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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
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 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; Grant of 

Reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: This action proposes 

amending the calculation and 

monitoring methodologies for the 

Electronics Manufacturing, of the 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. 

Proposed changes include revising 

certain calculation methods and adding 

a new method, amending data reporting 

requirements, and clarifying terms and 

definitions. This action also proposes 

confidentiality determinations for the 

reporting of the new and revised data 

elements. Many of these proposed 

actions are in response to a petition to 

reconsider specific aspects of our 

regulations. This document also 

proposes amendments to the General 

Provisions of the Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Rule to reflect proposed 

changes to the reporting requirements 

for the Electronics Manufacturing 

sector. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before December 17, 

2012. 

Public Hearing. The EPA does not 

plan to conduct a public hearing unless 

requested. To request a hearing, please 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

by October 23, 2012. Upon such request, 

the EPA will hold the hearing on 

October 31, 2012 in the Washington, DC 

area starting at 9 a.m., local time. The 

EPA will provide further information 

about the hearing on its Web page if a 

hearing is requested. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0028, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: GHGReportingCBI@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–1741. 

• Mail: Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), 

Mailcode 6102T, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

Public Reading Room, EPA West 

Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0028. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. Send or 

deliver information identified as CBI to 

only the mail or hand/courier delivery 

address listed above, attention: Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means the EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, the EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If the EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the EPA may not 

be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC. This Docket 

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

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1744, and the telephone number for 

the Air Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER GENERAL INFORMATION

CONTACT: Carole Cook, Climate Change 

Division, Office of Atmospheric 

Programs (MC–6207J), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; 

telephone number: (202) 343–9263; fax 

number: (202) 343–2342; email address: 

GHGReportingRule@epa.gov. For 

technical information, contact the 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule Hotline 

at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ 

emissions/ghgrule_contactus.htm 

Alternatively, contact Carole Cook at 

(202) 343–9263. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additional 

information on submitting comments: 

To expedite review of your comments 

by agency staff, you are encouraged to 

send a separate copy of your comments, 

in addition to the copy you submit to 

the official docket, to Carole Cook, U.S. 

EPA, Office of Atmospheric Programs, 

Climate Change Division, Mail Code 

6207–J, Washington, DC 20460, 

telephone (202) 343–9263, email 

address: GHGReportingRule@epa.gov. 

Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition 

to being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of this proposal, 

memoranda to the docket, and all other 

related information will also be 

available through the WWW on the 

EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule 

Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ 

climatechange/. 

Acronyms and Abbreviations. The 

following acronyms and abbreviations 

are used in this document. 

BAMM best available monitoring methods 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent 

CBI confidential business information 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CVD chemical vapor deposition 

DRE destruction or removal efficiency 

EIA Economic Impact Analysis 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

F–GHG fluorinated greenhouse gas 

FDL field detection limit 

FTIR Fourier transform infrared 

GHG greenhouse gas 

GWP global warming potential 

HTF heat transfer fluid 

ICR Information Collection Request 

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change 

ISBN International Standard Book Number 

ISMI International SEMATECH 

Manufacturing Initiative 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 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), 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 Examples of affected 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, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
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 

The EPA is proposing rule 

amendments to Part 98 under its 

existing CAA authority, specifically 

authorities provided in CAA section 

114. As stated in the preamble to the 

2009 final rule (74 FR 56260, October 

30, 2009) and the Response to 

Comments on the Proposed Rule, 

Volume 9, Legal Issues, CAA section 

114 provides the EPA broad authority to 

obtain the information in Part 98, 

including subpart I, because such data 

would inform and are relevant to the 

EPA’s carrying out a wide variety of 

CAA provisions. As discussed in the 

preamble to the initial Part 98 proposal 

(74 FR 16448, April 10, 2009), CAA 

section 114(a)(1) authorizes the 

Administrator to require emissions 

sources, persons subject to the CAA, 

manufacturers of control or process 

equipment, or persons whom the 

Administrator believes may have 

necessary information to monitor and 

report emissions and provide such other 

information the Administrator requests 

for the purposes of carrying out any 

provision of the CAA. 

In addition, the EPA is proposing 

confidentiality determinations for 

proposed data elements in subpart I, 

under its authorities provided in 

sections 114, 301, and 307 of the CAA. 

