59542 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 98 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0927; FRL–9469–3] 

RIN 2060–AR26 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse 

Gases: Changes to Provisions for 

Electronics Manufacturing To Provide 

Flexibility 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing a regulation to 

amend the calculation and monitoring 

provisions in the Electronics 

Manufacturing portion of the 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule for the 

‘‘largest’’ semiconductor manufacturing 

facilities (i.e., those that fabricate 

devices on wafers measuring 300 

millimeters or less in diameter and that 

have an annual manufacturing capacity 

of greater than 10,500 square meters). 

More specifically, for reporting years 

2011, 2012, and 2013, these 

amendments allow the largest 

semiconductor facilities the option to 

calculate emissions using default 

emission factors already contained in 

the regulations, instead of recipespecific utilization and by-product 

formation rates for the plasma etching 

process type. In addition, this action 

extends two deadlines in the provisions 

related to the use of best available 

monitoring methods. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

September 30, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0927. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., confidential business information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and is publicly available in 

hard copy only. Publicly available 

docket materials are available either 

electronically through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West 

Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This 

Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. 

to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the Air Docket is (202) 566– 

1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Carole Cook, Climate Change Division, 

Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC– 

6207J), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW., Washington DC 20460; telephone 

number (202) 343–9263; fax (202) 343– 

2342; e-mail address: 

GHGReportingRule@epa.gov. For 

technical information, please go to the 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule Program 

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

climatechange/emissions/ 

ghgrulemaking.html. To submit a 

question, select Rule Help Center, 

followed by ‘‘Contact Us.’’ 

Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition 

to being available in Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0927, following 

the Administrator’s signature, an 

electronic copy of this final rule will 

also be available through the WWW on 

EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting 

Program Web site at http:// 

www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ 

ghgrulemaking.html. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulated Entities. The Administrator 

determined that this action is subject to 

the provisions of Clean Air Act (CAA) 

section 307(d). See CAA section 

307(d)(1)(V) (the provisions of section 

307(d) apply to ‘‘such other actions as 

the Administrator may determine’’). 

These are final changes to existing 

regulations. These amended regulations 

affect owners or operators of certain 

manufacturers of electronic devices. 

Regulated categories and examples of 

affected 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 Microcomputer manufacturing facilities. 

334413 Semiconductor, photovoltaic (solid-state) device manufacturing facilities. 

334419 Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) unit screens manufacturing facilities. 

334419 Micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) manufacturing facilities. 

Although Table 1 of this preamble 

lists the types of facilities that EPA is 

now aware could be potentially affected 

by this action, other types of facilities 

not listed in the table could also be 

affected. To determine whether you are 

affected by this action, you should 

carefully examine the applicability 

criteria found in 40 CFR part 98, 

subparts A and I. If you have questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular facility or supplier, 

consult the person listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT Section. 

The final rule is effective on 

September 30, 2011. Section 553(d) of 

the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA), 5 U.S.C. Chapter 5, generally 

provides that rules may not take effect 

earlier than 30 days after they are 

published in the Federal Register. EPA 

is issuing this final rule under section 

307(d)(1) of the CAA, which states: 

‘‘The provisions of section 553 through 

557 * * * of Title 5 shall not, except as 

expressly provided in this section, 

apply to actions to which this 

subsection applies.’’ Thus, section 

553(d) of the APA does not apply to this 

rule. EPA is nevertheless acting 

consistently with the purposes 

underlying APA section 553(d) in 

making this rule effective on September 

30, 2011. Section 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) 

allows an effective date less than 30 

days after publication ‘‘as otherwise 

provided by the agency for good cause 

found and published with the rule.’’ As 

explained below, EPA finds that there is 

good cause for this rule to become 

effective on September 30, 2011, even 

though this results in an effective date 

fewer than 30 days from date of 

publication in the Federal Register. 

The purpose of the 30-day waiting 

period prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 553(d) is 

to give affected parties a reasonable time 

to adjust their behavior and prepare 

before the final rule takes effect. Where, 

as here, the revisions being made in this 

package provide flexibilities to sources 

covered by the reporting rule, a shorter 

effective date in such circumstances is 

consistent with the purposes of APA 

section 553(d), which provides an 

exception for any action that grants or 

recognizes an exemption or relieves a 

restriction. Accordingly, we find good 

cause exists to make this rule effective 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 59543 

on September 30, 2011, consistent with 

the purposes of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). 

Judicial Review. Under section 

307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of 

this final rule is available only by filing 

a petition for review in the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit (the Court) by November 28, 

2011. Under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), 

only an objection to this final rule that 

was raised with reasonable specificity 

during the period for public comment 

can be raised during judicial review. 

CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) also provides 

a mechanism for EPA to convene a 

proceeding for reconsideration, ‘‘[i]f the 

person raising an objection can 

demonstrate to EPA that it was 

impracticable to raise such objection 

within [the period for public comment] 

or if the grounds for such objection 

arose after the period for public 

comment (but within the time specified 

for judicial review) and if such objection 

is of central relevance to the outcome of 

the rule.’’ Any person seeking to make 

such a demonstration to us should 

submit a Petition for Reconsideration to 

the Office of the Administrator, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460, with a copy to the person 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

GENERAL INFORMATION CONTACT section, 

and the Associate General Counsel for 

the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office 

of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20004. Note, under CAA section 

307(b)(2), the requirements established 

by this final rule may not be challenged 

separately in any civil or criminal 

proceedings brought by EPA to enforce 

these requirements. 

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

The following acronyms and 

abbreviations are used in this document. 

APA Administrative Procedure Act. 

BAMM best available monitoring methods. 

CAA Clean Air Act. 

CBI confidential business information. 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations. 

DRE Destruction or Removal Efficiency. 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

FR Federal Register. 

GHG greenhouse gas. 

ICR Information Collection Request. 

ISMI International Sematech Manufacturing 

Initiative. 

LCD Liquid Crystal Display. 

LED Light-emitting Diodes. 

m2 square meters. 

mm millimeter. 

MEMS Micro-electro-mechanical systems. 

NAICS North American Industrial 

Classification System. 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995. 

OMB Office of Management and Budget. 

QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control. 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis. 

SBA Small Business Administration. 

SIA Semiconductor Industry Association. 

SBREFA Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement and Fairness Act. 

U.S. United States. 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995. 

USC United States Code. 

