product emissions of that gas calculated under this paragraph (a).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13NO13.000

Where:

ProcesstypeEi = Annual emissions of input gas i from the 
process 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] TR13NO13.001


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.

    (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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13NO13.002

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-15 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13NO13.003

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

[[Page 68204]]

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).
UTijk = The average uptime factor of all abatement 
systems connected to process tools in the fab emitting by-product 
gas k, formed from input gas i in process sub-type or process type 
j, on a fab basis (expressed as a decimal fraction). For this 
equation, UTijk is assumed to be equal to UTij 
as calculated in Equation I-15 of this subpart.
0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons.
i = Input gas.
j = Process sub-type or process type.
k = By-product gas.

    (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.
    (iii) If default values are not available for a particular input 
gas and process type or sub-type combination in Tables I-3 or I-4, you 
must follow the procedures in paragraph (a)(6) of this section.
    (2) 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. If default values are not available for a particular 
input gas and process type or sub-type combination in Tables I-5, I-6, 
or I-7, you must follow the procedures in paragraph (a)(6) of this 
section. 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, plus any by-product emissions of that gas calculated 
under this paragraph (a).
    (3) [Reserved]
    (4) [Reserved]
    (5) [Reserved]
    (6) If you are required, or elect, to perform calculations using 
default emission factors for gas utilization and by-product formation 
rates according to the procedures in paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2) of 
this section, and default values are not available for a particular 
input gas and process type or sub-type 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.
    (b) You must calculate annual fab-level N2O emissions 
from all chemical vapor deposition processes and from the aggregate of 
all other electronics manufacturing production processes using Equation 
I-10 of this subpart and the methods in paragraphs (b)(1) and (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] TR13NO13.004

    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-15 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-15 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. Where a gas supply system serves more than one fab, 
Equation I-11 is applied to that gas which has been apportioned to each 
fab served by that system using the apportioning factors determined in 
accordance with Sec.  98.94(c).
* * * * *
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. Where a gas supply system serves 
more than one fab, Equation I-12 is applied to that gas which has been 
apportioned to each fab served by that system using the apportioning 
factors determined in accordance with Sec.  98.94(c).
* * * * *
Di = Disbursements of input gas i through sales or other 
transactions during the

[[Page 68205]]

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.
* * * * *
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. Where a gas supply system serves more than one fab, 
Equation I-13 is applied to that gas which has been apportioned to each 
fab served by that system using the apportioning factors determined in 
accordance with Sec.  98.94(c). If you elect to calculate emissions 
using the stack test method in paragraph (i) of this section, you must 
calculate the amount of input gas i consumed on the applicable basis by 
using an appropriate apportioning factor. For example, when calculating 
fab-level emissions of each fluorinated GHG consumed using Equation I-
21 of this section, you must substitute the term fij with the 
appropriate apportioning factor to calculate the total consumption of 
each fluorinated GHG in tools that are vented to stack systems that are 
tested.
* * * * *
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), 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.
* * * * *
    (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-15 of this subpart.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13NO13.005

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 for part of the year, 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.

    (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). The inventory at the 
beginning of the reporting year must be the same as the inventory at 
the end of the previous reporting year.
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 preliminary estimate for each stack 
system to the criteria in paragraph (i)(2) of this section to determine 
whether the

[[Page 68206]]

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 total annual 
emissions, on a metric ton CO2e basis, of all 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. You must include any intermittent low-use fluorinated 
GHGs, as defined in Sec.  98.98 of this subpart, in any preliminary 
estimates. 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 (iv) 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. In calculating the preliminary estimates, you must 
account for the effect of any fluorinated GHG abatement system meeting 
the definition of abatement system in Sec.  98.98. You may use this 
approach to determining aij only for this preliminary 
estimate.
    (ii) You must use representative 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. If you were not required to submit an annual report 
under subpart I for the previous reporting year and data from the 
previous reporting year are not available, you may estimate the 
consumption of input gas i and the fraction of input gas i destroyed in 
abatement systems based on representative operating data from a period 
of at least 30 days in the current reporting year. When calculating the 
consumption of input gas i using 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 representative 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-15 of this subpart to calculate the average uptime 
factor. If you were not required to submit an annual report under 
subpart I for the previous reporting year and data from the previous 
reporting year are not available, you may estimate the total uptime of 
all abatement systems for the stack system based on representative 
operating data from a period of at least 30 days in the current 
reporting year.
    (iv) If you anticipate an increase or decrease in annual 
consumption or emissions of any fluorinated GHG, or the number of tools 
connected to abatement systems greater than 10 percent for the current 
reporting year compared to the previous reporting year, you must 
account for the anticipated change in your preliminary estimate. You 
may account for such a change using a quantifiable metric (e.g., the 
ratio of the number tools that are expected to be vented to the stack 
system in the current year as compared to the previous reporting year, 
ratio of the expected number of wafer starts in the current reporting 
year as compared to the previous reporting year), engineering judgment, 
or other industry standard practice.
    (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. For those fluorinated GHGs 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 for use in paragraphs (i)(2)(i) through (iii) 
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 must be less than 
10,000 metric ton CO2e per year.
    (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 must be 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.
    (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 and 
recorded 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 emissions 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