As mentioned, CAA section 114 

provides the EPA authority to obtain the 

information in Part 98, including those 

in subpart I. Section 114(c) requires that 

the EPA make publicly available 

information obtained under section 114 

except for information (excluding 

emission data) that qualify for 

confidential treatment. 

The Administrator has determined 

that this action (proposed amendments 

and confidentiality determinations) is 

subject to the provisions of section 

307(d) of the CAA. 

D. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments to the EPA? 

1. Submitting Comments That Contain 

CBI 

Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information in a disk or CD– 

ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information marked as CBI will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. Send or 

deliver information identified as CBI to 

only the mail or hand/courier delivery 

address listed above, attention: Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028. 

If you have any questions about CBI 

or the procedures for claiming CBI, 

please consult the person identified in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (e.g., subject heading, 

Federal Register date and page number). 

Follow directions. The EPA may ask 

you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a 

CFR part or section number. 

Explain why you agree or disagree, 

and suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow us to reproduce your estimate. 

Provide specific examples to illustrate 

your concerns and suggest alternatives. 

Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

Make sure to submit your information 

and comments by the comment period 

deadline identified in the preceding 

section titled DATES. To ensure proper 

receipt by the EPA, be sure to identify 

the docket ID number assigned to this 

action in the subject line on the first 

page of your response. You may also 

provide the name, date, and Federal 

Register citation. 

To expedite review of your comments 

by agency staff, you are encouraged to 

send a separate copy of your comments, 

in addition to the copy you submit to 

the official docket, to Carole Cook, U.S. 

EPA, Office of Atmospheric Programs, 

Climate Change Division, Mail Code 

6207–J, Washington, DC, 20460, 

telephone (202) 343–9263, email 

GHGReportingCBI@epa.gov. You are 

also encouraged to send a separate copy 

of your CBI information to Carole Cook 

at the provided mailing address in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. Please do not send CBI to the 

electronic docket or by email. 

II. Background for Proposed 

Amendments to GHG Monitoring and 

Calculation Methodologies and Other 

Technical Revisions 

A. Background for Proposed 

Amendments 

The GHG reporting requirements for 

subpart I were finalized on December 1, 

2010 (75 FR 74774, hereafter referred to 

as ‘‘final subpart I rule’’). Following the 

publication of the final subpart I rule in 

the Federal Register, the SIA (hereafter 

referred to as ‘‘the Petitioner’’) 

submitted on January 31, 2011 an 

administrative petition titled ‘‘Petition 

for Reconsideration and Request for 

Stay Pending Reconsideration of 

Subpart I of the Final Rule for 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse 

Gases’’ (hereafter referred to as the 

‘‘Petition for Reconsideration’’, available 

in docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0927), 

requesting reconsideration of numerous 

provisions in the final subpart I rule. 

Since that petition was filed, the EPA 

has published five actions related to 

subpart I. 

• Additional Sources of Fluorinated 

GHGs: Extension of Best Available 

Monitoring Provisions for Electronics 

Manufacturing (76 FR 36339, published 

June 22, 2011). Granted the Petition for 

Reconsideration with respect to the 

provisions for the use of Best Available 

Monitoring Methods (BAMM). Extended 

three of the deadlines in subpart I 

related to using the BAMM provisions 

from June 30, 2011 to September 30, 

2011. 

• Changes to Provisions for 

Electronics Manufacturing to Provide 

Flexibility (76 FR 59542, published 

September 27, 2011). Amended the 

calculation and monitoring provisions 

for the largest semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities to provide 

flexibility through the end of 2013 and 

extended two deadlines in the BAMM 

provisions. 

• Proposed Confidentiality 

Determinations for Subpart I and 

Proposed Amendments to Subpart I Best 

Available Monitoring Methods 

Provisions (77 FR 10434, published 

February 22, 2012). Re-proposed 

confidentiality determinations for data 

elements in subpart I and proposed 

amendments to the provisions regarding 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 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 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. 

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 method as an alternative to recipe-specific emission factors. (See Section III.B.1).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. 

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).

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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
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. 

4. Calculation for determining manufacturing capacity. (See Section 

III.B.4).

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. 

5. Reporting provisions for facilities that have integrated production and 

research and development (R&D) activities. (See Section III.B.5).

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. 

6. Requirements for the accuracy and precision of the equipment 

measuring gas consumption. (See Section III.B.6).

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. 

7. Provisions for re-calculating the facility-wide gas specific heel factor 

and handling exceptional circumstances. (See Section III.B.7).

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. 

