Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program: Proposed Amendments and Confidentiality Determinations for Subpart I, 63537-63601 [2012-22348]

Download as PDF Vol. 77 Tuesday, No. 200 October 16, 2012 Part III Environmental Protection Agency tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 40 CFR Part 98 Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program: Proposed Amendments and Confidentiality Determinations for Subpart I; Proposed Rule VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 63538 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 98 [EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028; FRL–9726–7] RIN 2060–AR61 Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program: Proposed Amendments and Confidentiality Determinations for Subpart I Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule; Grant of Reconsideration. AGENCY: This action proposes amending the calculation and monitoring methodologies for the Electronics Manufacturing, of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. Proposed changes include revising certain calculation methods and adding a new method, amending data reporting requirements, and clarifying terms and definitions. This action also proposes confidentiality determinations for the reporting of the new and revised data elements. Many of these proposed actions are in response to a petition to reconsider specific aspects of our regulations. This document also proposes amendments to the General Provisions of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule to reflect proposed changes to the reporting requirements for the Electronics Manufacturing sector. SUMMARY: Comments. Comments must be received on or before December 17, 2012. Public Hearing. The EPA does not plan to conduct a public hearing unless requested. To request a hearing, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by October 23, 2012. Upon such request, the EPA will hold the hearing on October 31, 2012 in the Washington, DC area starting at 9 a.m., local time. The EPA will provide further information about the hearing on its Web page if a hearing is requested. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2011–0028, by one of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: https:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • Email: GHGReportingCBI@epa.gov. • Fax: (202) 566–1741. • Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Mailcode 6102T, Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028, 1200 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 DATES: VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. • Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 0028. The EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at https:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https:// www.regulations.gov or email. Send or deliver information identified as CBI to only the mail or hand/courier delivery address listed above, attention: Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through https:// www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https:// www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in https:// PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566–1742. FOR FURTHER GENERAL INFORMATION CONTACT: Carole Cook, Climate Change Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC–6207J), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343–9263; fax number: (202) 343–2342; email address: GHGReportingRule@epa.gov. For technical information, contact the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule Hotline at: https://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ emissions/ghgrule_contactus.htm Alternatively, contact Carole Cook at (202) 343–9263. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additional information on submitting comments: To expedite review of your comments by agency staff, you are encouraged to send a separate copy of your comments, in addition to the copy you submit to the official docket, to Carole Cook, U.S. EPA, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Climate Change Division, Mail Code 6207–J, Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 343–9263, email address: GHGReportingRule@epa.gov. Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this proposal, memoranda to the docket, and all other related information will also be available through the WWW on the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule Web site at https://www.epa.gov/ climatechange/. Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and abbreviations are used in this document. BAMM best available monitoring methods CAA Clean Air Act CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent CBI confidential business information CFR Code of Federal Regulations CVD chemical vapor deposition DRE destruction or removal efficiency EIA Economic Impact Analysis EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency F–GHG fluorinated greenhouse gas FDL field detection limit FTIR Fourier transform infrared GHG greenhouse gas GWP global warming potential HTF heat transfer fluid ICR Information Collection Request IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ISBN International Standard Book Number ISMI International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules LCD liquid crystal display MEMS micro-electro-mechanical systems mtCO2e metric ton carbon dioxide equivalent NAICS North American Industrial Classification System N2O nitrous oxide NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 OMB Office of Management & Budget PFC perfluorocarbon POU point of use ppbv parts per billion by volume QMS quadrupole mass spectroscopy RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act RSASTP random sampling abatement system testing program RSD relative standard deviation SEMATECH SEmiconductor MAnufacturing TECHnology SIA Semiconductor Industry Association UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 U.S. United States VCS voluntary consensus standard WWW Worldwide Web Organization of This Document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble. I. General Information A. What is the purpose of this action? B. Does this action apply to me? C. Legal Authority D. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to the EPA? II. Background for Proposed Amendments to GHG Monitoring and Calculation Methodologies and Other Technical Revisions A. Background for Proposed Amendments B. How would these amendments apply to 2012 and 2013 reports? III. Summary and Rationale for Proposed Amendments to GHG Monitoring and Calculation Methodologies and Other Revisions A. Summary of Proposed Rule Amendments in Response to Petition for Reconsideration B. Rationale for Proposed Amendments C. Proposed Rule Changes to Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements D. Proposed Changes to Remove BAMM Provisions and Language Specific to Reporting Years 2011, 2012, and 2013. IV. Background for Confidentiality Determinations for Subpart I of Part 98 A. Overview and Background B. Approach to Proposed CBI Determinations for New or Revised Subpart I Data Elements C. Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for Individual Data Elements in Two Direct Emitter Data Categories D. Request for Comments on Proposed Confidentiality Determinations V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations I. General Information A. What is the purpose of this action? The EPA is proposing amendments to the calculation and monitoring methodologies for Subpart I, Electronics Manufacturing, of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (‘‘subpart I’’). In addition, the EPA is proposing conforming changes to the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of subpart I. Changes include revising certain calculation methods and adding a new method, amending data reporting requirements, and clarifying terms and definitions. The EPA is proposing these amendments to (1) Modify calculation methods and data requirements to better reflect new industry data and current practice; (2) provide additional calculation methods to allow individual facilities to choose the method best suited for their operations; (3) reduce 63539 the burden associated with existing requirements; and (4) address sensitive business information concerns raised by members of the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA). Amendments being proposed today affect all facilities that manufacture electronics including those that manufacture semiconductors (including light emitting diodes), microelectro-mechanical systems (MEMS), liquid crystal displays (LCDs), or photovoltaic (PV) cells. Because we are planning an effective date of January 1, 2014 for the final amendments, we are also proposing to remove the rule language for certain provisions that will not apply after 2013. Sections II and III of this preamble contain more detailed information on the background and rationale for these proposed amendments. Many of the proposed changes are in response to a petition to reconsider specific aspects of subpart I. The EPA is also proposing confidentiality determinations for the new and revised data elements under the proposed amendments to subpart I. Section IV of this preamble provides the background and rationale for these proposed confidentiality determinations. Finally, Section V of this preamble describes the statutory and executive order requirements applicable to this action. B. Does this action apply to me? This proposal affects entities that are required to submit annual greenhouse gas (GHG) reports under subpart I of 40 CFR part 98 (‘‘Part 98’’). The Administrator determined that this action is subject to the provisions of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(d). See CAA section 307(d)(1)(V) (the provisions of CAA section 307(d) apply to ‘‘such other actions as the Administrator may determine’’). Part 98 and this action affect owners and operators of electronics manufacturing facilities. Affected categories and entities include those listed in Table 1 of this preamble. TABLE 1—EXAMPLES OF AFFECTED ENTITIES BY CATEGORY Category NAICS tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Electronics Manufacturing .......................... 334111 334413 334419 334419 Table 1 of this preamble lists the types of entities that potentially could be affected by the reporting requirements under the subpart covered VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 Examples of affected facilities Microcomputers manufacturing facilities. Semiconductor, photovoltaic (solid-state) device manufacturing facilities. Liquid crystal display unit screens manufacturing facilities. Micro-electro-mechanical systems manufacturing facilities. by this proposal. However, this list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding facilities likely to be affected by this PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 action. Other types of facilities not listed in the table could also be subject to reporting requirements. To determine whether you are affected by this action, E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 63540 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules you should carefully examine the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR part 98, subpart A as well as 40 CFR part 98, subpart I. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular facility, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble. C. Legal Authority tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 The EPA is proposing rule amendments to Part 98 under its existing CAA authority, specifically authorities provided in CAA section 114. As stated in the preamble to the 2009 final rule (74 FR 56260, October 30, 2009) and the Response to Comments on the Proposed Rule, Volume 9, Legal Issues, CAA section 114 provides the EPA broad authority to obtain the information in Part 98, including subpart I, because such data would inform and are relevant to the EPA’s carrying out a wide variety of CAA provisions. As discussed in the preamble to the initial Part 98 proposal (74 FR 16448, April 10, 2009), CAA section 114(a)(1) authorizes the Administrator to require emissions sources, persons subject to the CAA, manufacturers of control or process equipment, or persons whom the Administrator believes may have necessary information to monitor and report emissions and provide such other information the Administrator requests for the purposes of carrying out any provision of the CAA. In addition, the EPA is proposing confidentiality determinations for proposed data elements in subpart I, under its authorities provided in sections 114, 301, and 307 of the CAA. As mentioned, CAA section 114 provides the EPA authority to obtain the information in Part 98, including those in subpart I. Section 114(c) requires that the EPA make publicly available information obtained under section 114 except for information (excluding emission data) that qualify for confidential treatment. The Administrator has determined that this action (proposed amendments and confidentiality determinations) is subject to the provisions of section 307(d) of the CAA. D. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to the EPA? 1. Submitting Comments That Contain CBI Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD– ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 and then identify electronically within the disk or CD–ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https:// www.regulations.gov or email. Send or deliver information identified as CBI to only the mail or hand/courier delivery address listed above, attention: Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments When submitting comments, remember to: Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (e.g., subject heading, Federal Register date and page number). Follow directions. The EPA may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a CFR part or section number. Explain why you agree or disagree, and suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/ or data that you used. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow us to reproduce your estimate. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. Make sure to submit your information and comments by the comment period deadline identified in the preceding section titled DATES. To ensure proper receipt by the EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation. To expedite review of your comments by agency staff, you are encouraged to send a separate copy of your comments, in addition to the copy you submit to the official docket, to Carole Cook, U.S. EPA, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Climate Change Division, Mail Code PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 6207–J, Washington, DC, 20460, telephone (202) 343–9263, email GHGReportingCBI@epa.gov. You are also encouraged to send a separate copy of your CBI information to Carole Cook at the provided mailing address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Please do not send CBI to the electronic docket or by email. II. Background for Proposed Amendments to GHG Monitoring and Calculation Methodologies and Other Technical Revisions A. Background for Proposed Amendments The GHG reporting requirements for subpart I were finalized on December 1, 2010 (75 FR 74774, hereafter referred to as ‘‘final subpart I rule’’). Following the publication of the final subpart I rule in the Federal Register, the SIA (hereafter referred to as ‘‘the Petitioner’’) submitted on January 31, 2011 an administrative petition titled ‘‘Petition for Reconsideration and Request for Stay Pending Reconsideration of Subpart I of the Final Rule for Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases’’ (hereafter referred to as the ‘‘Petition for Reconsideration’’, available in docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0927), requesting reconsideration of numerous provisions in the final subpart I rule. Since that petition was filed, the EPA has published five actions related to subpart I. • Additional Sources of Fluorinated GHGs: Extension of Best Available Monitoring Provisions for Electronics Manufacturing (76 FR 36339, published June 22, 2011). Granted the Petition for Reconsideration with respect to the provisions for the use of Best Available Monitoring Methods (BAMM). Extended three of the deadlines in subpart I related to using the BAMM provisions from June 30, 2011 to September 30, 2011. • Changes to Provisions for Electronics Manufacturing to Provide Flexibility (76 FR 59542, published September 27, 2011). Amended the calculation and monitoring provisions for the largest semiconductor manufacturing facilities to provide flexibility through the end of 2013 and extended two deadlines in the BAMM provisions. • Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for Subpart I and Proposed Amendments to Subpart I Best Available Monitoring Methods Provisions (77 FR 10434, published February 22, 2012). Re-proposed confidentiality determinations for data elements in subpart I and proposed amendments to the provisions regarding E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules the calculation and reporting of emissions from facilities that use BAMM. • Revisions to Heat Transfer Fluid Provisions (77 FR 10373, published February 22, 2012). Amended the definition of fluorinated heat transfer fluids (fluorinated HTFs) and the provisions to estimate and report emissions from fluorinated HTFs. • Final Confidentiality Determinations for Nine Subparts and Amendments to Subpart A and I under the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule; Final Rule (77 FR 48072, published August 13, 2012). Final confidentiality determinations for data elements in subpart I and final amendments to the provisions regarding the calculation and reporting of emissions from facilities that use BAMM. B. How would these amendments apply to 2012 and 2013 reports? The EPA intends to address the comments on these proposed amendments and publish any final amendments in 2013. Facilities would be required to follow one of the new or revised methods to estimate emissions beginning in 2014. The first reports of emissions estimated using the new methods would be submitted in 2015. For the reports for reporting years 2012 and 2013, reporters would be expected to calculate emissions and other relevant data using the existing requirements under Part 98. These existing requirements include the flexibility for the largest semiconductor manufacturing facilities added in the September 27, 2011 rule titled ‘‘Changes to Provisions for Electronics Manufacturing to Provide Flexibility.’’ Given the timing and extent of the proposed changes, and the likelihood that the final rule will not be published until the second half of 2013, we have determined that it is not feasible for sources to implement these changes for reporting year 2013. The proposed revisions would change and replace existing calculation methods and regulatory requirements, and would greatly affect how emissions are calculated and the data that would be reported. For example, we are proposing to add a new stack testing option to measure and calculate fab-level fluorinated greenhouse gas (F–GHG) emissions, revise process categories and associated gas utilization rates and byproduct formation rates, and eliminate existing methods that require using recipe-specific gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates to calculate emissions. Because of the different data collection requirements compared to the current subpart I requirements, we do not anticipate that facilities would have enough time after the final rule is published to schedule stack tests, revise their current tracking and monitoring methods, or revise the data collection methods for reporting year 2013. Thus, reporters using the current methods in subpart I would continue to use these methods for collecting data and calculating emissions for 2013 that are reported in 2014. Reporters would be required to select calculation methods based on any final revisions to the rule to calculate the emissions for 2014 that are reported in 2015. 63541 III. Summary and Rationale for Proposed Amendments to GHG Monitoring and Calculation Methodologies and Other Revisions A. Summary of Proposed Rule Amendments in Response to Petition for Reconsideration In this action, we are granting reconsideration on all issues in the Petition for Reconsideration not already addressed in the final rules published June 22, 2011 (Additional Sources of Fluorinated GHGs: Extension of Best Available Monitoring Provisions for Electronics Manufacturing); September 27, 2011 (Changes to Provisions for Electronics Manufacturing to Provide Flexibility); and August 13, 2012 (Confidentiality Determinations for Subpart I and Amendments to Subpart I Best Available Monitoring Methods Provisions). Those final rules are described in Section II.A of this preamble. Section III.B of this preamble discusses the specific issues raised in the Petition for Reconsideration that are addressed in this action and the changes the EPA is proposing in response to the petition. The EPA intends to complete its response to the Petition for Reconsideration through this rulemaking. Following consideration of the issues raised in the Petition for Reconsideration and data presented by the Petitioner, the EPA is proposing certain amendments to subpart I. Table 2 of this preamble presents a summary of the outstanding issues raised by the Petitioner and the corresponding proposed changes to the rule. Section III.B of this preamble provides further detail including the EPA’s rationale for each proposed change. TABLE 2—PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE RULE BASED ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND THE PETITIONER’S MAY 26, 2011 LETTER SUPPORTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE RULE CHANGES TO PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY THAT WERE FINALIZED SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 Technical issue Proposed changes to rule Rows 2 and 12 apply to semiconductor facilities only. All other rows apply to all electronics manufacturing facilities. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 1. Addition of an emission estimation method as an alternative to recipe-specific emission factors. (See Section III.B.1). 2. Revision of default gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates for the plasma etch process type for semiconductor manufacturing. (See Section III.B.2). VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Revising 40 CFR 98.93 to provide an option for using stack testing as an alternative method for determining fab-level emission factors for determining fab-level F–GHG emissions for all electronics manufacturing facilities. Revising 40 CFR 98.94 to 98.98 to include the monitoring methods, QA/QC, missing data, reporting, recordkeeping, and definition requirements for the stack testing alternative. Revise 40 CFR 98.92(a) and 40 CFR 98.93(a)(2) and (a)(4) to combine wafer cleaning and plasma etch emission processes and associated gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates. Revise Tables I–3 and I–4 for semiconductor manufacturing with new gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates based on gas type and process type or sub-type using additional data submitted by the Petitioner. Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 63542 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2—PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE RULE BASED ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND THE PETITIONER’S MAY 26, 2011 LETTER SUPPORTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE RULE CHANGES TO PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY THAT WERE FINALIZED SEPTEMBER 27, 2011—Continued Technical issue Proposed changes to rule 3. Removing recipe-specific emission factors: Requirements for (1) Largest semiconductor manufacturing facilities (defined as those facilities with annual manufacturing capacity of greater than 10,500 m2 of substrate) to use recipe-specific gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates to estimate emissions from plasma etch processes; and (2) semiconductor facilities using wafers greater than 300 mm diameter to estimate all of their emissions from processes that use fluorinated GHGs using recipe-specific gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates. (See Section III.B.3). Revising 40 CFR 98.93, 98.94, 98.96, and 98.97 to remove provisions to use recipe-specific gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates and to combine the wafer cleaning process type with the plasma etch process type. Under this proposal, all semiconductor manufacturing facilities, regardless of manufacturing capacity, would have the option to use default gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates to estimate emissions from the plasma etching/wafer cleaning process type and from the following three subtypes of the chamber cleaning process type: in-situ plasma chamber cleaning, remote plasma chamber cleaning, and in-situ thermal chamber cleaning. Revising the terminology and definition of maximum designed substrate starts in 40 CFR 98.98 to be maximum substrate starts, meaning for the purposes of Equation I–5 in subpart I, the maximum quantity of substrates, expressed as surface area, that could be started each month in a reporting year based on the equipment installed in that facility and assuming that the equipment were fully utilized. Manufacturing equipment would be considered installed when it is on the manufacturing floor and connected to the required utilities. Facilities would be allowed to report integrated production and R&D emissions and, if doing so, would be required to provide an estimate of the fraction of total emissions from their R&D activities under 40 CFR 98.96. Removing the requirement for one percent of full-scale accuracy for ‘‘all flow meters, weigh scales, pressure gauges and thermometers* * *’’ in 40 CFR 98.93(i) and referencing the calibration accuracy requirements in 40 CFR 98.3(i) for all measurement devices used to measure quantities that are monitored in subpart I. 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 (containing less than 9.08 kilograms (20 pounds) of gas). For large containers, the ‘‘exceptional circumstance’’ would remain as a change out point that differs by 20 percent of the trigger point used to calculate the gas specific heel factor. Clarifying the requirements for recalculating the facility-wide heel factor. Revising 40 CFR 98.94(c) to allow for development of apportioning factors by using direct measurements using gas flow meters or weigh scales, to measure process sub-type, process type, stack system, or fab-specific input gas consumption. Revising 40 CFR 98.94(c)(2)(i) to allow reporters to select a period of the reporting year and its duration that is representative of normal operations for the model verification. The representative period would be at least 30 days in duration, and may be as long as one year. The model would be verified using the F–GHG used in the greatest quantity, and would be corrected if it does not meet the verification requirements. A facility would be able to use two F–GHG for model verification if they both meet the criteria and if at least one of them is used in the greatest quantity. Increasing the maximum allowed difference between the modeled and actual gas consumption in the verification process from 5 percent to 20 percent. Revising 40 CFR 98.93(b), 40 CFR 98.96(c)(3) and 40 CFR 98.96(k) to clarify that facilities must calculate annual fab-level N2O emissions from the chemical vapor deposition (CVD) process type and from the aggregate of other electronics manufacturing production processes using default emission factors (facilities are not required to report emissions from each CVD process and from each other N2O using process). Revising 40 CFR 98.94(f) to allow facilities to use either revised default destruction or removal efficiency (DRE) values or to establish a sitespecific DRE value for each combination of input gas or by-product gas and process type or sub-type using directly measured DREs. Providing alternative methods for a facility to directly measure DRE. 4. Calculation for determining manufacturing capacity. (See Section III.B.4). 5. Reporting provisions for facilities that have integrated production and research and development (R&D) activities. (See Section III.B.5). 6. Requirements for the accuracy and precision of the equipment measuring gas consumption. (See Section III.B.6). 7. Provisions for re-calculating the facility-wide gas specific heel factor and handling exceptional circumstances. (See Section III.B.7). 8. Requirements for verifying the model used to apportion gas consumption. (See Section III.B.8). tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 9. Provisions for calculating N2O emissions. (See Section III.B.9) .......... 10. Provisions for reporting controlled emissions from abatement systems. (See Section III.B.10). VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 63543 TABLE 2—PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE RULE BASED ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND THE PETITIONER’S MAY 26, 2011 LETTER SUPPORTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE RULE CHANGES TO PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY THAT WERE FINALIZED SEPTEMBER 27, 2011—Continued Technical issue Proposed changes to rule 11. Provisions for determining and calculating abatement system uptime. (See Section III.B.11). Revising Equation I–15 to allow reporters to calculate the average uptime for the group of systems for each combination of input gas or by-product gas and process type or sub-type, using the same process categories in which F–GHG use and emissions are calculated. Abatement system uptime monitoring and calculation would be simplified by assuming that connected process tools operate with F– GHGs or N2O flowing continuously once they are installed; this would apply for all methods (both default emission factors and stack testing). Revising the data reporting requirements in 40 CFR 98.96 to require certain semiconductor manufacturing facilities to provide a report to the EPA every 3 years covering technology changes at the facility that may affect gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates or DRE values. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 12. Absence of a method for updating gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates and DRE values for semiconductor manufacturing. (See Section III.B.12). The EPA is not staying subpart I pending reconsideration as requested in the Petition for Reconsideration because the EPA believes that the concerns prompting the stay request have been addressed through the BAMM process and through the September 27, 2011 final rule (Changes to Provisions for Electronics Manufacturing to Provide Flexibility), which amended the calculation and monitoring provisions for the largest semiconductor manufacturing facilities to provide flexibility through the end of 2013. As stated in the preamble to the September 27, 2011 final rule, the EPA intends to finalize revisions to subpart I in 2013 so that semiconductor manufacturing facilities can implement the revised subpart I beginning in 2014. The EPA is not reopening the entirety of subpart I for comment but is taking comment only on the remaining issues raised by the Petitioner, as listed in Table 2 of this preamble, and the proposed amendments described in Section III.B of this preamble, with the exception that we request comment on whether new data are available to update the default gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates for the facilities that manufacture MEMS, LCDs, or PV cells (see Section III.B.2 of this preamble), and whether new data are available on measured DRE values for abatement systems used at MEMS, LCD, or PV cell manufacturing facilities (see Section III.B.10 of this preamble). In summary, the major changes we are proposing are to revise the calculation methods to provide all electronics manufacturing facilities the choice of two methods to calculate annual emissions and to remove the option for electronics manufacturing facilities to determine and use recipe-specific gas utilization rates and by-product VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 formation rates. The proposed rule would provide the option for reporters to use either default gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates, which the EPA is proposing to revise for semiconductor manufacturing facilities to reflect new industry data provided to the EPA, or to conduct stack testing to establish site-specific emission factors for F–GHGs that would be used to calculate F–GHG emissions. The proposed amendments would ensure that the EPA receives accurate and current facility-specific data. The proposed amendments also include provisions for the periodic review of industry advances and changes that may impact the default gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates and default DRE values used to estimate emissions, to encourage the continued collection of data that represent current industry practices. Additionally, the proposed stack testing approach allows for estimation of emissions based on periodic direct measurements of stack emissions from facilities. These proposed amendments would allow the EPA to accurately characterize and analyze GHG emissions from facilities in the electronics manufacturing industry while reducing burden to the industry. B. Rationale for Proposed Amendments 1. Stack Testing as an Alternative Emission Monitoring Method for Facilities that Manufacture Electronics After subpart I was promulgated, the Petitioner expressed interest in developing a method to use stack testing to quantify F–GHG emissions from electronics manufacturing facilities as an alternative to the recipe-specific method in the final subpart I rule. Specifically, the Petitioner proposed an approach in which they would (1) PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 develop emission factors by measuring emissions from their stacks over a certain period and dividing them by an activity metric (e.g., gas consumption) measured over the same period; and (2) estimate annual emissions by multiplying the emission factors by the appropriate annual activity. They noted that stack testing is already widely accepted in the industry and commonly used to quantify non-F–GHG emissions for compliance with other state and federal air programs. They also noted that in most facilities, a large number of tools using F–GHGs are exhausted through a relatively small number of stacks, and stack testing in such a situation could be at least as accurate as the other methods in the final subpart I rule, and could be more cost-effective for the facility depending on how often testing is conducted (see ‘‘Technical Support for the Stack Test Option for Estimating Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Electronics Manufacturing Facilities under Subpart I,’’ Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 0028). The EPA recognizes that stack testing is an important tool that has historically been required for specified non-F–GHG pollutants to determine a facility’s compliance with emission limits, capture or control efficiencies, or monitoring parameters established pursuant to certain provisions of the CAA. Stack testing performed and verified according to the procedures in validated EPA methods is considered a reliable method to quantify facility emissions as long as a robust and predictable relationship is found between emissions and the selected activity metric. Because stack testing is a direct measurement of facility emissions, it has the potential to provide a high-quality characterization E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 63544 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules of the emissions from the electronics manufacturing industry. Electronics manufacturers are already using stack testing to comply with other air rules and operating permit requirements. For example, semiconductor manufacturers subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBB, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Semiconductor Manufacturing, are already required to perform stack testing using EPA Method 320 at 40 CFR part 63, appendix A (hereafter ‘‘EPA Method 320’’), among others, to comply with subpart BBBBB, although they are not required to use EPA Method 320 to quantify F–GHG emissions. To determine whether stack testing might be appropriate to quantify F–GHG emissions from electronics manufacturing, EPA evaluated whether it demonstrates (1) The ability of a method and technology to accurately measure F–GHG emissions from electronics manufacturing facilities during the test; (2) the ability to accurately measure a corresponding activity metric during the test; and (3) the existence of a reasonably constant and predictable relationship between F– GHG emissions and the chosen activity metric. The first and third factors were particularly important given the relatively low concentrations of F–GHGs in exhaust streams at electronics facilities and the potential variability of emission factors over time at those facilities as the mix of products and processes changed over time. The Petitioner provided data from stack testing and supporting data on F– GHG consumption and production to demonstrate that that stack testing can be used to estimate annual emissions. These data were provided to the EPA in support of the Petitioner’s request in the petition for reconsideration to add a stack testing option to subpart I for semiconductor manufacturing. The data were collected using EPA Method 320, ‘‘Measurement Of Vapor Phase Organic And Inorganic Emissions By Extractive Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy’’ (40 CFR part 63, appendix A), at three companies manufacturing a variety of semiconductor products on different sized wafers. The data provided to the EPA demonstrated that F–GHG emissions are a direct and reasonably constant function of F–GHG consumption over the test period. Moreover, data from multiple tests at two facilities showed that emission factors (kg gas emitted/kg gas consumed) did not vary widely in the absence of significant technology and abatement level changes, even though the mix of products at one of the VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 facilities appeared likely to have changed during the months since the previous test. This indicates that emissions from one period at a facility, when converted to emission factors based on F–GHG consumption, can be used to determine emissions at the same facility over an extended period of time (i.e., one year, and longer under certain circumstances), and can be scaled to estimate annual F–GHG emissions. The data provided by the Petitioner (see ‘‘Technical Support for the Stack Test Option for Estimating Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Electronics Manufacturing Facilities under Subpart I,’’ Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2011–0028) demonstrated that current FTIR methods, such as EPA Method 320, have sufficient sensitivity, when used in conjunction with detectors optimized to detect F–GHGs, to provide accurate measurements of F– GHG emissions. EPA Method 320 can be used to measure concentrations of the commonly emitted F–GHGs down to a few parts per billion by volume (ppbv), and the field detection limits for the same F–GHGs can be as low as 1 or 2 ppbv. The same data provided by the Petitioner provided evidence that F– GHG consumption can be accurately measured or estimated over the proposed test period of 8 hours as long as varying temperatures, non-ideal gas behavior, and low drawdown rates are appropriately accounted for. (Methods for accounting for these are discussed in ‘‘Stack testing requirements’’ in Section III.B.1 of this preamble.) This ensures that gas consumption can be accurately determined, either directly for the test period or by interpolating from longerterm consumption data. Accurate gas consumption measurements ensure that gas consumption can be used with the stack emission measurements as the basis for emission factors to calculate annual emissions. Finally, the data provided by the Petitioner demonstrated that emissions estimated from stack testing were in agreement with emissions for the same facilities estimated using other methods, such as the default gas utilization rates and by-product formation rate method in subpart I (see ‘‘Technical Support for the Stack Test Option for Estimating Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Electronics Manufacturing Facilities under Subpart I,’’ Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028). The EPA is proposing to revise subpart I to include a stack testing option for estimating annual F–GHG emissions at 40 CFR 98.93(i). This option would apply to all electronic manufacturing facilities, including those PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 making semiconductors, MEMS, LCDs, and PV cells. We are not proposing this option for estimating N2O emissions; a review of the stack test data provided to the EPA revealed inconsistent results for stack measurements of N2O emissions for which the cause could not be determined (see ‘‘Technical Support for the Stack Test Option for Estimating Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Electronics Manufacturing Facilities under Subpart I,’’ Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028). Therefore, we do not have sufficient data to show that stack testing is appropriate for development of N2O emission estimates. However, the rule already includes an option based on default emission factors for estimating N2O emissions (see 40 CFR 98.93(b)). (Proposed amendments to the provisions and emission factors for estimating N2O emissions are discussed in Section III.B.9 of this preamble.) In this action, we are also proposing to allow all electronics manufacturing facilities to use separate methods (i.e., stack testing or default utilization and by-product formation rates) to estimate emissions from each fab within a single facility. Facilities would report GHG emissions on a fab basis. Many electronics manufacturing facilities are divided into separate fabs, which generally consist of separate buildings constructed at different times in which the processing tools are located. Most facilities have only one fab, but some facilities have two or more fabs. Each fab may be dedicated to a different product type, or may represent different generations of manufacturing technology because they were built at different times. In the semiconductor manufacturing industry, separate fabs may use different size wafers. Because of differences among fabs (e.g., differences in the number of stacks), a reporter may wish to use different methods to estimate emissions from each fab. We are proposing to allow reporters to use different methods for separate fabs, but would also require that emissions be reported at the fab level. We are proposing to define a ‘‘fab’’ in 40 CFR 98.98 as ‘‘the portion of an electronics manufacturing facility located in a separate physical structure that began manufacturing on a certain date.’’ Selection of Stack Systems for Testing. The EPA recognizes that given the diversity of facility designs among electronics manufacturers, some facilities may have some stacks that account for only a small percent of total facility emissions. In order to avoid the burden of testing a large number of stacks, the proposed amendments E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules would not require that all stacks be tested. Instead, the reporter would develop a preliminary estimate of the annual emissions from each ‘‘stack system’’ in a fab and would not be required to test those stack systems that account for relatively small emissions. A stack system would be considered to be one or more stacks that are connected by a common header or manifold, through which a fluorinated GHGcontaining gas stream originating from one or more fab processes is, or has the potential to be, released to the atmosphere. For purposes of subpart I, stack systems would not include emergency vents or bypass stacks through which emissions are not usually vented under typical operating conditions. Under the proposed rule, the reporter would develop a preliminary estimate of F–GHG emissions from each stack system on a metric ton carbon dioxide equivalent (mtCO2e) basis using the gas consumption in the tools associated with the stack system and gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates in proposed Tables I–11 through I–15, and accounting for the DRE of the ‘‘point of use’’ (POU) abatement systems and the uptime (the fraction of time the system is operating within manufacturer’s specifications) of the POU systems. The gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates in proposed Tables I–11 through I–15 are based on the 2006 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Tier 2a factors.1 The factors in proposed Tables I–11 and I– 12 for semiconductor manufacturing facilities were updated from the 2006 IPCC factors based on additional data collected by the Petitioner (see ‘‘Technical Support for Modifications to the Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimation Method Option for Semiconductor Facilities under Subpart I,’’ Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 0028). In the preliminary estimate, reporters would be required to use data from the previous reporting year for the DRE of abatement and the total uptime of all abatement systems in each stack system. The consumption of each F–GHG in each stack system would be estimated as the total gas consumption of that F– GHG times the ratio of the number of tools using that F–GHG that are feeding to that stack system to the total number of tools in the fab using that F–GHG. The reporter would convert the F–GHG emissions to CO2e using the global 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. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 warming potential (GWP) values for F– GHG in Table A–1 of subpart A of Part 98. For F–GHG in Tables I–11 through I–15 for which Table A–1 of subpart A of Part 98 does not list a GWP value, reporters would use a default value of 2,000 for the GWP. Based on this preliminary estimate, the reporter would rank the F–GHG emitting stack systems at the facility from the lowest to highest emitting. The reporter would not have to test emissions from lowemitting stack systems, defined as those F–GHG emitting stack systems meeting all of the following three criteria: (1) The sum of the F–GHG emissions from all combined stack systems in the fab that are not tested is less than 10,000 mtCO2e per year; (2) Each of the stack systems that are not tested are within the fab’s lowest F– GHG emitting stack systems that together emit 15 percent or less of total CO2e F–GHG emissions from the fab; and (3) The F–GHG emissions from each of the stack systems that are not tested can be attributed to only one particular collection of process tools during the test (i.e., the stack cannot be used as a bypass from other tools that are normally vented through a stack system that does not meet these criteria). For those low-emitting stack systems that are not tested, the reported F–GHG emissions would be the preliminary estimate made using the gas consumption and the gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates in proposed Tables I–11 through I–15 in subpart I, accounting for the DRE and uptime of the POU abatement systems. The default emission factors in proposed Tables I–11 through I–15 are simplified default emission factors based on just F–GHG species, and do not account for different rates by process type or sub-type. This approach minimizes reporting burden to industry because it does not require allocation of gas consumption between process types or sub-types (e.g., etch and chamber clean), as is required for the default emission factor based method. However, we recognize that there may be a need for facilities to reconfigure low-emitting stack systems following testing for production reasons. As a result, we are specifically requesting comment on how often such stack flow configuration changes occur. In addition, we are specifically requesting comment on whether reporters should be allowed to calculate emissions for low-emitting stack systems that are not tested using average fab-specific emission factors developed for the stack systems that are tested. We are specifically requesting comment on how such a provision PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 63545 would affect emission calculations from differences in gas and process types, and in DRE abatement system uptime between stack systems that are tested and stack systems that are not tested. Stack testing requirements. For those higher-emitting stack systems in each fab that are not exempt from measurement, the reporter would measure each F–GHG concentration (parts per million by volume, ppmv) and the total stack flow to determine the hourly mass flow rate (kg/hr) of each F– GHG emitted from each applicable stack system. If a stack system has more than one stack from a common header, the reporter would be required to measure F–GHG concentration and flow in each stack from that header because it is known from prior testing that F–GHG concentrations and flow rates are not consistent in such systems because of incomplete mixing. The reporter would use EPA Method 320 or another validated method to measure F–GHG concentration, and EPA Methods 1 through 4 at 40 CFR part 60, appendices A–1, A–2, and A–3 to measure other stack gas parameters needed to convert F–GHG concentration to mass emissions for the test period. Reporters would also be required to measure the fab-specific consumption of each F–GHG for the test period. Reporters would be required to determine the F–GHGs expected to be emitted from the stack system, including by-product F–GHG, based on a facility analysis of all F–GHGs consumed or emitted in the previous reporting year, and all F–GHGs expected to be consumed or emitted in the current reporting year by process tools vented to the stack system. Documented results of the analysis would be kept as a record by the facility. The facility would not be required to test for all F– GHG consumed in the previous year if they are no longer being used, but only to consider the use of those F–GHG in the analysis of the F–GHG previously consumed or emitted and expected to be consumed or emitted. The reporter would also need to consider in the analysis the by-product gases that are included in Tables I–3 to I–7 that are applicable to the reporter’s industry segment (semiconductors, PV, MEMS, or LCD). Based on this analysis, reporters would be required to measure emissions for all F–GHG used as input gases and any expected by-product F– GHG, except for any intermittent lowuse F–GHG. Intermittent low-use F– GHGs would be defined as F–GHG that meet all of the following: (1) The F–GHG is used by the fab but was not used on the day of the actual stack testing; E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 63546 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules (2) The emissions of that F–GHG do not constitute more than 5 percent of the total annual F–GHG emissions from the fab on a CO2e basis; and (3) The sum of all F–GHG that are considered intermittent low-use F– GHGs does not exceed 10,000 mtCO2e for that year. We are proposing that reporters would specifically test for CF4 and C2F6 as by-product F–GHG from all stack systems that are subject to testing. These two F–GHG are commonly formed byproduct gases in the electronics manufacturing industry from the plasma etch and chamber cleaning process types, and some may also be formed in the abatement systems. We are also considering an option that would require testing for all F–GHGs that have been identified as by-products of any input gas in previous testing throughout the electronics industry. This set would include C3F8, C4F6, C4F8, and CHF3 in addition to CF4 and C2F6. We are considering this option because the identities and quantities of byproducts generated at a particular facility at a particular time can be difficult to predict, and the costs of testing for additional by-products are expected to be modest. In the one set of semiconductor facility stack tests that tested for the full range of potential byproducts listed above, a perfluorocarbon (PFC) by-product was found, C3F8, which accounted for up to 40 percent of the GWP-weighted by-product emissions of the fab (and up to two percent of the total GWP-weighted emissions). If unexpected by-products occur in similar proportions at other facilities, failing to measure for them could lead to routine underestimates of emissions at those facilities. This option is discussed further in the memorandum ‘‘Technical Support for the Stack Test Option for Estimating Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Electronics Manufacturing Facilities under Subpart I,’’ Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2011–0028. We are specifically requesting comment on the option of requiring facilities to test for the six by-products listed above. Reporters would calculate annual emissions of intermittent low-use F– GHGs using the gas consumption and the gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates in proposed Tables I–11 through I–15 in the rule, accounting for the DRE and uptime of the POU systems during the year for which emissions are being estimated. The testing period would be 8 hours for each stack, with the option for a longer duration. The EPA understands that a 24-hour testing duration may be burdensome and may increase testing VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 costs; however, reporters could elect to conduct longer testing to improve the accuracy of gas consumption and F– GHG concentration measurements for gases used in smaller quantities. Reporters would not be required to measure all stacks simultaneously, but reporters would be required to certify there are no changes between tests in the stack flow configuration (i.e., the relationship between sets of process tools and any connected POU systems and their corresponding waste streams that are ultimately vented through the stack). Reporters would also be required to certify there are no changes in the centralized abatement systems; if any are present. The tests would have to be conducted during a period in which the fab is operating at a representative operating level and with the POU abatement systems connected to the stack being tested operating with at least 90 percent uptime during the 8-hour (or longer) period, or at no less than 90 percent of the average uptime measured during the previous reporting year. The representative operating level would be considered to be operating the fab, in terms of substrate starts for the period of testing, at no less than 50 percent of installed production capacity or no less than 70 percent of the average production rate for the reporting year, where production rate for the reporting year is represented in average monthly substrate starts. For the purposes of stack testing, the period for determining the representative operating level must be the 30-day period ending on the same date on which testing is concluded. To convert the measured F–GHG emission rates into fab-specific emission factors, the reporter would measure the consumption of each F–GHG used in the tools associated with the stack systems being tested, excluding gas consumption allocated to tools venting to lowemitting stack systems that are not tested. Consumption could be measured using gas flow meters, weigh scales, or pressure measurements (corrected for temperature and non-ideal gas behavior). For gases with low volume consumption for which it is infeasible to measure consumption accurately over the 8-hour testing duration, short-term consumption could be estimated by using one or more of the following: (1) Drawing from single gas containers in cases where gas is normally drawn from a series of containers supplying a manifold; (2) Increasing the length of the test period to greater than 8 hours; or (3) Calculating consumption from long-term consumption (e.g., monthly) that is pro-rated to the test duration. PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 F–GHGs not detected by Method 320. The EPA is proposing that the concentrations of F–GHG in stacks systems be measured using EPA Method 320. This has been shown to be a valid method for measuring these target compounds, but it is expected that some F–GHG may occur in concentrations that are below the field detection limit (FDL), as defined in EPA Method 320. Therefore, we are proposing that the following procedures be followed to account for different scenarios in