[[Page 68207]]

a stack system is comprised of multiple stacks, you must 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] TR13NO13.006

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 (ppbv).
MWi = Molecular weight of fluorinated GHG input gas i (g/
g-mole).
Qs = Flow rate of the stack system s, during the sampling 
period (m3/min).
SV = Standard molar volume of gas (0.0240 m3/g-mole at 
68[emsp14][deg]F and 1 atm).
[Delta]tm = Length of time interval m (minutes). Each 
time interval in the FTIR 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).
1/103 = 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] TR13NO13.007

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 (ppbv).
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 (m3/min).
SV = Standard molar volume of gas (0.0240 m3/g-mole at 
68[emsp14][deg]F and 1 atm).
[Delta]tm = Length of time interval m (minutes). Each 
time interval in the FTIR 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).
1/103 = 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 an expected or possible by-product, as listed in Table I-17 
of this subpart, is detected intermittently during the sampling period, 
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 not consumed during the sampling period 
and is an expected by-product gas as listed in Table I-17 of this 
subpart 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 consumed during the sampling period 
and is a possible by-product gas as listed in Table I-17 of this 
subpart, 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 ``Eis'' 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] TR13NO13.008

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).

[[Page 68208]]

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).''
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13NO13.009

Where:

EFkf = Emission factor for fluorinated GHG by-product gas 
k, from fab f, representing 100 percent abatement system uptime (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 fluorinated 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] TR13NO13.010


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] TR13NO13.011

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 fluorinated 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 fluorinated 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

[[Page 68209]]

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 ``Tdpf'' and ``UTpf'' 
for the sampling period instead of the reporting year.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13NO13.012

Where:

UTf = The average uptime factor for all abatement systems 
in 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 
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 
fluorinated 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] TR13NO13.013

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 as calculated 
using Equation I-13 of this subpart (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 
fluorinated GHG input gas and by-product gas 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 must use, in place of the term 
aij, the fraction of fluorinated GHG meeting the criteria in 
paragraph (i)(4)(i) of this section used in tools with abatement 
systems or that is used in tools with abatement systems that are 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-15 of this subpart for the term UTij.
    (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. If you are using a fluorinated GHG not listed in Tables 
I-11, I-12, I-13, I-14, or I-15 of this subpart, then you must assume 
utilization and by-product formation rates of zero for that fluorinated 
GHG.
    (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. Sum 
the total emissions of each fluorinated GHG from all fabs at your 
facility to determine the facility-level emissions of each fluorinated 
GHG.

0
7. Section 98.94 is amended by:

[[Page 68210]]

0
a. Removing and reserving paragraph (a);
0
b. Revising paragraph (b), paragraph (c) introductory text, and 
paragraph (c)(2);
0
c. Adding paragraph (c)(3);
0
d. Removing and reserving paragraphs (d) and (e);
0
e. Revising paragraph (f);
0
f. Removing and reserving paragraphs (g)(1) and (2);
0
g. Revising paragraphs (g)(3) and (4);
0
h. Revising paragraphs (h) introductory text, (h)(3), and (i); and
0
i. Adding paragraphs (j) and (k).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  98.94  Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.

* * * * *
    (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, according to the procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) through 
(b)(5) of this section. This paragraph (b) does not apply to 
fluorinated GHGs or N2O that your fab uses in quantities of 
less than 50 kg in one reporting year and for which you calculate 
emissions as equal to consumption under Sec.  98.93(a)(1), (a)(2), or 
(b), or for any intermittent low-use fluorinated GHG for which you 
calculate emissions according to Sec.  98.93(i)(4)(i).
    (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] TR13NO13.014

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.
    (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, I-19, I-20, I-21, and I-22 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 quantity, on a 
mass basis, of fluorinated GHGs used at each fab that requires 
apportionment 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 you 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 and the last 
day you perform the sampling events specified under Sec.  98.93(i)(3) 
occur in the same accounting month.
    (v) If your facility has multiple fabs with a single centralized 
fluorinated-GHG supply system, 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