8. Requirements for verifying the model used to apportion gas consumption. (See Section III.B.8).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. 

9. Provisions for calculating N2O emissions. (See Section III.B.9) .......... 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). 

10. Provisions for reporting controlled emissions from abatement systems. (See Section III.B.10).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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
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). 

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).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. 

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 


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 

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 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 63545 

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. 

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 

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 

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; 


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 

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. 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 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 


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 

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 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 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 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 

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 fabspecific 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
63550 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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 

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 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 63551 

2The 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. 

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.) 

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, 

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 


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 

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 

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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 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 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 

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 

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 


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 

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 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 63555 

3 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse 

Gas Inventories, Prepared by the National 

Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Eggleston 

H.S., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T. and Tanabe K. 

(eds). Hayama, Kanagawa, Japan. Available at: 

http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/ 

index.html 

4Facilities 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. 

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). 

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.’’ 

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 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. 


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 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 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 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 

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 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 


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 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 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 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 

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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
63560 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

5Available at: http://www.epa.gov/semi

conductor-pfc/documents/dre_protocol.pdf (March 

2010). 

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 

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. 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 63561 

6Benaway, 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: 

http://www.sematech.org/docubase/document/

4825beng.pdf. 

7Laush, 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. 

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. 

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 


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 

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 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 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

Process type/gas 

Proposed 

default 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 


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, 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 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 fastevolving, 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 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 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
63566 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

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

Data element Change/Revision Original citation Proposed new or revised 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.98.96(c)(1) ................. NA. 

Annual emissions of each F–GHG emitted 

from each individual recipe (including those 

in a set of similar recipes) or process subtype.

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.

98.96(c)(2) ................. NA. 

Emissions of N2O emitted from each chemical 

vapor deposition process and from other 

N2O using manufacturing processes as calculated in Equation I–10.

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.

98.96(c)(3) ................. NA. 

Annual emissions of each F–GHG emitted 

from each fab when you use the procedures 

specified in 40 CFR 98.93(i).

Add reporting requirement in conjunction with 

the stack testing option.

NA ............................. 98.96(c)(5). 

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.

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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 63567 

TABLE 4—PROPOSED CHANGES TO REPORTING REQUIREMENTS—Continued 

Data element Change/Revision Original citation Proposed new or revised 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.

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). 

All inputs used to calculate gas consumption 

in Equation I–11 for each F–GHG and N2O 

used.

Change to recordkeeping requirement ............ 98.96(h) ..................... 98.97(k)(1). 

Disbursements for each F–GHG and N2O during the reporting year, as calculated using 

Equation I–12.

Change to recordkeeping requirement ............ 98.96(i) ...................... 98.97(n). 

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.

Change to recordkeeping requirement ............ 98.96(j) ...................... 98.97(n). 

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.

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* * *’’.

98.96(k) ..................... 98.97(m). 

All apportioning factors used to apportion F– 

GHG and N2O consumption.

Change to recordkeeping requirement ............ 98.96(l) ...................... 98.97(c)(1). 

Identification of the quantifiable metric used in 

your facility-specific engineering model to 

apportion gas consumption.

Correct citation ................................................. 98.96(m)(i) ................. 98.96(m)(1). 

Start and end dates selected under 40 CFR 

98.94(c)(2)(i).

Correct citation ................................................. 98.96(m)(ii) ................ 98.96(m)(2). 

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.

Correct citation ................................................. 98.96(m)(iii) ............... 98.96(m)(3). 

The result of the calculation comparing the actual and modeled gas consumption under 

40 CFR 98.94(c)(2)(iii).

Correct citation and revise to read ‘‘* * * modeled gas consumption under 40 CFR 

98.94(c)(2)(iii) and (iv), as applicable.’’.

98.96(m)(iv) ............... 98.96(m)(4). 

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.

Add requirement ............................................... NA ............................. 98.96(m)(5). 

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.

Move to recordkeeping, and remove recipespecific references.98.96(n) ..................... 98.97(o). 

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.

Move to recordkeeping, remove recipe-specific references, and revise to apply to the 

stack testing option.

98.96(o) ..................... 98.97(p). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
63568 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 4—PROPOSED CHANGES TO REPORTING REQUIREMENTS—Continued 

Data element Change/Revision Original citation Proposed new or revised 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. 

98.96(p) ..................... NA. 

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.

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). 

98.96(q) ..................... 98.97(d). 