WWW World Wide Web. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. Organization of This Preamble 

B. Background on This Action 

C. Legal Authority 

II. Final Changes to Subpart I of 40 CFR part 

98 and Responses to Public Comments 

A. Summary of Final Changes to Subpart 

I 

B. Summary of Comments and Responses 

1. Summary of Comments and Responses 

on Allowing the Largest Semiconductor 

Manufacturing Facilities To Use Default 

Emission Factors for the Plasma Etching 

Process Type 

2. Summary of Comments and Responses 

on Extending the Use of BAMM 

3. Summary of Comments and Responses 

on Apportioning Model Verification 

4. Summary of Comments and Responses 

on Abatement System Uptime 

III. 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 

K. Congressional Review Act 

I. Background 

A. Organization of This Preamble 

The first section of this preamble 

contains the basic background 

information about the origin of the 

amendments to the rule being made 

today. This section also discusses EPA’s 

use of our legal authority under the 

Clean Air Act to collect data under the 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program 

(also referred to as 40 CFR part 98 or 

Part 98). 

The second section of this preamble 

describes in detail the changes to 

subpart I that are being promulgated, 

and EPA’s rationale for those changes. 

This section also presents a summary of, 

and EPA’s responses to, the major 

public comments submitted on the 

proposed rule amendments, and 

significant changes, if any, made since 

proposal in response to those 

comments. 

Finally, the last (third) section of the 

preamble discusses the various statutory 

and executive order requirements 

applicable to this rulemaking. 

B. Background on This Action 

EPA finalized subpart I: Electronics 

Manufacturing of the Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Rule on December 1, 2010 (40 

CFR part 98, subpart I) (75 FR 74774) 

(subpart I). In that rule, among other 

provisions, EPA finalized two different 

methods for facilities that manufacture 

semiconductors wafers measuring 300 

mm or less in diameter to calculate and 

report their fluorinated GHG emissions, 

depending on the facility’s 

manufacturing capacity: (1) A method 

for those facilities that have an annual 

manufacturing capacity greater than 

10,500 m2 of substrate (hereinafter 

referred to as the ‘‘largest semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities’’), and (2) a 

method for facilities that have an annual 

manufacturing capacity that is less than 

or equal to 10,500 m2 of substrate 

(hereinafter referred to as ‘‘other 

semiconductor manufacturing 

facilities’’). Pursuant to 40 CFR 

98.93(a)(2)(ii), the largest semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities must calculate 

and report their emissions using a 

combination of default emission factors 

and directly measured recipe-specific 

emission factors. For the following four 

process types and sub-types, the largest 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities 

must calculate emissions using only the 

default emission factors: 

• Chamber cleaning process type 

which includes the following three 

process sub-types: 

—In-situ plasma chamber cleaning 

process sub-type. 

—Remote plasma chamber cleaning 

process sub-type. 

—In-situ thermal chamber cleaning 

process sub-type. 

• Wafer cleaning process type. 

For the plasma etching process type, 

the largest semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities are required to 

calculate emissions using only directly 

measured recipe-specific emission 

factors. This method is referred to as the 

Tier 2d method. 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
59544 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

1For more information, see SIA’s petition in the 

docket, EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0927. 

2Pursuant to subpart I, to be included in a set of 

similar recipes, a recipe must be similar to the 

recipe in the set for which recipe-specific 

utilization and by-product formation rates have 

been measured. 

3 74 FR 16448 (April 10, 2009) and 74 FR 56260 

(October 30, 2009). Response to Comments 

Documents can be found at http://www.epa.gov/

climatechange/emissions/responses.html. 

4 In the December 1, 2010 final rule (75 FR 

74774), EPA named the following method the ‘‘Tier 

2c Method’’—A method based on calculating and 

reporting fluorinated GHG emissions using default 

emission factors for the following five process types 

and sub-types: the plasma etching process type; the 

chamber cleaning process type, which includes the 

following three process sub-types: the in-situ 

plasma chamber cleaning process sub-type, the 

remote plasma chamber cleaning process sub-type, 

the in-situ thermal chamber cleaning process subtype; and the wafer cleaning process type. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 98.93(a)(2)(1), 

other semiconductor manufacturing 

facilities must calculate and report their 

fluorinated GHG emissions using 

default emission factors for the 

following five process types and subtypes: 

• Plasma etching process type. 

• Chamber cleaning process type, 

which includes the following three 

process sub-types: 

—In-situ plasma chamber cleaning 

process sub-type. 

—Remote plasma chamber cleaning 

process sub-type. 

—In-situ thermal chamber cleaning 

process sub-type. 

• Wafer cleaning process type. 

This method is referred to as the Tier 2c 

method. 

In the December 1, 2010 rule, EPA 

also included provisions in section 

98.94(a) for all electronics 

manufacturing facilities to use and/or 

request the use of best available 

monitoring methods (BAMM) for a 

specific period of time in lieu of 

following the monitoring and Quality 

Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) 

requirements of subpart I for certain 

parameters that cannot reasonably be 

measured. 

Following the publication of subpart 

I in the Federal Register, the 

Semiconductor Industry Association 

(SIA) sought reconsideration of several 

provisions in the final rule (See SIA 

petition available in Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0927). In 

particular, SIA raised concerns about 

the provisions related to the use of 

BAMM and also the individual recipe 

measurement approach, that is, the 

requirement that the largest facilities 

develop and use recipe-specific 

emission factors for etch processes.1

In response to SIA’s petition, EPA 

took two initial actions. First, on June 

22, 2011 EPA granted reconsideration 

with respect to the deadlines contained 

in the subpart I BAMM provisions and 

published a final rule that extended 

three of the subpart I BAMM deadlines, 

relating to when owners and operators 

may use or request to use BAMM, from 

June 30, 2011 to September 30, 2011 (76 

FR 36339). Second, also on June 22, 

2011, EPA published a proposed rule to 

allow the largest semiconductor 

manufacturers to use the default 

utilization and by-product formation 

rates (default emission factors) already 

contained within subpart I in Tables I– 

3 and I–4 to estimate fluorinated GHG 

emissions for the plasma etching 

process type through December 31, 

2012, instead of using directly measured 

recipe-specific emission factors for each 

individual recipe or set of similar 

recipes 2 (76 FR 36472). This proposed 

action also sought comment on whether 

certain BAMM deadlines should be 

extended, whether the largest 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities 

should be allowed to use default 

emission factors in lieu of recipespecific emission factors through 

December 31, 2013, and on the 

verification requirement for facility 

specific engineering models used to 

apportion gas consumption (40 CFR 

98.94(c)(2)). 

C. Legal Authority 

EPA is promulgating these rule 

amendments under its existing CAA 

authority, specifically authorities 

provided in CAA section 114. 