[[Page 68211]]

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) If your fab employs abatement systems and you elect to reflect 
emission reductions due to these systems, or if your fab employs 
abatement systems designed for fluorinated GHG abatement and you elect 
to calculate fluorinated GHG emissions using the stack test method 
under 98.93(i), you must comply with the requirements of paragraphs 
(f)(1) through (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, in your 
emission calculations under Sec.  98.93(a), (b), and/or (i), you must 
also 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 the site 
maintenance plan for abatement systems that is developed and maintained 
in your records as specified in Sec.  98.97(d)(9).
    (2) You must calculate and document the uptime of abatement systems 
using Equation I-15 or I-23 of this subpart, as applicable.
    (3) If you use default destruction and removal efficiency values in 
your emissions calculations under Sec.  98.93(a), (b), and/or (i), you 
must certify and document that the abatement systems at your facility 
for which you use default destruction or removal efficiency values are 
specifically designed for fluorinated GHG or N2O abatement, 
as applicable. If you elect to calculate fluorinated GHG emissions 
using the stack test method under Sec.  98.93(i), you must also certify 
that you have included and accounted for all abatement systems designed 
for fluorinated GHG abatement and any respective downtime in your 
emissions calculations under Sec.  98.93(i)(3).
    (4) If you do not use the default destruction or removal efficiency 
values in Table I-16 of this subpart to calculate and report controlled 
emissions, including situations in which your fab employs abatement 
systems not specifically designed for fluorinated GHG or N2O 
abatement and you elect to reflect emission reduction due to these 
systems, 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 section. You must not use a 
default value from Table I-16 of this subpart for any abatement system 
not specifically designed for fluorinated GHG and N2O 
abatement, or 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 (or authorized representative) as 
specified in paragraph (k) of this section. If you are measuring 
destruction or removal efficiency according to EPA 430-R-10-003 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  98.7), 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 a minimum of 10 percent of installed 
abatement systems must be tested annually for a total of a minimum of 
20 percent, or a minimum of 20 percent may be tested in the first year. 
For every 3-year period following the initial 2-year period, a random 
sample of at least 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. For 
each 3-year period, you must determine the number of abatement systems 
to be tested based on the average number of abatement systems in 
service over the 3-year period. 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. Except as provided in paragraph (f)(4)(v) of this 
section, you may not retest an abatement system for any gas and process 
sub-type or process type combination, as applicable, until all of the 
abatement systems for that gas and process sub-type or process type 
combination have been tested.
    (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) If you elect to take credit for abatement system destruction 
or removal efficiency before completing testing on 20 percent of the 
abatement systems for that gas and process sub-type or process type 
combination, as applicable, you must use default destruction or removal 
efficiencies for a gas and process type combination. You must not use a 
default value from Table I-16 of this subpart for any abatement system 
not specifically designed for fluorinated GHG and N2O 
abatement, and must not take credit for abatement system destruction or 
removal efficiency before completing 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. You 
may include results of testing conducted on or after January 1, 2011 
for use in determining the site-specific destruction or removal 
efficiency for a given gas and

[[Page 68212]]