Inputs to the F–HTF mass balance equation, 

Equation I–16, for each F–HTF.

Change to recordkeeping ................................. 98.96(r) ...................... 98.97(r). 

An effective facility-wide DRE calculated using 

Equation I–26, I–27, and I–28, as appropriate.

Add requirement ............................................... NA ............................. 98.96(r). 

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).

Change to recordkeeping ................................. 98.96(s) ..................... 98.97(s). 

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.

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. 

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.

Remove requirement because these provisions will be obsolete by the time these proposed amendments are final.98.96(v) ..................... NA. 

The date of any stack testing conducted during the reporting year, and the identity of the 

stack tested.

Add requirement in conjunction with stack 

testing option.

NA ............................. 98.96(w)(1). 

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).

Add requirement in conjunction with stack 

testing option.

NA ............................. 98.96(w)(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.

Add requirement ............................................... NA ............................. 98.96(x). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 63569 

9These 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. 

TABLE 4—PROPOSED CHANGES TO REPORTING REQUIREMENTS—Continued 

Data element Change/Revision Original citation Proposed new or revised 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 ............................. 98.96(y). 

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. 

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 


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 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 63571 

10The 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. 

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] 

Data category 

Confidentiality determination for data elements in each 

category 

Emission data a

Data that are not 

emission data and 

not CBI 

Data that are not 

emission data but 

are CBI b

Facility and Unit Identifier Information ................................................................. X ................................ ................................

Emissions ............................................................................................................. X ................................ ................................

Calculation Methodology and Methodological Tier ............................................. X ................................ ................................

Data Elements Reported for Periods of Missing Data that are Not Inputs to 

Emission Equations .......................................................................................... X ................................ ................................

Unit/Process ‘‘Static’’ Characteristics that are Not Inputs to Emission Equations .................................................................................................................. ................................ Xc Xc

Unit/Process Operating Characteristics that are Not Inputs to Emission Equations .................................................................................................................. ................................ Xc Xc

Test and Calibration Methods ............................................................................. ................................ X ................................

Production/Throughput Data that are Not Inputs to Emission Equations ........... ................................ ................................ X 

Raw Materials Consumed that are Not Inputs to Emission Equations ............... ................................ ................................ X 

Process-Specific and Vendor Data Submitted in BAMM Extension Requests ... ................................ ................................ X 

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). bSection 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 facilityVerDate Mar<15>2010 17:39 Oct 15, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 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 

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 

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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 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-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. 

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 


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 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
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. 

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: 

§ 98.7 What standardized methods are 

incorporated by reference into this part? 

* * * * * 

(m) * * * 

(3) Protocol for Measuring Destruction 

or Removal Efficiency (DRE) of 

Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Abatement 

Equipment in Electronics 

Manufacturing, Version 1, EPA–430–R– 

10–003, March 2010 (EPA 430–R–10– 

003), http://www.epa.gov/ 

semiconductor-pfc/documents/ 

dre_protocol.pdf, IBR approved for 

§ 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 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 § 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 (m2 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: 

§ 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: 

§ 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 63577 

(a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(4) of this section, you 

must calculate annual emissions of each 

input fluorinated GHG and of each byproduct fluorinated GHG using 

Equations I–6 and I–7, respectively. 

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. 

(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 

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. 

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 § 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 PROPOSALS3EP16OC12.068</GPH> EP16OC12.069</GPH> EP16OC12.070</GPH>
63578 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

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. 

(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. 

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. 

(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 § 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 § 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), 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP16OC12.071</GPH> EP16OC12.072</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 63579 

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). 

* * * * * 

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. 

(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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP16OC12.073</GPH> EP16OC12.074</GPH>
63580 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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 

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). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP16OC12.075</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 63581 

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). 

i = Fluorinated GHG input gas. 

s = Stack system. 

N = Total number of time intervals m in 

sampling period. 

m = Time interval. 

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. 

(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. 

(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).’’ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP16OC12.076</GPH> EP16OC12.077</GPH>
63582 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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 

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 

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. 

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 fablevel emissions of each fluorinated GHG 

by-product formed using Equation I–22 

of this section. 

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. 

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 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP16OC12.078</GPH> EP16OC12.079</GPH> EP16OC12.080</GPH> EP16OC12.081</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 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. 

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. 