which a F–GHG is used, but not detected by Method 320 measurements: • If a F–GHG is consumed during testing, but emissions are not detected, the reporter would use one-half of the FDL for the concentration of that F– GHG in calculations. • If a F–GHG is consumed during testing and detected intermittently during the test run, the reporter would use the detected concentration for the value of that F–GHG when available and use one-half of the FDL for the value when the F–GHG is not detected. • If a F–GHG is not consumed during testing but is detected intermittently as a by-product gas, the reporter would use the measured concentration when available and use one-half of the FDL for the value when the F–GHG is not detected. • If a F–GHG is an expected byproduct gas (e.g., CF4, C2F6, and other gases listed as by-products in Tables I– 3, I–4, I–5, I–6, I–7, and proposed Tables I–11 to I–15) of the stack system tested and is not detected during the test run, use one-half of the FDL for the value of that F–GHG. • If a F–GHG is not used, and is not an expected by-product of the stack system and is not detected, then assume zero emissions for that F–GHG for the tested stack system. We are specifically requesting comment on the option of listing specific by-product gases as ‘‘expected’’ to be emitted even when they are not detected. Based on a review of the default emission factor tables listed above, CF4 and C2F6 are almost always generated as by-products (that is, they are generated by a wide range of process types and input gases), and CHF3 is frequently generated. Other by-products appear to be generated less frequently. Thus, it may be appropriate to specify CF4 and C2F6, and possibly also CHF3, as the set of by-products for which a value of one half of the FDL should be assumed in calculating emissions during the test. This approach would simplify the rule, provide certainty for purposes of implementation, and relieve facilities of the burden of determining E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules which by-products are ‘‘expected’’ to be emitted. EPA Method 320 requires the specification of maximum FDLs because the FDLs achieved by a method and detector can have a significant impact on the quality of the measurements. For example, if the FDL for a F–GHG were so high that large emissions of that GHG were never detected, the uncertainty of the resulting emissions estimate (i.e., one-half the FDL), would be correspondingly high. The EPA is proposing maximum FDLs based on (1) review of the FDLs that have been achieved at three different semiconductor facilities, and (2) analysis of the magnitude of the emissions that would occur (in CO2e) at various possible maximum FDLs. The latter provides an indication of the uncertainty of emissions measurements using methods and detectors with those FDLs. The proposed maximum FDLs can be found in proposed Table I–10 of the regulatory text. The EPA expects that the proposed treatment of these non-detect values using one-half of the FDL will avoid any potential under-counting of any F– GHGs that are expected to be in the emissions from a given process and F– GHG input gas combination. At the same time, the proposed treatment will provide a reasonable estimate of emissions of F–GHGs that occur in concentrations that are below the FDL. The EPA’s analysis of testing data provided by the Petitioner has shown that emission measurements of gases known to be used and for which the concentration was below the FDL accounted for about 0.1 percent of F– GHG consumption and would account for about 0.1 percent of emissions on a CO2e basis if the concentration was assumed to be one-half of the FDL as outlined in this section (see ‘‘Technical Support for the Stack Test Option for Estimating Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Electronics Manufacturing Facilities under Subpart I,’’ Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 0028). Alternative stack test methods. To provide flexibility for facilities utilizing the stack test option, we are proposing that reporters may use an alternative stack test method to measure the concentration of F–GHG in each stack provided that the method is validated using EPA Method 301 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A (hereafter ‘‘EPA Method 301’’), and the EPA approves its use. Under the proposed approval process in 40 CFR 98.94(k), the reporter would be required to notify the Administrator of the intent to use an alternative test method. The notification would need to VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 include a test plan describing the alternative method and procedures, the range of test conditions over which the validation is intended to be applicable, and also an alternative means of calculating the fab-level F–GHG emissions if the Administrator denies the use of the results of the alternative method. The reporter would be required to validate the alternative method using EPA Method 301 and submit the results of the Method 301 validation process along with the notification of intention and a rationale for not using the specified method. The Administrator would review and determine whether the validation of the proposed alternative method is adequate and issue an approval or disapproval of the alternative test plan within 120 days of the reporter submitting the notification and test plan. The reporter would be required to respond to any of the Administrator’s questions on the test plan before obtaining approval and take into account the Administrator’s comments on the test plan in conducting the test using the alternative method. The reporter would be required to respond to the Administrator’s questions or request for additional information on the plan during the 120day review period and the Administrator’s questions or request for additional information would not extend that review period. Therefore, it would be the reporter’s obligation to respond in a timely manner. If an alternative test plan were not approved, a reporter would need to begin the process to have an alternative test method approved starting with the notification of intent to use an alternative test method. The reporter would report the results of stack testing using the alternative method and procedure specified in the approved test plan. The report would include all methods, calculations and data used to determine F–GHG emissions. The Administrator would review the results of the test using the alternative methods and procedure and then approve or deny the use of the results of the alternative test method and procedure no later than 120 days after they are submitted to the EPA. During this 120-day period, the reporter would be required to respond to any of the Administrator’s questions on the test report before obtaining approval of the final test results using the alternative method. If the Administrator were to find reasonable grounds to dispute the results obtained by the alternative method, the Administrator could require the use of the method specified in subpart I instead of the alternative method. PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 63547 Once the Administrator approved the use of the alternative method, that method could be used by any other facility for the same F–GHGs and types of stack systems, if the approved conditions apply to that facility. In granting approval, the Administrator would limit the range of test conditions and emission characteristics for which that approval is granted and under which the alternative method could be used without seeking further approval. The Administrator would specify those limitations, if any, in the approval of the alternative method. Accounting for Abatement System Downtime. To account for the effect of POU abatement system downtime in estimating emissions using the stack testing method, reporters would record the abatement system downtime in each fab during testing and for the entire reporting year. Using the downtime measured during testing, the reporters would correct the measured emission factors to assume no abatement system downtime (i.e., 100 percent abatement system uptime). The downtime measured over the entire reporting year would be used to calculate the excess F– GHG emissions that occur as a result of abatement system downtime events. The reporter would measure the amount of POU abatement system downtime (in minutes) during the emission tests for any tools that are vented to the stacks being tested. For example, if five POU abatement systems are down for times of 10, 15, 25, 30, and 40 minutes during an 8-hour test, the total POU system downtime would be 120 minutes, or 5.0 percent of the total possible abatement system and tool operating time for the five tools (2,400 minutes). Using these data and the average DRE for the POU abatement systems, the emission factor measured during the testing would be adjusted to an emission factor representing POU abatement systems with 100 percent uptime (zero percent downtime). The downtime measured over the year would be used to determine an uptime factor that would be an aggregate for all abatement systems in the fab, and calculated using proposed Equation I– 23 in subpart I. Abatement system downtime would be considered any time during which the abatement system was not operating according to the manufacturer’s specifications. The reporter would determine the sum of the downtime for all abatement systems during the year, and divide this sum by the sum of the possible annual operating time for each of the tools connected to those abatement systems in the fab to determine the downtime fraction. The downtime fraction would be the E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 63548 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules decimal fraction of operating time that the abatement systems were not operating according to the manufacturer’s specifications. The uptime fraction used in the emissions calculations would be equal to 1 minus the downtime fraction. The total possible annual tool operating time would be calculated by assuming that tools that were installed for the whole of the year were operated for the entire year. The total possible tool operating time would be prorated to account for the days in which a tool was not installed; any partial day that a tool was installed would be treated as a full day of tool operation. For an abatement system with more than one connected tool, the tool operating time would be equivalent to a full year if at least one tool was installed at all times throughout the year. The reporter would also be able to account for time that tools are idle and no gas is flowing through the tools to the abatement system. It is important to note that the proposed calculation of the uptime factor is different when a reporter would be using the proposed stack testing method than when the reporter would be using the default gas utilization rate and by-product formation rate method. In the proposed stack testing method, the uptime would not be determined for each gas and process type combination, as it would be under the proposed revisions to the default emission factor method. Instead, the uptime factor would be based on an aggregate for all tools in the fab for which the stack testing method is being used. This aggregate method is possible because the emissions measured at the stack already account for the fact that the emissions have been abated, and the uptime factor is only needed to account for the relatively small percent of time that the abatement systems are not operating and excess emissions need to be calculated. In contrast, the default gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates in the current rule and in the proposed amendments are for ‘‘unabated emissions’’ and the uptime factor needs to be determined for each gas and process type combination to determine the relatively large percent of emissions that have been abated. To calculate an unabated emission factor during periods of downtime in the stack testing method, the reporter would divide the abated emission factor by (1–dif), where dif is the average weighted fraction of F–GHG i destroyed or removed in the POU abatement system(s) in the fab. The factor dif would be calculated using proposed Equation I–24 in subpart I, based on the gas VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 consumption and destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) for the abatement system(s) for each gas and process type combination. When calculating annual emissions, the reporter would continue to collect abatement system downtime data and calculate the fraction of abatement system uptime for the fab. Excess emissions from abatement system downtime events would be determined based on the actual amount of downtime as a percent of the total annual abatement system operating time for the reporting year. If a fab had 2.0 percent downtime for the year, then the unabated emission factor would be applied to 2.0 percent of the gas consumption for the year to calculate the excess emissions. The abated emission factor would be applied to the other 98 percent of gas consumption for the fab. The excess emissions and the abated emissions would be added together to determine the total annual emission from the fab. Calculating an average fab-specific emission factor. The reporter would calculate an average fab-specific emission factor using proposed Equation I–19 in subpart I for each input F–GHG and proposed Equation I–20 for each by-product F–GHG, based on the testing results (average kg/hr) and the F– GHG gas consumption (average kg/hr). The fab-specific emission factor for each input F–GHG and each F–GHG formed as a by-product would take into account the mass emission rate, the gas consumption, the abatement system uptime, and the F–GHG destroyed or removed from the abatement systems. The fab-specific emission factor for input gases would be in units of kg gas emitted per kg of the same gas consumed (kg/kg). For gases generated as by-products, we are proposing that the fab-specific emission factor would be the mass of the by-product emitted divided by the summed masses of all the F–GHGs consumed, as presented in proposed Equation I–20. This equation would apply to those F–GHGs that are emitted only as by-products and not consumed as input gases. The reporter would calculate annual emissions for each F–GHG by-product gas as the product of the fab-specific emission factor and the total annual amount of F–GHG consumed, corrected for any POU abatement system downtime as described in this section of the preamble. In some cases, emissions of a particular F–GHG input gas may exceed consumption of that gas because the F– GHG is generated as a by-product of the other input gases. This is often the case PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 for CF4. In these cases, we are proposing that the reporter use 1.0 as the input F– GHG emission factor and treat the remainder of that F–GHG’s emissions as a by-product of the other input gases. The reporter would use Equation I–20 to calculate the emission factor for the byproduct emissions. For example, if during the testing, the fab consumed 100 kg of an F–GHG, but the stack testing measured 300 kg of that gas, the reporter would assign 100 kg of that F– GHG as an input gas used in proposed Equation I–19, and 200 kg of that gas as a by-product gas used in proposed Equation I–20. In this instance, we are also proposing that the denominator in Equation I–20 would include the consumption of all other F–GHGs, with the exception of the F–GHG being included in the numerator. This treatment of the denominator reflects the fact that we are assuming that the F– GHG in the numerator is formed as a byproduct from all other F–GHGs, while the emissions from the actual consumption of that F–GHG as an input are being accounted by proposed Equation I–19. For calculating emissions from an F–GHG with an input emission factor equal to 1.0 and with a byproduct emission factor, the input F– GHG emissions would be assumed to equal consumption of that F–GHG, and the by-product emissions would be determined by multiplying the byproduct emission factor by the sum of the consumption of all F–GHGs excluding the by-product F–GHG. The advantage of this approach is that it reflects the physical mechanism through which emissions of an input gas exceed consumption of that gas. Because mass is conserved, the emissions of an input gas that are in excess of consumption of that gas must be attributable to the other input gases. These ‘‘excess’’ emissions are expected to vary with the facility’s consumption of the other input gases rather than with the facility’s consumption of the ‘‘excessively’’ emitted gas. Reflecting this in the by-product emission factor will lead to more accurate emission estimates and will help to prevent large swings in emission factors that could result when consumption of the ‘‘excessively’’ emitted gas varies from test to test. For example, this could help a facility to avoid a 20 percent or greater relative standard deviation in its CF4 emission factor, which would otherwise prevent the facility from qualifying to skip testing for five years (see ‘‘Testing frequency’’ in Section III.B.1 of this preamble). Note that the proposed approach includes a simplification that would in some cases affect the ‘‘extra’’ emissions E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules that are reassigned as by-products of other input gases. This simplification, and its potential impacts are discussed in more detail in the document entitled ‘‘Technical Support for the Stack Test Option for Estimating Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Electronics Manufacturing Facilities under Subpart I,’’ Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2011–0028. Although we expect that the effect of this simplification will generally be small, we are specifically requesting comment on the simplification. We are also specifically seeking comment on the proposed treatment of F–GHGs whose emissions exceed consumption, and comment on which F–GHG should be included in the denominator of proposed Equation I–20 for calculating the emission factor for by-product F–GHG. The currently proposed equation includes all F–GHG used in the fab in the denominator for the calculation of all by-product F– GHGs, except when the emission factor for an input F–GHG exceeds 1.0. If the emission factor for a F–GHG exceeds 1.0, the emissions greater than 1.0 would be assumed to be by-product F– GHG instead of un-utilized input F– GHG. This proposed approach is based on the assumption that all F–GHG used as inputs could be contributors of fluoride (F) atoms that could be involved in the formation of F–GHG byproduct gases, which are primarily carbon containing F–GHG, even if those input F–GHG do not contain carbon, such as SF6 or NF3. An alternative approach on which the EPA is seeking comment is not to include in the denominator SF6, NF3, and other F– GHG that do not contain carbon (C) atoms, assuming that they are less involved in the formation of carbon containing by-product F–GHG than the F–GHG used as inputs that contain carbon. Testing frequency. Based on the potential for multiple process changes and numerous R&D activities that may affect emissions at an individual facility, as discussed in the Petition for Reconsideration, the EPA is proposing in 40 CFR 98.94(j)(5)(i) to require annual testing of each stack system and annual calculation of emission factors, excluding those low-emitting stack systems that are exempt from testing. However, to offer flexibility, the EPA is also proposing in 40 CFR 98.94(j)(5)(ii) to allow reduced testing frequency based on variability in measured emission factors. If the reporter meets criteria for low measured variability in emission factors calculated from the test results, then testing frequency could be reduced to every 5 years instead of VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 annually. Under this option, a reporter would conduct a minimum of three emission tests for each non-exempt stack, with at least 2 months between the tests on a single stack system. All tests could be done in one year, or the reporter could use three annual tests for this analysis. If the relative standard deviation (RSD) of the emission factors calculated from each of the three tests, expressed as CO2e for all F–GHG combined, was less than or equal to 15 percent, and the RSD of the emission factors for each single F–GHG that individually accounts for 5 percent or more of CO2e emissions was less than 20 percent, the facility could use the averages of the three emission factors for each F–GHG for annual reporting for that year and the next 4 years without testing, unless conditions change that affect the emission factors and trigger retesting, as specified in proposed 40 CFR 98.94(j)(8) and described in this section of the preamble. If the variability between the three tests did not meet these criteria, then the facility would use the emission factors from the most recent testing for reporting for that year and continue the annual testing. Facilities could repeat the RSD analysis each year using the previous three sets of data. We anticipate that this provision will provide additional incentive for careful measurements of emissions and gas consumption during each stack test to maximize the repeatability of the results in subsequent tests. In addition, previously completed tests that were performed and verified according to EPA Method 320 or an alternative method validated using EPA Method 301 could be applied towards the three tests required under this option, as long as all three tests were completed no earlier than the date 3 years before the date of publication of the final rule amendments and they meet the final rule requirements for stack testing, which are being proposed under 40 CFR 98.94(j). Allowing facilities to use prior completed tests would allow them to use data that were collected in support of developing this proposed stack testing option, and in support of developing the revised default gas utilization rates and byproduct formation rates that are also being proposed in this action. The reporter would be required to conduct testing of each stack system, regardless of the results of the most recent stack tests, if certain changes take place in the reporter’s annual consumption of F– GHGs or in the equipment and processes at the fab. Testing would need to be repeated to develop a new fab- PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 63549 specific emission factor if consumption of a specific input gas used during the emissions test changes by more than 10 percent of total annual gas consumption in CO2e, relative to gas consumption in CO2e for that gas during the year in which the most recent emissions test was conducted. For example, if use of a single gas goes from 25 percent of CO2e to more than 35 percent of CO2e, that would trigger the need for a new test. If there is a change in the reporter’s use of an intermittent low-use F–GHG that was not used during the emissions test and not reflected in the fab-specific emission factor, such that it no longer meets the proposed definition of intermittent low-use F–GHG (see ‘‘Stack testing requirements’’ in Section III.B.1 of this preamble), the reporter would also be required to re-test using that gas. Additionally, if there is: (1) A decrease by more than 10 percent in the fraction of tools with abatement systems, compared to the fraction of tools with abatement systems during the most recent emissions test; (2) a change in the wafer or substrate size used by the fab since the most recent emissions test; or (3) a change in a stack system that formerly met the criteria for not being subject to testing such that it no longer meets those criteria, then the reporter would also be required to re-test. Finally, if a reporter is using a F–GHG that was not used during the emissions test, the reporter would be required to conduct additional stack tests in that year during a period when that gas is being used to determine an emission factor for that gas. If a F–GHG is no longer used or is an intermittent low-use gas, re-testing would not be required, and F–GHG emissions would be calculated according to the process for intermittent low-use gases. The EPA is specifically soliciting comment on other changes that may occur at a fab, including the adoption of specific new process technologies that should be included in the list of activities that would be expected to affect emissions to the point that those changes should require a fab to retest the stacks to develop new emission factors. As stacks are re-tested, reporters would update the fab-specific emission factors with the new data from those stacks, replacing the data from the earlier testing of the same stack. The reporters would also be required to annually review the current data for determining which stacks were exempt from testing to ensure that the lowemitting stacks still qualify for exemption. If a stack no longer meets the criteria for exemption from testing as a low-emitting stack, it would need E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 63550 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 to be tested and the fab-specific emission factor would need to be recalculated including those data. This provision would ensure that the fabspecific emission factors determined through testing are based on approximately 85 percent of the F–GHG consumed in the fab on a CO2e basis. Finally, if a requirement to re-test stacks were triggered, facilities would also be required to re-evaluate the RSD of the emission factors including the most recent test results and the previous two test results to see if they still complied with the provisions that allow them to skip testing. If they did not meet those provisions, they would have to resume annual testing for at least the next 3 years to complete a new RSD analysis. Even if they met those requirements, they still would be required to resume annual testing no later than the fifth year after the original RSD analysis that was performed before the retesting requirement was triggered. We specifically request comment on the proposed option to allow less frequent emission testing (i.e., the 5-year testing exemption). Commenters are encouraged to supply rationale and any available data in support of submitted comments. 2. Revise the Default Gas Utilization Rates and By-Product Formation Rates for the Plasma Etch Process Category for Facilities That Manufacture Semiconductors The EPA is proposing to amend the default plasma etch and chamber cleaning gas utilization rates and byproduct formation rates and the requirements in 40 CFR 98.93(a)(2) for estimating F–GHG emissions from plasma etch processes at semiconductor manufacturing facilities. The EPA is not proposing to amend the default emission factors for other types of electronics manufacturing facilities. As discussed in this section of this preamble, the current provisions allow certain facilities the option to use default plasma etch and chamber cleaning rates based on wafer size, gas input, and process type/sub-type. The default emission factors are based on two different wafer size classes (one set of default emission factors for both 150 mm and 200 mm wafers combined, and a second set of default emission factors for 300 mm wafers) and five process types/sub-types (plasma etching; chamber cleaning including in situ plasma cleaning, remote plasma cleaning, in situ thermal cleaning; and wafer cleaning). As discussed in this section of this preamble, following the promulgation of the final subpart I rule, the Petitioner VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 submitted additional utilization and byproduct formation data for various size wafers (200 mm and 300 mm) from semiconductor manufacturing facilities. The Petitioner requested that the EPA consider revising the default gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates based on gas input, process type, and wafer size. They also requested that the rule be revised to allow all semiconductor manufacturing facilities to use the revised default emission factors in lieu of requiring certain manufacturers to develop recipespecific utilization rates and by-product formation rates (see ‘‘Technical Support for Modifications to the Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimation Method Option for Semiconductor Facilities under Subpart I,’’ Docket ID. No EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028). The Petitioner, in documents submitted to the EPA after the Petition for Reconsideration, also questioned the EPA’s establishment of separate default gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates for the wafer cleaning process type in the final subpart I rule. The Petitioner stated that the wafer cleaning process represents a very small fraction of overall semiconductor manufacturing GHG consumption and emissions. At 12 facilities analyzed by the Petitioner, wafer cleaning represented 1 percent or less of the gas used at each facility. The Petitioner also noted that wafer cleaning is basically the same process as the wafer plasma etch process (see ‘‘Technical Support for Modifications to the Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimation Method Option for Semiconductor Facilities under Subpart I,’’ Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028). Plasma etching is defined in 40 CFR 98.98 as ‘‘a process type that consists of any production process using fluorinated GHG reagents to selectively remove materials from a substrate during electronics manufacturing.’’ Wafer cleaning is defined in 40 CFR 98.98 as ‘‘a process type that consists of any production process using fluorinated GHG reagents to clean wafers at any step during production.’’ The Petitioner stated in documents submitted to the EPA that the tools specifically designated for wafer cleaning are using the same gases in plasma to remove materials as used in the tools designated for plasma etching. The Petitioner also noted that the gas utilization rates for wafer cleaning and plasma etching in subpart I are similar for the four gases most commonly used in both plasma etch and wafer cleaning (CF4, CH2F2, NF3, and SF6), especially for SF6 and CF4. The Petitioner also provided PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 additional data to support their recommendation to combine the wafer cleaning process type with the plasma etch process type (see ‘‘Technical Support for Modifications to the Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimation Method Option for Semiconductor Facilities under Subpart I,’’ Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 0028). In response to the concerns raised in the Petition for Reconsideration about the recipe-specific measurements, the EPA is proposing to amend the default utilization and by-product formation rates for the semiconductor manufacturing industry. Based on the amendments in the September 27, 2011 final rule titled ‘‘Changes to Provisions for Electronics Manufacturing to Provide Flexibility,’’ the larger semiconductor facilities that manufacture wafers measuring 300 mm or less may use the default utilization and by-product formation rates currently in subpart I to estimate emissions, instead of the recipe-specific method that would have otherwise been required, only through December 31, 2013. First, the EPA is proposing that all semiconductor manufacturing facilities, regardless of manufacturing capacity, would have the option to calculate F– GHG emissions from the plasma etching process type using the appropriate default gas utilization rates and byproduct formation rates provided in Tables I–3 and I–4 of subpart I. We would no longer distinguish between ‘‘large’’ and ‘‘other’’ semiconductor manufacturing facilities based on the calculated annual manufacturing capacity. That distinction exists in the current subpart I because the EPA chose not to require the recipe-specific method for the ‘‘other’’ semiconductor manufacturing facilities. However, the calculation methods we are proposing in today’s action would apply to all semiconductor manufacturing facilities. Under this proposal, no electronics manufacturing facility would have the option to determine and use recipespecific gas utilization rates and byproduct formation rates for the plasma etch process type, as described in Section III.B.3 of this preamble. The EPA is proposing to remove the distinction between large and other semiconductor facilities, such that all semiconductor manufacturing facilities could use the default gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates, independent of facility size. The EPA had required only the largest semiconductor manufacturing facilities to use the recipe-specific plasma etch method to ensure that smaller facilities E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules had a lower burden consistent with their lower expected F–GHG emissions. However, in proposing to remove the recipe-specific plasma etch method, the burden on the largest facilities would be reduced significantly and would eliminate the need to distinguish between ‘‘large’’ and ‘‘other’’ semiconductor manufacturing facilities. Second, we are proposing to revise the default emission factors for the plasma etch process type in Tables I–3 and I–4 of subpart I. The proposed revised default emission factors are based on an expanded data set provided to the EPA by semiconductor manufacturing facilities after subpart I was originally promulgated in December 2010. The data were provided to the EPA in support of the Petitioner’s request to develop alternatives to the recipe-specific method. The proposed revised plasma etch default emission factors are based on 976 data records (representing additional data submitted after December 1, 2010; see the EPA’s analysis in ‘‘Technical Support for Modifications to the Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimation Method Option for Semiconductor Facilities under Subpart I,’’ Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028), whereas the plasma etch default emission factors in the final subpart I are based on 93 records. As in the final rule, the proposed plasma etch default emission factors were developed using data characterizing un-abated emissions for specific process equipment that follows a version of the International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative (ISMI) measurement guidelines. Because the set of tool manufacturers and processes included in the 976 data records is larger than that included in the 93 records, the proposed revised plasma etch default emission factors are expected to be more representative of the F–GHG emitting processes and tools than the default emission factors in the final subpart I rule promulgated in December 2010. However, please see the ‘‘Technical Support for Modifications to the Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimation Method Option for Semiconductor Facilities under Subpart I,’’ Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 0028, for more discussion of this issue and of the estimated uncertainty associated with the use of the default emission factor approach. In developing the proposed revised default emission factors for the plasma etch process type in semiconductor manufacturing, the EPA considered alternatives that would reduce the burden compared to the recipe-specific approach in the current rule, while still providing F–GHG emission estimates VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 with generally acceptable uncertainty.2 The EPA considered including film type as a variable in the tables of default emission factors for the plasma etch process type, in addition to the input gas type and wafer size. However, based on the EPA and the Petitioner’s analysis of the available data, the EPA determined that including film type would provide only a marginal improvement (about 4 percent) in the uncertainty of the emission estimates, but it would also introduce a potential for error because F–GHG consumption would need to be apportioned to plasma etch processes based on the film type being etched. The potential error introduced by apportioning F–GHG consumption by film type would offset the reduction in uncertainty by including the film type. In addition, including film type would also increase the burden associated with this approach because facilities would need to apportion gas consumption by film type. The EPA also considered establishing default emission factors for different sub-types of the plasma etch process type. However, based on an analysis of the available data, no difference in default emission factors could be accurately determined for any identifiable sub-type of the plasma etch process type. Based on these findings, the EPA concluded that including only input F–GHG type and wafer size in the default emission factors for the plasma etch process type would achieve the best balance between the burden and uncertainty in estimating F–GHG emissions from the plasma etch process type. (See ‘‘Technical Support for Modifications to the Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimation Method Option for Semiconductor Facilities under Subpart I,’’ Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028.) The EPA also considered two averaging conventions in developing the proposed revised default by-product emission factors for etch process input F–GHG for multi-gas processes. The first convention used the simple arithmetic mean of all available by-product emission factor data where a non-zero measurement was recorded. This method averaged all available non-zero by-product emission factor data (by byproduct) for each gas, wafer size, 2 The EPA performed an uncertainty analysis that found that, depending on the wafer size and gas usage patterns of the fab, the default emission factor approach would result in estimates with uncertainties between approximately 10 and 40 percent; see ‘‘Technical Support for Modifications to the Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimation Method Option for Semiconductor Facilities under Subpart I,’’ Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2011–0028. PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 63551 process type or sub-type combination. This approach is appropriate if zeros indicate that a by-product was not looked for during the test. The second convention used the simple arithmetic mean of all available by-product emission factor data, but included the use of zeros when byproduct emissions were not recorded. This method averaged all available byproduct emissions factor data (by byproduct) including records that did not indicate by-product emissions (zeros) for each gas, wafer size, process type or sub-type combination. This approach is appropriate if zeros indicate that a byproduct was looked for during the test, but was not detected. The EPA compared the resulting byproduct emission factors from using both averaging conventions. The comparison showed that including versus not including the zeros for cases where no detected by-product was reported resulted, on average, in a 38 to 45 percent difference in the by-product emission factors (see ‘‘Technical Support for Modifications to the Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimation Method Option for Semiconductor Facilities Under Subpart I,’’ Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 0028). Because the EPA was not certain whether zeros indicate that particular by-products were not looked for or whether they were looked for but not detected, we are conservatively proposing by-product emission factors that do not include zeros. We specifically request comment on whether and to what extent zeros in the emission factor data indicate that a byproduct was looked for, but not detected. We also specifically request comment on what the detection limits were for such by-products. To the extent that zeros represent instances where a by-product was looked for, but not detected, we recognize that not including zeros in the by-product emission factor development may result in overstating by-product emissions. Therefore, we are specifically requesting comment on the method for averaging the available by-product emission factor data to determine the default by-product emission factors. Third, the EPA is proposing to revise the default by-product formation rates for the chamber cleaning process type/ sub-types in Tables I–3 and I–4 of subpart I. In developing the proposed default utilization and by-product emission factors for etch processes, the EPA also reviewed emissions from chamber cleaning processes for completeness. The EPA did not receive new data to support revised default E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 63552 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules utilization rates for the chamber cleaning process type/sub-types established in the final subpart I rule. However, the EPA evaluated the averaging conventions used to develop the proposed revised default by-product emission factors for etch processes for use in developing default by-product emission factors for the chamber cleaning process type/sub-types. Using data from the final subpart I rule, the EPA analyzed the emission estimates from chamber cleaning process type/ sub-types using the two averaging conventions described in this section of this preamble. Again, for simplicity, we are proposing to not include zeros for the development of by-product emission factors. As with the proposed revised default etch emission factors, the averaging comparison showed that including versus not including the zeros for cases where no detected by-product was reported could result in overstating by-product emissions. Therefore, we are proposing to follow the same averaging convention for chamber cleaning process type/sub-types. The revised default by-product formation rates for the chamber cleaning process type/subtypes in Tables I–3 and I–4 of subpart I reflect the simple arithmetic mean of the available by-product emission factor data, without the use of zeros. As for the revised default etch emission factors, we are specifically seeking comment on the method for averaging the available byproduct emission factor data to determine the default by-product emission factors for chamber cleaning process type/sub-types. Finally, the EPA is proposing to combine the semiconductor wafer cleaning process type with the plasma etch process type; the amended rule would not have separate default emission factors for semiconductor wafer cleaning in the revised Table I–3 and I–4 of subpart I. The EPA has reviewed the available data (see ‘‘Technical Support for Modifications to the Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimation Method Option for Semiconductor Facilities under Subpart I,’’ Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 0028), and believes that it is appropriate to combine these process types. The same gases are used for plasma etch and wafer clean, with similar gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates, and the wafer clean process represents 1 percent or less of gas consumption at a typical facility. Furthermore, the burden associated with apportioning gas consumption to the various process types is expected to be reduced by combining the wafer cleaning and the plasma etch process types because some VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 gases used for wafer cleaning are also used in etching processes. For the chamber clean process type, we are not proposing any changes to the three chamber clean sub-types. Under the revised default emission factors, semiconductor manufacturing facilities would estimate emissions from chamber clean and plasma etch processes using the following four process types/subtypes: (1) Plasma etch/wafer cleaning process type; and (2) chamber cleaning process type, including (2a) in situ plasma chamber cleaning; (2b) remote plasma chamber cleaning; and (2c) in situ thermal chamber cleaning. If gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates are not available for a gas/process combination in Tables I–3 or I–4 of subpart I, we are proposing that reporters would assume that the utilization and by-product formation rates are zero (i.e., assume that emissions of a gas equal consumption of that gas). This approach is consistent with the methodology in the current subpart I rule, except that we are proposing to remove the option for facilities to develop recipe-specific factors. All other provisions related to the method using default gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates, such as the wafer size classes used for the default emission factors in Tables I– 3 and I–4, would remain the same. The only exception would be that the default emission factors in Table I–4 that apply to 300 mm wafers would also apply to wafers greater than 300 mm (e.g., 450 mm wafers). As more data (i.e., utilization and by-product formation rates) become available for the semiconductor manufacturing industry in the future, the EPA would consider adding new default emission factors to Tables I–3 and I–4 for new gas and process type/sub-type combinations, including adding any new default emission factors specifically for semiconductor manufacturing facilities using wafers greater than 300 mm diameter (e.g., 450 mm wafers). However, for this proposal, facilities using wafers greater than 300 mm diameter would use the same default emission factors as those using 300 mm wafers. Section III.B.12 of this preamble describes the proposed process for updating default emission factors as more information is collected from the electronics manufacturing industry. We request comment on whether new data are available for gas utilization and by-product formation rates for any of the process types or sub-types in the semiconductor manufacturing industry that could be used to further update the default emission factors for PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 semiconductor manufacturing. Commenters are encouraged to submit available data with their comments using the ‘‘Electronics Manufacturing Data Request Sheet’’ (see Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028). Commenters can fill out the ‘‘Electronics Manufacturing Data Request Sheet’’ and submit the data to Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 0028 for consideration by the EPA on whether to update the proposed default emission factors for semiconductor manufacturing. If the EPA does update the proposed default emission factors using such new data, if approved by the EPA, for the final rule, it will do so using the same methodologies as described in the ‘‘Technical Support for Modifications to the Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimation Method Option for Semiconductor Facilities under Subpart I,’’ Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028). The EPA will use the same criteria for accepting new data that were used in accepting data as specified in that document. The EPA has not developed any specific changes to the default gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates for MEMS, LCD, and PV in Tables I–5 (MEMS), I–6 (LCD), and I– 7 (PV) of subpart I because we have not received any new utilization and byproduct formation rate data. However, we request comment on whether new data are available to update the default emission factors for the facilities that manufacture MEMS, LCD, or PV cells; commenters are encouraged to submit available data and supporting information with their comments using the ‘‘Electronics Manufacturing Data Request Sheet’’ (see Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2011–0028). Commenters can fill out the ‘‘Electronics Manufacturing Data Request Sheet’’ and submit the data to Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2011–0028 for consideration by the EPA on whether to update the default emission factors for MEMS, LCD, or PV manufacturing. If the EPA does update the default emission factors using such new data, if approved by the EPA, it will do so using the same methodologies as described in the ‘‘Technical Support for Modifications to the Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimation Method Option for Semiconductor Facilities under Subpart I,’’ Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028). The EPA will use the same criteria for accepting new data that were used in accepting data as specified in that document. E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 3. Removing the Provisions for Using Recipe-Specific Gas Utilization Rates and By-Product Formation Rates for Facilities That Manufacture Electronics The EPA is proposing to remove the provisions to use recipe-specific gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates in 40 CFR 98.93(a)(2)(ii)(A), (a)(3), and (a)(4). Under 40 CFR 98.93(a)(2)(ii)(A) of the final subpart I rule, semiconductor manufacturing facilities with an annual manufacturing capacity greater than 10,500 square meters of substrate per year manufacturing wafers with a diameter of 300 mm or less were required to use recipe-specific gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates to estimate emissions for the plasma etch process. However, the September 27, 2011 final rule titled ‘‘Changes to Provisions for Electronics Manufacturing to Provide Flexibility’’ provided these facilities the option to use the default emission factors in lieu of recipe-specific rates for emissions estimated for the 2011, 2012, and 2013 reporting years. Under the current provisions (40 CFR 98.93(a)(3)), all electronics manufacturing facilities (including PV, MEMS, LCD, and semiconductor manufacturers) are given the option to estimate their F–GHG emissions using recipe-specific rates. Under 40 CFR 98.93(a)(4), semiconductor manufacturers are required to use recipe-specific rates for all F–GHG processes if manufacturing on wafers that are greater than 300 mm in diameter. After subpart I was promulgated on December 1, 2010 (75 FR 75774), the Petitioner requested the EPA to reconsider and remove the requirement to develop and use recipe-specific gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates for certain semiconductor manufacturing processes and facilities. The Petitioner cited three primary concerns with using recipespecific rates in place of other methods: • The technical burden of determining rates for numerous recipes used at a facility, which could number in the hundreds. • The technical and logistical burden of tracking gas consumption and other facility parameters on a recipe-specific basis to accurately implement recipespecific rates. • Recipe-specific information could be used to reverse engineer individual recipes and otherwise compromise trade secrets. The Petitioner noted that the recipes used at a facility could number in the hundreds. In the Petition for Reconsideration, the Petitioner provided VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 industry survey results for 19 facilities each having over 200 recipes, in which three facilities had over 500 recipes, and two facilities had greater than 800 recipes. For facilities with R&D activities, the Petitioner noted that the number of unique recipes could run ‘‘into the thousands.’’ The Petitioner explained in the petition that the EPA defined individual recipes in a way that presumed that each recipe has a ‘‘specific combination of gases’’ ‘‘used repeatedly’’ and ‘‘under specific conditions of reactor temperature, pressures, flow, radio frequency (RF) power and duration.’’ The Petitioner stated that a manufacturer may have many complex recipes that are comprised of upwards of 20 or more individual steps that could each meet the rule definition of ‘‘individual recipe,’’ and that manufacturing facilities may run hundreds to thousands of such recipes per year. Because of the nature of the fabrication process, for each step, a recipe could specify a varying ‘‘combination of gases’’ or a variety of distinct ‘‘specific conditions.’’ The petition stated that the EPA’s definition of individual recipes could be interpreted to render each step in a complex recipe as a separate ‘‘individual recipe’’ that would need to be tracked and measured to determine recipe-specific utilization and byproduct formation rates. The Petitioner also stated that the EPA’s definition of ‘‘similar recipes’’ could result in each step of a complex recipe to be considered an ‘‘individual recipe’’ under subpart I, due to changes in the chemicals used and the specific conditions for each step. Furthermore, as discussed in Section III.B.5 of this preamble, the Petitioner asserted that many facilities integrate research and development activities into their production lines, and research requires an iterative process and introduces hundreds of recipe variations that would need to be accounted for. The Petitioner stated in the Petition for Reconsideration that the equipment and personnel do not currently exist in most facilities to perform the measurements, testing, and data collection that would be required under subpart I to develop gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates for every recipe or each recipe step. Specifically, the Petitioner provided an industry analysis with the Petition for Reconsideration that stated that only 5 of 24 surveyed facilities had the available equipment, and only one facility had personnel with the expertise to perform the testing to quantify emissions from individual recipes. The Petitioner further stated in the Petition for Reconsideration that PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 63553 tracking gas consumption and other facility parameters on a recipe-specific basis would present technical and logistical challenges to manufacturers. The Petitioner said that the infrastructure does not currently exist to perform the data collection and testing that would be required on a recipespecific basis. The Petitioner stated in the petition that many facilities would need to make significant equipment expenditures in order to have the capability to measure and collect the gas consumption data at the recipe-specific level. In the Petition for Reconsideration, the Petitioner also stated that it is difficult to estimate the quantities of gas used in individual production processes and steps, and it is currently not possible to measure actual consumption because the points at which gases are used (the individual tools) are widely distributed throughout a facility. Although each individual process chamber has a mass flow controller to control the actual flow of each gas introduced in the chamber, collecting this information would require software modifications and the implementation of data gathering capability on the level of each tool at the facility, and then managing the data collected for all tools across the facility. In subsequent information provided to the EPA, the Petitioner stated that apportioning gas consumption to these points on a recipe-specific basis would introduce significant degrees of error that could affect the uncertainty of estimated emissions. In discussions with the EPA, the Petitioner also suggested that as an alternative to the recipe-specific approach, facilities may be able to estimate emissions using the allocation of F–GHG to specific process types, and an estimate of the overall DRE for those process types. However, because the Petitioner and EPA developed the other F–GHG estimation approaches being proposed today, this alternative method was not developed beyond an initial concept. In 2010, the EPA’s goal was to publish default utilization rates and by-product formation rates for the electronics manufacturing industry that would provide accurate facility-level F–GHG emissions data. This would avoid the need for facilities to determine these rates on a recipe-specific basis. At that time, however, the emission data available to the agency was very limited, particularly with regard to F–GHG emissions from the plasma etch process for the semiconductor industry. At the final rule stage, we decided that we still had insufficient data for estimating E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 63554 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules plasma etch process emissions using default emission factors for the largest facilities. For that reason, we required the largest facilities to report their facility-specific plasma etch data using a recipe-specific approach. We intended to use these data to develop emission factors for incorporation into the rule at a later date. Subsequent to the publication of the final rule, the Petitioner provided a substantial amount of plasma etch data as described in this section of the preamble. We have used these data to develop improved emission factors for plasma etch processes. Thus, the recipe-specific approach is no longer a critical part of the rule. As described in Section III.B.12 of this preamble, we are also proposing a mechanism for gathering data from facilities on changes to their processes that may necessitate updates to the default emission factors. We anticipate this addition will ensure that the default emission factors continue to reflect facility emissions going forward. It is the EPA’s position that the recipe-specific requirements in 40 CFR 98.93(a)(2)(ii)(A), (a)(3), and (a)(4) are no longer necessary given the substantial amount of data submitted by the Petitioner following promulgation of subpart I, together with today’s proposal to revise the default utilization and byproduct formation rate method and introduce a stack testing method. Furthermore, the EPA believes the revised and alternative methods proposed today would provide reliable facility-specific data while avoiding in large part the potential concerns raised regarding the recipe-specific requirements with respect to technical difficulty, burden, and the protection of trade secret information. The EPA is proposing to remove the recipe-specific requirements and revise corresponding requirements in 40 CFR 98.94, 98.96, and 98.97 to remove recipe-specific provisions. As described in Section III.B.2 of this preamble, after subpart I was promulgated, the EPA received additional data characterizing emissions from the semiconductor manufacturing industry and supporting revised default gas utilization and by-product formation rates for the plasma etch process. As discussed in Section III.B.2 of this preamble, we are proposing revised default utilization rate and by-product formation rates for the plasma etch and chamber cleaning process types. The EPA believes that the revised default emission factors (based on process type, gas, and wafer size) would provide reliable facility-specific GHG data. Like other semiconductor manufacturing facilities, new facilities manufacturing VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 semiconductors on wafers greater than 300 mm diameter would not be required to develop recipe-specific gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates and would use either the default factors for 300 mm wafers or stack testing. In the future, the EPA will likely develop default gas utilization rates and byproduct formation rates specifically for facilities using wafers greater than 300 mm as that technology is implemented and emissions data are available and collected by the EPA (see Section III.B.12 of this preamble). As described in Section III.B.1 of this preamble, the EPA is also proposing to include a method using stack testing to develop fab-specific F–GHG emission factors for all electronics manufacturing facilities. The EPA believes that the addition of the stack testing method would also provide representative facility-specific GHG data for all types of electronics manufacturing facilities, including new facilities manufacturing semiconductors on wafers greater than 300 mm diameter. Allowing a stack test approach in addition to the revised default emission factor approach would give reporters flexibility to choose from alternative methods if the recipespecific approach is removed as the EPA is proposing. For example, facilities with a large number of stacks may prefer the default emission factor approach, whereas a facility with a small number of stacks may desire the stack test method. Compared to the recipe-specific approach, the default emission factor and stack test options would reduce or eliminate the burden, technical, and logistical feasibility concerns raised by the Petitioner. Finally, the proposed default gas utilization rates and by-product formation rate and stack test alternatives are more compatible with the existing infrastructure, equipment, data management, and recordkeeping systems currently used by the industry than the recipe-specific approach. The proposed approaches would ensure that the EPA would continue to receive representative data for characterizing the F–GHG emissions from the industry while reducing burden on reporting facilities. Although the EPA has deferred the mandatory use of recipe-specific gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates through the end of 2013 (76 FR 59542, September 27, 2011), we are proposing that the requirements to use recipe-specific rates in 40 CFR 98.93(a)(2)(ii)(A), (a)(3), and (a)(4) would be removed and therefore no longer be effective beginning January 1, 2014. Under the proposed amendments, no semiconductor manufacturing PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 facility would have the option to use the recipe-specific method or report those data elements after the end of 2013. In addition, the recipe-specific method would be removed as an option for other electronics manufacturing facilities for the same reasons related to burden and technical feasibility that it would be removed for semiconductor manufacturing facilities. As described in Section II.B of this preamble, the proposed rule may not be finalized until the second half of 2013. Therefore, reporters currently using the recipe-specific methods of 40 CFR 98.93(a)(2)(ii)(A), (a)(3), and (a)(4), if any, would be allowed to continue to use these methods for estimating 2013 emissions reported in 2014. Following the January 1, 2014 effective date, reporters would be required to select new calculation methods to estimate emissions for 2014 reported in 2015, and thereafter, based on the options in the final amendments to subpart I. Finally, we are also proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.93(a)(6) to remove the option to develop recipe-specific gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates for F–GHG and process combinations for which no default emission factors are available, and to revise 40 CFR 98.93(b)(1)(i) and (b)(2)(i) to remove the option to develop facilityspecific N2O emission factors. These options would present essentially the same technical problems as the provisions for developing recipespecific F–GHG rates elsewhere in the rule, including for the facility-specific N2O factors. Under 40 CFR 98.93(a)(6), facilities would assume that F–GHG emissions equal F–GHG consumption, which is equivalent to treating the utilization and by-product formation rates for gas and process combinations without default factors as both zero. However, the number of default gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates for different gas and process combination is sufficiently broad that the fraction of total emissions represented by emissions estimated under 40 CFR 98.93(a)(6) would be minimal. Under the proposed revisions to 40 CFR 98.93(b), facilities would use default N2O emission factors for both CVD processes and for the aggregate of all other manufacturing production processes, and would not have the option to develop facility-specific N2O emission factors. We specifically request comment on whether facilities are currently using or plan to use the recipe-specific approach from the final subpart I rule in 40 CFR 98.93(a)(6), or the facility-specific approach for N2O emissions in 40 CFR E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 98.93(b), for the 2013 reporting year or beyond and whether removal of these methods would significantly impact facilities. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 4. Applicability and Calculating Annual Manufacturing Capacity for Facilities That Manufacture Electronics The EPA is proposing to revise the calculation to determine annual capacity for electronics manufacturing facilities, which is used in the calculation to determine whether a facility meets the reporting threshold. The current subpart I applicability threshold for semiconductor, MEMS, and LCD manufacturing relies on 2006 IPCC Tier 1 emission factors 3 and the annual manufacturing capacity of the facility. (For PV manufacturing, emissions for applicability determinations are determined by multiplying annual F–GHG purchases or consumption by the gas-appropriate GWPs.) Electronics manufacturing facilities with total facility emissions equal to or greater than 25,000 mtCO2e must report under subpart I. For the applicability determination, emissions from the electronics manufacturing operations at the facility are calculated using the methods in 40 CFR 98.91 instead of the methods in 40 CFR 98.93. The current methods under 40 CFR 98.91 calculate emissions based on the maximum designed capacity of the facility (measured in surface area of substrate produced) and do not account for the effect of GHG abatement systems. Facilities whose total reported emissions, including the emissions from electronics manufacturing calculated according to 40 CFR 98.93, are below the 25,000 mtCO2e threshold can stop reporting if they meet the criteria in 40 CFR 98.2(i). The current subpart I also requires different methods for semiconductor facilities to calculate and report their F– GHG emissions based on the annual manufacturing capacity of the semiconductor facility and the size of wafers the semiconductor facility is manufacturing.4 The facility’s manufacturing capacity is calculated using Equation I–5, which specifies the manufacturing capacity as 100 percent of the annual manufacturing capacity of 3 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Eggleston H.S., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T. and Tanabe K. (eds). Hayama, Kanagawa, Japan. Available at: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/ index.html 4 Facilities manufacturing MEMS, PVs, and LCDs use the same method regardless of facility manufacturing capacity. Facility manufacturing capacity is still used to determine applicability according to 40 CFR 98.91. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 a facility, as determined by summing the area of maximum designed substrate starts of a facility per month over the reporting period. ‘‘Maximum designed substrate starts’’ is currently defined in 40 CFR 98.98 as ‘‘the maximum quantity of substrates, expressed as surface area, that could be started each month during a reporting year if the facility were fully equipped as defined in the facility design specifications and if the equipment were fully utilized. It denotes 100 percent of annual manufacturing capacity of a facility.’’ Following the publication of the final subpart I rule, the Petitioner stated in the Petition for Reconsideration that the maximum capacity calculation methods assume that a facility has both a full complement of equipment that corresponds to its design, and that the full complement of equipment is utilized to a maximum degree. The Petitioner stated that the reliance on a ‘‘fully equipped’’ facility and ‘‘fully utilized’’ equipment does not reflect the majority of semiconductor facilities, which may increase or reduce production to meet market demands or update their process to create new products. In the Petition for Reconsideration, the Petitioner noted that many facilities are built to reach a certain maximum capacity but are only equipped in stages (for example, one production line at a time), and that older facilities may have been built for a certain capacity but may only be used partially as part of the original equipment is sold or moved to a newer facility. The Petitioner requested that the method for calculating manufacturing capacity, including the definition of ‘‘maximum designed substrate starts,’’ correlate to a facility’s actual current equipped capacity. The EPA agrees that a facility’s annual capacity may not be reflected by the designed capacity of a ‘‘fully equipped’’ and ‘‘fully utilized’’ facility, because some equipment that is part of the original design configuration may not yet be installed, or some equipment may be removed and not replaced. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to replace the phrase ‘‘maximum designed substrate starts’’ in Equation I–5 with the phrase ‘‘maximum substrate starts.’’ Likewise, we are proposing to replace the definition in 40 CFR 98.98 of ‘‘maximum designed substrate starts’’ with that for ‘‘maximum substrate starts,’’ which would mean ‘‘the maximum quantity of substrates, expressed as surface area, that could be started each month during a reporting year based on the equipment installed in that facility and assuming that the installed equipment were fully utilized. PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 63555 Manufacturing equipment is considered installed when it is on the manufacturing floor and connected to required utilities.’’ A facility would continue to use Equation I–5, with this revision, to determine the annual manufacturing capacity of the facility to determine if they meet the threshold for reporting under subpart I. The proposed changes retain the requirement to calculate and report the maximum annual capacity of the facility (see 40 CFR 98.96(a)), but clarify that the maximum capacity is based on the equipment on-site in the reporting year, assuming it is fully utilized, rather than the design capacity. The proposed changes would not affect the applicability of subpart I to any facility that is already reporting GHG emissions under subpart I. If the proposed changes become final, facilities that are already reporting would not be able to re-calculate emissions using the procedures under 40 CFR 98.91 and cease reporting if they do not meet the revised applicability criteria. Facilities may cease reporting only if they meet the criteria in 40 CFR 98.2(i). We are also proposing to remove the requirement that semiconductor manufacturing facilities calculate and report their F–GHG emissions based on the annual manufacturing capacity of the facility and the size of wafers that the facility is manufacturing. Subpart I currently distinguishes between ‘‘large’’ and ‘‘other’’ semiconductor facilities based on the calculated annual manufacturing capacity. Except as provided in the September 27, 2011 final rule titled ‘‘Changes to Provisions for Electronics Manufacturing to Provide Flexibility in 2011 to 2013,’’ subpart I requires ‘‘large’’ semiconductor facilities (facilities with an annual manufacturing capacity of greater than 10,500 m2 of substrate) and those facilities that manufacture wafers greater than 300 mm in diameter to calculate emissions using recipespecific utilization and by-product formation rates. As discussed in Sections III.B.1 through III.B.3 of this preamble, we are proposing to revise the calculation methodologies for semiconductor manufacturers. The proposed calculation methods would apply to all semiconductor manufacturers and there is no longer a need to distinguish ‘‘large’’ facilities based on manufacturing capacity. E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 63556 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 5. Integrated Production and R&D Activities for Facilities That Manufacture Electronics The October 30, 2009 final GHG reporting rule (74 FR 56260) defined research and development (R&D) activities as ‘‘those activities conducted in process units or at laboratory benchscale settings whose purpose is to conduct research and development for new processes, technologies, or products and whose purpose is not for the manufacture of products for commercial sale, except in a de minimis manner.’’ (See 40 CFR 98.6.) At that time, emissions from R&D were expected to be small, and these activities were not expected to significantly contribute to the total emissions from a reporting facility. The final subpart I rule (75 FR 74774, December 1, 2010) did not change the provisions for R&D activities, but deferred to the requirements found in 40 CFR part 98, subpart A. Following the publication of the final subpart I rule, the Petitioner stated in the Petition for Reconsideration that the final subpart I rule does not account for semiconductor manufacturing facilities that are unable to segregate their R&D activities from production manufacturing. The Petitioner stated in the petition that in order to remain globally competitive, semiconductor companies must engage in robust R&D efforts aimed at innovating new manufacturing processes and new recipes. The petition further stated that many semiconductor facilities integrate their R&D processes into their manufacturing facilities to better consider process manufacturability. The Petitioner stated that many facilities that have integrated R&D cannot segregate gas consumption and emissions from regular production activities. To date, no facilities covered by other source categories have requested a change to the R&D exemption. However, based on the additional information provided by facilities subject to subpart I, the EPA believes that certain facilities in the electronics manufacturing industry may have unique R&D activities that are integrated into production. In some cases, facilities with integrated R&D may use the same gases from the same containers for both R&D activities and normal production. The EPA agrees that for these electronics manufacturing facilities, it is not feasible to accurately segregate gas consumption for R&D activities from production activities without measuring consumption at the level of the individual tool, or by the individual wafer. (See ‘‘Technical Support for VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 Other Technical Issues Addressed in Revisions to Subpart I,’’ Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028.) Because gas consumption is the basis for estimating emissions from the electronics industry, segregating gas consumption for R&D and production would be essential to segregating the emissions from the respective processes, and this is not currently feasible at many facilities. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to allow all electronics manufacturing facilities covered by subpart I who cannot segregate R&D emissions to report R&D emissions with their total facility emissions and to identify that emissions associated with R&D activities are included in their overall emissions estimates. We are also proposing that facilities reporting integrated R&D emissions must report an estimate of the range of the percentage of total emissions from their R&D activities as part of their annual report (see proposed 40 CFR 98.96(x) and 40 CFR 98.97(j)). 6. Accuracy and Precision of Monitoring Instrumentation for Facilities That Manufacture Electronics Subpart I currently requires all flow meters, weigh scales, pressure gauges, and thermometers used for measurements to have an accuracy and precision of one percent of full scale or better (40 CR 98.94(i)). In comments to the April 12, 2010 proposed subpart I rule (75 FR 18652), the Petitioner stated that many older facilities in the electronics manufacturing industry do not have the ability or the available instrumentation to measure all quantities, primarily F–GHG and N2O gas consumption, used to calculate GHG emissions to an accuracy and precision of 1 percent of full scale or better (see ‘‘Response to Public Comments, Subpart I—Electronics Manufacturing,’’ Docket ID. No EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0927– 0228). Therefore, these facilities would have difficulty achieving compliance with the accuracy and precision requirements of the subpart without purchasing and installing new measurement equipment. The Petitioner provided additional data in these comments and in the Petition for Reconsideration that these older facilities typically have accuracies of 2 to 4 percent, and requested that the accuracy requirements for subpart I account for the technical capabilities of older facilities, who may find installing new measurement equipment problematic based on existing equipment configurations. The EPA recognizes that some of the older facilities required to report under subpart I may have difficulty achieving PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 compliance with the current accuracy and precision requirements. Additionally, the EPA evaluated the existing accuracy and precision requirements in 40 CFR part 98, subpart A, which require flow meters to have a calibration error of not more than 5 percent of the reference value (not full scale) (see 40 CFR 98.3(i)). The 5 percent calibration error requirements of 40 CFR 98.3(i) apply only to gas and liquid flow meters used to measure fuel, process streams, or feedstocks; they do not apply to weigh scales, pressure gauges, and thermometers. Under 40 CFR 98.3(i), these latter measurement devices must be calibrated to meet the accuracy requirement specified for the device in the applicable source category subpart, or, in the absence of an accuracy requirement, the device must be calibrated based on other available standards, such as manufacturer’s specifications and industry standards. The EPA is proposing to remove the 1 percent accuracy and precision requirements in subpart I (40 CFR 98.94(i)). Instead, we are proposing that electronics manufacturing facilities subject to subpart I would be required to meet the existing General Provision calibration accuracy requirements in subpart A (40 CFR 98.3(i)). This would provide a balance between the technical issues raised by the Petitioner and the need to gather data for F–GHGs and N2O with a reasonable degree of accuracy. The EPA believes that the subpart A requirements would be appropriate for electronics manufacturing facilities and would address the concerns of the older facilities. Under this proposal, the calibration accuracy requirements for gas flow measurement devices would be 5 percent, as specified in 40 CFR 98.3(i). Further, other measuring devices (e.g., weigh scales and thermometers) would be required to be calibrated to an accuracy based on an applicable operating standard, including, but not limited to, device manufacturer’s specifications and industry standards (see 40 CFR 98.3(i)(1)(i)). The EPA does not expect that this change will impact the accuracy of facility F–GHG and N2O emission estimates at facilities that are using measurement equipment that meets the one percent of full scale standard. It may affect the accuracy of F–GHG and N2O emission estimates at older facilities that have less accurate measurement equipment. However, the subpart A requirements, which appear in 40 CFR 98.3(i), still require an appropriate amount of accuracy in measurement equipment used for compliance. The accuracy requirements in subpart A that we propose to apply E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 to subpart I are a minimum requirement. Facilities that are currently meeting the higher accuracy standard in subpart I would be expected to continue to use the same monitoring equipment and achieve the same level of accuracy, and would not be expected to ‘‘fall back’’ to the minimum accuracy requirement in subpart A by, for example, replacing current equipment with less accurate monitoring equipment. 7. Facility-Wide Gas Specific Heel Factor for Facilities That Manufacture Electronics The 2010 final subpart I rule requires electronics manufacturing facilities to calculate emissions from gas consumption and account for the residual amount of gas left in containers that are returned to the gas supplier. This residual amount of gas is referred to as a ‘‘heel.’’ Facilities establish a trigger point based on cylinder weight or gas pressure for each gas and type or size of container used by the facility to indicate that the cylinder should be changed for a full one. Specifically, the final subpart I rule requires electronics manufacturing facilities to calculate a facility-wide heel factor for each gas to account for the amount of gas represented by the heel in the emissions calculations. Subpart I also requires facilities to ‘‘re-calculate a facility-wide gas-specific heel factor if you use a trigger point for change out for a gas and container type that differs by more than 5 percent from the previously used trigger point for change out for that gas and container type.’’ Additionally, the final subpart I rule requires measuring the pressure or weight of the container when an exceptional circumstance occurs; an ‘‘exceptional circumstance’’ is a change out point that differs by more than 20 percent from the trigger point for change out used to calculate the facility-wide gas-specific heel factor for that gas and container type. See 40 CFR 98.94(b). The requirement to re-calculate the facility-wide gas-specific heel factor if the trigger point for change out differs by more than 5 percent is one of the issues identified in the Petition for Reconsideration. In the Petition for Reconsideration, the Petitioner stated that the requirement is technically infeasible for certain facilities using small containers, because the level of accuracy associated with these measurements may not be achievable. Specifically, the Petitioner provided the example of a facility using a 20-pound cylinder with a trigger point of 2 pounds. The Petitioner stated that any change in this trigger point of more than 0.1 pounds would require a facility to VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 ‘‘recalculate a facility-wide gas specific heel factor,’’ and any deviation in the actual change out point of more than 0.4 pounds would require handling as an ‘‘exceptional circumstance.’’ The Petitioner stated that, in the context of using hundreds of cylinders, the recalculation requirement presents a significant amount of management in terms of tracking and administrative tasks, for a minimal difference in the accuracy of the emission estimates reported. The EPA did not intend to require facilities to recalculate the facility-wide heel factor whenever the actual heel in a container deviated from trigger point by more than 5 percent. The EPA is proposing to amend the requirements to clarify that recalculating the heel factor is only needed when the trigger point for a specific gas and cylinder type is changed, and not as a result of variation in the actual heel remaining in a cylinder. The trigger point is changed by the facility operators to account for changes in the type or size of containers, or to reflect changes in the process operating requirements that would allow for a lower heel factor to be used to utilize a greater fraction of the gas in a container, or that may require a larger heel factor as a more conservative margin before a container is empty. Subpart I has separate provisions at 40 CFR 98.94(b)(4) to address exceptional circumstances in which the amount of heel in a cylinder deviates substantially from the usual trigger point. We are proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.94(b)(5) to clarify that a gas-specific heel factor must be recalculated when the facility executes a process change to modify the trigger point for a gas and container type that differs by more than 5 percent from the previously used trigger point for that gas and container type. The proposed amendments would clarify the EPA’s intent that facilities recalculate the heel factor when there are process changes that would substantially alter the trigger point, and that facilities do not need to recalculate the heel factor to reflect variation in the actual heel quantities in cylinders. The EPA is also proposing to revise the ‘‘exceptional circumstance’’ criteria at 40 CFR 98.94(b)(4) with respect to small containers because while the current criteria are appropriate for large cylinders, treating small containers in the same manner may be burdensome. Specifically, we are proposing to revise the criteria for an ‘‘exceptional circumstance’’ in 40 CFR 98.94(b)(4) from 20 percent of the original trigger point for change out to 50 percent for small cylinders. We are proposing to define a small cylinder as a container PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 63557 that contains less than 9.08 kg (20 pounds) of gas. For large containers, the ‘‘exceptional circumstance’’ would remain as a change out point that differs by 20 percent of the trigger point used to calculate the gas-specific heel factor. We are proposing to revise the criteria for small containers to 50 percent to reduce the burden for facilities using small containers and still maintain the accuracy needed for accounting for the heel in both small and large containers. These proposed changes take into account the fact that a small amount of F–GHGs can account for a large fraction of the heel factor in a small container, and that normal variation in day-to-day container management could be more likely to trigger an ‘‘exceptional circumstance.’’ At the same time, the proposed revisions would still require facilities to directly measure the heel in cases where the cylinder change out deviated from the established trigger point. For example, a small 15-pound cylinder with a 2-pound trigger point would still need to be measured, in lieu of using the established heel factor, if the difference in the change out point was greater than 1 pound. In this example, this 1-pound difference (based on the proposed 50-percent criteria for an exceptional circumstance) represents less than 8 percent of the usable gas in the cylinder. Under the current 20percent criteria, a difference from the actual trigger point of 0.4 pounds (20 percent of the 2-pound trigger point), would represent about 3 percent of the usable gas in the cylinder. These small cylinders for which we are proposing to change the exceptional circumstance criteria generally represent a small percentage of overall gas consumption. The EPA understands that cylinder size is generally chosen to reflect overall consumption, with larger cylinder sizes chosen by the facility for those gases used in larger quantities. 8. Apportioning Model Verification for Facilities That Manufacture Electronics Subpart I requires electronics manufacturing facilities to estimate emissions from gas consumption and report the input gas consumed for each individual process sub-type or process type using Equation I–13. Equation I–13 requires the use of an apportioning factor, which is developed for F–GHG and N2O input gases using a facilityspecific engineering model, and is expressed as a fraction of the input gas used for each process sub-type or process type. Reporters have the flexibility to develop the model based on any quantifiable metric selected by the facility (such as wafer passes or wafer starts), but must verify the model E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 63558 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules by comparing the modeled and actual gas use for the largest gas used for plasma etch and the largest gas used for chamber cleaning. Additionally, the difference between actual and modeled plasma etch gas consumption must not exceed 5 percent. The provisions of 40 CFR 98.94(c)(2)(i) also require that for verifying the model, facilities analyze a 30-day period of operation during which the utilized capacity of the facility equals or exceeds 60 percent of its design capacity, or if the utilized capacity is less than 60 percent during the reporting year, a period during which the facility experiences its highest 30-day average utilization. This approach allows reporters to select the most appropriate quantifiable metric for their facility while providing consistent verification methods. The Petition for Reconsideration raised concerns that the verification requirements for the apportioning engineering model were overly burdensome. The Petitioner stated that the hardware and infrastructure for apportioning gas consumption by process type or sub-type to meet this requirement are not in place at most facilities, and would require installation of additional equipment to measure and record gas consumption at the individual tool level for developing and confirming the model at the 5 percent accuracy level. However, the Petitioner also noted that some facilities may be configured such that they are able to apportion gas consumption to one or more process types or process sub-types based on gas connections and measured flow rates (see ‘‘Technical Support for Other Technical Issues Addressed in Revisions to Subpart I,’’ Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028). They requested that the rule accommodate both a modeling and a measurement approach. The Petitioner also stated that the verification period criteria in 40 CFR 98.94(c)(2)(i) are not practicable. Specifically, the Petitioner pointed out that the data needed to assess the period with the highest 30-day average utilization may not be available until the end of the reporting year. As a result, facilities may not have enough time to identify and select the assessment period, complete and compare the modeling and measurement analysis, or make corrections prior to the applicable reporting deadline in the following year (see ‘‘SIA Revised Proposal to Amend the Apportionment Model Validation Criteria in 40 CFR 98.94(c),’’ Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028). Based on these concerns, the Petitioner VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 requested that the rule be revised to allow facilities to select a period of operation for model verification that is representative of normal operation, up to and including the full calendar year of operation. Additionally, in the Petition for Reconsideration the Petitioner questioned the requirement to demonstrate that the model provides a measurement of gas consumption that is accurate to within 5 percent of the actual measurement. The petition stated that data provided from one manufacturer showed that, for a single tool running two recipes, the difference between modeled gas consumption and actual gas consumption was greater than 5 percent (see ‘‘Verification Tests to Demonstrate Difficulty of Achieving 5 percent Limit,’’ Docket ID. No EPA–HQ– OAR–2011–0028). The Petitioner explained that facilities running a number of tools with a larger number of recipes would have greater uncertainties and would be unable to meet the verification requirements of the final rule. Furthermore, they stated that some facilities would require monitoring, collecting, and analyzing data from the mass flow meters for all tools to accurately model, verify, and achieve the 5 percent verification requirement. The EPA received comments with similar concerns in response to the June 22, 2011 proposed rule titled ‘‘Changes to Provisions for Electronics Manufacturing (Subpart I) To Provide Flexibility’’ (76 FR 36472). In the preamble to the corresponding final rule (76 FR 59542, September 27, 2011), the EPA responded that apportioning is a particularly important component in estimating emissions of F–GHGs from electronics manufacturing because the consumption of gas by process type or sub-type is one of the major sources of error in estimating GHG emissions. The EPA also noted in that response that facilities that could not meet the apportioning model verification requirements in subpart I had the option to apply for, and if approved by the Administrator, use BAMM in 2011, 2012, and 2013. The EPA reported in that preamble that we had received only a small number of requests to use BAMM, relative to the number of facilities expected to report under subpart I. The EPA concluded that while some facilities were unable to meet the model verification requirements, the problem was limited. Despite the problem being limited to particular facilities, the EPA wants to ensure that all facilities can comply with subpart I. The EPA recognizes that some facilities may still not be able to meet the present apportioning model PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 verification requirements in 40 CFR 98.94(c)(2), even though other changes being proposed today would reduce the need to apportion gas consumption. For example, the proposed stack test alternative and the revised default utilization and by-product formation rates would reduce the need to apportion gas among tools or process types. According to the Petitioner, the situation would be most complicated for semiconductor facilities using 150 or 200 mm wafers because they would typically need to apportion three to five different gases between plasma etch and chamber cleaning process types. At 300 mm fabs, NF3 appears to be the only gas that needs to be apportioned between plasma etch and chamber cleaning process types, based on information provided by the Petitioner. Even though facilities would have a reduced need to apportion gas consumption between the plasma etch and chamber clean process types, the EPA recognizes that many would still need to apportion gas consumption between abated and unabated tools and, if they were to use the proposed stack testing option, they may also need to apportion gas consumption between stack systems that are tested and those that are not. As a result, certain facilities would still face issues of technical feasibility in meeting the apportioning model verification requirement requiring a 5 percent maximum difference between modeled and actual F–GHG consumption. In light of these concerns, the EPA is proposing to amend the verification requirements. First, the proposed amendments would allow reporters the option to use direct measurements of gas consumption to avoid the need to develop an apportioning model, and to develop an apportioning factor for each process type, sub-type, stack system, or fab using gas flow meters or weigh scales because direct measurements would provide the most accurate data for analysis. However, the proposed rule would retain the option to use an apportioning model to allow for greater flexibility for electronics manufacturers and reduce the burden for facilities with a larger number of tools, gases, or process types and sub-types. The model verification requirements would be retained to ensure that reporters across the industry are providing data of consistent quality. Reporters opting to use the apportioning model would be required to verify the model by comparing actual gas consumption to modeled gas consumption. The reporter would select for comparison the F–GHG that corresponds to the largest quantity, on a mass basis, of F–GHG used at the E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules fab that has to be apportioned. Reporters would have the flexibility to verify the model for two F–GHGs on an aggregate use basis if one of the gases selected is used in the largest quantity at each fab. In this option, the predicted total volume consumed of the two gases combined would be required to match the actual total volume consumed within the verification percent difference requirements for the apportioning model. Reporters would use this latter option to account for the fact that they may not be able to predict which gas will be used in the largest quantity as of the end of the year, but they want to verify the model at some point early in the year. For example, a facility may predict that one of two gases, CF4 and C2F6, would be used in the largest quantity as of the end of the year, but they do not know which one. However, they believe that the twomonth period from March to April is the most representative period of operations, and they may select that period because that is when they will be performing stack testing. The facility could verify the model for both gases based on data from March and April. At the end of the year, the facility would confirm that at least one of those two gases was used in the highest quantity and both gases met the verification criteria on an aggregate basis. Reporters would be required to correct the model if it did not meet the verification requirements. Second, where a facility opts to develop and use an apportioning model, we are also proposing to revise the verification standard to increase the allowable difference between the actual and modeled gas consumption from a maximum 5 percent difference to a maximum of 20 percent difference. The data provided in an industry analysis submitted with the Petition for Reconsideration have shown that the 5 percent difference criterion would be difficult to achieve under most operating scenarios and would require installation of additional equipment. Increasing the allowable difference between the actual and modeled gas consumption from a maximum 5 percent difference to a maximum 20 percent difference would also reduce the burden on facilities by providing greater flexibility in the methods they use for modeling gas consumption. This will reduce the potential that they will need to purchase and install new equipment to measure, record, and analyze data for gas consumption at the level of the individual tool, process type, or process sub-type. As a result of other rule changes being proposed today, including the VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 combining of the wafer clean and plasma etch process categories for semiconductor manufacturing and the elimination of the use of recipe-specific gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates for semiconductor manufacturing, the number of gases that would need to be apportioned among process types and sub-types would be reduced for semiconductor manufacturing facilities, especially for semiconductor manufacturing facilities using 300 mm wafers. For facilities that are using 300 mm, only NF3 is commonly used in both the plasma etch and chamber clean process types. For facilities that are using 150 mm or 200 mm wafers, several F–GHG are used in both the plasma etch and chamber clean process types. Therefore, the potential effect of the proposed increase in the allowable difference between modeled and actual gas consumption on overall uncertainty of the GHG emission estimates has been minimized for semiconductor manufacturing facilities using 300 mm wafers that need to apportion gas usage among process types or sub-types compared to the standards promulgated in December 2010. However, it is not clear what effect this change will have on facilities using 150 mm and 200 mm wafers because of the number of gases that are used in both plasma etching and chamber cleaning process types. The proposed change in the apportioning model criteria would also apply to LCD, MEMS, and PV manufacturing facilities. For LCD manufacturing, only SF6 is commonly used in both the plasma etching and chamber cleaning process types and would need to be apportioned between those process types. For both MEMS and for PV, several F–GHGs are typically used in both the plasma etching and chamber cleaning process types and would need to be apportioned between the two process types. It is also important to note that facilities would be required to apportion gas consumption between tools and processes for which they are claiming emission reductions as a result of abatement systems, and some facilities do not have abatement systems on all of their tools. For these reasons, we are specifically seeking comment on the need to change the verification model criterion from 5 percent maximum allowed difference to 20 percent, and the effect that this proposed change may have on the error or uncertainty associated with the F–GHG emission estimates at facilities that need to apportion several gases between process types, or between tools that do or do not have abatement systems. PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 63559 We also agree with the Petitioner that facilities should be able to select a longer period of operation as the basis for verifying their apportioning models. We agree that they should be able to compare modeled to actual gas consumption for the whole year to verify the model, because it may be difficult to identify in advance a shorter period that meets the production criteria in 40 CFR 98.94(c)(2)(i). The current rule specifies that facilities analyze a period of at least 30-days operation to verify the model, but does not specify a maximum allowed period; it specifies a minimum of 30 days to ensure that data are representative of normal operation. We are also proposing to allow the facility to select a period of the reporting year when the fab is at a ‘‘representative operating level’’ for the model verification, instead of at a minimum percent of design capacity, or instead of at the highest 30-day average utilization. The concept of a representative operating level would replace the current requirement in 40 CFR 98.94(c)(2)(i) that the facility be operating at 60 percent or more of its design capacity during the model verification, or that the verification occur during the period with the highest 30-day average for facility utilization if the facility operates below 60 percent of design capacity. The Petitioner pointed out that, under the current rule, it is difficult for a facility operating below 60 percent capacity to determine which 30day period would have the highest average facility utilization. Furthermore, a facility that performs a validation early in the year while operating at less than 60 percent capacity may need to repeat the verification if production dramatically increased later in the year such that the facility was operating above 60 percent of design capacity. (The proposed amendment to adopt the definition of a ‘‘representative operating level’’ is described in detail in Section III.B.1 of this preamble.) Under this proposal, the representative period would still be at least 30 days, but we are proposing to clarify that it can be up to the whole calendar reporting year in duration. Because the proposed requirements would allow the use of a representative operating level, facilities would be able to determine the assessment period with less chance of having to repeat the verification, complete and compare the modeling and measurement analysis, and make corrections to the model, if needed, prior to the March report submittal deadline for a given reporting year. E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 63560 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 9. Calculating N2O Emissions for Facilities That Manufacture Electronics The EPA is proposing to revise the language for calculating N2O emissions in 40 CFR 98.93(b) to clarify that reporting is at the fab level. In the Petition for Reconsideration, the Petitioner requested clarification of the requirements to calculate annual facility-level N2O emissions for CVD processes for electronics manufacturing facilities. The current subpart I states in 40 CFR 98.93(b) that facilities ‘‘must calculate annual facility-level N2O emissions from each chemical vapor deposition process and other electronics manufacturing production processes.’’ However, 40 CFR 98.96(c)(3) specifies reporting ‘‘N2O emitted from each chemical vapor deposition process and from other N2O-using manufacturing processes as calculated in Equation I–10 of this subpart.’’ The Petitioner indicated that this difference in language led to confusion as to whether the EPA intended to require facilitylevel calculation and reporting of N2O emissions for CVD processes, or whether facilities must apportion gas consumption to individual CVD processes and other individual N2Ousing processes. The EPA intended to require facilities to report the N2O emissions from all CVD processes combined and from all other manufacturing processes combined, including wafer plasma etch and chamber cleaning, using the amount of N2O consumed, the process utilization factor for the process, and the fraction of N2O destroyed by abatement systems. The proposed amendments would clarify that facilities calculate and report emissions at the fab level for the aggregate of all CVD processes and for the aggregate of all other N2O-using processes. We are proposing that facilities will use only the default N2O utilization factors in proposed Table I– 8 of subpart I, one for CVD processes and one for all other N2O-using processes. This approach is consistent with the requirements to calculate emissions of F–GHGs from each process type or sub-type. The EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.93(b) to read as follows: ‘‘You must calculate and report annual fablevel N2O emissions from all chemical vapor deposition processes and from the aggregate of other electronics manufacturing production processes.’’ The ‘‘aggregate of other electronics manufacturing production processes’’ would represent the combination of wafer plasma etch and wafer cleaning categories using N2O, and any other electronics manufacturing production VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 processes using N2O. Therefore, facilities would report two N2O emission values for each fab at a facility: One for the aggregate of the chemical vapor deposition processes and one for the aggregate of other electronics manufacturing production processes. We are proposing to make similar changes to the reporting requirements in 40 CFR 98.96(c) for consistency and clarification. We are also proposing to revise the default N2O emission factor in Table I– 8 of subpart I for the aggregate of the other N2O-using manufacturing processes. The current default emission factor is 1.0 kg of N2O emitted per kg of N2O consumed. The proposed emission factor would be 1.14 kg of N2O emitted per kg of N2O consumed. This factor represents an average of the stack emission factors for N2O (total N2O emissions/total N2O consumption) measured at several fabs (see ‘‘Technical Support for Other Technical Issues Addressed in Revisions to Subpart I,’’ Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 0028). At this time, the EPA does not have sufficient information to draw conclusions about the mechanism that results in the apparent creation of N2O such that the N2O emission rate is greater than the consumption rate. The EPA specifically seeks comment on the existing data and analysis supporting the revised emission factor, and requests additional data and analysis. Note that the emission factor is based on total N2O consumption rather than just the consumption associated with non-CVD applications (which was not available to the EPA); thus, when applied only to non-CVD N2O consumption, it may not fully compensate for the unknown N2O source. The EPA will consider new information submitted by commenters in developing the final default emission factor. Commenters are encouraged to submit available data with their comments using the ‘‘Electronics Manufacturing Data Request Sheet’’ (see Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 0028). Commenters can fill out the ‘‘Electronics Manufacturing Data Request Sheet’’ and submit the data to Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 0028 for consideration by the EPA in developing the final revised default N2O emission factors. If the EPA does update the proposed revised emission factor using such new data, if approved by the EPA, for the final rule, it will do so using the same methodologies as described in the ‘‘Technical Support for Other Technical Issues Addressed in Revisions to Subpart I,’’ Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028. The EPA will use the same criteria for accepting PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 new data that were used in accepting data as specified in that document. 10. Abatement System Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE) for Facilities That Manufacture Electronics Subpart I currently allows electronics manufacturers using abatement systems to reflect the emission reductions from abatement systems using either a measured or default DRE. The DRE is the efficiency of an abatement system to destroy or remove F–GHGs, N2O, or both, and is expressed as the complement of the ratio of the volume of F–GHGs or N2O exiting the abatement system divided by the volume of F–GHG or N2O entering the abatement system. Subpart I currently provides the option to use a default DRE value of 60 percent for all gases and process types and sub-types, or to directly measure the DRE for a system, or use the average of the measured DREs for a class of systems, as specified in the 40 CFR 98.94(f). For facilities opting to directly measure DREs, subpart I currently requires that measurements be in accordance with the EPA’s Protocol for Measuring Destruction or Removal Efficiency of Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Abatement Equipment in Electronics Manufacturing (‘‘EPA’s DRE Protocol’’), Version 1, EPA 430–R–10– 003.5 Facilities are also required to measure the DREs at a frequency specified by EPA’s random sampling abatement system testing program (RSASTP). As in the current rule, where a facility wishes to reflect emission reductions from the use of abatement systems, they must also certify that their abatement systems are installed, operated, and maintained according to manufacturers’ specifications, as well as account for the uptime of the abatement system. Following the publication of the final subpart I rule in December 2010, the Petitioner stated that the default DRE value is too low and also expressed concerns about the direct DRE measurement provisions. They provided data from DRE testing showing that the measured DRE values for ‘‘point-of-use’’ abatement systems at semiconductor manufacturing facilities may exceed 90 percent for certain gas and process type combinations (see ‘‘Technical Support for Accounting for Destruction or Removal Efficiency for Electronics Manufacturing Facilities under Subpart I’’, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 0028). Therefore, relying on the default DRE value of 60 percent would result in 5 Available at: https://www.epa.gov/semi conductor-pfc/documents/dre_protocol.pdf (March 2010). E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules overestimating emissions from controlled tools by a factor of four times if the actual DRE is 90 percent, or by a factor of 20 if the actual DRE is 98 percent. Furthermore, the Petitioner explained that in order to avoid overestimating emissions and take credit for the abatement systems already installed, facilities would need to use directly measured DRE values in lieu of the default DRE. The Petitioner explained in the Petition for Reconsideration that in the semiconductor manufacturing industry, a facility may have a hundred or more process tools, and each tool is fitted with its own F–GHG or N2O abatement system, if one is used. As a result, measuring DRE can be expensive given the potential number of abatement systems involved. The petition stated that most large semiconductor manufacturing facilities have more than twice the number of POU abatement systems as estimated in the final subpart I rule. The Petitioner provided facility data from a semiconductor industry analysis submitted with the petition to show that most large facilities have an average of 104 abatement systems. The Petitioner also noted that semiconductor manufacturing facilities would need to test a higher number of representative systems than estimated by the EPA if using the average of the measured DREs for a class of systems. The final subpart I rule defined classes of abatement systems by the manufacturer’s model number and the gas that system abates. The commenters noted that with the narrow definition of class, facilities would have a potentially large number of ‘‘classes’’ with a small number of systems in each class. Therefore, a facility would need to test many systems to determine the average DRE for each class. The EPA has considered the Petitioner’s concerns and believes the DRE provisions can be simplified to relieve burden associated with measuring DRE and provide flexibility without adversely affecting the error or uncertainty of the DRE values used in emission calculations. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to revise the current subpart I provisions for directly measuring abatement system DRE, and to revise the basis for determining average DRE values for groups of similar abatement systems. These proposed changes would apply to all electronics manufacturers. All reporters covered under subpart I would still have the option of using either default DRE values or a measured DRE value to calculate abated emissions. The EPA considers that the two essential parameters that affect the DRE VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 performance of a system are the process category and the gas being abated. Therefore, we are proposing to allow reporters the option to establish a measured DRE value for each gas used in each process type, rather than each abatement system or ‘‘class’’ of abatement systems as currently defined in 40 CFR 98.98. Reporters would measure the DRE for each gas and process type combination in which F– GHG and N2O are used in tools with abatement systems and for which abated emissions are calculated. The gas and process type combination would replace the concept of an abatement system ‘‘class’’ used in the current rule and would result in fewer DRE measurements being needed to determine the average DRE to be used in the emission equations. In reviewing the available data (see ‘‘Technical Support for Accounting for Destruction or Removal Efficiency for Electronics Manufacturing Facilities under Subpart I,’’ Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2011–0028), we believe that this approach would simplify the gas apportionment and uptime calculations for industry by reducing the number of ‘‘classes’’ of abatement systems, and would also reduce the burden of measuring DRE for a specific ‘‘class’’ of abatement systems. It is unlikely that the proposed approach would have any adverse effect on the error or uncertainty of the DRE values used in the emission equations. Rather, by simplifying the definition of abatement system class to the gas and process type combination, the proposed approach would likely encourage more testing of actual abatement systems and reduce the number of facilities that are using default DRE values. Consistent with the current subpart I, if a facility develops a measured DRE value for abatement systems for a gas and process type combination, the resulting DRE must be used for that gas and process type combination and a default DRE value cannot be used. The current subpart I provisions require facilities to measure abatement system DREs in accordance with the EPA’s DRE Protocol. We are proposing to revise the current subpart I provisions to allow reporters to use methods adapted from the 2009 ISMI Guideline tracer release/FTIR monitoring approach for determining abatement system DRE (hereafter, the ‘‘2009 ISMI Guideline’’) 6 6 Benaway, B., Hall, S., Laush, C., Ridgeway, R., Sherer, M., & Trammell, S. (2009). ‘‘Guideline for Environmental Characterization of Semiconductor Process Equipment—Revision 2’’, TT#06124825B– ENG, International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative (ISMI), December 2009. Available at: PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 63561 and also an alternative method to locate sampling sites. These alternatives would be included in the proposed Appendix A to subpart I. After reviewing the available data (see ‘‘Comparison of Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) and Quadrupole Mass Spectroscopy (QMS) Methods for Determining POU Abatement System Effluent Flow,’’ Technology Transfer #10095115A–ENG International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative, October 30, 2010, Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2011–0028), we believe that allowing for the use of the adaptation of the 2009 ISMI Guideline would add flexibility to industry while reflecting potential improvements to the methods in the 2006 ISMI Guideline 7 that are referenced in the EPA’s DRE Protocol. However, because we have limited test data and results from the use of this method we are specifically seeking comment and additional data from the use of the 2009 ISMI Guideline and any adaptations that facilities have implemented in the actual measurement of DRE from abatement systems at electronics manufacturing facilities. The 2009 ISMI Guideline includes a method to measure abatement system flow and to account for dilution that may occur between the inlet and outlet of the abatement system by measuring the concentration of a non-reactive tracer gas into the abatement system flow in a known concentration. The change in concentration is used to measure dilution across the abatement system. To ensure thorough mixing of the tracer and accurate measures of flow and dilution, the 2009 ISMI Guideline requires sources to measure the concentration at least eight duct diameters downstream of the injection site. Because of the presence of short ducts in POU abatement systems, it can be difficult to meet those criteria. Therefore, we are also proposing that facilities could use an adaptation of Section 8.1 of EPA Method 7E at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–4 as an alternative to determine whether the injected tracer is well mixed in the duct system or is stratified (i.e., poorly mixed), and to adjust the sampling if it is stratified. The concentration of the tracer would be measured at three traverse points at 16.7, 50.0, and 83.3 percent of the diameter of the duct and would have to https://www.sematech.org/docubase/document/ 4825beng.pdf. 7 Laush, C., Sherer, M., & Worth, W. (2006). ‘‘Guideline for Environmental Characterization of Semiconductor Process Equipment’’, TT#06124825A–ENG, International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative (ISMI), December 2006. Available at: https://supplier.intel.com/static/EHS/ 4825aeng.pdf. E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 63562 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules be sampled for a minimum of twice the system response time. If the tracer gas concentration at each traverse point differs from the mean concentration for all traverse points by no more than ±5.0 percent of the mean concentration, the gas stream would be considered unstratified and the facility would be allowed collect samples from a single point that most closely matches the mean. If the 5.0 percent criterion were not met, but the concentration at each traverse point differed from the mean concentration for all traverse points by no more than ±10.0 percent of the mean, a facility would be able to take samples from two points and use the average of the two measurements. The two points would be spaced at 16.7, 50.0, or 83.3 percent of the line. If the concentration at each traverse point differed from the mean concentration for all traverse points by more than ±10.0 percent of the mean but less than ±20.0 percent, the facility would take samples from three points at 16.7, 50.0, and 83.3 percent of the measurement line and use the average of the three measurements. If the gas stream were found to be stratified because the ±20.0 percent criterion for a three-point test were not met, the facility would be required to locate and take samples from traverse points for the test in accordance with Sections 11.2 and 11.3 of EPA Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–1. This proposed protocol is an adaptation of the protocol in Section 8.1.2 of EPA Method 7E, Determination of Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Stationary Sources (Instrumental Analyzer Procedure), in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–4. However, no data results from this were available to the EPA at the time of this proposal. As a result, we are specifically requesting that commenters submit test results, if available, using the proposed protocol during the comment period so that we can better assess the appropriateness and validity of the proposed protocol. In addition, to provide additional flexibility for facilities, we are proposing that reporters may request approval to use an alternative sampling and analysis method to measure abatement system DRE that is not included in subpart I, provided the reporter follows the proposed process to obtain the Administrator’s approval. The approval process would be the same process used to obtain the Administrator’s approval to use an alternative stack testing method (see ‘‘Alternative stack test methods’’ in Section III.B.1 of this preamble). We are also proposing to revise the RSASTP in the current subpart I. The rule currently requires that for each VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 system class, the reporter must test the greater of three units per year or 20 percent of units per year. We are proposing to amend the RSASTP to reduce the amount of testing that must be performed by an individual facility. The proposed amendments would require that facilities test 10 percent of systems annually over a 2-year period (20 percent total) to set a baseline DRE for the given gas and process type combination. The systems would have to be randomly selected. A facility would have the option to test 20 percent of abatement systems in the first year. Until the facility measured 20 percent of abatement systems for a gas and process type combination (e.g., for calculating emissions in the first year if they test only 10 percent of systems per year), they would use the default DRE values to calculate emissions. For every 3-year period after, facilities would be required to randomly select and test 15 percent of the systems to validate the sitespecific DRE. The reporter could opt to test 15 percent of the systems in the first year of the 3-year period, but must test at least 5 percent of the systems each year until 15 percent are tested. If testing of a particular randomly selected abatement system would be disruptive to production, the reporter could replace that system with another randomly selected system and return the other to the sampling pool for subsequent testing. To ensure that a representative sample of abatement systems are tested, we are proposing that a system cannot be returned to the subsequent testing pool for more than three consecutive selections and must be tested on the third selection. We are also allowing a reporter to specifically include in one of the next two sampling years a system that could not be tested when it was first selected so that the reporter can plan for the testing of that system when it will be less disruptive. We are proposing that the average DRE for each gas and process type combination would be calculated first as the arithmetic mean of the first 2 years of measurements. Beginning in the third year of testing, the average DRE would be the arithmetic mean of all test results for that gas and process type combination, until the facility tested at least 30 percent of all systems for each gas and process combination. After testing at least 30 percent of all systems for a gas and process combination, the facility would use the arithmetic mean of the most recent 30 percent of systems tested as the average DRE in the emissions calculations. To account for measurements that may be affected by improper maintenance or operation of the PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 abatement systems during a DRE measurement, the measured DRE value would be used as follows: (1) Where the DRE of some abatement units is below the design and default DRE, and proper maintenance and operation procedures have been followed, the data from the low DRE test must be included in the fab-specific DREs; (2) if proper maintenance and operation procedures have not been not followed, then the facility would implement the appropriate operational change or system maintenance (per the manufacturer instructions or the site maintenance plan), and a retest of that device would be required within the same reporting year. In this case, a reporter would not be required to include in the average DRE calculation the DRE result from the device for which proper maintenance and operation procedures were not followed. As an alternative, we are also proposing that instead of retesting that device within the reporting year, the reporter could use the measured DRE value in calculating the average DRE for the reporting year, and then include the same device in the next year’s abatement system testing in addition to the testing of randomly selected devices for that next reporting year. The reporter would still need to count the period during which the abatement system manufacturer’s proper maintenance and operation procedures were not being followed towards that abatement system’s downtime for the year for the purposes of calculating emissions. The proposed revisions to the RSASTP testing schedule would minimize the burden imposed on industry associated with annual testing of abatement systems. The Petitioner estimated that the current subpart I provisions that require facilities to test the greater of 3 or 20 percent of abatement systems in each class of abatement systems (as currently defined in 40 CFR 98.98) actually results in facilities testing, on average, 45 percent of their installed abatement systems in a fab each year (see ‘‘Technical Support for Accounting for Destruction or Removal Efficiency for Electronics Manufacturing Facilities under Subpart I,’’ Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 0028). By revising the RSASTP so that facilities are required to test 20 percent of all abatement systems in a fab for a given gas and process type combination in the first two years, and 15 percent in each 3-year period thereafter, the Petitioner estimated a 16 to 50 percent reduction in the required abatement system testing. The Petitioner estimated the annual cost savings per facility to be E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules between $60,000 and $750,000 per year, depending on the number of installed systems, and would also reduce the number of personnel hours and production disruption associated with conducting abatement system testing. The EPA has reviewed the Petitioner’s estimates and agrees with their findings regarding the burden of the current rule requirements and the potential savings associated with the proposed revisions to the RSASTP requirements. For reporters who do not measure facility-specific DRE values, we are also allowing electronics manufacturing facilities to use a default DRE. For semiconductor manufacturing facilities, we are proposing to revise and expand the available DRE default values that they may use to calculate emissions. The revised default DREs for semiconductor manufacturing facilities would be included in proposed Table I– 16. The EPA does not have specific default DRE values to propose for other electronics manufacturers (MEMS, LCDs, and PV cells). Unless the EPA includes revised default DREs in the final rule amendments, facilities manufacturing MEMS, LCDs, and PV cells would still be required to use the 60 percent default DRE if they were not using measured DREs and wanted to account for abatement system DRE in their reported emissions. The EPA does not have any data at this time to support revising the default DRE value of 60 percent for these other electronics manufacturers. However, the EPA is specifically soliciting comment and supporting data on whether alternative default DRE values should be developed for other types of electronics manufacturing facilities, including data from actual DRE measurements and information on the methods used to measure DRE. The current rule offers only a single default DRE value of 60 percent for all gas and process type combinations because, at the time it was proposed and promulgated, the EPA did not have sufficient DRE data for specific F–GHGs or process types that were measured using the EPA’s DRE Protocol. Since that time, the Petitioner has provided data for semiconductor manufacturing facilities to the EPA on abatement system uptime, abatement system inventories, and DRE measurement, following the publication of the final subpart I rule (see ‘‘Technical Support for Accounting for Destruction or Removal Efficiency for Electronics Manufacturing Facilities under Subpart I,’’ Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 0028). We are proposing to add default DRE values which reflect the results of 63563 the EPA’s analysis of the DRE test data for specific gas and process type combinations. The majority of the DRE testing data analyzed were collected following the EPA’s DRE Protocol that is incorporated by reference into the current rule. The EPA also considered the design and model of the abatement system used for each gas and process combination. The available test data, which includes tests performed on 96 POU systems connected to plasma etch processes and tests on 49 POU systems connected to chamber cleaning processes, showed that the manufacturer’s design DRE is relatively consistent across different designs/ models. However, it should be noted that the vast majority (about 97 percent) of the DRE data came from tests of one vendor’s equipment. The data also supports the concept that achievable DREs vary by gas and process type (see ‘‘Technical Support for Accounting for Destruction or Removal Efficiency for Electronics Manufacturing Facilities under Subpart I,’’ Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2011–0028). Therefore, where sufficient test data are available, the EPA is proposing to establish revised default DRE values for the gas and process type combinations for semiconductor manufacturing shown in Table 3 of this preamble: TABLE 3—PROPOSED DEFAULT DRE VALUES FOR SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING Proposed default DREs (percent) Process type/gas Plasma etch/Wafer Cleaning CHF3, CH2F2, C4F8, NF3, SF6, C4F6 ................................................................................................................................................ All other plasma etch/wafer clean fluorinated GHG ........................................................................................................................ 98 60 Chamber Clean NF3 ................................................................................................................................................................................................... All other gases ................................................................................................................................................................................. 75 60 N2O tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 CVD and all other N2O-using processes ......................................................................................................................................... Overall, the EPA found sufficient data to propose revised default DRE values for systems abating CHF3, CH2F2, C4F8, NF3, SF6, and C4F6 from plasma etching/ wafer cleaning processes in semiconductor manufacturing. The abatement DRE test results for systems abating CF4 from plasma etch processes were lower than expected and below the manufacturer’s DRE, which suggests improper abatement system operation; based on these results and the difficulty of abating CF4, we are proposing to VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 retain the current subpart I default DRE value of 60 percent for these systems. Additionally, in some cases there were few or no test data available for a gas and process type combination, including systems abating C2F6, C3F8, CH3F, and C5F8 for plasma etch. For C2F6, only one data point was provided. Since this gas is difficult to abate, the EPA proposes to retain the current subpart I default DRE value of 60 percent until additional data or technical information is available. We PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 60 have followed the same approach for C3F8, CH3F, C5F8, and chamber cleaning processes using gases other than NF3, because no data were available that could support altering the current default value of 60 percent for these gas and process type combinations. Further discussion of the EPA’s analysis of the submitted DRE data is in the memorandum ‘‘Technical Support for Accounting for Destruction or Removal Efficiency for Electronics Manufacturing Facilities under Subpart I’’ (see Docket E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 63564 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028). The EPA is specifically requesting comment and supporting DRE data on the proposed default DRE values, and whether any default DRE values should be developed for other gas and process type combinations. Commenters are encouraged to submit available DRE data for all of the electronics manufacturing industry segments (semiconductors, MEMS, PV cells, and LCDs) with their comments using the ‘‘Electronics Manufacturing Data Request Sheet’’ (see Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028). Commenters can fill out the ‘‘Electronics Manufacturing Data Request Sheet’’ and submit the data to Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 0028 for consideration by the EPA in developing the final revised default DRE values. If EPA does update the proposed default DRE values using such new data, if approved by the EPA, for the final rule, it will do so using the same methodologies as described in the ‘‘Technical Support for Accounting for Destruction or Removal Efficiency for Electronics Manufacturing Facilities under Subpart I,’’ Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2011–0028. The EPA will use the same criteria for accepting new data that were used in accepting data as specified in that document. The EPA would also add new or revised DRE values as part of the proposed process for updating the table of default gas utilization rates and byproduct formation rates, when the data become available in the future. See Section III.B.12 of this preamble for the proposed process for updating default emission factors and default DRE values as more data are collected for the semiconductor manufacturing industry. In order to ensure that the abatement systems used are performing to the default DRE or the initial measured DRE, the rule currently requires that facilities certify that abatement systems are properly installed, operated, and maintained according to the manufacturer’s recommended requirements (40 CFR 98.94(f)(1)). Abatement equipment suppliers have established set-up, operation, and maintenance procedures to maintain system performance at the expected DREs. In addition to those existing requirements, we are proposing to require that where a facility wishes to account for abatement system DRE in calculating emissions, reporters would establish and maintain an abatement system preventative maintenance plan. The abatement system maintenance plan would define the required maintenance procedures for each type of abatement system used at the facility, VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 and would include corrective action procedures for when an abatement unit is not operating properly. The abatement unit maintenance plan would be kept as part of the GHG monitoring plan required by 40 CFR 98.3(g)(5). 11. Abatement System Uptime for Facilities That Manufacture Electronics The current subpart I requires facilities opting to report controlled emissions from abatement systems to calculate the ‘‘uptime’’ of each abatement system using Equation I–15 of subpart I. In the current rule, uptime is calculated as the ratio of time the abatement system is operating while F– GHG or N2O are flowing through the process tool(s) connected to the system, to the total time during which F–GHG or N2O are flowing through the process tool(s) connected to the abatement system. In the Petition for Reconsideration, the Petitioner questioned the uptime requirements, stating that the EPA’s definition of uptime differs substantially from how uptime is actually measured in semiconductor facilities. They maintained the industry is better able to estimate the uptime of an abatement system by measuring and tracking ‘‘unplanned downtime.’’ Further, the industry petition reports that most facilities do not currently have the data collection and management capability to track the time that F–GHG or N2O are flowing through a tool and match it to the time when the abatement system for each tool is not operating, because the data loggers for the tools and the abatement systems do not interface. Based on a review of the Petitioner’s concerns, the EPA is proposing to revise the methods used to calculate abatement system uptime. The EPA agrees that most electronics manufacturing facilities do not have the equipment, data collection, and management capability to track the time that F–GHG or N2O are flowing through a tool and match it to the time when the abatement system is not operating. Therefore, requiring facilities to calculate the ratio of time that each abatement system is operating to the total time during which gases flow through the process tool would present challenges for compliance. In addition, the EPA understands that many tools do not have an interlock between the gas supply and the abatement system to stop F–GHG or N2O flow to the tool if the abatement unit stops operating. For facilities that are using the default gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates, we are proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.93(g) to allow reporters to calculate the uptime of all PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 the abatement systems for each combination of input gas or by-product gas and each process type or sub-type combination, using the same process categories in which F–GHG use and emissions are calculated. Since reporters would calculate uptime for groups of abatement systems instead of each individual abatement system, we are proposing to revise Equation I–15 into two separate equations to specify how reporters must calculate uptime for each group of abatement systems: Those emitting input gases and those emitting by-product gases. Reporters would use proposed Equation I–15a to calculate the uptime of all the abatement systems for each combination of input gas and process type or sub-type combination. Reporters would use proposed Equation I–15b to calculate the uptime of all the abatement systems for each combination of by-product gas and process type or sub-type combination. Reporters would be required to determine the average abatement system uptime factor for a given gas/process type or sub-type combination by: (1) Calculating the total time that the abatement system connected to process tools in the fab is not operating within manufacturer’s specifications as a fraction of the total time in which the abatement system has at least one associated tool in operation during the reporting year for each gas/process type combination; and (2) by subtracting this fraction from 1.0 to calculate the uptime fraction. For determining the amount of tool operating time, reporters would be able to assume that tools that were installed for the entire reporting year were operated for 525,600 minutes per year. For tools that were installed or uninstalled during the year, reporters would be required to prorate the operating time to account for the days in which the tool was not installed; any partial day that a tool was installed would be treated as a full day (1,440 minutes) of tool operation. If a tool is ‘‘idle’’ with no gas flowing through it to the abatement system, the reporter would have the option to count only the time that the tool has gas flowing through it for purposes of determining the tool operating time. For an abatement system that has more than one connected tool, the tool operating time would be considered to be equivalent to a full year if at least one tool was installed and operating at all times throughout the year. Because the uptimes for the tools in electronics manufacturing facilities are typically very high, the proposed approach would reduce the technical burden associated with measuring uptime for individual E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules tools while still maintaining the accuracy of the uptime calculation used in the emissions calculations. Reporters would then calculate the excess emissions during periods of downtime by using the gas consumption for each gas, the default gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates, and the fraction of operating time that is represented by POU abatement system downtime. Emissions during periods of POU abatement system uptime would be calculated using the gas consumption for each gas, the default emission factors, the fraction of gas removed or destroyed through abatement, and the fraction of operating time that is represented by POU abatement system uptime. The proposed amendments would reduce the burden on industry because they would allow facilities to use uptime calculated through existing maintenance management systems as a representative uptime, while still ensuring that unabated (excess) emissions are accounted for in annual emissions as a result of downtime events. In proposing these amendments, the EPA acknowledges that significant investment would be required by facilities to install hardware and/or software to track when gas is flowing to a tool and to identify if the abatement system is or is not operating while gas flow is occurring as required by the current subpart I. By assuming that tools that were installed for the whole reporting year were operated for 525,600 minutes per year, and using this in the denominator of the abatement system uptime calculation, the proposed abatement system uptime calculations would conservatively estimate the uptime fraction that is used in accounting for abatement system effects on emissions. This conservative approach avoids the added expense of additional data collection and analysis to match abatement system uptime periods to the same periods during which gas is flowing through the associated tool. Further discussion of accounting for abatement system uptime is in the memorandum ‘‘Technical Support for Modifications to the Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimation Method Option for Semiconductor Facilities under Subpart I’’ (see Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2011–0028). 12. Updating Default Gas Utilization Rates and By-Product Formation Rates and DRE Values for Semiconductor Manufacturing The semiconductor manufacturing industry has historically been fastevolving, achieving exponentially VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 increasing processor speeds and improving manufacturing efficiencies through the rapid adoption of new manufacturing processes. These innovations have resulted in changes in F–GHG emissions and emission factors, which have been recognized in the IPCC Guidelines and in subpart I by, for example, the establishment of different emission factors for fabs manufacturing 200 mm vs. 300 mm wafer sizes. This evolution is continuing at the present time with the introduction of 450 mm wafer technology, as well as other new process technologies that could affect emissions. As a result, EPA considers appropriate that subpart I should include a mechanism for collecting information on changes in the semiconductor industry that would potentially affect emissions and new data and that could be used for the updating of default gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates and abatement system DRE values so that they are representative of current emissions and abatement system performance. In order to provide for consistent review of technology changes in the semiconductor manufacturing industry and helping to ensure that the proposed default gas utilization rates and byproduct formation rates and DRE values accurately reflect the industry’s practices in future years, we are proposing to add a new paragraph (y) to the data reporting requirements in 40 CFR 98.96. We are proposing to require certain semiconductor manufacturing facilities to provide a report to the EPA every 3 years, beginning in 2017, that addresses technology changes at the facility that could affect GHG emissions. The report would address how technology in the industry has changed over the previous 3 years and the extent to which any of the identified changes are likely to have affected the emissions characteristics of semiconductor manufacturing processes in such a way that the default gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates and/or default DRE values in subpart I may need to be updated or augmented. We are proposing that the first 3-year report would be due with the annual GHG emissions report submitted in 2017. Only semiconductor manufacturing facilities subject to subpart I and with emissions from subpart I processes greater than 40,000 mtCO2e per year would be required to submit the report. The requirement to submit the first report in 2017 would be based on the facility’s emissions in 2015 (which would be reported in 2016), and the requirement to submit subsequent reports would be based on emissions in PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 63565 the most recently submitted annual GHG report. For example, any facility that reported GHG emissions from the subpart I source category of greater than 40,000 mtCO2e for reporting year 2015 would submit the 3-year report due in 2017. Facilities with reported emissions at or below 40,000 mtCO2e per year could voluntarily prepare and submit a report. Facilities that are not subject to reporting under subpart I based on actual emissions would not be required to submit a 3-year report. We are proposing that the 3-year report must include the following: (1) Whether and how the plasma etch gases and plasma technologies used in 200 mm and 300 mm wafer manufacturing in the United States have changed and whether any of the identified changes are likely to have affected the emissions characteristics of semiconductor manufacturing processes in such a way that the default gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates or default DRE values may need to be updated; (2) the effect of the implementation of new products, process technologies, and/or finer line width processes in 200 mm and 300 mm technologies, the introduction of new tool platforms and process chambers, and the introduction of new processes on previously tested platforms or process chambers; (3) the status of implementing 450 mm wafer technology and the potential need to create or update gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates compared to 300 mm technology; and (4) the submission of any gas utilization rates and by-product formation rate or DRE data that have been collected in the previous 3 years that support the changes or continuities in semiconductor manufacturing processes described in the report. If the report indicates that the emissions characteristics of semiconductor manufacturing processes may have changed, the report would be required to include a data gathering and analysis plan describing the testing of tools to determine the potential effect on current gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates and DRE values under the new conditions, and a planned analysis of the effect on overall facility emissions using a representative gas-use profile for a 200 mm, 300 mm, or 450 mm fab (depending on which technology is under consideration). The EPA would review the reports received and determine whether it is necessary to update the default gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates and default DREs in Tables I–3, I–4, I–11, I–12, and I–16 based on the following: (1) Whether the revised default gas utilization rates and E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 63566 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules by-product formation rates and DREs would result in a projected shift in emissions of 10 percent of greater; (2) whether new platforms, process chambers, processes, or facilities that are not captured in current default gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates and DRE values should be included in revised values; and (3) whether new data are available that would expand the existing data set to include new gases, tools, or processes not included in the existing data set (i.e. gases, tools, or processes for which no data are currently available). The EPA would review the report(s) within 120 days and notify the facilities that submitted the report(s) whether the Agency determined it was appropriate to update the default emission factors and/or DRE values. If the EPA determines it is necessary to update the default emission factors and/or DRE values, those facilities would then have 180 days following the date they receive notice of the determination to execute the data collection and analysis plan described in the report and submit those data to the EPA. The EPA would then determine whether to issue a proposal to amend the rule to update the default emission factors and/or DRE values using the newly submitted data. These proposed requirements would establish consistent procedures for the update and renewal of default gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates and DRE values of the rule, helping to ensure that the subpart I rule accurately reflects advances in technology and characterizes industry emissions for semiconductor manufacturing. The EPA is specifically seeking comment on whether any other topics, besides the four proposed topics listed, should be included in the proposed triennial report. For example, some new manufacturing technologies, substrates, or films, such as the use of elemental fluorine gas for chamber cleaning or the use of organosilicate films, may affect F–GHG emissions without changes in the actual consumption of F–GHG as input gases. The EPA is soliciting comment on whether those types of changes would already be addressed by the four topics listed or whether more specific topics for those types of changes should be specified for the triennial report. The EPA is also specifically seeking comment on whether triennial reports should include additional information. For example, the triennial report could include a specific set of measurements of gas utilization rates, by-product formation rates, and/or DRE values. This could include the gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates measured for all new tools acquired by the facility over the previous 3 years as well as gas utilization rates and byproduct formation rates measured for new processes run on existing tools at the facility. Measurement of emission rates from the introduction of new processes on existing tools could result in increased burden; however, the EPA could limit this burden by requesting a set number of measurements (e.g., 5) for new processes that were significantly different 8 from existing processes and/ or that accounted for the largest fractions of the facility’s GWP-weighted fluorinated GHG consumption. Specifying the data to submit in the final rule would ensure that consistent, comparable, and objective data sets were submitted by all affected facilities, and would permit the EPA to examine the data directly to ascertain whether a change in default emission factors or default DRE values was warranted. C. Proposed Rule Changes to Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements In this action, the EPA is proposing several changes (additions as well as revisions) to the data reporting and recordkeeping requirements in subpart I. Table 4 of this preamble summarizes the proposed changes to the reporting elements. TABLE 4—PROPOSED CHANGES TO REPORTING REQUIREMENTS Proposed new or revised citation Data element Change/Revision Original citation Annual emissions of each F–GHG emitted from each process type for which your facility is required to calculate emissions as calculated in Equations I–6 and I–7. Revise to apply only when default gas utilization rate and by-product formation rate procedures in 40 CFR 98.93(a) are used to calculate emissions. Revise so that requirement applies to ‘‘fab’’ instead of facility. Remove requirement to report emissions by individual recipe (including those in a set of similar recipes). Revise so that requirement applies to ‘‘fab’’ instead of facility. Revise to clarify that facilities report N2O emitted from the chemical vapor deposition process and from the aggregate of other N2O-using manufacturing processes. Revise so that requirement applies to ‘‘fab’’ instead of facility. Add reporting requirement in conjunction with the stack testing option. 98.96(c)(1) ................. NA. 98.96(c)(2) ................. NA. 98.96(c)(3) ................. NA. NA ............................. 98.96(c)(5). Remove and reserve all of 98.96(f) because of proposed changes to remove the use of recipe-specific gas utilization rates and byproduct formation rates. 98.96(f) ...................... NA. achieve the same end (i.e., etch the same film or feature), similar to the criteria used to determine when new stack testing is warranted. Other possible criteria include radio frequency (RF) power and flow rate. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Annual emissions of each F–GHG emitted from each individual recipe (including those in a set of similar recipes) or process subtype. Emissions of N2O emitted from each chemical vapor deposition process and from other N2O using manufacturing processes as calculated in Equation I–10. Annual emissions of each F–GHG emitted from each fab when you use the procedures specified in 40 CFR 98.93(i). Data elements reported when you use factors for F–GHG process utilization and by-product formation rates other than the defaults provided in Tables I–3, I–4, I–5, I–6, and I–7 to this subpart and/or N2O utilization factors other than the defaults provided in Table I–8 to subpart I. 8 ‘‘Significantly different’’ could be defined as using a markedly different gas mixture than the mixture used by previous processes applied to VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 63567 TABLE 4—PROPOSED CHANGES TO REPORTING REQUIREMENTS—Continued Proposed new or revised citation tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Data element Change/Revision Original citation Annual gas consumption for each F–GHG and N2O as calculated in Equation I–11 of this subpart, including where your facility used less than 50 kg of a particular F–GHG or N2O during 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. All inputs used to calculate gas consumption in Equation I–11 for each F–GHG and N2O used. Disbursements for each F–GHG and N2O during the reporting year, as calculated using Equation I–12. All inputs used to calculate disbursements for each F–GHG 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 consumed for each recipe, process sub-type, or process type, as appropriate, and the annual amount of N2O consumed for each chemical vapor deposition and other electronics manufacturing production processes, as calculated using Equation I–13. All apportioning factors used to apportion F– GHG and N2O consumption. Identification of the quantifiable metric used in your facility-specific engineering model to apportion gas consumption. Start and end dates selected under 40 CFR 98.94(c)(2)(i). Certification that the gases 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 comparing the actual and modeled gas consumption under 40 CFR 98.94(c)(2)(iii). If you are required to 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 fed into recipe, process sub-type, or process type that is fed into tools connected to abatement systems. Fraction of each F–GHG or N2O destroyed or removed in abatement systems connected to process tools where recipe, process subtype, or process type j is used, as well as all inputs and calculations used to determine the inputs for Equation I–14. Change to recordkeeping requirement. Revise so that requirement applies to ‘‘fab’’ instead of facility. Add applicable equation references for the stack testing option. 98.96(g) ..................... 98.97(k). Change to recordkeeping requirement ............ 98.96(h) ..................... 98.97(k)(1). Change to recordkeeping requirement ............ 98.96(i) ...................... 98.97(n). Change to recordkeeping requirement ............ 98.96(j) ...................... 98.97(n). Change to recordkeeping requirement. Remove ‘‘recipe-specific’’ requirements. Revise to read ‘‘* * * annual amount of N2O consumed for the chemical vapor deposition processes and from the aggregate of other electronics manufacturing production processes* * *’’. Change to recordkeeping requirement ............ 98.96(k) ..................... 98.97(m). 98.96(l) ...................... 98.97(c)(1). Correct citation ................................................. 98.96(m)(i) ................. 98.96(m)(1). Correct citation ................................................. 98.96(m)(ii) ................ 98.96(m)(2). Correct citation ................................................. 98.96(m)(iii) ............... 98.96(m)(3). Correct citation and revise to read ‘‘* * * modeled gas consumption under 40 CFR 98.94(c)(2)(iii) and (iv), as applicable.’’. Add requirement ............................................... 98.96(m)(iv) ............... 98.96(m)(4). NA ............................. 98.96(m)(5). Move to recordkeeping, and remove recipespecific references. 98.96(n) ..................... 98.97(o). Move to recordkeeping, remove recipe-specific references, and revise to apply to the stack testing option. 98.96(o) ..................... 98.97(p). VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 63568 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules TABLE 4—PROPOSED CHANGES TO REPORTING REQUIREMENTS—Continued Proposed new or revised citation Data element Change/Revision Original citation Inventory and description of all abatement systems through which F–GHGs or N2O flow at your facility, including the number of systems of each manufacturer, model numbers, manufacturer claimed F–GHG and N2O destruction or removal efficiencies, if any, and records of destruction or removal efficiency measurements over their in-use lives. The inventory of abatement systems must describe the tools with model numbers and the recipe(s), process sub-type, or process type for which these systems treat exhaust. Revise the inventory to include only those systems for which the facility is claiming F– GHG or N2O destruction or removal. Revise to report only (1) the number of devices controlling emissions for each process type, for each gas used in that process for which control credit is being taken; and (2) the basis of the DRE being used (default or site specific testing) for each process type and for each gas. Revise to not require reporting the model number of the tools associated with each abatement system, and to remove the recipe-specific references. The certification would be revised to include that all systems are installed, maintained, and operated also according to the site maintenance plan for abatement systems. 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 would be moved to recordkeeping in 98.97(d). In place of reporting the information and data on uptime and DRE calculations for abatement systems, the reporter would calculate and report an effective facility-wide DRE, proposed in 98.96(r). Change to recordkeeping ................................. 98.96(p) ..................... NA. 98.96(q) ..................... 98.97(d). 98.96(r) ...................... 98.97(r). Add requirement ............................................... NA ............................. 98.96(r). Change to recordkeeping ................................. 98.96(s) ..................... 98.97(s). Remove the reporting requirement because the BAMM provisions in 98.94(a) will be obsolete by the time these proposed amendments are final and are being proposed to be deleted. 98.96(t) ...................... NA. Remove requirement because these provisions will be obsolete by the time these proposed amendments are final. 98.96(v) ..................... NA. Add requirement in conjunction with stack testing option. NA ............................. 98.96(w)(1). Add requirement in conjunction with stack testing option. NA ............................. 98.96(w)(2). Add requirement ............................................... NA ............................. 98.96(x). tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Certification that each abatement system is installed, maintained, and operated according to manufacturer specifications. 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. Inputs to the F–HTF mass balance equation, Equation I–16, for each F–HTF. An effective facility-wide DRE calculated using Equation I–26, I–27, and I–28, as appropriate. Estimates of missing data where 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 ‘‘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, 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 conducted during the reporting year, and the identity of the stack tested. An inventory of all stacks from which process F–GHG are 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 emission reported under 40 CFR 98.96(c) include emission from research and development activities, the approximate percentage of total GHG emissions that are attributable to research and development activities. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 63569 TABLE 4—PROPOSED CHANGES TO REPORTING REQUIREMENTS—Continued Proposed new or revised citation Data element Change/Revision Original citation If your semiconductor 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 byproduct formation rates collected in the previous 3 years. Add requirement ............................................... NA ............................. population of facilities reporting under subpart I. Given the proposed amendments to the methods in 40 CFR 98.93, the EPA has determined that fewer data elements would be needed to verify the GHG emissions data and, therefore, would not require the reporting of the data elements that the EPA is proposing to move to recordkeeping. Requiring reporting of these data elements would create an unnecessary burden for all facilities, because a requirement to maintain the same data as records would provide sufficient information to confirm reported GHG emissions through an on-site review of those records in individual circumstances, if necessary. The proposed stack testing option would take advantage of the fact that facilities with dozens of individual tools often have only a few emission stacks because emissions from many tools are consolidated into a shared stack system instead of having individual stacks. Therefore, at many facilities, testing a few stacks is less of a burden than tracking gas consumption and other parameters for multiple tools. The stack testing approach would involve the development of fab-specific emission factors in terms of kg of F–GHG emitted per kg of F–GHG consumed based on measured stack emissions. Using this approach, facilities would be required to monitor and keep records of the amount of each F–GHG consumed and data on the operating time and performance of abatement systems, but they would not be required to report these data for the reasons specified above. Other data needed to determine the amount of F– GHG used in a process type or sub-type would not be reported, but would be kept as records. The EPA has determined that these detailed data are not needed for verification of the GHG data under the proposed stack testing option because the EPA could use other reported data to verify the GHG data. The proposed amendments to the default gas utilization rate and byproduct formation rate approach would require facilities to monitor and keep records of the amount of each F–GHG consumed in each process type and subtype, and data on the operating time and performance of abatement systems, but they would not need to report these data. The EPA has determined that GHG emissions estimated using the revised default emission factor method can be verified using statistical and other types of analysis of the reported data elements. Reported GHG emissions can be confirmed through an on-site review of those records in individual circumstances, if necessary. The proposed amendments to the reporting requirements would move the information on the number and DRE of abatement systems at each facility from the reporting requirements to the recordkeeping requirements. In order to determine the extent to which GHG emissions from this category are being abated, we are proposing to include in 40 CFR 98.96(r) a requirement for each facility to calculate and report an effective facility-wide DRE factor for the emissions from the electronics manufacturing processes at the facility. This factor would be calculated as 1 minus the ratio of actual reported emissions to the emissions that would occur if there were no abatement. The actual emissions are already reported under subpart A and subpart I. For calculating the effective facilitywide DRE, facilities would have two methods for calculating emissions that would occur if there were no abatement. The first method would be used to calculate the emissions without abatement in cases where the facility calculated reported emissions using default utilization and by-product formation rates. This includes cases in which the facility would calculate emissions under 40 CFR 98.93(a) and also those emissions that were calculated for stack systems that are 98.96(y). NA—Not applicable. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 The EPA is proposing to amend subpart I such that, with the addition of certain new data elements, several current data reporting elements would not be reported to the EPA and would, instead, be kept as records.9 These records would be made available to the EPA for review upon request. The EPA has determined that under the proposed amendments, as described in Sections III.A and III.B of this preamble, it is no longer necessary to require reporting of these data elements. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to amend subpart I to add a stack testing option and to revise the method that uses default gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates. The EPA has determined that the new stack testing option and the revised default emission factor method represent simplified methods compared to the current default emission factor method in subpart I and provide accurate fab-level GHG data that can be verified using other data elements that are also reported. Other data that would be reported, such as the annual manufacturing capacity of the facility reported under 40 CFR 98.96(a) and the proposed effective facility-wide DRE factor that would be calculated and reported under proposed 40 CFR 98.96(r), would be used to verify the reported GHG emissions by comparing them to other data reported by the facility as well as statistically analyzing the reported information for the 9 These reporting elements include data elements that have been designated as ‘‘inputs to emissions equations’’ in the August 25, 2011 final rule titled, ‘‘Change to the Reporting Date for Certain Data Elements Required Under the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule’’ (76 FR 53057), and listed in Table A–7 of subpart A. Consistent with the proposed amendments to subpart I, we are proposing to remove these subpart I inputs to emissions equations data elements from table A–7 so that they would not be required to be reported by March 31, 2015. More information on this proposed change can be found at the end of Section III.C of this preamble. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 63570 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules exempt from testing, under 40 CFR 98.93(i)(3). In this method emissions without abatement would be calculated using the consumption of each F–GHG and N2O in each process type or subtype, and the default gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates in Tables I–3 to I–8, and I–11 to I–15 of subpart I. This calculation would not require facilities to collect any additional information because the information on F–GHG and N2O consumption is already required to perform the calculations needed to estimate emissions using either the proposed revised default emission factor approach or the proposed stack testing option. This proposed reporting requirement, 40 CFR 98.96(r), would require a new calculation with these existing data, including the current reported actual emissions and the emissions that would occur if there were no abatement. The latter would be calculated using the consumption of each F–GHG and N2O in each process type or sub-type and the appropriate default gas utilization rates and byproduct formation rates in Tables I–3 to I–8 and I–11 to I–15 of subpart I. The second method would be used to calculate the emissions without abatement from stack systems in cases where the facility calculated emissions based on stack testing conducted according to 40 CFR 98.93(i)(4). In this method, facilities would calculate emissions without abatement from the reported GHG emissions using the inverse of the DRE and the fraction of each gas in each process type that is abated. This method would use default values or values that would already be measured and used in the equations that a facility would use to calculate GHG emissions in the proposed stack testing option. In this notice we are also proposing changes to Table A–7 of subpart A, General Provisions. Table A–7 lists those data elements for which the reporting date has been deferred to March 31, 2015 for the 2011 to 2013 reporting years. We are proposing to revise Table A–7 for the rows specific to subpart I to remove the references to those data elements described in Table 4 of this preamble that would be moved from reporting in 40 CFR 98.96 to recordkeeping under 40 CFR 98.97, or that would be removed entirely from subpart I because of the proposed removal of the relevant emission calculation requirement. If the EPA finalizes the proposed changes to the reporting requirements, reporters would no longer be required to report these elements in 2014 and beyond, and thus VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 there would be no reporting requirement to defer. IV. Background for Confidentiality Determinations for Subpart I of Part 98 D. Proposed Changes To Remove BAMM Provisions and Language Specific to Reporting Years 2011, 2012, and 2013 A. Overview and Background In this notice we are also proposing confidentiality determinations for the new and revised reporting data elements in the proposed subpart I rule amendments. For information on the history of confidentiality determinations for subpart I data elements, see the following notices: • Proposed Confidentially Determinations for Data Required Under the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and Proposed Amendment to Special Rules Governing Certain Information Under the Clean Air Act; Proposed Rule (75 FR 39094, July 7, 2010); hereafter referred to as the ‘‘July 7, 2010 CBI proposal.’’ Proposed confidentiality determinations for Part 98 data elements, including data elements contained in subpart I. • Confidentiality Determinations for Data Required Under the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and Proposed Amendment to Special Rules Governing Certain Information Under the Clean Air Act; Final Rule (76 FR 30782, May 26, 2011) hereafter referred to as the ‘‘2011 Final CBI Rule.’’ Assigned data elements to data categories and published the final CBI determinations for the data elements in 34 Part 98 subparts, except for those data elements that were assigned to the ‘‘Inputs to Emission Equations’’ data category. Final CBI determinations for subpart I were not included because of substantial changes to data elements and the addition of new data elements in the final subpart I. • Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule: Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for Subpart I and Proposed Amendments to Subpart I Best Available Monitoring Methods Provisions; Proposed Rule (77 FR 10434, February 22, 2012), hereafter referred to as ‘‘Subpart I CBI re-proposal.’’ The EPA re-proposed for public comment the confidentiality determinations for the data elements in subpart I to reflect the reporting data elements in the 2010 final subpart I and all subsequent proposed and final amendments to subpart I up to the date of the CBI re-proposal. • Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule: Final Confidentiality Determinations for Nine Subparts and Amendments to Subpart A and I under the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule; Final Rule (77 FR 48072, August 13, 2012), hereafter referred to as ‘‘Final Subpart I CBI Determinations Rule.’’ The EPA published the final confidentiality determinations for the data elements in subpart I to reflect the We are proposing to remove the provisions in 40 CFR 98.94(a) for best available monitoring methods (BAMM). The requirements of 40 CFR 98.94(a)(1) through (a)(3) provide an option for reporters to request and use BAMM for calendar year 2011 reporting for monitoring parameters that cannot be reasonably measured according to the monitoring and QA/QC methods provided in subpart I. The provisions require that, starting no later than January 1, 2012, the reporter must discontinue using BAMM and begin following all applicable monitoring and QA/QC requirements of this part, unless the EPA has approved the use of BAMM beyond 2011 under 40 CFR 98.98(a)(4). As discussed in Section II.B of this preamble, the EPA intends to finalize the proposed revisions to subpart I in 2013 so that semiconductor manufacturing facilities can implement the revised subpart I beginning in 2014. The proposed amendments would become effective on January 1, 2014. Facilities would be required to follow one of the new methods to estimate emissions beginning in 2014, submitting the first reports of emissions estimated using the new methods in 2015. The BAMM provisions of 40 CFR 98.94(a) would be outdated on the effective date. The provisions of 40 CFR 98.94(a)(1) to (a)(3) are limited to 2011, and the deadline for requesting an extension under 40 CFR 98.94(a)(4) also occurred in 2011. Therefore, we are proposing to remove all the BAMM provisions in the current subpart I, because they would no longer be applicable in 2014. We are not proposing any new BAMM provisions because we expect that all facilities would be in compliance with the monitoring and QA/QC methods required under subpart I by the time the 2014 calendar year reports are submitted in 2015. We are also proposing to remove 40 CFR 98.93(h)(2), which provides an option for reporters to calculate and report emissions of fluorinated heat transfer fluids using select time periods in 2012, and the corresponding reporting requirement at 40 CFR 98.96(v). In addition, we are proposing to remove language in 40 CFR 98.94(h)(3) that is specific to the monitoring of fluorinated heat transfer fluids in 2012. These provisions would no longer be applicable on the effective date of the proposed amendments. PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 63571 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules reporting data elements in the 2010 final subpart I and all subsequent final amendments to subpart I up to the date of the Subpart I CBI re-proposal. In this action, the EPA is proposing confidentiality determinations for the new and revised data elements under the proposed subpart I amendments that are described in Section III of this preamble. These proposed confidentiality determinations would be finalized based on public comment. The EPA currently plans to finalize these determinations at the same time rule amendments to subpart I described in Section III of this preamble are finalized. B. Approach to Proposed CBI Determinations for New or Revised Subpart I Data Elements In this action, we are proposing to add or revise 25 new data reporting requirements in subpart I. We propose to assign each of the newly proposed or revised data elements in subpart I, a direct emitter subpart, to one of the direct emitter data categories created in the 2011 Final CBI Rule.10 The 25 new or revised data elements were assigned to one of the 10 data categories listed in Table 5 of this preamble. Please see the memorandum titled ‘‘Proposed Data Category Assignments for Subpart I 2012 Amendments’’ in Docket EPA– HQ–OAR–2011–0028 for a list of the 25 newly proposed or revised data elements in this subpart and their proposed category assignments. 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 Emission data a Facility and Unit Identifier Information ................................................................. Emissions ............................................................................................................. Calculation Methodology and Methodological Tier ............................................. Data Elements Reported for Periods of Missing Data that are Not Inputs to Emission Equations .......................................................................................... Unit/Process ‘‘Static’’ Characteristics that are Not Inputs to Emission Equations .................................................................................................................. Unit/Process Operating Characteristics that are Not Inputs to Emission Equations .................................................................................................................. Test and Calibration Methods ............................................................................. Production/Throughput Data that are Not Inputs to Emission Equations ........... Raw Materials Consumed that are Not Inputs to Emission Equations ............... Process-Specific and Vendor Data Submitted in BAMM Extension Requests ... Data that are not emission data and not CBI Data that are not emission data but are CBI b X X X ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ X ................................ ................................ ................................ Xc Xc ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ Xc X ................................ ................................ ................................ Xc ................................ X X X tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 a Under CAA section 114(c), ‘‘emission data’’ are not entitled to confidential treatment. The term ‘‘emission data’’ is defined at 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i). b Section 114(c) of the CAA affords confidential treatment to data (except emission data) that are considered CBI. c In the 2011 Final CBI Rule, this data category contains both data elements determined to be CBI and those determined not to be CBI. See discussion in Section IV.B of this preamble for more details. As shown in Table 5 of this preamble, the EPA made categorical confidentiality determinations for data elements assigned to eight direct emitter data categories. For two data categories, ‘‘Unit/Process ‘Static’ Characteristics That are Not Inputs to Emission Equations’’ and ‘‘Unit/Process Operating Characteristics That are Not Inputs to Emission Equations,’’ the EPA determined in the 2011 Final CBI Rule that the data elements assigned to those categories are not emission data but did not make categorical CBI determinations. Rather, the EPA made CBI determinations for individual data elements assigned to these two data categories. We are following the same approach in this proposed rule. Specifically, we are proposing to assign each of the 25 new or revised data elements in the proposed subpart I amendment to the appropriate direct emitter data category. For the 13 data elements being assigned to categories with categorical confidentiality determinations, we propose to apply the categorical determinations made in the 2011 Final CBI Rule to the assigned data elements. For the 12 new or revised subpart I reporting elements assigned to the ‘‘Unit/Process ‘Static’ Characteristics That are Not Inputs to Emission Equations’’ and the ‘‘Unit/Process Operating Characteristics That are Not Inputs to Emission Equations’’ data categories, consistent with our approach towards data elements previously assigned to these data categories, we propose that these data elements are not emission data. Section IV.C of this preamble discusses the proposed CBI determinations and supporting rationale for these data elements. All 25 new and revised subpart I data elements in the proposed subpart I amendment are listed in the memorandum titled ‘‘Proposed Data Category Assignments for Subpart I 2012 Amendments’’ in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028. 10 The 2011 Final CBI Rule created 11 direct emitter data categories, including the 10 data categories listed in Table 5 of this preamble and an inputs to emissions equations data category. However, EPA has not made final confidentiality determinations for any data element assigned to the inputs to emissions equations data category either in the 2011 Final CBI Rule or any other rulemaking. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 C. Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for Individual Data Elements in Two Direct Emitter Data Categories As described in Section IV.B of this preamble, the EPA is proposing individual CBI determinations for the 12 data elements assigned to the ‘‘Unit/ Process ‘Static’ Characteristics That are Not Inputs to Emission Equations’’ and ‘‘Unit/Process Operating Characteristics That are Not Inputs to Emission Equations’’ data categories. One new subpart I reporting element is being proposed that would be assigned to the ‘‘Unit/Process ‘Operating’ Characteristics That are Not Inputs to Emission Equations’’ data category. This proposed new data element would be the effective facility- E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 63572 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules wide DRE factor that is calculated and reported according to 40 CFR 98.96(r). We are proposing that this data element not be considered CBI because it does not reveal any information that is likely to cause competitive harm if publicly released. Facilities would be required to report the calculated facility-wide DRE factor, but would not be required to report any additional data used to calculate the facility-wide DRE factor, except the actual emissions values that are already reported under subpart A and subpart I. The effective facility-wide DRE would indicate the approximate fraction of a facility’s emissions that are abated. However, it would not provide any insight into the design or operating conditions of any individual process because the effective facility-wide DRE would be an aggregate value indirectly calculated from, among other things, actual emissions, abatement system DRE, abatement system uptime, apportioning factors, gas consumption, and default gas utilization rates and byproduct formation rates. Because of the large number of variables that would go into calculating the effective facilitywide DRE that would not be reported under the proposed changes to 40 CFR 98.96, competitors would not be able to use the reported effective facility-wide DRE factor together with other reported data elements (such as emissions) to calculate any data element that would otherwise not be reported and considered sensitive, such as the amount of F–GHG used in an individual process type or sub-type. Therefore, public disclosure of this data element through the required reporting proposed here is not likely to cause substantial competitive harm to the reporting company; the EPA is proposing that this data element not be protected as CBI. One new data element under the proposed 40 CFR 98.96(p)(2) would be assigned to the ‘‘Unit/Process ‘Static’ Characteristics That Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations’’ data category. Proposed 40 CFR 98.96(p)(2) would require the basis of the DRE value used (either default or site specific measurement according to proposed 40 CFR 98.94(f)(4)(i) through (vi)) for each process sub-type or process type and for each gas. We are proposing that this data element not be considered CBI, because it does not reveal any information that is likely to cause competitive harm if publicly released. Specifying whether default or sitespecific DRE values were used would reveal that a fab did or did not use a default DRE value. However, it would not provide any insight into the design or operating conditions of any VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 individual process since the default DRE is used in combination with fabspecific apportioning factors and consumption information to calculate annual emissions. Because fab-specific consumption and apportioning data used as inputs to emissions equations are not required to be reported under the proposed subpart I, competitors would be unable to derive any sensitive information based on the knowledge that a particular fab used a default DRE value for a gas and process type or subtype combination. Therefore, public disclosure of this data element through the required reporting proposed here is not likely to cause substantial competitive harm to the reporting company; the EPA is proposing that this data element not be protected as CBI. Five new data elements to be reported under the proposed 40 CFR 98.96(y)(2) and (y)(3) are part of the triennial (every 3 years) technology assessment report and would be assigned to the ‘‘Unit/ Process ‘Static’ Characteristics That Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations’’ data category. These data elements would be required for facilities that emit more than 40,000 mtCO2e of GHG emissions in 2015 from the electronics manufacturing processes subject to reporting. Proposed 40 CFR 98.96(y)(2)(i) would require, as part of the triennial technology assessment report, a description of how the gases and technologies used in semiconductor manufacturing using 200 mm and 300 mm wafers in the United States have changed in the past 3 years and whether any of the identified changes are likely to have affected the emissions characteristics of semiconductor manufacturing processes in such a way that the default emission factors or default DRE values may be required to be updated. Proposed 40 CFR 98.96(y)(2)(ii) would require a description of the effect of the implementation of new process technologies and/or finer line width processes in 200 mm and 300 mm technologies, the introduction of new tool platforms, and the introduction of new processes on previously tested platforms. Proposed 40 CFR 98.96(y)(2)(iii) would require a description of the status of implementing 450 mm wafer technology and the potential need to create or update emission factors compared to 300 mm technology. Proposed 40 CFR 98.96(y)(2)(v) would require a description of the use of a new gas, the use of an existing gas in a new process type or sub-type, or a fundamental change in process technology. Proposed 40 CFR 98.96(y)(3) would require a data PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 gathering and analysis plan that includes the testing of tools to determine the potential effect on current emission factors and DRE values under new conditions, and a planned analysis of the effect on overall facility emissions using a representative gas-use profile for a 200 mm, 300 mm, or 450 mm fab (depending on which technology is under consideration). We are proposing that each of these five new data elements be protected as CBI because the proposed data elements are likely to reveal information regarding recipespecific data, new technologies, or advances in production processes that could be used by a competitor. The EPA intends to use the information collected in the triennial report for consideration of updating default emission factors or DRE values in future rulemakings. This information is not emission data and is likely to reveal potentially sensitive information about individual facilities because it is likely to include information about recent process technology developed and adopted by the facilities, including proprietary process technology that would not be revealed otherwise. Therefore, public disclosure of these five data elements through the required reporting proposed here is likely to cause substantial competitive harm to the reporting company; the EPA is proposing that these data elements be protected as CBI. We are proposing to revise an additional five data elements in subpart I that would be assigned to the ‘‘Unit/ Process ‘Operating’ Characteristics That Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations’’ and ‘‘Unit/Process ‘Static’ Characteristics That Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations’’ data category. These five data elements are being revised to clarify the basis for the data element (e.g., fab-specific instead of facility-specific), to clarify applicability, or to conform to amendments in other rule sections. EPA made categorical assignments and confidentiality determinations for these five data elements in Final Subpart I CBI Determinations Rule. The proposed amendment does not change the nature or type of the data to be collected. Therefore, we are not proposing to change the data categorical assignments or CBI categorical determinations for these five data elements. Additional information on these five revised subpart I data elements in the proposed subpart I amendment can be found in the memorandum titled ‘‘Proposed Data Category Assignments for Subpart I 2012 Amendments’’ in Docket EPA– HQ–OAR–2011–0028. E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 D. Request for Comments on Proposed Confidentiality Determinations Today’s action provides affected businesses subject to Part 98, other stakeholders, and the general public an opportunity to provide comment on several aspects of this proposal. For the CBI component of this rulemaking, we are soliciting comment on the following specific issues. First, we specifically seek comment on the proposed data category assignment for each of the 25 new or revised data elements in the proposed amendments to subpart I. If you believe that the EPA has improperly assigned certain new data elements in this subpart to any of the existing data categories, please provide specific comments identifying which of the new data elements may be mis-assigned along with a detailed explanation of why you believe them to be incorrectly assigned and in which data category you believe they belong. Second, we specifically seek comment on our proposal to apply the same categorical confidentiality determinations made in the 2011 Final CBI Rule for eight direct emitter data categories to the new or revised data elements in the proposed amendments to subpart I that are assigned to those categories. We seek comment on the proposed confidentiality status of the 12 newly proposed or revised data elements in the direct emitter data categories for ‘‘Unit/ Process ‘Static’ Characteristics That Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations’’ and ‘‘Unit/Process Operating Characteristics That Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations.’’ By proposing confidentiality determinations prior to data reporting through this proposal and rulemaking process, we provide potential reporters an opportunity to submit comments identifying data they consider sensitive and their rationales and supporting documentation; this opportunity is the same as that which is afforded submitters of information in case-bycase confidentiality determinations. We will evaluate claims of confidentiality before finalizing the confidentiality determinations. Please note that this will be reporters’ only opportunity to substantiate your confidentiality claim. Upon finalizing the confidentiality determinations of the subpart I data elements in this rule, the EPA will release or withhold these subpart I data in accordance with 40 CFR 2.301, which contains special provisions governing the treatment of 40 CFR part 98 data for which confidentiality determinations have been made through rulemaking. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 Please consider the following instructions in submitting comments on the newly proposed data elements in subpart I. Please identify each individual proposed new or revised data element you do or do not consider to be CBI or emission data in your comments. Please explain specifically how the public release of that particular data element would or would not cause a competitive disadvantage to a facility. Discuss how this data element may be different from or similar to data that are already publicly available. Please submit information identifying any publicly available sources of information containing the specific data elements in question. Data that are already available through other sources would not be considered to be CBI. In your comments, please identify the manner and location in which each specific data element you identify is publicly available, including a citation. If the data are physically published, such as in a book, industry trade publication, or federal agency publication, provide the title, volume number (if applicable), author(s), publisher, publication date, and International Standard Book Number (ISBN) or other identifier. For data published on a Web site, provide the address of the Web site and the date you last visited the Web site and identify the Web site publisher and content author. If your concern is that competitors could use a particular data element to discern sensitive information, specifically describe the pathway by which this could occur and explain how the discerned information would negatively affect your competitive position. Describe any unique process or aspect of your facility that would be revealed if the particular proposed new or revised data element you consider sensitive were made publicly available. If the data element you identify would cause harm only when used in combination with other publicly available data, then describe the other data, identify the public source(s) of these data, and explain how the combination of data could be used to cause competitive harm. Describe the measures currently taken to keep the data confidential. Avoid conclusory and unsubstantiated statements, or general assertions regarding potential harm. Please be as specific as possible in your comments and include all information necessary for the EPA to evaluate your comments. PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 63573 V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review Under section 3(f)(4) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). The EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs associated with this proposal. This analysis is contained in the Economics Impact Analysis (EIA), ‘‘Proposed Amendments and Confidentiality Determinations for Subpart I EIA.’’ A copy of the analysis is available in the docket for this action and the analysis is briefly summarized here. Overall, the EPA has concluded that the costs of the proposed changes would significantly reduce subpart I compliance costs. Specifically, the proposed changes would reduce nationwide compliance costs in the first year by 37 percent ($2.7 million to $1.7 million) and by 73 percent in the second year ($6.4 million to $1.7 million). B. Paperwork Reduction Act This action does not increase information collection burden. As previously mentioned, this action proposes amended reporting methodologies in subpart I, confidentiality determinations for reported data elements, and amendments to subpart A to reflect proposed changes to the reporting requirements in subpart I. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in subpart I, under 40 CFR part 98, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and has assigned OMB control number 2060–0650 for subpart I. The OMB control numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed at 40 CFR part 9. Additional information can be found in the docket (see file ‘‘Proposed Amendments and Confidentiality Determinations for Subpart I Information Collection Burden’’). We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this action on the burden associated with the proposed amendments and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 63574 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this re-proposal on small entities, ‘‘small entity’’ is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; or (3) a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. This action proposes to (1) Amend monitoring and calculation methodologies in subpart I; (2) assign subpart I data reporting elements into CBI data categories; and (3) amend subpart A to reflect proposed changes to the reporting requirements in subpart I. After considering the economic impacts of today’s proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The small entities that would be directly regulated by this proposed rule are facilities included in NAICS codes for Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing (334413) and Other Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing (334119). In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives ‘‘which minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on small entities.’’ 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on small entities subject to the rule. The EPA is proposing to take several steps to reduce the impact of Part 98 on small entities. For example, the EPA is proposing to remove the recipe-specific reporting requirements for subpart I, which were identified by the Petitioner as economically and technically burdensome. In addition, the EPA has VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 provided a number of flexibilities in this proposed rule, which would allow reporters to choose the methodologies that are least burdensome for their facility. Finally, the EPA continues to conduct significant outreach on the mandatory GHG reporting rule, and subpart I specifically, and maintains an ‘‘open door’’ policy for stakeholders to help inform the EPA’s understanding of key issues for the industries. Additional information can be found in the docket (see file ‘‘Proposed Amendments and Confidentiality Determinations for Subpart I EIA’’). We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this action on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, requires federal agencies, unless otherwise prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Federal agencies must also develop a plan to provide notice to small governments that might be significantly or uniquely affected by any regulatory requirements. The plan must enable officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of the EPA regulatory proposals with significant federal intergovernmental mandates and must inform, educate, and advise small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. This action proposes to: (1) Amend monitoring and calculation methodologies in subpart I; (2) assign subpart I data reporting elements into CBI data categories; and (3) amend subpart A to reflect proposed changes to the reporting requirements in subpart I. This action does not contain a federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. In some cases, the EPA has increased flexibility in the selection of methods used for calculating and reporting GHGs. Also in this action, the EPA is revising specific provisions to provide clarity on what is to be reported. These revisions do not add additional burden on reporters but offer flexibility. As part of the process of finalization of the subpart I rule, the EPA undertook specific steps to evaluate the effect of those final rules on small entities. Based on the proposed amendments to subpart I provisions, burden will stay the same or decrease, therefore the EPA’s PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 determination finding of no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities has not changed. Thus, this action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. However, in developing Part 98, the EPA consulted with small governments pursuant to a plan established under section 203 of the UMRA to address impacts of regulatory requirements in the rule that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. For a summary of the EPA’s consultations with state and/or local officials or other representatives of state and/or local governments in developing Part 98, see Section VIII.D of the preamble to the final rule (74 FR 56370, October 30, 2009). E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. However, for a more detailed discussion about how Part 98 relates to existing state programs, please see Section II of the preamble to the final rule (74 FR 56266, October 30, 2009). This action, which is proposing amended calculation and reporting methodologies in subpart I, proposing new confidentiality determinations for data elements required under subpart I, and proposing amendments to subpart A to reflect proposed changes to the reporting requirements in subpart I, would only apply to certain electronics manufacturers. No state or local government facilities are known to be engaged in the activities that would be affected by the provisions in this proposed rule. This action also does not limit the power of states or localities to collect GHG data and/or regulate GHG emissions. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with the EPA policy to promote communications between the EPA and state and local governments, the EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action from state and local officials. For a summary of the EPA’s consultation with state and local organizations and representatives in developing Part 98, see Section VIII.E of E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules the preamble to the final rule (74 FR 56371, October 30, 2009). I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS. This action, which is proposing to amend monitoring and calculation methodologies in subpart I, involves technical standards. The EPA is proposing to include a stack testing option that would involve using the following EPA reference methods: • Method 1 or 1A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–1, to select sampling port locations and the number of traverse points in the exhaust stacks. • Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–1 and A– 2, to determine gas velocity and volumetric flow rate in the exhaust stacks. • Method 3, 3A, or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2, to determine the gas molecular weight of the exhaust using the same sampling site and at the same time as the F–GHG sampling is performed. • Method 4 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3, to measure gas moisture content in the exhaust stacks. • Method 301 at 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, to perform field validations of alternative methods of measuring F– GHG emissions and abatement system DRE. • Method 320 at 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, to measure the concentration of F–GHG in the stack exhaust. Consistent with the NTTAA, the EPA conducted searches to identify VCS in addition to these EPA methods. The EPA conducted searches for VCS from at least three different voluntary consensus standards bodies, including the following: ASTM, ASME, and International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative (ISMI). No applicable VCS were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, or 2G. The method, ASME PTC 19.10–1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses, is not cited in this proposed rule for its manual method for measuring the oxygen, This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action proposes to: (1) Amend monitoring and calculation methodologies in subpart I; (2) assign subpart I data reporting elements into CBI data categories; and (3) amend subpart A to reflect proposed changes to the reporting requirements in subpart I. This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). No tribal facilities are known to be engaged in the activities affected by this action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. For a summary of the EPA’s consultations with tribal governments and representatives, see Section VIII.F of the preamble to the final rule (74 FR 56371, October 30, 2009). The EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action from tribal officials. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5–501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action proposes to: (1) Amend monitoring and calculation methodologies in subpart I; (2) assign subpart I data reporting elements into CBI data categories; and (3) amend subpart A to reflect proposed changes to the reporting requirements in subpart I. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This action, which proposes to: (1) Amend monitoring and calculation methodologies in subpart I, (2) assign subpart I data reporting elements into CBI data categories, and (3) amend subpart A to reflect proposed changes to the reporting requirements in subpart I, is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 63575 carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide content of the exhaust gas. ASME PTC 19.10–1981 is an acceptable alternative to EPA Methods 3A and 3B for the manual procedures only, and not the instrumental procedures. The VCS ASTM D6348–03 (2010), Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy, has been reviewed by the EPA as a potential alternative to EPA Method 320. All data and information EPA has received in support of the stack testing method used EPA Method 320. Since this industry contains specialized gases in low concentrations, EPA would prefer to have supporting data prior to approving another test method. Because of this, we are not proposing this standard as an acceptable alternative for EPA Method 320 in this proposed rule. We note that reporters have the option to obtain approval for this method under the procedures outlines in 98.94(k). We specifically seek comment on whether or not ASTM D6348–03 should be included in as an option for the stack testing method. The EPA is proposing to revise the current subpart I provisions for determining abatement system DRE to incorporate language based on methods adapted from the ISMI 2009 Guideline for Environmental Characterization of Semiconductor Process Equipment— Revision 2. We are proposing to incorporate applicable portions of the ISMI 2009 Guideline into the rule in proposed Appendix A to Subpart I. The EPA is not proposing to incorporate by reference the entire ISMI 2009 Guideline because the ISMI 2009 Guidelines have not been subject to the same level of peer review and validation as other alternative standards (e.g., ASTM or ASME standards). Therefore, we are proposing to incorporate only those portions of the 2009 ISMI Guideline that the EPA has determined are needed to provide flexibility and reduce burden in subpart I. The EPA identified no other VCS that were potentially applicable for subpart I in lieu of EPA reference methods. Therefore, the EPA does not intend to adopt other standards for this purpose. For the methods required or referenced by the proposed rules, a source may apply to the EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required testing methods, performance specifications or procedures, as specified in proposed 40 CFR part 98, subpart I. The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 63576 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules identify potentially applicable VCS and to explain why such standards should be used in this regulation. Commenters should also explain why this proposed rule should adopt these VCS in lieu of, or in addition to, EPA standards. Emission test methods submitted for evaluation should be accompanied with a basis for the recommendation, including method validation data and the procedure used to validate the candidate method (if a method other than Method 301 was used). J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. This action is proposing to: (1) Amend monitoring and calculation methodologies in subpart I; (2) assign subpart I data reporting elements into CBI data categories; and (3) amend subpart A to reflect proposed changes to the reporting requirements in subpart I. The EPA has determined that this action will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This action addresses only reporting and recordkeeping procedures. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 98 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Greenhouse gases, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Subpart A—[Amended] 2. Section 98.7 is amended by revising paragraph (m)(3) and removing and reserving paragraph (n). The revision reads as follows: § 98.7 What standardized methods are incorporated by reference into this part? * * * * * (m) * * * (3) Protocol for Measuring Destruction or Removal Efficiency (DRE) of Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Abatement Equipment in Electronics Manufacturing, Version 1, EPA–430–R– 10–003, March 2010 (EPA 430–R–10– 003), https://www.epa.gov/ semiconductor-pfc/documents/ dre_protocol.pdf, IBR approved for § 98.94(f)(4)(i), § 98.94(g)(3), § 98.97(d)(4), § 98.98, Appendix A to subpart I of this part, § 98.124(e)(2), and § 98.414(n)(1). * * * * * Table A–7 to Subpart A of Part 98 [Amended] 3. Table A–7 to subpart A of part 98 is amended by removing the entries for ‘‘98.96(f)(1),’’ ‘‘98.96(g),’’ ‘‘98.96(h),’’ ‘‘98.96(i),’’ ‘‘98.96(j),’’ ‘‘98.96(k),’’ ‘‘98.96(l),’’ ‘‘98.96(n),’’ ‘‘98.96(o),’’ ‘‘98.96(q)(2),’’ ‘‘98.96(q)(3),’’ ‘‘98.96(q)(5)(iv),’’ and ‘‘98.96(r).’’ Subpart I—[Amended] 4. Section 98.91 is amended by revising the definitions of ‘‘Ci’’ in Equation I–3 of paragraph (a)(3) and ‘‘Wx’’ in Equation I–5 of paragraph (b) to read as follows: § 98.91 * * Ci = Annual fluorinated GHG (input gas i) purchases or consumption (kg). Only gases that are used in PV manufacturing processes listed at § 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) * * * Dated: August 31, 2012. Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Reporting threshold. (a) * * * (3) * * * * * * * For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows: * PART 98—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 98 continues to read as follows: * * * * 5. Section 98.92 is amended by: a. Revising paragraph (a)(1). b. Removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(2) and (3). c. Revising paragraph (a)(6). The revisions read as follows: § 98.92 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 GHGs to report. (a) * * * Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. VerDate Mar<15>2010 * WX = Maximum substrate starts of a facility in month x (m2 per month). PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (1) Fluorinated GHGs emitted. * * * * (6) All fluorinated GHGs and N2O consumed. * * * * * 6. Section 98.93 is amended by: a. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b). b. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text and the definitions of ‘‘Ci’’, ‘‘IBi’’, ‘‘IEi’’, ‘‘Ai’’, and ‘‘Di’’ in Equation I–11 of paragraph (c). c. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text and the definitions of ‘‘Di’’, ‘‘hil’’, ‘‘Nil’’, ‘‘Fil’’, ‘‘Xi’’, and ‘‘M’’ in Equation I–12 of paragraph (d). d. Revising paragraph (e) introductory text and the definitions of ‘‘Ci,j’’, ‘‘fi,j’’, ‘‘Ci’’, and ‘‘j’’ in Equation I–13 of paragraph (e). e. Removing and reserving paragraph (f). f. Revising paragraph (g). g. Revising paragraph (h) introductory text and the definitions of ‘‘EHi’’, ‘‘IiB’’, ‘‘Pi’’, ‘‘Ni’’, ‘‘Ri’’, ‘‘IiE’’, and ‘‘Di’’ in Equation I–16 of paragraph (h). h. Removing and reserving paragraph (h)(2). i. Adding paragraph (i). The revisions read as follows: * § 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 § 98.98) at your facility, including each input gas and each byproduct gas, for each process type or process sub-type. You must use either default gas utilization rates and byproduct formations rates according to the procedures in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(4), or (a)(6) of this section, as appropriate, or the stack test method according to paragraph (i) of this section, to calculate emissions of each input gas and each by-product gas. If your fab uses less than 50 kg of a fluorinated GHG in one reporting year, you may calculate emissions as equal to your fab’s annual consumption for that specific gas as calculated in Equation I– 11 of this subpart. If your fab is required to perform calculations using default emission factors for gas utilization and by-product formation rates according to the procedures in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(4) of this section, and default values are not available for a particular input gas and process type or sub-type combination in Tables I–3, I– 4, I–5, I–6, or I–7, you must follow the procedures in paragraph (a)(6) of this section. If you calculate emissions of fluorinated GHG input gases and byproduct gases by process type or subtype using the methods in paragraphs E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 63577 Where: ProcesstypeEi = Annual emissions of input gas i from the processes type on a fab basis (metric tons). Eij = Annual emissions of input gas i from process sub-type or process type j as calculated in Equation I–8 of this subpart (metric tons). N = The total number of process sub-types j that depends on the electronics manufacturing fab and emission calculation methodology. If Eij is calculated for a process type j in Equation I–8 of this subpart, N = 1. i = Input gas. j = Process sub-type or process type. Where: ProcesstypeBEk = Annual emissions of byproduct 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. adhere to the procedures in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section. (i) You must calculate annual fablevel emissions of each fluorinated GHG used for the plasma etching/wafer cleaning process type using default utilization and by-product formation rates as shown in Table I–3 or I–4 of this subpart, and by using Equations I–8 and I–9 of this subpart. (ii) You must calculate annual fablevel 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 byproduct formation rates as shown in Table I–3 or I–4 of this subpart, and by using Equations I–8 and I–9 of this subpart. (3) [Reserved.] (4) If you manufacture semiconductors on wafers measuring greater than 300 mm in diameter, you must adhere to the procedures in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section. (i) You must calculate annual fablevel emissions of each fluorinated GHG used for the plasma etching/wafer cleaning process type using default utilization and by-product formation rates as shown in Table I–4 of this subpart, and by using Equations I–8 and I–9 of this subpart. (ii) You must calculate annual fablevel 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 byproduct formation rates as shown in Table I–4 of this subpart, and by using Equations I–8 and I–9 of this subpart. (5) [Reserved.] (6) If your facility is required to perform calculations using default emission factors for gas utilization and by-product formation rates according to the procedures in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(4) of this section, and default values are not available for a particular input gas and process type or sub-type combination in Tables I–3, I– 4, I–5, I–6, or I–7, you must use the utilization and by-product formation rates of zero and use Equations I–8 and I–9 of this subpart. 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 § 98.94(f). UTij = The average uptime factor of all abatement systems connected to process tools in the fab using input gas i in process sub-type or process type j, as calculated in Equation I–15a of this tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 (1) If you manufacture MEMS, LCDs, or PVs, you must calculate annual fablevel emissions of each fluorinated GHG used for the plasma etching and chamber cleaning process types using default utilization and by-product formation rates as shown in Table I–5, I–6, or I–7 of this subpart, as appropriate, and by using Equations I– 8 and I–9 of this subpart. (2) If you manufacture semiconductors on wafers measuring 300 mm or less in diameter, you must 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). VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 EP16OC12.070</GPH> product fluorinated GHG using Equations I–6 and I–7, respectively. EP16OC12.068</GPH> EP16OC12.069</GPH> (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(4) of this section, you must calculate annual emissions of each input fluorinated GHG and of each by- 63578 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons. i = Input gas. j = Process sub-type or process type. Where: BEijk = Annual emissions of by-product gas k formed from input gas i from process sub-type or process type j, on a fab basis (metric tons). Bijk = By-product formation rate of gas k created as a by-product per amount of input gas i (kg) consumed by process sub-type or process type j (kg). Cij = Amount of input gas i consumed for process sub-type, or process type j, as calculated in Equation I–13 of this subpart, on a fab basis (kg). aij = Fraction of input gas i used for process sub-type, or process type j with abatement systems, on a fab basis (expressed as a decimal fraction). djk = Fraction of by-product gas k destroyed or removed in abatement systems connected to process tools where process sub-type, or process type j is used, on a fab basis (expressed as a decimal fraction). This is zero unless the facility adheres to the requirements in § 98.94(f). UTjk = The average uptime factor of all abatement systems connected to process tools in the fab emitting by-product gas k in process sub-type or process type j, as calculated in Equation I–15b of this subpart, on a fab basis (expressed as a decimal fraction). 0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons. i = Input gas. j = Process sub-type or process type. k = By-product gas. Where: E(N2O)j = Annual emissions of N2O for N2Ousing process j, on a fab basis (metric tons). CN2O,j = Amount of N2O consumed for N2Ousing 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 N2Ousing 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 § 98.94(f). UTN2O = The average uptime factor of all the abatement systems connected to process tools in the fab that use N2O, as calculated in Equation I–15a of this subpart, on a fab basis (expressed as a decimal fraction). For purposes of calculating the abatement system uptime for N2O using process tools, in Equation I–15a of this subpart, the only input gas i is N2O, j is the N2O using process, and p is the N2O abatement system connected to the N2O using tool. 0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons. j = Type of N2O-using process, either chemical vapor deposition or all other N2O-using manufacturing processes. 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. * * * * * (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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 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 § 98.94(b), and by using Equation I–12 of this subpart. * * * * * PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (b) You must calculate annual fablevel N2O emissions from all chemical vapor deposition processes and from the aggregate of other electronics manufacturing production processes using Equation I–10 of this subpart and the methods in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section. If your fab uses less than 50 kg of N2O in one reporting year, you may calculate fab emissions as equal to your fab’s annual consumption for N2O as calculated in Equation I–11 of this subpart. Di = Disbursements of input gas i through sales or other transactions during the reporting year on a fab basis, including heels in containers returned by the electronics manufacturing fab to the gas distributor (kg). hil = Fab-wide gas-specific heel factor for input gas i and container size and type l (expressed as a decimal fraction), as determined in § 98.94(b). If your fab uses less than 50 kg of a fluorinated GHG or N2O in one reporting year, you may assume that any hil for that fluorinated GHG or N2O is equal to zero. Nil = Number of containers of size and type l returned to the gas distributor containing the standard heel of input gas i. Fil = Full capacity of containers of size and type l containing input gas i, on a fab basis (kg). Xi = Disbursements under exceptional circumstances of input gas i through sales or other transactions during the year, on a fab basis (kg). These include returns of containers whose contents have been weighed due to an exceptional circumstance as specified in § 98.94(b)(4). * * * * * M = The total number of different sized container types on a fab basis. If only one size and container type is used for an input gas i, M=1. (e) You must calculate the amount of input gas i consumed, on a fab basis, for each process sub-type or process type j, using Equation I–13 of this subpart. * * * * * Ci,j = The annual amount of input gas i consumed, on a fab basis, for process sub-type, or process type j (kg). fi,j = Process sub-type-specific, or process type-specific j, input gas i apportioning factor (expressed as a decimal fraction), E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 EP16OC12.071</GPH> EP16OC12.072</GPH> tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 subpart, on a fab basis (expressed as a decimal fraction). Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules as determined in accordance with § 98.94(c). Ci = Annual consumption of input gas i, on a fab basis, as calculated using Equation I–11 of this subpart (kg). 63579 j = Process sub-type, or process type. (f) [Reserved.] (g) If you report controlled emissions pursuant to § 98.94(f), you must calculate the uptime of all the abatement systems for each combination of input gas or by-product gas, and process sub-type or process type, by using Equation I–15a or I–15b of this subpart. Use Equation I–15a for the calculation of uptime for tools using each input gas, and Equation I–15b for the calculation of uptime for tools emitting each by-product gas. 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 § 98.98, when at least one of the tools connected to abatement system p is in operation. UTijp = Total time, in minutes per year, in which abatement system p has at least one associated tool in operation. For determining the amount of tool operating time, you may assume that tools that were installed for the whole of the year were operated for 525,600 minutes per year. For tools that were installed or uninstalled during the year, you must prorate the operating time to account for the days in which the tool was not installed; treat any partial day that a tool was installed as a full day (1,440 minutes) of tool operation. For an abatement system that has more than one connected tool, the tool operating time is 525,600 minutes per year if at least one tool was installed at all times throughout the year. If you have tools that are idle with no gas flow through the tool, you may calculate total tool time using the actual time that gas is flowing through the tool. i = Input gas. j = Process sub-type or process type. p = Abatement system. Where: UTjk = The average uptime factor of all abatement systems connected to process tools in the fab which emit by-product gas k, in process sub-type or process type j (expressed as a decimal fraction). Tdjkp = The total time, in minutes, that abatement system p, connected to process tool(s) in the fab which emit byproduct gas k, in process sub-type or process type j, is not in operational mode, as defined in § 98.98, when at least one of the tools connected to abatement system p is in operation. UTkp = Total time, in minutes per year, in which abatement system p has at least one associated tool in operation. For determining the amount of tool operating time, you may assume that tools that were installed for the whole of the year were operated for 525,600 minutes per year. For tools that were installed or uninstalled during the year, you must prorate the operating time to account for the days in which the tool was not installed; treat any partial day that a tool was installed as a full day (1,440 minutes) of tool operation. For an abatement system that has more than one connected tool, the tool operating time is 525,600 minutes per year if at least one tool was installed at all times throughout the year. If you have tools that are idle with no gas flow through the tool, you may calculate total tool time using the actual time that gas is flowing through the tool. j = Process sub-type or process type. k = By-product gas. p = Abatement system. is newly installed in the fab during the reporting year (l). Ri = Total nameplate capacity (full and proper charge) of equipment that uses fluorinated heat transfer fluid i and that is removed from service in the fab during the reporting year (l). IiE = Inventory of fluorinated heat transfer fluid i, on a fab basis in containers other than equipment at the end of the reporting year (in stock or storage)(l). Di = Disbursements of fluorinated heat transfer fluid i, on a fab basis, during the reporting year, including amounts returned to chemical suppliers, sold with or inside of equipment, and sent off-site for verifiable recycling or destruction (l). Disbursements should include only amounts that are properly stored and transported so as to prevent emissions in transit. * * VerDate Mar<15>2010 * * 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 (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 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 * * * * * (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 E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 EP16OC12.073</GPH> EP16OC12.074</GPH> tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 * 63580 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules the number of tools using input gas i that are vented to the stack system for which you are calculating the preliminary estimate to the total number of tools in the fab using input gas i, expressed as a decimal fraction. You may use this approach to determining fij only for this preliminary estimate. (iii) You must use data from the previous reporting year to estimate the total uptime of all abatement systems for the stack system as calculated by Equation I–23 of this subpart, instead of using Equation I–15a or Equation I–15b of this subpart to calculate the average uptime factor. (2) Method selection for stack systems in the fab. If the calculations under paragraph (i)(1) of this section, as well as any subsequent annual measurements and calculations under this subpart, indicate that the stack system meets the criteria in paragraph (i)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section, then you may comply with either paragraph (i)(3) of this section (stack test method) or paragraph (i)(4) of this section (method to estimate emissions from the stack systems that are not tested). If the stack system does not meet all three criteria in paragraph (i)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section, then you must comply with the stack test method specified in paragraph (i)(3) of this section. (i) The sum of annual emissions of fluorinated GHGs from all of the combined stack systems that are not tested in the fab is less than 10,000 metric ton CO2e per year. For those fluorinated GHG in Tables I–11, I–12, I– 13, I–14, and I–15 of this subpart for which Table A–1 to subpart A of this part does not define a GWP value, you must use a value of 2,000 for the GWP in calculating metric ton CO2e for that fluorinated GHG. (ii) When all stack systems in the fab are ordered from lowest to highest emitting in metric ton CO2e of fluorinated GHG per year, each of the stack systems that is not tested is within the set of the fab’s lowest emitting fluorinated GHG stack systems that together emit 15 percent or less of total CO2e fluorinated GHG emissions from the fab. For those fluorinated GHG that do not have GWP values listed in Table A–1 to subpart A of this part, you must use a GWP value of 2,000 in calculating CO2e. (iii) Fluorinated GHG emissions from each of the stack systems that is not tested can only be attributed to particular process tools during the test (that is, the stack system that is not tested cannot be used as an alternative emission point or bypass stack system from other process tools not attributed to the untested stack system). (3) Stack system stack test method. For each stack system in the fab for which testing is required, measure the emissions of each fluorinated GHG from the stack system by conducting an emission test. In addition, measure the fab-specific consumption of each fluorinated GHG by the tools that are vented to the stack systems tested. Measure emissions and consumption of each fluorinated GHG as specified in § 98.94(j). Develop fab-specific emission factors and calculate fab-level fluorinated GHG emissions using the procedures specified in paragraph (i)(3)(i) through (viii) of this section. All emissions test data and procedures used in developing emission factors must be documented according to § 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 § 98.94(j)(3). Calculate the consumption for each fluorinated GHG for the test period. (ii) You must calculate the emission of each fluorinated GHG consumed as an input gas using Equation I–17 of this subpart and each fluorinated GHG formed as a by-product gas using Equation I–18 of this subpart and the procedures specified in paragraphs (i)(3)(ii)(A) through (E) of this section. If a stack system has more than one stack emitting to the atmosphere from a common header, you must measure the fluorinated GHG concentration and flow in each stack from that header to the atmosphere, and sum the emissions from each stack in the stack system when using Equation I–17 or Equation I–18 of this subpart. Where: Eis = Total fluorinated GHG input gas i, emitted from stack system s, during the sampling period (kg). Xism = Average concentration of fluorinated GHG input gas i in stack system s, during the time interval m (ppmv). MWi = Molecular weight of fluorinated GHG input gas i (g/g-mole). Qs = Flow rate of the stack system s, during the sampling period (m3/min). VerDate Mar<15>2010 22:59 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 EP16OC12.075</GPH> tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 preliminary estimate for each stack system to the criteria in paragraph (i)(2) of this section to determine whether the stack system meets the criteria for using the stack test method described in paragraph (i)(3) of this section or whether the stack system meets the criteria for using the method described in paragraph (i)(4) of this section to estimate emissions from the stack systems that are not tested. (1) Preliminary estimate of emissions by stack system in the fab. You must calculate a preliminary estimate of the annual emissions of each fluorinated GHG from each stack system in the fab using default utilization and by-product formation rates as shown in Table I–11, I–12, I–13, I–14, or I–15 of this subpart, as applicable, and by using Equations I– 8 and I–9 of this subpart. When using Equations I–8 and I–9 of this subpart for the purposes of this paragraph (i)(1), you must also adhere to the procedures in paragraphs (i)(1)(i) to (iii) of this section to calculate preliminary estimates. (i) When you are calculating preliminary estimates for the purpose of this paragraph (i)(1), you must consider the subscript ‘‘j’’ in Equations I–8 and I–9, and I–13 of this subpart to mean ‘‘stack system’’ instead of ‘‘process subtype or process type.’’ For the value of aij, the fraction of input gas i that is used in tools with abatement systems, for use in Equations I–8 and I–9, you may use the ratio of the number of tools using input gas i that have abatement systems that are vented to the stack system for which you are calculating the preliminary estimate to the total number of tools using input gas i that are vented to that stack system, expressed as a decimal fraction. You may use this approach to determining aij only for this preliminary estimate. (ii) You must use data from the previous reporting year to estimate the consumption of input gas i as calculated in Equation I–13 of this subpart and the fraction of input gas i destroyed in abatement systems for each stack system as calculated by Equation I–24 of this subpart. When calculating the consumption of input gas i as calculated in Equation I–13 of this subpart, the term ‘‘fij’’ is replaced with the ratio of Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 63581 i = Fluorinated GHG input 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 § 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 § 98.94(j)(2) for the value of ‘‘Xism’’ when the fluorinated GHG is not detected. (C) If a fluorinated GHG is not consumed during the sampling period but is detected intermittently as a byproduct gas, use the measured concentration for ‘‘Xksm’’ in Equation I– 18 when available and use one-half of the field detection limit you determined for that fluorinated GHG according to § 98.94(j)(2) for the value of ‘‘Xksm’’ when the fluorinated GHG is not detected. (D) If a fluorinated GHG is an expected by-product gas of the stack system tested and is not detected during the sampling period, use one-half of the field detection limit you determined for that fluorinated GHG according to § 98.94(j)(2) for the value of ‘‘Xksm’’ in Equation I–18. (E) If a fluorinated GHG is not an expected by-product of the stack system and is not detected during the sampling period, then assume zero emissions for that fluorinated GHG for the tested stack system. (iii) You must calculate a fab-specific emission factor for each fluorinated GHG input gas consumed (in kg of fluorinated GHG emitted per kg of input gas i consumed) in the tools that vent to stack systems that are tested, as applicable, using Equation I–19 of this subpart. If the emissions of input gas i exceed the consumption of input gas i during the sampling period, then equate ‘‘Eij’’ to the consumption of input gas i and treat the difference between the emissions and consumption of input gas i as a by-product of the other input gases, using Equation I–20 of this subpart. 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 § 98.94(j)(3) (kg consumed). UTf = The total uptime of all abatement systems for fab f, during the sampling period, as calculated in Equation I–23 of this subpart (expressed as decimal fraction). If the stack system does not have abatement systems on the tools vented to the stack system, the value of this parameter is zero. aif = Fraction of fluorinated GHG input gas i used in fab f in tools with abatement systems (expressed as a decimal fraction). dif = Fraction of fluorinated GHG input gas i destroyed or removed in abatement systems connected to process tools in fab f, as calculated in Equation I–24 of this subpart (expressed as decimal fraction). If the stack system does not have abatement systems on the tools vented to the stack system, the value of this parameter is zero. f = Fab. i = Fluorinated GHG input gas. s = Stack system. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (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 byproduct emission factor for an input gas for which emissions exceeded its consumption, exclude the consumption of that input gas from the term ‘‘è(Activityif).’’ E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 EP16OC12.076</GPH> EP16OC12.077</GPH> 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). Where: Eks = Total fluorinated GHG by-product gas k, emitted from stack system s, during the sampling period (kg). Xks = Average concentration of fluorinated GHG by-product gas k in stack system s, during the time interval m (ppmv). MWk = Molecular weight of the fluorinated GHG by-product gas k (g/g-mole). Qs = Flow rate of the stack system s, during the sampling period (m3/min). SV = Standard molar volume of gas (0.02240 m3/g-mole at 68 °F and 1 atm). Dtm = Length of time interval m (minutes). Each time interval in the sampling period must be less than or equal to 60 minutes (for example an 8 hour sampling period would consist of at least 8 time intervals). 1/103 = 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. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 SV = Standard molar volume of gas (0.02240 m3/g-mole at 68 °F and 1 atm). Dtm = Length of time interval m (minutes). Each time interval in the sampling period must be less than or equal to 60 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 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 Where: Ekf = Annual emissions of fluorinated GHG by-product k (kg/year) from the stack systems that are tested for fab f. EFkf = Emission factor for fluorinated GHG by-product k, emitted from fab f, as calculated in Equation I–20 of this subpart (kg emitted/kg of all input gases consumed). Cif = Total consumption of fluorinated GHG input gas i in tools that are vented to stack systems that are tested, for fab f, for the reporting year, as calculated using Equation I–13 of this subpart. UTf = The total uptime of all abatement systems for fab f, during the reporting year as calculated using Equation I–23 of this subpart (expressed as a decimal fraction). af = Fraction of input gases used in fab f in tools with abatement systems (expressed as a decimal fraction). dkf = Fraction of fluorinated GHG by-product k destroyed or removed in abatement systems connected to process tools in fab f that are included in the stack testing option, as calculated in Equation I–24 of this subpart (expressed as decimal fraction). Where: UTf = The total uptime of all abatement systems, for fab f (expressed as a decimal fraction). Tdpf = The total time, in minutes, that abatement system p, connected to process tool(s) in fab f, is not in operational mode as defined in § 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 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 fablevel emissions of each fluorinated GHG consumed using Equation I–21 of this section. 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 fablevel emissions of each fluorinated GHG by-product formed using Equation I–22 of this section. f = Fab. i = Fluorinated GHG input gas. k = Fluorinated GHG by-product. (vii) When using the stack testing method described in this paragraph (i), you must calculate abatement system uptime on a fab basis using Equation I– 23 of this subpart. When calculating abatement system uptime for use in Equation I–19 and I–20 of this subpart, you must evaluate the variables ‘‘Tdpj’’ and ‘‘UTpf’’ for the sampling period instead of the reporting year. VerDate Mar<15>2010 00:32 Oct 16, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 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 E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 EP16OC12.078</GPH> EP16OC12.079</GPH> EP16OC12.080</GPH> sampling period as determined following the procedures specified in § 98.94(j)(3) (kg consumed). UTf = The total uptime of all abatement systems for fab f, during the sampling period, as calculated in Equation I–23 of this subpart (expressed as decimal fraction). af = Fraction of all input gases used in fab f in tools with abatement systems (expressed as a decimal fraction). dkf = Fraction of fluorinated GHG by-product gas k destroyed or removed in abatement 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 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Where: EFkf = Emission factor for fluorinated GHG by-product gas k, from fab f, (kg emitted/ kg of all input gases consumed in tools vented to stack systems that are tested). Eks = Mass emission of fluorinated GHG byproduct 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 EP16OC12.081</GPH> 63582 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 63583 525,600 minutes per year if there was at least one tool installed at all times throughout the year. If you have tools that are idle with no gas flow through the tool, you may calculate total tool time using the actual time that gas is flowing through the tool. f = Fab. p = Abatement system. (viii) When using the stack testing option described in this paragraph (i), you must calculate the weighted average fraction of input gas i destroyed or removed in abatement systems for each fab f, as applicable, by using Equation I–24 of this subpart. Where: dif = The average weighted fraction of fluorinated GHG input gas i destroyed or removed in abatement systems in fab f (expressed as a decimal fraction). Cijf = The amount of fluorinated GHG input gas i consumed for process type j fed into abatement systems in fab f (kg). DREij = Destruction or removal efficiency for fluorinated GHG input gas i in abatement systems connected to process tools where process type j is used (expressed as a decimal fraction) determined according to § 98.94(f). f = fab. i = Fluorinated GHG input gas. j = Process type. fluorinated GHG was not being used during the stack testing and does not meet the definition of intermittent lowuse fluorinated GHG in § 98.98, then you must test the stack systems associated with the use of that fluorinated GHG at a time when that gas is in use at a magnitude that would allow you to determine an emission factor for that gas according to the procedures specified in paragraph (i)(3) of this section. (ii) Calculate emissions from consumption of each fluorinated GHG used in tools vented to stack systems that meet the criteria specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(i) through (i)(2)(iii) of this section, and were not tested according to the procedures in paragraph (i)(3) of this section. Calculate emissions using the default utilization and by-product formation rates and equations specified in paragraph (i)(4) of this section. (5) To determine the total emissions of each fluorinated GHG from each fab under this stack testing option, you must sum the emissions of each fluorinated GHG determined from the procedures in paragraph (i)(3) of this section with the emissions of the same fluorinated GHG determined from the procedures in paragraph (i)(4) of this section. 7. Section 98.94 is amended by: a. Removing and reserving paragraph (a). b. Revising paragraph (b), paragraph (c) introductory text, and paragraph (c)(2). c. Adding paragraph (c)(3). d. Removing and reserving paragraphs (d) and (e). e. Revising paragraph (f) introductory text and paragraph (f)(1) introductory text, (f)(1)(ii), (f)(2), (f)(3) and (f)(4). f. Removing and reserving paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2). g. Revising paragraphs (g)(3) and (g)(4). h. Revising paragraph (h) introductory text and paragraphs (h)(3) and (i). i. Adding paragraphs (j) and (k). The additions and revisions read as follows: (4) Method to calculate emissions from stack systems that are not tested. You must calculate annual fab-level emissions of each input and by-product fluorinated GHG for those fluorinated GHG listed in paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section using default utilization and by-product formation rates as shown in Tables I–11, I–12, I– 13, I–14, or I–15 of this subpart, as applicable, and by using Equations I–8, I–9, and I–13 of this subpart. When using Equations I–8, I–9, and I–13 of this subpart to fulfill the requirements of this paragraph, you must use, in place of the term Cij in each equation, the total consumption of each fluorinated GHG meeting the criteria in paragraph (i)(4)(i) of this section or that is used in tools vented to the stack systems that meet the criteria in paragraph (i)(4)(ii) of this section. You also must use the results of Equation I–24 of this subpart in place of the terms dij in Equation I–8 of this subpart and djk in Equation I–9 of this subpart, and use the results of Equation I–23 of this subpart in place of the results of Equation I–15a or Equation I– 15b of this subpart for the terms UTij and UTjk. (i) Calculate emissions from consumption of each intermittent lowuse fluorinated GHG as defined in § 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 § 98.94 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements. (a) [Reserved.] (b) For purposes of Equation I–12 of this subpart, you must estimate fab-wide gas-specific heel factors for each container type for each gas used, except for fluorinated GHGs or N2O which your fab uses in quantities less than 50 kg in one reporting year, according to the procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this section. (1) Base your fab-wide gas-specific heel factors on the trigger point for change out of a container for each container size and type for each gas used. Fab-wide gas-specific heel factors must be expressed as the ratio of the trigger point for change out, in terms of mass, to the initial mass in the container, as determined by paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section. (2) The trigger points for change out you use to calculate fab-wide gasspecific 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. Where: p = Absolute pressure of the gas (Pa). V = Volume of the gas container (m3). Z = Compressibility factor. n = Amount of substance of the gas (moles). R = Gas constant (8.314 Joule/Kelvin mole). T = Absolute temperature (K). (3) The initial mass you use to calculate a 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. E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 EP16OC12.082</GPH> EP16OC12.083</GPH> tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 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 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 63584 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules (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 gasspecific heel factor for that gas and container type. (5) You must re-calculate a fab-wide gas-specific heel factor if you execute a process change to modify the trigger point for change out for a gas and container type that differs by more than 5 percent from the previously used trigger point for change out for that gas and container type. (c) You must develop apportioning factors for fluorinated GHG and N2O consumption (including the fraction of gas consumed by process tools connected to abatement systems as in Equations I–8, I–9, I–10, and I–24 of this subpart), to use in the equations of this subpart for each input gas i, process sub-type, process type, stack system, and fab as appropriate, using a fabspecific engineering model that is documented in your site GHG Monitoring Plan as required under § 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 when the fab is at a representative operating level (as defined in § 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 § 98.93(a), (b), or (i). You may compare the actual gas consumed to the modeled gas consumed for two fluorinated GHGs and demonstrate conformance according to paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section on an aggregate use basis for both fluorinated GHGs if one of the fluorinated GHGs selected for comparison corresponds to the largest quantities, on a mass basis, of fluorinated GHGs used at each fab during the reporting year. (iii) You must demonstrate that the comparison performed for the largest quantity of gas(es), on a mass basis, consumed in the fab in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section, does not result in a difference between the actual and modeled gas consumption that exceeds 20 percent relative to actual gas consumption, reported to two significant figures using standard rounding conventions. (iv) If you are required to apportion gas consumption and use the procedures in § 98.93(i) to calculate annual emissions from a fab, you must verify your apportioning factors using the procedures in paragraphs (c)(2)(ii) and (iii) of this section such that the time period specified in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section ends on the last day you perform the sampling events specified under § 98.93(i)(3). (v) If your facility has multiple fabs with a single centralized fluorinatedGHG supply system and two or more fabs that use different methods to calculate annual emissions of fluorinated GHGs, you must verify that your apportioning model can apportion fluorinated GHG consumption among the fabs by adhering to the procedures in paragraphs (c)(2)(ii) through (c)(2)(iv) of this section. (3) As an alternative to developing apportioning factors for fluorinated GHG and N2O consumption using a fabspecific engineering model, you may develop apportioning factors through the use of direct measurement using gas flow meters and weigh scales to measure process sub-type, process type, stack system, or fab-specific input gas consumption. You may use a PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 combination of apportioning factors developed using a fab-specific engineering model and apportioning factors developed through the use of direct measurement, provided this is documented in your site GHG Monitoring Plan as required under 98.3(g)(5). * * * * * (f) You must adhere to the procedures in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section if your facility employs abatement systems and you use § 98.93(a) and/or § 98.93(b) to calculate emissions and wish to reflect emission reductions due to these systems. You must also adhere to the procedures in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section if you use § 98.93(i) to calculate emissions. If you use the default destruction or removal efficiencies in Table I–16 of this subpart, you must adhere to procedures in paragraph (f)(3) of this section. If you use an average of properly measured destruction or removal efficiencies for a gas and process sub-type or process type combination, as applicable, during a reporting year, you must adhere to procedures in paragraph (f)(4) of this section. (1) You must certify and document that the abatement systems are properly installed, operated, and maintained according to manufacturers’ specifications by adhering to the procedures in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section. * * * * * (ii) You must certify and document your abatement systems are operated and maintained in accordance with the manufacturers’ specifications and according to the site maintenance plan for abatement systems that is developed and maintained in your records as specified in § 98.97(d). (2) You must calculate and document the uptime of abatement systems using Equations I–15a, I–15b, or I–23 of this subpart, as applicable. (3) To report emissions using the default destruction or removal efficiencies in Table I–16 of this subpart, you must certify and document that the abatement systems at your facility are specifically designed for fluorinated GHG and N2O abatement. (4) If you do not use the default destruction or removal efficiency values to calculate and report controlled emissions, you must use an average of properly measured destruction or removal efficiencies for each gas and process sub-type or process type combination, as applicable, determined in accordance with procedures in paragraphs (f)(4)(i) through (vi) of this E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules section. You must not use a default value from Table I–16 of this subpart for any gas and process type combination for which you have measured the destruction or removal efficiency according to the requirements of paragraphs (f)(4)(i) through (vi) of this section. (i) A properly measured destruction or removal efficiency value must be determined in accordance with EPA 430–R–10–003 (incorporated by reference, see § 98.7), or according to an alternative method approved by the Administrator as specified in paragraph (k) of this section. If you are measuring destruction or removal efficiency according to EPA 430–R–10–003, you may follow the alternative procedures specified in Appendix A to this subpart. (ii) You must select and properly measure the destruction or removal efficiency for a random sample of abatement systems to include in a random sampling abatement system testing program in accordance with procedures in paragraphs (f)(4)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section. (A) For the first 2 years for which your fab is required to report emissions of fluorinated GHG and N2O, for each abatement system gas and process subtype or process type combination, as applicable, a random sample of 10 percent of installed abatement systems must be tested annually for a total of 20 percent, or 20 percent may be tested in the first year. For every 3-year period following the initial 2-year period, a random sample of 15 percent of installed abatement systems must be tested for each gas and process sub-type or process type combination; you may test 15-percent in the first year of the 3year period, but you must test at least 5 percent each year until 15 percent are tested. If the required percent of the total number of abatement systems to be tested for each gas and process sub-type or process type combination does not equate to a whole number, the number of systems to be tested must be determined by rounding up to the nearest integer. (B) If testing of a randomly selected abatement system would be disruptive to production, you may replace that system with another randomly selected system for testing and return the system to the sampling pool for subsequent testing. Any one abatement system must not be replaced by another randomly selected system for more than three consecutive selections. When you have to replace a system in one year, you may select that specific system to be tested in one of the next two sampling years so that you may plan testing of that VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 abatement system to avoid disrupting production. (iii) You must use default destruction or removal efficiencies for a gas and process type combination, until you complete testing on 20 percent of the abatement systems for that gas and process sub-type or process type combination, as applicable. Following testing on 20 percent of abatement systems for that gas and process subtype 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 subtype or process type combination. After testing at least 30 percent of all systems for a gas and process sub-type or process type combination, you must use the arithmetic mean of the most recent 30 percent of systems tested as the average destruction or removal efficiency. (iv) If a measured destruction or removal efficiency is below the manufacturer-claimed fluorinated GHG or N2O destruction or removal efficiency and the abatement system is installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the manufacturers’ specifications, the measured destruction or removal efficiency must be included in the calculation of the destruction or removal efficiency value for that gas and process sub-type or process type, as applicable. (v) If a measured destruction or removal efficiency is below the manufacturer-claimed fluorinated GHG or N2O destruction or removal efficiency and the abatement system is not installed, operated, or maintained in accordance with the manufacturers’ specifications, you must implement corrective action and perform a retest to replace the measured value within the reporting year. In lieu of retesting within the reporting year, you may use the measured value in calculating the average destruction or removal efficiency for the reporting year, and then include the same system in the next year’s abatement system testing in addition to the testing of randomly selected systems for that next reporting year. (vi) If your fab uses redundant abatement systems, you may account for the total abatement system uptime calculated for a specific exhaust stream during the reporting year. (g) * * * (3) Follow the QA/QC procedures in accordance with those in EPA 430–R– 10–003 (incorporated by reference, see § 98.7), or the applicable QA/QC PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 63585 procedures specified in an alternative method approved by the Administrator according to paragraph (k) of this section, when calculating abatement systems destruction or removal efficiencies. If you are measuring destruction or removal efficiency according to EPA 430–R–10–003, and you elect to follow the alternative procedures specified in Appendix A to this subpart according to paragraph (f)(4)(i) of this section, you must follow any additional QA/QC procedures specified in Appendix A to this subpart. (4) Demonstrate that, as part of normal operations for each fab, the inventory of gas stored in containers at the beginning of the reporting year is the same as the inventory of gas stored in containers at the end of the previous reporting year. (h) You must adhere to the QA/QC procedures of this paragraph (h) when calculating annual gas consumption for each fluorinated GHG and N2O used at each fab and emissions from the use of each fluorinated heat transfer fluid on a fab basis. * * * * * (3) Ensure that the inventory at the beginning of one reporting year is identical to the inventory reported at the end of the previous reporting year. * * * * * (i) All flowmeters, weigh scales, pressure gauges, and thermometers used to measure quantities that are monitored under this section or used in calculations under § 98.93 must meet the calibration and accuracy requirements specified in § 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 § 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 § 98.98, and with the abatement systems connected to the stack system being tested operating with at least 90 percent uptime during the 8hour (or longer) period for each stack system, or at no less than 90 percent of the abatement system uptime rate E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 63586 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules measured over the previous reporting year. (ii) You must measure for tetrafluoromethane (CF4), hexafluoroethane (C2F6) and any other fluorinated GHG expected to be emitted from the stack system and those fluorinated GHGs used as input fluorinated GHG in process tools vented to the stack system, except for any intermittent low-use fluorinated GHG as defined in § 98.98. You must calculate annual emissions of intermittent lowuse fluorinated GHGs by adhering to the procedures in § 98.93(i)(4). (iii) You must determine the fluorinated GHGs expected to be emitted from the stack system based on a documented facility analysis of all fluorinated GHGs consumed and emitted in the previous reporting year, and all fluorinated GHGs expected to be consumed and emitted in the current reporting year by process tools vented to the stack system. You must also include in that analysis any possible fluorinated GHG by-products formed from fluorinated GHGs consumed in the previous reporting year and expected to be consumed in the current reporting year by process tools connected to the stack system. In developing your facility analysis, you must also consider all fluorinated GHG by-products listed in Tables I–3 through I–7 of this subpart, as applicable, to the products manufactured at your facility. If a fluorinated GHG being consumed in the reporting year was not being consumed during the stack testing and does not meet the definition of intermittent lowuse fluorinated GHG in § 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 § 98.93(i)(4). (iv) Although all applicable stack systems are not required to be tested simultaneously, you must certify that no changes in stack flow configuration (including, for example, the number and type of tools vented to each stack system) occur between tests conducted for any particular fab in a reporting year. (2) Test methods and procedures. You must adhere to the applicable test methods and procedures specified in Table I–9 to this subpart, or adhere to an alternative method approved by the VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 Administrator according to paragraph (k) of this section. The field detection limits achieved under your test methods and procedures must fall at or below the maximum field detection limits specified in Table I–10 to this subpart. (3) Fab-specific fluorinated GHG consumption measurements. You must determine the amount of each fluorinated GHG consumed by each fab during the sampling period for all process tools connected to the stack systems tested under § 98.93(i)(3), according to the procedures in paragraphs (j)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section. This determination must include apportioning gas consumption between stack systems that are being tested and those that not tested under § 98.93(i)(2). (i) Measure fluorinated GHG consumption using gas flow meters, scales, or pressure measurements. Measure the mass or pressure, as applicable, at the beginning and end of the sampling period and when containers are changed out. If you elect to measure gas consumption using pressure (i.e., because the gas is stored in a location above its critical temperature) you must estimate consumption as specified in paragraphs (j)(i)(A) and (B) of this section. (A) For each fluorinated GHG, you must either measure the temperature of the fluorinated GHG container(s) when the sampling periods begin and end and when containers are changed out, or measure the temperature of the fluorinated GHG container(s) every hour for the duration of the sampling period. Temperature measurements of the immediate vicinity of the containers (e.g., in the same room, near the containers) shall be considered temperature measurements of the containers. (B) Convert the sampling periodbeginning, 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. PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (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 prorated 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 § 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 E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules the arithmetic average of the three emission factors for each fluorinated GHG and fluorinated GHG by-product for the current year and the next 4 years with no further testing unless your fab operations are changed in way that triggers the re-test criteria in paragraph (j)(8) of this section. In the fifth year following the last stack test included in the previous average, you must test each of the stack systems for which testing is required and repeat the relative standard deviation analysis using the results of the most recent three tests. If the criteria specified in paragraphs (j)(5)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section are not met, you must use the emission factors developed from the most recent testing and continue annual testing. You may conduct more than one test in the same year, but each set of emissions testing for a stack system must be separated by a period of at least 2 months. You may repeat the relative standard deviation analysis using the most recent three tests to determine if you are exempt from testing for the next 4 years. (A) The relative standard deviation of the total CO2e emission factors calculated from each of the three tests (expressed as the total CO2e fluorinated GHG emissions of the fab divided by the total CO2e fluorinated GHG use of the fab) is less than or equal to 15 percent. (B) The relative standard deviation for all single fluorinated GHGs that individually accounted for 5 percent or more of CO2e emissions were less than 20 percent. (C) For those fluorinated GHG that do not have GWP values listed in Table A– 1 to subpart A of this part, you must use a GWP value of 2,000 in calculating CO2e in paragraphs (j)(5)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section. (6) Subsequent measurements. You must make an annual determination of each stack system’s exemption status under § 98.93(i)(2) by March 31 each year. If a stack system that was previously not required to be tested per § 98.93(i)(2), no longer meets the criteria in § 98.93(i)(2), you must conduct the emissions testing for the stack system during the current reporting and develop the fab-specific emission factor from the emissions testing. (7) Previous measurements. You may include the results of emissions testing conducted after [DATE 3 YEARS BEFORE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] for use in the relative standard deviation calculation in paragraph (j)(5)(ii) of this section if the previous results were determined using a method meeting the requirements in paragraph (j)(2) of this section. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 (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 § 98.93(i)(3) for performing a stack system emissions test and calculating emissions. If you meet the criteria for less frequent testing in paragraph (j)(5)(ii) of this section, and you are required to perform a re-test as specified in paragraph (j)(8)(i) through (vi) of this section, the requirement to perform a re-test does not extend the date of the next scheduled test that was established prior to meeting the requirement to perform a re-test. If the criteria specified in paragraph (j)(5)(ii) of this section are not met using the results from the re-test and the two most recent stack tests, you must use the emission factors developed from the most recent testing to calculate emissions and resume annual testing. You may resume testing less frequently according to your original schedule if the criteria specified in paragraph (j)(5)(ii) of this section are met using the most recent three tests. (i) Annual consumption of a fluorinated GHG used during the most recent emissions test (expressed in CO2e) changes by more than 10 percent of the total annual fluorinated GHG consumption, relative to gas consumption in CO2e for that gas during the year of the most recent emissions test (for example, if the use of a single gas goes from 25 percent of CO2e to greater than 35 percent of CO2e, this change would trigger a re-test). For those fluorinated GHG that do not have GWP values listed in Table A–1 to subpart A of this part, you must use a GWP value of 2,000 in calculating CO2e. (ii) A change in the consumption of an intermittent low-use fluorinated GHG (as defined in § 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. PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 63587 (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 § 98.93(i)(2) for not being subject to testing no longer meets those criteria. (vi) A gas is used or emitted that meets the criteria in paragraph (j)(1)(iii) of this section. (k) You may request approval to use an alternative stack test method and procedure or to use an alternative method to determine abatement system destruction or removal efficiency by adhering to the requirements in paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(6) of this section. An alternative method is any method of sampling and analyzing for a fluorinated GHG or N2O, or the determination of parameters other than concentration, for example, flow measurements, that is not a method specified in this subpart and that has been demonstrated to the Administrator’s satisfaction, using Method 301 in appendix A of part 63, to produce results adequate for the Administrator’s determination that it may be used in place of a method specified elsewhere in this subpart. (1) You may use an alternative method from that specified in this subpart provided that you: (i) Notify the Administrator of your intention to use an alternative method. You must include in the notification a site-specific test plan describing the alternative method and procedures (the alternative test plan), the range of test conditions over which the validation is intended to be applicable, and an alternative means of calculating the fablevel fluorinated GHG or N2O emissions or determining the abatement system destruction or removal efficiency if the Administrator denies the use of the results of the alternative method under paragraph (k)(2) or (3) of this section. (ii) Use Method 301 in appendix A of part 63 of this chapter to validate the alternative method. This may include the use of only portions of specific procedures of Method 301 if use of such procedures are sufficient to validate the alternative method; and (iii) Submit the results of the Method 301 validation process along with the notification of intention and the rationale for not using the specified method. (2) The Administrator will determine whether the validation of the proposed alternative method is adequate and issue an approval or disapproval of the alternative test plan within 120 days of the date on which you submit the notification and alternative test plan specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 63588 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules section. If the Administrator approves the alternative test plan, you are authorized to use the alternative method(s) in place of the methods described in paragraph (f)(4)(i) of this section for measuring destruction or removal efficiency or paragraph (j) of this section for conducting the stack test, as applicable, taking into account the Administrator’s comments on the alternative test plan. Notwithstanding the requirement in the preceding sentence, you may at any time prior to the Administrator’s approval or disapproval proceed to conduct the stack test using the methods specified in paragraph (j) of this section or the destruction or removal efficiency determination specified in (f)(4)(i) of this section if you use a method specified in this subpart instead of the requested alternative. (3) You must report the results of stack testing or destruction or removal efficiency determination using the alternative method and procedure specified in the approved alternative test plan. You must include in your report for an alternative stack test method and for an alternative abatement system destruction or removal efficiency determination the information specified in paragraph (j)(4) of this section, including all methods, calculations and data used to determine the fluorinated GHG emission factor or the abatement system destruction or removal efficiency. The Administrator will review the results of the test using the alternative methods and procedure and then approve or deny the use of the results of the alternative test method and procedure no later than 120 days after they are submitted to EPA. (4) If the Administrator finds reasonable grounds to dispute the results obtained by an alternative method for the purposes of determining fluorinated GHG emissions or destruction or removal efficiency of an abatement system, the Administrator may require the use of another method specified in this subpart. (5) Once the Administrator has approved the use of the alternative method for the purposes of determining fluorinated GHG emissions for specific fluorinated GHGs and types of stack systems or abatement system destruction or removal efficiency, that method may be used at any other facility for the same fluorinated GHGs and types of stack systems, or fluorinated GHGs and abatement systems, if the approved conditions apply to that facility. In granting approval, the Administrator may limit the range of test conditions and emission characteristics for which that VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 approval is granted and under which the alternative method may be used without seeking approval under paragraphs (k)(1) through (4) of this section. The Administrator will specify those limitations, if any, in the approval of the alternative method. (6) Neither the validation and approval process nor the failure to validate or obtain approval of an alternative method shall abrogate your responsibility to comply with the requirements of this subpart. 8. Section 98.96 is amended by: a. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text and paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3). b. Adding paragraph (c)(5). c. Removing and reserving paragraphs (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), and (l). d. Revising paragraph (m) introductory text, redesignating paragraphs (m)(i) through (m)(iv) as paragraphs (m)(1) through (m)(4), and revising new paragraphs (m)(1), (m)(3) and (m)(4). e. Adding paragraph (m)(5). f. Removing and reserving paragraphs (n) and (o). g. Revising paragraph (p). h. Revising paragraphs (q), (r), and (s). i. Removing and reserving paragraphs (t) and (v). j. Adding paragraphs (w), (x) and (y). The additions and revisions read as follows: § 98.96 Data reporting requirements. * * * * * (c) Annual emissions, on a fab basis as described in paragraph (c)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) When you use the procedures specified in § 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 subtype 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 N2Ousing manufacturing processes as calculated in Equation I–10 of this subpart. * * * * * (5) When you use the procedures specified in § 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 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 § 98.94(c), the following information to determine it is verified in accordance with procedures in § 98.94(c)(1) and (2): (1) Identification of the quantifiable metric used in your fab-specific engineering model to apportion gas consumption for each fab. * * * * * (3) Certification that the gas(es) you selected under § 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 § 98.94(c)(2)(iii) and (iv), as applicable. (5) If you are required to apportion fluorinated GHG consumption between fabs as required by § 98.94(c)(2)(v), certification that the gas(es) you selected under § 98.94(c)(2)(ii) corresponds to the largest quantity(ies) consumed on a mass basis, of fluorinated GHG used at your facility during the reporting year for which you are required to apportion. * * * * * (p) Inventory and description of all abatement systems through which fluorinated GHGs or N2O flow at your facility and for which you are claiming destruction or removal efficiency, including: (1) The number of abatement systems controlling emissions for each process sub-type, or process type, as applicable, for each gas used in the process subtype or process type. (2) The basis of the destruction or removal efficiency being used (default or site specific measurement according to § 98.94(f)(4)(i)) for each process subtype or process type and for each gas. (q) For all abatement systems through which fluorinated GHGs or N2O flow at your facility, for which you are reporting controlled emissions, a certification that all abatement systems at the facility have been installed, maintained, and operated in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications and according to the site maintenance plan for abatement systems that is developed and maintained in your records as specified in § 98.97(d). (r) You must report an effective facility-wide destruction or removal efficiency value calculated using Equation I–26, I–27, and I–28 of this subpart, as appropriate. For those fluorinated GHG for which Table A–1 to subpart A of this part does not define a GWP value, you must use a value of 2,000 for the GWP in calculating metric ton CO2e for that fluorinated GHG. E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 63589 fluorinated GHGs for which Table A–1 to subpart A of this part does not define a GWP value, use a GWP value of 2,000. GWPk = GWP of emitted fluorinated GHG byproduct k, from Table A–1 of this part. For those fluorinated GHGs for which Table A–1 to subpart A of this part does not define a GWP value, use a GWP value of 2,000. Bijk = By-product formation rate of fluorinated GHG k created as a byproduct 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. CO2e, of all fluorinated GHG emitted from electronics manufacturing processes whose emissions of fluorinated GHG you calculated according to the stack testing procedures in § 98.93(i)(3). For each set of processes, use the same input gas consumption (Cif), input gas emission factors (EFif), by-product gas emission factors (EFkf), fractions of tools abated (aif and af), and destruction efficiencies (dkf and dkf) to calculate unabated emissions as you used to calculate emissions. For those fluorinated GHGs for which Table A–1 to subpart A of this part does not define a GWP value, use a GWP value of 2,000. Where: SFGHG = Total unabated emissions of fluorinated GHG i emitted from electronics manufacturing processes in the facility, expressed in metric ton CO2e for which you calculated total emission according to the procedures in § 98.93(i)(3). EFif = Emission factor for fluorinated GHG input gas i, emitted from fab f, as calculated in Equation I–19 of this subpart (kg emitted/kg input gas consumed). aif = Fraction of fluorinated GHG input gas i used in fab f in tools with abatement systems (expressed as a decimal fraction). dif = Fraction of fluorinated GHG i destroyed or removed in abatement systems connected to process tools in fab f, for which you used to calculate total emissions according to the procedures in VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 (2) Use Equation I–28 to calculate total unabated emissions, in metric ton PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 § 98.93(i)(3) (expressed as a decimal fraction). Cif = Total consumption of fluorinated GHG input gas i, of tools vented to stack systems that are tested, for fab f, for the reporting year, expressed in metric ton CO2e for which you used to calculate total emissions according to the procedures in § 98.93(i)(3) (expressed as a decimal fraction). EFkf = Emission factor for fluorinated GHG by-product gas k, emitted from fab f, as E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 EP16OC12.086</GPH> (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 § 98.93(a) or § 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 § 98.93(a) or § 98.93(i)(4). For those fluorinated GHGs for which Table A–1 to subpart A of this part does not define a GWP value, use a GWP value of 2,000. EP16OC12.084</GPH> EP16OC12.085</GPH> SFGHG = Total unabated emissions of fluorinated GHG emitted from electronics manufacturing processes in the facility, expressed in metric ton CO2 equivalents, as calculated in Equation I– 28 of this subpart. CN2O,j = Consumption of N2O in each N2O emitting process j, expressed in metric ton CO2 equivalents. 1–UN2O,j = N2O emission factor for each N2O emitting process j from Table I–8 of this subpart. GWPi = GWP of emitted fluorinated GHG i from Table A–1 of this part. For those fluorinated GHGs for which Table A–1 to subpart A of this part does not define a GWP value, use a GWP value of 2,000. GWPN2O = GWP of N2O from Table A–1 of this part. i = Fluorinated GHG. j = Process Type. Where: UAFGHG = Total unabated emissions of fluorinated GHG i emitted from electronics manufacturing processes in the facility, expressed in metric ton CO2e for which you calculated total emission according to the procedures in § 98.93(a) or § 98.93(i)(4). Cij = Total consumption of fluorinated GHG i, apportioned to process j, expressed in metric ton CO2e for which you used to calculate total emissions according to the procedures in § 98.93(a) or § 98.93(i)(4). Uij = Process utilization rate for fluorinated GHG i, process type j, for which you used to calculate total emissions according to the procedures in § 98.93(a) or § 98.93(i)(4). GWPi = GWP of emitted fluorinated GHG i from Table A–1 of this part. For those tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Where: DREFAC = Facility-wide effective destruction or removal efficiency value, expressed as a decimal fraction. FGHGi = Total emissions of each fluorinated GHG i emitted from electronics manufacturing processes in the facility, calculated according to the procedures in § 98.93. N2Oj = Emissions of N2O from each N2Oemitting electronics manufacturing process j in the facility, expressed in metric ton CO2 equivalents, calculated according to the procedures in § 98.93. UAFGHG = Total unabated emissions of fluorinated GHG emitted from electronics manufacturing processes in the facility, expressed in metric ton CO2 equivalents as calculated in Equation I– 27 of this subpart. 63590 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 calculated in Equation I–20 of this subpart (kg emitted/kg of all input gas consumed in tools vented to stack systems that are tested). af = Fraction of all input gas used in fab f in tools with abatement systems (expressed as a decimal fraction). dkf = Fraction of fluorinated GHG by-product k destroyed or removed in abatement systems connected to process tools in fab f, for which you used to calculate total emissions according to the procedures in § 98.93(i)(3) (expressed as a decimal fraction). Uij = Process utilization rate for fluorinated GHG i, process type j, for which you used to calculate total emissions according to the procedures in § 98.93(a) or § 98.93(i)(4). GWPi = GWP of emitted fluorinated GHG i from Table A–1 of this part. For those fluorinated GHGs for which Table A–1 of subpart A to this part does not define a GWP value, use a GWP value of 2,000. GWPk = GWP of emitted fluorinated GHG byproduct k, from Table A–1 of this part. For those fluorinated GHGs for which Table A–1 to subpart A of this part does not define a GWP value, use a GWP value of 2,000. i = Fluorinated GHG. j = Process Type. k = Fluorinated GHG by-product. (s) Where missing data procedures were used to estimate inputs into the fluorinated heat transfer fluid mass balance equation under § 98.95(b), the number of times missing data procedures were followed in the reporting year and the method used to estimate the missing data. * * * * * (w) If you elect to calculate fab-level emissions of fluorinated GHG using the stack test method specified in § 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 § 98.93(i)(3) or not performed as per § 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 § 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 percent to less than 10 percent, 10 percent to less than 25 percent, 25 percent to less than 50 percent, 50 percent and higher. For those fluorinated GHG that do not have GWP values listed in Table A–1 of subpart A of this part, you must use a GWP value of 2,000 in calculating CO2e. (y) If your semiconductor manufacturing facility emits more than 40,000 metric ton CO2e of GHG emissions, based on your most recently submitted annual report (beginning with the 2015 reporting year) as required in paragraph (c) of this section, from the electronics manufacturing processes subject to reporting under this subpart, you must prepare and submit a triennial (every 3 years) technology assessment report to the Administrator that meets the requirements specified in paragraphs (y)(1) through (6) of this section. Any other semiconductor manufacturing facility may voluntarily submit this report to the Administrator. (1) The first report must be submitted with the annual GHG emissions report that is due no later than March 31, 2017, and subsequent reports must be delivered every 3 years no later than March 31 of the year in which it is due. (2) The report must include the information described in paragraphs (y)(2)(i) through (v) of this section. (i) It must describe how the gases and technologies used in semiconductor manufacturing using 200 mm and 300 mm wafers in the United States have changed in the past 3 years and whether any of the identified changes are likely to have affected the emissions characteristics of semiconductor manufacturing processes in such a way that the default utilization and byproduct formation rates or default destruction or removal efficiency values may need to be updated. (ii) It must describe the effect on emissions of the implementation of new process technologies and/or finer line width processes in 200 mm and 300 mm technologies, the introduction of new tool platforms, and the introduction of new processes on previously tested platforms. (iii) It must describe the status of implementing 450 mm wafer technology and the potential need to create or update default emission factors compared to 300 mm technology. (iv) It must provide any default utilization and by-product formation rates and/or destruction or removal efficiency data that have been collected in the previous 3 years that support the changes in semiconductor manufacturing processes described in the report. PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (v) It must describe the use of a new gas, use of an existing gas in a new process type or sub-type, or a fundamental change in process technology. (3) If, on the basis of the information reported in paragraph (y)(2) of this section, the report indicates that GHG emissions from semiconductor manufacturing may have changed from those represented by the default utilization and by-product formation rates in Tables I–3, I–4, or I–5, or the default destruction or removal efficiency values in Table I–16 of this subpart, the report must lay out a data gathering and analysis plan focused on the areas of potential change. The plan must describe: (i) The testing of tools to determine the potential effect on current default utilization and by-product formation rates and destruction or removal efficiency values under the new conditions, and (ii) A planned analysis of the effect on overall facility emissions using a representative gas-use profile for a 200 mm, 300 mm, or 450 mm fab (depending on which technology is under consideration). (4) Multiple semiconductor manufacturing facilities may submit a single consolidated 3-year report as long as the facility identifying information in § 98.3(c)(1) and the certification statement in § 98.3(c)(9) is provided for each facility for which the consolidated report is submitted. (5) The Administrator will review the report received and determine whether it is necessary to update the default utilization rates and by-product formation rates in Tables I–3 through I– 7 and I–11 through I–15 of this subpart and default destruction or removal efficiency values based on the following: (i) Whether the revised default utilization and by-product formation rates and destruction or removal efficiency values will result in a projected shift in emissions of 10 percent or greater. (ii) Whether new platforms, processes, or facilities that are not captured in current default utilization and byproduct formation rates and destruction or removal efficiency values should be included in revised values. (iii) Whether new data are available that could expand the existing data set to include new gases, tools, or processes not included in the existing data set (i.e. gases, tools, or processes for which no data are currently available). (6) The Administrator will review the reports within 120 days and will notify you of its determination whether it is E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules necessary to update any default utilization and by-product formation rates and/or destruction or removal efficiency values. If the Administrator determines it is necessary to update default utilization and by-product formation rates and/or destruction or removal efficiency values, you will then have 180 days from the date you receive notice of the determination to execute the data collection and analysis plan described in the report and submit those data to the Administrator. 