process sub-type or process type combination if the testing was 
conducted in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (f)(4)(i) of 
this section.
    (iv) If a measured destruction or removal efficiency is below the 
manufacturer-claimed fluorinated GHG or N2O destruction or 
removal efficiency for any abatement system specifically designed for 
fluorinated GHG or N2O abatement and the abatement system is 
installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the site 
maintenance plan for abatement systems that is developed and maintained 
in your records as specified in Sec.  98.97(d)(9), 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.
    (v) If a measured destruction or removal efficiency is below the 
manufacturer-claimed fluorinated GHG or N2O destruction or 
removal efficiency for any abatement system specifically designed for 
fluorinated GHG or N2O abatement and the abatement system is 
not installed, operated, or maintained in accordance with the site 
maintenance plan for abatement systems that is developed and maintained 
in your records as specified in Sec.  98.97(d)(9), 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, implement 
corrective action, and then include the same system in the next 
abatement system testing period in addition to the testing of randomly 
selected systems for that next testing period. Regardless of whether 
you use the lower measured destruction or removal efficiency and when 
you perform the retest of the abatement system, you must count the time 
that the abatement system is not operated and maintained according to 
the site maintenance plan for abatement systems as not being in 
operational mode for purposes of calculating abatement system uptime.
    (vi) If your fab uses redundant abatement systems, you may account 
for the total abatement system uptime (that is, the time that at least 
one abatement system is in operational mode) 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 (or authorized representative) 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 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  98.7), 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) As part of normal operations for each fab, the inventory of gas 
stored in containers at the beginning of the reporting year must be the 
same as the inventory of gas stored in containers at the end of the 
previous reporting year. You must maintain records documenting the year 
end and year beginning inventories under Sec.  98.97(a).
    (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 at the end of the previous reporting 
year. You must maintain records documenting the year end and year 
beginning inventories under Sec.  98.97(a) and (r).
* * * * *
    (i) All flow meters, 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, averaged over 
all abatement systems, during the 8-hour (or longer) period for each 
stack system, or at no less than 90 percent of the abatement system 
uptime rate measured over the previous reporting year, averaged over 
all abatement systems.
    (ii) You must measure for the expected and possible by-products 
identified in Table I-17 of this subpart 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)(i).
    (iii) 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 significant changes in 
stack flow configuration occur between tests conducted for any 
particular fab in a reporting year. You must certify that no more than 
10 percent of the total number of fluorinated GHG emitting process 
tools are connected or disconnected from a stack system during testing. 
You must also certify that no process tools that were in operation at 
the start of the test period have been moved to a different stack 
system during the test period (i.e., during or in between testing of 
individual stack systems) and that no point-of-use abatement systems 
have been permanently removed from service during the test period. You 
must document any changes in stack flow configuration in the emissions 
test data and report required to be kept as records under Sec.  
98.97(i)(4).
    (2) Test methods and procedures. You must adhere to the applicable 
test

[[Page 68213]]

methods and procedures specified in Table I-9 to this subpart, or 
adhere to an alternative method approved by the Administrator (or 
authorized representative) according to paragraph (k) of this section. 
If you select Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, Appendix A to measure the 
concentration of each fluorinated GHG in the stack system, you must 
complete a method validation according to Section 13 of Method 320 of 
40 CFR part 63, Appendix A for each FTIR system (hardware and software) 
and each tester (testing company). Method 320 validation is necessary 
when any change occurs in instrumentation, tester (i.e., testing 
company), or stack condition (e.g., acid gas vs. base). Measurement of 
new compounds require validation for those compounds according to 
Section 13 of Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, Appendix A. 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 are 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)(3)(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 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 (i.e., the new test and the two previous tests conducted prior to 
the 4 year period). 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, including those 
tests conducted prior to the 4 year period, 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

[[Page 68214]]

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 on or after January 1, 2011 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. You may request 
approval to use results of emissions testing conducted between January 
1, 2011 and January 1, 2014 using a method that deviated from the 
requirements in paragraph (j)(2) of this section by adhering to the 
requirements in paragraphs (j)(7)(i) through (j)(7)(iv) of this 
section.
    (i) Notify the Administrator (or an authorized representative) of 
your intention to use the results of the previous emissions testing. 
You must include in the notification the data and results you intend to 
use for meeting either reporting or recordkeeping requirements, a 
description of the method, and any deviations from the requirements in 
paragraph (j)(2) of this section. Your description must include an 
explanation of how any deviations do not affect the quality of the data 
collected.
    (ii) The Administrator will review the information submitted under 
paragraph (j)(7)(i) and determine whether the results of the previous 
emissions testing are adequate and issue an approval or disapproval of 
the use of the results within 120 days of the date on which you submit 
the notification specified in paragraph (j)(7)(i) of this section.
    (iii) If the Administrator finds reasonable grounds to disapprove 
the results of the previous emissions testing, the Administrator may 
request that you provide additional information to support the use of 
the results of the previous emissions testing. Failure to respond to 
any request made by the Administrator does not affect the 120 day 
deadline specified in paragraph (j)(7)(ii) of this section.
    (iv) Neither the approval process nor the failure to obtain 
approval for the use of results from previous emissions testing shall 
abrogate your responsibility to comply with the requirements of this 
subpart.
    (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), 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 GHGs 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 for purposes of this paragraph.
    (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) If a fluorinated GHG being consumed in the reporting year was 
not being consumed during the stack test 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 as required 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 (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 (or an authorized representative) 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

[[Page 68215]]