(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 

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: 

§ 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP16OC12.082</GPH> EP16OC12.083</GPH>
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 

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 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 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 § 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 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 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 

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 8- 

hour (or longer) period for each stack 

system, or at no less than 90 percent of 

the abatement system uptime rate 


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 

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. 

(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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 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 § 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. 

(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. 

(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 


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 

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 

§ 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 63589 

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. 

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 

§ 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. 

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 

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. 

(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 § 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 

§ 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP16OC12.084</GPH> EP16OC12.085</GPH> EP16OC12.086</GPH>
63590 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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 

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. 

(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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 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: 

§ 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 § 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, 

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. 

(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 


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 

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: 

§ 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 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 

§ 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 type/ 

sub-type 

Process gas i 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
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 type/ 

sub-type 

Process gas i 

CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C2HF5 CH3F C3F8 C4F8 NF3 SF6 C4F6 C5F8 C4F8O 

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 BYPRODUCT FORMATION RATES (Bijk) FOR SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING FOR 300 MM AND 450 MM WAFER SIZE

Process type/sub-type 

Process gas i 

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 BYPRODUCT FORMATION RATES (Bijk) FOR MEMS MANUFACTURING

Process type factors 

Process gas i 

CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C3F8 c-C4F8 NF3

Remote NF3 SF6 C4F6a C5F8a C4F8Oa

Etch 1–Ui ........................ 0.7 a0.4 a0.4 a0.06 NA a0.2 NA 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 NA 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 63595 

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 type factors 

Process gas i 

CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C3F8 c-C4F8 NF3

Remote NF3 SF6 C4F6a C5F8a C4F8Oa

Etch BCF4 ...................... NA a0.4 a0.07 a0.08 NA 0.2 NA NA NA a0.3 0.2 NA 

Etch BC2F6 ..................... NA NA NA NA NA 0.2 NA NA NA a0.2 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 b0.02 b0.1 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. 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 type factors 

Process gas i 

CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C3F8 c-C4F8 NF3

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 BYPRODUCT FORMATION RATES (Bijk) FOR PV MANUFACTURING

Process type factors 

Process gas i 

CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C3F8 c-C4F8 NF3

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: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
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. 

Select sampling port locations and the number of traverse points.Method 1 or 1A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–1. 

Determine gas velocity and volumetric flow 

rate.

Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–1 and A–2. 

Determine gas molecular weight ..................... Method 3, 3A, or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2 using the same sampling site 

and time as fluorinated GHG sampling. 

Measure gas moisture content ........................ Method 4 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3, 

or using FTIR.a

aExtractive 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

Fluorinated GHG analyte 

Maximum 

field detection limit 

(ppbv) 

CF4 ............................................ 5 

C2F6 .......................................... 5 

C3F8 .......................................... 5 

C4F6 .......................................... 5 

C5F8 .......................................... 5 

TABLE I–10 TO SUBPART I OF PART

98—MAXIMUM FIELD DETECTION

LIMITS APPLICABLE TO FLUORINATED

GHG CONCENTRATION MEASUREMENTS FOR STACK SYSTEMS—Continued 

Fluorinated GHG analyte 

Maximum 

field detection limit 

(ppbv) 

c-C4F8 ....................................... 5 

CH2F2 ........................................ 10 

CH3F ......................................... 10 

CHF3 ......................................... 5 

NF3 ............................................ 5 

SF6 ............................................ 1 

Other fully fluorinated GHGs .... 5 

TABLE I–10 TO SUBPART I OF PART

98—MAXIMUM FIELD DETECTION

LIMITS APPLICABLE TO FLUORINATED

GHG CONCENTRATION MEASUREMENTS FOR STACK SYSTEMS—Continued 

Fluorinated GHG analyte 

Maximum 

field detection limit 

(ppbv) 

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] 

All processes 

Process gas i 

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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 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 BYPRODUCT FORMATION RATES (BIJK) FOR SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING FOR USE WITH THE STACK TEST METHOD

[300 mm and 450 mm wafer sizes] 

All process 

Process gas i 

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 

CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C3F8 c-C4F8 NF3

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 

CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C3F8 c-C4F8 NF3

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: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
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

All processes 

Process Gas i 

CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C3F8 c-C4F8 NF3

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 0.04 NA NA NA 0.2 0.04 NA 

BC3F8 ............................. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information. 1Estimate 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 

Default DRE 

(%) 

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 § 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 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 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 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 

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 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
63600 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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: 

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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP16OC12.087</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 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 § 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. 

(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, 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3