As stated in the preamble to the 2009 

final Part 98 (74 FR 56260, October 30, 

2009) and the Response to Comments on 

the Proposed Rule, Volume 9, Legal 

Issues, CAA section 114 provides EPA 

broad authority to require the 

information proposed to be gathered by 

this rule because such data would 

inform and are relevant to EPA’s 

carrying out a wide variety of CAA 

provisions. As discussed in the 

preamble to the initial proposed part 98 

(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. For further 

information about EPA’s legal authority, 

see the preambles to the 2009 proposed 

and final Part 98 rules and EPA’s 

Response to Comments, Volume 9.3

II. Final Changes to Subpart I of 40 CFR 

part 98 and Responses to Public 

Comments 

A. Summary of Final Changes to 

Subpart I 

In this action, EPA is finalizing 

provisions to allow the largest 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities 

the option to calculate emissions using 

default emission factors already 

contained within subpart I, instead of 

recipe-specific emission factors, for the 

plasma etching process type for 

reporting years 2011, 2012, and 2013. In 

other words, through December 31, 

2013, the largest semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities may use the 

Tier 2c 4 method to estimate fluorinated 

GHG emissions from etching and 

cleaning processes. This gives more 

time for EPA to work on various 

approaches SIA has proposed as 

alternatives to the recipe-specific 

approach. SIA is currently in the 

process of providing information to EPA 

for consideration and evaluation. 

As EPA explained in the preamble to 

the June 22, 2011 proposed rule, SIA 

has identified three alternative 

methodologies that they are proposing 

for the Agency’s consideration and for 

which they are currently collecting 

information to support their 

development: (1) Etch Process 

Subcategories and Default Emissions 

Factors; (2) Direct Estimation of 

Emissions Based on Use Allocation and 

Application of Abatement Unit 

Destruction and Efficiency (DRE); and 

(3) Stack Testing (75 FR 36472). For 

more information on the three options, 

please refer to SIA’s letter (available in 

docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0927). 

Since publication of the proposed 

rule, SIA has continued to pursue the 

three options and provide EPA with 

supporting technical information and/or 

future work plans. Given the technical 

complexity of the three alternatives and 

based on the current status of their 

development, EPA has determined that 

more time is needed for SIA to continue 

to work on the alternative options, for 

EPA to fully assess them, and for the 

Agency to undertake rulemaking to 

revise subpart I as appropriate. Over the 

next approximately two and a half 

years, EPA plans to comprehensively 

evaluate the technical information that 

SIA provides on the methodologies, 

determine whether one or more of them 

should be included in subpart I as 

alternatives to the recipe-specific 

measurement approach for the largest 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities, 

and revise subpart I as appropriate, 

through a notice and comment 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 59545 

5See footnote 4. 

6See footnote 4. 

7 In the December 1, 2010 final rule (75 FR 

74774), EPA named the following method the ‘‘Tier 

2d Method’’—A method based on calculating and 

reporting fluorinated GHG emissions using default 

emission factors for the three chamber cleaning 

process sub-types (defined in footnote 4) and the 

wafer cleaning process type, and recipe-specific 

emission factors for the plasma etching process 

type. 

8See footnote 4. 

rulemaking. It is EPA’s intention to 

finalize a revision to subpart I that can 

be implemented by the largest 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities 

by January 1, 2014. 

This action also extends two 

deadlines in the subpart I provisions 

related to the use of BAMM. First, EPA 

is extending the date by which an owner 

or operator subject to subpart I may, 

without submitting a request, use 

BAMM to estimate 2011 emissions from 

September 30, 2011 to December 31, 

2011. EPA is extending the deadline to 

provide additional flexibility for any 

owner or operator that was unable to 

meet the February 28, 2011 deadline for 

submitting a request for the use of 

BAMM in 2011 for parameters other 

than recipe-specific emission factors. 

Second, EPA is extending the date by 

which an owner or operator may submit 

a request to extend the use of BAMM 

beyond December 31, 2011 from 

September 30, 2011 to October 17, 2011. 

EPA is extending the deadline to 

provide owners and operators 

additional time to prepare and submit 

the request. EPA has concluded that this 

flexibility is appropriate given that the 

effective date of this final rule, 

September 30, 2011, is the same as the 

date by which extension requests are 

required to be submitted to the 

Administrator. See Section II.B.2 below 

of this preamble for additional 

discussion on both of these topics. 

Lastly, in this action, EPA is clarifying 

several aspects of the subpart I BAMM 

provisions. More specifically, EPA is 

clarifying that the subpart I BAMM 

provisions for estimating emissions 

beyond December 31, 2011 do not 

specify an end date to the period for 

which EPA may approve the use of 

BAMM. In addition, EPA is clarifying 

the distinction between the elements of 

the BAMM application and the approval 

criteria by which EPA will determine if 

a facility is approved to use BAMM to 

estimate emissions beyond December 

31, 2011. 

Under today’s final rule, owners and 

operators applying to extend the use of 

BAMM beyond December 31, 2011 must 

submit a request to EPA no later than 

October 17, 2011. The BAMM extension 

provisions do not impose an end date: 

for example, they do not say that 

extensions are limited to 2012. EPA 

does not intend to approve the 

indefinite use of BAMM; all BAMM 

applications should specify the date on 

which the facility plans to cease the use 

of BAMM. However, EPA does 

understand that there are specific 

aspects of the final subpart I provisions 

for which compliance may not be 

reasonably feasible for certain facilities 

during the interim period addressed in 

this rulemaking and for which, in some 

cases, EPA is evaluating and 

considering other approaches. In 

particular, the establishment of an 

interim period through 2013 during 

which the largest facilities have the 

option of using the Tier 2c method 5

while the Agency considers longer-term 

alternatives may affect facilities’ 

planning for compliance with other 

aspects of subpart I. In part, this is 

because the potential incorporation of 

alternative methods into subpart I could 

render certain aspects of the rule moot 

for some facilities, depending on the 

alternative adopted. For example, if EPA 

were to propose to revise subpart I to 

include a stack testing method, the 

Agency would also consider whether 

certain aspects of subpart I as currently 

written would be unnecessary to 

determine the emissions of facilities 

using that method. In addition, any 

revisions to subpart I to incorporate 

alternative methods likely would not be 

effective until 2014, meaning that 

facilities that are interested in moving 

toward alternatives and that are 

requesting BAMM for 2012 may need to 

consider whether their applications 

should include 2013 as well. 

EPA has concluded that the existing 

subpart I BAMM provisions provide 

flexibility to address facilities’ needs 

during this interim period as the Agency 

continues to consider longer-term 

alternatives. See Section II.A.2 and 

II.A.3 for additional discussion on this 

topic. 