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 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. If an alternative test plan is not approved and you still 
want to use an alternative method, you must recommence the process to 
have an alternative test method approved starting with the notification 
of intent to use an alternative test method specified in paragraph 
(k)(1)(i) of this section.
    (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.
0
8. Section 98.96 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (c) introductory text and (c)(1) through (3);
0
c. Adding paragraph (c)(5);
0
d. Removing and reserving paragraphs (f) through (l);
0
e. Revising paragraph (m) introductory text;
0
f. Redesignating paragraphs (m)(i) through (m)(iv) as paragraphs (m)(1) 
through (m)(4), and revising newly redesignated paragraphs (m)(1), (3), 
and (4);
0
g. Adding paragraph (m)(5);
0
h. Removing and reserving paragraphs (n) and (o);
0
i. Revising paragraphs (p) through (s);
0
j. Removing and reserving paragraphs (t) through (v); and
0
k. Adding paragraphs (w), (x), and (y).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  98.96  Data reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (a) Annual manufacturing capacity of each fab at your facility used 
to determine the annual manufacturing capacity of your facility in 
Equation I-5 of this subpart.
    (b) For facilities that manufacture semiconductors, the diameter of 
wafers manufactured at each fab at your facility (mm).
    (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, 
and/or an indication if direct measurements were used in addition to, 
or instead of, a quantifiable metric.
* * * * *
    (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,

[[Page 68216]]

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, the following:
    (1) Certification that all abatement systems at the facility have 
been installed, maintained, and operated in accordance with the site 
maintenance plan for abatement systems that is developed and maintained 
in your records as specified in Sec.  98.97(d)(9).
    (2) If you use default destruction or removal efficiency values in 
your emissions calculations under Sec.  98.93(a), (b), or (i), 
certification that the site maintenance plan for abatement systems for 
which emissions are being reported contains manufacturer's 
recommendations and specifications for installation, operation, and 
maintenance for each abatement system.
    (3) If you use default destruction or removal efficiency values in 
your emissions calculations under Sec.  98.93(a), (b), and/or (i), 
certification that the abatement systems for which emissions are being 
reported were specifically designed for fluorinated GHG or 
N2O abatement, as applicable. You must support this 
certification by providing abatement system supplier documentation 
stating that the system was designed for fluorinated GHG or 
N2O abatement, as applicable.
    (4) For all stack systems for which you calculate fluorinated GHG 
emissions according to the procedures specified in Sec.  98.93(i)(3), 
certification that you have included and accounted for all abatement 
systems and any respective downtime in your emissions calculations 
under Sec.  98.93(i)(3).
    (r) You must report an effective fab-wide destruction or removal 
efficiency value for each fab at your facility calculated using 
Equation I-26, I-27, and I-28 of this subpart, as appropriate.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13NO13.015

Where:

DREFAB = Fab-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 fab, calculated 
according to the procedures in Sec.  98.93.
N2Oj = Emissions of N2O from each 
N2O-emitting electronics manufacturing process j in the 
fab, 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 fab, 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 fab, 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 
for purposes of this equation.
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).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13NO13.016

Where:

UAFGHG = Total unabated emissions of fluorinated GHG emitted from 
electronics manufacturing processes in the fab, 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, 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, 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 
for purposes of this equation.
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 for purposes of this equation.
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

[[Page 68217]]

consumption (Cif), input gas emission factors 
(EFif), by-product gas emission factors (EFkf), 
fractions of tools abated (aif and af), and 
destruction efficiencies (dif and dkf) to 
calculate unabated emissions as you used to calculate emissions.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13NO13.017

Where:

SFGHG = Total unabated emissions of fluorinated GHG emitted from 
electronics manufacturing processes in the fab, 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, 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, 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 calculated in Equation I-20 of this 
subpart (kg emitted/kg of all input gases consumed in tools vented 
to stack systems that are tested).
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, 
which you used to calculate total emissions according to the 
procedures in Sec.  98.93(i)(3) (expressed as a decimal fraction).
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 
for purposes of this equation.
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 for purposes of this equation.
i = Fluorinated GHG.
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 methods 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 for purposes of this paragraph.
    (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 (or an authorized 
representative) 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 factors of this subpart 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 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

[[Page 68218]]

rates in Tables I-3 or I-4, 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 the elements in paragraphs 
(y)(3)(i) and (ii).
    (i) The testing of tools to determine the potential effect on 
current utilization and by-product formation rates and destruction or 
removal efficiency values under the new conditions. You must follow the 
QA/QC procedures in the International SEMATECH 60124825A-ENG 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  98.7) when measuring and 
calculating process sub-type and process type fluorinated GHG and 
N2O utilization and by-product formation rates.
    (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, I-4, I-11, and I-12 of this 
subpart and default destruction or removal efficiency values in Table 
I-16 of this subpart 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 a determination whether it is 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.

