1 

MEMORANDUM - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO REMOVE RECALCULATION 

PROVISIONS FOR FACILITIES USING BEST AVAILABLE MONITORING 

METHODS 

To: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028 

From: Alexis McKittrick, EPA/Climate Change 

Date: February 6, 2012 

Subject: Proposed amendments to remove recalculation provisions for facilities using Best 

Available Monitoring Methods in 40 CFR part 98, subpart I – Electronics 

Manufacturing. 

The EPA is proposing to amend subpart I to remove the requirement that electronics 

manufacturing facilities that are granted an extension to use best available monitoring methods 

(BAMM) must recalculate and resubmit the emissions estimate for the BAMM extension period. 

Currently, subpart I requires facilities, after the end of the period for which they have been 

granted a BAMM extension, to recalculate and resubmit all emissions after they have begun 

following all applicable monitoring methods of subpart I. 

Under 40 CFR 98.94(a)(2) and (3), a facility granted an extension “through December 31, 2011,” 

per the original schedule in the rule, must include recalculated 2011 emissions in its 2012 

emission report due in 2013, unless it receives an additional extension. Under 40 CFR 

98.94(a)(4), a facility granted an extension beyond December 31, 2011, must include 

recalculated 2012 emissions in its 2013 emission report due in March 2014. The EPA is 

proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.94(a)(2)(iii), (a)(3)(iii), and (a)(4)(iii) to remove the 

recalculation requirements from those paragraphs. 

The EPA is proposing these amendments for two reasons. First, the recalculation requirement 

raises burden and feasibility issues because facilities operating under a BAMM extension may 

not be collecting the data needed to recalculate emissions in the future. For example, a facility 

might be granted a BAMM extension to measure gas consumption using methods with an 

accuracy and precision that is less stringent than the +/-1 percent that is currently required by 40 

CFR 98.94(h)(4)(i). It would be impossible for the facility to go back and obtain more accurate 

measurements of the data collected during the BAMM period. 

Industry members have also noted that they will not have the systems in place (including 

hardware and software upgrades) to collect the data needed to develop heel factors, and to track 

abatement system up-time according to subpart I for calculating emissions. EPA agrees that 

because some of the data that would be needed to recalculate emissions using the full subpart I 

methodologies may not have been collected during the BAMM period, it would be difficult and 
2 

impractical to require recalculation at a later date. Finally, industry members have also noted that 

the compliance schedule for subpart I did not provide adequate time for facilities using BAMM 

to implement the data collection needed to recalculate emissions at a later date. The final subpart 

I was published on December 1, 2010, and became effective on January 1, 2011. On January 1, 

2011, a facility would have needed some method in place to track the chemicals, the flow 

stabilization times, reactor pressure, individual gas flow rates, and applied radio frequency power 

to fully comply with the current subpart I calculation methods. 

The second reason the EPA is proposing to remove the BAMM recalculation requirements is that 

the EPA is currently considering a broader set of changes to subpart I. These changes may affect 

the monitoring methods and the types of data that facilities will be required to collect. It is 

possible that future amendments will require facilities to use data or other information that they 

are not required to collect while using a BAMM extension under the current subpart I and they 

will not be able to recreate these data in the future. 

The EPA’s ongoing consideration of potential further revisions to the calculation and monitoring 

requirements complicates the recalculation requirement. For example, while the agency may 

want to evaluate the feasibility of a recalculation requirement for any new methodologies, the 

automatic imposition of a recalculation requirement before we know the full extent of ongoing 

monitoring and calculation methodology revisions is not appropriate at this time. Finally, it is 

important to note, the majority of the other subparts of Part 98 with specific BAMM provisions 

do not require facilities to recalculate or resubmit emission estimates after the BAMM period has 

been completed. Nevertheless, EPA views a recalculation requirement as appropriate in an 

instance such as subpart L, where the requirement in that subpart does not significantly increase 

burden or raise concerns regarding infeasibility. In considering the factors described above, we 

are proposing to remove the requirement that facilities that have been granted extensions to use 

BAMM recalculate their emissions for the time period for which BAMM was used at a later date 

using required methods in subpart I.