EPA is also clarifying the difference 

between the application requirements 

and the approval criteria for BAMM 

extensions in subpart I. The application 

requirements are contained in 40 CFR 

98.94(a)(4)(ii), and the approval criteria 

appear in 40 CFR 98.94(a)(4)(iii). With 

regard to approval, the rule states, ‘‘To 

obtain approval, the owner or operator 

must demonstrate that by December 31, 

2011 (or in the case of facilities that are 

required to calculate and report 

emissions in accordance with 

§ 98.93(a)(2)(ii)(A), December 31, 2012), 

it is not reasonably feasible to acquire, 

install, or operate the required piece of 

monitoring equipment according to the 

requirements of this subpart.’’ Given 

today’s final rule to allow the largest 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities 

to use default emission factors to 

estimate emissions for the plasma 

etching process type during an interim 

period, EPA doesn’t anticipate receiving 

any requests for the use of BAMM for 

recipe-specific emission factors. If there 

are facilities that are unable to meet the 

requirements for other monitoring or 

QA/QC aspects of subpart I in 2012 or 

beyond, then they should apply for 

BAMM for the period they believe to be 

necessary and EPA will evaluate 

whether to allow the use of BAMM and 

for how long. In some instances, EPA 

anticipates that facilities will come into 

compliance with the requirements 

quickly; for others, EPA understands 

that facilities may wish to use BAMM 

while EPA considers alternatives. It is 

important to note that EPA does not 

anticipate approving the use of BAMM 

for current subpart I provisions beyond 

the time that EPA promulgates a final 

rule with alternative methodologies. As 

stated in previous paragraphs of this 

section, we anticipate issuing a revised 

rule by January 1, 2014. 

B. Summary of Comments and 

Responses 

EPA received comments from five 

entities. In general, all commenters 

supported EPA’s proposal to allow the 

largest semiconductor manufacturing 

facilities to use default emission factors 

to estimate fluorinated GHG emissions 

for the plasma etching process type for 

2011 and 2012, and requested that EPA 

extend the use of defaults through 

December 31, 2013. The comments are 

addressed in more detail below. 

1. Summary of Comments and 

Responses on Allowing the Largest 

Semiconductor Manufacturing Facilities 

To Use Default Emission Factors for the 

Plasma Etching Process Type 

All five commenters strongly 

supported EPA’s proposal to allow the 

largest semiconductor manufacturing 

facilities to use the Tier 2c Method 6 to 

calculate emissions for the years 2011 

and 2012 in lieu of using the Tier 2d 

Method.7 These commenters viewed the 

finalization of this flexibility provision 

as an important first step in addressing 

their technical feasibility, compliance 

cost, and data confidentiality concerns 

about subpart I. (One commenter 

provided accompanying detailed 

documentation to support each of the 

aforementioned concerns.) These same 

commenters also noted that allowing the 

use of the Tier 2c Method 8 in 2011 and 

2012 provides more time for members of 

the industry to conduct ongoing work in 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
59546 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

9See footnote 4. 

10See footnote 7. 

11See footnote 4. 

12See footnote 4. 

support of various alternative 

approaches to estimating and reporting 

fluorinated GHG emissions for EPA to 

evaluate and consider. Some 

commenters referenced the three 

alternatives proposed by SIA as 

discussed in a letter dated May 26, 2011 

(available in docket EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0927). One commenter stated, 

‘‘These alternatives [the SIA proposed 

alternatives], if adopted by EPA, will 

provide the largest semiconductor 

facilities a menu of GHG reporting 

options that will avoid the serious 

issues raised by the current subpart I, 

while providing comparable or better 

accuracy than the current rule.’’ 

Another commenter opined that the 

ongoing alternatives work could be done 

while still allowing facilities to report 

fluorinated GHG emissions in a manner 

that avoids feasibility and cost issues 

that the commenter believed were 

inherent to subpart I. 

A few commenters asserted that 

because of feasibility, cost, and 

confidentiality issues, many facilities 

would need to file BAMM requests for 

developing or obtaining recipe-specific 

emission factors for the plasma etching 

process type. Several commenters 

supported the flexibility provisions 

because they provide uniform relief 

from BAMM petition requests, avoiding 

spending both facility and EPA 

resources to prepare and review BAMM 

requests on an individualized case 

basis. 

Similarly, all commenters strongly 

supported extending the use of the Tier 

2c Method 9 beyond December 31, 2012 

through 2013. One commenter stated 

that it shared EPA’s goal of finalizing 

any alternative approaches for 

estimating and reporting fluorinated 

GHG emissions for the 2013 reporting 

year. However, commenters argued that, 

given the technical complexities 

associated with development of 

alternatives to the Tier 2d Method,10

additional time will be necessary for 

industry to test and collect data about 

the alternatives and for EPA to evaluate 

those alternatives. One commenter 

asserted that this extension would allow 

the facility to focus its resources on 

developing alternative emission 

estimation and reporting methods as 

opposed to diverting resources to an 

approach that it does not believe is 

workable. 

Another commenter stated that it was 

critical to extend the time period in 

which default emission factors could be 

used to estimate emissions from all 

process types/sub-types. The 

commenter further stated that the 

current schedule to finalize a revised 

subpart I by the end of 2012 is 

aggressive and accelerated, and may 

result in a repeat of the shortcomings 

that led to the final subpart I published 

in December 2010 (75 FR 74774). The 

same commenter also expressed the 

opinion that it is important that the 

process of revising subpart I does not 

drag on interminably, but it is equally 

important that EPA has sufficient 

information to balance requirements, 

accuracy and precision of emission 

estimates, and costs. The commenter 

argued that allowing the use of the Tier 

2c Method 11 through 2013 will allow 

EPA to find that balance. 

In response to these comments 

received, EPA is finalizing a provision 

to allow the largest semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities the option to 

use, for an interim period, the default 

utilization and by-product formation 

rates already contained within subpart I, 

in Tables I–3 and I–4, to estimate 

fluorinated GHG emissions for the 

plasma etching process type instead of 

using directly measured recipe-specific 

emission factors. In addition, EPA 

agrees with commenters that the largest 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities 

should be allowed to use the default 

emission factors to estimate emissions 

from etch processes through December 

31, 2013 (i.e., use the Tier 2c Method 12

through 2013), and in this final rule is 

allowing the largest semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities to use default 

emission factors for reporting years 

2011, 2012, and 2013. EPA has 

concluded that the additional year will 

provide more time for industry to 

continue to collect and analyze 

information for the development of 

SIA’s three proposed alternatives, for 

EPA to evaluate and determine which 

alternatives may be included in a 

subsequent action, and for EPA to 

undertake a rulemaking, as appropriate. 

As EPA stated above, over the next 

approximately two and a half years, 

EPA plans to comprehensively evaluate 

the technical information that SIA 

provides on the methodologies, 

determine whether one or more of them 

should be included in subpart I as 

alternatives to the recipe-specific 

measurement approach for the largest 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities, 

and revise subpart I as appropriate. 

During the time in which this flexibility 

is being provided to industry, EPA 

expects SIA to continue to collect 

detailed information on the alternative 

methodologies that EPA plans to use to 

support its evaluation. 