0
9. Section 98.97 is amended by:
0
a. Removing and reserving paragraph (b);
0
b. Revising paragraph (c);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (d) introductory text, (d)(1), and (4), and add 
paragraphs (d)(5) through (9); and
0
d. Adding paragraphs (i) through (s).
    The revisions and additions 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 (iv) 
of this section:
    (i) Documentation to certify that each abatement system or group of 
abatement systems is installed, maintained, and operated in accordance 
with the site maintenance plan for abatement systems that is specified 
in paragraph (d)(9) of this section.
    (ii) Documentation from the abatement system supplier describing 
the abatement system's designed purpose and emission control 
capabilities for fluorinated GHG and N2O for which the 
systems or group of systems is certified to abate, where available.
    (iii) If you use default destruction or removal efficiency values 
in your emissions calculations under Sec.  98.93(a), (b), and/or (i), 
certification that the abatement systems for which emissions are being 
reported were specifically designed for fluorinated GHG and 
N2O abatement, as required under Sec.  98.94(f)(3), and 
certification that the site maintenance plan includes manufacturer's 
recommendations and specifications for installation, operation, and 
maintenance for all applicable abatement systems.
    (iv) Certification that you have included and accounted for all 
abatement systems and any respective downtime in your emissions 
calculations under Sec.  98.93(i)(3), as required under Sec.  
98.94(f)(3).
* * * * *
    (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

[[Page 68219]]

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 specified 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-15 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 Equations I-26, I-27, and I-28 of this subpart.
    (9) A site maintenance plan for abatement systems, which 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), and be developed and 
implemented according to paragraphs (d)(9)(i) through (iii) of this 
section.
    (i) The site maintenance plan for abatement systems must be based 
on the abatement system manufacturer's recommendations and 
specifications for installation, operation, and maintenance if you use 
default destruction and removal efficiency values in your emissions 
calculations under Sec.  98.93(a), (b), and/or (i). If the 
manufacturer's recommendations and specifications for installation, 
operation, and maintenance are not available, you cannot use default 
destruction and removal efficiency values in your emissions 
calculations under Sec.  98.93(a), (b), and/or (i). If you use an 
average of properly measured destruction or removal efficiencies 
determined in accordance with the procedures in Sec.  98.94(f)(4)(i) 
through (vi), the site maintenance plan for abatement systems must be 
based on the abatement system manufacturer's recommendations and 
specifications for installation, operation, and maintenance, where 
available. If you deviate from the manufacturer's recommendations and 
specifications, you must include documentation that demonstrates how 
the deviations do not negatively affect the performance or destruction 
or removal efficiency of the abatement systems.
    (ii) The site maintenance plan for abatement systems must include a 
defined preventative maintenance process and checklist.
    (iii) The site maintenance plan for abatement systems must include 
a corrective action process that you must follow whenever an abatement 
system is found to be not operating properly.
* * * * *
    (i) Retain the following records for each fab 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 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 identity and total annual consumption of each gas 
identified as an intermittent low use fluorinated GHG as specified in 
Sec.  98.93(i)(4)(i) and defined in Sec.  98.98.
    (4) 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. The report 
must also contain any changes in the stack system configuration during 
or between tests in a reporting year.
    (5) 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).
    (6) Calculations and data used to determine annual emissions of 
each fluorinated GHG for each fab.
    (7) 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.
    (8) A copy of the certification that no significant 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.
    (9) The number of tools vented to each stack system in the fab.
    (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 activities, as defined in Sec.  98.6.
    (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 aggregate of all 
chemical vapor deposition processes and for the aggregate of all other 
electronics manufacturing production processes, as calculated using 
Equation I-13 of this subpart.

[[Page 68220]]

    (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-15 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.