9. Section 98.97 is amended by: a. Removing and reserving paragraph (b). b. Revising paragraph (c). c. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text and paragraph (d)(1). d. Adding paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (d)(1)(iii). e. Removing and reserving paragraph (d)(3). f. Revising paragraph (d)(4). g. Adding paragraphs (d)(5) through (d)(9). h. Adding paragraphs (i) through (s). The revisions read as follows: § 98.97 Records that must be retained. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 * * * * * (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 § 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 § 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 § 98.98, VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 during the apportioning model verification specified in § 98.94(c). (d) For all abatement systems through which fluorinated GHGs or N2O flow at your facility, and for which you are reporting controlled emissions, the following in paragraphs (d)(1) to (9) of this section: (1) Records of the information in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) though (iii) of this section: (i) Documentation to certify that each abatement system is installed, maintained, and operated in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications. (ii) Documentation from the abatement system supplier describing the abatement system’s designed purpose and emission control capabilities for fluorinated GHG and N2O. (iii) Certification that the abatement systems for which emissions are being reported were specifically designed for fluorinated GHG and N2O abatement. * * * * * (4) Where properly measured sitespecific 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 § 98.7) and, if applicable Appendix A of this subpart, or an alternative method approved by the Administrator as specified in § 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 § 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 § 98.94(k). (ii) The average destruction or removal efficiency of the abatement systems operating during the reporting year for each process type and gas combination. (iii) A description of the calculation used to determine the average destruction or removal efficiency for each process type and gas combination, including all inputs to the calculation. (iv) The records of destruction or removal efficiency measurements for abatement systems for all tests that have been used to determine the site-specific destruction or removal efficiencies currently being used. PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 63591 (v) A description of the method used for randomly selecting abatement systems for testing. (vi) The total number of systems for which destruction or removal efficiency was properly measured for each process type and gas combination for the reporting year. (5) In addition to the inventory in § 98.96(p), the information in paragraphs (d)(5)(i) though (iii) of this section: (i) The number of abatement systems of each manufacturer, and model numbers, and the manufacturer’s claimed fluorinated GHG and N2O destruction or removal efficiency, if any. (ii) Records of destruction or removal efficiency measurements over the in-use life of each abatement system. (iii) A description of the tool, with the process type or sub-type, for which the abatement system treats exhaust. (6) Records of all inputs and results of calculations made accounting for the uptime of abatement systems used during the reporting year, in accordance with Equations I–15a, I–15b, or I–23 of this subpart, as applicable. The inputs should include an indication of whether each value for destruction or removal efficiency is a default value or a measured site-specific value. (7) Records of all inputs and results of calculations made to determine the average weighted fraction of each gas destroyed or removed in the abatement systems for each stack system using Equation I–24 of this subpart, if applicable. The inputs should include an indication of whether each value for destruction or removal efficiency is a default value or a measured site-specific value. (8) Records of all inputs and the results of the calculation of the facilitywide emission destruction or removal efficiency factor calculated according to Equation I–26 of this subpart. (9) A maintenance plan for abatement systems, which includes a defined preventative maintenance process and checklist (built on the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance program) and a corrective action process that you must follow whenever an abatement system is found to be not operating properly. The maintenance plan must be maintained on-site at the facility as part of the facility’s GHG Monitoring Plan as described in § 98.3(g)(5). * * * * * (i) Retain the following records for each stack system for which you elect to calculate fab-level emissions of fluorinated GHG using the procedures specified in § 98.93(i)(3) or (4). (1) Document all stack systems with emissions of fluorinated GHG that are E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 63592 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 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 § 98.93(i)(3) or (4). (3) The emissions test data and reports (see § 98.94(j)(4)) and the calculations used to determine the fabspecific emission factor, including the actual fab-specific emission factor, the average hourly emission rate of each fluorinated GHG from the stack system during the test and the stack system activity rate during the test. (4) The fab-specific emission factor and the calculations and data used to determine the fab-specific emission factor for each fluorinated GHG and byproduct, as calculated using Equations I–19 and I–20 of § 98.93(i)(3). (5) Calculations and data used to determine annual emissions of each fluorinated GHG for each fab. (6) Calculations and data used to determine and document that the fab was operating at representative operating levels, as defined in § 98.98, during the stack testing period. (7) A copy of the certification that no changes in stack system flow configuration occurred between tests conducted for any particular fab in a reporting year as required by § 98.94(j)(1)(iv) and any calculations and data supporting the certification. (j) If you report the approximate percentage of total GHG emissions from research and development activities under § 98.96(x), documentation for the determination of the percentage of total emissions of each fluorinated GHG and/ or N2O attributable to research and development, as defined in § 98.6, activities. (k) Annual gas consumption for each fluorinated GHG and N2O as calculated in Equation I–11 of this subpart, including where your fab used less than 50 kg of a particular fluorinated GHG or N2O used at your facility for which you have not calculated emissions using Equations I–6, I–7, I–8, I–9, I–10, I–21, or I–22 of this subpart, the chemical name of the GHG used, the annual consumption of the gas, and a brief description of its use. (l) All inputs used to calculate gas consumption in Equation I–11 of this subpart, for each fluorinated GHG and N2O used. (m) Annual amount of each fluorinated GHG consumed for process sub-type, process type, stack system, or fab, as appropriate, and the annual VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 amount of N2O consumed for the chemical vapor deposition processes and from the aggregate of other electronics manufacturing production processes, as calculated using Equation I–13 of this subpart. (n) Disbursements for each fluorinated GHG and N2O during the reporting year, as calculated using Equation I–12 of this subpart and all inputs used to calculate disbursements for each fluorinated GHG and N2O used in Equation I–12 of this subpart, including all fab-wide gasspecific heel factors used for each fluorinated GHG and N2O. If your fab used less than 50 kg of a particular fluorinated GHG during the reporting year, fab-wide gas-specific heel factors do not need to be reported for those gases. (o) Fraction of each fluorinated GHG or N2O fed into a process sub-type, process type, stack system, or fab that is fed into tools connected to abatement systems. (p) Fraction of each fluorinated GHG or N2O destroyed or removed in abatement systems connected to process tools where process sub-type, process type j is used, or to process tools vented to stack system j or fab f. (q) All inputs and results of calculations made accounting for the uptime of abatement systems used during the reporting year, or during an emissions sampling period, in accordance with Equations I–15a, I–15b and/or I–23 of this subpart, as applicable. (r) For fluorinated heat transfer fluid emissions, inputs to the fluorinated heat transfer fluid mass balance equation, Equation I–16 of this subpart, for each fluorinated heat transfer fluid used. (s) Where missing data procedures were used to estimate inputs into the fluorinated heat transfer fluid mass balance equation under § 98.95(b), the estimates of those data. 10. Section 98.98 is amended by: a. Removing the definitions of ‘‘Class,’’ ‘‘Individual recipe,’’ and ‘‘Similar, with respect to recipes.’’ b. Adding a definition for ‘‘Fab,’’ ‘‘Fully Fluorinated GHGs,’’ ‘‘Input gas,’’ ‘‘Intermittent low-use fluorinated GHG,’’ ‘‘Representative operating levels,’’ and ‘‘Stack system.’’ c. Revising the definitions of ‘‘Byproduct formation,’’ ‘‘Gas utilization,’’ ‘‘Operational mode,’’ ‘‘Process types,’’ ‘‘Properly measured destruction or removal efficiency,’’ ‘‘Trigger point for change out,’’ ‘‘Uptime,’’ and ‘‘Wafer passes.’’ d. Revising the definition of ‘‘Maximum designed substrate starts’’ to ‘‘Maximum substrate starts.’’ The revisions read as follows: PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 § 98.98 Definitions. * * * * * By-product formation means the creation of fluorinated GHGs during electronics manufacturing production processes or the creation of fluorinated GHGs by an abatement system. Where the procedures in § 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 § 98.93(i) are used to calculate annual emissions, by-product formation is the ratio of the mass of the by-product formed to the total mass flow of all input fluorinated GHGs. * * * * * Fab means the portion of an electronics manufacturing facility located in a separate physical structure that began manufacturing on a certain date. * * * * * Fully Fluorinated GHGs means fluorinated GHGs that contain only single bonds and in which all available valence locations are filled by fluorine atoms. This includes, but is not limited to, saturated perfluorocarbons, SF6, NF3, SF5CF3, C4F8O, fully fluorinated linear, branched, and cyclic alkanes, fully fluorinated ethers, fully fluorinated tertiary amines, fully fluorinated aminoethers, and perfluoropolyethers. Gas utilization means the fraction of input N2O or fluorinated GHG converted to other substances during the etching, deposition, and/or wafer and chamber cleaning processes. Gas utilization is expressed as a rate or factor for specific electronics manufacturing process subtypes or process types. * * * * * Input gas means a fluorinated GHG or N2O used in one of the processes described in § 98.90(a)(1) through (4). Intermittent low-use fluorinated GHG, for the purposes of determining fluorinated GHG emissions using the stack testing option, means a fluorinated GHG that meets all of the following: (1) The fluorinated GHG is used by the fab but is not used during the period of stack testing for the fab/stack system. (2) The emissions of the fluorinated GHG, estimated using the methods in § 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 § 98.93(i)(1) of this subpart. E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 63593 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules Maximum substrate starts means for the purposes of Equation I–5 of this subpart, the maximum quantity of substrates, expressed as surface area, that could be started each month during a reporting year based on the equipment installed in that facility and assuming that the installed equipment were fully utilized. Manufacturing equipment is considered installed when it is on the manufacturing floor and connected to required utilities. * * * * * Operational mode means the time in which an abatement system is properly installed, maintained, and operated according to manufacturers’ specifications as required in § 98.93(f)(1). This includes being properly operated within the range of parameters as specified in the operations manual provided by the system manufacturer. * * * * * Process types are broad groups of manufacturing steps used at a facility associated with substrate (e.g., wafer) processing during device manufacture for which fluorinated GHG emissions and fluorinated GHG consumption is calculated and reported. The process types are Plasma etching/Wafer Cleaning and Chamber cleaning. Properly measured destruction or removal efficiency means destruction or removal efficiencies measured in accordance with EPA 430–R–10–003 (incorporated by reference, see § 98.7), and, if applicable, Appendix A to this subpart, or by an alternative method approved by the Administrator as specified in § 98.94(k). * * * * * Representative operating levels means (for purposes of verification of the apportionment model or for determining the appropriate conditions for stack testing) operating the fab, in terms of substrate starts for the period of testing or monitoring, at no less than 50 percent of installed production capacity or no less than 70 percent of the average production rate for the reporting year, where production rate for the reporting year is represented in average monthly substrate starts. For the purposes of stack testing, the period for determining the representative operating level must be the period ending on the same date on which testing is concluded. Stack system means one or more stacks that are connected by a common header or manifold, through which a fluorinated GHG-containing gas stream originating from one or more fab processes is, or has the potential to be, released to the atmosphere. For purposes of this subpart, stack systems do not include emergency vents or bypass stacks through which emissions are not usually vented under typical operating conditions. Trigger point for change out means the residual weight or pressure of a gas container type that a facility uses as an indicator that operators need to change out that gas container with a full container. The trigger point is not the actual residual weight or pressure of the gas remaining in the cylinder that has been replaced. Uptime means the ratio of the total time during which the abatement system is in an operational mode, to the total time during which production process tool(s) connected to that abatement system are normally in operation. * * * * * Wafer passes is a count of the number of times a wafer substrate is processed in a specific process sub-type, or type. The total number of wafer passes over a reporting year is the number of wafer passes per tool multiplied by the number of operational process tools in use during the reporting year. * * * * * 11. Table I–1 to subpart I is amended by revising the footnote to read as follows: Table I–1 to Subpart I of Part 98— Default Emission Factors for Threshold Applicability Determination * * * * * Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information. 12. Table I–3 to subpart I is revised to read as follows: TABLE I–3 TO SUBPART I OF PART 98—DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS (1–Uij) FOR GAS UTILIZATION RATES (Uij) AND BYPRODUCT FORMATION RATES (Bijk) FOR SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING FOR 150 MM AND 200 MM WAFER SIZES Process gas i Process type/ sub-type CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C2HF5 CH3F C3F8 C4F8 NF3 SF6 C4F6 C5F8 C4F8O ETCHING/WAFER CLEANING 1–Ui .................. BCF4 ................. BC2F6 ............... BC4F6 ............... BC4F8 ............... BC3F8 ............... BCHF3 .............. 0.81 NA 0.048 NA NA NA 0.11 0.76 0.10 NA NA NA NA NA 0.50 0.085 0.031 NA NA NA NA 0.13 0.081 0.025 NA NA NA 0.066 0.064 0.077 0.024 NA NA NA NA 0.66 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.14 0.12 0.037 NA NA NA NA 0.20 0.0040 NA NA NA NA NA 0.55 0.15 0.17 NA NA NA NA 0.17 0.13 0.11 NA NA NA 0.066 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.10 0.11 NA NA 0.18 0.050 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.14 0.13 0.045 NA NA NA NA NA 0.018 0.015 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA CHAMBER CLEANING tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 In situ plasma cleaning 1–Ui .................. BCF4 ................. BC2F6 ............... BC3F8 ............... 0.92 NA NA NA 0.55 0.21 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.40 0.20 NA NA Remote plasma cleaning 1–Ui .................. BCF4 ................. BC2F6 ............... BC3F8 ............... VerDate Mar<15>2010 NA NA NA NA 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 NA NA NA NA Jkt 229001 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA PO 00000 Frm 00057 NA NA NA NA Fmt 4701 NA NA NA NA Sfmt 4702 NA NA NA NA E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 63594 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules TABLE I–3 TO SUBPART I OF PART 98—DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS (1–Uij) FOR GAS UTILIZATION RATES (Uij) AND BYPRODUCT FORMATION RATES (Bijk) FOR SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING FOR 150 MM AND 200 MM WAFER SIZES—Continued Process gas i Process type/ sub-type CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C2HF5 CH3F C3F8 C4F8 NF3 SF6 C4F6 C5F8 C4F8O In situ thermal cleaning 1–Ui .................. BCF4 ................. BC2F6 ............... BC3F8 ............... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information. 13. Table I–4 to subpart I is revised to read as follows: TABLE I–4 TO SUBPART I OF PART 98—DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS (1–Uij) FOR GAS UTILIZATION RATES (Uij) AND BYPRODUCT FORMATION RATES (Bijk) FOR SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING FOR 300 MM AND 450 MM WAFER SIZE Process gas i Process type/sub-type C2F6 CF4 CHF3 CH2F2 C3F8 C4F8 NF3 SF6 C4F6 C5F8 C4F8O 0.17 0.046 0.030 0.018 NA NA 0.028 0.17 0.052 0.057 NA NA NA 0.035 0.23 0.045 0.067 NA NA NA NA 0.18 0.066 0.090 NA NA NA 0.022 0.13 0.15 0.083 NA NA NA 0.010 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.23 0.037 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.018 0.075 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.28 0.010 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ETCHING/WAFER CLEANING 1–Ui .............................................. BCF4 ............................................. BC2F6 ........................................... BC4F6 ........................................... BC4F8 ........................................... BC3F8 ........................................... BCHF3 .......................................... 0.63 NA 0.092 NA 0.00063 NA 0.011 0.80 0.21 NA NA NA NA NA 0.39 0.10 0.078 0.00010 0.00080 NA NA 0.15 0.059 0.068 NA NA NA 0.052 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA CHAMBER CLEANING In situ plasma cleaning 1–Ui .............................................. BCF4 ............................................. BC2F6 ........................................... BC3F8 ........................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Remote plasma cleaning 1–Ui .............................................. BCF4 ............................................. BC2F6 ........................................... BC3F8 ........................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.063 NA NA NA In situ thermal cleaning 1–Ui .............................................. BCF4 ............................................. BC2F6 ........................................... BC3F8 ........................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 14. Table I–5 to subpart I is amended by revising the entries for ‘‘CVD 1–Ui,’’ ‘‘CVD BCF4’’ and ‘‘CVD BC3F8;’’ and by revising the footnote to read as follows: TABLE I–5 TO SUBPART I OF PART 98—DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS (1–Uij) FOR GAS UTILIZATION RATES (Uij) AND BYPRODUCT FORMATION RATES (Bijk) FOR MEMS MANUFACTURING Process gas i Process type factors CF4 Etch 1–Ui ........................ VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 0.7 C2F6 a0.4 Jkt 229001 CHF3 a0.4 PO 00000 CH2F2 a0.06 Frm 00058 c-C4F8 C3F8 NA Fmt 4701 NF3 Remote a0.2 NA Sfmt 4702 SF6 NF3 0.2 E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 0.2 16OCP3 C4F6a 0.1 C5F8a 0.2 C4F8Oa NA 63595 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules TABLE I–5 TO SUBPART I OF PART 98—DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS (1–Uij) FOR GAS UTILIZATION RATES (Uij) AND BYPRODUCT FORMATION RATES (Bijk) FOR MEMS MANUFACTURING—Continued Process gas i Process type factors CF4 Etch BCF4 ...................... Etch BC2F6 ..................... CVDChamber Cleaning 1–Ui ............................ CVD Chamber Cleaning BCF4 ........................... CVD Chamber Cleaning BC3F8 .......................... C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 c-C4F8 C3F8 NF3 Remote SF6 NF3 C4F6a C5F8a C4F8Oa NA NA a0.4 a0.07 a0.08 NA NA NA NA 0.2 0.2 NA NA NA NA NA NA a0.3 NA a0.2 0.2 0.2 NA NA 0.9 0.6 NA NA 0.4 0.1 0.02 0.2 NA NA 0.1 0.1 NA 0.1 NA NA 0.1 0.1 b0.02 b0.1 NA NA 0.1 0.1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.4 Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information. aEstimate includes multi-gas etch processes. bEstimate reflects presence of low-k, carbide and multi-gas etch processes that may contain a C-containing fluorinated GHG additive. 15. Table I–6 to subpart I is amended by revising the entries for ‘‘CVD 1–Ui’’ and by revising the footnote to read as follows: TABLE I–6 TO SUBPART I OF PART 98—DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS (1–Uij) FOR GAS UTILIZATION RATES (Uij) AND BYPRODUCT FORMATION RATES (Bijk) FOR LCD MANUFACTURING Process gas i Process type factors C2F6 CF4 * * * CVD Chamber Cleaning 1–Ui ......................................... CHF3 * NA NA CH2F2 * NA NA C3F8 c-C4F8 NF3 Remote * NA 0.03 NA NF3 * 0.3 SF6 0.9 Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information. 16. Table I–7 to subpart I is amended by revising the entries for ‘‘CVD 1–Ui’’ and ‘‘CVD BCF4;’’ and by revising the footnote to read as follows: TABLE I–7 TO SUBPART I OF PART 98—DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS (1–Uij) FOR GAS UTILIZATION RATES (Uij) AND BYPRODUCT FORMATION RATES (Bijk) FOR PV MANUFACTURING Process gas i Process type factors CF4 * * * CVD Chamber Cleaning 1–Ui ......................................... CVD Chamber Cleaning BCF4 ........................................ C2F6 NA NA CHF3 * 0.6 0.2 CH2F2 NA NA * NA NA C3F8 0.1 0.2 c-C4F8 NF3 Remote * 0.1 0.1 NA NA NF3 * 0.3 NA SF6 0.4 NA Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information. 17. Table I–8 to subpart I is amended by revising the entry for ‘‘Other Manufacturing Process 1–Ui’’ to read as follows: 18. Subpart I is amended by adding TABLE I–8 TO SUBPART I OF PART 98—DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS Table I–9 to subpart I to read as follows: (1–UN2O,j) FOR N2O UTILIZATION (UN2O,j) tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Process type factors * * * * Other Manufacturing Process 1–Ui ...... VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 N2O * 1.14 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 63596 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules TABLE I–9 TO SUBPART I OF PART 98—METHODS AND PROCEDURES FOR CONDUCTING EMISSIONS TESTS FOR STACK SYSTEMS For each stack system for which you use the stack test method to calculate annual emissions * * * You must * * * Using * * * For each fluorinated GHG .................................. Measure the concentration in the stack system. Method 320 at 40 CFR part 63, appendix A. Conduct the test run for a minimum of 8 hours for each stack system. Method 1 or 1A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–1. Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–1 and A–2. Method 3, 3A, or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2 using the same sampling site and time as fluorinated GHG sampling. Method 4 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3, or using FTIR.a Select sampling port locations and the number of traverse points. Determine gas velocity and volumetric flow rate. Determine gas molecular weight ..................... Measure gas moisture content ........................ a Extractive FTIR is an acceptable method, in lieu of Method 4 at 40 CFR part 60 appendix A, of determining the volumetric concentrations of moisture in semiconductor stack gas streams. The spectral calibrations employed should bracket the anticipated range of optical depths (H2O concentration in parts per million multiplied by FTIR sample cell path length) measured in the field for moisture saturated (relative humidity approximately 100 percent) air streams at temperatures characterized via Method 2 at 40 CFR part 60 appendix A, within the stack. The HITRAN molecular spectroscopic database is an example of a widely used international standard of IR absorption parameters that provide accurate H2O FTIR calibrations at atmospheric conditions. Field measurements should be verified to be in line with moisture saturated wet scrubber exhaust concentrations at measured temperatures; the use of a hygrometer can provide verification of accuracy, which must be ±2 percent. Field measurements should be verified to be consistent with published water vapor pressure curves at the current stack temperatures (Perry, R.H. and D.W. Green. Perry’s Chemical Engineer’s Handbook (8th Edition). McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, Inc. New Your, New York. 2008). The use of a hygrometer can also be used to provide verification of accuracy. 19. Subpart I is amended by adding Table I–10 to subpart I to read as follows: TABLE I–10 TO SUBPART I OF PART 98—MAXIMUM FIELD DETECTION LIMITS APPLICABLE TO FLUORINATED GHG CONCENTRATION MEASUREMENTS FOR STACK SYSTEMS Maximum field detection limit (ppbv) Fluorinated GHG analyte CF4 ............................................ C2F6 .......................................... C3F8 .......................................... C4F6 .......................................... C5F8 .......................................... 5 5 5 5 5 TABLE I–10 TO SUBPART I OF PART 98—MAXIMUM FIELD DETECTION LIMITS APPLICABLE TO FLUORINATED GHG CONCENTRATION MEASUREMENTS FOR STACK SYSTEMS—Continued Maximum field detection limit (ppbv) Fluorinated GHG analyte c-C4F8 ....................................... CH2F2 ........................................ CH3F ......................................... CHF3 ......................................... NF3 ............................................ SF6 ............................................ Other fully fluorinated GHGs .... 5 10 10 5 5 1 5 TABLE I–10 TO SUBPART I OF PART 98—MAXIMUM FIELD DETECTION LIMITS APPLICABLE TO FLUORINATED GHG CONCENTRATION MEASUREMENTS FOR STACK SYSTEMS—Continued Maximum field detection limit (ppbv) Fluorinated GHG analyte Other fluorinated GHGs ............ 10 ppbv—Parts per billion by volume. Subpart I is amended by adding Table I–11 to subpart I to read as follows: 20. Subpart I is amended by adding Table I–11 to subpart I to read as follows: TABLE I–11 TO SUBPART I OF PART 98—DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS (1–UIJ) FOR GAS UTILIZATION RATES (UIJ) AND BY-PRODUCT FORMATION RATES (BIJK) FOR SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING FOR USE WITH THE STACK TEST METHOD [150 mm and 200 mm wafers] Process gas i All processes tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 CF4 1–Ui .................. BCF4 ................. BC2F6 ............... BC4F6 ............... BC4F8 ............... BC3F8 ............... BCHF3 .............. C2F6 0.81 NA 0.048 NA NA NA 0.11 0.71 0.13 NA NA NA NA NA CHF3 0.50 0.085 0.031 NA NA NA NA CH2F2 C2HF5 0.13 0.081 0.025 NA NA NA 0.066 0.064 0.077 0.024 NA NA NA NA CH3F 0.66 NA NA NA NA NA NA C3F8 0.40 0.20 NA NA NA NA NA C4F8 NF3 SF6 0.14 0.12 0.037 NA NA NA NA 0.19 0.021 NA NA NA NA NA 0.55 0.15 .17 NA NA NA NA Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 C4F6 0.17 0.13 0.11 NA NA NA 0.066 C5F8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA C4F8O 0.14 0.13 0.045 NA NA NA NA 63597 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 21. Subpart I is amended by adding Table I–12 to subpart I to read as follows: TABLE I–12 TO SUBPART I OF PART 98–DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS (1–UIJ) FOR GAS UTILIZATION RATES (UIJ) AND BYPRODUCT FORMATION RATES (BIJK) FOR SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING FOR USE WITH THE STACK TEST METHOD [300 mm and 450 mm wafer sizes] Process gas i All process C2F6 CF4 1–Ui .............................................. BCF4 ............................................. BC2F6 ........................................... BC4F6 ........................................... BC4F8 ........................................... BC3F8 ........................................... BCHF3 .......................................... 0.63 NA 0.092 NA 0.00063 NA 0.011 0.80 0.21 NA NA NA NA NA CHF3 0.39 0.10 0.078 0.00010 0.00080 NA NA CH2F2 C3F8 NF3 SF6 C4F6 C5F8 0.063 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.15 0.059 0.068 NA NA NA 0.052 C4F8 0.17 0.046 0.030 0.018 NA NA 0.028 0.17 0.062 0.057 NA NA NA 0.035 0.23 0.045 0.067 NA NA NA NA 0.18 0.066 0.090 NA NA NA 0.022 0.13 0.15 0.083 NA NA NA 0.010 C4F8O NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information. 22. Subpart I is amended by adding Table I–13 to subpart I to read as follows: TABLE I–13 TO SUBPART I OF PART 98—DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS (1–UIJ) FOR GAS UTILIZATION RATES (UIJ) AND BY-PRODUCT FORMATION RATES (BIJK) FOR LCD MANUFACTURING FOR USE WITH THE STACK TEST METHOD Process gas i Process gas (i) CF4 1–Ui ................................................................................ BCF4 ............................................................................... BCHF3 ............................................................................ BC2F6 ............................................................................. BC3F8 ............................................................................. C2F6 0.6 NA NA NA NA CHF3 NA NA NA NA NA CH2F2 0.2 0.07 NA 0.05 NA NA NA NA NA NA C3F8 c-C4F8 NA NA NA NA NA 0.1 0.009 0.02 NA NA NF3 remote 0.03 NA NA NA NA NF3 0.3 NA NA NA NA SF6 0.6 NA NA NA NA Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information.+ 23. Subpart I is amended by adding Table I–14 to subpart I to read as follows: TABLE I–14 TO SUBPART I OF PART 98—DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS (1–UIJ) FOR GAS UTILIZATION RATES (UIJ) AND BY-PRODUCT FORMATION RATES (BIJK) FOR PV MANUFACTURING FOR USE WITH THE STACK TEST METHOD Process gas i Process gas (i) CF4 1–Ui ................................................................................ BCF4 ............................................................................... BC2F6 ............................................................................. BC3F8 ............................................................................. C2F6 0.7 NA NA NA CHF3 0.6 0.2 NA NA CH2F2 0.4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA C3F8 0.4 0.2 NA NA c-C4F8 0.2 0.1 0.1 NA tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information. 24. Subpart I is amended by adding Table I–15 to subpart I to read as follows: VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 NF3 remote NA NA NA NA NF3 0.2 0.05 NA NA SF6 0.4 NA NA NA 63598 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules TABLE I–15 TO SUBPART I OF PART 98–DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS (1–UIJ) FOR GAS UTILIZATION RATES (UIJ) AND BYPRODUCT FORMATION RATES (BIJK) FOR MEMS MANUFACTURING FOR USE WITH THE STACK TEST METHOD Process Gas i All processes CF4 1–Ui ................................ BCF4 ............................... BC2F6 ............................. BC3F8 ............................. C2F6 0.9 NA NA NA CHF3 0.6 0.2 NA NA 0.4 0.07 NA NA CH2F2 0.1 0.08 NA NA C3F8 c-C4F8 0.4 0.1 NA NA 0.1 0.1 1 0.04 NA NF3 remote 0.2 1 0.02 NA NA SF6 NF3 0.2 0.09 NA NA 0.2 NA NA NA C4F6 0.1 0.3 0.2 NA C5F8 .1 .1 0.04 NA C4F8O 0.1 0.1 NA NA Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information. 1 Estimate reflects presence of low-k, carbide and multi-gas etch processes that may contain a C-containing fluorinated GHG additive. 25. Subpart I is amended by adding Table I–16 to subpart I to read as follows: TABLE I–16 TO SUBPART I OF PART 98—DEFAULT EMISSION DESTRUCTION OR REMOVAL EFFICIENCY (DRE) FACTORS FOR ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURING Manufacturing type/process type/gas MEMS, LCDs, and PV Manufacturing .......................... Semiconductor Manufacturing ................................. Plasma Etch/Wafer Clean Process Type .................... CHF3, CH2F2, C4F8, NF3, SF6, C4F6 .......................... All other plasma etch/wafer clean fluorinated GHG ...... Chamber Clean Process Type .................................. NF3 ........................................ All other chamber clean fluorinated GHG ................ N2O Processes ..................... CVD and all other N2O-using processes .......................... Default DRE (%) 60 ........................ ........................ 98 60 ........................ 75 60 ........................ 60 Subpart I is amended by adding ‘‘Appendix A’’ to read as follows: tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 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 § 98.7) as specified in § 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 § 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 necessary sensitivity to detect the selected effluent species at or below the maximum field detection limits specified in Table I–10 to this subpart. (2) Sampling location. The sample at the inlet of the point-of-use abatement device must be taken downstream of the process tool and pump package. The sample exhaust must be vented back into the corrosive house ventilation system at a point downstream of the sample inlet location. (3) Sampling conditions. For etch processes, destruction or removal efficiencies must be determined while etching a substrate (product, dummy, or test). For chemical vapor deposition processes, destruction or removal efficiencies must be determined during a chamber clean after deposition (destruction or removal efficiencies must not be determined in a clean chamber). All sampling must be performed non-intrusively during wafer processing. Samples must be drawn through the mass spectrometer source by an external sample pump. Because of the volatility, vapor pressure, stability, and inertness of CF4, C2F6, C3F8, CHF3, NF3, and SF6, the sample lines do not need to be heated. (4) Mass spectrometer parameters. The specific mass spectrometer operating conditions such as electron energy, secondary electron multiplier voltage, emission current, and ion focusing voltage must be selected according to the specifications provided by the mass spectrometer manufacturer, the mass spectrometer system manual, basic mass spectrometer textbook, or other such sources. The mass spectrometer responses to each of the target analytes must all be calibrated under the same mass spectrometer operating conditions. (5) Flow rates. A sample flow rate of 0.5– 1.5 standard liters per minute must be drawn from the process tool exhaust stream under study. (6) Sample frequency. The mass spectrometer sampling frequency for etch processes must be in the range of 0.5 to 1 cycles per second, and for chemical vapor deposition processes must be in the range of 0.25 to 0.5 cycles per second. (7) Dynamic dilution calibration parameters. The quadrupole mass spectrometer must be calibrated for both mass location and response to analytes. A dynamic dilution calibration system may be used to perform both types of mass spectrometer system calibrations using two mass flow controllers. Use one mass flow PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 controller to regulate the flow rate of the standard component used to calibrate the system and the second mass flow controller to regulate the amount of diluent gas used to mix with the standard to generate the calibration curve for each compound of interest. The mass flow controller must be calibrated using the single component gas being used with them, for example, nitrogen (N2) for the diluent. A mass flow controller used with calibration mixtures must be calibrated with the calibration mixture balance gas (for example, N2 or He) if the analyte components are 2 percent or less of the volume of the sample. All calibration mixtures must be National Institute of Standards and Technology Traceable gases or equivalent. They must be calibrated over their range of use and must be operated in their experimentally determined dynamic linear range. If compressed gas standards cannot be brought into the fab, metered gas flows of target compounds into the process chamber, under no thermal or plasma conditions and with no wafer(s) present, and with no process emissions from other tools contributing to the sample location, must then be performed throughout the appropriate concentration ranges to derive calibration curves for the subsequent destruction or removal efficiency tests. (8) Mass location calibration. A mixture containing 1 percent He, Ar, Kr, and Xe in a balance gas of nitrogen must be used to assure the alignment of the quadrupole mass filter (see EPA Method 205 at 40 CFR part 51, appendix M as reference). The mass spectrometer must be chosen so that the mass range is sufficient to detect the predominant peaks of the components under study. (9) Quadrupole mass spectrometer response calibration. A calibration curve must be generated for each compound of interest. (10) Calibration frequency. The mass spectrometer must be calibrated at the start of testing a given process. The calibration must be checked at the end of testing. (11) Calibration range. The mass spectrometer must be calibrated over the expected concentration range of analytes using a minimum of five concentrations including a zero. The zero point is defined as diluent containing no added analyte. (12) Operating procedures. You must follow the operating procedures specified in paragraphs (a)(12)(i) through (a)(12)(v) of this appendix. (i) You must perform a qualitative mass calibration by running a standard (or by E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 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 § 98.7), you may conduct Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy testing in accordance with the VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:27 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 provisions in paragraph (b)(1) through (b)(17) of this appendix, including the laboratory study phase described in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(7), and the field study phase described in paragraphs (b)(8) through (b)(17) of this appendix. (1) Conformance with provisions associated with the Calibration Transfer Standard. This procedure calls for the use of a calibration transfer standard in a number of instances. The use of a calibration transfer standard is necessary to validate optical pathlength and detector response for spectrometers where cell temperature, cell pressure, and cell optical pathlength are potentially variable. For fixed pathlength spectrometers capable of controlling cell temperature and pressure to within +/¥ 10 percent of a desired set point, the use of a calibration transfer standard, as described in paragraphs (b)(2) to (b)(17) this appendix is not required. (2) Defining spectroscopic conditions. Define a set of spectroscopic conditions under which the field studies and subsequent field applications are to be carried out. These include the minimum instrumental linewidth, 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 § 98.97(d)(4)(i)), estimate the maximum concentrations of all of the analytes in the effluent and their minimum concentrations of interest (those concentrations below which the measurement of the compounds is of no importance to the analysis). Values between the maximum expected concentration and the minimum concentration of interest are referred to below as the ‘‘expected concentration range.’’ A minimum of four reference spectra must be available for each analyte. When the set of spectra is ordered according to absorbance, the absorbance levels of adjacent reference spectra should not differ by more than a factor of six. Reference spectra for each analyte should be available at absorbance levels that bracket the analyte’s expected concentration range; minimally, the spectrum whose absorbance exceeds each analyte’s expected maximum concentration or is within 30 percent of it must be available. The reference spectra must be collected at or near the same temperature and pressure at which the sample is to be analyzed under. The gas sample pressure and temperature must be continuously monitored during field testing and you must correct for differences in temperature and pressure between the sample and reference spectra. Differences between the sample and reference spectra conditions must not exceed 50 percent for pressure and 70 °C for temperature. (4) Spectra without reference libraries. If reference spectral libraries meeting the criteria in paragraph (b)(3) of this appendix PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 63599 do not exist for all the analytes and interferants or cannot be accurately generated from existing libraries exhibiting lower minimum instrumental line-width values than those proposed for the testing, prepare the required spectra according to the procedures specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) and (b)(4)(ii) of this appendix. (i) Reference spectra at the same absorbance level (to within 10 percent) of independently prepared samples must be recorded. The reference samples must be prepared from neat forms of the analyte or from gas standards of the highest quality commonly available from commercial sources. Either barometric or volumetric methods may be used to dilute the reference samples to the required concentrations, and the equipment used must be independently calibrated to ensure suitable accuracy. Dynamic and static reference sample preparation methods are acceptable, but dynamic preparations must be used for reactive analytes. Any well characterized absorption pathlength may be employed in recording reference spectra, but the temperature and pressure of the reference samples should match as closely as possible those of the proposed spectroscopic conditions. (ii) If a mercury cadmium telluride or other potentially non-linear detector (i.e., a detector whose response vs. total infrared power is not a linear function over the range of responses employed) is used for recording the reference spectra, you must correct for the effects of this type of response on the resulting concentration values. As needed, spectra of a calibration transfer standard must be recorded with the laboratory spectrometer system to verify the absorption pathlength and other aspects of the system performance. All reference spectral data must be recorded in interferometric form and stored digitally. (5) Sampling system preparation. Construct a sampling system suitable for delivering the proposed sample flow rate from the effluent source to the infrared absorption cell. For the compounds of interest, the surfaces of the system exposed to the effluent stream must be limited to stainless steel and Teflon; because of the potential for generation of inorganic automated gases, glass surfaces within the sampling system and absorption cell must be Teflon-coated. You must demonstrate that the system, when sampling from a simulated source at the estimated effluent source pressure, delivers a volume of sample at least four times the maximum sampling system volume in a time shorter than the proposed minimum time between consecutive infrared analyses. (6) Preliminary analytical routines. For the proposed absorption pathlength to be used in actual emissions testing, you must prepare an analysis method containing of all the effluent compounds at their expected maximum concentrations plus the field calibration transfer standard compound at 20 percent of its full concentration as needed. (7) Documentation. The laboratory techniques used to generate reference spectra and to convert sample spectral information to compound concentrations must be E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 63600 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules air background to control interferences from water and carbon dioxide. For variable pathlength Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometers, introduce a sample of the calibration transfer standard gas directly into the absorption cell at the expected sample pressure and record its absorbance spectrum (the ‘‘initial field calibration transfer standard spectrum’’). Compare it to the laboratory calibration transfer standard spectra to determine the effective absorption pathlength. If possible, record spectra of field calibration gas standards (single component standards of the analyte compounds) and determine their concentrations using the reference spectra and analytical routines developed in paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(7) of this appendix; these spectra may be used instead of the reference spectra in actual concentration and uncertainty calculations. (11) Deriving the calibration transfer standard gas from tool chamber gases. The calibration transfer standard gas may be derived by flowing appropriate semiconductor tool chamber gases under non-process conditions (no thermal or plasma conditions and with no wafer(s) present) if compressed gas standards cannot be brought on-site. (12) Reactivity and response time checks. While sampling ambient air and continuously recording absorbance spectra, suddenly replace the ambient air flow with calibration transfer standard gas introduced as close as possible to the probe tip. Examine the subsequent spectra to determine whether the flow rate and sample volume allow the system to respond quickly enough to changes in the sampled gas. Should a corrosive or reactive gas be of interest in the sample matrix it would be beneficial to determine the reactivity in a similar fashion, if practical. Examine the subsequent spectra to ensure that the reactivities of the analytes with the exposed surfaces of the sampling system do not limit the time response of the analytical system. If a pressure correction routine is not automated, monitor the absorption cell temperature and pressure; verify that the (absolute) pressure remains within 2 percent of the pressure specified in the proposed system conditions. (13) Analyte spiking. Analyte spiking must be performed. While sampling actual source effluent, introduce a known flow rate of calibration transfer standard gas into the sample stream as close as possible to the probe tip or between the probe and extraction line. Measure and monitor the total sample flow rate, and adjust the spike flow rate until it represents 10 percent to 20 percent of the total flow rate. After waiting until at least four absorption cell volumes have been sampled, record four spectra of the spiked effluent, terminate the calibration transfer standard spike flow, pause until at least four cell volumes are sampled, and then record four (unspiked) spectra. Repeat this process until 12 spiked and 12 unspiked spectra have been obtained. If a pressure correction routine is not automated, monitor the absorption cell temperature and pressure; verify that the pressure remains within 2 percent of the pressure specified in the proposed system conditions. Calculate the expected calibration transfer standard compound concentrations in the spectra and compare them to the values observed in the spectrum. This procedure is best performed using a spectroscopic tracer to calculate dilution (as opposed to measured flow rates) of the injected calibration transfer standard (or analyte). The spectroscopic tracer should be a component not in the gas matrix that is easily detectable and maintains a linear absorbance over a large concentration range. Repeat this spiking process with all effluent compounds that are potentially reactive with either the sampling system components or with other effluent compounds. The gas spike is delivered by a mass flow controller, and the expected concentration of analyte of interest (AOITheoretical) is calculated as follows: Where: AOITheoretical = Theoretical analyte of interest concentration (ppm). Tracersample = Tracer concentration (ppm) as seen by the Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometer during spiking. Tracercylinder = The concentration (ppm) of tracer recorded during direct injection of the cylinder to the Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometer cell. AOIcylinder = The supplier-certified concentration (ppm) of the analyte of interest gas standard. AOInative = The native AOI concentration (ppm) of the effluent during stable conditions. calibration transfer standard gas. The resulting ‘‘final field calibration transfer standard spectrum’’ must be compared to the initial field calibration transfer standard spectrum to verify suitable stability of the spectroscopic system throughout the course of the field study. (15) Amendment of analytical routines. The presence of unanticipated interferant compounds and/or the observation of compounds at concentrations outside their expected concentration ranges may necessitate the repetition of portions of the procedures in paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(14) of this appendix. Such amendments are allowable before final analysis of the data, but must be represented in the documentation required in paragraph (b)(16) of this appendix. (16) Documentation. The sampling and spiking techniques used to generate the field study spectra and to convert sample spectral information to concentrations must be documented at a level of detail that allows an independent analyst to reproduce the results from the documentation and the stored interferometric data. (17) Method application. When the required laboratory and field studies have been completed and if the results indicate a suitable degree of accuracy, the methods developed may be applied to practical field measurement tasks. (14) Post-test calibration. At the end of a sampling run and at the end of the field study, record the spectrum of the VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3 EP16OC12.087</GPH> tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 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 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 During field applications, the procedures demonstrated in the field study specified in paragraphs (b)(8) through (b)(16) of this appendix must be adhered to as closely as possible, with the following exceptions specified in paragraphs (b)(17)(i) through (b)(17)(iii) of this appendix: (i) The sampling lines employed should be as short as practically possible and not longer than those used in the field study. (ii) Analyte spiking and reactivity checks are required after the installation of or major repair to the sampling system or major change in sample matrix. In these cases, perform three spiked/unspiked samples with calibration transfer standard or a surrogate analyte on a daily basis if time permits and gas standards are easy to obtain and get on-site. (iii) Sampling and other operational data must be recorded and documented as during the field study, but only the interferometric data needed to reproduce actual test and spiking data must be stored permanently. The format of this data does not need to be interferograms but may be absorbance spectra or single beams. (c) When using the flow and dilution measurement protocol specified in section 2.2.6 of EPA 430–R–10–003 (incorporated by reference, see § 98.7), you may determine point-of-use abatement device total volume flow with the modifications specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this appendix. (1) You may introduce the nonreactive, non-native gas used for determining total volume flow and dilution across the point-of-use abatement device at a location between the thermal oxidizer of the point-of-use abatement device and the scrubber. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 (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, nonnative 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, PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 63601 or 83.3 percent of the measurement line and use the average of the three measurements. If the gas stream is found to be stratified because the 20.0 percent criterion for a 3-point test is not met, locate and sample the non-reactive, nonnative 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 § 98.7) Equations 1 through 7. (3) You must determine the measurement system response time according to paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through (c)(3)(iii) of this appendix. (i) Before sampling begins, introduce ambient air at the probe upstream of all sample condition components in system calibration mode. Record the time it takes for the measured concentration of a selected compound (for example, carbon dioxide) to reach steady state. (ii) Introduce nitrogen in the system calibration mode and record the time required for the concentration of the selected compound to reach steady state. (iii) Observe the time required to achieve 95 percent of a stable response for both nitrogen and ambient air. The longer interval is the measurement system response time. [FR Doc. 2012–22348 Filed 10–15–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P E:\FR\FM\16OCP3.SGM 16OCP3