EPA believes this approach effectively 

balances the industry’s request for 

flexibility with sufficient time for EPA 

to fully evaluate the information that 

SIA provides on the alternative 

methodologies to analyze the accuracy 

and precision of emission estimates, as 

well as burden. EPA believes that the 

time now allotted to working on the 

alternative options for estimating and 

reporting fluorinated GHG process 

emissions from semiconductor 

manufacturing is appropriate, and 

intends to finalize a revision to subpart 

I that can be implemented by the largest 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities 

by January 1, 2014. 

2. Summary of Comments and 

Responses on Extending the Use of 

BAMM 

EPA requested comment on whether 

to extend, until December 31, 2011, the 

period during which an owner or 

operator subject to subpart I may use 

BAMM to estimate 2011 emissions 

without submitting a request. Under the 

existing subpart I provisions, finalized 

on June 22, 2011 (76 FR 36339), to 

estimate emissions that occur from 

January 1, 2011 to September 30, 2011, 

owners and operators may use BAMM 

without submitting a request for 

approval to the EPA Administrator (40 

CFR 98.94(a)(1)). EPA requested 

comment on whether to extend the date 

by which owners and operators may use 

BAMM without submitting a request for 

approval by the Administrator to 

December 31, 2011. 

In addition, EPA also requested 

comment on whether to extend two 

other BAMM deadlines: the deadline by 

which an owner or operator may request 

the use of BAMM for recipe-specific 

emission factors in 2011 and the 

deadline for requesting use of BAMM 

for estimating emissions beyond 

December 31, 2011. Under the subpart 

I provisions finalized on June 22, 2011 

(76 FR 36339), both deadlines are 

September 30, 2011 (40 CFR 

98.94(a)(3)(i) and 40 CFR(a)(4)(i)). 

EPA did not receive any comments in 

response to its requests. However, after 

evaluating comments received and 

further consideration of the time period 

between the effective date of this final 

rule and the date by which requests to 

extend the use of BAMM beyond 

December 31, 2011 must be submitted, 

EPA is extending two of the subpart I 

BAMM deadlines. First, EPA is 

extending until December 31, 2011 the 

time period during which an owner or 

operator may, without submitting a 

request, use BAMM to estimate 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 59547 

13See footnote 4. 

14See footnote 7. 

15See footnote 4. 

emissions in 2011. EPA is extending the 

deadline to provide flexibility for any 

owner or operator that was unable to 

meet the February 28, 2011 deadline for 

submitting a request to use BAMM in 

2011 for parameters other than recipespecific emission factors. Given the 

short time between the publication of 

the final subpart I in December 2010 

and February 28, 2011, there may have 

been some owners or operators that 

were unable to submit a request by the 

deadline. Second, EPA is extending the 

deadline by which an owner or operator 

may submit a request to use BAMM to 

estimate emissions beyond December 

31, 2011 from September 30, 2011 to 

October 17, 2011. EPA has concluded 

that this flexibility of approximately two 

weeks is appropriate given that the 

effective date of this final rule, 

September 30, 2011, is the same date as 

the deadline for submitting a request to 

the Administrator to extend the use of 

BAMM beyond December 31, 2011. EPA 

anticipates that some owners and 

operators will submit requests for the 

use of BAMM beyond December 31, 

2011, and that they may need additional 

time to prepare and submit the request, 

particularly in light of the clarifications 

that EPA provided in this notice about 

the subpart I BAMM provisions. EPA is 

not extending the deadline further than 

October 17, 2011 because sufficient time 

is needed for EPA to review and 

respond to the owner or operator before 

the beginning of the next reporting 

period on January 1, 2012. 

EPA is not making any changes to the 

deadline for submitting a request to use 

BAMM for recipe-specific emission 

factors in 2011. Given today’s final rule 

that allows the largest semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities to use the Tier 

2c method 13 for three years, EPA does 

not anticipate receiving any requests for 

the use of BAMM for recipe-specific 

emission factors in 2011. If an owner or 

operator is unable to comply with the 

Tier 2d method,14 then EPA anticipates 

that they will opt to use the Tier 2c 

method 15 as allowed by this final rule. 

Further, because EPA is also finalizing 

provisions today that allow the use of 

BAMM in 2011, without submitting a 

request, there should be no reason for an 

owner or operator to submit a BAMM 

request for recipe-specific factors in 

2011. 

This paragraph summarizes the final 

subpart I BAMM provisions. From 

January 1, 2011 through December 31, 

2011, owners or operators subject to 

subpart I may use BAMM for any 

parameter that cannot reasonably be 

measured according to the monitoring 

and QA/QC requirements of subpart I 

without submitting, and obtaining 

approval from, the Administrator. 

Starting January 1, 2012, owners and 

operators must discontinue the use of 

BAMM and begin following all 

applicable monitoring and QA/QC 

requirements of subpart I unless they 

have submitted a request to extend the 

use of BAMM and EPA has approved 

that request. Owners and operators 

wishing to extend the use of BAMM to 

estimate emissions beyond December 

31, 2011, must submit a request to the 

Administrator no later than October 17, 

2011. 

3. Summary of Comments and 

Responses on Apportioning Model 

Verification 

In the proposed rule, EPA included a 

request for comment on the verification 

requirement for facility-specific 

engineering models (§ 98.94(c)(2)). In 

particular, EPA requested specific 

information about whether the final rule 

requirement to meet the five percent 

verification was overly burdensome and 

if so, facility-specific examples to 

illustrate why. EPA also requested 

comment on whether existing 

equipment or instrumentation can be 

used to measure actual gas 

consumption, and the costs of using that 

equipment or instrumentation. In 

addition, we requested comment on the 

specific actions a facility would have to 

take to comply with the requirement, 

and the costs associated with those 

actions. Finally, we requested comment 

on other approaches that could be used 

to verify modeled gas consumption to a 

similar level of accuracy. 

In response to these requests, EPA 

received many comments that the 

apportioning model verification 

requirement raises feasibility and cost 

issues for facilities. One commenter 

noted that they had previously raised 

feasibility and cost issues with 

continuous gas flow measurement, 

which is believed to be required for the 

verification requirement, when subpart I 

was initially proposed in April of 2009. 

While the commenter recognized that 

the April 2009 gas measurement 

requirements (74 FR 16448) differ from 

those for the apportioning model 

verification, it asserted that many of the 

same feasibility and cost issues apply. 

In addition, the commenter referred to 

the concern it expressed with the 

difficulty in apportioning gas usage in 

comments on the April 2010 proposed 

in subpart I (75 FR 74774). 