0
10. Section 98.98 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the definitions of ``Abatement system'' and ``By-product 
formation'';
0
b. Removing the definition of ``Class'';
0
c. Adding a definition for ``Fab'' and ``Fully fluorinated GHGs'';
0
d. Revising the definition of ``Gas utilization'';
0
e. Removing the definition of ``Individual recipe'';
0
f. Adding definitions for ``Input gas'' and ``Intermittent low-use 
fluorinated GHG'';
0
g. Removing the term ``Maximum designed substrate starts'';
0
h. Adding the term ``Maximum substrate starts'';
0
i. Revising the definitions of ``Operational mode,'' ``Process types,'' 
``Properly measured destruction or removal efficiency'' and ``Redundant 
abatement systems'';
0
j. Adding a definition for ``Representative operating levels'';
0
k. Removing the definitions of ``Similar, with respect to recipes'';
0
l. Adding a definition for ``Stack system'';
0
m. Revising the definitions of ``Trigger point for change out,''
0
n. Adding a definition for ``Unabated emissions''; and
0
o. Revising the definitions of ``Uptime'' and ``Wafer passes.''
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  98.98  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Abatement system means a device or equipment that is designed to 
destroy or remove fluorinated GHGs or N2O in exhaust streams 
from one or more electronics manufacturing production processes, or for 
which the destruction or removal efficiency for a fluorinated GHG or 
N2O has been properly measured according to the procedures 
under Sec.  98.94(f)(4), even if that abatement system is not designed 
to destroy or remove fluorinated GHGs or N2O. The device or 
equipment is only an abatement system for the individual fluorinated 
GHGs or N2O that it is designed to destroy or remove or for 
the individual fluorinated GHGs or N2O for which destruction 
or removal efficiencies were properly measured according to the 
procedures under Sec.  98.94(f)(4).
* * * * *
    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 fluorinated 
GHG input gases.
* * * * *
    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 method, 
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.
    (4) The fluorinated GHG is not an expected or possible by-product 
identified in Table I-17 of this subpart.
    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 the site 
maintenance plan for abatement systems as required in Sec.  98.94(f)(1) 
and defined in Sec.  98.97(d)(9). This includes being properly operated 
within the range of parameters as specified in the site maintenance 
plan for abatement systems.
* * * * *
    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.

[[Page 68221]]

    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).
* * * * *
    Redundant abatement systems means a system that is specifically 
designed, installed and operated for the purpose of destroying 
fluorinated GHGs and N2O gases, or for which the destruction 
or removal efficiency for a fluorinated GHG or N2O has been 
properly measured according to the procedures under Sec.  98.94(f)(4), 
and that is used as a backup to the main fluorinated GHGs and 
N2O abatement system during those times when the main system 
is not functioning or operating in accordance with design and operating 
specifications.
* * * * *
    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.
    Unabated emissions means a gas stream containing fluorinated GHG or 
N2O that has exited the process, but which has not yet been 
introduced into an abatement system to reduce the mass of fluorinated 
GHG or N2O in the stream. If the emissions from the process 
are not routed to an abatement system, or are routed to an abatement 
device that is not in an operational mode, unabated emissions are those 
fluorinated GHG or N2O released to the atmosphere.
    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.
* * * * *

0
11. Table I-1 to subpart I of Part 98 is amended by revising the Note 
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.


[[Page 68222]]



0
12. Table I-3 to subpart I of Part 98 is revised to read as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13NO13.018


[[Page 68223]]



0
13. Table I-4 to subpart I of Part 98 is revised to read as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13NO13.019


[[Page 68224]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13NO13.020


[[Page 68225]]



0
14. Table I-5 to subpart I of Part 98 is amended by revising the 
heading and entries for ``CVD 1-Ui,'' ``CVD 
BCF4,'' and ``CVD BC3F8;'' and by 
revising the Note to read as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13NO13.021


0
15. Table I-6 to subpart I of Part 98 is amended by revising the 
heading, entries for ``CVD 1-Ui'' and by the Note to read as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13NO13.022


[[Page 68226]]



0
16. Table I-7 to subpart I of part 98 is amended by revising the 
heading, entries for ``CVD 1-Ui'' and ``CVD 
BCF4'' and the Note to read as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13NO13.030


[[Page 68227]]



0
17. Subpart I is amended by adding Table I-9 to subpart I to read as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13NO13.031


[[Page 68228]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13NO13.032


0
18. 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...................................................                20
C2F6..................................................                20
C3F8..................................................                20
C4F6..................................................                20
C5F8..................................................                20
c-C4F8................................................                20
CH2F2.................................................                40
CH3F..................................................                40
CHF3..................................................                20
NF3...................................................                20
SF6...................................................                 4
Other fully fluorinated GHGs..........................                20
Other fluorinated GHGs................................                40
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ppbv--Parts per billion by volume.