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

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

[[Page 63537]]

Vol. 77

Tuesday,

No. 200

October 16, 2012

Part III

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 98

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

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

[[Page 63538]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 98

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

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; Grant of Reconsideration.

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2011-0028, by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
Email: GHGReportingCBI@epa.gov.
Fax: (202) 566-1741.
Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center
(EPA/DC), Mailcode 6102T, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA
West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0028. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://www.regulations.gov or email. Send or deliver
information identified as CBI to only the mail or hand/courier delivery
address listed above, attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028.
The https://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through https://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not
be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use
of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any
defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Docket, EPA/
DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC.
This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the
Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additional information on submitting
comments: To expedite review of your comments by agency staff, you are
encouraged to send a separate copy of your comments, in addition to the
copy you submit to the official docket, to Carole Cook, U.S. EPA,
Office of Atmospheric Programs, Climate Change Division, Mail Code
6207-J, Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 343-9263, email address:
GHGReportingRule@epa.gov.
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of this proposal, memoranda to the docket, and all
other related information will also be available through the WWW on the
EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule Web site at https://www.epa.gov/climatechange/.
Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and
abbreviations are used in this document.

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

[[Page 63539]]

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

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

I. General Information
A. What is the purpose of this action?
B. Does this action apply to me?
C. Legal Authority
D. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to the EPA?
II. Background for Proposed Amendments to GHG Monitoring and
Calculation Methodologies and Other Technical Revisions
A. Background for Proposed Amendments
B. How would these amendments apply to 2012 and 2013 reports?
III. Summary and Rationale for Proposed Amendments to GHG
Monitoring and Calculation Methodologies and Other Revisions
A. Summary of Proposed Rule Amendments in Response to Petition
for Reconsideration
B. Rationale for Proposed Amendments
C. Proposed Rule Changes to Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements
D. Proposed Changes to Remove BAMM Provisions and Language
Specific to Reporting Years 2011, 2012, and 2013.
IV. Background for Confidentiality Determinations for Subpart I of
Part 98
A. Overview and Background
B. Approach to Proposed CBI Determinations for New or Revised
Subpart I Data Elements
C. Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for Individual Data
Elements in Two Direct Emitter Data Categories
D. Request for Comments on Proposed Confidentiality
Determinations
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

I. General Information

A. What is the purpose of this action?

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

B. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

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

[[Page 63540]]

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

C. Legal Authority

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

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

1. Submitting Comments That Contain CBI
Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to
be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the
EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify
electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket. Information marked as CBI will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2.
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://www.regulations.gov or email. Send or deliver
information identified as CBI to only the mail or hand/courier delivery
address listed above, attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028.
If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming
CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
When submitting comments, remember to:
Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (e.g., subject heading, Federal Register date and page
number).
Follow directions. The EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a CFR part or section
number.
Explain why you agree or disagree, and suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived
at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow us to reproduce your
estimate.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest
alternatives.
Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
Make sure to submit your information and comments by the comment
period deadline identified in the preceding section titled DATES. To
ensure proper receipt by the EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID
number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of
your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal
Register citation.
To expedite review of your comments by agency staff, you are
encouraged to send a separate copy of your comments, in addition to the
copy you submit to the official docket, to Carole Cook, U.S. EPA,
Office of Atmospheric Programs, Climate Change Division, Mail Code
6207-J, Washington, DC, 20460, telephone (202) 343-9263, email
GHGReportingCBI@epa.gov. You are also encouraged to send a separate
copy of your CBI information to Carole Cook at the provided mailing
address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Please do not
send CBI to the electronic docket or by email.

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

A. Background for Proposed Amendments

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

[[Page 63541]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 63542]]

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

[[Page 63543]]

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

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

B. Rationale for Proposed Amendments

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

[[Page 63544]]

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

[[Page 63545]]

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

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

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

[[Page 63546]]

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

[[Page 63547]]

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

[[Page 63548]]

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

[[Page 63549]]

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

[[Page 63550]]

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

[[Page 63551]]

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

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

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

[[Page 63552]]

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

[[Page 63553]]

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

[[Page 63554]]

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

[[Page 63555]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 63556]]

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

[[Page 63557]]

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

[[Page 63558]]

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

[[Page 63559]]

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

[[Page 63560]]

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

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

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

[[Page 63561]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 63562]]

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

[[Page 63563]]

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

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

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

[[Page 63564]]

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

[[Page 63565]]

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

[[Page 63566]]

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

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

C. Proposed Rule Changes to Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

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

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

[[Page 63567]]

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

[[Page 63568]]

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

[[Page 63569]]

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

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

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

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

[[Page 63570]]

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

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

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

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

A. Overview and Background

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

[[Page 63571]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 63572]]

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

[[Page 63573]]

D. Request for Comments on Proposed Confidentiality Determinations

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

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

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

[[Page 63574]]

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

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

[[Page 63575]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

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

[[Page 63576]]

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

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

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
This action is proposing to: (1) Amend monitoring and calculation
methodologies in subpart I; (2) assign subpart I data reporting
elements into CBI data categories; and (3) amend subpart A to reflect
proposed changes to the reporting requirements in subpart I. The EPA
has determined that this action will not have disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-
income populations because it does not affect the level of protection
provided to human health or the environment. This action addresses only
reporting and recordkeeping procedures.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 98

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

Dated: August 31, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of
the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 98--[AMENDED]

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

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

Subpart A--[Amended]

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

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

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

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

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

Subpart I--[Amended]

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

Sec. 98.91 Reporting threshold.

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

Sec. 98.92 GHGs to report.

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

Sec. 98.93 Calculating GHG emissions.

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

[[Page 63577]]

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

Where:

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

Where:

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

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

Where:

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

[[Page 63578]]

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

Where:

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

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

Where:

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

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

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

[[Page 63579]]

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

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

Where:

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

Where:

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

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

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

[[Page 63580]]

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

Where:

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

[[Page 63581]]

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

Where:

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

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

Where:

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

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

[[Page 63582]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16OC12.078

Where:

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

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

Where:

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

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

Where:

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

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

Where:

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

[[Page 63583]]

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

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

Where:

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

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

Sec. 98.94 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.

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

Where:

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

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

[[Page 63584]]

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

[[Page 63585]]

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

[[Page 63586]]

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

[[Page 63587]]

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

[[Page 63588]]

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

Sec. 98.96 Data reporting requirements.

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

[[Page 63589]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16OC12.084

Where:

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

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

Where:

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

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

Where:

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

[[Page 63590]]

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

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

[[Page 63591]]

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

Sec. 98.97 Records that must be retained.

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

[[Page 63592]]

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

Sec. 98.98 Definitions.

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

[[Page 63593]]

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

[[Page 63594]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 63595]]

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

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

Table I-6 to Subpart I of Part 98--Default Emission Factors (1-Uij) for Gas Utilization Rates (Uij) and By-
Product Formation Rates (Bijk) for LCD Manufacturing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process gas i
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process type factors NF3
CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C3F8 c-C4F8 Remote NF3 SF6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
CVD Chamber Cleaning 1-Ui..... NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.03 0.3 0.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information.

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

Table I-7 to Subpart I of Part 98--Default Emission Factors (1-Uij) for Gas Utilization Rates (Uij) and By-
Product Formation Rates (Bijk) for PV Manufacturing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process gas i
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process type factors NF3
CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C3F8 c-C4F8 Remote NF3 SF6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
CVD Chamber Cleaning 1-Ui..... NA 0.6 NA NA 0.1 0.1 NA 0.3 0.4
CVD Chamber Cleaning BCF4..... NA 0.2 NA NA 0.2 0.1 NA NA NA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information.

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

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

* * * * *
Other Manufacturing Process 1-Ui................................. 1.14
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 63596]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 63597]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 63598]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 63599]]

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

[[Page 63600]]

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

Where:

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

[[Page 63601]]

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

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

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.