Several commenters stated that 

facilities will need to install hardware 

and software to meet the verification 

requirements, and even with upgrades, 

it still may not be feasible to meet the 

verification requirement of less than 5 

percent difference between the actual 

and modeled gas consumption. Another 

commenter elaborated further and stated 

that there are limitations in using an 

apportioning model that is based on 

nominal recipes because automated 

process controls used for many newer 

tools depend on potentially varying 

operating process parameters, and can 

result in differences between actual gas 

flow and nominal gas flow. Another 

commenter stated that gases have 

centralized distribution systems that 

supply multiple tools, and the systems 

do not typically have the ability to 

measure the amount of gas supplied to 

each individual tool. This commenter 

also asserted that while mass flow 

controllers (MFCs) are designed to 

control gas flow rate at precise levels, 

the MFCs do not log and integrate flow 

data over time to calculate 

consumption. Another commenter 

stated that of its 212 fluorinated GHGusing tool sets, 71 do not have adequate 

register space to collect the data 

required for gas allocation, and 15 do 

not have the ability to communicate 

with data collection systems. One 

commenter also stressed that collecting 

apportioning data for model verification 

would be technically infeasible for older 

tool sets. 

One commenter expressed the 

opinion that the verification 

requirement was overly burdensome. 

Another commenter asserted that EPA 

incorrectly assumed in its Economic 

Impact Assessment that facilities 

already had the necessary hardware and 

infrastructure in place for model 

verification. The commenter stated that 

the capability is not currently in place 

and that based on an industry survey, 

industry will face costs of 

approximately $9 million in the first 

year and $29 million in all subsequent 

years to comply with the apportioning 

model verification requirement. The 

commenter stated that this is much 

higher than EPA’s estimated total 

compliance costs of $2.9 million for the 

first year and $5.4 million for each 

subsequent year. One commenter 

estimated that the costs for one of its 

facilities to upgrade to meet the 

apportioning requirement, including the 

verification piece, would be $0.6 

million, and $3.5 million in total 

company costs (not including software 

development and data collection and 

quantification labor costs). Another 

commenter stated that retrofitting a 

facility to meet apportioning 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
59548 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

16See footnote 4. 

17See footnote 4. 

requirements, in addition to the 

verification piece, is estimated to cost 

over $4 million. 

For the above stated technical 

feasibility and cost reasons, and because 

gas apportionment as required in the 

current subpart I (i.e., apportioning to 

defined process types/sub-types and 

recipes), may not be required if 

alternative emission calculation 

estimation methods (e.g., stack testing) 

are adopted in a future version of 

subpart I, several commenters requested 

that EPA provide temporary relief from 

the apportioning model verification 

requirement. (Several commenters also 

referenced supporting technical 

information and their BAMM petitions 

as evidence to support their claims 

against the apportioning model 

verification requirements. Two 

commenters provided excerpts of 

BAMM requests as part of their 

comments.) More specifically, these 

commenters proposed that EPA modify 

subpart I so as to not require facilities 

to meet the verification requirement in 

§ 98.94(c)(2) for the time period during 

which the largest semiconductor 

facilities are allowed to use the Tier 2c 

method.16 (Two commenters expressed 

the opinion that they should still be 

required to meet the repeatability 

requirements in § 98.94(c)(1) for 

apportioning models; another 

commenter stated that the verification 

should be delayed until further study 

can establish a more realistic target.) 

During this time, commenters noted 

alternative methods for verifying gas 

apportioning models will also be 

developed. Two commenters stated that 

if the relief for the apportioning model 

verification requirement was not 

granted, but the extension for using the 

Tier 2c Method 17 through 2013 was 

finalized, there would not be any 

mechanism to defer compliance with 

the apportioning model verification 

requirement while alternative emission 

estimation and reporting methods and 

apportioning methods are being worked 

through. These commenters stated their 

belief that BAMM would not be 

available for 2013. 

One commenter described an 

alternative method to accomplish 

verification for apportioning gas 

consumption. The commenter explained 

that an allocation process to determine 

the percent of each gas type used in 

each process type/sub-type may be 

used. This percentage would then be 

applied to the total amount of each gas 

consumed to determine the amount of 

gas consumed for each process type/ 

sub-type. The allocation process would 

be detailed in a facility site GHG 

monitoring plan and would be available 

for EPA review and inspection. The 

commenter further asserted that this 

process will be most relevant to etch 

process sub-types (which represent 15 

percent to 35 percent of gas 

consumption at a facility). The 

commenter expressed the opinion that 

the allocation process provides adequate 

support for validating the gas allocation 

methodology. The commenter stated 

that they are working with other 

members of industry to develop 

alternatives to the apportioning model 

verification requirement, such as raising 

the current 5 percent verification level 

or specifying facility specific metrics on 

which an apportioning model must be 

based in a final regulation. 

EPA appreciates the information 

provided by commenters on technical 

and cost issues associated with the 

apportioning model verification 

requirement. EPA also recognizes that if 

the Agency were to revise subpart I to 

include stack testing as an option for the 

largest semiconductor manufacturing 

facilities to estimate their fluorinated 

GHG emissions, an apportioning model 

as currently required in subpart I to 

apportion gas to different process types/ 

sub-types and recipes, may not be 

required to estimate and report GHG 

emissions for facilities choosing the 

stack testing option. However, EPA did 

not propose to add any new methods to 

subpart I as part of the current 

rulemaking, and thus there was no need 

for the Agency to consider how such 

new methods might affect other aspects 

of the rule. Further, the Agency did not 

propose alternative methods for 

apportioning model verification, as it 

had not had an opportunity to evaluate 

alternatives. However, the BAMM 

process should be adequate for resolving 

facility’s concerns about compliance 

with the apportioning model 

verification requirement during the 

interim period addressed by this rule. 

Therefore, EPA is not taking action 

today to amend the apportioning model 

verification requirement; however, EPA 

may consider doing so in future. 

EPA believes that apportioning is a 

particularly important component in 

estimating emissions of fluorinated 

GHGs from electronics manufacturing. 

Emission estimates, as required to be 

calculated in subpart I, are based on 

consumption of fluorinated GHGs for 

specific process types/sub-types or 

recipes and assigned emission factors to 

each process type/sub-type or recipe. 

Hence, there are two main sources of 

error in emissions estimates: (1) Errors 

associated with emission factors, and (2) 

errors associated with the consumption 

of gas by process type/sub-type or 

recipe. An accurate and precise estimate 

of emissions does not only rely on using 

robust emission factors but also on 

accurate estimates of gas consumption. 

EPA understands that there are 

multiple ways to monitor and model gas 

consumption. For this reason, in 

finalizing subpart I in December 2010, 

EPA provided flexibility for facilities to 

use different metrics for the engineering 

model to develop apportioning factors, 

and only required that the model be 

based on a quantifiable metric. Because 

of this flexibility, and to ensure 

consistency between reporting facilities, 

EPA required apportioning model 

verification. Nevertheless, EPA is 

sensitive to the issues raised by 

commenters about apportioning model 

verification and understands these 

issues may impact a facility’s ability to 

comply. Therefore, if a facility is unable 

to meet the existing apportioning 

verification requirements in 40 CFR 

98.94(c)(2), the owner or operator may 

use and/or apply for BAMM as 

discussed in the following paragraphs. 