[[Page 68229]]


0
19. Subpart I is amended by adding Table I-11 to subpart I to read as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13NO13.023


[[Page 68230]]



0
20. Subpart I is amended by adding Table I-12 to subpart I to read as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13NO13.024


[[Page 68231]]



0
21. Subpart I is amended by adding Table I-13 to subpart I to read as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13NO13.025


[[Page 68232]]



0
22. Subpart I is amended by adding Table I-14 to subpart I to read as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13NO13.026


[[Page 68233]]



0
23. Subpart I is amended by adding Table I-15 to subpart I to read as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13NO13.027


[[Page 68234]]


0
24. Subpart I is amended by adding Table I-16 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               (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEMS, LCDs, and PV Manufacturing....................                  60
Semiconductor Manufacturing:
    Plasma Etch/Wafer Clean Process Type:
        CF4.........................................                  75
        CH3F........................................                  97
        CHF3........................................                  97
        CH2F2.......................................                  97
        C2F6........................................                  97
        C3F8........................................                  97
        C4F6........................................                  97
        C4F8........................................                  97
        C5F8........................................                  97
        SF6.........................................                  97
        NF3.........................................                  96
All other carbon-based plasma etch/wafer clean                        60
 fluorinated GHG....................................
Chamber Clean Process Type:
    NF3.............................................                  88
    All other chamber clean fluorinated GHG.........                  60
N2O Processes:                                        ..................
    CVD and all other N2O-using processes...........                  60
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
25. Subpart I is amended by adding Table I-17 to subpart I to read as 
follows:

       Table I-17 to Subpart I of Part 98--Expected and Possible By-Products for Electronics Manufacturing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each stack system for which you
  use the ``stack test method'' to         If emissions are detected         If emissions are not detected, use
  calculate annual emissions, you      intermittently, use the  following        the  following procedures:
    must measure the following:                   procedures:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expected By-products:..............  Use the measured concentration for     Use one-half of the field detection
 CF4...............................   ``Xksm'' in Equation I-18 when         limit you determined for the
 C2F6..............................   available and use one-half of the      fluorinated GHG according to Sec.
 CHF3..............................   field detection limit you determined   98.94(j)(2) for the value of
 CH2F2.............................   for the fluorinated GHG according to   ``Xksm'' in Equation I-18.
 CH3F..............................   Sec.   98.94(j)(2) for the value of
                                      ``Xksm'' when the fluorinated GHG is
                                      not detected.
Possible By-products:..............  Use the measured concentration for     Assume zero emissions for that
 C3F8..............................   ``Xksm'' in Equation I-18 when         fluorinated GHG for the tested
 C4F6..............................   available and use one-half of the      stack system.
 c-C4F8............................   field detection limit you determined
 C5F8..............................   for the fluorinated GHG according to
                                      Sec.   98.94(j)(2) for the value of
                                      ``Xksm'' when the fluorinated GHG is
                                      not detected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
26. Subpart I is amended by adding Appendix A to Subpart I of Part 98 
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 3 of section 2.2.7 of EPA 430-R-10-003 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  98.7).
    (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

[[Page 68235]]

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 (slm) 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. As an alternative you may 
use the sampling frequencies specified in section 2.2.4 of EPA 430-
R-10-003 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  98.7).
    (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 (v) of this 
appendix.
    (i) You must perform a qualitative mass calibration by running a 
standard (or by 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 R2 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 (17) of this appendix, 
including the laboratory study phase described in paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (7), and the field study phase described in paragraphs 
(b)(8) through (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 (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 three reference 
spectra is sufficient for a small expected concentration range 
(e.g., a

[[Page 68236]]

difference of 30 percent of the range between the low and high ends 
of the range), but a minimum of four spectra are needed where the 
range is greater, especially for concentration ranges that may 
differ by orders of magnitude. If the measurement method is not 
linear then multiple linear ranges may be necessary. If this 
approach is adopted, then linear range must be demonstrated to pass 
the required quality control. 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 40 [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 (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 may need to be stainless steel or Teflon; because of the 
potential for generation of inorganic automated gases, glass 
surfaces within the sampling system and absorption cell may need to 
be Teflon-coated. The sampling system should be able to deliver a 
volume of sample that results in a necessary response time.
    (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 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 (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

[[Page 68237]]

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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13NO13.028

Where:

AOITheoretical = Theoretical analyte of interest concentration 
(parts per million (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 (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. During field applications, the procedures 
demonstrated in the field study specified in paragraphs (b)(8) through 
(16) of this appendix must be adhered to as closely as possible, with 
the following exceptions specified in paragraphs (b)(17)(i) through 
(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 sufficiently 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 (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 in the exhaust of the point-of-use 
abatement device. For abatement systems operating in a mode where 
specific F-GHG are not readily abated, you may introduce the non-
reactive, non-native gas used for determining total volume flow and 
dilution across the point-of-use abatement device prior to the point-
of-use abatement system; in this case, the tracer must be more 
difficult to destroy than the target compounds being measured based on 
the thermal stability of the tracer and target.
    (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, and 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-

[[Page 68238]]

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 (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. 2013-23804 Filed 11-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P