Under the existing subpart I BAMM 

provisions, a facility may use and/or 

apply to use BAMM to verify facilityspecific engineering models as required 

under 40 CFR 98.94(c)(2). As finalized 

in today’s rule, an owner or operatory 

may, without submitting and receiving 

approval from the Administrator , use 

BAMM in 2011 for verifying facilityspecific engineering models. Owners 

and operators wishing to extend the use 

of BAMM beyond December 31, 2011 

for apportioning model verification 

must submit a request for approval to 

the Administrator by October 17, 2011. 

As explained in Section II.A of this 

preamble, the BAMM extension 

provisions do not impose an end date: 

for example, they do not state that 

extensions are limited to 2012. A facility 

wishing to apply for BAMM for both 

2012 and 2013 should include both 

years in its request. EPA does not 

anticipate approving the use of BAMM 

beyond the time that EPA promulgates 

a final rule with alternative 

methodologies (i.e., January 1, 2014). 

EPA only received a small number of 

requests, as compared the number of 

facilities expected to report under 

subpart I, to use BAMM to comply with 

the apportioning model verification 

requirements in 40 CFR 98.94(c)(2) 

during 2011. For this reason EPA has 

concluded that while some facilities are 

unable to meet the requirements for 

apportioning model verification, the 

problem is limited. Therefore, EPA 

believes that the BAMM process, which 

considers individual facilities’ 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 59549 

circumstances, is an appropriate 

mechanism for addressing concerns 

with this aspect of the rule through 

2013. 

EPA appreciates the alternative 

apportioning method to accomplish 

verification provided by one 

commenter. The Agency would like to 

work with the commenter to better 

understand the details of the method. In 

addition, EPA also understands that the 

industry will be working to develop 

alternative apportioning approaches as 

part of the development of alternatives 

to the recipe-specific factor method. 

EPA plans to undertake a 

comprehensive evaluation of those 

alternatives. The Agency may consider 

whether to propose an alternative 

approach for apportioning model 

verification in the future. 

4. Summary of Comments and 

Responses on Abatement System 

Uptime 

Although EPA’s proposal did not 

include either a request for comment on 

the final subpart I provisions for 

monitoring abatement system uptime or 

a proposal for alternative 

methodologies, EPA received comments 

from four entities on the abatement 

system uptime provisions. In general, 

commenters asserted that facilities do 

not currently track uptime as required 

by the rule. These commenters proposed 

an alternative methodology for 

monitoring and calculating uptime 

based on the fraction of the time the 

abatement system is operating during 

the reporting year, as opposed to based 

on tracking time in which gas is flowing 

per the final subpart I requirements. 

The comments that EPA received on 

abatement system uptime are outside 

the scope of the rule. Because EPA did 

not propose an alternative methodology 

for monitoring abatement system 

uptime, EPA is not taking action at this 

time to amend the requirements in the 

final subpart I provisions. However, the 

Agency intends to review concerns 

about the existing requirements for 

monitoring abatement system uptime 

and evaluate the alternative 

methodologies suggested by 

commenters. EPA may consider whether 

to propose an alternative approach to 

monitoring and estimating uptime for 

abatement systems in the future. 

If a facility wishes to calculate and 

report controlled fluorinated GHG and 

N2O emissions from the use of 

abatement systems, and they are unable 

to meet the subpart I requirements for 

monitoring abatement system uptime, 

then they can use and/or apply for the 

use of BAMM. As finalized in today’s 

rule, owners or operators may use 

BAMM for any parameter that cannot 

reasonably be measured according to the 

monitoring and QA/QC requirements of 

subpart I without submitting a request 

to and receiving approval from the 

Administrator through December 31, 

2011. Owners and operators wishing to 

extend the use of BAMM to estimate 

emissions that occur beyond December 

31, 2011 must submit a request to the 

Administrator no later than October 17, 

2011 and receive approval from the 

Administrator. It is important to note 

that if a facility uses BAMM to comply 

with the requirements to monitor 

uptime, then the facility must estimate 

its emissions using the abatement 

system uptime calculation 

methodologies and equations in subpart 

I (e.g., Equation I–15 of subpart I), but 

may use alternative means of estimating 

the inputs to those equations. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and is therefore not 

subject to review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden. These 

amendments do not make any 

substantive changes to the reporting 

requirements in the subpart for which 

amendments are being proposed. The 

amendments to the reporting 

requirements reduce the reporting 

burden by allowing reporters to use 

default values instead of recipe-specific 

values for the three reporting years 

(2011, 2012, and 2013). In addition, this 

final rule extends two of the deadlines 

in the subpart I provisions related to 

best available monitoring methods. The 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has previously approved the 

information collection requirements 

contained in the existing regulations, 40 

CFR part 98, subpart I (75 FR 74774, 

December 1, 2010), under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned 

OMB control number 2060–0650. The 

OMB control numbers for EPA’s 

regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 

CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

The RFA generally requires an agency 

to prepare a regulatory flexibility 

analysis of any rule subject to notice 

and comment rulemaking requirements 

under the Administrative Procedure Act 

or any other statute unless the agency 

certifies that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of these amendments 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; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of these rule amendments on 

small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. In determining whether a rule 

has a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

impact of concern is any significant 

adverse economic impact on small 

entities, since the primary purpose of 

the regulatory flexibility analyses is to 

identify and address regulatory 

alternatives ‘‘which minimize any 

significant economic impact of the rule 

on small entities.’’ 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 

Thus, an agency may certify that a rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities if the rule relieves regulatory 

burden, or otherwise has a positive 

economic effect on all of the small 

entities subject to the rule. 

As part of the process for finalization 

of the subpart I rule (75 FR 74774, 

December 1, 2010), EPA undertook 

specific steps to evaluate the effect of 

that final rule on small entities. Under 

that final rule for subpart I, EPA 

assessed the potential impacts of the 

final requirements on small entities 

using a sales test, defined as a ratio of 

total annualized compliance costs to 

firm sales. The results of that screening 

analysis, as detailed in the preamble to 

the final rule for subpart I, demonstrated 

that there are no significant impacts to 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The results of that analysis can be found 

in the preamble to the final rule (75 FR 

74774). 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
59550 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

The rule amendments will reduce the 

burden for the largest semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities by providing 

flexibility during the first three years of 

compliance. In addition, the rule 

provides additional flexibility to those 

facilities that are using and/or applying 

for the use of best available monitoring 

methods by extending two deadlines. 

The action does not impose any new 

requirements on regulated entities. 

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 EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates and must 

inform, educate, and advise small 

governments on compliance with the 

regulatory requirements. 

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. 

Thus, the rule amendments are not 

subject to the requirements of section 

202 and 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. 

Facilities subject to the rule include 

only manufacturers of microcomputers, 

semiconductors, photovoltaic devices, 

liquid crystal display units, and microelectro-mechanical systems. None of the 

facilities known to undertake these 

activities is owned by a small 

government. Therefore, this action is not 

subject to the requirements of section 

203 of the UMRA. 

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. 

These amendments apply directly to 

facilities that use and emit fluorinated 

GHGs in the manufacture of certain 

electronic devices. They do not apply to 

governmental entities because no 

government facilities undertake these 

activities. This regulation also does not 

limit the power of States or localities to 

collect GHG data and/or regulate GHG 

emissions. Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this action. 

Although section 6 of Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this action, EPA 

did consult with State and local officials 

or representatives of State and local 

governments in developing subpart I 

promulgated on December 1, 2010. A 

summary of EPA’s consultations with 

State and local governments is provided 

in Section VIII.E of the preamble to the 

2009 final Part 98 (74 FR 56371). 

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). The rule amendments would not 

result in any additional requirements 

beyond what is currently required in 40 

CFR part 98 subpart I. Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this 

action. 

Although Executive Order 13175 does 

not apply to this action, EPA sought 

opportunities to provide information to 

tribal governments and representatives 

during the development of subpart I 

promulgated on December 1, 2010. A 

summary of EPA’s consultations with 

tribal officials is provided in Sections 

VIII.E and VIII.F of the preamble to the 

2009 final Part 98 (74 FR 56260) and 

Section IV.F of the preamble to the 2010 

final rule notice for subpart I (75 FR 

74814). 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

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 is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because it does 

not establish an environmental standard 

intended to mitigate health or safety 

risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 

2001), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 

104–113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. Any technical 

standards that are required under 

subpart I were already included in 

promulgation of the final subpart I 

provisions on December 1, 2011 (75 FR 

74774). Therefore, EPA is not 

considering the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards in this action. 

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. 

EPA has determined that this rule will 

not have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority or low-income 

populations because it does not affect 

the level of protection provided to 

human health or the environment 

because it is a rule addressing 

information collection and reporting 

procedures. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 59551 

generally provides that before a rule 

may take effect, the agency 

promulgating the rule must submit a 

rule report, which includes a copy of 

the rule, to each House of the Congress 

and to the Comptroller General of the 

United States. EPA will submit a report 

containing this rule and other required 

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 

House of Representatives, and the 

Comptroller General of the U.S. prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). This rule will be effective on 

September 30, 2011. 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse 

Gases: Changes to Provisions for 

Electronics Manufacturing (Subpart I) to 

Provide Flexibililty 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 98 

Environmental Protection, 

Administrative practice and procedures, 

Air pollution control, Monitoring, 

Reporting and recordkeeping. 

Dated: September 16, 2011. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is 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 I—[Amended] 

■ 2. Section 98.93 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii) introductory 

text to read as follows: 

§ 98.93 Calculating GHG emissions. 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) If your facility has an annual 

manufacturing capacity of greater than 

10,500 m2 of substrate, as calculated 

using Equation I–5 of this subpart, you 

must adhere to the procedures in 

paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(A) through 

(a)(2)(ii)(C) of this section, except that 

you may use the procedures specified in 

paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section for the 

2011, 2012, and 2013 reporting years. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 98.94 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(1) introductory 

text and paragraph (a)(4)(i) to read as 

follows: 

§ 98.94 Monitoring and QA/QC 

requirements. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Best available monitoring 

methods. From January 1, 2011 through 

December 31, 2011, owners or operators 

may use best available monitoring 

methods for any parameter that cannot 

reasonably be measured according to the 

monitoring and QA/QC requirements of 

this subpart. The owner or operator 

must use the calculation methodologies 

and equations in § 98.93, but may use 

the best available monitoring method for 

any parameter for which it is not 

reasonably feasible to acquire, install, or 

operate a required piece of monitoring 

equipment in a facility, or to procure 

necessary measurement services by 

January 1, 2011. Starting no later than 

January 1, 2012, the owner or operator 

must discontinue using best available 

monitoring methods and begin 

following all applicable monitoring and 

QA/QC requirements of this part, except 

as provided in paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3), 

or (a)(4) of this section. Best available 

monitoring methods means any of the 

following methods specified in this 

paragraph: 

* * * * * 

(4) * * * 

(i) Timing of request. The extension 

request must be submitted to EPA no 

later than October 17, 2011. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–24364 Filed 9–26–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64 

[CG Docket No. 03–123; WC Docket No. 

05–196; WC Docket No. 10–191; FCC 11– 

123] 

Internet-Based Telecommunications 

Relay Service Numbering 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) adopts rules to improve 

assignment of telephone numbers 

associated with Internet-based 

Telecommunications Relay Service 

(iTRS). These rules specifically address 

Video Relay Service (VRS), which 

allows individuals with hearing and 

speech disabilities to communicate 

using sign language through video 

equipment, and IP Relay, which allows 

these individuals to communicate in 

text using a computer. The final rules 

set forth in this Order reflect the 

objectives laid out in the iTRS Toll Free 

Notice to promote the use of 

geographically appropriate local 

numbers, while ensuring that the deaf 

and hard-of-hearing community has 

access to toll free telephone numbers 

that is equivalent to access enjoyed by 

the hearing community. 

DATES: Effective October 27, 2011 except 

for §§ 64.611(e)(2), 64.611(e)(3), 

64.611(g)(1)(v), 64.611 (g)(1)(vi), and 

64.613(a)(3), which contain information 

collection requirements that have not 

been approved by OMB. The Federal 

Communications Commission will 

publish a document in the Federal 

Register announcing the effective date 

of the rules that require OMB approval. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may 

submit PRA comments identified by 

OMB Control Number 3060–1089 by 

any of the following methods: Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web Site: http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: Parties who choose to file 

by e-mail should submit their comments 

to PRA@fcc.gov. Please include CG 

Docket No. 03–123; WC Docket No. 05– 

196; WC Docket No. 10–191 and OMB 

Control Number 3060–1089 in the 

subject line of the message. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202– 

418–0432. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Heather Hendrickson at (202) 418–7295, 

Wireline Competition Bureau, 

Competition Policy Division. For 

additional information concerning the 

Paperwork Reduction Act information 

collection requirements contained in 

this document, send an e-mail to 

PRA@fcc.gov or contact Judith B. 

Herman at 202–418–0214. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Report 

and Order in CG Docket No. 03–123; 

WC Docket No. 05–196; WC Docket No. 

10–191; FCC 11–123, adopted and 

released on August 4, 2011. The 

complete text of this document is 

available for inspection and copying 

during normal business hours in the 

FCC Reference Information Center, 

Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 

CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. The 

document may also be purchased from 

the Commission’s duplicating 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES