Vol. 78 Wednesday, 

No. 219 November 13, 2013 

Part II 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 98 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program: Final Amendments and Confidentiality 

Determinations for Electronics Manufacturing; Final Rule 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
68162 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 98 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028; FRL–9845–6] 

RIN 2060–AR61 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program: 

Final Amendments and Confidentiality 

Determinations for Electronics 

Manufacturing 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule; Notice of Final 

Action on Reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is amending the 

calculation and monitoring 

methodologies for electronics 

manufacturers covered by the 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. These 

changes include revising certain 

calculation methods and adding a new 

method, amending data reporting 

requirements, and clarifying terms and 

definitions. The EPA is also making 

confidentiality determinations for new 

and revised data elements pertaining to 

electronics manufacturing. This rule 

also finalizes amendments to the general 

provisions of the Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Rule to remove entries for 

data elements that are being moved from 

reporting to recordkeeping. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

January 1, 2014. The incorporation by 

reference of certain publications listed 

in this rule is approved by the Director 

of the Federal Register as of January 1, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

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

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., confidential business information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC. This Docket 

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

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1744, and the telephone number for 

the Air Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carole Cook, Climate Change Division, 

Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC– 

6207J), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number: (202) 343–9263; fax number: 

(202) 343–2342; email address: 

GHGReportingRule@epa.gov. For 

technical information and 

implementation materials, please go to 

the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule 

Program Web site at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/. To submit a 

question, select Rule Help Center, 

followed by ‘‘Contact Us.’’ 

Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition 

to being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of this final rule will 

also be available through the WWW. 

Following the Administrator’s signature, 

a copy of this action will be posted on 

the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting 

Program Web site at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated 

Entities. The Administrator determined 

that this action is subject to the 

provisions of Clean Air Act (CAA) 

section 307(d). These amended 

regulations may affect owners or 

operators of certain electronic 

manufacturing facilities. Regulated 

categories and entities may include 

those listed in Table 1 of this preamble: 

TABLE 1—EXAMPLES OF AFFECTED ENTITIES BY CATEGORY

Source category NAICS Examples of affected facilities 

Electronics Manufacturing .................................................................... 334111 Microcomputers manufacturing facilities. 

334413 Semiconductor, photovoltaic (solid-state) device manufacturing 

facilities. 

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

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

Table 1 of this preamble is not 

intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide for readers regarding 

facilities likely to be affected by this 

action. Table 1 of this preamble lists the 

types of facilities of which the EPA is 

aware may be potentially affected by the 

reporting requirements. Other types of 

facilities not listed in the table may also 

be affected. To determine whether you 

are affected by this action, you should 

carefully examine the applicability 

criteria found in 40 CFR part 98, subpart 

A and 40 CFR part 98, subpart I. If you 

have questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular facility, consult the person 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

Judicial Review. Under CAA section 

307(b)(1), judicial review of this final 

rule is available only by filing a petition 

for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit (the 

Court) by January 13, 2014. Under CAA 

section 307(d)(7)(B), only an objection 

to this final rule that was raised with 

reasonable specificity during the period 

for public comment can be raised during 

judicial review. Section 307(d)(7)(B) of 

the CAA also provides a mechanism for 

the EPA to convene a proceeding for 

reconsideration, ‘‘[i]f the person raising 

an objection can demonstrate to EPA 

that it was impracticable to raise such 

objection within [the period for public 

comment] or if the grounds for such 

objection arose after the period for 

public comment (but within the time 

specified for judicial review) and if such 

objection is of central relevance to the 

outcome of the rule.’’ Any person 

seeking to make such a demonstration to 

us should submit a Petition for 

Reconsideration to the Office of the 

Administrator, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Room 3000, Ariel 

Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a 

copy to the person listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section, and the Associate 

General Counsel for the Air and 

Radiation Law Office, Office of General 

Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW. Washington, DC 

20004. Note that under CAA section 

307(b)(2), the requirements established 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68163 

by this final rule may not be challenged 

separately in any civil or criminal 

proceedings brought by the EPA to 

enforce these requirements. 

Acronyms and Abbreviations. The 

following acronyms and abbreviations 

are used in this document. 

ASME American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers 

ASTM American Society of Testing and 

Materials 

BAMM best available monitoring methods 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBI confidential business information 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent 

CVD chemical vapor deposition 

DRE destruction or removal efficiency 

EIA Economic Impact Analysis 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FDL field detection limit 

F–GHG fluorinated greenhouse gas 

FR Federal Register 

FTIR Fourier transform infrared 

GHG greenhouse gas 

GHGRP Greenhouse gas reporting period 

GWP global warming potential 

HQ Headquarters 

HTF heat transfer fluid 

IBM International Business Machines 

Corporation 

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change 

ISMI International SEMATECH 

Manufacturing Initiative 

kg kilograms 

LCD liquid crystal display 

MACT Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology 

MEMS micro-electro-mechanical systems 

mtCO2e metric ton carbon dioxide 

equivalent 

N2O nitrous oxide 

NAICS North American Industrial 

Classification System 

NF3 nitrogen trifluoride 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 

OMB Office of Management & Budget 

POU point of use 

ppbv parts per billion by volume 

ppm parts per million 

PV photovoltaic 

QA/QC quality assurance/quality control 

QMS quadrupole mass spectroscopy 

R&D research and development 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RICE Reciprocating Internal Combustion 

Engines 

RIN Regulatory Information Number 

RSASTP random sampling abatement 

system testing program 

RSD relative standard deviation 

SEMATECH Semiconductor Manufacturing 

Technology 

SIA Semiconductor Industry Association 

TI Texas Instruments Incorporated 

U.S. United States 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

VCS voluntary consensus standard 

VOC volatile organic compound 

WWW Worldwide Web 

I. General Information 

A. Organization of This Preamble 

The following outline is provided to 

aid in locating information in this 

preamble. 

I. General Information 

A. Organization of this Preamble 

B. Background 

C. Legal Authority 

D. How do these amendments apply to 

2013 and 2014 reports? 

II. Overview of Final Amendments to the 

Electronics Manufacturing Source 

Category and Responses to Major Public 

Comments 

A. Final Amendments to the Electronics 

Manufacturing Source Category 

B. Responses to Major Comments 

Submitted on the Electronics 

Manufacturing Source Category 

III. Confidentiality Determinations for New 

and Revised Subpart I Data Elements and 

Responses to Public Comments 

A. Final Confidentiality Determinations for 

New and Revised Subpart I Data 

Elements 

B. Public Comments on the Proposed 

Confidentiality Determinations 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act 

B. Background 

The GHG reporting requirements for 

subpart I were finalized on December 1, 

2010 (75 FR 74774, hereafter referred to 

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

publication of the final subpart I rule in 

the Federal Register, the Semiconductor 

Industry Association (hereafter referred 

to as the ‘‘SIA’’ or ‘‘the Petitioner’’) 

submitted on January 31, 2011 an 

administrative petition titled ‘‘Petition 

for Reconsideration and Request for 

Stay Pending Reconsideration of 

Subpart I of the Final Rule for 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse 

Gases’’ (hereafter referred to as the 

‘‘Petition for Reconsideration,’’ available 

in docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0927), 

requesting reconsideration of numerous 

provisions in the final subpart I rule. 

Since that petition was filed, the EPA 

has published five actions related to 

subpart I. 

• Additional Sources of Fluorinated 

GHGs: Extension of Best Available 

Monitoring Provisions for Electronics 

Manufacturing (76 FR 36339, published 

June 22, 2011). Granted the Petition for 

Reconsideration with respect to the 

provisions for the use of Best Available 

Monitoring Methods (BAMM). Extended 

three of the deadlines in subpart I 

related to using the BAMM provisions 

from June 30, 2011 to September 30, 

2011. 

• Changes to Provisions for 

Electronics Manufacturing to Provide 

Flexibility (76 FR 59542, published 

September 27, 2011). Amended the 

calculation and monitoring provisions 

for the largest semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities to provide 

flexibility through the end of 2013 and 

extended two deadlines in the BAMM 

provisions. 

• Proposed Confidentiality 

Determinations for Subpart I and 

Proposed Amendments to Subpart I Best 

Available Monitoring Methods 

Provisions (77 FR 10434, published 

February 22, 2012). Re-proposed 

confidentiality determinations for data 

elements in subpart I and proposed 

amendments to the provisions regarding 

the calculation and reporting of 

emissions from facilities that use 

BAMM. 

• Revisions to Heat Transfer Fluid 

Provisions (77 FR 10373, published 

February 22, 2012). Amended the 

definition of fluorinated heat transfer 

fluids (fluorinated HTFs) and the 

provisions to estimate and report 

emissions from fluorinated HTFs. 

• Final Confidentiality 

Determinations for Nine Subparts and 

Amendments to Subparts A and I under 

the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse 

Gases Rule; Final Rule (77 FR 48072, 

published August 13, 2012). Final 

confidentiality determinations for data 

elements in subpart I and final 

amendments to the provisions regarding 

the calculation and reporting of 

emissions from facilities that use 

BAMM. 

In response to the Petition for 

Reconsideration, the EPA published a 

proposal to amend provisions in subpart 

I related to calculation and monitoring 

methodologies, data reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, clarifying 

terms and definitions, and 

confidentiality determinations to 

provide greater flexibility to facilities. 

The proposal was published on October 

16, 2012 (77 FR 63538). The public 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
68164 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

comment period for the proposed rule 

amendments was initially scheduled to 

end on December 17, 2012. The EPA 

received a request to extend the public 

comment period and published a notice 

in the Federal Register on November 20, 

2012 (77 FR 69585) extending the public 

comment period to January 16, 2013. 

In this action, the EPA is finalizing 

amendments to provisions in the final 

subpart I that were proposed in the 

October 16, 2012 notice. Responses to 

comments submitted on the proposed 

amendments can be found in Sections 

II.B and III.B of this preamble and the 

document, ‘‘Greenhouse Gas Reporting 

Rule—Technical Revisions to the 

Electronics Manufacturing Category of 

the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: 

EPA’s Responses to Public Comments’’ 

(see Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2011–0028). 

C. Legal Authority 

The EPA is promulgating these rule 

amendments to Part 98 under its 

existing CAA authority, specifically 

authorities provided in CAA section 

114. 

As stated in the preamble to the 2009 

final rule (74 FR 56260, October 30, 

2009) and the Response to Comments on 

the Proposed Rule, Volume 9, Legal 

Issues, CAA section 114 provides the 

EPA broad authority to obtain the 

information in Part 98, including 

subpart I, because such data would 

inform and are relevant to the EPA’s 

carrying out a wide variety of CAA 

provisions. As discussed in the 

preamble to the initial Part 98 proposal 

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

section 114(a)(1) authorizes the 

Administrator to require emissions 

sources, persons subject to the CAA, 

manufacturers of control or process 

equipment, or persons whom the 

Administrator believes may have 

necessary information to monitor and 

report emissions and provide such other 

information the Administrator requests 

for the purposes of carrying out any 

provision of the CAA. 

In addition, the EPA has made 

confidentiality determinations for 

subpart I data elements that are added 

or revised by this rule under its 

authorities provided in sections 114, 

301, and 307 of the CAA. As mentioned 

in the previous paragraph, CAA section 

114 provides the EPA authority to 

obtain the information in Part 98, 

including those in subpart I. Section 

114(c) requires that the EPA make 

publicly available information obtained 

under section 114 except for 

information (excluding emission data) 

that qualifies for confidential treatment. 

The Administrator has determined 

that this action (finalized amendments 

and confidentiality determinations) is 

subject to the provisions of section 

307(d) of the CAA. 

D. How do these amendments apply to 

2013 and 2014 reports? 

These final amendments are effective 

on January 1, 2014. Facilities are 

required to follow one of the methods in 

subpart I as amended through this 

action to estimate emissions beginning 

in 2014. The first reports of emissions 

estimated using the new methods will 

be submitted in early 2015. As a result 

of these finalized amendments, the EPA 

does not expect reporters will need to 

purchase and install any new 

monitoring equipment to continue to 

comply with subpart I since reporters 

will still have the option to use default 

utilization and by-product formation 

rates. Additionally, unless reporters 

choose to estimate F–GHG emissions 

using the optional stack test method, the 

EPA does not expect reporters will be 

required to make any substantial 

modifications to their recordkeeping 

procedures. For the reasons discussed 

here, in addition to the absence of any 

opposition to the timeline received 

during the public comment period, the 

EPA believes that the effective date of 

January 1, 2014 is reasonable. 

For the reports of emissions in 

calendar year 2013 (reporting year 2013) 

that are to be submitted in early 2014, 

reporters must calculate emissions and 

other relevant data using the 

requirements under Part 98 that 

predated today’s revisions. Those 

requirements include the flexibility for 

the largest semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities added in the 

September 27, 2011 rule titled ‘‘Changes 

to Provisions for Electronics 

Manufacturing to Provide Flexibility.’’ 

II. Overview of Final Amendments to 

the Electronics Manufacturing Source 

Category and Responses to Major 

Public Comments 

The EPA is finalizing amendments to 

the calculation and monitoring 

methodologies in the final subpart I 

rule. In addition, the EPA is finalizing 

conforming changes to the reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements of subpart I. 

Changes include revising certain 

calculation methods and adding a new 

method, amending data reporting 

requirements, and clarifying terms and 

definitions. The EPA is finalizing these 

amendments to (1) Modify calculation 

methods and data requirements to better 

reflect new industry data and current 

practice; (2) provide additional 

calculation methods to allow individual 

facilities to choose the method best 

suited for their operations; (3) reduce 

the burden associated with existing 

requirements; and (4) address potential 

disclosure concerns raised by members 

of the SIA. Amendments being finalized 

today affect all facilities subject to 

subpart I that manufacture electronics 

including those that manufacture 

semiconductors (including light 

emitting diodes), micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS), liquid 

crystal displays (LCDs), or photovoltaic 

(PV) cells. Because the effective date of 

these final amendments is January 1, 

2014, those provisions that apply to 

reporting year 2013, but not thereafter, 

will no longer appear in the text of the 

regulation. 

Section II.A describes the final 

amendments to the subpart I rule, 

including a detailed summary of the 

changes in the final amendments since 

proposal. Section II.B, Response to 

Major Comments Submitted on the 

Electronics Manufacturing Source 

Category, discusses the EPA’s responses 

to major comments on the proposed 

amendments. For a full description of 

the rationale for these and any other 

amendments to the final subpart I rule, 

please refer to the ‘‘Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Rule—Revisions to the 

Electronics Manufacturing Category of 

the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: 

EPA’s Response to Public Comment’’ in 

addition to Sections II.A and II.B of this 

preamble. 

A. Final Amendments to the Electronics 

Manufacturing Source Category 

In this rulemaking, the EPA is taking 

final action on its proposed 

reconsideration on all issues in the 

Petition for Reconsideration not already 

addressed in the final rules published 

June 22, 2011 (Additional Sources of 

Fluorinated GHGs: Extension of Best 

Available Monitoring Provisions for 

Electronics Manufacturing); September 

27, 2011 (Changes to Provisions for 

Electronics Manufacturing to Provide 

Flexibility); and August 13, 2012 

(Confidentiality Determinations for 

Subpart I and Amendments to Subpart 

I Best Available Monitoring Methods 

Provisions). Those final rules are 

described in Section I.B of this 

preamble. Section II.A discusses the 

final amendments to the subpart I rule 

in response to the petition. The EPA is 

completing its response to the Petition 

for Reconsideration through this 

rulemaking. 

The major changes to the final rule 

since proposal are the following: 

Default Emission Factors: 

• Etch emission factors: The proposed 

etch emission factors and by-product 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68165 

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. 

formation rates for semiconductor 

manufacturing have been updated since 

proposal to account for new data 

submitted in public comments. 

• Nitrous oxide (N2O) emission 

factors: The proposed revised emission 

factor for all ‘‘other’’ (e.g., non-CVD) 

N2O emitting processes is not being 

adopted in the final rule. 

Abatement System Requirements: 

• The proposed default abatement 

system destruction or removal efficiency 

(DRE) factors have been updated since 

proposal to account for new data 

submitted in public comments and for 

a revised statistical approach to 

calculating the default DRE factors. 

• The certification requirements for 

abatement systems have been revised to 

refer to the site maintenance plan for 

abatement systems. 

• The abatement system requirements 

have been revised to allow the use of 

either default DREs or site-specific 

measured DRE values; however, if an 

abatement system was not specifically 

designed for F–GHG removal and the 

reporter elects to account for the effect 

of that abatement system when using 

either the emission factors and 

calculation methods in 40 CFR 98.93(a) 

and (b) or the stack testing alternative in 

40 CFR 98.93(i), site-specific DRE values 

must be used. 

• The calculation of abatement 

system uptime has been revised so that 

only a single equation is used to 

calculate uptime for both input gases 

and their associated by-product gases 

for a given input gas and process 

combination. 

Stack Testing Alternative: 

• The rule designates a list of five 

‘‘expected’’ by-product gases (CF4, 

CHF3, CH3F, C2F6, and CH2F2) and four 

‘‘possible’’ by-product gases (C3F8, C4F6, 

c-C4F8, and C5F8) that must be measured 

in stack testing. These two lists replace 

the proposed requirement to perform an 

analysis to identify potential byproducts to include in testing. The 

proposed analysis would have 

considered for testing the by-products 

from the applicable gas and process 

combinations in Tables I–3 to I–7 of 

subpart I. 

• The maximum allowed field 

detection limits (FDLs) have been 

increased by a factor of four compared 

to the proposed FDLs. 

• The final rule allows the use of 

ASTM D6348–03, Standard Test Method 

for Determination of Gaseous 

Compounds by Extractive Direct 

Interface Fourier Transform Infrared 

(FTIR) Spectroscopy, as an alternative to 

EPA Method 320. 

• The Tier 2a emission factors on 

Tables I–11 and I–12 for semiconductors 

have been updated since proposal to 

account for new data submitted in 

public comments, and to include 

weighting by the amount of gas used in 

each process type (as opposed to not 

being weighted). 

Facility-Wide DRE Calculation: 

• Equations I–26, I–27, and I–28 have 

been revised to calculate only a fabwide DRE, not a facility-wide DRE, 

when more than one fab is present. 

The following sections of this 

preamble summarize the final 

amendments to subpart I. 

1. Stack Testing as an Alternative 

Emission Monitoring Method for 

Facilities That Manufacture Electronics 

The EPA is promulgating 

amendments to revise subpart I to 

include a stack testing option for 

estimating annual F–GHG emissions at 

40 CFR 98.93(i). This option applies to 

all electronic manufacturing facilities, 

including those making semiconductors, 

MEMS, LCDs, and PV cells. The stack 

testing option is not available for 

estimating N2O emissions. The finalized 

amendments to the provisions and 

emission factors for estimating N2O 

emissions are discussed in Section 

II.A.9 of this preamble. 

In this action, we are also finalizing 

the option to allow all electronics 

manufacturing facilities to use separate 

methods (i.e., stack testing or default 

utilization and by-product formation 

rates) to estimate emissions from each 

fab within a single facility. (A facility 

must use only a single method for each 

fab.) Additionally, we are also finalizing 

the requirements for facilities to report 

GHG emissions on a fab basis but 

submit reports on a ‘‘facility’’ basis, as 

defined in 40 CFR 98.6. There may be 

one or more fabs at each facility. A 

‘‘fab’’ is defined in subpart I as ‘‘the 

portion of an electronics manufacturing 

facility located in a separate physical 

structure that began manufacturing on a 

certain date.’’ 

Selection of Stack Systems for 

Testing. Under the final amendments, 

reporters are required to develop a 

preliminary estimate of the annual 

emissions from each ‘‘stack system’’ in 

a fab and are not required to test those 

stack systems that account for relatively 

small emissions. A stack system is 

considered to be one or more stacks that 

are connected by a common header or 

manifold, through which a F–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 do not include emergency 

vents or bypass stacks through which 

emissions are not usually vented under 

typical operating conditions. 

The reporter must develop a 

preliminary estimate of F–GHG 

emissions from each stack system on a 

metric ton carbon dioxide equivalent 

(mtCO2e) basis. To develop the 

preliminary estimate, the reporter must 

use the gas consumption in the tools 

associated with the stack system and gas 

utilization rates and by-product 

formation rates in Tables I–11 through 

I–15. Facilities must also include any 

intermittent low-use F–GHGs in the 

preliminary estimate. The reporter must 

also account for the DRE of the ‘‘point 

of use’’ (POU) abatement systems and 

the uptime of the POU systems (the 

fraction of time the system is operating 

within the parameters specified in the 

facility’s site maintenance plan for 

abatement systems). The gas utilization 

rates and by-product formation rates in 

Tables I–13 and I–14 are based on the 

2006 Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC) Tier 2a factors 1

for LCD and PV manufacturing, 

respectively. The factors in Table I–13 

for MEMs manufacturing are based on 

the 2006 IPCC Tier 2a factors for 

semiconductor manufacturing due to 

the similarities in the manufacturing 

processes. The factors in Tables I–11 

and I–12 for semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities were updated 

from the 2006 IPCC factors based on 

utilization rate and by-production 

formation rate data collected by the 

Petitioner (see ‘‘Technical Support for 

Modifications to the Fluorinated 

Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimation 

Method Option for Semiconductor 

Facilities under Subpart I,’’ Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028) in 

addition to data submitted to the EPA 

during the comment period. The default 

factors for each gas in Tables I–11 and 

I–12 were also updated by weighting the 

emission factor data for each gas and 

process type or subtype based on the gas 

consumption for that process type or 

sub-type. The EPA did not update the 

factors in Tables I–13 through I–15 

based on the data collected by the 

Petitioner or submitted during the 

comment period because none of the 

data were for LCD, PV, or MEMS 

manufacturing. The EPA did not receive 

additional data on LCD, PV, or MEMs 

manufacturing processes, therefore, it 

was not feasible to propose revised 

factors for these processes. Furthermore, 

because MEMS are generally 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
68166 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

manufactured on older semiconductor 

manufacturing tools (i.e., 150 mm and 

200 mm wafer sizes), we have 

determined that the 2006 IPCC factors 

for semiconductor manufacturers 

remain appropriate. 

In the preliminary estimate, reporters 

are required to use data from the 

previous reporting year for the total 

uptime of all abatement systems in each 

stack system, and either a default DRE 

or measured site-specific DRE; the 

reporter must use the measured sitespecific DRE if the abatement system 

was not specifically designed to abate 

F–GHG. If uptime data from the 

previous reporting year are not available 

(either because the fab is new or the 

facility was not required to report in the 

previous reporting year), the reporter 

must use representative operating data 

from a period of 30 days or more. The 

reporter must account for any 

anticipated change in activity for the fab 

(i.e., an increase or decrease in the 

annual consumption and emissions of 

any F–GHG) greater than 10 percent for 

the current reporting year compared to 

the previous reporting year. To estimate 

the expected change in activity, the 

reporter must use a quantifiable metric 

(e.g., the ratio of the number tools that 

are expected to be vented to the stack 

system in the current year as compared 

to the previous reporting year), 

engineering judgment, or other industry 

standard practice. 

The consumption of each F–GHG in 

each stack system is estimated as the 

total gas consumption of that F–GHG in 

the fab, times the ratio of the number of 

tools using that F–GHG that are feeding 

to that stack system to the total number 

of tools in the fab using that F–GHG. 

The reporter must convert the F–GHG 

emissions to CO2e using the global 

warming potential (GWP) values for F– 

GHGs in Table A–1 of subpart A of Part 

98. For F–GHGs in Tables I–11 through 

I–15 for which Table A–1 of subpart A 

of Part 98 does not list a GWP value, 

reporters must use a default value of 

2,000 for the GWP for the purposes of 

this estimate. Based on this preliminary 

estimate, the reporter must rank the F– 

GHG emitting stack systems at the 

facility from the lowest to highest 

emitting. The reporter is not required to 

test emissions from low-emitting stack 

systems if those F–GHG emitting stack 

systems meet all of the following three 

criteria: 

(1) The sum of the F–GHG emissions 

from all combined stack systems in the 

fab that are not tested is less than 10,000 

mtCO2e per year; 

(2) Each of the stack systems that are 

not tested are within the fab’s lowest F– 

GHG emitting stack systems that 

together emit 15 percent or less of total 

CO2e F–GHG emissions from the fab; 

and 

(3) The F–GHG emissions from each 

of the stack systems that are not tested 

can be attributed to only one particular 

collection of process tools during the 

test (i.e., the stack cannot be used as a 

bypass from other tools that are 

normally vented through a stack system 

that does not meet these criteria). 

For those low-emitting stack systems 

that are not tested, the reported F–GHG 

emissions are calculated using the 

annual gas consumption in the tools 

vented to those stacks and the gas 

utilization rates and by-product 

formation rates in Tables I–11 through 

I–15 in subpart I, accounting for the 

DRE and uptime of the POU abatement 

systems, as discussed above. 

Stack testing requirements. For those 

higher-emitting stack systems in each 

fab that are not exempt from 

measurement, the reporter must 

measure each F–GHG concentration (in 

parts per billion by volume, or ppbv) 

and the total stack flow to determine the 

hourly mass flow rate (kg/hr) of each F– 

GHG emitted from each applicable stack 

system. If a stack system has more than 

one stack from a common header, the 

reporter is required to measure F–GHG 

concentration and flow in each stack 

from that header. The reporter must use 

EPA Method 320, ASTM D6348–03 or 

another approved method to measure F– 

GHG concentration (per the 

requirements of 40 CFR 98.94(k)), and 

EPA Methods 1 through 4 at 40 CFR part 

60, appendices A–1, A–2, and A–3 to 

measure other stack gas parameters 

needed to convert F–GHG concentration 

to mass emissions for the test period. 

Reporters must also measure the fabspecific consumption of each F–GHG for 

the test period. 

Reporters are required to measure 

emissions for all F–GHGs used as input 

gases and any expected or possible byproduct F–GHGs listed in Table I–17 to 

subpart I. Reporters are not required to 

measure emissions for any intermittent 

low-use F–GHGs. Intermittent low-use 

F–GHGs are defined as F–GHGs that 

meet all of the following: 

(1) The F–GHG is used by the fab but 

was not used on the day of the actual 

stack testing; 

(2) The emissions of that F–GHG do 

not constitute more than 5 percent of 

the total annual F–GHG emissions from 

the fab on a CO2e basis; 

(3) The sum of all F–GHGs that are 

considered intermittent low-use F– 

GHGs does not exceed 10,000 mtCO2e 

for that year; and 

(4) The F–GHG is not an expected or 

possible by-product identified in Table 

I–17 of subpart I. 

Reporters must calculate annual 

emissions of intermittent low-use F– 

GHGs using the gas consumption and 

the gas utilization rates and by-product 

formation rates in Tables I–11 through 

I–15 in the rule, accounting for the DRE 

and uptime of the POU systems during 

the year for which emissions are being 

estimated. 

The testing period must be at least 8 

hours for each stack, although reporters 

may choose to conduct testing over a 

longer period. 

Reporters are not required to measure 

all stacks simultaneously, but reporters 

must certify that no significant changes 

in stack flow configuration occur during 

and in between tests conducted for any 

particular fab in a reporting year. 

Specifically, reporters must certify that 

no more than 10 percent of the total 

number of F–GHG emitting process 

tools have been connected or 

disconnected from the stack system 

during testing. Reporters must also 

certify that no process tools that were in 

operation at the start of the testing 

period were moved to a different stack 

system during testing and that no POU 

abatement systems have been 

permanently removed from service 

during the testing period. Reporters 

must document and keep records of any 

changes in the number of tools 

connected to or disconnected from the 

stack system and the uptime of each 

POU abatement system during the 

testing period for each system. 

The tests must be conducted during a 

period in which the fab is operating at 

a representative operating level and 

with the POU abatement systems 

connected to the stack being tested 

operating with at least 90 percent 

average uptime during the 8-hour (or 

longer) period, or at no less than 90 

percent of the uptime measured during 

the previous reporting year, averaged 

over all abatement systems connected to 

the stack being tested. The 

representative operating level is defined 

in subpart I as operating the fab, in 

terms of substrate starts for the period 

of testing, at no less than 50 percent of 

installed production capacity or no less 

than 70 percent of the average 

production rate for the reporting year, 

where production rate for the reporting 

year is represented in average monthly 

substrate starts. For the purposes of 

stack testing, the period for determining 

the representative operating level must 

be the 30-day period ending on the same 

date on which testing is concluded. 

To convert the measured F–GHG 

emission rates into fab-specific emission 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68167 

factors, the reporter must measure the 

consumption of each F–GHG used in the 

tools associated with the stack systems 

being tested, excluding gas consumption 

allocated to tools venting to lowemitting stack systems that are not 

tested. Consumption may be measured 

using gas flow meters, weigh scales, or 

pressure measurement equipment (with 

measurements corrected for temperature 

and non-ideal gas behavior). For gases 

with low volume consumption for 

which it is infeasible to measure 

consumption accurately over the 8-hour 

testing duration, short-term 

consumption may be estimated by using 

one or more of the following: 

(1) Drawing from single gas containers 

in cases where gas is normally drawn 

from a series of containers supplying a 

manifold; 

(2) Increasing the length of the test 

period to greater than 8 hours; or 

(3) Calculating consumption from 

long-term consumption (e.g., monthly) 

that is pro-rated to the test duration. 

Stack test methods. The EPA is 

finalizing the requirement that the F– 

GHG concentrations in stacks systems 

be measured using EPA Method 320. We 

are also allowing the use of ASTM 

D6348–03 as an alternative to EPA 

Method 320 with the following 

additional requirements: (1) The test 

plan preparation and implementation in 

the Annexes to ASTM D6348–03, 

Sections A1 through A8 are mandatory; 

and (2) In ASTM D6348–03 Annex A5 

(Analyte Spiking Technique), the 

percent recovery (%R) must be 

determined for each target analyte 

(Equation A5.5). The reporter must also 

follow Section 4.1 of ASTM D6348–03 

to ensure the F–GHG remains in the gas 

phase. In order for the test data to be 

acceptable for a compound, the percent 

recovery must be between 70 and 130 

percent. If the percent recovery does not 

meet this criterion for a target 

compound, the test data are not 

acceptable for that compound and the 

test must be repeated for that analyte 

(i.e., the sampling and/or analytical 

procedure should be adjusted before a 

retest). The percent recovery value for 

each compound must be reported in the 

test report, required under 40 CFR 

98.94(j)(4), and all field measurements 

must be corrected with the calculated 

percent recovery value for that 

compound. The use of ASTM D6348–03 

was added since proposal, as discussed 

in section II.B of this preamble. 

F–GHGs not detected. We are also 

finalizing the following provisions to 

account for different scenarios in which 

a F–GHG is used, expected to be emitted 

as a by-product, or possibly emitted as 

a by-product, but may occur in 

concentrations that are below the FDL. 

The FDL of a by-product is the lowest 

concentration of the by-product that 

should be detectable through 

measurements, as defined in Method 

320. 

• If a F–GHG is consumed during 

testing, but emissions are not detected, 

the reporter must use one-half of the 

FDL for the concentration of that F– 

GHG in calculations. 

• If a F–GHG is consumed during 

testing and detected intermittently 

during the test run, the reporter must 

use the measured concentration for the 

value of that F–GHG when available and 

use one-half of the FDL for the value 

when the F–GHG is not detected. 

• If a F–GHG is not consumed during 

testing but is detected intermittently as 

a by-product gas, the reporter must use 

the measured concentration when 

available and use one-half of the FDL for 

the value when the F–GHG is not 

detected. 

• If a F–GHG is an expected byproduct as listed in Table I–17 to 

subpart I and is not detected during the 

test run, use one-half of the FDL for the 

value of that F–GHG. 

• If a F–GHG is a possible by-product 

as listed in Table I–17 to subpart I and 

is not detected during the test run, then 

assume zero emissions for that F–GHG 

for the tested stack system. 

• If a F–GHG is not used, and is not 

an expected or possible by-product of 

the stack system and is not detected, 

then assume zero emissions for that F– 

GHG for the tested stack system. 

Under the stack testing option, 

reporters are required to achieve FDLs 

that are less than or equal to the 

maximum FDLs in Table I–10 of the 

regulatory textAlso since proposal, the 

maximum values for FDLs for stack 

testing have been increased by a factor 

of four. The rationale for these changes 

is discussed in Section II.B of this 

preamble. 

Alternative stack test methods. We are 

finalizing the option for reporters to use 

an alternative stack test method (other 

than EPA Method 320 or ASTM D6348– 

03) to measure the concentration of each 

F–GHG in each stack provided that the 

method is validated using EPA Method 

301 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A 

(hereafter ‘‘EPA Method 301’’), and the 

EPA approves its use. 

Under the promulgated approval 

process in 40 CFR 98.94(k), the reporter 

is required to notify the Administrator 

(or authorized representative) of the 

intent to use an alternative test method. 

The notification must include a test 

plan describing the alternative method 

and procedures, the range of test 

conditions over which the validation is 

intended to be applicable, and an 

alternative means of calculating the fablevel F–GHG emissions if the 

Administrator denies the use of the 

results of the alternative method. The 

reporter must validate the alternative 

method using EPA Method 301 and 

submit the results of the Method 301 

validation process along with the 

notification of intention and a rationale 

for not using the specified method. 

The Administrator will review and 

determine whether the validation of the 

proposed alternative method is adequate 

and issue an approval or disapproval of 

the alternative test plan within 120 days 

of the reporter submitting the 

notification and test plan. The reporter 

is required to respond to any of the 

Administrator’s questions on the test 

plan before obtaining approval and to 

take into account the Administrator’s 

comments on the test plan in 

conducting the test using the alternative 

method. The reporter must respond to 

the Administrator’s questions or request 

for additional information on the plan 

during the 120-day review period and 

the Administrator’s questions or request 

for additional information will not 

extend that review period. Therefore, it 

is the reporter’s obligation to respond in 

a timely manner. If an alternative test 

plan is not approved within the 120-day 

period and the reporter still opts to use 

that method, a reporter must 

recommence the process to have an 

alternative test method approved 

starting with the notification of intent to 

use an alternative test method. 

The reporter must report the results of 

stack testing using the alternative 

method and procedure specified in the 

approved test plan. The report must 

include all methods, calculations and 

data used to determine F–GHG 

emissions. The Administrator will 

review the results of the test using the 

alternative methods and procedure and 

then approve or deny the use of the 

results of the alternative test method 

and procedure no later than 120 days 

after they are submitted to the EPA. 

During this 120-day period, the reporter 

is required to respond to any of the 

Administrator’s questions on the test 

report before obtaining approval of the 

final test results using the alternative 

method. If the Administrator finds 

reasonable grounds to dispute the 

results obtained by the alternative 

method, the Administrator may require 

the use of the method specified in 

subpart I instead of the alternative 

method. 

Once the Administrator approves the 

use of the alternative method, that 

method may be used by any other 

facility for the same F–GHGs and types 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
68168 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

of stack systems, if the approved 

conditions apply to that facility. In 

granting approval, the Administrator 

will limit the range of test conditions 

and emission characteristics for which 

that approval is granted and under 

which the alternative method may be 

used without seeking further approval. 

The Administrator will specify those 

limitations, if any, in the approval of the 

alternative method. 

Accounting for Abatement System 

Downtime. To account for the effect of 

POU abatement system downtime in 

estimating emissions using the stack 

testing method, reporters must record 

the abatement system downtime in each 

fab during testing and for the entire 

reporting year. Using the downtime 

measured during testing, reporters are 

required to correct the measured 

emission factors to assume no 

abatement system downtime (i.e., 100 

percent abatement system uptime). The 

downtime measured over the entire 

reporting year is then used to calculate 

the excess F–GHG emissions that occur 

as a result of abatement system 

downtime events. 

The reporter is required to measure 

the amount of POU abatement system 

downtime (in minutes) during the 

emission tests for any tools that are 

vented to the stacks being tested. For 

example, if five POU abatement systems 

are down for times of 10, 15, 25, 30, and 

40 minutes during an 8-hour test, the 

total POU system downtime would be 

120 minutes, or 5.0 percent of the total 

possible abatement system and tool 

operating time for the five tools (2,400 

minutes). Using these data and the 

average DRE for the POU abatement 

systems, the emission factor measured 

during the testing is adjusted to an 

emission factor representing POU 

abatement systems with 100 percent 

uptime (zero percent downtime). The 

DRE for the abatement systems may be 

a default DRE or a site-specific 

measured DRE; however, the reporter 

must use a site-specific measured DRE 

if the abatement system is not 

specifically designed for F–GHG 

abatement. 

The downtime measured over the year 

is used to determine an average uptime 

factor that is an aggregate for all 

abatement systems in the fab, and 

calculated using Equation I–23 in 

subpart I. Abatement system downtime 

is considered any time during which the 

abatement system was not operating 

according to the site maintenance plan 

for abatement systems. The reporter 

must determine the sum of the 

downtime for all abatement systems 

during the year, and divide this sum by 

the sum of the possible annual operating 

time for each of the tools connected to 

those abatement systems in the fab to 

determine the downtime fraction. The 

downtime fraction is the decimal 

fraction of operating time that the 

abatement systems were not operating 

according to the site maintenance plan 

for abatement systems. The average 

uptime factor used in the emissions 

calculations is equal to 1 minus the 

downtime fraction. 

The total possible annual tool 

operating time is calculated by 

assuming that tools that were installed 

for the whole of the reporting year were 

operated for the entire year. The total 

possible tool operating time is prorated 

to account for the days in which a tool 

was not installed; any partial day that a 

tool was installed is treated as a full day 

of tool operation. For an abatement 

system with more than one connected 

tool, the tool operating time is 

equivalent to a full year if at least one 

tool was installed at all times 

throughout the year. The reporter has 

the option to account for time that tools 

are idle and no gas is flowing through 

the tools to the abatement system. 

It is important to note that the 

calculation of the uptime factor is 

different when a reporter is using the 

promulgated stack testing method than 

when the reporter is using the default 

gas utilization rate and by-product 

formation rate method. In the stack 

testing method, uptime is not 

determined for each gas and process 

type combination, as it is under the final 

revisions to the default emission factor 

method. Instead, the uptime factor is 

based on an aggregate for all tools and 

gases in the fab for which the stack 

testing method is being used. In 

contrast, the default gas utilization rates 

and by-product formation rates are 

based on ‘‘unabated emissions’’ of each 

gas, and the uptime factor needs to be 

determined for each gas and process 

type combination to determine the 

portion of emissions that have been 

abated. ‘‘Unabated emissions’’ are gas 

streams containing F–GHG or N2O 

which has exited the process, but which 

has not yet been introduced into an 

abatement system to reduce the mass of 

F–GHG or N2O in the stream. If the 

emissions from the process are not 

routed to an abatement system, or are 

routed to an abatement device that is 

not in an operation mode, unabated 

emissions are those F–GHG or N2O 

released to the atmosphere. 

To calculate an unabated emission 

factor during periods of downtime in 

the stack testing method, the reporter 

must divide the abated emission factor 

by (1—dif), where dif) is the average 

weighted fraction of F–GHG is 

destroyed or removed in the POU 

abatement system(s) in the fab. The 

factor dif) is calculated using Equation I– 

24 in subpart I, based on the gas 

consumption and destruction and 

removal efficiency (DRE) for the 

abatement system(s) for each gas and 

process type combination. 

When calculating annual emissions, 

the reporter must continue to collect 

abatement system downtime data and 

calculate the fraction of abatement 

system uptime for the fab. Excess 

emissions from abatement system 

downtime events are determined based 

on the actual amount of downtime as a 

percent of the total annual abatement 

system operating time for the reporting 

year. For example, if a fab had 2.0 

percent downtime for the year, then the 

unabated emission factor is applied to 

2.0 percent of the gas consumption for 

the year to calculate the excess 

emissions. The abated emission factor is 

applied to the other 98 percent of gas 

consumption for the fab. The excess 

emissions and the abated emissions are 

added together to determine the total 

annual emission from the fab. 

Calculating an average fab-specific 

emission factor. The reporter must 

calculate an average fab-specific 

emission factor using Equation I–19 in 

subpart I for each input F–GHG and 

Equation I–20 for each by-product F– 

GHG, based on the testing results 

(average kg/hr) and the F–GHG gas 

consumption (average kg/hr). The fabspecific emission factor for each input 

F–GHG and each F–GHG formed as a 

by-product takes into account the mass 

emission rate, the gas consumption, the 

abatement system uptime, and the F– 

GHG destroyed or removed from the 

abatement systems. The fab-specific 

emission factor for input gases is in 

units of kilograms (kg) gas emitted per 

kg of the same gas consumed (kg/kg). 

For gases generated as by-products, 

the fab-specific emission factor is the 

mass of the by-product emitted divided 

by the summed masses of all the F– 

GHGs consumed, as presented in 

Equation I–20. This equation applies to 

those F–GHGs that are emitted as byproducts and is not used for gases 

consumed as input gases. 

The reporter must calculate annual 

emissions for each F–GHG by-product 

gas as the product of the fab-specific 

emission factor and the total annual 

amount of F–GHG consumed, corrected 

for any POU abatement system 

downtime as described in this section of 

the preamble. 

In some cases, emissions of a 

particular F–GHG input gas may exceed 

consumption of that gas because the F– 

GHG is generated as a by-product of the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68169 

other input gases. This is often the case 

for CF4. In these cases, the reporter must 

use 1.0 as the input F–GHG emission 

factor and treat the remainder of that F– 

GHG’s emissions as a by-product of the 

other input gases. The reporter must use 

Equation I–20 to calculate the emission 

factor for the by-product emissions. For 

example, if during the testing, the fab 

consumed 100 kg of an F–GHG, but the 

stack testing measured 300 kg of that 

gas, the reporter must assign 100 kg of 

that F–GHG as an input gas used in 

proposed Equation I–19, and 200 kg of 

that gas as a by-product gas used in 

proposed Equation I–20. In this 

instance, the denominator in Equation 

I–20 includes the consumption of all 

other F–GHGs, with the exception of the 

F–GHG being included in the 

numerator. This treatment of the 

denominator reflects the fact that we are 

assuming that the F–GHG in the 

numerator is formed as a by-product 

from all other F–GHGs, while the 

emissions from the actual consumption 

of that F–GHG as an input are being 

accounted by Equation I–19. For 

calculating emissions from an F–GHG 

with an input emission factor equal to 

1.0 and with a by-product emission 

factor, the input F–GHG emissions are 

assumed to equal consumption of that 

F–GHG, and the by-product emissions 

are determined by multiplying the byproduct emission factor by the sum of 

the consumption of all F–GHGs 

excluding the by-product F–GHG. 

Testing frequency. The EPA is 

finalizing in 40 CFR 98.94(j)(5)(i) the 

requirement for annual testing of each 

stack system and annual calculation of 

emission factors, excluding those lowemitting stack systems that are exempt 

from testing. However, to offer 

flexibility, the EPA is also promulgating 

in 40 CFR 98.94(j)(5)(ii) an option to 

allow reduced testing frequency based 

on variability in measured emission 

factors. If the reporter meets criteria for 

low measured variability in emission 

factors calculated from the test results, 

then testing frequency may be reduced 

to every 5 years instead of annually. 

Under this option, a reporter must 

conduct a minimum of three emission 

tests for each non-exempt stack, with at 

least 2 months between the tests on a 

single stack system. All tests may be 

done in one year, or the reporter may 

use three annual tests for this analysis. 

If the relative standard deviation (RSD) 

of the emission factors calculated from 

each of the three tests, expressed as 

CO2e for all F–GHG combined, is less 

than or equal to 15 percent, and the RSD 

of the emission factors for each single 

F–GHG that individually accounts for 5 

percent or more of CO2e emissions is 

less than 20 percent, the facility may 

use the averages of the three emission 

factors for each F–GHG for annual 

reporting for that year and the next 4 

years without testing, unless conditions 

change that affect the emission factors 

and trigger retesting, as specified in 40 

CFR 98.94(j)(8) and described in this 

section of the preamble. If the variability 

among the three tests does not meet 

these criteria, then the facility must use 

the emission factors from the most 

recent testing for reporting for that year 

and continue the annual testing. 

Facilities may repeat the RSD analysis 

each year using the previous three sets 

of data. 

In addition, previously completed 

tests that were performed and verified 

according to EPA Method 320, ASTM 

D6348–03, or an alternative method 

validated using EPA Method 301 may be 

applied towards the three tests required 

under this option, as long as all three 

tests were completed no earlier than 

January 1, 2011 and they meet the final 

rule requirements for stack testing under 

40 CFR 98.94(j). We are also allowing 

reporters to use previously completed 

tests that include minor deviations from 

the requirements for stack testing. 

However, the use of such data must be 

approved by the Administrator (or an 

authorized representative) on a case-bycase basis, according to the review 

procedure specified in 40 CFR 

98.94(j)(7). This procedure is similar to 

that specified for review and approval of 

an alternative stack testing method in 40 

CFR 98.94(k), but it does not require the 

use of EPA Method 301 to validate the 

prior test data. The EPA retains the right 

to not approve the use of data that do 

not meet the data quality requirements 

in 40 CFR 98.94(j)(7). 

Reporters are required to conduct 

testing of each stack system that is not 

a low-emitting stack system, regardless 

of the results of the most recent stack 

tests, if certain changes take place in the 

reporters’ annual consumption of F– 

GHGs or in the equipment and 

processes at the fab. Testing must be 

repeated to develop a new fab-specific 

emission factor if consumption of a 

specific input gas used during the 

emissions test changes by more than 10 

percent of total annual gas consumption 

in CO2e, relative to gas consumption in 

CO2e for that gas during the year in 

which the most recent emissions test 

was conducted. For example, if use of 

a single gas goes from 25 percent of 

CO2e to more than 35 percent of CO2e, 

that would trigger the need for a new 

test. If there is a change in the reporter’s 

use of an intermittent low-use F–GHG 

that was not used during the emissions 

test and not reflected in the fab-specific 

emission factor, such that it no longer 

meets the definition of intermittent lowuse F–GHG (see ‘‘Stack testing 

requirements’’ in Section II.A.1 of this 

preamble), the reporter is required to retest using that gas. Additionally, if there 

is: (1) A decrease by more than 10 

percent in the fraction of tools with 

abatement systems, compared to the 

fraction of tools with abatement systems 

during the most recent emissions test; 

(2) a change in the wafer or substrate 

size used by the fab since the most 

recent emissions test; or (3) a change in 

a stack system that formerly met the 

criteria as a low-emitting stack system 

for not being subject to testing, such that 

it no longer meets those criteria, then 

the reporter is also required to re-test. 

Finally, if a reporter is using a F–GHG 

that was not used during the emissions 

test, the reporter is required to conduct 

additional stack tests in that year during 

a period when that gas is being used to 

determine an emission factor for that 

gas. If a F–GHG is no longer used or is 

an intermittent low-use gas, re-testing is 

not required, and F–GHG emissions 

must be calculated according to the 

process for intermittent low-use gases. 

As stacks are re-tested, reporters must 

update the fab-specific emission factors 

with the new data from those stacks, 

replacing the data from the earlier 

testing of the same stack. The reporters 

are also required to annually review the 

current data for determining which 

stacks were exempt from testing to 

ensure that the low-emitting stacks still 

qualify for exemption. If a stack no 

longer meets the criteria for exemption 

from testing as a low-emitting stack, it 

must be tested and the fab-specific 

emission factor must be recalculated 

including those data. 

Finally, if a requirement to re-test 

stacks is triggered, the reporter must reevaluate the RSD of the emission 

factors, including the most recent test 

results and the previous two test results, 

to determine if the fab still complies 

with the provisions that allow the fab to 

skip testing. If the fab does not meet 

those provisions, annual testing must 

resume and three stack tests must be 

completed and a new RSD analysis must 

be performed. Even if the fab meets 

those requirements to skip testing, 

annual testing still must resume no later 

than the fifth year after the original RSD 

analysis that was performed before the 

retesting requirement was triggered. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
68170 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

2. Revise the Default Gas Utilization 

Rates and By-Product Formation Rates 

for the Plasma Etch Process Category for 

Facilities That Manufacture 

Semiconductors 

The EPA is amending the default 

plasma etch and chamber cleaning gas 

utilization rates and by-product 

formation rates and the requirements in 

40 CFR 98.93(a)(2) for estimating F– 

GHG emissions from plasma etch 

processes at semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities. The EPA is not 

amending the default emission factors 

for other types of electronics 

manufacturing facilities. 

First, the EPA is providing that all 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities, 

regardless of manufacturing capacity, 

have the option to calculate F–GHG 

emissions from the plasma etching 

process type using the appropriate 

default gas utilization rates and byproduct formation rates provided in 

Tables I–3 and I–4 of subpart I. Under 

these final amendments, no electronics 

manufacturing facility has the option to 

determine and use recipe-specific gas 

utilization rates and by-product 

formation rates for the plasma etch 

process type. The EPA is removing the 

distinction between large and other 

semiconductor facilities, such that all 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities 

may use the default gas utilization rates 

and by-product formation rates, 

independent of facility size. 

Second, we are revising the default 

emission factors for the plasma etch 

process type in Tables I–3 and I–4 of 

subpart I. The revised default emission 

factors are based on an expanded data 

set provided to the EPA by 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities 

after subpart I was originally 

promulgated in December 2010 in 

addition to data provided by 

commenters during the public comment 

period. The revised emission factors 

have been updated since proposal to 

account for the new data that were 

submitted during the public comment 

period, as discussed in Section II.B of 

this preamble. For more information 

regarding the revised by-product 

emission factor calculation 

methodology, please refer to ‘‘Technical 

Support for Modifications to the 

Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Emission 

Estimation Method Option for 

Semiconductor Facilities under Subpart 

I,’’ Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0028. 

Finally, as the EPA proposed, the EPA 

is combining the semiconductor wafer 

cleaning process type with the plasma 

etch process type; the amended rule 

does not have separate default emission 

factors for semiconductor wafer 

cleaning in the revised Table I–3 and I– 

4 of subpart I. 

For the chamber clean process type, 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities 

must estimate emissions from chamber 

clean and plasma etch processes using 

the following four process types/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, reporters must 

assume that the utilization and byproduct formation rates are zero (i.e., 

assume that emissions of a gas equals 

consumption of that gas). This approach 

is consistent with the methodology in 

the current subpart I rule, except that 

we are removing the option for facilities 

to develop recipe-specific factors. 

All other provisions related to the 

method using default gas utilization 

rates and by-product formation rates, 

such as the wafer size classes used for 

the default emission factors in Tables I– 

3 and I–4, remain the same. The only 

exception is that the default emission 

factors in Table I–4 that apply to 300 

mm wafers also apply to 450 mm 

wafers. As more data (i.e., utilization 

and by-product formation rates) become 

available for the semiconductor 

manufacturing industry in the future, 

the EPA will consider adding new 

default emission factors to Tables I–3 

and I–4 for new gas and process type/ 

sub-type combinations, including 

adding any new default emission factors 

specifically for semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities using 450 mm 

wafers. However, for these final 

amendments, facilities using wafers 

greater than 300 mm diameter must use 

the same default emission factors as 

those using 300 mm wafers. Section 

II.A.12 of this preamble describes the 

process that EPA will follow for 

updating default emission factors as 

more information is collected from the 

electronics manufacturing industry. 

3. Removing the Provisions for Using 

Recipe-Specific Gas Utilization Rates 

and By-Product Formation Rates for 

Facilities That Manufacture Electronics 

The EPA is removing the provisions 

to use recipe-specific gas utilization 

rates and by-product formation rates in 

40 CFR 98.93(a)(2)(ii)(A), (a)(3), and 

(a)(4), as proposed. 

Although the EPA has deferred the 

mandatory use of recipe-specific gas 

utilization rates and by-product 

formation rates through the end of 2013 

(76 FR 59542, September 27, 2011), as 

a result of these final amendments, no 

semiconductor manufacturing facility 

has the option to use the recipe-specific 

method or report those data elements 

after the end of 2013. In addition, we are 

removing the recipe-specific method as 

an option for other electronics 

manufacturing facilities. 

No facilities have used the recipespecific emission factor methods in 40 

CFR 98.93(a)(2)(ii)(A), (a)(3), (a)(4), or 

(a)(6) for reporting emissions for 2011 or 

2012. According to information the EPA 

has received from industry members, no 

facilities are known to be planning to 

use the recipe specific methods in 2013 

for emissions reported in 2014. All 

comments received by the EPA 

supported removing the recipe specific 

method, and the EPA received no 

comments asking that this method be 

retained in Subpart I. However, 

reporters may still use the recipespecific methods for estimating 2013 

emissions reported in 2014. Following 

the January 1, 2014 effective date of this 

rule, reporters are required to select 

calculation methods to estimate 

emissions for 2014 reported in 2015, 

and thereafter, based on the options in 

these final amendments to subpart I. 

Finally, we are revising 40 CFR 

98.93(a)(6) to remove the option to 

develop recipe-specific gas utilization 

rates and by-product formation rates for 

F–GHG and process combinations for 

which no default emission factors are 

available. We are also revising 40 CFR 

98.93(b)(1)(i) and (b)(2)(i) to remove the 

option to develop facility-specific N2O 

emission factors. Under 40 CFR 

98.93(a)(6), for gas and process 

combinations without default factors, 

facilities must assume that F–GHG 

emissions equal F–GHG consumption, 

which is equivalent to treating the 

utilization and by-product formation 

rates as both zero. Under the final 

revisions to 40 CFR 98.93(b), facilities 

must use default N2O emission factors 

for both CVD processes and for the 

aggregate of all other manufacturing 

production processes, and do not have 

the option to develop facility-specific 

N2O emission factors. EPA is not 

revising the current default N2O 

emission factors in this final rule. The 

emission factor for CVD processes is 0.8 

and the emission factor for the aggregate 

of all other manufacturing production 

processes is 1.0. 

4. Applicability and Calculating Annual 

Manufacturing Capacity for Facilities 

That Manufacture Electronics 

The EPA is revising the calculation to 

determine annual capacity for 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68171 

electronics manufacturing facilities, 

which is used in the calculation to 

determine whether a facility meets the 

reporting threshold. First, we are 

revising Equation I–5 to clarify that 

reporters must sum the annual 

manufacturing across each fab to 

determine the annual manufacturing 

capacity of the facility. This is a change 

since proposal to reflect other changes 

in the rule that calculate emissions per 

fab. The EPA is replacing the phrase 

‘‘maximum designed substrate starts of 

a facility’’ in Equation I–5 with the 

phrase ‘‘maximum substrate starts of the 

fab,’’ as proposed. Likewise, as 

proposed, we are replacing the 

definition in 40 CFR 98.98 of 

‘‘maximum designed substrate starts’’ 

with that for ‘‘maximum substrate 

starts,’’ which is defined as ‘‘the 

maximum quantity of substrates, 

expressed as surface area, that could be 

started each month during a reporting 

year based on the equipment installed 

in that fab and assuming that the 

installed equipment were fully utilized. 

Manufacturing equipment is considered 

installed when it is on the 

manufacturing floor and connected to 

required utilities.’’ 

A reporter must continue to use 

Equation I–5, with these revisions, to 

determine the annual manufacturing 

capacity of the facility to determine if 

they meet the threshold for reporting 

under subpart I. 

The final rule includes revised 

requirements, as proposed, in 40 CFR 

98.96(a) and (b) to calculate and report 

the maximum annual capacity and the 

actual annual production, respectively, 

for each fab in the facility, and to clarify 

that the maximum capacity is based on 

the equipment on-site in the reporting 

year, assuming it is fully utilized, rather 

than the design capacity. 

The changes do not affect the 

applicability of subpart I to any facility 

that is already reporting GHG emissions 

under subpart I. The mere fact that a 

facility that is already reporting would 

not meet the applicability test in 40 CFR 

98.91 under the revised subpart I does 

not relieve its obligation to report. 

Facilities may cease reporting only if 

they meet the criteria in 40 CFR 98.2(i). 

We are also removing the 

requirement, as proposed, that 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities 

calculate and report their F–GHG 

emissions based on the annual 

manufacturing capacity of the facility 

and the size of wafers that the facility 

is manufacturing. Subpart I currently 

distinguishes between ‘‘large’’ and 

‘‘other’’ semiconductor facilities based 

on the calculated annual manufacturing 

capacity. Except as provided in the 

September 27, 2011 final rule titled 

‘‘Changes to Provisions for Electronics 

Manufacturing to Provide Flexibility in 

2011 to 2013,’’ subpart I requires ‘‘large’’ 

semiconductor facilities (facilities with 

an annual manufacturing capacity of 

greater than 10,500 m2 of substrate) and 

those facilities that manufacture wafers 

greater than 300 mm in diameter to 

calculate emissions using recipespecific utilization and by-product 

formation rates. As discussed in 

Sections II.A.1 through II.A.3 of this 

preamble, we are revising the 

calculation methodologies for 

semiconductor manufacturers. The 

calculation methods apply to all 

semiconductor manufacturers and there 

is no longer a need to distinguish 

‘‘large’’ facilities based on 

manufacturing capacity. 

5. Integrated Production and R&D 

Activities for Facilities That 

Manufacture Electronics 

The EPA is finalizing provisions, as 

proposed, to allow all electronics 

manufacturing facilities covered by 

subpart I to report R&D emissions with 

their total facility emissions and to 

identify that emissions associated with 

R&D activities are included in their 

overall emissions estimates. We are also 

requiring facilities that report integrated 

R&D emissions to report an estimate of 

the range of the percentage of total 

emissions from their R&D activities as 

part of their annual report (40 CFR 

98.96(x)), and to keep records 

documenting that determination (40 

CFR 98.97(j)). 

6. Accuracy and Precision of Monitoring 

Instrumentation for Facilities That 

Manufacture Electronics 

The EPA is removing the 

requirements in 40 CFR 98.94(i) that all 

measuring devices meet an accuracy 

and precision of 1 percent of full scale 

or greater. Instead, as proposed, we are 

requiring electronics manufacturing 

facilities subject to subpart I to meet the 

existing General Provision calibration 

accuracy requirements in subpart A (40 

CFR 98.3(i)). The calibration accuracy 

requirements for gas flow measurement 

devices are 5 percent, as specified in 40 

CFR 98.3(i). Further, other measuring 

devices (e.g., weigh scales and 

thermometers) are required to be 

calibrated to an accuracy based on an 

applicable operating standard, 

including, but not limited to, device 

manufacturer’s specifications and 

industry standards (40 CFR 98.3(i)(1)(i)). 

7. Facility-Wide Gas Specific Heel 

Factor for Facilities That Manufacture 

Electronics 

The EPA is amending, as proposed, 

the requirements in subpart I to clarify 

that recalculating the heel factor is only 

needed when the trigger point for a 

specific gas and cylinder type is 

changed, and not as a result of variation 

in the actual heel remaining in a 

cylinder. We are amending 40 CFR 

98.94(b)(5) to clarify that a gas-specific 

heel factor must be recalculated when 

the facility executes a process change to 

modify the trigger point for a gas and 

container type that differs by more than 

5 percent from the previously used 

trigger point for that gas and container 

type. 

We are also clarifying, since proposal, 

that the facility is not required to 

estimate the fab-specific heel factor for 

F–GHGs or N2O that are used in 

quantities of less than 50 kg in one 

reporting year and for which emissions 

are calculated as equal to consumption, 

or for any intermittent low-use F–GHG. 

The EPA is also revising, as proposed, 

the ‘‘exceptional circumstance’’ criteria 

at 40 CFR 98.94(b)(4) with respect to 

small containers. Specifically, we are 

revising the criteria for an ‘‘exceptional 

circumstance’’ in 40 CFR 98.94(b)(4) 

from 20 percent of the original trigger 

point for change out to 50 percent for 

small cylinders. We are defining a small 

cylinder as a container that contains less 

than 9.08 kg (20 pounds) of gas. For 

large containers, the ‘‘exceptional 

circumstance’’ remains as a change out 

point that differs by 20 percent of the 

trigger point used to calculate the gasspecific heel factor. The revisions still 

require facilities to measure the heel in 

cases where the cylinder change out 

deviated from the established trigger 

point. For example, a small 15-pound 

cylinder with a 2 pound trigger point 

must still be measured, in lieu of using 

the established heel factor, if the 

difference in the change out point is 

greater than 1 pound. In this example, 

this 1 pound difference (based on the 

50-percent criteria for an exceptional 

circumstance) represents less than 8 

percent of the usable gas in the cylinder. 

8. Apportioning Model Verification for 

Facilities That Manufacture Electronics 

The EPA is amending the 

apportioning model verification 

requirements. First, the final 

amendments, as proposed, allow 

reporters the option to use direct 

measurements of gas consumption to 

avoid the need to develop an 

apportioning model, and to develop an 

apportioning factor for each process 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
68172 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

2Benaway, 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. 

type, sub-type, stack system, or fab 

using gas flow meters or weigh scales. 

The final amendments also retain the 

option to use an apportioning model 

and the verification requirements. 

Reporters opting to use the apportioning 

model must verify the model by 

comparing actual gas consumption to 

modeled gas consumption. The reporter 

must select for comparison the F–GHG 

that corresponds to the largest quantity, 

on a mass basis, of F–GHG used at the 

fab that has to be apportioned. Reporters 

may alternatively verify the model for 

two F–GHGs on an aggregate use basis 

if one of the gases selected is used in the 

largest quantity at each fab that is 

required to be apportioned. In this 

option, the predicted total mass 

consumed of the two gases combined 

must match the actual total mass 

consumed within the verification 

percent difference requirements for the 

apportioning model. 

Second, where a facility opts to 

develop and use an apportioning model, 

we are revising, as proposed, the 

verification standard to increase the 

allowable difference between the actual 

and modeled gas consumption from a 

maximum 5 percent difference to a 

maximum of 20 percent difference. 

We are finalizing changes, as 

proposed, to allow facilities to select a 

period of the reporting year when the 

fab is at a ‘‘representative operating 

level,’’ as defined in 40 CFR 98.98, for 

the model verification, instead of at a 

minimum percent of design capacity, or 

instead of at the highest 30-day average 

utilization. Under these final 

amendments, the representative period 

must still be at least 30 days, but we are 

clarifying that it can be up to the whole 

calendar reporting year in duration. 

9. Calculating N2O Emissions for 

Facilities That Manufacture Electronics 

The EPA is revising the language for 

calculating N2O emissions in 40 CFR 

98.93(b) to require reporting at the fab 

level, as proposed. We are finalizing, as 

proposed, the requirement that facilities 

must only use the default N2O 

utilization factors in Table I–8 of 

subpart I, and removing the option to 

measure and use facility-specific N2O 

emission factors. However, the EPA is 

not revising the default factors of 0.8 for 

CVD processes and 1.0 for all other N2Ousing manufacturing processes in the 

current Table I–8 of subpart I. The 

reasons for not adopting the default N2O 

emission factors that were proposed are 

described in section II.B of this 

preamble. 

The EPA is revising 40 CFR 98.93(b), 

as proposed, to clarify that facilities 

must report two N2O emission values 

for each fab at a facility: one for the 

aggregate of all CVD processes and one 

for the aggregate of all other N2O using 

manufacturing processes. We are 

finalizing similar changes to the 

reporting requirements in 40 CFR 

98.96(c) for consistency and 

clarification. 

10. Abatement System Destruction and 

Removal Efficiency (DRE) for Facilities 

That Manufacture Electronics 

The EPA is revising provisions for 

directly measuring abatement system 

DRE, and the basis for determining 

average DRE values for groups of similar 

abatement systems. These amendments 

apply to all electronics manufacturers. 

All reporters covered under subpart I 

still have the option of using either 

default DRE factors or a measured DRE 

value to calculate abated emissions. 

We are finalizing the option, as 

proposed, to allow reporters to establish 

a measured DRE value for gas and 

process type combinations, rather than 

for each abatement system or ‘‘class’’ of 

abatement systems. Reporters may 

measure the DRE for a gas and process 

type combination in which F–GHG and 

N2O are used in tools with abatement 

systems and for which abated emissions 

are calculated. Reporters may use a 

combination of measured and default 

DRE values; however, if a reporter 

develops a measured DRE value for 

abatement systems for a specific gas and 

process type combination for a fab, the 

resulting measured DRE must be used 

for that gas and process type 

combination and a default DRE factor 

cannot be used for that fab. In addition, 

the default DRE values may only be 

used for abatement systems specifically 

designed for F–GHG or N2O abatement. 

If a reporter elects to claim abatement 

for a system that is not specifically 

designed for F–GHG or N2O abatement, 

they must use a measured site-specific 

DRE for that system. 

We are also amending subpart I to 

allow reporters, as proposed, to use 

methods adapted from the 2009 ISMI 

Guideline tracer release/FTIR 

monitoring approach for determining 

abatement system DRE (hereafter, the 

‘‘2009 ISMI Guideline’’) 2 and also an 

alternative method to locate sampling 

sites. These alternatives are included in 

Appendix A to subpart I. We are also 

promulgating, as proposed, provisions 

that allow facilities to use an adaptation 

of Section 8.1 of EPA Method 7E at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–4 as an 

alternative to determine whether the 

injected tracer is well mixed in the duct 

system or is stratified (i.e., poorly 

mixed), and to adjust the sampling if it 

is stratified. The concentration of the 

tracer must be measured at three 

traverse points at 16.7, 50.0, and 83.3 

percent of the diameter of the duct and 

must be sampled for a minimum of 

twice the system response time. If the 

tracer gas concentration at each traverse 

point differs from the mean 

concentration for all traverse points by 

no more than ±5.0 percent of the mean 

concentration, the gas stream may be 

considered un-stratified and the facility 

is allowed collect samples from a single 

point that most closely matches the 

mean. If the 5.0 percent criterion is not 

met, but the concentration at each 

traverse point differs from the mean 

concentration for all traverse points by 

no more than ±10.0 percent of the mean, 

a facility may take samples from two 

points and use the average of the two 

measurements. The two points must be 

spaced at 16.7, 50.0, or 83.3 percent of 

the line. If the concentration at each 

traverse point differs from the mean 

concentration for all traverse points by 

more than ±10.0 percent of the mean but 

less than ±20.0 percent, the facility must 

take samples from three points at 16.7, 

50.0, and 83.3 percent of the 

measurement line and use the average of 

the three measurements. If the gas 

stream is found to be stratified because 

the ±20.0 percent criterion for a threepoint test is not met, the facility must 

locate and take samples from traverse 

points for the test in accordance with 

Sections 11.2 and 11.3 of EPA Method 

1 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–1. This 

finalized protocol is an adaptation of the 

protocol in Section 8.1.2 of EPA Method 

7E, Determination of Nitrogen Oxides 

Emissions from Stationary Sources 

(Instrumental Analyzer Procedure), in 

40 CFR part 60, Appendix A–4. 

In addition, we are also allowing 

reporters, as proposed, to request 

approval to use an alternative sampling 

and analysis method to measure 

abatement system DRE that is not 

included in subpart I, provided the 

reporter follows the process to obtain 

the Administrator’s approval specified 

in 40 CFR 98.94(k). The approval 

process is the same process used to 

obtain the Administrator’s approval to 

use an alternative stack testing method 

(see ‘‘Alternative stack test methods’’ in 

Section II.A.1 of this preamble). 

We are amending the random 

sampling abatement system testing 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68173 

program (RSASTP), as proposed, to 

reduce the amount of testing that must 

be performed by an individual facility. 

These final amendments require that 

facilities test 10 percent of systems 

annually over a 2-year period (20 

percent total) to set a baseline DRE for 

the given gas and process type 

combination. The systems must be 

randomly selected. A facility may test 

20 percent of abatement systems in the 

first year. Until the facility measures 20 

percent of abatement systems for a gas 

and process type combination (e.g., for 

calculating emissions in the first year if 

they test only 10 percent of systems per 

year), they must use the default DRE 

factors to calculate emissions. For every 

3-year period after, facilities are 

required to randomly select and test 15 

percent of the systems to validate the 

site-specific DRE. The reporter may opt 

to test 15 percent of the systems in the 

first year of the 3-year period, but must 

test at least 5 percent of the systems 

each year until 15 percent are tested. 

If testing of a particular randomly 

selected abatement system is disruptive 

to production, the reporter may replace 

that system with another randomly 

selected system and return the other to 

the sampling pool for subsequent 

testing. We are finalizing the 

requirement that a system cannot be 

returned to the subsequent testing pool 

for more than three consecutive 

selections and must be tested on the 

third selection. We are also allowing a 

reporter to specifically include in one of 

the next two sampling years a system 

that could not be tested when it was 

first selected so that the reporter can 

plan for the testing of that system when 

it will be less disruptive. 

We are finalizing the requirement, as 

proposed, that the average DRE for each 

gas and process type combination must 

be calculated first as the arithmetic 

mean of the first 2 years of 

measurements. Beginning in the third 

year of testing, the average DRE must be 

the arithmetic mean of all test results for 

that gas and process type combination, 

until the facility tests at least 30 percent 

of all systems for each gas and process 

combination. After testing at least 30 

percent of all systems for a gas and 

process combination, the facility must 

use the arithmetic mean of the most 

recent 30 percent of systems tested as 

the average DRE in the emissions 

calculations. 

To account for measurements that 

may be affected by improper 

maintenance or operation of the 

abatement systems during a DRE 

measurement, the measured DRE value 

must be used as follows: (1) Where the 

DRE of some abatement units is below 

the design and default DRE, and the 

abatement system is installed, operated, 

and maintained in accordance with the 

site maintenance plan for abatement 

systems, the data from the low DRE test 

must be included in calculating the fabspecific DREs; (2) If proper maintenance 

and operation procedures have not been 

not followed, then the facility must 

implement the appropriate operational 

change or system maintenance (per the 

site maintenance plan for abatement 

systems), and retest that device within 

the same reporting year. In this case, a 

reporter is not required to include in the 

average DRE calculation the DRE result 

from the device for which proper 

maintenance and operation procedures 

were not followed. As an alternative, 

instead of retesting that device within 

the reporting year, the reporter may use 

the measured DRE value in calculating 

the average DRE for the reporting year, 

and then include the same device in the 

next year’s abatement system testing in 

addition to the testing of randomly 

selected devices for that next reporting 

year. Regardless of whether or not the 

reporter uses the low DRE value in 

calculating the average measured DRE, 

the reporter must count the period 

during which the proper maintenance 

and operation procedures were not 

being followed toward that abatement 

system’s downtime for the year for the 

purposes of calculating emissions. 

For reporters who do not measure 

facility-specific DRE values, we are also 

allowing electronics manufacturing 

facilities to use a default DRE for 

abatement systems that are specifically 

designed for F–GHG or N2O abatement 

(as applicable) and that are operated and 

maintained according to the facility’s 

abatement system site maintenance plan 

that is based on the abatement system(s) 

manufacturer’s recommendations and 

specifications for installation, operation, 

and maintenance. For semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities, we are revising 

and expanding the available DRE 

default values that may be used to 

calculate emissions. The revised default 

DREs for semiconductor manufacturing 

facilities are included in Table I–16. We 

are not revising or expanding default 

DRE factors for other electronics 

manufacturers (MEMS, LCDs, and PV 

cells); no changes to these DRE factors 

were proposed. Facilities manufacturing 

MEMS, LCDs, and PV cells must use the 

60 percent default DRE if they do not 

develop facility-specific DRE values and 

elect to account for abatement system 

DRE in their reported emissions. 

We are revising the default DRE 

factors for semiconductors since 

proposal to reflect the results of the 

EPA’s analysis of DRE test data for 

specific gas and process type 

combinations, which includes data that 

were submitted to the EPA during the 

comment period. The final default DRE 

factors also reflect a change since 

proposal in the statistical method used 

to calculate the default DRE factors as a 

result of public comments. The change 

in the method and EPA’s rationale for 

adopting the different method is 

discussed in more detail in section 

II.B.5 of this preamble. The revised 

default DRE factors for the gas and 

process type combinations for 

semiconductor manufacturing are 

shown in Table I–16 of Subpart I. The 

EPA will add new or revised default 

DRE factors when appropriate data 

become available in the future. See 

Section II.A.12 of this preamble for the 

process for updating default emission 

factors and default DRE factors as more 

data are collected for the semiconductor 

manufacturing industry. 

In order to ensure that the abatement 

systems used are performing in a way 

that meets the default DRE or the 

measured DRE, we are requiring, as 

proposed, that facilities certify that 

abatement systems are properly 

installed, operated, and maintained 

according to the site maintenance plan 

for abatement systems (40 CFR 

98.97(d)(9)). The site maintenance plan 

for abatement systems must define the 

required operation and maintenance 

procedures for each type of abatement 

system used at the facility, and must 

include corrective action procedures for 

when an abatement unit is not operating 

properly. The site maintenance plan 

must be based on the manufacturer’s 

recommendations and specifications for 

installation, operation, and 

maintenance, where available. The site 

maintenance plan for abatement systems 

must also include documentation where 

the operation and maintenance deviate 

from the manufacturer’s specifications, 

including an explanation of how the 

deviations have a positive or neutral 

effect on the performance or destruction 

or removal efficiency of the abatement 

system. For example, a reporter may 

include documentation of more frequent 

maintenance checks or tighter operating 

parameters that optimize system 

performance. The site maintenance plan 

for abatement systems must be kept as 

part of the GHG monitoring plan 

required by 40 CFR 98.3(g)(5). 

We are also specifying that if the 

manufacturer’s recommendations and 

specifications for installation, operation, 

and maintenance are not available (e.g., 

for older fabs that want to claim 

abatement in their reported emissions), 

then facilities may not use the default 

DRE factors found in Table I–16 for 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
68174 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

those abatement systems, but do have 

the option to properly measure sitespecific DREs following the 

requirements of 40 CFR 98.94(f)(4). 

Facilities also have the option to report 

their annual emissions without 

accounting for abatement. This is a 

change since proposal, and the rationale 

for this change is discussed in more 

detail in section II.B of this preamble. 

Furthermore, we are also requiring 

that facilities using the default emission 

factors who elect to claim abatement for 

reporting purposes and elect to use the 

default DRE values must also certify that 

the abatement systems are specifically 

designed for F–GHG abatement (or N2O 

abatement, as appropriate) in addition 

to the requirement that the 

manufacturer’s recommendations and 

specifications for installation, operation, 

and maintenance be incorporated into 

the site maintenance plan. In response 

to public comments, we have revised 

the definition of ‘‘abatement system’’ 

since proposal to be clear that we meant 

a device or equipment that is designed 

to destroy or remove F–GHGs (or N2O, 

as appropriate) in exhaust streams from 

one or more electronics manufacturing 

production processes, or for which a 

site-specific DRE has been measured 

according to 40 CFR 98.94(f). We are 

also revising 40 CFR 98.94(f), in 

response to comments since proposal, to 

clarify that if facilities elect to use the 

stack test alternative in 40 CFR 98.93(i) 

and elect to account for abatement, they 

must certify that the system is designed 

to abate F–GHGs, or they must measure 

a site-specific DRE according to 40 CFR 

98.94(f). We have also included a 

requirement that facilities using the 

stack test alternative must certify that 

that all abatement systems that are 

designed to abate F–GHGs or for which 

a site-specific DRE has been measured 

are fully accounted for when calculating 

annual emissions and accounting for 

excess emissions from downtime using 

the methods in 40 CFR 98.93(i)(3). If an 

abatement system is not designed to 

abate F–GHG, then reporters may elect 

to not account for any incidental F–GHG 

abatement from that system under the 

stack testing alternative. 

11. Abatement System Uptime for 

Facilities That Manufacture Electronics 

The EPA is revising the methods used 

to calculate abatement system uptime. 

For facilities that are using the default 

gas utilization rates and by-product 

formation rates, we are amending 40 

CFR 98.93(g) to allow reporters to 

calculate the uptime of all the 

abatement systems for each combination 

of input gas or by-product gas and each 

process type or sub-type combination, 

using the same process categories in 

which F–GHG use and emissions are 

calculated. We are revising Equation I– 

15 to calculate the average uptime factor 

for all abatement system connected to 

process tools for a given input gas and 

process type or subtype. The same 

uptime factor will be used for both 

input gases and the associated byproduct gases for that input gas and 

process combination. However, since 

proposal we have removed the separate 

equations for uptime of abatement 

systems applied to input gases and byproduct gases and the final rule has only 

a single equation for uptime applicable 

to all gases. The reason for this change 

since proposal is discussed in more 

detail in Section II.B of this preamble. 

Reporters are required, as proposed, 

to determine the average abatement 

system uptime factor for a given gas/

process type or sub-type combination 

by: (1) Calculating the total time that the 

abatement system connected to process 

tools in the fab is not operating within 

site maintenance plan specifications as 

a fraction of the total time in which the 

abatement system has at least one 

associated tool in operation during the 

reporting year for each gas/process type 

combination; and (2) by subtracting this 

fraction from 1.0 to calculate the uptime 

fraction. For determining the amount of 

tool operating time, reporters may 

assume that tools that were installed for 

the entire reporting year were operated 

for 525,600 minutes per year. For tools 

that were installed or uninstalled during 

the year, reporters must prorate the 

operating time to account for the days 

in which the tool was not installed; any 

partial day that a tool was installed 

must be treated as a full day (1,440 

minutes) of tool operation. If a tool is 

‘‘idle’’ with no gas flowing through it to 

the abatement system, the reporter has 

the option to count only the time that 

the tool has gas flowing through it for 

purposes of determining the tool 

operating time. For an abatement system 

that has more than one connected tool, 

the tool operating time must be 

considered to be equivalent to a full 

year if at least one tool was installed 

and operating at all times throughout 

the year. 

12. Triennial Technology Report for 

Semiconductor Manufacturing 

We are requiring certain 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities, 

as proposed, to provide a report to the 

EPA every 3 years, beginning in 2017, 

that addresses technology and process 

changes at the facility that could affect 

GHG emissions. The report must 

address how technology and processes 

have changed in the industry over the 

previous 3 years and the extent to which 

any of the identified changes are likely 

to have affected the GHG emissions 

characteristics (i.e., the identity, 

amount, frequency, concentration, or 

other characteristics related to GHG 

emissions) of semiconductor 

manufacturing processes in such a way 

that the default gas utilization rates and 

by-product formation rates and/or 

default DRE factors in subpart I may 

need to be updated or augmented. The 

EPA plans to have reporters submit this 

report using the Electronic Greenhouse 

Gas Reporting Tool (e-GGRT) system. 

We are requiring, as proposed, that 

the first 3-year report be due with the 

annual GHG emissions report submitted 

in 2017. Only semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities subject to 

subpart I and with emissions from 

subpart I processes greater than 40,000 

mtCO2e per year CO2e are required to 

submit the report. The requirement to 

submit the first report in 2017 is based 

on the facility’s emissions in 2015 

(which would be reported in 2016), and 

the requirement to submit subsequent 

reports is based on emissions in the 

most recently submitted annual GHG 

report. For example, any facility that 

reported GHG emissions from the 

subpart I source category of greater than 

40,000 mtCO2e for reporting year 2015 

must submit the 3-year report due in 

2017. To reduce burden, we are 

allowing the option for multiple 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities 

(regardless of whether they are owned 

by the same parent company) to submit 

a single consolidated 3-year report. 

Facilities with reported emissions at or 

below 40,000 mtCO2e per year may 

voluntarily prepare and submit a report. 

Facilities that are not subject to 

reporting under subpart I based on the 

applicability criteria in subparts A and 

I are not required to submit a 3-year 

report. 

The 3-year report must include, as 

proposed, the following: (1) Whether 

and how the gases and technologies 

used in 200 mm and 300 mm wafer 

semiconductor manufacturing in the 

United States have changed and 

whether any of the identified changes 

are likely to have affected the emissions 

characteristics of semiconductor 

manufacturing processes in such a way 

that the default gas utilization rates and 

by-product formation rates or default 

DRE factors may need to be updated; (2) 

The effect of the implementation of new 

products, process technologies, and/or 

finer line width processes in 200 mm 

and 300 mm technologies, the 

introduction of new tool platforms and 

process chambers, and the introduction 

of new processes on previously tested 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68175 

platforms or process chambers; (3) The 

status of implementing 450 mm wafer 

technology and the potential need to 

create or update gas utilization rates and 

by-product formation rates compared to 

300 mm technology; and (4) The 

submission of any gas utilization rates 

and by-product formation rate or DRE 

data that have been collected in the 

previous 3 years that support the 

changes or continuities in 

semiconductor manufacturing processes 

described in the report. 

If the report indicates that the 

emissions characteristics of 

semiconductor manufacturing processes 

may have changed (i.e., the identity, 

amount, frequency, or concentration), 

the report must include a data gathering 

and analysis plan describing the testing 

of tools to determine the potential effect 

on current gas utilization rates and byproduct formation rates and DRE values 

under the new conditions, and a 

planned analysis of the effect on overall 

facility emissions using a representative 

gas-use profile for a 200 mm, 300 mm, 

or 450 mm fab (depending on which 

technology is under consideration). The 

EPA will review the reports received 

and determine whether it is necessary to 

update the default gas utilization rates 

and by-product formation rates in 

Tables I–3, I–4, I–11, and I–12, and 

default DREs in I–16 based on the 

following: (1) Whether the revised 

default gas utilization rates and byproduct formation rates and DREs 

would result in a projected shift in 

emissions of 10 percent or greater for 

each gas and process type or process 

subtype; (2) Whether new platforms, 

process chambers, processes, or 

facilities that are not captured in current 

default gas utilization rates and byproduct formation rates and DRE values 

should be included in revised values; 

and (3) Whether new data are available 

that would expand the existing data set 

to include new gases, tools, or processes 

not included in the existing data set (i.e. 

gases, tools, or processes for which no 

data are currently available). 

The EPA will review the report(s) 

within 120 days and notify the facilities 

that submitted the report(s) whether the 

Agency determined it was appropriate 

to update the default emission factors 

and/or DRE values. If the EPA 

determines it is necessary to update the 

default emission factors and/or DRE 

values, those facilities would then have 

180 days following the date they receive 

notice of the determination to execute 

the data collection and analysis plan 

described in the report and submit those 

data to the EPA. The EPA will then 

determine whether to issue a proposal 

to amend the rule to update the default 

emission factors and/or DRE values 

using the newly submitted data. 

13. Final Amendments to Reporting and 

Recordkeeping Requirements 

In this action, the EPA is finalizing 

several changes (additions as well as 

revisions) to the data reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements in subpart 

I. Table 2 of this preamble summarizes 

the changes to the reporting elements, 

and notes those elements that were 

changed since proposal. 

TABLE 2—CHANGES TO REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Data element Change/revision Original 

citation 

New or revised 

citation 

Annual manufacturing capacity of facility as 

determined in Equation I–5.

Revised to report manufacturing capacity on a fab basis, rather 

than facility 1.

98.96(a) .......... NA. 

The diameter of wafers manufactured at 

the facility.

Revised to report wafer size on a fab basis, rather than facility 1 98.96(b) .......... NA. 

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.

Revised to apply only when default gas utilization rate and byproduct formation rate procedures in 40 CFR 98.93(a) are 

used to calculate emissions. Revised 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 sub-type.

Removed requirement to report emissions by individual recipe 

(including those in a set of similar recipes). Revised 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.

Revised to clarify that facilities report N2O emitted from the aggregate of all chamber cleaning processes and from the aggregate of other N2O-using manufacturing processes. Revised 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).

Added 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.

Removed and reserved all of 98.96(f) because of changes to 

remove the use of recipe-specific gas utilization rates and 

by-product formation rates.

98.96(f) ........... NA. 

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.

Changed to recordkeeping requirement. Revised so that requirement applies to ‘‘fab’’ instead of facility. Added applicable equation references for the stack testing option.98.96(g) .......... 98.97(k). 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
68176 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 2—CHANGES TO REPORTING REQUIREMENTS—Continued 

Data element Change/revision Original 

citation 

New or revised 

citation 

All inputs used to calculate gas consumption in Equation I–11 for each F–GHG 

and N2O used.

Changed 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.

Changed 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 gasspecific 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.

Changed to recordkeeping requirement. Removed ‘‘recipe-specific’’ requirements. Revised to refer to the annual amount of 

N2O consumed for the aggregate of all CVD processes and 

for the aggregate of all other electronics manufacturing production processes 1.

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

All apportioning factors used to apportion 

F–GHG and N2O consumption.

Changed 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, and an indication if direct measurements were 

used in addition to, or instead of, a quantifiable metric.

Corrected citation and revised to indicate whether direct measurements used.98.96(m)(i) ...... 98.96(m)(1). 

Start and end dates selected under 40 CFR 

98.94(c)(2)(i).

Corrected 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.

Corrected 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).

Corrected citation and revised to refer to 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.

Added 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.

Moved to recordkeeping, and removed recipe-specific 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 sub-type, or process type j is 

used, as well as all inputs and calculations used to determine the inputs for 

Equation I–14.

Moved to recordkeeping, removed recipe-specific references, 

and revised to apply to the stack testing option.

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


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68177 

TABLE 2—CHANGES TO REPORTING REQUIREMENTS—Continued 

Data element Change/revision Original 

citation 

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.

Revised the inventory to include only those systems for which 

the facility is claiming F–GHG or N2O destruction or removal.

Revised 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.

Revised 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 recommendations and 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 is revised to include that all systems are installed, maintained, and operated according to the site operation and maintenance plan for abatement systems, including 

documentation where the process deviates from the manufacturer’s recommendations and specifications, and an explanation of why the deviation does not have a negative effect 

on system performance 1.

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

All inputs to abatement system uptime calculations, the default 

or measured DRE used for each abatement system, and the 

description of the calculations and inputs used to calculate 

class averages for measured DRE values moved to recordkeeping in 98.97(d).

In place of reporting the information and data on uptime and 

DRE calculations for abatement systems, the reporter must 

calculate and report an effective fab-wide DRE, as required 

in 98.96(r).

Inputs to the F–HTF mass balance equation, Equation I–16, for each F–HTF.Changed to recordkeeping .......................................................... 98.96(r) ........... 98.97(r). 

An effective fab-wide DRE calculated using 

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

Added requirement 1 .................................................................... 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).

Changed 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.

Removed requirement ................................................................. 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.

Removed requirement ................................................................. 98.96(v) .......... NA. 

The date of any stack testing conducted 

during the reporting year, and the identity 

of the stack tested.

Added requirement in conjunction with stack testing option ....... NA .................. 98.96(w)(1). 

An inventory of all stacks from which process F–GHGs 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).

Added requirement in conjunction with stack testing option ....... NA .................. 98.96(w)(2). 

If emissions reported under 40 CFR 

98.96(c) include emissions from research 

and development activities, the approximate percentage of total GHG emissions 

that are attributable to research and development activities.

Added requirement ...................................................................... NA .................. 98.96(x). 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
68178 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

3These reporting elements include data elements 

that have been designated as ‘‘inputs to emissions 

equations’’ in the August 25, 2011 final rul titled, 

‘‘Change to the Reporting Date for Certain Data 

Elements Required Under the Mandatory Reporting 

of Greenhouse Gases Rule’’ (76 FR 53057), and 

listed in Table A-7 of subpart A. Consistent with the 

final amendments to subpart I, we are removing 

these subpart I inputs to emissions equations data 

elements from table A-7 so that they are not 

required to be reported by March 31, 2015. More 

information on this final change can be found in 

Section III of this preamble. 

TABLE 2—CHANGES TO REPORTING REQUIREMENTS—Continued 

Data element Change/revision Original 

citation 

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 by-product formation rates 

collected in the previous 3 years.

Added requirement ...................................................................... NA .................. 98.96(y). 

NA—Not applicable. 

1 Data element revised from proposed rule (77 FR 635380, October 16, 2012). 

The EPA is amending subpart I such 

that, with the addition of certain new 

data elements, several previous data 

reporting elements are not required to 

be reported to the EPA and, instead, are 

to be kept as records, as proposed.3

These records must be made available to 

the EPA for review upon request. 

The EPA is amending subpart I to add 

a stack testing option and to revise the 

method that uses default gas utilization 

rates and by-product formation rates. 

The stack testing approach involves the 

development of fab-specific emission 

factors in terms of kg of F–GHG emitted 

per kg of F–GHG consumed based on 

measured stack emissions. Using this 

approach, facilities are required to 

monitor and keep records of the fabspecific emission factor, the amount of 

each F–GHG consumed, and data on the 

operating time and performance of 

abatement systems, but they are not 

required to report these data. Other data 

needed to determine the amount of F– 

GHG used in a process type or sub-type 

are not reported, but rather kept as 

records. The EPA has also included 

additional recordkeeping requirements 

in 40 CFR 98.97 to verify compliance 

with the factors that trigger a retest, 

including the identity and total annual 

consumption of each gas identified as 

an intermittent, low-use F–GHG, and 

the total number of tools at each stack 

in the fab. 

The final amendments to the default 

gas utilization rate and by-product 

formation rate approach require 

facilities to monitor and keep records of 

the amount of each F–GHG consumed in 

each process type and sub-type, and 

data on the operating time and 

performance of abatement systems, but 

do not require facilities to report these 

data. 

The final amendments to the 

reporting requirements move the 

information on the number and DRE of 

abatement systems at each facility from 

the reporting requirements to the 

recordkeeping requirements as 

proposed. In order to determine the 

extent to which GHG emissions from 

this category are being abated, we are 

including in 40 CFR 98.96(r) a 

requirement for reporters to calculate 

and report effective fab-wide DRE 

factors for the emissions from the 

electronics manufacturing processes at 

each fab. In the October 16, 2012 

proposed amendments to subpart I, the 

EPA proposed to require facilities to 

report facility-wide DRE factors in order 

to assist in our verification of reported 

GHG emissions (77 FR 63569). 

Following proposal, the EPA 

determined that because facilities are 

already collecting information to 

determine emissions on a fab-level basis 

using either the methods in 40 CFR 

98.93(a), (b), or (i), a fab-wide DRE 

factor (instead of facility-wide) is more 

appropriate to ascertain the extent to 

which GHGs are being abated. The fabwide DRE factor is calculated as 1 

minus the ratio of reported emissions to 

the emissions that would occur if there 

were no abatement. The emissions are 

already reported under subpart A and 

subpart I. 

For calculating the effective fab-wide 

DRE factors, reporters have two methods 

for calculating emissions that would 

occur if there were no abatement. The 

first method is used to calculate the 

emissions without abatement in cases 

where the reporter calculated emissions 

using default utilization and by-product 

formation rates. This includes cases in 

which the reporter calculated emissions 

under 40 CFR 98.93(a) and also those 

emissions that were calculated for stack 

systems that are exempt from testing, 

under 40 CFR 98.93(i)(3). In this 

method, emissions without abatement 

are calculated using the consumption of 

each F–GHG and N2O in each process 

type or sub-type, and the default gas 

utilization rates and by-product 

formation rates in Tables I–3 to I–8, and 

I–11 to I–15 of subpart I. This 

calculation does not require reporters to 

collect any additional information 

because the information on F–GHG and 

N2O consumption is already required to 

perform the calculations needed to 

estimate emissions using either the 

revised default emission factor approach 

or the stack testing option. This 

reporting requirement, 40 CFR 98.96(r), 

requires a calculation with these 

existing data, including the current 

reported emissions and the emissions 

that would occur if there were no 

abatement. The latter must be calculated 

using the consumption of each F–GHG 

and N2O in each process type or subtype and the appropriate default gas 

utilization rates and by-product 

formation rates in Tables I–3 to I–8 and 

I–11 to I–15 of subpart I. 

The second method is used to 

calculate the emissions without 

abatement from stack systems in cases 

where the reporter calculated emissions 

based on stack testing conducted 

according to 40 CFR 98.93(i)(4). In this 

method, reporters must calculate 

emissions without abatement from the 

reported GHG emissions using the 

inverse of the DRE and the fraction of 

each gas in each process type that is 

abated. This method uses default values 

or values that are already measured and 

used in the equations that a reporter 

uses to calculate GHG emissions in the 

stack testing option. 

In this notice we are also finalizing 

changes, as proposed, to Table A–7 of 

subpart A, General Provisions. Table A– 

7 lists those data elements for which the 

reporting date has been deferred to 

March 31, 2015 for the 2011 to 2013 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68179 

reporting years. We are revising Table 

A–7 for the rows specific to subpart I to 

remove the references to those data 

elements described in Table 4 of this 

preamble that are moved from reporting 

in 40 CFR 98.96 to recordkeeping under 

40 CFR 98.97, or that are removed 

entirely from subpart I because of the 

removal of the relevant emission 

calculation requirement. Since these 

data elements were originally deferred 

until 2015 and reporters are no longer 

required to report these data elements 

after January 1, 2014, this final rule 

revises these data elements from 

reporting requirements to recordkeeping 

requirements for 2011, 2012, and 2013, 

as well as 2014 and beyond. Reporters 

are still required to maintain records of 

these data elements according to the 

procedures outlined in 98.97. 

14. Changes To Remove BAMM 

Provisions and Language Specific to 

Reporting Years 2011, 2012, and 2013 

We are removing the provisions in 40 

CFR 98.94(a) for best available 

monitoring methods (BAMM), as 

proposed. The requirements of 40 CFR 

98.94(a)(1) through (a)(3) provide an 

option for reporters to request and use 

BAMM for calendar year 2011 reporting 

for monitoring parameters that cannot 

be reasonably measured according to the 

monitoring and quality assurance/

quality control (QA/QC) methods 

provided in subpart I. The provisions 

require that, starting no later than 

January 1, 2012, the reporter must 

discontinue using BAMM and begin 

following all applicable monitoring and 

QA/QC requirements of this part, unless 

the EPA has approved the use of BAMM 

beyond 2011 under 40 CFR 98.98(a)(4). 

As discussed in Section I.D of this 

preamble, these amendments will 

become effective on January 1, 2014. 

Facilities are required to follow one of 

the new methods to estimate emissions 

beginning in 2014, submitting the first 

reports of emissions estimated using the 

new methods in 2015. The BAMM 

provisions of 40 CFR 98.94(a) will be 

outdated on the effective date. The 

provisions of 40 CFR 98.94(a)(1) to (a)(3) 

are limited to 2011, and the deadline for 

requesting an extension under 40 CFR 

98.94(a)(4) also occurred in 2011. 

Therefore, we are removing all the 

BAMM provisions in the current 

subpart I, because they will no longer be 

applicable starting in 2014, which is 

when this final rule will be effective. 

We are not promulgating any new 

BAMM provisions because we expect 

that all facilities will be in compliance 

with the monitoring and QA/QC 

methods required under subpart I for 

the 2014 calendar year. 

We are also removing 40 CFR 

98.93(h)(2), as proposed, which 

provided an option for reporters to 

calculate and report emissions of 

fluorinated heat transfer fluids using 

select time periods in 2012, and the 

corresponding reporting requirement at 

40 CFR 98.96(v). In addition, we are 

removing language in 40 CFR 

98.94(h)(3) that is specific to the 

monitoring of fluorinated heat transfer 

fluids in 2012. These provisions will no 

longer be applicable on the effective 

date of these final amendments, since 

both data elements are specific to 2012. 

B. Responses to Major Comments 

Submitted on the Electronics 

Manufacturing Source Category 

This section contains a brief summary 

of the major comments and responses 

on the proposed changes to the final 

subpart I rule. The EPA received 

comments on the proposed changes 

from the SIA, five semiconductor 

manufacturers (GlobalFoundries, IBM, 

Intel, Samsung, and Texas Instruments), 

and Environmental Defense Fund (an 

environmental advocacy group). 

A summary of all of the comments 

and the responses thereto that are not 

included in this preamble can be found 

in the document, ‘‘Reporting of 

Greenhouse Gases—Technical Revisions 

to the Electronics Manufacturing 

Category of the Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Rule: EPA’s Responses to 

Public Comments’’ (see EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2011–0028). 

1. Stack Testing as an Alternative 

Emission Monitoring Method for 

Facilities That Manufacture Electronics 

Comment: One commenter could not 

duplicate the EPA’s calculation for all of 

the Tier 2a emission factors in Tables I– 

11 and I–12 of subpart I that are to be 

used to screen which stacks are to be 

tested under the stack testing 

alternative, and for calculating 

emissions from certain low-emitting 

stacks in that alternative. Based on their 

review of the EPA’s explanation of how 

the factors in Tables I–11 and I–12 of 

subpart I were derived (see EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0028–0090), the commenter 

recommended the following changes for 

the final amendments to subpart I: 

• EPA should continue to use the 

default factors by process type and 

process sub-type in Tables I–3 and I–4 

of subpart I, or the underlying data, as 

the starting point for the derivation of 

the simpler factors in Tables I–11 and I– 

12 of subpart I. To the extent the factors 

in Tables I–3 and I–4 are updated 

between proposal and final rulemaking, 

those updated factors should be used to 

update the factors in Tables I–11 and I– 

12. 

• The commenter noted that the EPA 

used the arithmetic averages of the 

different process specific factors when 

deriving the factors in Tables I–11 and 

I–12 of subpart I. The commenter stated 

that weighting the individual factors for 

each process type by the amount of gas 

used in that process type is technically 

more appropriate than sample weighting 

(i.e., taking the arithmetic average of all 

the data points for that gas and process 

type). The commenter encouraged the 

EPA to re-compute the Table I–11 and 

I–12 factors with gas-use weighting. 

Where gas use information is not 

available, the commenter noted that 

sample weighting of available emission 

factor data would be acceptable. 

• The commenter recommended that 

the EPA should revise the nitrogen 

trifluoride (NF3) emission factors to give 

proper weighting to the emissions factor 

for remote clean, which represents the 

largest use of NF3. 

Response: The EPA agrees with the 

commenter that the factors in Tables I– 

11 and I–12 of subpart I should be 

updated in light of the additional 

emission factor data received during the 

public comment period for the proposed 

amendments to subpart I. The EPA also 

agrees with the commenter that gas-use 

weighting is more appropriate than 

sample-weighted averaging in 

developing the revised Tier 2a factors. 

Therefore, the EPA is promulgating 

revised Tier 2a factors in Tables I–11 

and I–12 using gas consumptionweighted averages where consumption 

data were available (see Docket Id. No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0028–0090) and 

sample weighted averages where gas use 

information was not available. The EPA 

is also updating the NF3 emission factor 

to give proper weighting to the 

emissions factor for remote clean, 

which, as the commenter notes, 

represents the largest use of NF3. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

some facilities may not be able to 

comply with the proposed requirements 

in 40 CFR 98.93(i)(1)(ii) and (iii) which 

require reporters to use data from the 

previous reporting year to estimate the 

consumption of input gas and total 

uptime of all abatement systems. For 

example, a new facility or a facility that 

just crossed the reporting threshold will 

not have data from a ‘‘prior reporting 

year’’ for estimating gas consumption 

and abatement system uptime. The 

commenter recommended that both 40 

CFR 98.93(i)(1)(ii) and (iii) be revised to 

allow a facility, where a previous 

reporting year’s data are not available, to 

estimate annual gas usage and 

abatement system uptime based on 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
68180 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

representative operating data from a 

previous period covering 30 days or 

more. 

Response: The EPA agrees with the 

commenter that instances will occur 

where there will be no data from a prior 

reporting year available. As a result, the 

EPA is including in the final 

amendments to subpart I, the 

commenter’s suggested changes to 40 

CFR 98.93(i)(1)(ii) and (iii) to allow a 

facility to estimate annual gas usage and 

abatement system uptime based on 

representative operating data from a 

period covering 30 days or more, when 

data from a prior reporting year are not 

available, with the exception that the 

option is only available for a fab that did 

not report in the previous reporting 

year. If there is an anticipated change in 

activity for the fab (i.e., in an increase 

or decrease in the annual consumption 

or emissions of any F–GHG) greater than 

10 percent for the current reporting year 

compared to the previous reporting 

year, reporters are required to identify 

and account for the change in their 

preliminary estimate. Reporters must 

use a quantifiable metric (e.g., the ratio 

of the number tools that are expected to 

be vented to the stack system in the 

current year as compared to the 

previous reporting year), engineering 

judgment, or other industry standard 

practice. 

The EPA has determined that this 

exception is necessary so that any fab 

that collected and reported data in the 

previous reporting year is required to 

estimate consumption and uptime based 

on the data from the previous reporting 

year. Recognizing that the previous 

reporting year may not represent a 

complete year (i.e., the fab may have 

started operations during the previous 

year), partial data from the prior year 

may be used if the reporter accounts for 

changes in activity. The EPA established 

activity changes that are greater than 10 

percent for the current reporting year 

compared to the previous reporting 

year, because it is the same threshold 

criterion for conducting a re-test under 

the stack test method, as discussed in 

Section II.A.1 of this preamble. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that the EPA include ASTM D6348–03, 

‘‘Determination of Gaseous Compounds 

by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier 

Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy,’’ in 

subpart I as an alternative to EPA 

Method 320. The commenter stated that 

the ASTM method is more straightforward than EPA Method 320 and, as 

such, is easier to understand/

implement. The commenter stated that 

EPA Method 320 requires performing a 

validation of 12 spiked/unspiked pairs 

in addition to the three Quality 

Assurance (QA) spikes whereas ASTM 

D6348–03 requires only three analyte 

spikes to demonstrate acceptable 

performance. The commenter noted that 

when using the ASTM method one loses 

the ability to generate compoundspecific correction factors should the 

system not sufficiently recover the 

analytes. The commenter indicated that 

using the ASTM method will save time 

during collection and data processing. 

The QA spike procedure and recovery 

requirements for EPA Method 320 and 

ASTM D6348–03 are essentially the 

same. In both methods, one cannot 

spike at more than 10 percent of the 

extracted flow rate and must 

demonstrate recoveries within 30 

percent of expected amounts, 

respectively. 

The commenter stated that testing 

companies have collected data using the 

ASTM method. The commenter noted 

that although none of these data 

involved F–GHG measurements at 

semiconductor facilities, the ASTM 

method has been successfully used in 

semiconductor fabs for other 

determinations (e.g., hazardous air 

pollutants) and was used in Intel stack 

testing for F–GHG emissions conducted 

in 2011 to support rule development. 

The commenter also noted that several 

existing EPA regulations list both EPA 

Method 320 and ASTM D6348–03 as 

acceptable methods: The Reciprocating 

Internal Combustion Engines (RICE) 

Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) (40 CFR part 63 

subpart ZZZZ) and the Turbine MACT 

(40 CFR part 63 subpart YYYY) list both 

methods. 

Response: We agree with the 

commenter that ASTM D6348–03 is an 

acceptable method and are including it 

in this final rule. At proposal the EPA 

stated that ASTM D6348–03 had been 

reviewed as a potential alternative to 

EPA Method 320 (77 FR 63575). In the 

preamble to the proposed amendments, 

the EPA stated, ‘‘All data and 

information EPA has received in 

support of the stack testing method used 

EPA Method 320. Since this industry 

contains specialized gases in low 

concentrations, EPA would prefer to 

have supporting data prior to approving 

another test method. Because of this, we 

are not proposing this standard as an 

acceptable alternative for EPA Method 

320 in this proposed rule.’’ 

Since this rule was proposed, we have 

revisited this assessment based on the 

comments received. We acknowledge 

that several existing regulations list both 

EPA Method 320 and ASTM D6348–03 

as acceptable methods, as noted by the 

commenter. We also acknowledge the 

efficiency of ASTM D6348–03 as 

compared to EPA Method 320, although 

it may pose a greater risk for the need 

to perform a retest, as discussed below 

in this response. However, ASTM 

D6348–03 is also ‘‘self-validating,’’ as is 

EPA Method 320, and contains quality 

assurance procedures that, when 

adhered to, provide an acceptable level 

of confidence in the measured 

concentrations. For these reasons, along 

with the additional information 

provided in the comment on testing 

conducted in semiconductor facilities, 

we are allowing in the final rule 

amendments the use of ASTM D6348– 

03, Standard Test Method for 

Determination of Gaseous Compounds 

by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier 

Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, 

as an alternative to EPA Method 320 

with the following requirements: 

(1) The test plan preparation and 

implementation in the Annexes to 

ASTM D6348–03, Sections A1 through 

A8 are mandatory; and 

(2) In ASTM D6348–03 Annex A5 

(Analyte Spiking Technique), the 

percent recovery (%R) must be 

determined for each target analyte 

(Equation A5.5). 

The reporter must also follow Section 

4.1 of ASTM D6348–03 to ensure the F– 

GHG remains in the gas phase. In order 

for the test data to be acceptable for a 

compound, the percent recovery must 

be between 70 and 130 percent. If the 

percent recovery does not meet this 

criterion for a target compound, the test 

data are not acceptable for that 

compound and the test must be repeated 

for that analyte (i.e., the sampling and/ 

or analytical procedure should be 

adjusted before a retest). The percent 

recovery value for each compound must 

be reported in the test report, required 

under 40 CFR 98.94(j)(4), and all field 

measurements must be corrected with 

the calculated percent recovery value 

for that compound by using the 

following equation: 

Reported result = measured 

concentration in the stack × (100/%R). 

As noted by the commenter, the use of 

ASTM D6348–03 could result in the loss 

of the ability to generate compoundspecific correction factors if the system 

does not sufficiently recover the 

analytes (i.e., the percent recovery value 

is not between 70 and 130 percent). In 

this case, the testing facility would be 

required to perform a retest for the target 

analyte. Therefore, although the use of 

ASTM D6348–03 provides some 

efficiency, facilities must assume this 

risk when using the ASTM method. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

a facility may choose to report 

emissions as equal to consumption for 

a gas if consumption of that gas is less 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68181 

than 50 kg per year in a fab, if using the 

default emission factor method, as 

specified in 40 CFR 98.93(a). The 

commenter asserted that, under the 

stack testing alternative, a facility 

should also not be required to test for 

a gas that is not one of the listed 

‘‘expected by-products’’ if consumption 

of that gas is less than 50 kg per year 

in a fab. To ensure clarity on this point, 

the commenter requested that the EPA 

modify 40 CFR 98.93(a) to state that, if 

a fab uses less than 50 kg of a F–GHG 

in one reporting year, the reporter may 

calculate emissions as equal to the fab’s 

annual consumption for that specific gas 

as calculated in Equation I–11 of 

subpart I. If this is done and the stack 

testing method under 40 CFR 98.94(j) is 

used, the commenter stated that testing 

for the gas should not be required unless 

it is one of the expected by-products. 

Response: In the proposed rule, EPA 

neglected to update 40 CFR 98.93(a) to 

clarify that the provision allowing fabs 

to calculate emissions as equal to 

consumption if their fab consumes less 

than 50 kg of a F–GHG only applies to 

facilities using the estimation methods 

in 40 CFR 98.93(a)(1) and (a)(2). For the 

stack testing method, our intent at 

proposal was to minimize the burden by 

providing reporters a method to 

calculate emissions of F–GHGs used in 

small quantities that was similar but not 

equal to that of the provisions under the 

default emission factor method for gases 

consumed in quantities of less than 50 

kg. To achieve this burden reduction, 

we proposed provisions for intermittent 

low-use gases at 40 CFR 98.93(i)(4)(i). 

Additionally, we specified under 40 

CFR 98.94(j)(1)(ii) of the proposed 

amendments, ‘‘you must measure for 

. . . those fluorinated GHGs used as 

input fluorinated GHG in process tools 

vented to the stack system, except for 

any intermittent low-use fluorinated 

GHG as defined in § 98.98.’’ We did not 

intend for the provisions under 40 CFR 

98.93(a) regarding input gases 

consumed in quantities less than 50 kg 

per reporting year to apply to fabs using 

the stack testing method because they 

would have been duplicative of the 

provisions for intermittent low-use 

gases specified at 40 CFR 98.93(i)(4)(i). 

To clarify that reporters may only 

calculate emissions as equal to 

consumption if their fab consumes less 

than 50 kg of a F–GHG in one reporting 

year and they are using default emission 

factors for that fab, we have moved the 

provision from 40 CFR 98.93(a) and 

placed it in 40 CFR 98.93(a)(1) and 

(a)(2). We have also clarified the 

provision by specifying that the reporter 

must also include any by-product 

emissions of the gas as calculated in 40 

CFR 98.93(a). 

Additionally, in our review of the 

emissions estimation requirements for 

intermittent low-use gases for facilities 

using the stack testing method in 40 

CFR 98.93(i), we have determined that 

in some cases, a facility may use an 

intermittent low-use gas that does not 

have associated default gas utilization 

and by-product formation rates in 

Tables I–11 through I–15. For example, 

if a facility uses C4F8O in manufacturing 

semiconductors on 300 mm wafers, 

Table I–12 of subpart I does not have 

applicable default utilization and byproduct formation rate factors. For these 

cases, we have included a provision in 

40 CFR 98.93(i)(4) for facilities to 

calculate emissions of these gases by 

assuming utilization and by-product 

formation rates of zero for those gases. 

Facilities will also account for 

abatement of these gases, if abatement 

systems are present on the tools 

associated with those stacks. 

Comment: Two commenters 

questioned the applicability of the 

definition of the time interval in 

Equations I–17 and I–18 at 40 CFR 

98.93(i)(3)(ii), which specifies that 

‘‘each time interval in the sampling 

period must be less than or equal to 60 

minutes (for example an 8 hour 

sampling period would consist of at 

least 8 time intervals).’’ One commenter 

observed that the sum of the average 

concentrations in Equations I–17 and I– 

18 are numerically equivalent whether 

the minimum time interval is one hour 

or one minute. The commenters 

requested that the requirement for 

minimum time intervals (tm) over the 

duration of the 8-hour (minimum) stack 

test either be removed entirely, or be 

made specific to the use of the FTIR 

method. 

The commenters further explained 

that when the FTIR method is used, the 

sampling period time intervals are 

typically on the order of minutes, and 

so the requirement for a minimum of a 

60 minute time interval is easily 

achieved. However, in the future GC– 

MS or similar types of appropriately 

validated methods may be used that 

collect composite samples continuously 

over the 8-hour sampling period. In 

these situations, the EPA requirement as 

currently worded would obligate the 

sampling technician to collect a 

minimum of 8 one-hour time-integrated 

samples. The commenters contended 

that such an obligation would be 

excessive, and would provide little 

benefit because the 8-hour composite 

sample itself provides an appropriate 

average. 

The commenters requested that 40 

CFR 98.93(i)(3)(ii) either delete the 

requirement for a minimum time 

interval, or make it specific to the FTIR 

method, by specifying that each time 

interval in an FTIR sampling period 

must be less than or equal to 60 minutes 

(for example an 8-hour sampling period 

would consist of at least 8 time 

intervals). Another commenter 

recommended that the language in the 

final rule be revised to allow for 

continuous 8-hour testing rather than 8 

individual one-hour runs. 

Response: The EPA agrees with 

comments regarding sampling times 

when using the stack test option. The 

EPA recognizes that in typical FTIR 

sampling, which is the method 

incorporated into the proposed use of 

EPA Method 320, the sampling period 

time intervals are typically on the order 

of minutes; however, instead of 

specifying a potentially restrictive 

sampling period (i.e., a 1 minute basis), 

the EPA chose to allow facilities and 

their testing contractors to decide the 

most appropriate sampling period. 

Additionally, the EPA’s intention was to 

require facilities to collect concentration 

measurement data that were 

representative of the entire 8-hour (or 

more) sampling period. As a result, the 

EPA proposed that concentration 

measurement data be collected, at a 

minimum, on an hourly basis. The EPA 

agrees with the commenter that, if a 

composite sampling method was used to 

conduct stack testing, either through the 

use of an approved alternative method 

or through future rule amendments, the 

requirement to collect a minimum of 8 

one-hour time integrated samples would 

not apply since the composite sample 

itself would provide a time integrated 

sample. As a result, the EPA is 

incorporating the commenters’ 

suggested revision to 40 CFR 

98.93(i)(3)(ii). However, the EPA notes 

that the GC/MS method is not an 

approved method in this final rule and 

thus any reporter preferring to use that 

method would need to follow the 

procedures found in 40 CFR 98.94(k). 

Comment: Two commenters 

expressed concern with the requirement 

to certify that no changes in stack flow 

configuration occur between tests 

conducted for any particular fab in a 

reporting year. The commenters 

recognized that it is important to ensure 

that the system is relatively static over 

the course of a round of testing, but 

stated that a certification of ‘‘no 

changes’’ goes beyond what is necessary 

and reasonable. The commenters noted 

that a fab may readily be able to certify 

that no significant changes have 

occurred over the relatively short time 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
68182 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

required to complete the consecutive 

testing of multiple stacks. However, a 

facility may not be able to certify that 

no changes occurred during testing 

because one or more process tools might 

have been added to or subtracted from 

a stack system during that time period 

because, as part of normal operation, a 

process tool might be disconnected or 

added during a week of testing, but such 

an action should not invalidate the test. 

Such an action would not cause a 

significant change in emissions, since a 

single process tool (or small number of 

them) would represent a small fraction 

of the total. The commenter stated that, 

in addition, there is typically a time lag 

between the time a process tool 

connection is made and the time the 

process tool is up to full production and 

emissions. 

The commenters proposed that the 

certification criterion in 40 CFR 

98.94(j)(1)(iv) be modified so that 

reporters must identify any changes that 

occurred over the course of testing, 

including any GHG emitting process 

tools newly connected to or 

disconnected from the system. The 

reporter must also certify that no 

process tools that were in operation at 

the start of the test period have been 

moved to a different stack during the 

test period and that no point-of-use 

abatement systems on active process 

tools have been permanently removed 

from service during the test period. 

Response: The EPA agrees with the 

commenters’ suggestions regarding stack 

flow configuration certification 

requirements. Our original intent of 

requiring reporters to certify that no 

changes in stack flow configuration 

occur between tests was to ensure that 

emission factors developed as a result of 

testing are representative of normal 

operations, and to avoid under or over 

reporting of emissions as a result of 

reporters directing emissions from one 

stack to another stack between testing of 

separate stack systems, or by taking 

process tools with lower utilization 

efficiencies offline during testing. 

Based on the information provided by 

the commenters, the EPA agrees that the 

addition and removal of a limited 

number of process tools to a stack 

system is a common occurrence under 

normal operating conditions. As a 

result, we are revising the certification 

requirement under 40 CFR 

98.94(j)(1)(iv) to require reporters to 

certify that no significant changes in 

stack flow configuration occur between 

tests conducted for any particular fab in 

a reporting year. Specifically, reporters 

must certify that no more than 10 

percent of the total number of F–GHG or 

N2O emitting process tools are 

connected or disconnected from a stack 

system during testing. Although the 

commenters did not provide a 

quantitative limit when referring to ‘‘a 

small fraction of the total,’’ we 

determined that it is necessary to limit 

the number of tools connected or 

disconnected to a single stack system 

during testing to ensure there are no 

significant changes in emissions. 

Additionally, we agree with the 

commenters’ suggestion to require 

reporters to certify that no process tools 

that were in operation at the start of the 

test period have been moved to a 

different stack during the test period, 

and that no point of use abatement 

systems have been permanently 

removed from service during the test 

period. We also agree with the 

commenters that any changes during the 

test period must be identified. 

Therefore, we are requiring reporters to 

document and record such changes in 

the emissions test data and report 

required under 40 CFR 98.97(i)(3). 

Comment: Two commenters requested 

that the final rule include a specific list 

of by-products that are to be included in 

the testing instead of the requirement 

for a facility-specific analysis of 

‘‘expected’’ or ‘‘possible’’ by products 

for each series of tests. This approach 

would eliminate uncertainty for the 

facility that the analysis was sufficient 

for purposes of the rule. The commenter 

noted that the EPA suggested a list of six 

chemicals that would be treated as 

potential by-products: CF4, C2F6, CHF3, 

C3F8, C4F6, and C4F8 (77 FR 63546). The 

commenter stated that the latest round 

of data gathering also found CH2F2, 

CH3F, and C5F8 as by-products in some 

instances. The commenter 

recommended that these three gases be 

added to the list of ‘‘possible’’ byproduct gases to be tested for under the 

stack test alternative. The commenter 

further recommended that the list of 

‘‘expected’’ by-product gases, that will 

be assumed to be present at half the FDL 

even if they are not detected, be limited 

to the five C1 and C2 compounds (CF4, 

C2F6, CHF3, CH2F2, and CH3F) because 

the four C3, C4 and C5 by-products 

(C3F8, C4F6, c-C4F8 and C5F8) were found 

in only a handful of tests. The 

commenter stated that the four 

‘‘possible’’ by-products would be tested 

for and, if detected, they would be 

reported as detected and at half the FDL 

for any interval in that round of testing 

where they are not detected. If not 

detected, they would be reported as 

zero. 

A third commenter supported the 

EPA’s proposal to require that all fabs 

using the stack testing method test for 

the most common six by-product gases 

(CF4, C2F6, C3F8, C4F6, C4F8, and CHF3). 

The commenter supported the EPA’s 

rationale that the cost of testing for six, 

as opposed to two, of these gases is 

expected to be low, because the tests 

would be conducted at the same time, 

with the same equipment and 

personnel. 

Response: The EPA agrees with the 

commenters’ suggestion to designate 

specific F–GHGs as ‘‘expected’’ and 

‘‘possible’’ by-products. In the final rule, 

we are adding Table I–17, which 

includes a list of expected by-products 

and a list of possible by-products. 

Facilities are required to test for both 

expected and possible by-products. If 

expected by-products are not detected 

during a round of testing, facilities are 

required to assume that they are emitted 

at one-half of the FDL. If possible byproducts are not detected during a 

round of testing, facilities are required 

to equate their emissions to zero for that 

round of testing. 

This approach simplifies the rule, 

provides certainty for purposes of 

implementation, and relieves facilities 

of the burden of determining which byproducts should be tested for or 

assumed to be emitted if they are not 

detected. By establishing a 

comprehensive list of by-products to 

include in testing, it also avoids routine 

underestimates of emissions that could 

result if a facility did not test for a byproduct that was in fact emitted. 

We agree with the commenter’s 

suggestion to add CHF3, CH2F2, and 

CH3F to the list of expected by-products. 

With these additions, the list of 

expected by-products includes CF4, 

C2F6, CHF3, CH2F2, and CH3F. Based on 

all the emission factor data available to 

the EPA, CF4 was identified as a byproduct in 532 instances, C2F6 in 589 

instances, CHF3 in 297, CH2F2 in 21, 

and CH3F in seven instances out of a 

total of 1,149 data sets. 

The EPA also agrees with the 

commenters’ recommendation to 

include the four C3 to C5 compounds 

(C3F8, C4F6, c-C4F8 and C5F8) in the list 

of ‘‘possible’’ by-products in the final 

rule. Based on all the emission factor 

data available to the EPA, C3F8 was 

identified in four instances, C4F6 in 

three, c-C4F8 in five, and C5F8 in four of 

1,149 data sets. 

Comment: Three commenters asserted 

that the maximum FDL values in Table 

I–10 of the proposed amendments to 

subpart I have been achieved in very 

limited circumstances with specifically 

enhanced FTIR measurement systems. 

The commenters stated that the FDLs 

are not achievable with conventional 

FTIR systems in normal usage. The 

commenters noted that stack testing at 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68183 

three fabs was completed in support of 

the testing alternative and the emissions 

reports appear in the docket and that the 

proposed maximum FDLs were not 

always met. The commenters noted that 

when the proposed maximum FDLs 

were met, it was with customized 

enhanced measurement systems. The 

commenters stated that these maximum 

FDLs should be either dropped from the 

rule or raised substantially. The 

commenters asserted that if they are not 

removed or raised, the number of 

available testing contractors and 

equipment will be severely limited. If 

the maximum FDLs are not met during 

a test and the test results are 

consequently considered invalid, very 

expensive efforts and arrangements for 

data gathering will be wasted. In light of 

these concerns, the commenters 

recommended that the maximum FDLs 

be increased by a factor of five. With 

that change, the fully fluorinated gases 

would have a maximum FDL of 25 

ppbv, SF6 would have a maximum FDL 

of 5 ppbv, and other F–GHG would have 

a maximum FDL of 50 ppbv. These 

values would be considered maximum 

allowable FDLs. However, if stack 

testing at a site achieves lower FDLs, the 

lower FDLs determined for that stack 

test would be used for estimating 

emissions of expected, but not detected 

gases. 

The commenters stated that allowing 

facilities to use higher FDLs would not 

affect testing results in a significant 

way. One commenter provided a 

comparison of emissions based on stack 

test results by Intel, International 

Business Machines (IBM) and Texas 

Instruments Incorporated (TI) using 

different FDL assumptions (Docket ID. 

No EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028–0095). 

The commenter asserted that, based on 

their analysis, the impact when 

accounting for five expected C1 and C2 

by-products is minor and does not 

change appreciably for the higher FDLs 

except in the case of one facility that 

had very low concentrations in the 

stacks resulting from the fact that 

facility’s tools are fully abated. 

One commenter supported the 

proposed maximum FDLs, and agreed 

that FDLs should be lower for F–GHGs 

with higher GWPs. 

Response: The EPA acknowledges the 

industry commenters’ concerns with 

respect to the proposed maximum FDLs. 

The FDL is the lowest concentration at 

which at which an F–GHG can be 

detected during a specific field 

measurement. The maximum allowed 

FDL is the concentration at which an F– 

GHG should be detectable when the 

method is conducted properly and the 

analytical instruments are used 

correctly and of reasonable quality. 

Maximum FDLs are specified to ensure 

that the field measurements of F–GHG 

emissions are of adequate quality and 

accuracy, and that the fraction of total 

emissions that are below the FDL (and 

which have to be assumed to be one-half 

the FDL) is minimized. As discussed in 

the proposed amendments (77 FR 

63547), EPA Method 320 requires the 

specification of maximum FDLs because 

the FDLs achieved by a method and 

analytical instruments can have a 

significant impact on the quality of the 

measurements. Maximum FDLs are 

necessary because if the FDL for a F– 

GHG is too high, it may capture a 

relatively large fraction of the fab’s 

emissions of that F–GHG may occur at 

concentrations that are lower than what 

is detectable by the instrumentation. 

This results in the uncertainty of the 

emission estimates being 

correspondingly high. Due to this fact, 

the proposed amendments required that 

facilities must use FDLs that are less 

than or equal to the maximum FDLs in 

Table I–10 to reduce the uncertainty 

associated with the emissions estimates 

under the stack test method. The 

maximum FDLs in the proposed 

amendments were based on FDLs 

achieved at three different 

semiconductor facilities and an analysis 

of the magnitude of the emissions that 

would occur (in CO2e) at various 

possible maximum FDLs (see docket 

item EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028–0085, 

section 5.1.2). The proposed FDLs were 

generally, though not always, close to 

the average FDLs achieved across all 

three facilities that submitted FDL 

information to the EPA. 

The EPA acknowledges the industry 

commenters’ assertion that two of the 

three facilities that submitted 

information on FDLs (see IBM, Intel, 

and TI test reports in docket EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0028) used enhanced FTIR 

technology during stack testing and that 

not all stack testing contractors have the 

capability to perform these enhanced 

FTIR measurements. The EPA reanalyzed the available information to 

assess the FDL levels that were 

achievable by the facilities using other 

accurate and well-maintained FTIR, 

including a facility that did not use 

enhanced FTIR. Upon review of the 

FDLs included in the three test reports, 

we determined that increasing the 

proposed FDLs by a factor of four 

increases the values to a level that 

should be consistently achievable by 

testers using FTIR equipment under 

EPA Method 320, even if the tester does 

not use enhanced FTIR techniques. At 

these levels (four times the proposed 

maximum FDLs), all of the three stack 

tests that were conducted in support of 

the proposed amendments comply with 

the final FDLs for each of the F–GHGs 

specified in Table I–10. In contrast, only 

two of the three facilities that submitted 

data would have been able to achieve 

FDLs that were equal to or lower than 

the proposed maximum FDLs. We 

anticipate that the FTIR equipment and 

techniques used by these three facilities 

are representative of what would be 

used by the field of reporters and 

represent accurate and well-maintained 

equipment and techniques in the 

industry. As a result, the EPA is 

promulgating revised FDL values in 

Table I–10 to subpart I that are 

equivalent to the proposed values 

multiplied by a factor of four. The EPA 

determined that it was not necessary to 

increase the maximum allowed FDLs by 

a factor of five, as suggested by the 

industry commenter, to establish levels 

that could be achieved by testing 

companies using EPA Method 320 

because the analysis of data and 

information provided to EPA on this 

topic demonstrated that an increase by 

a factor of four represents the 

appropriate FDL values. The final FDLs 

achieve the necessary balance between 

achievable FDLs and minimum 

uncertainty in the emission 

measurements derived from stack 

testing. 

The EPA appreciates the support of 

the one commenter for the proposed 

maximum FDLs. However, as explained 

earlier in this response, the maximum 

FDLs were revised since proposal to a 

level that better reflects the FDLs that 

can be achieved by testing companies 

using the methods included in the final 

rule. The EPA would also like to clarify 

that the maximum FDLs that were 

included in the proposed and final rule 

were based primarily on the technical 

achievability of those levels. The GWP 

of the corresponding gases was used 

only to determine the overall effect on 

emissions (in CO2e) of the different 

maximum FDL, and it was observed that 

the achieved FDLs were lower for gases 

with higher GWPs that were also easier 

to detect (see EPA–HQ–OAQ–2011– 

0028–0085, section 5.1.2). 

Comment: Two commenters 

supported the proposed provisions to 

allow facilities subject to Subpart I to 

use prior stack testing completed in 

support of rule development to establish 

initial emissions factors under the stack 

test alternative, as long as the tests were 

completed no earlier than the date 3 

years before the date of publication of 

the final rule amendments. The 

commenters noted that stack testing at 

three facilities in support of the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
68184 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

proposed rule was completed in 2011. 

The commenters requested that the EPA 

clarify that all data collected during the 

calendar year 2011 regardless of the 

month that the final rule is published 

will meet the ‘‘within 3-year’’ criterion 

for pre-rule data collection. 

One commenter further explained that 

for testing conducted prior to the final 

rule, a fab may not have collected all 

required data elements and/or may not 

have collected all data elements in a 

manner consistent with all criteria in 

the final rule, and abatement systems 

may not have been certified in the 2011 

testing as specified in the final rule. As 

a result, the commenter requested that 

the final rule be explicit that a fab may 

use prior stack test data to set emissions 

factors under the stack test alternative if 

the key substantive requirements were 

met, any deviations from the final rule 

are reported to the EPA and the EPA 

provides concurrence with the use of 

the data. The commenter stated that in 

evaluating whether to accept the earlier 

test results, the EPA should exercise its 

discretion to allow the use of data 

recorded during earlier testing, even if 

the procedures used do not match 

exactly what appears as a requirement 

in the final rule. 

Response: The EPA agrees with the 

commenter’s suggestions regarding the 

use of data collected in calendar year 

2011 in the stack testing alternative. In 

the final amendments to subpart I, 

under 40 CFR 98.94(j)(7), the EPA is 

clarifying that data collected on or after 

January 1, 2011 may be used in the 

relative standard deviation calculation 

in 40 CFR 98.94(j)(5)(ii) if the previous 

results were determined using a method 

meeting the requirements in paragraph 

40 CFR 98.94(j)(2). The EPA is also 

allowing reporters to use data collected 

on or after January 1, 2011 but before 

January 1, 2014, using a method that did 

not meet all the requirements of 40 CFR 

98.94(j), on a case-by-case basis, 

contingent on Administrator (or an 

authorized representative’s) approval. 

Reporters would describe any 

deviations from the methods and 

provisions in the final rule and the EPA 

would review and approve or 

disapprove the use of those data in the 

stack testing alternative, according to a 

review procedure that is similar to that 

followed for review and approval of an 

alternative stack testing method 

specified in 40 CFR 98.94(k). However, 

this procedure does not require the use 

of EPA Method 301 to validate the prior 

test data. The EPA would retain the 

right to not approve the use of data that 

does not meet the data quality 

requirements in 40 CFR 98.94(j)(7). See 

40 CFR 98.94(j)(7) for more details 

regarding the use of data collected prior 

to the promulgation of the final 

amendments in the relative standard 

deviation calculation. 

Comment: One commenter asked the 

agency to reconsider its proposal to 

allow facilities to conduct multiple tests 

in a single year with the aim of 

demonstrating low variability and 

becoming exempt from annual testing. 

The commenter stated that given the 

magnitude and rate of change in the 

semiconductor industry, facilities 

should, at a minimum, be required to do 

annual tests for a period of 3 years 

before qualifying for an exemption of up 

to 5 years. The commenter expressed 

concern that the measured emission 

factors could be stable over a one-year 

period but not over a three-year period. 

Response: The EPA agrees with the 

commenter that it is possible an 

emission factor determined from three 

tests in one year could be representative 

of a fab’s emissions over a one-year 

period, but not over a three-year period. 

However, the types of factors that could 

affect the emissions over a three-year 

period, such that the emission factors 

developed from conducting three tests 

in one year are no longer representative, 

are likely to be the same types of factors 

that would trigger the requirements to 

perform a new test, as promulgated at 40 

CFR 98.94(j)(8). Therefore, it is unlikely 

that a reporter could substantially 

change a facility in such a way that the 

emissions would change substantially 

without triggering the requirement to 

perform a retest. 

If a facility is required to perform a retest, the results of that test will not 

extend the date of the next scheduled 

test. If a facility is required to conduct 

a re-test, the facility must also use the 

data from the re-test and the two most 

recent previous stack tests to evaluate 

whether the facility still meets the 

criteria to skip annual testing. If the 

facility no longer meets those criteria, 

the facility must resume testing 

regardless of when the facility qualified 

to skip annual testing. The facility may 

perform annual testing or may perform 

multiple tests in a single year to collect 

sufficient new data to see if they again 

qualify to skip annual testing. Therefore, 

the option for facilities to perform 

multiple emissions tests within the 

same year would not allow facilities to 

use data that are not representative of 

current emissions, provided they adhere 

to the provisions in 40 CFR 98.94(j)(5). 

Comment: One commenter agreed 

with the list of changes at a fab included 

in 40 CFR 98.94(j)(8) that trigger the 

requirement that a stack system be 

retested. The commenter suggested 

additional fab changes identified in the 

context of the triennial technology 

assessment report required under 40 

CFR 98.96(y) that should also trigger 

retesting (e.g., implementation of new 

process technologies, introduction of 

new tool platforms, and introduction of 

new processes on existing platforms). 

Another commenter stated that potential 

new process technologies that would 

change the nature of the emissions of 

GHGs from semiconductor 

manufacturing would trigger one or 

more of the six triggers for retesting 

included in 40 CFR 98.94(j)(8). The 

second commenter predicted that the 

triggers that would most likely be 

affected by new process technologies 

would be the change in the 

consumption of a F–GHG by more than 

10 percent of the total annual F–GHG 

consumption (in CO2e), the change in 

the consumption of an intermittent lowuse F–GHG, or a decrease by more than 

10 percent in the fraction of process 

tools with abatement systems. 

Response: Based on the comments on 

the proposal, the EPA has concluded 

that the re-test triggers that were 

proposed and promulgated under 40 

CFR 98.94(j)(8) are adequate to capture 

changes in fab emissions as a result of 

new process technologies, new tool 

platforms, and new processes on 

existing platforms. These types of 

changes are already accounted for by the 

criteria that that are specified in 40 CFR 

98.94(j)(8), and no new criteria have 

been added in the final rule. However, 

the EPA has included additional 

recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 

98.97 to verify compliance with the 

factors that would trigger a retest. 

Specifically, we are revising 40 CFR 

98.97(i)(3) to require records of the 

identity and total annual consumption 

of each gas identified as an intermittent 

low use F–GHG, to verify any change in 

the consumption of an intermittent lowuse F–GHG that was not used during the 

emissions test and not reflected in the 

fab-specific emission factor, such that it 

no longer meets the definition of an 

intermittent low-use F–GHG. We are 

also adding a new provision at 40 CFR 

98.97(i)(9) to require records of the total 

number of tools at each stack in the fab 

which, along with the number of 

abatement systems, is needed to verify 

if a facility has a decrease by more than 

10 percent in the fraction of tools with 

abatement systems compared to the 

number during the most recent 

emissions test. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68185 

2. Revisions to the Default Gas 

Utilization Rates and By-Product 

Formation Rates for the Plasma Etch 

Process Category for Facilities That 

Manufacture Semiconductors 

Comment: One commenter provided 

additional input on the merging of the 

default gas utilization and by-product 

formation rates for wafer clean and etch 

processes. The commenter provided 

data from industry publications for the 

total F–GHG usage for these processes. 

The commenter stated that wafer 

cleaning is between 0.8 and 2 percent of 

total 200 mm F–GHG usage. The 

commenter stated that five gases are 

used in 200 mm wafer cleaning. The 

commenter noted that four of the five 

gases are also used in 200 mm chamber 

cleaning and etch processes, and one 

gas is used in etch and wafer cleaning. 

The commenter asserted that because 

wafer cleaning is a low percentage of 

200 mm F–GHG usage, combining wafer 

cleaning and etch processes will have a 

minor impact on the accuracy of the 

emissions estimates under Subpart I. 

Response: The EPA proposed to 

combine the etch and wafer cleaning 

categories, which could reduce the 

apportioning required of a facility and 

potentially reduce gas apportioning 

errors if the facility uses the same F– 

GHGs for wafer cleaning and etch. 

Facilities using 150 mm and 200 mm 

wafers typically need to apportion three 

to five gases between the plasma etch 

and chamber cleaning process types/

subtypes. As noted by the commenter, 

five gases are typically used in 200 mm 

wafer cleaning (C2F6, CF4, CHF3, NF3, 

and SF6) and each of these gases are also 

used in either the etch and/or chamber 

cleaning process types. 

The effect of gas apportioning errors 

on GHG emissions accuracy depends 

upon the difficulty of the gas 

apportionment by gas and process type/ 

subtype. For example, no 

apportionment error would be present 

for gases used only in one process and 

little apportionment error would result 

if only small portions of gas use are 

allocated to processes other than the 

dominant one. The overall impact of 

apportioning on the accuracy of the 

GHG estimate depends on each gas’s 

GWP value and its contribution to the 

total fab emissions. As noted in the 

preamble to the proposed amendments 

to subpart I (77 FR 63552), the gases 

used for plasma etch and wafer clean 

have similar gas utilization rates and byproduct formation rates. Furthermore, as 

provided in the ‘‘Technical Support for 

Modifications to the Fluorinated 

Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimation 

Method Option for Semiconductor 

Facilities under Subpart I’’ (see Docket 

Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028– 

0083) and supported in the data 

provided by commenters, wafer 

cleaning is expected to represent a small 

percentage of total gas consumption for 

facilities manufacturing wafers 200 mm 

or smaller. Because the gases used in 

wafer cleaning at 200 mm facilities 

represent only a small portion of total 

fab emissions, the EPA does not 

anticipate that merging the etch and 

wafer clean subcategories will greatly 

impact the accuracy of GHG emission 

estimates. Therefore, the final rule will 

combine the wafer clean and etch 

process types for fabs using 150 and 200 

mm diameter wafers. The final rule will 

also combine the wafer clean and etch 

process types for fabs using 300 and 450 

mm diameter wafers. 

Comment: Several commenters 

supported the use of default gas 

utilization rates and by-product 

formation rates under subpart I. One 

commenter claimed that the method 

allows for the use of emissions factors 

and abatement efficiency factors that 

have been derived from extensive 

testing and provide the basis for high 

quality emissions estimates without 

disruptive testing in the fab 

environment where operating uptime is 

critical to the productivity of the fab. 

The commenter stated that much of the 

data used to derive the factors in the 

proposed rule came from the efforts of 

the semiconductor industry in advance 

of the proposed rule. The commenter 

noted that SIA and ISMI continued 

emissions factor data collection 

activities during settlement discussions 

to improve the representativeness of the 

emissions factor database. 

The commenter provided 168 

additional gas utilization and byproduct formation rate data sets, noting 

that the data were provided by 

semiconductor process equipment 

suppliers and device manufacturers for 

200 mm and 300 mm plasma etch 

equipment. The commenter asserted 

that the 2012 data closed gaps in the 

emissions factor database and allowed 

for establishment of default emission 

factors for every gas used in 

semiconductor plasma etch processes, 

as identified in a 2011 ISMI survey. The 

commenter provided an analysis of the 

integrated database and the resulting 

emission factors (see Docket Id. No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028–0095). The 

commenter further stated that a 

minimum of 23 data sets for each gas 

were used to develop emission factors 

for each gas that is 1 percent or more of 

the total F–GHG usage for each wafer 

size. The commenter stated that the four 

gases with four or less data sets are 

either not used for etch or are much less 

than 0.1 percent of total F–GHG usage 

for that wafer size. 

The commenter also provided a 

comparison of default emission factors 

based on the added data to the default 

emission factors in the 2012 proposed 

rule (EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028–0095). 

The commenter noted that when a large 

dataset was previously available to 

establish the proposed revised default 

emission factors, the addition of the 

2012 data did not appreciably change 

the proposed revised default factors. 

The commenter also provided a list of 

the revised default by-product emission 

factors for 200 mm and 300 mm etch 

based on the additional data (EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0028–0095). The commenter 

noted that several by-products, namely 

C5F8, CH3F, and CH2F2, that were not 

detected previously, were observed 

during this round of testing. The 

commenter reasoned that this may be 

the result of data being provided for tool 

and gas combinations that were not 

previously tested. The commenter 

suggested that these new by-products 

would have no discernible effect on 

reported emissions because the byproduct emission factors are small and 

the GWPs of these gases are less than 

200. 

Response: The EPA thanks the 

commenter for the additional data 

provided during the public comment 

period. The EPA incorporated the 

provided data into the existing etch 

process type emissions factor database 

to calculate new and revised gas 

utilization and by-product formation 

rates for the final rule. The EPA used 

the emission factor calculation 

methodology outlined in the proposed 

rule to evaluate the new and revised 

emission factors. Specifically, the EPA: 

(1) Used a simple arithmetic averaging 

method to develop default utilization 

and by-product emission factors by gas 

for the etch process type; and 

(2) Used the ‘‘all inputs gas’’ 

convention for assigning by-product 

formation rates (emission factors) for 

etch gases. This convention assigns byproduct emissions to input F–GHGs 

used in a process by dividing the 

measured mass emitted of a specific byproduct by the total mass of all input F– 

GHGs for that process and assigning this 

by-product factor to each input F–GHG 

used in that process. This is the same 

approach used in developing the 

proposed revised emission factors in the 

2012 proposed rule. 

For semiconductor manufacturing 

using 200 mm wafers, the data provided 

by the commenter added one gas 

utilization rate for semiconductor 

manufacturing for which no data were 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
68186 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

previously available (for C5F8 as an 

input gas) and revised the utilization 

rates of nine F–GHGs. For 

semiconductor manufacturing using 300 

mm wafers, the new data added two gas 

utilization rates, for C3F8 and CH3F, and 

revised the utilization rates of 10 F– 

GHGs. 

The new data also provided 75 

revised by-product formation rates, 

including three new by-products not 

previously identified (for the byproducts C5F8, CH3F, and CH2F2). 

The EPA’s analysis of the new 

emission factor data for input gases and 

by-product gases is included in the 

docket for the final rulemaking in the 

item entitled ‘‘Technical Support for 

Final Modifications to the Fluorinated 

Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors and 

By-Product Formation Rates for 

Semiconductor Facilities under Subpart 

I’’ (EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028). 

Comment: A commenter noted that in 

the preamble to the proposed rule (77 

FR 63551), the EPA asked for an 

explanation of the zeros in the data 

previously collected and provided by 

SIA and used by the EPA to calculate 

the default emissions factors. The 

commenter noted that because the data 

came from a wide range of sources, the 

commenter cannot be certain of the 

basis of the zero entries in the data base. 

The commenter suggested that the zeros 

most likely mean that a gas was not 

present above the detection limit 

achieved during the test, but there is a 

small chance that the tester did not look 

for the gas. The commenter stated that 

in the interest of conservative emissions 

reporting, they agree that it is 

appropriate to err on the ‘‘high side’’ by 

determining by-product factors only 

using the non-zero results. The 

commenter stated that the default 

factors would be less if the zeros were 

included in determining the average 

emissions factor and that it is likely that 

the default by-product emissions factors 

would also be lower if the zeros were 

included at half the detection limit, 

using the practice proposed by the EPA 

for measuring the presence of certain 

gases when implementing the stack 

alternative. The commenter stated 

however, that it is not possible to do so 

for the default by-product emissions 

factors based on the data collected by 

the commenter because the field 

detection limits (FDLs) for each test 

were not previously collected. For these 

reasons, the commenter recommended 

that the EPA retain the approach used 

in the proposed rule for determining 

default by-product emissions factors 

from the available data. 

Response: The EPA agrees with the 

commenter on the method for averaging 

the available by-product emission factor 

data and with the likely basis for the 

zeros in the data collected. The EPA 

considered averaging the available 

emissions data using either the zeros in 

the available data or half the detection 

limit for the by-product gas if the data 

gatherer looked for, but did not detect, 

by-product emissions. However, 

because it is not apparent that the basis 

of the zeros in the data represent 

instances where a by-product was 

looked for, but not detected, and 

because the field detection limits for 

each test were not previously collected, 

the EPA agrees with the commenter that 

the averaging approach used in the 

proposed amendments to subpart I is 

appropriate. In determining revised 

default by-product emission factors for 

the final rule, the EPA used the simple 

arithmetic mean of all available nonzero by-product emission factor data for 

each gas, wafer size, and process-type or 

subtype using the revised etch 

emissions database. If additional byproduct emission factor data are made 

available to the EPA in the future, and 

those data include instances where a byproduct was looked for, but not 

detected, and field detection limits are 

provided, the EPA may reassess the byproduct emission factor calculation 

methodology. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

Equation I–15b should be eliminated. 

The commenter stated that the 

calculated abatement unit uptime for 

the process gases for which the 

abatement system is certified for 

treatment is the same for by-product 

treatment. The commenter further noted 

that where the unit is not effective for 

one or more of the by-product gases, it 

will not be certified to treat that gas and 

the DRE will be zero, and where a unit 

has a lower uptime for a subset of the 

certified gases, that lower, gas specific 

uptime would be applied to applicable 

by-product gas(es). The commenter 

stated that companies will have 

abatement uptime data organized by 

input gas type, and the uptime for the 

input gases will match the uptime for 

the by-product gases. The commenter 

contended that there is no need to 

perform a separate calculation of 

abatement system uptime for by-product 

gases, and enabling companies to 

calculate uptime by the combination of 

input and by-product gas would 

simplify calculations and recordkeeping 

while not reducing the accuracy of the 

uptime data. 

Response: The EPA agrees with the 

commenter that only a single uptime 

equation is needed and has removed 

Equation I–15b from the final rule, and 

modified Equation I–15a (Equation I–15 

in the final rule) so that it is applicable 

to both abatement systems treating input 

gases and by-product gases. 

In developing the proposed rule 

amendments, the EPA developed 

separate equations under the 

assumption that the population of 

abatement systems treating a particular 

input gas could be different from the 

population of abatement systems 

treating a by-product gas because not all 

input gas and process combinations 

create the same by-product gases. 

However, the uptime calculated by 

Equations I–15a and I–15b is used in 

Equations I–8 and I–9, respectively, and 

in those latter two equations, emissions 

are tied to the consumption of the same 

input gas, Cij. Therefore, uptime only 

needs to be calculated for the abatement 

systems receiving the input gas, Cij, and 

separate uptime does not need to be 

calculated for the by-product gas. As the 

commenter correctly notes, where an 

abatement system is not certified for the 

treatment of a particular by-product gas 

from an input gas, the DRE for that gas 

will be zero, and the uptime of the 

system will be irrelevant. 

The EPA has also made the other 

conforming changes in other sections of 

the final rule to remove the references 

to Equation I–15b as noted by the 

commenter. 

3. Apportioning Model Verification for 

Facilities that Manufacture Electronics 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

in the proposed amendments at 40 CFR 

98.94(c)(2)(iv), the period of 

representative gas consumption used to 

verify the apportioning model when 

using the stack method would be 

required to end exactly on the day that 

stack testing is completed. The 

commenter noted that most gas use 

accounting is managed on a monthly 

basis, so it would not be practical to end 

the period on the same day that testing 

is completed. The commenter suggested 

that the rule should allow the 

apportioning model to be validated over 

a period that ends between the first and 

last day of the accounting month(s) in 

which the stack testing takes place 

because this would simplify the data 

collection for locations without 

significantly affecting the accuracy of 

the gas use estimates used in the 

verification. The commenter noted that 

40 CFR 98.94(c)(2)(i), which is 

referenced by 40 CFR 98.94(c)(2)(iv), 

allows the representative period to be ‘‘ 

. . . at least 30 days but not more than 

the reporting year.’’ Enabling locations 

to use an end date within the 

accounting month, instead of tying it to 

the last day of stack testing, would 

simplify the data collection without 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68187 

introducing error, particularly if the 

verification period is more than 90 days. 

The gas usage accounting systems at 

some semiconductor facilities are based 

on accounting months (e.g., 13–4 week 

months) rather than calendar months. 

The commenter asked that 40 CFR 

98.94(c)(2)(iv) be revised to allow that 

the time period specified in 40 CFR 

98.94(c)(2)(i) ends on a day between the 

first and last day of the accounting 

month for the period that includes the 

last day the facility performs stack 

testing, or that is a defined period 

ending on the last day of sampling 

event. 

Response: The EPA agrees with the 

commenter that it is reasonable that the 

period selected for apportioning model 

verification, when a facility is using the 

stack testing method, should be allowed 

to coincide with the accounting period 

used at the fab for normally tracking gas 

consumption, and should not be tied to 

the day on which testing is completed. 

The EPA’s proposal was intended to 

ensure that the representative period 

selected to validate the apportioning 

model coincided with the period during 

which the stack testing was being 

performed to ensure that gas 

consumption during stack testing was 

being estimated as accurately as 

possible. The commenter’s suggested 

change to 40 CFR 98.94(c)(2)(iv) would 

achieve the same objective and would 

also be consistent with the facility’s 

normal accounting periods for gas 

usage. 

4. Calculating N2O Emissions for 

Facilities That Manufacture Electronics 

Table I–8 of subpart I provides two 

default N2O emission factors. One factor 

is for CVD processes using N2O, and the 

other is for the aggregate of all other 

N2O-using electronics manufacturing 

processes. The EPA proposed to revise 

the default N2O emission factor in Table 

I–8 of subpart I for the aggregate of the 

‘‘other’’ (non-CVD) N2O-using 

manufacturing processes (77 FR 63560). 

The current default emission factor is 

1.0 kg of N2O emitted per kg of N2O 

consumed. The proposed emission 

factor was 1.14 kg of N2O emitted per 

kg of N2O consumed, and represented 

an average of the stack emission factors 

for N2O (total N2O emissions/total N2O 

consumption) measured in nine tests at 

three fabs. (See EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0028–0084, section 5, for a summary of 

the data used to develop the proposed 

default emission factor.) The EPA did 

not propose to revise the N2O emission 

factor for CVD processes. The EPA 

specifically sought comment on the 

existing data and analysis supporting 

the proposed emission factor, and 

requested additional data and analysis. 

The preamble noted that the average 

N2O emissions from the stack testing 

appeared to be greater than the N2O 

consumption and, as a result, the 

emission factor is greater than 1.0. The 

preamble also noted that the proposed 

emission factor was based on emissions 

associated with total N2O consumption, 

rather than just emissions and 

consumption data associated with nonCVD applications (which were not 

available to the EPA). Thus, the EPA 

noted at proposal that when these data 

were applied only to non-CVD N2O 

consumption, they may not have fully 

compensated for the unknown N2O 

source that resulted in an emission 

factor greater than 1.0, and that EPA did 

not have an explanation for the apparent 

creation of N2O. The preamble 

requested comment on the existing data 

and analysis supporting the proposed 

revised default emission factor, and 

noted that the EPA would consider new 

information and data submitted by 

commenters in developing the final 

default emission factor. 

Comment: No commenters offered an 

explanation for the apparent creation of 

N2O reflected by the average N2O 

emission factor greater than 1.0, nor did 

any commenters provide any additional 

N2O emission factor data. 

Two commenters recommended that 

the N2O process categories should be 

aligned with the F–GHG categories to 

ensure consistency and reduce the 

potential for confusion. The 

commenters suggested that the use of 

the term CVD (chemical vapor 

deposition) in the current rule does not 

align with the established process 

categories of chamber clean and/or 

plasma etch/wafer cleaning. The 

commenters proposed that the EPA 

replace the terms ‘‘chemical vapor 

deposition’’ or ‘‘CVD’’ where they 

appear in Section 98.93(b)(1) and Table 

I–8 with the following phrase: 

‘‘processes associated with the chamber 

clean process type.’’ The commenters 

noted that N2O is sometimes used in the 

deposition processes associated with the 

in-situ, remote, and thermal chamber 

cleaning tools and recipes, and 

suggested that the application of N2O in 

these circumstances is very similar and 

the utilization rates are consistent. The 

commenters suggested that the EPA 

should continue to categorize those 

N2O-using processes that do not fall into 

the processes associated with the 

chamber clean process type as ‘‘other 

manufacturing processes.’’ 

Response: The EPA did not receive 

any new N2O emission factor data that 

can be used to resolve the uncertainties 

associated with the data used to develop 

the proposed emission factor for the 

other N2O-using manufacturing 

processes of 1.14 kg of N2O emitted per 

kg of N2O consumed. As stated above, 

at proposal the EPA had data from nine 

tests of N2O emission rates from three 

fabs owned by two companies. Six 

measurements were from one fab, two 

measurements were from a second fab, 

and one measurement was from a third 

fab. The second and third fab were 

owned by the same company. In four of 

the nine measurements, N2O emissions 

were greater than N2O consumption, 

and the emission factors were highly 

variable both within and across fabs, 

ranging from 0.34 to 1.89 kg emitted per 

kg consumed. The EPA could not 

explain the cause of the emission factors 

that are greater than 1.0. Given the 

highly variable nature of the measured 

emission factor data, the small number 

of tests, and the lack of information on 

the specific processes represented by 

those data, the EPA is not confident that 

those data accurately represent 

emissions from non-CVD processes used 

in electronics manufacturing. Therefore, 

the EPA is not finalizing the proposed 

change to the emission factor that was 

based on those data. The N2O emission 

factors will remain as they are in the 

current Table I–8 of subpart I. The 

emission factor for CVD will remain at 

0.8 and for all other N2O using 

processes at 1.0 kg of N2O emitted per 

kg of N2O consumed. The EPA does not 

have, at this time, a sufficient amount of 

data to support any changes to these 

emission factors. 

The EPA is also not accepting the 

suggestion at this time to revise the N2O 

categories in Table I–8 of subpart I to 

include CVD and chamber clean under 

a single category of ‘‘processes 

associated with the chamber clean 

process type.’’ The EPA does not have 

data at this time to demonstrate that the 

utilization rates in the deposition 

processes associated with the in-situ, 

remote, and thermal cleaning process 

types are similar to those in the CVD 

process type and should, therefore, be 

combined into a single category. 

The EPA will continue to work with 

industry to understand these N2Oemitting processes and to gather 

additional data and information for 

potential future revisions. One potential 

avenue for gathering information and 

data will be through the triennial 

technology assessment report specified 

in 40 CFR 98.96(y), although the EPA 

may accept new data at any time they 

are available. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
68188 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

5. Abatement System Destruction and 

Removal Efficiency (DRE) for Facilities 

That Manufacture Electronics 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

revising the definition of abatement 

system to clarify which abatement 

systems are covered under the 

requirements in Subpart I as follows: 

‘‘Abatement system means a device or 

equipment that is designed to destroy or 

remove F–GHGs and N2O in waste 

exhaust streams from one or more 

electronics manufacturing production 

processes.’’ 

The commenter explained that there 

are abatement units installed in fabs for 

purposes other than GHG abatement, 

including but not limited to solids 

removal, pyrophoric destruction, and 

volatile organic compound (VOC) 

emissions control. The commenter 

noted that under the current rule 

language, it appears that if any of the 

regulated GHGs are exhausted to these 

units, one is technically required to 

manage them under the requirements of 

Subpart I. These types of units are not 

designed for F–GHG treatment and any 

treatment which does occur is 

incidental and would not be capable of 

being certified under the rule 

requirements. The commenter stated 

that inclusion of the ‘‘designed to’’ 

phrase clarifies that only systems 

designed to treat F-gas emissions are 

covered by the requirements of the 

regulation. 

Response: The EPA agrees with the 

commenter and has revised the 

definition of abatement system as 

suggested by the commenter. However, 

in response to other comments, the EPA 

has also revised the definition to 

include abatement systems for which 

the F–GHG or N2O DRE has been 

measured according to 40 CFR 98.94(f). 

The EPA recognizes that some systems 

that were not specifically designed for 

F–GHG or N2O abatement may still 

achieve substantial F–GHG or N2O 

abatement for certain gases and some 

facilities may wish to account for this 

abatement in calculating emissions. 

The EPA notes that only data from 

abatement systems that were 

specifically designed to abate F–GHG or 

N2O emissions were used to develop the 

final default DREs. As a result, those 

default DREs will be applied only to 

those systems specifically designed to 

abate F–GHGS or N2O, as appropriate, 

under the requirements of subpart I. 

To account for abatement systems that 

may have been installed to abate other 

gases, such as volatile organic 

compounds or hazardous air pollutants, 

but achieve some level of F–GHG 

abatement, the final rule will also allow 

facilities to account for the DRE of 

systems if a site-specific DRE has been 

measured as specified in 40 CFR 

98.94(f). 

Because the final rule allows facilities 

to account for the DRE of systems that 

are specifically designed for F–GHG or 

N2O abatement, and for those for which 

a site-specific DRE has been measured, 

including those that were not designed 

for F–GHG or N2O abatement, the 

definition of abatement system in the 

final rule has been modified to account 

for both situations. 

In each situation, facilities will be 

required to certify these systems 

according to the applicable 

requirements of 40 CFR 98.94(f), include 

these systems in the abatement system 

inventory included in the annual report 

(40 CFR 98.96(q)), and meet the 

recordkeeping requirements of 40 CFR 

98.97 for abatement systems. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

the abatement system count in a 

particular gas and process type will 

change over time. The commenter 

asserted that a change in the number of 

systems may lead to uncertainty in the 

number of abatement systems that 

should be included in the random 

sampling abatement system testing 

program specified in 40 CFR 

98.94(f)(4)(ii)(A). In the proposed rule 

amendments, the facility must test 20 

percent of systems in a given gas and 

process combination in the first 2 years 

(a minimum of 10 percent per year until 

reaching a minimum of 20 percent), and 

at least 15 percent in each following 3- 

year period (a minimum of five percent 

per year until reaching at least 15 

percent). The commenter requested that 

the final rule clarify the number that 

should be used as the basis for the 

percentages and suggested that it should 

be based on the number present at the 

time the testing begins for the given 

period of the testing. The commenter 

explained that if five percent are tested 

a year and units are added or removed 

between that year and the next, that 

round of testing still counts as five 

percent. 

Response: The EPA agrees with the 

commenter that the final rule should 

clarify the number of abatement systems 

to be tested on a yearly basis, because 

the abatement system count for a 

particular gas and process type could 

change over time. The final rule 

specifies that reporters determine the 

number of abatement systems to be 

tested based on the average number 

present over the period required to test 

the minimum percent of systems for a 

gas and process type. For example, if a 

facility completes testing of the 

minimum 15 percent in a single year 

instead of three years, then the number 

tested would be based on the systems 

present in that year. If testing were 

completed over 3 years, the number 

tested would be determined based on 

the average number in that three year 

period. If a facility adds abatement 

systems during that time, they may need 

to increase the number tested in the 

second or third year to meet the 

minimum for the 3-year average. If a 

facility tested the minimum of 15 

percent in 1 year, and then added 

systems in years 2 and 3, the higher 

number of systems would be accounted 

for in the number to be tested in the 

next 3-year period. 

We are not adopting the commenter’s 

suggestion that reporters should 

determine the number of abatement 

systems to be tested for the 3-year 

period based only on the count at the 

beginning of testing. Allowing a facility 

to use only the number of abatement 

systems at the beginning of the period 

may result in a non-representative sitespecific DRE for a particular gas and 

process type/sub-type combination, 

especially if a facility began a program 

of adding substantial numbers of 

abatement systems after the first year of 

the RSASTP. Facilities that have not 

completed testing when abatement 

systems are added must include those 

abatement systems in determining the 

number to be tested. For example, if a 

facility installs abatement systems in 

years 2 or 3, and is still testing DRE in 

those years, then the number of systems 

tested must be adjusted to reflect the 

increased number of systems. However, 

if testing of 15 percent of systems is 

already completed for that 3-year 

period, the facility does not need to 

resume testing to account for the change 

in percentages. If a facility has 

completed testing for that period and 

then installs abatement systems for a gas 

and process combination that was not 

included in the testing, the facility 

would have the option of testing the 

DRE for that newly abated gas and 

process combination, or using the 

default DRE until that gas and process 

combination is included in the next 

round of testing. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that the EPA add a sentence to the end 

of 40 CFR 98.94(f)(4)(iii) to clarify that 

all DRE test data collected in 2011, or 

later, will qualify for use in determining 

site specific DREs for the locations 

where the testing occurred. 

Response: The EPA agrees with the 

commenter regarding the use of data 

collected in calendar year 2011. In the 

final rule under 40 CFR 98.94(f)(4)(iii), 

the EPA is clarifying that data collected 

on or after January 1, 2011 may be used 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68189 

4The survey results were reported on page 2 of 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028–0045, SIA Briefing 

Paper on abatement Issues: Destruction Removal 

Efficiency (DRE), January 10, 2012. Submitted as 

part of settlement documents for SIA v. EPA (D.C. 

cir. No. 1024). 

in the average DRE calculation if the 

previous results were obtained 

following the requirements in 40 CFR 

98.94(f)(4)(i). 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

changes to the provisions under 40 CFR 

98.94(f)(4)(v) regarding the use of a DRE 

value below the manufacturer-claimed 

DRE measured when the abatement 

system is not installed, operated, or 

maintained in accordance with the site 

maintenance plan. The commenter 

proposed two options: 

(1) Include the measured DRE for the 

unit in the calculation of the sitespecific DRE for the gas and process 

combination. The measured DRE for 

that unit must be included in the sitespecific DRE average until corrective 

action is completed and the abatement 

system is retested. Corrective action 

must be completed in a reasonable time, 

but retesting can be deferred to the next 

testing period. Any affected abatement 

units that are being re-tested must be in 

addition to the randomly selected 

minimum sample for that testing period, 

or 

(2) Exclude the measured DRE for that 

unit in the site-specific DRE average 

until corrective action is completed and 

the abatement system is retested. 

However, in that instance the abatement 

system will be treated as down for 

purposes of calculating abatement 

system uptime until the retest is 

completed. 

The commenter claimed that allowing 

inclusion of the lower DRE in the sitespecific average would enable a facility 

to choose whether it wants to accept a 

lower DRE for its site-specific value for 

a given gas (even though a low DRE 

value will have an inordinate impact on 

the site-specific DRE because the 

average is based on measurements from 

35 percent of the units), or whether the 

facility wants to manage its uptime 

number for different units. The 

commenter stated that the benefit of 

choosing the lower DRE is being able to 

maintain a consistent uptime across all 

the gases, simplifying management of 

the calculations. 

Response: The EPA agrees with the 

commenter that facilities should have 

the flexibility to either include or 

exclude DRE data from a system that is 

operating outside the established 

parameters for that system and not 

meeting the definition of ‘‘operational 

mode’’ in 40 CFR 98.98. However, the 

EPA disagrees with the commenter’s 

implication that the facility can treat 

that system as meeting the definition of 

operational mode, even if it is not, for 

the purposes of calculating uptime. If a 

facility has abatement systems that are 

operating outside the established 

parameters and not meeting the 

definition of ‘‘operational mode’’, the 

facility must treat that system as being 

‘‘down’’ for purposes of calculating 

uptime and emissions, even if the 

facility is using the lower measured DRE 

in calculating an average measured DRE. 

This approach would allow a facility to 

use a lower DRE value and avoid the 

expense of immediately repeating a 

system’s DRE measurement, but it 

would also recognize that facilities 

should not treat an abatement system as 

meeting the definition of ‘‘operational 

mode’’ when it is operating outside 

established parameters and could have 

variable and unpredictable performance. 

Therefore, in both situations suggested 

by the commenter, the final rule 

requires that the facility treat the system 

as being down for purposes of 

calculating uptime until the system 

operation is restored to the established 

parameters and it is meeting the 

definition of operational mode. 

The EPA also agrees with the 

commenter that some facilities may 

complete the testing needed to establish 

measured average DRE values in the 

first or second year of each three year 

period, and would not be required to 

perform any additional DRE testing 

until the start of the next three-year 

period. The final rule has been revised 

since proposal to allow a facility to 

postpone retesting of the affected unit 

with low DRE until the next required 

testing period, instead of the next 

reporting year. 

Comment: One commenter (an 

industry organization) stated that it and 

its member companies have worked at 

considerable expense to generate an 

extensive DRE test database, in support 

of this rule, so that accurate default 

DREs could be incorporated into the 

rule. The commenter noted that the 

additional data they collected increased 

the number of fabs contributing data 

and the representativeness of the data 

across the installed base of systems 

inventoried, compared to the data 

available to develop the default DREs 

that were in the proposed amendments. 

The commenter provided a summary 

of the member companies’ abatement 

system inventory and the number of 

individual abatement devices that have 

been tested in support of the alternative 

default DRE calculations proposed by 

the commenter. The commenter 

contended that the EPA should not 

utilize any data from devices that were 

not designed to abate F–GHG or N2O in 

the EPA assessment of abatement device 

performance and the determination of 

default DREs for the final rule. 

The commenter further explained that 

the testing represented a substantial 

fraction of the installed base of devices 

at the companies responding to a 2011 

survey of industry association member 

companies. The survey referenced by 

the commenter included results from 

five companies representing nine 

facilities and approximately 50 percent 

of the estimated number of abatement 

systems in U.S. fabs, based on a 2010 

ISMI survey.4 The commenter noted 

that although the testing is 

predominantly of one manufacturer’s 

devices (i.e., greater than 95 percent of 

DRE measurements), this is 

representative because the U.S. 

industry’s installed base is 

predominantly that same manufacturer’s 

devices. The commenter explained that 

in a statistical sense, the sample of 

devices tested exceeds the usual 10 

percent threshold at which a sample is 

deemed ‘‘large’’ and brings into play the 

‘‘finite sample correction’’ for variance, 

meaning that the sample is more than a 

statistical representation and has begun 

to enumerate the population. 

The commenter stated that the revised 

default DREs in the proposed rule were 

based primarily on the results of testing 

carried out by SIA members and their 

contractors. The information was 

provided to the EPA and used to 

develop the revised defaults in the 

proposed rule amendments. The 

commenter noted that since that initial 

submittal, SIA members have carried 

out additional testing and collected 

additional test results. The 

supplemental data reflect an additional 

208 tests of POU abatement device 

performance, including 143 new tests of 

etch gas abatement and 65 new tests of 

NF3 abatement in chamber cleaning. 

The complete data set with the initial 

data and the additional data represents 

three companies and nine different fabs, 

similar to the previously submitted data. 

The commenter provided the additional 

data, as well as a detailed analysis, as 

attachments to their comment letter, 

which are available in the docket 

(docket item EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0028–0095). 

The commenter also noted that they 

were not able to use the EPA data 

collection template for new DRE test 

results because much of the data 

gathering had either been completed or 

was underway before the template was 

provided in the docket to the proposed 

rule. The commenter stated that they 

had already begun using an alternative 

template based on the data template SIA 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
68190 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

5p. 3 of Technical Support for Accounting for 

Destruction or Removal Efficiency for Electronics 

Manufacturing Facilities under Subpart I, EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0028–0082. 6See EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028–0095. 

used to provide data to the EPA 

previously. The commenter provided 

the DRE data in an attachment to their 

comment letter and claimed that the 

information in the attachment was 

sufficient to assess the applicability and 

usefulness of the data while avoiding 

the confidentiality issues inherent in the 

template the EPA provided. 

Response: The EPA thanks the 

commenter for the additional DRE data 

and appreciates the effort expended to 

generate the DRE test database. We 

acknowledge the similarities between 

the EPA data request sheet and the SIA 

template and have accepted the data 

provided as meeting the EPA’s 

information needs. We have evaluated 

the additional data provided and have 

incorporated the data into the existing 

abatement device inventory to develop 

the default DRE factors in Table I–16 of 

the final rule. The default DRE factors 

in the final rule are based on an analysis 

of the average DREs from 343 

performance tests, including 11 data 

points from the EPA’s DRE dataset from 

the Technical Support Document for 

Process Emissions from Electronics 

Manufacture (Revised November 2010), 

125 tests provided to the EPA from SIA 

after the finalization of the December 

2010 subpart I rule, and the 207 tests 

provided to the EPA by SIA during the 

public comment period for this 

rulemaking. 

EPA agrees with the commenter that 

data collected from abatement devices 

that are not designed to abate F–GHGs 

should not be included in the DRE 

testing database, and the EPA has not 

considered these data in the 

development of the default DREs in the 

final rule. The EPA agrees with the 

commenter that it is inappropriate to 

include devices that only incidentally 

abate F–GHGs and N2O in the 

calculation of default DREs, as these 

devices are unlikely to have the same 

emissions reductions as systems 

specifically designed to abate F–GHGs. 

For the same reason, we have revised 40 

CFR 98.94(f)(3) such that facilities may 

take credit for abatement using the 

default DREs only if they can certify that 

the abatement systems were specifically 

designed to abate F–GHGs or N2O and 

have a site maintenance plan that 

includes the manufacturer’s 

recommendations and specifications for 

installation, operation, and maintenance 

for each abatement system. However, 

the final rule also allows facilities to use 

measured site-specific DREs to account 

for emission reductions from systems 

that were not specifically designed to 

abate F–GHGs or N2O. 

The EPA remains interested in 

obtaining more information about 

whether the abatement system data are 

fully representative of the abatement 

system technologies currently installed 

in the U.S. industry. As discussed in the 

next response to comment, the EPA 

generally agrees with the commenter’s 

conclusion that the data provided are 

representative of the facilities required 

to report under subpart I. The EPA 

intends to collect and review additional 

data to improve the DRE database in the 

future. The EPA’s analysis of the DRE 

data provided by the commenter and the 

method used to calculate the default 

DREs in the final rule are discussed in 

the response to the next comment. 

Comment: Several commenters 

disagreed with the EPA’s method for 

calculating the default DRE factors that 

were included in the proposed rule. The 

EPA calculated the proposed default 

DRE factors as the arithmetic mean DRE 

value for a gas and process combination, 

minus two standard deviations of the 

population.5

Several commenters proposed an 

alternative method for calculating 

default DRE factors. The commenters 

claimed that the suggested approach is 

conservative, mirrors the approach SIA 

used in the facility level error analysis 

for emissions factors (see docket item 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028–0074, 

section 3.4.1), and recognizes that the 

number of individual devices in a 

typical fab is an important determinant 

of variability. The commenter provided 

data from an industry association survey 

on the number of abatement systems 

used at each fab for each gas and 

process type. The commenter’s 

approach attempted to estimate the 

lowest average DRE value that any fab 

could be expected to achieve (‘‘lowest 

fab-average’’). Specifically, it placed the 

default DRE at the bottom of the 

distribution of fab averages, by 

discounting two standard deviations 

below the observed fab-average DRE. It 

is important to note the standard 

deviation used by the commenter is one 

that described the combined variation of 

fab-averages and the variation of 

devices, unlike the EPA method that 

used only the standard deviation of 

individual device performance (i.e., the 

population of all devices). 

The commenters stated that fab-level 

averages should be the basis of 

emissions reporting because no fab has 

just one POU device, and site-specific 

DREs developed under the rule would 

be applied as fab-averages. They stated 

that discounting the default to the 

lowest expected fab-average would still 

fully protect against the risk of underestimating emissions in reporting due to 

a default DRE that is too high. The 

commenters suggested that the majority 

of fabs would have a higher average and 

would still have an incentive and 

mechanism to obtain site-specific DREs. 

The commenters asserted that their 

approach uses a well-accepted statistical 

methodology called Components of 

Variance Analysis to model the variance 

in the DRE data and separately identify 

the variation in the average DRE among 

fabs versus the variation in DRE among 

individual devices in a fab. The 

variance components method applies a 

random effects model to the data for the 

purpose of identifying the sources of 

variance in a sample and making 

inferences regarding the size 

(magnitude) of each source of variance. 

A random effects model is used because 

it is unknown in advance whether a 

particular fab or device is above or 

below the average for fabs or for devices 

within the fab. The commenter provided 

references for background information 

on the components of variance analysis. 

The commenter provided a detailed 

description of their approach and a 

summary of default DREs calculated 

using their approach and compared to 

the EPA’s proposed default values.6 The 

commenter contended that for each gas 

and process combination, the alternative 

defaults were conservative 

representations of the average 

performance of abatement devices in the 

test data because, by design, they 

targeted the fab with the lowest average 

DRE. 

The commenter urged the EPA to 

reconsider its method for discounting 

the available data to develop default 

DRE values. The commenter 

recommended that the EPA adopt their 

procedure documented in their 

comment letter and establish revised 

default DREs comparable to their 

developed alternative DREs for the 

following reasons: 

(1) The EPA method of default DRE 

calculation in the proposed rule was 

overly conservative because it 

discounted for the entire variability of 

individual device performance that 

resulted from the varied operating 

conditions existing in a semiconductor 

manufacturing fab. The commenter 

claimed their method is designed to 

discount to a similar degree, but only for 

the variability that exists in fab-average 

DREs. 

(2) In determining the average DRE for 

a fab, the individual device variability is 

attenuated by the large number of 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68191 

abatement devices in service in each 

fab. As with the variability in the 

emissions factors, considering the large 

number of individual devices in an 

abated fab brings the overall fab average 

DRE much closer to the overall average 

of the entire database. 

(3) For all of the gas/process type 

combinations, the alternative default 

DREs developed using the commenters’ 

recommended approach are less than 

the average DREs observed in the 

majority of the fabs that provided 

testing, demonstrating sufficient 

conservatism to prevent an underestimation of emissions when the 

alternative default DREs are used in 

reporting. While they are higher than 

the default DREs in the proposed rule, 

the commenters stated they are designed 

to represent the fab with the lowest 

average DRE. They stated that very few 

fabs would have lower average DREs 

and, due to the expense of testing, fabs 

would not obtain site-specific DREs in 

all cases where their actual DREs are 

higher. The commenter asserted that by 

using their default DREs, reported GHG 

emissions would not be understated. 

Response: The EPA agrees with the 

commenters’ proposed ‘‘Components of 

Variance Analysis’’ averaging method 

for developing the default DREs in Table 

I–16 of the proposed rule. The EPA 

acknowledges that the averaging method 

used in the proposed rule may result in 

a lower default DRE than may be 

present at fabs using many individual 

abatement devices. This approach was 

used in the development of the 

proposed rule based on the limitations 

in the information available at the time 

of the proposed rulemaking. About 95 

percent of the data available for the 

proposed DRE values came from 

systems from a single manufacturer, and 

the EPA was concerned that the data 

might not be representative of the 

performance of other device 

manufacturers. However, for the 2011 

data reporting year, 50 facilities 

reported GHG emissions to the EPA 

under subpart I. Of those 50 facilities, 

17 reported having abatements systems 

and the vast majority of those 17 

reported abatement systems from the 

same manufacturer. Only four facilities 

with abatement systems had no systems 

from the manufacturer that represented 

greater than 95 percent of the DRE test 

data points. Therefore, the EPA 

generally agrees with the commenter’s 

conclusion that the data provided are 

representative of the facilities required 

to report under subpart I that have 

abatement systems. In addition, as noted 

in comments earlier in this section, the 

EPA received additional data during the 

public comment period that was 

incorporated into the DRE database. The 

expanded data provide average DREs 

from 343 performance tests. This more 

robust dataset provides greater 

confidence for the establishment of 

default DREs for specific gas and 

process types/subtypes. 

The EPA agrees that the approach 

recommended by the commenters is a 

valid statistical method that will 

account for the variance in the average 

DRE from each fab in addition to the 

variance in the average DRE from 

individual devices in each fab. The EPA 

also agrees with the commenter that this 

approach is more appropriate for the 

final rule than the approach used at 

proposal because the survey data 

provided by the commenter and the 

results of the 2011 GHGRP reporting 

year have demonstrated that the large 

majority of abatement systems in use are 

from the same manufacturer for which 

the majority of the data were collected. 

Therefore, the EPA’s concerns with the 

representativeness of the DRE data 

documented at proposal have been 

largely addressed by the data received 

in the public comments and by the 

results of the 2011 annual GHG reports. 

The EPA remains interested in working 

with industry stakeholders to develop a 

more robust DRE dataset that includes 

all abatement system manufacturers. 

The approach recommended by 

commenters takes the average minus 

two times the standard deviation of the 

average observed DRE (See Docket Id. 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028–0095). 

The standard deviation used is one that 

describes the variation of fab-averages. 

The method first discounts the observed 

average for the standard deviation 

among fabs, and places the default at the 

bottom of the statistical distribution for 

the lowest fab-average, then accounts for 

the effect of individual device 

performance. As noted by the 

commenter, using the recommended 

approach, the calculated DREs represent 

the fab with the lowest average DRE, 

which still results in a conservative 

estimate. The EPA agrees that this 

approach is appropriate and has 

adopted the method to determine the 

default DREs for each gas and process 

type/subtype in the final rule. In cases 

where no new data were received (e.g., 

for N2O using processes and other F– 

GHGs not listed), we have retained the 

default DRE in the current subpart I of 

60 percent, as described in Table 3 to 

the preamble to the proposed 

amendments (see 77 FR 63563). The 

following table shows the sample size, 

mean, standard deviation, and the 

calculated default DRE for each gas and 

process type using the final expanded 

dataset. 

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF CALCULATED DEFAULT DRE WHERE ADDITIONAL DATA WERE PROVIDED

Gas/process type 

Number of 

data points 

available 

Mean 

Standard deviations Calculated 

DRE 

(using 

components 

of variance 

analysis) 

Fabs Devices 

Etch 

CF4 ................................................................................... 66 83.56 0 .0 18 .31 75.4 

CH3F ................................................................................ 4 99.24 0 .0 0 .93 98.4 

CHF3 ................................................................................ 43 99.10 0 .69 1 .14 97.4 

CH2F2 ............................................................................... 30 98.74 0 .62 1 .59 96.8 

C2F6 .................................................................................. 5 98.84 1 .85 0 .50 95.1 

C4F6 .................................................................................. 9 98.55 0 .0 2 .54 96.3 

C4F8 .................................................................................. 24 98.50 0 .75 1 .69 96.4 

C5F8 .................................................................................. 1 96.59 n/a n/a 96.6 

SF6 ................................................................................... 20 98.69 0 .66 1 .01 97.2 

NF3 ................................................................................... 31 98.51 0 .0 4 .20 96.3 

Chamber Clean 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
68192 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF CALCULATED DEFAULT DRE WHERE ADDITIONAL DATA WERE PROVIDED—Continued 

Gas/process type 

Number of 

data points 

available 

Mean 

Standard deviations Calculated 

DRE 

(using 

components 

of variance 

analysis) 

Fabs Devices 

NF3 (All sub-types combined) .......................................... 110 93.32 1 .83 9 .38 87.8 

However, as described in the response 

to another comment in this section of 

the preamble, the EPA is including in 

the final rule a single combined default 

DRE value for all carbon-based F–GHG 

used in the etch process, other than CF4, 

instead of individual DRE values. 

The EPA also notes that the final rule 

provides provisions for gathering 

additional DRE performance data in 

future years for updating and revising 

the default DREs (see 40 CFR 98.96(y)). 

The EPA would consider additional 

data that is representative of other 

abatement system designs and 

manufacturers for update of the default 

DREs, when those data become 

available. 

The final rule also provides for 

facilities who do not wish to use the 

default DREs for reporting purposes by 

including the option to perform sitespecific DRE testing. We have revised 

the final rule to clarify that facilities 

have the option to develop site specific 

DREs for specific gas and process 

combinations on a fab-basis, while also 

using default DREs for other gas and 

process combinations. These final rule 

options allow flexibility and reduce 

burden for facilities who wish to reflect 

the emission reductions from abatement 

systems for reporting purposes. 

Comment: One commenter asked that 

EPA revisit the conclusion that a lack of 

DRE data for C3F8 and C5F8 requires that 

they be subject to default DRE factors of 

60 percent. The current data set 

includes one DRE value for C5F8 and no 

DRE values for C3F8. The commenter 

noted that the chemistry of C3F8 is very 

similar to C2F6 because both are fully 

fluorinated molecules, although C3F8

will be more amenable to abatement 

because of weaker molecular bonds 

associated with its additional carbon 

atom when compared to C2F6. Because 

of the similarity, the commenter stated 

the C2F6 DRE data should be recognized 

as applicable to C3F8. 

The commenter made a similar 

argument for C5F8, and compared it to 

C4F8 with an average DRE of 98.5 

percent, and also noted the one DRE 

measurement for C5F8 of 96.6 percent. 

Response: The EPA agrees with the 

commenter that for these two 

compounds, the availability of DRE data 

for similar compounds justifies the use 

of a higher default DRE than the 60 

percent included in the current rule and 

in the proposed amendments. The C3F8

and C5F8 compounds are more amenable 

to combustion than the C2F6 and C4F8, 

respectively, because of the presence of 

the additional carbon atom in the case 

of C3F8, and the presence of an 

additional carbon and the C=C double 

bond in the case of C5F8. Therefore, the 

same default DREs for C2F6 and C4F8 can 

be applied to C3F8 and C5F8, 

respectively (See Table 4 of this 

preamble). 

Comment: One commenter asked that 

the EPA consider a single shared DRE 

value for the carbon-based etch gases 

(besides CF4) to simplify calculations. 

The commenter noted that based on the 

commenter’s method of calculating the 

default DREs, a single default of 97 

percent would be appropriate. The 

commenter noted that in the proposed 

amendments, the EPA proposed a single 

default of 98 percent in proposed Table 

I–16 of subpart I for the gases for which 

the EPA had DRE data (CHF3, CH2F2, 

C4F8, and C4F6). 

Response: In the proposed rule, the 

EPA included NF3 and SF6 among the 

etch gases CHF3, CH2F2, C4F8, and C4F6

and assigned a DRE of 98 percent due 

to similarities in the calculated DREs for 

each gas. As discussed in this section, 

the EPA has incorporated the additional 

DRE data submitted during the public 

comment period into the existing 

dataset to calculate default DREs for the 

individual compounds. The EPA 

recognizes that the calculated DREs for 

the carbon-based etch gases (other than 

CF4) are grouped in the range of 95 to 

98 percent, using the most recent data 

and methodology discussed earlier in 

this section. The EPA agrees with the 

commenter that it would simplify 

calculations to group together the 

carbon-based etch gases (other than CF4) 

and assign a single default DRE to theses 

etch gases. 

For the combined carbon-based etch 

gases, the default DRE for combined 

gases is calculated similarly to the 

default DRE for individual gases, with 

the exception that a fixed number of 

DRE counts, fab counts, and abatement 

systems per fab are assumed for each gas 

so that the variance components for fabs 

and devices are the same for each gas. 

This approach is used in lieu of the raw 

DRE average for each gas (and the 

associated number of data DRE values, 

fabs, and abatement systems) because 

the raw averages for each gas include 

variations between fabs, and are 

therefore less precise. For example, even 

if a high raw average is observed for an 

individual gas, this may be caused by 

the fact that a disproportionate number 

of the observations are coming from a 

fab which has ‘‘above average’’ DRE. 

The EPA calculated the variance 

components (s(Fabs) and s(Devices)) for 

the carbon-based etch gases using 

statistical software. The results are 

shown in Table 4 below. The variance 

components only describe the 

variability between fabs and between 

devices (any difference between gases is 

already accounted for by the gas effect, 

which is assumed to be fixed). 

Therefore, these values do not change 

for each gas. The default DREs are 

averaged over all the carbon-based etch 

gases (other than CF4) to produce a 

group-average DRE of 96.7 percent, 

which the EPA has rounded to a value 

of 97 percent in Table I–16 in the final 

rule. This default value will also apply 

to C3F8 and C5F8, as discussed in the 

response to the previous comment, even 

though there were no DRE data for C3F8

and only one DRE data point for C5F8. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68193 

7Questions Generated from SIA/EPA Conference 

Calls and Outstanding Questions from Work Plan 

appendices, March 29, 2012. 

TABLE 4—COMBINED ETCH DRE FOR NON-CF4 CARBON-BASED F–GHG 

Input gas DRE fixed 

effect DRE count Fabs s(Fabs) s(Devices) N Default DRE 

Groupaverage 

DRE 

C2F6 .............................. 98.6 116 5 0.631 1.523 5 96.76 

C4F6 .............................. 98.6 116 5 0.631 1.523 5 96.74 

C4F8 .............................. 98.7 116 5 0.631 1.523 5 96.80 

C5F8 .............................. 96.8 116 5 0.631 1.523 5 94.97 96.71 

CH2F2 ........................... 98.9 116 5 0.631 1.523 5 97.00 

CH3F ............................ 99.2 116 5 0.631 1.523 5 97.33 

CHF3 ............................ 99.2 116 5 0.631 1.523 5 97.35 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed concern regarding the 

certification requirements for abatement 

systems under proposed 40 CFR 98.94(f) 

and 40 CFR 98.96(q). 

In regards to the requirement that 

reporters who wish to account for 

abatement must certify and document/

verify that the abatement devices were 

installed, operated, and maintained in 

accordance with manufacturer 

recommendations and specifications, 

one commenter stated that 

manufacturer’s specifications may no 

longer be available. The comment 

explained that even when they are 

available, the specifications can be 

general and do not specifically call out 

how to manage and maintain the 

abatement devices. Typically, this 

requires the fab to create a site-specific 

maintenance plan, which will be based 

on a combination of available 

manufacturer’s updated specifications 

and/or the fab-specific procedures 

developed through subsequent 

operating and maintenance experience. 

Material changes to the manufacturer’s 

specification requirements for their 

abatement systems may be necessary to 

address process or equipment specific 

requirements in an operating fab. 

The commenter noted that for existing 

older abatement systems, it is not 

always possible to determine that they 

were installed in accordance with 

manufacturer specifications at the time 

of their original installation, which in 

many cases preceded this rule. Records 

of the manufacturer’s intent and 

installation requirements may not have 

existed and, if they did exist, they were 

not kept. Importantly, process tool(s) 

and gases/liquid precursors may have 

changed since the initial installation. It 

is critical that abatement systems be 

operated and maintained properly in the 

periods when emissions are being 

reported and that the current 

infrastructure and system configuration 

are appropriate for the abatement 

application. It is not germane whether 

the abatement systems were installed in 

a particular way in the past, as some of 

the systems at specific fabs have been in 

operation for up to a decade. 

The commenter further explained that 

some process types may require 

parameters outside of the 

manufacturer’s specification 

requirements to address complications 

introduced by specific material types, 

reaction products, or to meet specific 

safety requirements. ‘‘Tuning’’ of 

operating parameters and/or 

maintenance schedules different from 

the abatement system manufacturer’s 

recommendations are required to 

optimize system operation in these 

cases. The commenter noted that 

examples of maintenance plan 

adjustments beyond the original 

manufacturer’s recommendations to 

maximize the DRE for CF4 abatement 

were discussed in docket EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0028–0046 item 4a.7

The commenter contended that the 

purpose of the site maintenance plan is 

to ensure that the abatement devices are 

operated and maintained correctly. The 

commenter stated that the plan should 

be a dynamic document that 

incorporates improvements in how the 

abatement devices are serviced and 

maintained, including corrective actions 

that are taken when the causes of 

abatement system failure or outage are 

determined. In addition, proper set-up 

of abatement device in GHG abatement 

mode after maintenance will be 

addressed. The commenter reasoned 

that, by their nature, these plans may 

depart from the original manufacturer’s 

specifications. 

Response: The EPA agrees with the 

commenter that there are scenarios in 

which a facility may not be able to rely 

on manufacturer’s specifications (e.g., if 

they are unavailable), or where the 

facility may have a need to adopt fabspecific procedures to optimize system 

performance. As such, we have revised 

40 CFR 98.94(f)(1) and 40 CFR 98.96(q) 

to specify that facilities must certify and 

document that the abatement systems 

are properly installed, operated, and 

maintained according to the site 

maintenance plan for abatement systems 

that is developed and maintained in 

records as specified in 40 CFR 98.97(d). 

However, the EPA also recognizes that 

manufacturers specifications are still 

important to ensuring the proper 

installation and operation of abatement 

systems and the reference to 

manufacturers specifications has been 

retained in 40 CFR 98.97(d)(9). As noted 

in docket item EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0028–0046, item 4, cited by the 

commenter and incorporated into the 

‘‘Technical Support for Accounting for 

Destruction or Removal Efficiency for 

Electronics Manufacturing Facilities 

under Subpart I’’ (see Docket ID. No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028–0082), 

during the review of DRE test data for 

the revision of the default DRE, the EPA 

and SIA noted that some low CF4 and 

NF3 DREs in the test data resulted from 

variation in flows through the 

abatement system and from operating 

and maintaining the abatement systems 

outside of the manufacturer 

specifications. Specifically, low CF4

DREs associated with etch processes 

were found to be the result of systems 

operating outside the manufacturers’ 

recommended set points for flow rate 

and/or pressure that should have been 

verified during abatement installation. 

The document cited by the commenter 

reported that once the abatement 

systems were returned to the 

manufacturer’s specifications, the DRE 

also returned to higher levels 

comparable to those of other systems. 

Because the high variability in the 

available DRE data was directly 

associated with operating outside of the 

manufacturer’s specifications, the EPA 

proposed a requirement for facilities to 

develop, follow, and keep on-site 

maintenance plans for abatement 

systems that are built on the 

manufacturer’s recommended 

installation, operation, and maintenance 

program, and that must include a 

defined preventive maintenance process 

and checklist and a corrective action 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
68194 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

process to follow whenever an 

abatement system fails to operate 

properly. 

Therefore, the EPA has determined 

that although a certification may rely on 

the implementation of site maintenance 

plans for abatement systems, it is also 

necessary to ensure that facilities rely 

on manufacturer’s recommendations 

and specifications to the extent possible, 

particularly when using the default DRE 

values. Therefore, if the facility uses the 

emissions estimation methods in 40 

CFR 98.93(a), (b), and (i) and uses the 

default DRE values when claiming 

abatement for reporting purposes, the 

final site maintenance plan 

requirements in 40 CFR 98.97(d)(9) for 

abatement systems must be based on the 

manufacturer’s recommendations and 

specifications for installation, operation, 

and maintenance. If the facility is using 

properly measured site-specific DRE 

values, the final site maintenance plan 

must include the manufacturer’s 

recommendations and specifications for 

installation, operation, and 

maintenance, where available. For a 

facility to use the default DREs, the EPA 

needs assurance that the abatement 

system is installed, operated, and 

maintained in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s specifications. 

Otherwise, the EPA would be unable to 

verify that the default DREs are met 

without further validation testing. The 

site maintenance plan for abatement 

systems must also include 

documentation where the operation and 

maintenance deviates from the 

manufacturer’s specifications, including 

an explanation of how the deviations do 

not negatively affect the performance or 

destruction or removal efficiency of the 

abatement system. For example, the site 

maintenance plan may include 

documentation where the process 

optimizes system performance (e.g., 

more frequent maintenance checks or 

tighter operating parameters). Finally, 

facilities who elect to claim abatement 

for reporting purposes and want to use 

the default DRE factors must also certify 

that the abatement systems are 

specifically designed for F–GHG 

abatement (or N2O abatement, as 

appropriate). (This certification is not 

needed for facilities using a measured 

site-specific DRE value.) The facility 

must also have a site maintenance plan 

that is based on the manufacturer’s 

recommendations and specifications for 

each abatement system These are 

minimal requirements that are necessary 

to verify that abatement systems are 

operating consistently at or above the 

default DRE. We note that the 

commenter provided several additional 

recommendations for changes to the 

proposed provisions for certifications 

regarding abatement systems and the 

use of default and site-specific DRE 

values. Those comments and our 

responses can be found in ‘‘Reporting of 

Greenhouse Gases—Revisions to the 

Electronics Manufacturing Category of 

the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: 

EPA’s Response to Public Comment’’ 

(see EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028). 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the proposed rule requires a facility 

using the stack testing alternative to 

make assumptions for abatement system 

DREs in order to adjust annual 

emissions calculations for abatement 

downtime and does not allow one to 

assume a DRE of zero, as would be an 

option under the emission factor 

method. The commenter stated that this 

is a logical approach for a stack test 

method; however, other portions of the 

rule require that a DRE assumption of 

zero be used if a facility cannot meet 

certain requirements for certifying the 

design and installation of an abatement 

device. The commenter concluded that 

the net result is that, as the rule was 

proposed, a facility that is unable to 

meet these certification requirements 

(for example, one with older abatement 

equipment where such certification may 

be difficult to obtain) is effectively 

disqualified from using the stack test 

method as they may not assume zero 

efficiency, yet cannot meet the 

requirements to assume something other 

than zero. The commenter 

recommended revising the DRE 

certification requirements such that the 

use of default DRE factors is dependent 

upon certifying and documenting that 

the systems are installed, operated, and 

maintained according to the site 

maintenance plan, and not according to 

manufacturers specifications. The 

commenter stated that this is consistent 

with the way in which other pollution 

control devices are handled in many 

facility air permits. 

Response: In stack testing, the 

measured emissions used to calculate 

fab-specific emission factors will reflect 

the effect of all abatement systems, 

including those not specifically 

designed for F–GHG abatement that still 

achieve some incidental F–GHG 

abatement. However, the EPA 

recognizes that facilities using the stack 

testing method may not be able to 

certify that the abatement systems are 

specifically designed to abate F–GHGs, 

although those systems may achieve 

incidental control of F–GHGs that could 

have an effect on emissions. As 

discussed earlier in this section, we 

have revised the definition of 

‘‘abatement system’’ to clarify that the 

abatement system requirements of 

subpart I only apply to abatement 

systems that are designed to abate F– 

GHGs (and/or N2O, but N2O is not 

included in the stack testing 

alternative), or for which the DRE has 

been measured according to 40 CFR 

98.94. Facilities using the stack testing 

alternative would, in their emissions 

calculations, account for the effect of 

abatement systems that are specifically 

designed for F–GHG abatement and for 

systems for which the facility measured 

the site-specific DRE according to 40 

CFR 98.94. In the case of abatement 

systems that are not specifically 

designed to abate F–GHG, the reporter 

may elect to not include the effect of 

those systems in their emissions 

calculations. In all cases where the 

reporter is accounting for the effect of 

the abatement systems, the reporter 

must also comply with the other 

monitoring and quality assurance 

requirements for abatement systems in 

subpart I. In all other cases, the 

reporters would assume that the DRE is 

zero for abatement systems that are not 

designed for abatement of F–GHG and 

would not account for the downtime of 

those systems. 

In order to ensure that the abatement 

systems, as defined in 40 CFR 98.98 and 

included in the emission calculations, 

are operated properly and consistently 

following the initial stack test, the EPA 

is requiring that facilities must certify 

that the abatement system is operated 

and maintained in accordance with the 

site maintenance plan for abatement 

systems in 40 CFR 98.97(d). Facilities 

who elect to use the stack testing 

alternative in 40 CFR 98.93(i) and who 

elect to use the default DREs must base 

the site maintenance plan on the 

abatement system manufacturer’s 

recommendations and specifications. If 

manufacturer’s recommendations and 

specifications are unavailable, the 

facility using the stack test method must 

use a site-specific DRE, which can be 

developed concurrently. Facilities using 

the stack testing method and the default 

DREs must also certify that the 

abatement systems are designed to abate 

F–GHGs. 

Finally, the EPA also needs to ensure 

that facilities using the stack test 

alternative account for the abatement 

systems that are present when 

calculating their facility annual 

emissions. We have revised the final 

rule to clarify that facilities using the 

stack test alternative must certify that all 

abatement systems that are designed to 

abate F–GHGs, or for which the DRE has 

been measured, are fully accounted for 

when calculating annual emissions and 

accounting for excess emissions from 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68195 

downtime (i.e., facilities are accounting 

for the uptime and DREs of these 

systems, either using the default DREs 

or site-specific DRES, in Equations I–21 

through I–24). Facilities would only 

apply the default DREs to account for 

abatement from those systems that meet 

the certification requirements and are 

specifically designed to abate F–GHGs. 

They would use a site-specific DRE for 

systems for which the facility had 

measured a site-specific DRE. If they 

elect to account for abatement from 

systems that are not specifically 

designed to abate F–GHGs, they would 

use a site-specific DRE for these 

systems. These requirements are 

necessary to ensure that the calculated 

emission factors are representative and 

accurately reflect abatement. 

6. Abatement System Uptime for 

Facilities That Manufacture Electronics 

Comment: One commenter proposed 

revisions to the definition of uptime 

such that uptime is defined as ‘‘the ratio 

of the total time during which the 

abatement system is in an operational 

mode and operating in accordance with 

the site abatement system maintenance 

plan, to the total time during which 

production process tool(s) connected to 

that abatement system are normally in 

operation.’’ 

Response: The EPA is not revising the 

definition of ‘‘uptime’’ as suggested by 

the commenter. The EPA previously 

defined ‘‘operational mode’’ as ‘‘the 

time in which an abatement system is 

properly installed, maintained, and 

operated according to manufacturers’ 

specifications as required in 40 CFR 

98.93(f)(1). This includes being properly 

operated within the range of parameters 

as specified in the operations manual 

provided by the system manufacturer.’’ 

Consistent with the changes to the 

abatement system certification 

requirements in the final rule, the EPA 

has revised the definition of 

‘‘operational mode’’ to reflect that the 

abatement system is properly installed, 

maintained, and operated according to 

the site maintenance plan for abatement 

systems. Therefore, the revisions to the 

definition of ‘‘uptime’’ as requested by 

the commenter are not necessary, as an 

abatement system in operational mode 

must be operated within the parameters 

of the site maintenance plan. 

7. Triennial Technology Report for 

Semiconductor Manufacturing 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed concern with an option for 

the triennial technology report on which 

the EPA requested comment, 

specifically the option to require 

additional information beyond that 

proposed in 40 CFR 98.96(y). The 

preamble to the proposed amendments 

requested comment on requiring that 

the reports include an analysis of the 

effect of the introduction of new 

processes on existing tools, where a new 

process could be defined as one that 

used a markedly different gas mixture 

than the mixture used by previous 

processes applied to achieve the same 

end (i.e., etch the same film or feature), 

or that included a change in the radio 

frequency (RF) power and gas flow rate 

(see 77 FR 63566). Commenters stated 

that these suggested requirements 

appear to resurrect the recipe testing 

requirements established in the original 

subpart I regulation published in 

December of 2010 and which were 

specifically called out as unworkable in 

SIA’s petition for reconsideration. One 

commenter stated that, as described in 

the petition for reconsideration, the 

recipe testing requirements created 

unacceptable intellectual property risk, 

potential national security concerns, 

significant disruption of fab operations, 

and unreasonable and excessive 

economic impact. The commenters cited 

as examples the impacts (cost and 

business disruption) of process 

emissions factor testing that were 

experienced during the additional 

emissions factor testing work that was 

completed in support of the default 

factors that are in Subpart I. The 

commenters reported that in one fab, 

testing required two weeks of time and 

cost over $25,000 (not including lost 

production and fab staff support time) 

just to measure 12 emissions factors for 

5 tools. The ISMI technology transfer 

report ‘‘2010 ISMI Analysis of the 

Impact of Final Mandatory Reporting 

Rule Subpart I on U.S. Semiconductor 

Facilities’’ issued January 31, 2011 

provides additional description of the 

impact of recipe level testing. 

The commenter further explained that 

the cost to test all new and revised 

process recipes is very large. On 

average, each large facility introduces 40 

new etch processes per year and 

changes 56 etch recipes per year; for 29 

large facilities the testing cost per year 

equates to $17 million or $51 million for 

three years. This assumes $35,000 for 

testing/week and six recipes tested/

week, according to the commenter. 

The commenter noted that the cost for 

tool downtime for the testing over the 

three years would be an additional $6.9 

million. (This assumes 11 hours of 

downtime for an 8 hour test and 3 hours 

for tool requalification; $1.5 million per/ 

year for etch tool downtime.) Total cost 

for testing of tools is on the order of $58 

million. 

The commenter asserted that the cost 

of any testing of POU abatement devices 

for DRE changes would be additional. 

Costs for large leading-edge technology 

fabs would be significantly higher than 

the industry average numbers by a factor 

of 10 or more. 

The commenter stated that in the 

economic impact assessment for the 

proposed amendments (EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2011–0028–0081), the EPA does not 

include the cost for preparing the 

triennial report, ‘‘. . . given that the 

EPA does not expect this requirement to 

significantly affect the compliance costs 

either on a per facility or a national 

basis . . .’’ The commenter estimated 

that preparing a triennial report, as 

proposed in the preamble to the revised 

subpart I, would require the effort of 

several full time employees. The 

commenter stated that their intent with 

regards to preparing the triennial report 

and developing a company or industry 

plan to perform testing to assess the 

impact of new (meaning significantly 

different from existing) processes, 

equipment, and technologies on default 

emissions factors and default DRES, is 

to enable the industry to pool its 

resources to most efficiently measure, 

collect, and report the data needed to 

assess these changes. The commenter 

further added that the adoption and 

propagation of distinctly new processes, 

equipment, and technologies into highvolume manufacturing occurs slowly, 

allowing a reasoned, considered plan to 

be developed to assess the impact. 

Additionally, the commenter claimed 

that their statistical assessment of the 

emissions factor data for current 

manufacturing processes and equipment 

indicate that the magnitude of the 

emissions factor is primarily dependent 

on the wafer size and the gas type, 

suggesting that significant changes are 

unlikely to occur frequently because 

these two variables are not changed 

frequently. 

The commenter concluded that the 

level of information requested and the 

cost associated with measuring and 

collecting data according to the 

expanded scope of triennial reporting 

requirements described in the preamble 

are excessive and the final rule should 

not include more than what is included 

in the proposed 40 CFR 98.96(y). 

Response: Except for a minor 

technical correction, EPA is finalizing 

the requirements for the triennial 

technology report as proposed at 40 CFR 

98.96(y). Facilities are not required to 

implement recipe-specific testing in the 

first phase of the triennial technology 

review, as some commenters inferred 

from the request for comment in the 

preamble to the proposed amendments. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
68196 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

Nevertheless, EPA encourages, but does 

not require, facilities to acquire 

measurements of gas utilization rates, 

by-product formation rates, and DREs 

that reflect the impact of technology 

changes for the triennial report, because 

such measurements would be useful for 

informing future changes to the rule. 

To the extent that facilities acquire 

these measurements, either because they 

perform the measurements themselves 

or because they receive them from tool 

manufacturers, 40 CFR 98.96(y)(2)(iv) 

requires facilities to submit them as part 

of the triennial report. That provision 

states facilities must ‘‘provide any 

utilization and by-product formation 

rates and/or destruction or removal 

efficiency data that have been collected 

in the previous 3 years that support the 

changes in semiconductor 

manufacturing processes described in 

the report.’’ This requirement refers to 

all the rate or DRE measurements 

collected in the previous 3 years that 

reflect the impact of any technology 

changes during that time. Submission of 

specific selections or subsets of those 

measurements would not meet this 

requirement because such selections or 

subsets may not be representative. We 

anticipate that the types of information 

submitted would include information 

similar to that submitted to inform the 

default emission factors and default 

DREs in today’s rule. 

In the proposal, we also requested 

comment on whether triennial reports 

should include gas utilization rates and 

by-product formation rates measured 

‘‘for all new tools acquired by the 

facility over the previous 3 years as well 

as gas utilization rates and by-product 

formation rates measured for new 

processes run on existing tools’’ (77 FR 

63566). For these measurements, testing 

data for new tool models is often 

available from the manufacturer or from 

performance tests as new tool models 

are installed. The EPA anticipates that 

this information could be used to inform 

future changes to the rule and could be 

supplied through the triennial report. 

While the EPA is not requiring that this 

information be included in the triennial 

report, the agency encourages reporters 

to include this information on a 

voluntary basis where practical. 

The final rule does not require the 

triennial report to consider process or 

technology changes at the recipespecific level, nor does it require 

facilities to collect any recipe-specific 

data. However, the report should 

address whether, over time, the facility 

has incrementally implemented process 

or technology changes that have now 

cumulatively resulted in a wide-spread 

effect on emission factors or DRE 

factors. The report would not need to 

consider each incremental change 

separately. For example, the report does 

not need to consider differences in flow 

rates among individual recipes and their 

effect on the emission rates of 

individual gases. However, if the 

industry implements or adopts a 

technology change that substantially 

affects the average flow rate for a given 

process type such that the current 

default emission factors may no longer 

be representative, the cause and 

potential impact of that change in flow 

rate should be addressed in the triennial 

technology review report (though not 

detailed at the recipe-level). See Section 

II.A.12 of this preamble for additional 

discussion of the contents of the 

triennial report. The EPA agrees with 

the commenter that the triennial 

technology review should avoid the 

burden and potential disclosure concern 

associated with the provisions for 

reporting of recipe-specific information 

that appear in the December 2010 

promulgated rule and that are removed 

from this amended rule. 

We note that commenters provided 

additional input regarding the triennial 

technology report. Those comments and 

our responses can be found in 

‘‘Reporting of Greenhouse Gases— 

Technical Revisions to the Electronics 

Manufacturing Category of the 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA’s 

Response to Public Comment’’ (see 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028). 

8. Final Amendments to Reporting and 

Recordkeeping 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

a facility may have multiple fabs, which 

each process different wafer sizes. The 

commenter recommended that the 

language in 40 CFR 98.96(a) and (b) 

apply to fabs rather than facilities. The 

commenter noted that the wafer size 

and capacity could then be reported for 

each fab, rather than trying to report for 

the entire facility. 

Response: The EPA appreciates the 

input provided by the commenter 

regarding facility and fab level reporting 

requirements. The EPA agrees with the 

commenter that the language in 40 CFR 

98.96(a) and (b) should apply to fabs 

rather than facilities. As a result, the 

EPA is promulgating the final 

amendments to subpart I with the 

proposed modifications to 40 CFR 

98.96(a) and (b). 

Comment: One commenter asserted 

that the facility-wide DRE reporting 

requirement under 40 CFR 98.96(r) 

using Equations I–26, I–27, and I–28, 

should not apply to the stack test 

alternative. The commenter noted that 

the derivation of a facility-wide DRE is 

unnecessarily complicated, subject to 

error, and provides no material benefit 

to the reporting of emissions under the 

stack test option. According to the 

commenter, the EPA’s proposed 

requirement to use these equations 

entails an artificial determination of 

how much of a facility’s emissions are 

coming from the process tools versus 

the abatement systems, and as such is 

complicated, somewhat arbitrary, and 

potentially subject to errors. The 

commenter stated that the requirement 

to determine an effective, facility-wide 

or fab-wide DRE using equations I–26 

and I–28 for facilities that choose the 

stack testing method (40 CFR 98.93(i)) is 

not logical and should be removed from 

the rule. 

The commenter explained that one of 

the benefits of the stack testing method 

is that it eliminates the need to test 

individual abatement units, which is 

costly. The stack test data combines the 

impact of the gas utilization factors in 

the equipment and the abatement 

system DREs into a single emissions 

factor for the facility. Whether a fab 

chooses to generate and use site-specific 

DREs or use the default DRES, the DREs 

will only be used to adjust fab emissions 

for abatement system downtime; 

adjustments which are expected to have 

a small influence on the total site 

emissions. The proposal to calculate an 

effective DRE for the facility would 

require using complicated calculations 

and apportioning gas use to abatement 

units. 

The commenter also stated that 

attempting to compute a combined DRE 

for a multi-fab facility that uses the 

emissions factor method at one or more 

fabs and the stack testing method at the 

other(s) also seems to be unnecessary. 

The commenter proposed revisions that 

they claimed simplified the reporting of 

a facility-wide DRE value by calculating 

only a fab-level DRE instead of a 

facility-wide DRE. 

The commenter suggested as an 

alternative that the EPA use a 

modification to proposed Equation I–24 

of subpart I because Equation I–24 

calculates the average weighted fraction 

of F–GHG input gas i destroyed or 

removed in abatement systems. The 

commenter stated that the EPA should 

modify equation I–24, adding the 

multiplication of both the numerator 

and denominator terms by the GWP for 

each gas. The commenter stated this 

would provide an estimate of the sitewide DRE based on the removal of CO2e 

emissions that will have as much 

meaning as a fab-wide DRE calculated 

using equations I–26 and I–28, while 

requiring much less work on the part of 

the fab. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68197 

8The 2011 Final CBI Rule created 11 direct 

emitter date categories, including the 10 data 

categories listed in Table 5 of this preamble and an 

inputs to emissions equations data category. 

However, EPA has not made final confidentiality 

determinations for any data element assigned to the 

inputs to emissions equations data category either 

in the 2011 Final CBI Rule or any other rulemaking. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the 

commenter that the facility-wide DRE 

calculated by Equations I–26, I–27, and 

I–28 in proposed 40 CFR 98.96(r) is not 

relevant for facilities using the stack 

testing alternative. As explained in the 

preamble to the proposed amendments 

(77 FR 63569), the EPA included a 

requirement that facilities report a 

facility-wide DRE factor to assist in our 

verification of reported GHG emissions. 

In the amendments to subpart I, we 

proposed to move the information on 

the number and DRE of abatement 

systems at each facility from the 

reporting requirements to the 

recordkeeping requirements, and these 

changes are being made in the final rule. 

In order to determine the extent to 

which GHG emissions from this 

category are being abated, we proposed 

to require facilities to report a facilitywide DRE. The EPA’s intent of requiring 

a facility-wide DRE is also to gain an 

understanding of the extent to which a 

fab or facility’s emissions are abated in 

the absence of facilities reporting 

information that may raise potential 

disclosure concerns, such as actual DRE 

values for gases and process types. This 

information can also be used to help 

verify reported emissions. This rationale 

is equally valid for facilities using the 

default emission factor method in 40 

CFR 98.93(a) 

Contrary to the reporters 

interpretation, the facility-wide DRE is 

calculated using inputs, emissions, and 

other data already collected and 

calculated to report annual F–GHG and 

N2O emissions and does not require the 

collection of new data. The terms used 

in the equations to calculate the facilitywide DRE for a facility using the stack 

testing alternative are already calculated 

by the facility to report emissions. 

Reporters using the stack testing 

alternative would not have to measure 

the DRE of abatement systems unless 

they were doing so to determine the 

DRE of systems that were not 

specifically designed to abate F–GHG. 

Otherwise they could use default DREs 

for systems that were specifically 

designed for F–GHG abatement. 

Similarly, facilities would not have to 

separately apportion gas usage to tools 

with abatement systems in Equation I– 

28 because that is already done to 

calculate emissions as part of other 

equations in the stack testing 

alternative. First, the commenter states 

that DREs are only used under the stack 

test option to adjust fab emissions for 

abatement system downtime, and that 

downtime is expected to have a small 

influence on the total site emissions. 

While we agree that the inclusion of an 

adjustment for abatement system 

downtime may have a small influence 

on the total site emissions as calculated, 

the argument made by the commenter 

does not provide justification for 

removing the requirement for a facility 

to report a fab-wide DRE. Even when the 

uptime for a fab is relatively high, the 

fact remains that the fab is abated and 

no other reporting requirement provides 

the EPA with an estimate of the extent 

of the abatement. 

Second, the commenter states that 

using Equations I–26 and I–28 for the 

stack test alternative is unnecessary and 

the commenter proposes using a 

modification of Equation I–24 that 

incorporates multiplication by GWP 

values. We disagree that the use of 

Equations I–26 and I–28 is unnecessary 

for fabs electing to use the stack test 

option. First, Equation I–28 is necessary 

to account for the fact that a fab may not 

be fully abated and a portion of the 

input gas consumed in the fab is used 

by tools that are unabated. The result of 

Equation I–24 does not account for 

apportionment between abated and 

unabated tools. Apportionment is 

accounted for in Equation I–28 by the 

‘‘aif’’ and ‘‘af’’ terms, just as in Equation 

I–21 and I–22. Reporting the result of 

Equation I–24, regardless of any 

accounting for GWPs, would result in an 

artificially high fab-wide DRE because 

Equation I–24 does not account for the 

portion of gases consumed by tools that 

are not abated. Equation I–26 is also 

necessary because reporters are not 

allowed to calculate N2O emissions 

using the stack test method. As a result, 

Equation I–26 incorporates the 

abatement of N2O emissions into the 

effective fab-wide DRE calculation. 

Finally, we disagree that the 

equations under 40 CFR 98.96(r) are 

unnecessarily complicated. Although 

the equations may appear complicated, 

the equations, in fact, use many of the 

same data operations already performed 

to calculate emissions under either the 

default emission factor approach or the 

stack testing alternative. For example, 

the summation of F–GHGs and N2O 

contained in the numerator of Equation 

I–26 is easily calculated from the 

emissions already reported under 40 

CFR 98.96(c). The first term in Equation 

I–28 is the same as the second term in 

Equation I–21, except that the value 

‘‘(1–UTf)’’ has been replaced with 

‘‘GWPi’’ for the input gas. The case is 

the same for the second term in 

Equation I–28; it is identical to the 

second term in Equation I–22, except 

again the value ‘‘(1–UTf)’’ has been 

replaced with ‘‘GWPk’’ for the byproduct gas. Therefore, due to the 

similarity of terms, we believe that 

Equation I–28 is no more burdensome or 

complicated than Equation I–21 or I–22. 

We agree with the commenter that 

facilities should be required to report a 

fab-wide DRE instead of a combined 

DRE for a multi-fab facility. Reporting a 

fab-wide DRE, instead of a facility-wide 

DRE, will provide the EPA with a more 

detailed assessment of the extent to 

which GHG emissions are being abated. 

The fab-wide DRE will also simplify the 

calculation requirements for reporters 

because they will not have to use an 

extra equation to combine the DREs 

when a facility uses the emission factor 

method and the stack testing alternative 

in different fabs at the same facility. 

In light of the commenter’s 

suggestion, we are finalizing the 

requirement for reporters to provide 

effective DRE on a fab basis, instead of 

a facility basis. We disagree, however, 

with the commenter’s assertion that a 

facility that chooses the stack test option 

to calculate emissions from a fab should 

not be required to report an effective 

fab-wide DRE, and as such, we are 

requiring all facilities to report an 

effective fab-wide DRE, regardless of 

their emission calculation methodology. 

9. Technical Corrections in Response to 

Public Comments 

The final rule includes numerous 

minor technical changes as a result of 

addressing major public comments. 

These changes are summarized in the 

document, ‘‘Reporting of Greenhouse 

Gases—Technical Revisions to the 

Electronics Manufacturing Category of 

the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: 

EPA’s Response to Public Comment’’ 

(see EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028). 

III. Confidentiality Determinations for 

New and Revised Subpart I Data 

Elements and Responses to Public 

Comments 

A. Final Confidentiality Determinations 

for New and Revised Subpart I Data 

Elements 

In this action, we have added or 

revised 25 new data reporting 

requirements in subpart I. We have 

assigned each of these new or revised 

data elements in subpart I, a direct 

emitter subpart, to one of the direct 

emitter data categories created in the 

2011 Final CBI Rule.8 The 25 new or 

revised data elements are assigned to 

one of the 10 data categories listed in 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
68198 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

Table 5 of this preamble. Please see the 

memorandum titled ‘‘Final Data 

Category Assignments for Subpart I 

2012 Amendments’’ in Docket EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2011–0028 for a list of the 25 

new or revised data elements in this 

subpart and their final category 

assignments. 

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 .......... ............................ X c 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 III.A of this preamble for more details. 

As shown in Table 5 of this preamble, 

the EPA made categorical 

confidentiality determinations for data 

elements assigned to eight direct emitter 

data categories. For two data categories, 

‘‘Unit/Process ‘Static’ Characteristics 

That are Not Inputs to Emission 

Equations’’ and ‘‘Unit/Process Operating 

Characteristics That are Not Inputs to 

Emission Equations,’’ the EPA 

determined in the 2011 Final CBI Rule 

that the data elements assigned to those 

categories are not emission data but did 

not make categorical CBI 

determinations. Rather, the EPA made 

CBI determinations for individual data 

elements assigned to these two data 

categories. 

We have followed the same approach 

in this final rule. Specifically, we have 

assigned each of the 25 new or revised 

data elements in the final subpart I 

amendments to the appropriate direct 

emitter data category. For the 13 data 

elements assigned to categories with 

categorical confidentiality 

determinations, we have applied the 

categorical determinations made in the 

2011 Final CBI Rule to the assigned data 

elements. For the 12 data elements 

assigned to the ‘‘Unit/Process ‘Static’ 

Characteristics That are Not Inputs to 

Emission Equations’’ and the ‘‘Unit/

Process Operating Characteristics That 

are Not Inputs to Emission Equations’’ 

data categories, consistent with our 

approach towards data elements 

previously assigned to these data 

categories, we are finalizing that these 

data elements are not emission data. All 

25 new and revised subpart I data 

elements in the final subpart I 

amendments are listed in the 

memorandum titled ‘‘Final Data 

Category Assignments for Subpart I 

2012 Amendments’’ in Docket EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2011–0028. 

B. Public Comments on the Proposed 

Confidentiality Determinations 

The EPA is finalizing all 

confidentiality determinations as they 

were proposed. Please refer to the 

preamble to the proposed rule (77 FR 

63570) for additional information 

regarding the proposed confidentiality 

determinations. 

The EPA received several comments 

questioning the proposed determination 

that several new or revised data 

elements should be treated as 

confidential, or that the confidentiality 

should be determined on a case-by-case 

basis. 

Comment: One commenter questioned 

the determination that the 

confidentiality of the identification of 

the quantifiable metric used in the fabspecific engineering model to apportion 

gas consumption for each fab should be 

determined on a case-by-case basis. The 

commenter asserted that EPA has not 

provided any justification for how 

release of this data would cause 

competitive harm and that it should not 

be treated as confidential. 

Response: The EPA made a final 

confidentiality determination for the 

identification of the quantifiable metric 

used in the facility-specific engineering 

model to apportion gas consumption (40 

CFR 98.96(m)(i)) in an earlier Federal 

Register notice (77 FR 48072, August 

13, 2012), after a notice and period for 

public comment (77 FR 10434, February 

22, 2012). In that final notice (77 FR 

48072, August 13, 2012), the EPA 

decided to evaluate the confidentiality 

status of that data element on a case-bycase basis, in accordance with existing 

confidentiality regulations in 40 CFR 

part 2, subpart B. 

The EPA re-proposed the 

confidentiality determination for this 

data element due to the proposed 

revision to this data element. The 

proposed changes to this data element, 

which we are finalizing today, reflect 

that the apportioning model is now fabspecific instead of facility-specific 

because the amendments now require 

gas use to be apportioned on a fab basis 

(instead of a facility basis) and a facility 

may have separate models for each fab. 

As mentioned above, we have 

determined that the confidentiality 

status of the identification of the 

quantifiable metric used in the facilityspecific engineering model to apportion 

gas consumption should be determined 

on a case-by-case basis. The change in 

the basis of the quantifiable metric (i.e., 

from a facility to fab basis) does not 

fundamentally change the nature of the 

information being reported; for example, 

each fab at a facility may use the same 

metric, and as a result the fab-based and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68199 

facility-based quantifiable metrics may 

be the same. Because the commenter did 

not offer any compelling reasons why 

the EPA should now change course due 

to the change in the basis of the 

quantifiable metric, the EPA will 

continue to evaluate claims by facilities 

that this data element should be 

protected as CBI on a case-by-case basis. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern with EPA’s proposed 

determinations to treat the inventory of 

abatement systems under 40 CFR 

98.96(p) as confidential business 

information. The commenter asserted 

that that if the EPA ‘‘has better evidence 

that actual harm could occur from the 

release of the inventory information in 

certain circumstances than the current 

justification provided at 77 FR 10,440, 

row 3, no categorical determination 

should be made.’’ (Emphasis added.) 

Instead, the commenter asserted, ‘‘the 

confidentiality of the inventory should 

require specific demonstration by the 

company/facility involved that there is 

an actual threat of competitive harm and 

reverse-engineering.’’ (Emphasis added.) 

Response: The EPA originally 

proposed to treat the inventory of 

abatement systems data element in 40 

CFR 98.96(p) as confidential business 

information in a February 22, 2012 

notice of proposed rulemaking (77 FR 

10434) followed by a period for public 

comment. That original determination 

was finalized as proposed in an August 

13, 2012 rulemaking (77 FR 48072). As 

discussed in the proposal for this action 

(77 FR 63538, October 16, 2012), the 

EPA re-proposed the confidentiality 

determination for this data element in 

conjunction with edits that were 

proposed to the data element itself. We 

are finalizing the changes to this data 

element as proposed to clarify that the 

number of abatement systems and the 

basis of the destruction or removal 

efficiency should be reported on a 

process sub-type or process type basis. 

Please see Table 2 of this preamble for 

a detailed description of the changes 

being made to the inventory of 

abatement systems data element. We are 

also moving the following reporting 

requirements to recordkeeping: (1) The 

number of abatement systems of each 

manufacturer, and model number, and 

the manufacturer’s claimed F–GHG and 

N2O destruction or removal efficiency, if 

any; (2) records of destruction or 

removal efficiency measurements over 

the in-use life of each abatement system; 

and (3) a description of the tool, with 

the process type or sub-type, for which 

the abatement system treats exhaust. 

Facilities must still report an 

inventory, and more specifically, the 

number of abatement systems at their 

facility. As a result, a competitor may be 

able to gain insight into the number of 

tools at the facility, as described above. 

For the same reasons stated in the prior 

confidentiality determination described 

above, we believe that confidentiality 

determination for this data element, as 

revised, should remain as CBI. The 

change in the basis of the number of 

abatement systems does not affect the 

rationales we previously set forth 

supporting a CBI determination for this 

data element, nor did the commenter 

offer any specific reasons why we 

should now change course due to the 

change to the basis of the number of 

abatement systems reported. The EPA 

also notes that the commenter’s 

assertion that a company/facility should 

be required to demonstrate an ‘‘actual 

threat of competitive harm’’ for a data 

element to be determined to be CBI is 

inconsistent with 40 CFR 2.208, which 

states that the business must 

demonstrate that ‘‘disclosure of the 

information is likely to cause substantial 

harm to the business’s competitive 

position.’’ The EPA will continue to 

treat this data element as confidential 

business information. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern with EPA’s proposed 

determination to treat five of the six 

data elements specified in 40 CFR 

98.96(y) for the Triennial Technology 

Assessment as confidential. These data 

elements include all of the items to be 

included in the Triennial Technology 

Assessment Report, with the exception 

of emissions data that might be 

provided under 98.96(y)(2)(iv). The 

commenter asked EPA to reconsider the 

treatment for these other data elements 

as confidential and asserted that the 

public has a compelling need for access 

because public stakeholders outside the 

semiconductor industry will be unable 

to evaluate both industry claims 

regarding technology evolution and 

EPA’s judgment regarding whether and 

when it is appropriate to update the 

Subpart I default values. The 

commenter asked that EPA not make a 

categorical determination on these five 

data elements, but instead, evaluate 

confidentiality claims on a case-by-case 

basis. 

Other commenters supported the 

EPA’s determination that these five data 

elements should be treated as 

confidential. The commenters noted 

that in these reporting requirements, 

EPA is requesting detailed information 

on process characteristics, equipment 

types and equipment performance 

parameters that are likely to represent 

sensitive intellectual property for 

semiconductor manufacturers and their 

equipment suppliers. 

Response: The EPA appreciates the 

input provided by the commenters 

regarding the CBI determinations related 

to the Triennial Technology Assessment 

Report. In the preamble to the proposed 

amendments to subpart I, we indicated 

that we were proposing five data 

elements under 40 CFR 98.96(y) as CBI 

because the data elements are likely to 

reveal information regarding processspecific data or new technologies or 

advances in production processes that 

could be used by a competitor. The 

information required by these five data 

elements is not emission data and is 

likely to reveal potentially sensitive 

information about individual facilities 

because it is likely to include 

information about recent process 

technology developed and adopted by 

the facilities, including proprietary 

process technology that would not be 

revealed otherwise. The commenter 

questioning these determinations did 

not provide additional information that 

would alter the EPA’s decision. 

The EPA recognizes the first 

commenter’s concern that without 

access to the detailed information 

provided in those data elements, public 

stakeholders may be unable to evaluate 

industry claims regarding technology 

evolution and EPA’s judgment regarding 

whether it is appropriate to update the 

Subpart I default emission factors and 

DRE values. However, the EPA has had 

to reach a balance between public 

access to data and the protection of 

confidential business information. Over 

time and based on careful consideration 

and analysis, EPA may be able to 

aggregate sensitive information on an 

industry-wide basis that would allow 

stakeholders to evaluate industry claims 

and EPA decisions regarding the effects 

of new technology on GHG emissions. 

In addition, annual emissions data 

submitted as part of regular annual 

reporting to the GHGRP and 

measurements of emission factors and 

DRE values submitted as part of the 

triennial technology reviews would not 

be considered CBI and could also be 

analyzed by stakeholders to evaluate 

industry claims and EPA judgments on 

changes in technology that affect 

emissions. 

For comments and responses 

regarding confidentiality determinations 

for other new and revised subpart I data 

elements, please refer to the document 

titled ‘‘Reporting of Greenhouse Gases— 

Technical Revisions to the Electronics 

Manufacturing Category of the 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA’s 

Response to Public Comment’’ in Docket 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0028. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
68200 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and is therefore not 

subject to review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011). 

The EPA prepared an analysis of the 

potential costs associated with this final 

action. This analysis is contained in the 

Economics Impact Analysis (EIA), 

‘‘Final Amendments and Confidentiality 

Determinations for Subpart I EIA.’’ A 

copy of the analysis is available in the 

docket for this action and the analysis 

is briefly summarized here. Overall, the 

EPA has concluded that the costs of the 

changes will significantly reduce 

subpart I compliance costs. Specifically, 

the proposed changes will reduce 

nationwide compliance costs in the first 

year by 37 percent ($2.7 million to $1.7 

million) and by 73 percent in the second 

year ($6.4 million to $1.7 million). The 

confidentiality determinations for new 

and revised data elements do not 

increase the compliance costs of the 

final rule. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden. As 

previously mentioned, this action 

finalizes amended reporting 

methodologies in subpart I, 

confidentiality determinations for 

reported data elements, and 

amendments to subpart A to reflect 

changes to the reporting requirements in 

subpart I. However, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

previously approved the information 

collection requirements contained in 

subpart I, under 40 CFR part 98, under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., 

and has assigned OMB control number 

2060–0650 for subpart I. The OMB 

control numbers for the EPA’s 

regulations in 40 CFR are listed at 40 

CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this rule on small entities, ‘‘small 

entity’’ is defined as: (1) A small 

business as defined by the Small 

Business Administration’s regulations at 

13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small 

governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; or (3) a 

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

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. The small entities 

directly regulated by this final rule are 

facilities included in NAICS codes for 

Semiconductor and Related Device 

Manufacturing (334413) and Other 

Computer Peripheral Equipment 

Manufacturing (334119). 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s final rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

In determining whether a rule has a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

impact of concern is any significant 

adverse economic impact on small 

entities, since the primary purpose of 

the regulatory flexibility analyses is to 

identify and address regulatory 

alternatives ‘‘which minimize any 

significant economic impact of the rule 

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

Thus, an agency may certify that a rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities if the rule relieves regulatory 

burden, or otherwise has a positive 

economic effect on small entities subject 

to the rule. 

This action (1) amends monitoring 

and calculation methodologies in 

subpart I; (2) assigns subpart I data 

reporting elements into CBI data 

categories; and (3) amends subpart A to 

reflect final changes to the reporting 

requirements in subpart I. In this final 

rule, the EPA is taking several steps to 

reduce the impact of Part 98 on small 

entities. For example, the EPA is 

removing the recipe-specific reporting 

requirements for subpart I, which the 

Petitioner identified by the Petitioner as 

economically and technically 

burdensome. In addition, the EPA has 

provided a number of flexibilities in this 

final rule, which allow reporters to 

choose the methodologies that are least 

burdensome for their facility. 

Additional information can be found in 

the docket (see file ‘‘Economic Impact 

Analysis for the Mandatory Reporting of 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions F-Gases: 

Subpart I Final Report,’’ August 2012). 

We have therefore concluded that this 

final rule will relieve regulatory burden 

for all affected small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This rule does not contain a Federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

of $100 million or more for State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or the private sector in any one year. 

This action (1) Amends monitoring and 

calculation methodologies in subpart I; 

(2) assigns subpart I data reporting 

elements into CBI data categories; and 

(3) amends subpart A to reflect 

proposed changes to the reporting 

requirements in subpart I. In some 

cases, the EPA has increased flexibility 

in the selection of methods used for 

calculating and reporting GHGs. This 

action also revises specific provisions to 

provide clarity on what is to be 

reported. These revisions do not add 

additional burden on reporters but offer 

flexibility. As part of the process of 

finalization of the subpart I rule, the 

EPA undertook specific steps to 

evaluate the effect of those final rules on 

small entities. Based on the final 

amendments to subpart I provisions, 

burden will stay the same or decrease, 

therefore the EPA’s determination 

finding of no significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities has not changed. Thus, this 

action is not subject to the requirements 

of sections 202 or 205 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). 

This rule is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. No 

small government entities are engaged 

in the electronics manufacturing 

processes that are subject to reporting 

under subpart I and which would be 

affected by these final rule amendments. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. 

This action, which amends 

calculation and reporting methodologies 

in subpart I, applies to only certain 

electronics manufacturers. No State or 

local government facilities are known to 

be engaged in the activities that are 

affected by the provisions in this final 

rule. This action also does not limit the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68201 

power of states or localities to collect 

GHG data and/or regulate GHG 

emissions. Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this action. For a more 

detailed discussion about how Part 98 

relates to existing state programs, please 

see Section II of the preamble to the 

final rule, Mandatory Reporting of 

Greenhouse Gases (74 FR 56266, 

October 30, 2009). 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). This action (1) Amends 

monitoring and calculation 

methodologies in subpart I; (2) assigns 

subpart I data reporting elements into 

CBI data categories; and (3) amends 

subpart A to reflect changes to the 

reporting requirements in subpart I. No 

tribal facilities are known to be engaged 

in the activities affected by this action. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. For a summary of 

the EPA’s consultations with tribal 

governments and representatives, see 

Section VIII.F of the preamble to the 

final rule, Mandatory Reporting of 

Greenhouse Gases (74 FR 56371, 

October 30, 2009). 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying to only those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action (1) Amends 

monitoring and calculation 

methodologies in subpart I; (2) assigns 

subpart I data reporting elements into 

CBI data categories; and (3) amends 

subpart A to reflect changes to the 

reporting requirements in subpart I. 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it does not 

establish an environmental standard 

intended to mitigate health or safety 

risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 

2001) because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA 

to use voluntary consensus standards 

(VCS) in its regulatory activities unless 

to do so would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures, and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted by VCS 

bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the agency decides 

not to use available and applicable VCS. 

This action, which amends 

monitoring and calculation 

methodologies in subpart I, involves 

technical standards. The EPA is 

including a stack testing option that 

involves using the following EPA 

reference methods: 

• Method 1 or 1A at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–1, to select sampling port 

locations and the number of traverse 

points in the exhaust stacks. 

• Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–1 and A– 

2, to determine gas velocity and 

volumetric flow rate in the exhaust 

stacks. 

• Method 3, 3A, or 3B at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–2, to determine the gas 

molecular weight of the exhaust using 

the same sampling site and at the same 

time as the F–GHG sampling is 

performed. 

• Method 4 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–3, to measure gas moisture 

content in the exhaust stacks. 

• Method 301 at 40 CFR part 63, 

appendix A, to perform field validations 

of alternative methods of measuring F– 

GHG emissions and abatement system 

DRE. 

• Method 320 at 40 CFR part 63, 

appendix A, to measure the 

concentration of F–GHG in the stack 

exhaust. 

Consistent with the NTTAA, the EPA 

conducted searches to identify VCS in 

addition to these EPA methods. The 

EPA conducted searches for VCS from at 

least three different voluntary consensus 

standards bodies, including the 

following: American Society of Testing 

and Materials (ASTM), American 

Society of Mechanical Engineers 

(ASME), and International SEMATECH 

Manufacturing Initiative (ISMI). No 

applicable VCS were identified for EPA 

Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, or 2G. The 

method ASME PTC 19.10–1981, Flue 

and Exhaust Gas Analyses, is not cited 

in this final rule for its manual method 

for measuring the oxygen, carbon 

dioxide and carbon monoxide content of 

the exhaust gas. ASME PTC 19.10–1981 

is an acceptable alternative to EPA 

Methods 3A and 3B for the manual 

procedures only, and not the 

instrumental procedures. The VCS 

ASTM D6348–03, Determination of 

Gaseous Compounds by Extractive 

Direct Interface Fourier Transform 

(FTIR) Spectroscopy, has been reviewed 

by the EPA as a potential alternative to 

EPA Method 320; and, in light of public 

comments received on the proposed 

rule, we acknowledge that several 

existing regulations list both EPA 

Method 320 and ASTM D6348–03 as 

acceptable methods. We also 

acknowledge the efficiency of ASTM 

D6348–03 as compared to EPA Method 

320. For these reasons, we are allowing, 

in the final amendments, the use of 

ASTM D6348–03 with the requirements 

described in Section II.A.1 of this 

preamble and 40 CFR 98.94(j) of the 

final rule. 

This rule revises the current subpart 

I provisions for determining abatement 

system DRE to incorporate language 

based on methods adapted from the 

ISMI 2009 Guideline for Environmental 

Characterization of Semiconductor 

Process Equipment—Revision 2. We are 

incorporating applicable portions of the 

ISMI 2009 Guideline into the rule in 

Appendix A to Subpart I. The EPA is 

not incorporating by reference the entire 

ISMI 2009 Guideline because the ISMI 

2009 Guidelines have not been subject 

to the same level of peer review and 

validation as other alternative standards 

(e.g., ASTM or ASME standards). 

Therefore, we are incorporating only 

those portions of the 2009 ISMI 

Guideline that the EPA has determined 

are needed to provide flexibility and 

reduce burden in subpart I. 

The EPA identified no other VCS that 

were potentially applicable for subpart 

I in lieu of EPA reference methods. 

Therefore, the EPA is not adopting other 

standards for this purpose. For the 

methods required or referenced by the 

final rule, a source may apply to the 

EPA for permission to use alternative 

test methods or alternative monitoring 

requirements in place of any required 

testing methods, performance 

specifications or procedures, as 

specified in proposed 40 CFR part 98, 

subpart I. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes federal 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
68202 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

The EPA has determined that this 

final rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. This action addresses 

only reporting and recordkeeping 

procedures. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States. A major 

rule cannot take effect until 60 days 

after it is published in the Federal 

Register. This action is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This 

rule will be effective on January 1, 2014. 

List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 98 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by 

reference, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: August 16, 2013. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 98—MANDATORY 

GREENHOUSE GAS REPORTING 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 98 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. 

Subpart A—[Amended] 

■ 2. Section 98.7 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (e)(30), (m)(3), 

and (n)(1); and 

■ b. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(n)(2). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 98.7 What standardized methods are 

incorporated by reference into this part? 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(30) ASTM D6348–03 Standard Test 

Method for Determination of Gaseous 

Compounds by Extractive Direct 

Interface Fourier Transform Infrared 

(FTIR) Spectroscopy, IBR approved for 

§ 98.54(b), Table I–9 to subpart I of this 

part, § 98.224(b), and § 98.414(n). 

* * * * * 

(m) * * * 

(3) Protocol for Measuring Destruction 

or Removal Efficiency (DRE) of 

Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Abatement 

Equipment in Electronics 

Manufacturing, Version 1, EPA–430–R– 

10–003, March 2010 (EPA 430–R–10– 

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

semiconductor-pfc/documents/dre_

protocol.pdf, IBR approved for 

§ 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). 

* * * * * 

(n) * * * 

(1) Guideline for Environmental 

Characterization of Semiconductor 

Process Equipment, International 

SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative 

Technology Transfer #06124825A–ENG, 

December 22, 2006 (International 

SEMATECH #06124825A–ENG), IBR 

approved for § 98.96(y)(3)(i). 

* * * * * 

Table A–7 to subpart A [Amended] 

■ 3. Table A–7 to subpart A of part 98 

is amended by removing the entries for 

subpart I ‘‘98.96(f)(1),’’ ‘‘98.96(g),’’ 

‘‘98.96(h),’’ ‘‘98.96(i),’’ ‘‘98.96(j),’’ 

‘‘98.96(k),’’ ‘‘98.96(l),’’ ‘‘98.96(n),’’ 

‘‘98.96(o),’’ ‘‘98.96(q)(2),’’ ‘‘98.96(q)(3),’’ 

‘‘98.96(q)(5)(iv),’’ and ‘‘98.96(r)’’, 

‘‘98.96(s)’’. 

Subpart I—[Amended] 

■ 4. Section 98.91 is amended by 

revising the definitions of ‘‘Ci’’ in 

Equation I–3 of paragraph (a)(3) and 

‘‘Wx’’ in Equation I–5 of paragraph (b). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 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 fab f in 

month x (m2 per month). 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Section 98.92 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a) 

introductory text and (a)(1); 

■ b. Removing and reserving paragraphs 

(a)(2) and (a)(3); and 

■ c. Revising paragraph (a)(6). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 98.92 GHGs to report. 

(a) You must report emissions of 

fluorinated GHGs (as defined in § 98.6), 

N2O, and fluorinated heat transfer fluids 

(as defined in § 98.98). The fluorinated 

GHGs and fluorinated heat transfer 

fluids that are emitted from electronics 

manufacturing production processes 

include, but are not limited to, those 

listed in Table I–2 to this subpart. You 

must individually report, as 

appropriate: 

(1) Fluorinated GHGs emitted. 

* * * * * 

(6) All fluorinated GHGs and N2O 

consumed. 

* * * * * 

■ 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’’, 

‘‘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 introductory paragraph 

(h); 

■ h. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(h)(2); and 

■ i. Adding paragraph (i). 

The revisions and addition 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, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68203 

including each input gas and each byproduct gas. You must use either default 

gas utilization rates and by-product 

formations rates according to the 

procedures in paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), or 

(a)(6) of this section, as appropriate, or 

the stack test method according to 

paragraph (i) of this section, to calculate 

emissions of each input gas and each 

by-product gas. 

(1) If you manufacture 

semiconductors, you must adhere to the 

procedures in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) 

through (iii) of this section. You must 

calculate annual emissions of each 

input gas and of each by-product gas 

using Equations I–6 and I–7, 

respectively. If your fab uses less than 

50 kg of a fluorinated GHG in one 

reporting year, you may calculate 

emissions as equal to your fab’s annual 

consumption for that specific gas as 

calculated in Equation I–11 of this 

subpart, plus any by-product emissions 

of that gas calculated under this 

paragraph (a). 

Where: 

ProcesstypeEi = Annual emissions of input 

gas i from the process type on a fab basis 

(metric tons). 

Eij = Annual emissions of input gas i from 

process sub-type or process type j as 

calculated in Equation I–8 of this subpart 

(metric tons). 

N = The total number of process sub-types j 

that depends on the electronics 

manufacturing fab and emission 

calculation methodology. If Eij is 

calculated for a process type j in 

Equation I–8 of this subpart, N = 1. 

i = Input gas. 

j = Process sub-type or process type. 

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. 

(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. 

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–15 of this 

subpart, on a fab basis (expressed as a 

decimal fraction). 

0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric 

tons. 

i = Input gas. 

j = Process sub-type or process type. 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2ER13NO13.000</GPH> ER13NO13.001</GPH> ER13NO13.002</GPH> ER13NO13.003</GPH>
68204 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

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). 

UTijk = The average uptime factor of all 

abatement systems connected to process 

tools in the fab emitting by-product gas 

k, formed from input gas i in process 

sub-type or process type j, on a fab basis 

(expressed as a decimal fraction). For 

this equation, UTijk is assumed to be 

equal to UTij as calculated in Equation I– 

15 of this subpart. 

0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric 

tons. 

i = Input gas. 

j = Process sub-type or process type. 

k = By-product gas. 

(ii) You must calculate annual 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. 

(iii) If default values are not available 

for a particular input gas and process 

type or sub-type combination in Tables 

I–3 or I–4, you must follow the 

procedures in paragraph (a)(6) of this 

section. 

(2) If you manufacture MEMS, LCDs, 

or PVs, you must calculate annual 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. If default 

values are not available for a particular 

input gas and process type or sub-type 

combination in Tables I–5, I–6, or I–7, 

you must follow the procedures in 

paragraph (a)(6) of this section. If your 

fab uses less than 50 kg of a fluorinated 

GHG in one reporting year, you may 

calculate emissions as equal to your 

fab’s annual consumption for that 

specific gas as calculated in Equation I– 

11 of this subpart, plus any by-product 

emissions of that gas calculated under 

this paragraph (a). 

(3) [Reserved] 

(4) [Reserved] 

(5) [Reserved] 

(6) If you are required, or elect, to 

perform calculations using default 

emission factors for gas utilization and 

by-product formation rates according to 

the procedures in paragraphs (a)(1) or 

(a)(2) of this section, and default values 

are not available for a particular input 

gas and process type or sub-type 

combination in Tables I–3, I–4, I–5, 

I–6, or I–7, you must use the utilization 

and by-product formation rates of zero 

and use Equations I–8 and I–9 of this 

subpart. 

(b) You must calculate annual fablevel N2O emissions from all chemical 

vapor deposition processes and from the 

aggregate of all other electronics 

manufacturing production processes 

using Equation I–10 of this subpart and 

the methods in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) 

of this section. If your fab uses less than 

50 kg of N2O in one reporting year, you 

may calculate fab emissions as equal to 

your fab’s annual consumption for N2O 

as calculated in Equation I–11 of this 

subpart. 

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–15 of this 

subpart, on a fab basis (expressed as a 

decimal fraction). For purposes of 

calculating the abatement system uptime 

for N2O using process tools, in Equation 

I–15 of this subpart, the only input gas 

i is N2O, j is the N2O using process, and 

p is the N2O abatement system 

connected to the N2O using tool. 

0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric 

tons. 

j = Type of N2O-using process, either 

chemical vapor deposition or all other 

N2O-using manufacturing processes. 

(1) You must use the factor for N2O 

utilization for chemical vapor 

deposition processes as shown in Table 

I–8 to this subpart. 

(2) You must use the factor for N2O 

utilization for all other manufacturing 

production processes other than 

chemical vapor deposition as shown in 

Table I–8 to this subpart. 

(c) You must calculate total annual 

input gas i consumption on a fab basis 

for each fluorinated GHG and N2O using 

Equation I–11 of this subpart. Where a 

gas supply system serves more than one 

fab, Equation I–11 is applied to that gas 

which has been apportioned to each fab 

served by that system using the 

apportioning factors determined in 

accordance with § 98.94(c). 

* * * * * 

Ci = Annual consumption of input gas i, on 

a fab basis (kg per year). 

IBi = Inventory of input gas i stored in 

containers at the beginning of the 

reporting year, including heels, on a fab 

basis (kg). For containers in service at the 

beginning of a reporting year, account for 

the quantity in these containers as if they 

were full. 

IEi = Inventory of input gas i stored in 

containers at the end of the reporting 

year, including heels, on a fab basis (kg). 

For containers in service at the end of a 

reporting year, account for the quantity 

in these containers as if they were full. 

Ai = Acquisitions of input gas i during the 

year through purchases or other 

transactions, including heels in 

containers returned to the electronics 

manufacturing facility, on a fab basis 

(kg). 

Di = Disbursements of input gas i through 

sales or other transactions during the 

year, including heels in containers 

returned by the electronics 

manufacturing facility to the chemical 

supplier, as calculated using Equation I– 

12 of this subpart, on a fab basis (kg). 

* * * * * 

(d) You must calculate disbursements 

of input gas i using fab-wide gas-specific 

heel factors, as determined in § 98.94(b), 

and by using Equation I–12 of this 

subpart. Where a gas supply system 

serves more than one fab, Equation I–12 

is applied to that gas which has been 

apportioned to each fab served by that 

system using the apportioning factors 

determined in accordance with 

§ 98.94(c). 

* * * * * 

Di = Disbursements of input gas i through 

sales or other transactions during the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2ER13NO13.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68205 

reporting year on a fab basis, including 

heels in containers returned by the 

electronics manufacturing fab to the gas 

distributor (kg). 

hil = Fab-wide gas-specific heel factor for 

input gas i and container size and type 

l (expressed as a decimal fraction), as 

determined in § 98.94(b). If your fab uses 

less than 50 kg of a fluorinated GHG or 

N2O in one reporting year, you may 

assume that any hil for that fluorinated 

GHG or N2O is equal to zero. 

* * * * * 

Fil = Full capacity of containers of size and 

type l containing input gas i, on a fab 

basis (kg). 

Xi = Disbursements under exceptional 

circumstances of input gas i through 

sales or other transactions during the 

year, on a fab basis (kg). These include 

returns of containers whose contents 

have been weighed due to an exceptional 

circumstance as specified in 

§ 98.94(b)(4). 

* * * * * 

M = The total number of different sized 

container types on a fab basis. If only one 

size and container type is used for an 

input gas i, M=1. 

(e) You must calculate the amount of 

input gas i consumed, on a fab basis, for 

each process sub-type or process type j, 

using Equation I–13 of this subpart. 

Where a gas supply system serves more 

than one fab, Equation I–13 is applied 

to that gas which has been apportioned 

to each fab served by that system using 

the apportioning factors determined in 

accordance with § 98.94(c). If you elect 

to calculate emissions using the stack 

test method in paragraph (i) of this 

section, you must calculate the amount 

of input gas i consumed on the 

applicable basis by using an appropriate 

apportioning factor. For example, when 

calculating fab-level emissions of each 

fluorinated GHG consumed using 

Equation I–21 of this section, you must 

substitute the term fij with the 

appropriate apportioning factor to 

calculate the total consumption of each 

fluorinated GHG in tools that are vented 

to stack systems that are tested. 

* * * * * 

Ci,j = The annual amount of input gas i 

consumed, on a fab basis, for process 

sub-type or process type j (kg). 

fi,j = Process sub-type-specific or process 

type-specific j, input gas i apportioning 

factor (expressed as a decimal fraction), 

as determined in accordance with 

§ 98.94(c). 

Ci = Annual consumption of input gas i, on 

a fab basis, as calculated using Equation 

I–11 of this subpart (kg). 

* * * * * 

j = Process sub-type or process type. 

* * * * * 

(g) If you report controlled emissions 

pursuant to § 98.94(f), you must 

calculate the uptime of all the 

abatement systems for each combination 

of input gas or by-product gas, and 

process sub-type or process type, by 

using Equation I–15 of this subpart. 

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 for part 

of the year, you may calculate total tool 

time using the actual time that gas is 

flowing through the tool. 

i = Input gas. 

j = Process sub-type or process type. 

p = Abatement system. 

(h) If you use fluorinated heat transfer 

fluids, you must calculate the annual 

emissions of fluorinated heat transfer 

fluids on a fab basis using the mass 

balance approach described in Equation 

I–16 of this subpart. 

* * * * * 

EHi = Emissions of fluorinated heat transfer 

fluid i, on a fab basis (metric tons/year). 

* * * * * 

IiB = Inventory of fluorinated heat transfer 

fluid i, on a fab basis, in containers other 

than equipment at the beginning of the 

reporting year (in stock or storage) (l). 

The inventory at the beginning of the 

reporting year must be the same as the 

inventory at the end of the previous 

reporting year. 

Pi = Acquisitions of fluorinated heat transfer 

fluid i, on a fab basis, during the 

reporting year (l), including amounts 

purchased from chemical suppliers, 

amounts purchased from equipment 

suppliers with or inside of equipment, 

and amounts returned to the facility after 

off-site recycling. 

Ni = Total nameplate capacity (full and 

proper charge) of equipment that uses 

fluorinated heat transfer fluid i and that 

is newly installed in the fab during the 

reporting year (l). 

Ri = Total nameplate capacity (full and 

proper charge) of equipment that uses 

fluorinated heat transfer fluid i and that 

is removed from service in the fab during 

the reporting year (l). 

IiE = Inventory of fluorinated heat transfer 

fluid i, on a fab basis, in containers other 

than equipment at the end of the 

reporting year (in stock or storage) (l). 

The inventory at the beginning of the 

reporting year must be the same as the 

inventory at the end of the previous 

reporting year. 

Di = Disbursements of fluorinated heat 

transfer fluid i, on a fab basis, during the 

reporting year, including amounts 

returned to chemical suppliers, sold with 

or inside of equipment, and sent off-site 

for verifiable recycling or destruction (l). 

Disbursements should include only 

amounts that are properly stored and 

transported so as to prevent emissions in 

transit. 

* * * * * 

(i) Stack Test Method. As an 

alternative to the default emission factor 

method in paragraph (a) of this section, 

you may calculate fab-level fluorinated 

GHG emissions using fab-specific 

emission factors developed from stack 

testing. To use the method in this 

paragraph, you must first make a 

preliminary estimate of the fluorinated 

GHG emissions from each stack system 

in the fab under paragraph (i)(1) of this 

section. You must then compare the 

preliminary estimate for each stack 

system to the criteria in paragraph (i)(2) 

of this section to determine whether the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2ER13NO13.005</GPH>
68206 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

stack system meets the criteria for using 

the stack test method described in 

paragraph (i)(3) of this section or 

whether the stack system meets the 

criteria for using the method described 

in paragraph (i)(4) of this section to 

estimate emissions from the stack 

systems that are not tested. 

(1) Preliminary estimate of emissions 

by stack system in the fab. You must 

calculate a preliminary estimate of the 

total annual emissions, on a metric ton 

CO2e basis, of all fluorinated GHG from 

each stack system in the fab using 

default utilization and by-product 

formation rates as shown in Table I–11, 

I–12, I–13, I–14, or I–15 of this subpart, 

as applicable, and by using Equations I– 

8 and I–9 of this subpart. You must 

include any intermittent low-use 

fluorinated GHGs, as defined in § 98.98 

of this subpart, in any preliminary 

estimates. When using Equations I–8 

and I–9 of this subpart for the purposes 

of this paragraph (i)(1), you must also 

adhere to the procedures in paragraphs 

(i)(1)(i) to (iv) of this section to calculate 

preliminary estimates. 

(i) When you are calculating 

preliminary estimates for the purpose of 

this paragraph (i)(1), you must consider 

the subscript ‘‘j’’ in Equations I–8 and 

I–9, and I–13 of this subpart to mean 

‘‘stack system’’ instead of ‘‘process 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. In calculating the 

preliminary estimates, you must 

account for the effect of any fluorinated 

GHG abatement system meeting the 

definition of abatement system in 

§ 98.98. You may use this approach to 

determining aij only for this preliminary 

estimate. 

(ii) You must use representative data 

from the previous reporting year to 

estimate the consumption of input gas i 

as calculated in Equation I–13 of this 

subpart and the fraction of input gas i 

destroyed in abatement systems for each 

stack system as calculated by Equation 

I–24 of this subpart. If you were not 

required to submit an annual report 

under subpart I for the previous 

reporting year and data from the 

previous reporting year are not 

available, you may estimate the 

consumption of input gas i and the 

fraction of input gas i destroyed in 

abatement systems based on 

representative operating data from a 

period of at least 30 days in the current 

reporting year. When calculating the 

consumption of input gas i using 

Equation I–13 of this subpart, the term 

‘‘fij’’ is replaced with the ratio of the 

number of tools using input gas i that 

are vented to the stack system for which 

you are calculating the preliminary 

estimate to the total number of tools in 

the fab using input gas i, expressed as 

a decimal fraction. You may use this 

approach to determining fij only for this 

preliminary estimate. 

(iii) You must use representative data 

from the previous reporting year to 

estimate the total uptime of all 

abatement systems for the stack system 

as calculated by Equation I–23 of this 

subpart, instead of using Equation I–15 

of this subpart to calculate the average 

uptime factor. If you were not required 

to submit an annual report under 

subpart I for the previous reporting year 

and data from the previous reporting 

year are not available, you may estimate 

the total uptime of all abatement 

systems for the stack system based on 

representative operating data from a 

period of at least 30 days in the current 

reporting year. 

(iv) If you anticipate an increase or 

decrease in annual consumption or 

emissions of any fluorinated GHG, or 

the number of tools connected to 

abatement systems greater than 10 

percent for the current reporting year 

compared to the previous reporting 

year, you must account for the 

anticipated change in your preliminary 

estimate. You may account for such a 

change using a quantifiable metric (e.g., 

the ratio of the number tools that are 

expected to be vented to the stack 

system in the current year as compared 

to the previous reporting year, ratio of 

the expected number of wafer starts in 

the current reporting year as compared 

to the previous reporting year), 

engineering judgment, or other industry 

standard practice. 

(2) Method selection for stack systems 

in the fab. If the calculations under 

paragraph (i)(1) of this section, as well 

as any subsequent annual measurements 

and calculations under this subpart, 

indicate that the stack system meets the 

criteria in paragraph (i)(2)(i) through 

(iii) of this section, then you may 

comply with either paragraph (i)(3) of 

this section (stack test method) or 

paragraph (i)(4) of this section (method 

to estimate emissions from the stack 

systems that are not tested). If the stack 

system does not meet all three criteria 

in paragraph (i)(2)(i) through (iii) of this 

section, then you must comply with the 

stack test method specified in paragraph 

(i)(3) of this section. For those 

fluorinated GHGs in Tables I–11, I–12, 

I–13, I–14, and I–15 of this subpart for 

which Table A–1 to subpart A of this 

part does not define a GWP value, you 

must use a value of 2,000 for the GWP 

in calculating metric ton CO2e for that 

fluorinated GHG for use in paragraphs 

(i)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section. 

(i) The sum of annual emissions of 

fluorinated GHGs from all of the 

combined stack systems that are not 

tested in the fab must be less than 

10,000 metric ton CO2e per year. 

(ii) When all stack systems in the fab 

are ordered from lowest to highest 

emitting in metric ton CO2e of 

fluorinated GHG per year, each of the 

stack systems that is not tested must be 

within the set of the fab’s lowest 

emitting fluorinated GHG stack systems 

that together emit 15 percent or less of 

total CO2e fluorinated GHG emissions 

from the fab. 

(iii) Fluorinated GHG emissions from 

each of the stack systems that is not 

tested can only be attributed to 

particular process tools during the test 

(that is, the stack system that is not 

tested cannot be used as an alternative 

emission point or bypass stack system 

from other process tools not attributed 

to the untested stack system). 

(3) Stack system stack test method. 

For each stack system in the fab for 

which testing is required, measure the 

emissions of each fluorinated GHG from 

the stack system by conducting an 

emission test. In addition, measure the 

fab-specific consumption of each 

fluorinated GHG by the tools that are 

vented to the stack systems tested. 

Measure emissions and consumption of 

each fluorinated GHG as specified in 

§ 98.94(j). Develop fab-specific emission 

factors and calculate fab-level 

fluorinated GHG emissions using the 

procedures specified in paragraph 

(i)(3)(i) through (viii) of this section. All 

emissions test data and procedures used 

in developing emission factors must be 

documented and recorded according to 

§ 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 emissions 

of each fluorinated GHG consumed as 

an input gas using Equation I–17 of this 

subpart and each fluorinated GHG 

formed as a by-product gas using 

Equation I–18 of this subpart and the 

procedures specified in paragraphs 

(i)(3)(ii)(A) through (E) of this section. If 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68207 

a stack system is comprised of multiple 

stacks, you must sum the emissions 

from each stack in the stack system 

when using Equation I–17 or Equation 

I–18 of this subpart. 

Where: 

Eis = Total fluorinated GHG input gas i, 

emitted from stack system s, during the 

sampling period (kg). 

Xism = Average concentration of fluorinated 

GHG input gas i in stack system s, during 

the time interval m (ppbv). 

MWi = Molecular weight of fluorinated GHG 

input gas i (g/g-mole). 

Qs = Flow rate of the stack system s, during 

the sampling period (m3/min). 

SV = Standard molar volume of gas (0.0240 

m3/g-mole at 68 °F and 1 atm). 

Dtm = Length of time interval m (minutes). 

Each time interval in the FTIR sampling 

period must be less than or equal to 60 

minutes (for example an 8 hour sampling 

period would consist of at least 8 time 

intervals). 

1/103 = Conversion factor (1 kilogram/1,000 

grams). 

i = Fluorinated GHG input gas. 

s = Stack system. 

N = Total number of time intervals m in 

sampling period. 

m = Time interval. 

Where: 

Eks = Total fluorinated GHG by-product gas 

k, emitted from stack system s, during 

the sampling period (kg). 

Xks = Average concentration of fluorinated 

GHG by-product gas k in stack system s, 

during the time interval m (ppbv). 

MWk = Molecular weight of the fluorinated 

GHG by-product gas k (g/g-mole). 

Qs = Flow rate of the stack system s, during 

the sampling period (m3/min). 

SV = Standard molar volume of gas (0.0240 

m3/g-mole at 68 °F and 1 atm). 

Dtm = Length of time interval m (minutes). 

Each time interval in the FTIR sampling 

period must be less than or equal to 60 

minutes (for example an 8 hour sampling 

period would consist of at least 8 time 

intervals). 

1/103 = Conversion factor (1 kilogram/1,000 

grams). 

k = Fluorinated GHG by-product gas. 

s = Stack system. 

N = Total number of time intervals m in 

sampling period. 

m = Time interval. 

(A) If a fluorinated GHG is consumed 

during the sampling period, but 

emissions are not detected, use one-half 

of the field detection limit you 

determined for that fluorinated GHG 

according to § 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 an expected or possible byproduct, as listed in Table I–17 of this 

subpart, is detected intermittently 

during the sampling period, use the 

measured concentration for ‘‘Xksm’’ in 

Equation I–18 when available and use 

one-half of the field detection limit you 

determined for that fluorinated GHG 

according to § 98.94(j)(2) for the value of 

‘‘Xksm’’ when the fluorinated GHG is not 

detected. 

(D) If a fluorinated GHG is not 

consumed during the sampling period 

and is an expected by-product gas as 

listed in Table I–17 of this subpart and 

is not detected during the sampling 

period, use one-half of the field 

detection limit you determined for that 

fluorinated GHG according to 

§ 98.94(j)(2) for the value of ‘‘Xksm’’ in 

Equation I–18. 

(E) If a fluorinated GHG is not 

consumed during the sampling period 

and is a possible by-product gas as 

listed in Table I–17 of this subpart, and 

is not detected during the sampling 

period, then assume zero emissions for 

that fluorinated GHG for the tested stack 

system. 

(iii) You must calculate a fab-specific 

emission factor for each fluorinated 

GHG input gas consumed (in kg of 

fluorinated GHG emitted per kg of input 

gas i consumed) in the tools that vent to 

stack systems that are tested, as 

applicable, using Equation I–19 of this 

subpart. If the emissions of input gas i 

exceed the consumption of input gas i 

during the sampling period, then equate 

‘‘Eis’’ to the consumption of input gas i 

and treat the difference between the 

emissions and consumption of input gas 

i as a by-product of the other input 

gases, using Equation I–20 of this 

subpart. 

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). 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2ER13NO13.006</GPH> ER13NO13.007</GPH> ER13NO13.008</GPH>
68208 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

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).’’ 

Where: 

EFkf = Emission factor for fluorinated GHG 

by-product gas k, from fab f, representing 

100 percent abatement system uptime 

(kg emitted/kg of all input gases 

consumed in tools vented to stack 

systems that are tested). 

Eks = Mass emission of fluorinated GHG 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 fluorinated input gases 

used in fab f in tools with abatement 

systems (expressed as a decimal 

fraction). 

dkf = Fraction of fluorinated GHG by-product 

gas k destroyed or removed in abatement 

systems connected to process tools in fab 

f, as calculated in Equation I–24 of this 

subpart (expressed as decimal fraction). 

f = Fab. 

i = Fluorinated GHG input gas. 

k = Fluorinated GHG by-product gas. 

s = Stack system. 

(v) You must calculate annual 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 fluorinated 

input gases consumed). 

Cif = Total consumption of fluorinated GHG 

input gas i in tools that are vented to 

stack systems that are tested, for fab f, for 

the reporting year, as calculated using 

Equation I–13 of this subpart. 

UTf = The total uptime of all abatement 

systems for fab f, during the reporting 

year as calculated using Equation I–23 of 

this subpart (expressed as a decimal 

fraction). 

af = Fraction of fluorinated input gases used 

in fab f in tools with abatement systems 

(expressed as a decimal fraction). 

dkf = Fraction of fluorinated GHG by-product 

k destroyed or removed in abatement 

systems connected to process tools in fab 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2ER13NO13.009</GPH> ER13NO13.010</GPH> ER13NO13.011</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68209 

f that are included in the stack testing 

option, as calculated in Equation I–24 of 

this subpart (expressed as decimal 

fraction). 

f = Fab. 

i = Fluorinated GHG input gas. 

k = Fluorinated GHG by-product 

(vii) When using the stack testing 

method described in this paragraph (i), 

you must calculate abatement system 

uptime on a fab basis using Equation 

I–23 of this subpart. When calculating 

abatement system uptime for use in 

Equation I–19 and I–20 of this subpart, 

you must evaluate the variables ‘‘Tdpf’’ 

and ‘‘UTpf’’ for the sampling period 

instead of the reporting year. 

Where: 

UTf = The average uptime factor for all 

abatement systems in fab f (expressed as 

a decimal fraction). 

Tdpf = The total time, in minutes, that 

abatement system p, connected to 

process tool(s) in fab f, is not in 

operational mode as defined in § 98.98. 

UTpf = Total time, in minutes per year, in 

which the tool(s) connected at any point 

during the year to abatement system p, 

in fab f could be in operation. For 

determining the amount of tool operating 

time, you may assume that tools that 

were installed for the whole of the year 

were operated for 525,600 minutes per 

year. For tools that were installed or 

uninstalled during the year, you must 

prorate the operating time to account for 

the days in which the tool was not 

installed; treat any partial day that a tool 

was installed as a full day (1,440 

minutes) of tool operation. For an 

abatement system that has more than one 

connected tool, the tool operating time is 

525,600 minutes per year if there was at 

least one tool installed at all times 

throughout the year. If you have tools 

that are idle with no gas flow through the 

tool, you may calculate total tool time 

using the actual time that gas is flowing 

through the tool. 

f = Fab. 

p = Abatement system. 

(viii) When using the stack testing 

option described in this paragraph (i), 

you must calculate the weighted-average 

fraction of fluorinated input gas i 

destroyed or removed in abatement 

systems for each fab f, as applicable, by 

using Equation I–24 of this subpart. 

Where: 

dif = The average weighted fraction of 

fluorinated GHG input gas i destroyed or 

removed in abatement systems in fab f 

(expressed as a decimal fraction). 

Cijf = The amount of fluorinated GHG input 

gas i consumed for process type j fed into 

abatement systems in fab f as calculated 

using Equation I–13 of this subpart (kg). 

DREij = Destruction or removal efficiency for 

fluorinated GHG input gas i in abatement 

systems connected to process tools 

where process type j is used (expressed 

as a decimal fraction) determined 

according to § 98.94(f). 

f = fab. 

i = Fluorinated GHG input gas. 

j = Process type. 

(4) Method to calculate emissions 

from stack systems that are not tested. 

You must calculate annual fab-level 

emissions of each fluorinated GHG 

input gas and by-product gas for those 

fluorinated GHG listed in paragraphs 

(i)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section using 

default utilization and by-product 

formation rates as shown in Tables I–11, 

I–12, I–13, I–14, or I–15 of this subpart, 

as applicable, and by using Equations 

I–8, I–9, and I–13 of this subpart. When 

using Equations I–8, I–9, and I–13 of 

this subpart to fulfill the requirements 

of this paragraph, you must use, in place 

of the term Cij in each equation, the total 

consumption of each fluorinated GHG 

meeting the criteria in paragraph (i)(4)(i) 

of this section or that is used in tools 

vented to the stack systems that meet 

the criteria in paragraph (i)(4)(ii) of this 

section. You must use, in place of the 

term aij, the fraction of fluorinated GHG 

meeting the criteria in paragraph (i)(4)(i) 

of this section used in tools with 

abatement systems or that is used in 

tools with abatement systems that are 

vented to the stack systems that meet 

the criteria in paragraph (i)(4)(ii) of this 

section. You also must use the results of 

Equation I–24 of this subpart in place of 

the terms dij in Equation I–8 of this 

subpart and djk in Equation I–9 of this 

subpart, and use the results of Equation 

I–23 of this subpart in place of the 

results of Equation I–15 of this subpart 

for the term UTij. 

(i) Calculate emissions from 

consumption of each intermittent 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. If you are using a 

fluorinated GHG not listed in Tables 

I–11, I–12, I–13, I–14, or I–15 of this 

subpart, then you must assume 

utilization and by-product formation 

rates of zero for that fluorinated GHG. 

(5) To determine the total emissions 

of each fluorinated GHG from each fab 

under this stack testing option, you 

must sum the emissions of each 

fluorinated GHG determined from the 

procedures in paragraph (i)(3) of this 

section with the emissions of the same 

fluorinated GHG determined from the 

procedures in paragraph (i)(4) of this 

section. Sum the total emissions of each 

fluorinated GHG from all fabs at your 

facility to determine the facility-level 

emissions of each fluorinated GHG. 

■ 7. Section 98.94 is amended by: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2ER13NO13.012</GPH> ER13NO13.013</GPH>
68210 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

■ 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); 

■ f. Removing and reserving paragraphs 

(g)(1) and (2); 

■ g. Revising paragraphs (g)(3) and (4); 

■ h. Revising paragraphs (h) 

introductory text, (h)(3), and (i); and 

■ i. Adding paragraphs (j) and (k). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 98.94 Monitoring and QA/QC 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) For purposes of Equation I–12 of 

this subpart, you must estimate fab-wide 

gas-specific heel factors for each 

container type for each gas used, 

according to the procedures in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this 

section. This paragraph (b) does not 

apply to fluorinated GHGs or N2O that 

your fab uses in quantities of less than 

50 kg in one reporting year and for 

which you calculate emissions as equal 

to consumption under § 98.93(a)(1), 

(a)(2), or (b), or for any intermittent lowuse fluorinated GHG for which you 

calculate emissions according to 

§ 98.93(i)(4)(i). 

(1) Base your fab-wide gas-specific 

heel factors on the trigger point for 

change out of a container for each 

container size and type for each gas 

used. Fab-wide gas-specific heel factors 

must be expressed as the ratio of the 

trigger point for change out, in terms of 

mass, to the initial mass in the 

container, as determined by paragraphs 

(b)(2) and (3) of this section. 

(2) The trigger points for change out 

you use to calculate fab-wide 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. 

(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, I–19, I–20, I– 

21, and I–22 of this subpart), to use in 

the equations of this subpart for each 

input gas i, process sub-type, process 

type, stack system, and fab as 

appropriate, using a fab-specific 

engineering model that is documented 

in your site GHG Monitoring Plan as 

required under § 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 quantity, on a mass basis, of 

fluorinated GHGs used at each fab that 

requires apportionment during the 

reporting year. 

(iii) You must demonstrate that the 

comparison performed for the largest 

quantity of gas(es), on a mass basis, 

consumed in the fab in paragraph 

(c)(2)(ii) of this section, does not result 

in a difference between the actual and 

modeled gas consumption that exceeds 

20 percent relative to actual gas 

consumption, reported to two 

significant figures using standard 

rounding conventions. 

(iv) If you are required to apportion 

gas consumption and you use the 

procedures in § 98.93(i) to calculate 

annual emissions from a fab, you must 

verify your apportioning factors using 

the procedures in paragraphs (c)(2)(ii) 

and (iii) of this section such that the 

time period specified in paragraph 

(c)(2)(i) of this section and the last day 

you perform the sampling events 

specified under § 98.93(i)(3) occur in the 

same accounting month. 

(v) If your facility has multiple fabs 

with a single centralized fluorinatedGHG supply system, you must verify 

that your apportioning model can 

apportion fluorinated GHG 

consumption among the fabs by 

adhering to the procedures in 

paragraphs (c)(2)(ii) through (c)(2)(iv) of 

this section. 

(3) As an alternative to developing 

apportioning factors for fluorinated 

GHG and N2O consumption using a fabspecific engineering model, you may 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2ER13NO13.014</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68211 

develop apportioning factors through 

the use of direct measurement using gas 

flow meters and weigh scales to 

measure process sub-type, process type, 

stack system, or fab-specific input gas 

consumption. You may use a 

combination of apportioning factors 

developed using a fab-specific 

engineering model and apportioning 

factors developed through the use of 

direct measurement, provided this is 

documented in your site GHG 

Monitoring Plan as required under 

98.3(g)(5). 

* * * * * 

(f) If your fab employs abatement 

systems and you elect to reflect 

emission reductions due to these 

systems, or if your fab employs 

abatement systems designed for 

fluorinated GHG abatement and you 

elect to calculate fluorinated GHG 

emissions using the stack test method 

under 98.93(i), you must comply with 

the requirements of paragraphs (f)(1) 

through (f)(3) of this section. If you use 

an average of properly measured 

destruction or removal efficiencies for a 

gas and process sub-type or process type 

combination, as applicable, in your 

emission calculations under § 98.93(a), 

(b), and/or (i), you must also adhere to 

procedures in paragraph (f)(4) of this 

section. 

(1) You must certify and document 

that the abatement systems are properly 

installed, operated, and maintained 

according to the site maintenance plan 

for abatement systems that is developed 

and maintained in your records as 

specified in § 98.97(d)(9). 

(2) You must calculate and document 

the uptime of abatement systems using 

Equation I–15 or I–23 of this subpart, as 

applicable. 

(3) If you use default destruction and 

removal efficiency values in your 

emissions calculations under § 98.93(a), 

(b), and/or (i), you must certify and 

document that the abatement systems at 

your facility for which you use default 

destruction or removal efficiency values 

are specifically designed for fluorinated 

GHG or N2O abatement, as applicable. If 

you elect to calculate fluorinated GHG 

emissions using the stack test method 

under § 98.93(i), you must also certify 

that you have included and accounted 

for all abatement systems designed for 

fluorinated GHG abatement and any 

respective downtime in your emissions 

calculations under § 98.93(i)(3). 

(4) If you do not use the default 

destruction or removal efficiency values 

in Table I–16 of this subpart to calculate 

and report controlled emissions, 

including situations in which your fab 

employs abatement systems not 

specifically designed for fluorinated 

GHG or N2O abatement and you elect to 

reflect emission reduction due to these 

systems, you must use an average of 

properly measured destruction or 

removal efficiencies for each gas and 

process sub-type or process type 

combination, as applicable, determined 

in accordance with procedures in 

paragraphs (f)(4)(i) through (vi) of this 

section. You must not use a default 

value from Table I–16 of this subpart for 

any abatement system not specifically 

designed for fluorinated GHG and N2O 

abatement, or for any gas and process 

type combination for which you have 

measured the destruction or removal 

efficiency according to the requirements 

of paragraphs (f)(4)(i) through (vi) of this 

section. 

(i) A properly measured destruction 

or removal efficiency value must be 

determined in accordance with EPA 

430–R–10–003 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 98.7), or according to an 

alternative method approved by the 

Administrator (or authorized 

representative) as specified in paragraph 

(k) of this section. If you are measuring 

destruction or removal efficiency 

according to EPA 430–R–10–003 

(incorporated by reference, see § 98.7), 

you may follow the alternative 

procedures specified in Appendix A to 

this subpart. 

(ii) You must select and properly 

measure the destruction or removal 

efficiency for a random sample of 

abatement systems to include in a 

random sampling abatement system 

testing program in accordance with 

procedures in paragraphs (f)(4)(ii)(A) 

and (B) of this section. 

(A) For the first 2 years for which 

your fab is required to report emissions 

of fluorinated GHG and N2O, for each 

abatement system gas and process subtype or process type combination, as 

applicable, a random sample of a 

minimum of 10 percent of installed 

abatement systems must be tested 

annually for a total of a minimum of 20 

percent, or a minimum of 20 percent 

may be tested in the first year. For every 

3-year period following the initial 2-year 

period, a random sample of at least 15 

percent of installed abatement systems 

must be tested for each gas and process 

sub-type or process type combination; 

you may test 15-percent in the first year 

of the 3-year period, but you must test 

at least 5 percent each year until 15 

percent are tested. For each 3-year 

period, you must determine the number 

of abatement systems to be tested based 

on the average number of abatement 

systems in service over the 3-year 

period. If the required percent of the 

total number of abatement systems to be 

tested for each gas and process sub-type 

or process type combination does not 

equate to a whole number, the number 

of systems to be tested must be 

determined by rounding up to the 

nearest integer. Except as provided in 

paragraph (f)(4)(v) of this section, you 

may not retest an abatement system for 

any gas and process sub-type or process 

type combination, as applicable, until 

all of the abatement systems for that gas 

and process sub-type or process type 

combination have been tested. 

(B) If testing of a randomly selected 

abatement system would be disruptive 

to production, you may replace that 

system with another randomly selected 

system for testing and return the system 

to the sampling pool for subsequent 

testing. Any one abatement system must 

not be replaced by another randomly 

selected system for more than three 

consecutive selections. When you have 

to replace a system in one year, you may 

select that specific system to be tested 

in one of the next two sampling years 

so that you may plan testing of that 

abatement system to avoid disrupting 

production. 

(iii) If you elect to take credit for 

abatement system destruction or 

removal efficiency before completing 

testing on 20 percent of the abatement 

systems for that gas and process subtype or process type combination, as 

applicable, you must use default 

destruction or removal efficiencies for a 

gas and process type combination. You 

must not use a default value from Table 

I–16 of this subpart for any abatement 

system not specifically designed for 

fluorinated GHG and N2O abatement, 

and must not take credit for abatement 

system destruction or removal efficiency 

before completing testing on 20 percent 

of the abatement systems for that gas 

and process sub-type or process type 

combination, as applicable. Following 

testing on 20 percent of abatement 

systems for that gas and process 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. You 

may include results of testing conducted 

on or after January 1, 2011 for use in 

determining the site-specific destruction 

or removal efficiency for a given gas and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
68212 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

process sub-type or process type 

combination if the testing was 

conducted in accordance with the 

requirements of paragraph (f)(4)(i) of 

this section. 

(iv) If a measured destruction or 

removal efficiency is below the 

manufacturer-claimed fluorinated GHG 

or N2O destruction or removal efficiency 

for any abatement system specifically 

designed for fluorinated GHG or N2O 

abatement and the abatement system is 

installed, operated, and maintained in 

accordance with the site maintenance 

plan for abatement systems that is 

developed and maintained in your 

records as specified in § 98.97(d)(9), the 

measured destruction or removal 

efficiency must be included in the 

calculation of the destruction or 

removal efficiency value for that gas and 

process sub-type or process type. 

(v) If a measured destruction or 

removal efficiency is below the 

manufacturer-claimed fluorinated GHG 

or N2O destruction or removal efficiency 

for any abatement system specifically 

designed for fluorinated GHG or N2O 

abatement and the abatement system is 

not installed, operated, or maintained in 

accordance with the site maintenance 

plan for abatement systems that is 

developed and maintained in your 

records as specified in § 98.97(d)(9), you 

must implement corrective action and 

perform a retest to replace the measured 

value within the reporting year. In lieu 

of retesting within the reporting year, 

you may use the measured value in 

calculating the average destruction or 

removal efficiency for the reporting 

year, implement corrective action, and 

then include the same system in the 

next abatement system testing period in 

addition to the testing of randomly 

selected systems for that next testing 

period. Regardless of whether you use 

the lower measured destruction or 

removal efficiency and when you 

perform the retest of the abatement 

system, you must count the time that 

the abatement system is not operated 

and maintained according to the site 

maintenance plan for abatement systems 

as not being in operational mode for 

purposes of calculating abatement 

system uptime. 

(vi) If your fab uses redundant 

abatement systems, you may account for 

the total abatement system uptime (that 

is, the time that at least one abatement 

system is in operational mode) 

calculated for a specific exhaust stream 

during the reporting year. 

(g) * * * 

(3) Follow the QA/QC procedures in 

accordance with those in EPA 430–R– 

10–003 (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 98.7), or the applicable QA/QC 

procedures specified in an alternative 

method approved by the Administrator 

(or authorized representative) according 

to paragraph (k) of this section, when 

calculating abatement systems 

destruction or removal efficiencies. If 

you are measuring destruction or 

removal efficiency according to EPA 

430–R–10–003 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 98.7), and you elect to 

follow the alternative procedures 

specified in Appendix A to this subpart 

according to paragraph (f)(4)(i) of this 

section, you must follow any additional 

QA/QC procedures specified in 

Appendix A to this subpart. 

(4) As part of normal operations for 

each fab, the inventory of gas stored in 

containers at the beginning of the 

reporting year must be the same as the 

inventory of gas stored in containers at 

the end of the previous reporting year. 

You must maintain records 

documenting the year end and year 

beginning inventories under § 98.97(a). 

(h) You must adhere to the QA/QC 

procedures of this paragraph (h) when 

calculating annual gas consumption for 

each fluorinated GHG and N2O used at 

each fab and emissions from the use of 

each fluorinated heat transfer fluid on a 

fab basis. 

* * * * * 

(3) Ensure that the inventory at the 

beginning of one reporting year is 

identical to the inventory at the end of 

the previous reporting year. You must 

maintain records documenting the year 

end and year beginning inventories 

under § 98.97(a) and (r). 

* * * * * 

(i) All flow meters, weigh scales, 

pressure gauges, and thermometers used 

to measure quantities that are monitored 

under this section or used in 

calculations under § 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, averaged 

over all abatement systems, during the 

8-hour (or longer) period for each stack 

system, or at no less than 90 percent of 

the abatement system uptime rate 

measured over the previous reporting 

year, averaged over all abatement 

systems. 

(ii) You must measure for the 

expected and possible by-products 

identified in Table I–17 of this subpart 

and those fluorinated GHGs used as 

input fluorinated GHG in process tools 

vented to the stack system, except for 

any intermittent low-use fluorinated 

GHG as defined in § 98.98. You must 

calculate annual emissions of 

intermittent low-use fluorinated GHGs 

by adhering to the procedures in 

§ 98.93(i)(4)(i). 

(iii) If a fluorinated GHG being 

consumed in the reporting year was not 

being consumed during the stack testing 

and does not meet the definition of 

intermittent low-use fluorinated GHG in 

§ 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 

significant changes in stack flow 

configuration occur between tests 

conducted for any particular fab in a 

reporting year. You must certify that no 

more than 10 percent of the total 

number of fluorinated GHG emitting 

process tools are connected or 

disconnected from a stack system 

during testing. You must also certify 

that no process tools that were in 

operation at the start of the test period 

have been moved to a different stack 

system during the test period (i.e., 

during or in between testing of 

individual stack systems) and that no 

point-of-use abatement systems have 

been permanently removed from service 

during the test period. You must 

document any changes in stack flow 

configuration in the emissions test data 

and report required to be kept as records 

under § 98.97(i)(4). 

(2) Test methods and procedures. You 

must adhere to the applicable test 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68213 

methods and procedures specified in 

Table I–9 to this subpart, or adhere to 

an alternative method approved by the 

Administrator (or authorized 

representative) according to paragraph 

(k) of this section. If you select Method 

320 of 40 CFR part 63, Appendix A to 

measure the concentration of each 

fluorinated GHG in the stack system, 

you must complete a method validation 

according to Section 13 of Method 320 

of 40 CFR part 63, Appendix A for each 

FTIR system (hardware and software) 

and each tester (testing company). 

Method 320 validation is necessary 

when any change occurs in 

instrumentation, tester (i.e., testing 

company), or stack condition (e.g., acid 

gas vs. base). Measurement of new 

compounds require validation for those 

compounds according to Section 13 of 

Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, 

Appendix A. The field detection limits 

achieved under your test methods and 

procedures must fall at or below the 

maximum field detection limits 

specified in Table I–10 to this subpart. 

(3) Fab-specific fluorinated GHG 

consumption measurements. You must 

determine the amount of each 

fluorinated GHG consumed by each fab 

during the sampling period for all 

process tools connected to the stack 

systems tested under § 98.93(i)(3), 

according to the procedures in 

paragraphs (j)(3)(i) and (ii) of this 

section. This determination must 

include apportioning gas consumption 

between stack systems that are being 

tested and those that are not tested 

under § 98.93(i)(2). 

(i) Measure fluorinated GHG 

consumption using gas flow meters, 

scales, or pressure measurements. 

Measure the mass or pressure, as 

applicable, at the beginning and end of 

the sampling period and when 

containers are changed out. If you elect 

to measure gas consumption using 

pressure (i.e., because the gas is stored 

in a location above its critical 

temperature) you must estimate 

consumption as specified in paragraphs 

(j)(3)(i)(A) and (B) of this section. 

(A) For each fluorinated GHG, you 

must either measure the temperature of 

the fluorinated GHG container(s) when 

the sampling periods begin and end and 

when containers are changed out, or 

measure the temperature of the 

fluorinated GHG container(s) every hour 

for the duration of the sampling period. 

Temperature measurements of the 

immediate vicinity of the containers 

(e.g., in the same room, near the 

containers) shall be considered 

temperature measurements of the 

containers. 

(B) Convert the sampling 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 

the arithmetic average of the three 

emission factors for each fluorinated 

GHG and fluorinated GHG by-product 

for the current year and the next 4 years 

with no further testing unless your fab 

operations are changed in way that 

triggers the re-test criteria in paragraph 

(j)(8) of this section. In the fifth year 

following the last stack test included in 

the previous average, you must test each 

of the stack systems for which testing is 

required and repeat the relative 

standard deviation analysis using the 

results of the most recent three tests 

(i.e., the new test and the two previous 

tests conducted prior to the 4 year 

period). If the criteria specified in 

paragraphs (j)(5)(ii)(A) and (B) of this 

section are not met, you must use the 

emission factors developed from the 

most recent testing and continue annual 

testing. You may conduct more than one 

test in the same year, but each set of 

emissions testing for a stack system 

must be separated by a period of at least 

2 months. You may repeat the relative 

standard deviation analysis using the 

most recent three tests, including those 

tests conducted prior to the 4 year 

period, to determine if you are exempt 

from testing for the next 4 years. 

(A) The relative standard deviation of 

the total CO2e emission factors 

calculated from each of the three tests 

(expressed as the total CO2e fluorinated 

GHG emissions of the fab divided by the 

total CO2e fluorinated GHG use of the 

fab) is less than or equal to 15 percent. 

(B) The relative standard deviation for 

all single fluorinated GHGs that 

individually accounted for 5 percent or 

more of CO2e emissions were less than 

20 percent. 

(C) For those fluorinated GHG that do 

not have GWP values listed in Table A– 

1 to subpart A of this part, you must use 

a GWP value of 2,000 in calculating 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
68214 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

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 on or after January 1, 2011 

for use in the relative standard deviation 

calculation in paragraph (j)(5)(ii) of this 

section if the previous results were 

determined using a method meeting the 

requirements in paragraph (j)(2) of this 

section. You may request approval to 

use results of emissions testing 

conducted between January 1, 2011 and 

January 1, 2014 using a method that 

deviated from the requirements in 

paragraph (j)(2) of this section by 

adhering to the requirements in 

paragraphs (j)(7)(i) through (j)(7)(iv) of 

this section. 

(i) Notify the Administrator (or an 

authorized representative) of your 

intention to use the results of the 

previous emissions testing. You must 

include in the notification the data and 

results you intend to use for meeting 

either reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements, a description of the 

method, and any deviations from the 

requirements in paragraph (j)(2) of this 

section. Your description must include 

an explanation of how any deviations 

do not affect the quality of the data 

collected. 

(ii) The Administrator will review the 

information submitted under paragraph 

(j)(7)(i) and determine whether the 

results of the previous emissions testing 

are adequate and issue an approval or 

disapproval of the use of the results 

within 120 days of the date on which 

you submit the notification specified in 

paragraph (j)(7)(i) of this section. 

(iii) If the Administrator finds 

reasonable grounds to disapprove the 

results of the previous emissions testing, 

the Administrator may request that you 

provide additional information to 

support the use of the results of the 

previous emissions testing. Failure to 

respond to any request made by the 

Administrator does not affect the 120 

day deadline specified in paragraph 

(j)(7)(ii) of this section. 

(iv) Neither the approval process nor 

the failure to obtain approval for the use 

of results from previous emissions 

testing shall abrogate your responsibility 

to comply with the requirements of this 

subpart. 

(8) Scenarios that require a stack 

system to be re-tested. By March 31 of 

each reporting year, you must evaluate 

and determine whether any changes to 

your fab operations meet the criteria 

specified in paragraphs (j)(8)(i) through 

(vi) of this section. If any of the 

scenarios specified in paragraph (j)(8)(i) 

through (vi) of this section occur, you 

must perform a re-test of any applicable 

stack system, irrespective of whether 

you have met the criteria for less 

frequent testing in paragraph (j)(5)(ii) of 

this section, before the end of the year 

in which the evaluation was completed. 

You must adhere to the methods and 

procedures specified in § 98.93(i)(3) for 

performing a stack system emissions test 

and calculating emissions. If you meet 

the criteria for less frequent testing in 

paragraph (j)(5)(ii), and you are required 

to perform a re-test as specified in 

paragraph (j)(8)(i) through (vi) of this 

section, the requirement to perform a retest does not extend the date of the next 

scheduled test that was established 

prior to meeting the requirement to 

perform a re-test. If the criteria specified 

in paragraph (j)(5)(ii) of this section are 

not met using the results from the re-test 

and the two most recent stack tests, you 

must use the emission factors developed 

from the most recent testing to calculate 

emissions and resume annual testing. 

You may resume testing less frequently 

according to your original schedule if 

the criteria specified in paragraph 

(j)(5)(ii) of this section are met using the 

most recent three tests. 

(i) Annual consumption of a 

fluorinated GHG used during the most 

recent emissions test (expressed in 

CO2e) changes by more than 10 percent 

of the total annual fluorinated GHG 

consumption, relative to gas 

consumption in CO2e for that gas during 

the year of the most recent emissions 

test (for example, if the use of a single 

gas goes from 25 percent of CO2e to 

greater than 35 percent of CO2e, this 

change would trigger a re-test). For 

those fluorinated GHGs that do not have 

GWP values listed in Table A–1 to 

subpart A of this part, you must use a 

GWP value of 2,000 in calculating CO2e 

for purposes of this paragraph. 

(ii) A change in the consumption of 

an intermittent low-use fluorinated GHG 

(as defined in § 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) If a fluorinated GHG being 

consumed in the reporting year was not 

being consumed during the stack test 

and does not meet the definition of 

intermittent, low-use fluorinated GHG 

in § 98.98, then you must test the stack 

systems associated with the use of that 

fluorinated GHG at a time when that gas 

is in use as required in paragraph 

(j)(1)(iii) of this section. 

(k) You may request approval to use 

an alternative stack test method and 

procedure or to use an alternative 

method to determine abatement system 

destruction or removal efficiency by 

adhering to the requirements in 

paragraphs (k)(1) through (6) of this 

section. An alternative method is any 

method of sampling and analyzing for a 

fluorinated GHG or N2O, or the 

determination of parameters other than 

concentration, for example, flow 

measurements, that is not a method 

specified in this subpart and that has 

been demonstrated to the 

Administrator’s satisfaction, using 

Method 301 in appendix A of part 63, 

to produce results adequate for the 

Administrator’s determination that it 

may be used in place of a method 

specified elsewhere in this subpart. 

(1) You may use an alternative 

method from that specified in this 

subpart provided that you: 

(i) Notify the Administrator (or an 

authorized representative) of your 

intention to use an alternative method. 

You must include in the notification a 

site-specific test plan describing the 

alternative method and procedures (the 

alternative test plan), the range of test 

conditions over which the validation is 

intended to be applicable, and an 

alternative means of calculating the 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68215 

rationale for not using the specified 

method. 

(2) The Administrator will determine 

whether the validation of the proposed 

alternative method is adequate and 

issue an approval or disapproval of the 

alternative test plan within 120 days of 

the date on which you submit the 

notification and alternative test plan 

specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this 

section. If the Administrator approves 

the alternative test plan, you are 

authorized to use the alternative 

method(s) in place of the methods 

described in paragraph (f)(4)(i) of this 

section for measuring destruction or 

removal efficiency or paragraph (j) of 

this section for conducting the stack 

test, as applicable, taking into account 

the Administrator’s comments on the 

alternative test plan. Notwithstanding 

the requirement in the preceding 

sentence, you may at any time prior to 

the Administrator’s approval or 

disapproval proceed to conduct the 

stack test using the methods specified in 

paragraph (j) of this section or the 

destruction or removal efficiency 

determination specified in (f)(4)(i) of 

this section if you use a method 

specified in this subpart instead of the 

requested alternative. If an alternative 

test plan is not approved and you still 

want to use an alternative method, you 

must recommence the process to have 

an alternative test method approved 

starting with the notification of intent to 

use an alternative test method specified 

in paragraph (k)(1)(i) of this section. 

(3) You must report the results of 

stack testing or destruction or removal 

efficiency determination using the 

alternative method and procedure 

specified in the approved alternative 

test plan. You must include in your 

report for an alternative stack test 

method and for an alternative abatement 

system destruction or removal efficiency 

determination the information specified 

in paragraph (j)(4) of this section, 

including all methods, calculations and 

data used to determine the fluorinated 

GHG emission factor or the abatement 

system destruction or removal 

efficiency. The Administrator will 

review the results of the test using the 

alternative methods and procedure and 

then approve or deny the use of the 

results of the alternative test method 

and procedure no later than 120 days 

after they are submitted to EPA. 

(4) If the Administrator finds 

reasonable grounds to dispute the 

results obtained by an alternative 

method for the purposes of determining 

fluorinated GHG emissions or 

destruction or removal efficiency of an 

abatement system, the Administrator 

may require the use of another method 

specified in this subpart. 

(5) Once the Administrator has 

approved the use of the alternative 

method for the purposes of determining 

fluorinated GHG emissions for specific 

fluorinated GHGs and types of stack 

systems or abatement system 

destruction or removal efficiency, that 

method may be used at any other 

facility for the same fluorinated GHGs 

and types of stack systems, or 

fluorinated GHGs and abatement 

systems, if the approved conditions 

apply to that facility. In granting 

approval, the Administrator may limit 

the range of test conditions and 

emission characteristics for which that 

approval is granted and under which 

the alternative method may be used 

without seeking approval under 

paragraphs (k)(1) through (4) of this 

section. The Administrator will specify 

those limitations, if any, in the approval 

of the alternative method. 

(6) Neither the validation and 

approval process nor the failure to 

validate or obtain approval of an 

alternative method shall abrogate your 

responsibility to comply with the 

requirements of this subpart. 

■ 8. Section 98.96 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b); 

■ b. Revising paragraphs (c) 

introductory text and (c)(1) through (3); 

■ c. Adding paragraph (c)(5); 

■ d. Removing and reserving paragraphs 

(f) through (l); 

■ e. Revising paragraph (m) 

introductory text; 

■ f. Redesignating paragraphs (m)(i) 

through (m)(iv) as paragraphs (m)(1) 

through (m)(4), and revising newly 

redesignated paragraphs (m)(1), (3), and 

(4); 

■ g. Adding paragraph (m)(5); 

■ h. Removing and reserving paragraphs 

(n) and (o); 

■ i. Revising paragraphs (p) through (s); 

■ j. Removing and reserving paragraphs 

(t) through (v); and 

■ k. Adding paragraphs (w), (x), and (y). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 98.96 Data reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(a) Annual manufacturing capacity of 

each fab at your facility used to 

determine the annual manufacturing 

capacity of your facility in Equation I– 

5 of this subpart. 

(b) For facilities that manufacture 

semiconductors, the diameter of wafers 

manufactured at each fab at your facility 

(mm). 

(c) Annual emissions, on a fab basis 

as described in paragraph (c)(1) through 

(5) of this section. 

(1) When you use the procedures 

specified in § 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, and/or an 

indication if direct measurements were 

used in addition to, or instead of, a 

quantifiable metric. 

* * * * * 

(3) Certification that the gas(es) you 

selected under § 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, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
68216 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

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, the 

following: 

(1) Certification that all abatement 

systems at the facility have been 

installed, maintained, and operated in 

accordance with the site maintenance 

plan for abatement systems that is 

developed and maintained in your 

records as specified in § 98.97(d)(9). 

(2) If you use default destruction or 

removal efficiency values in your 

emissions calculations under § 98.93(a), 

(b), or (i), certification that the site 

maintenance plan for abatement systems 

for which emissions are being reported 

contains manufacturer’s 

recommendations and specifications for 

installation, operation, and maintenance 

for each abatement system. 

(3) If you use default destruction or 

removal efficiency values in your 

emissions calculations under § 98.93(a), 

(b), and/or (i), certification that the 

abatement systems for which emissions 

are being reported were specifically 

designed for fluorinated GHG or N2O 

abatement, as applicable. You must 

support this certification by providing 

abatement system supplier 

documentation stating that the system 

was designed for fluorinated GHG or 

N2O abatement, as applicable. 

(4) For all stack systems for which 

you calculate fluorinated GHG 

emissions according to the procedures 

specified in § 98.93(i)(3), certification 

that you have included and accounted 

for all abatement systems and any 

respective downtime in your emissions 

calculations under § 98.93(i)(3). 

(r) You must report an effective fabwide destruction or removal efficiency 

value for each fab at your facility 

calculated using Equation I–26, I–27, 

and I–28 of this subpart, as appropriate. 

Where: 

DREFAB = Fab-wide effective destruction or 

removal efficiency value, expressed as a 

decimal fraction. 

FGHGi = Total emissions of each fluorinated 

GHG i emitted from electronics 

manufacturing processes in the fab, 

calculated according to the procedures in 

§ 98.93. 

N2Oj = Emissions of N2O from each N2Oemitting electronics manufacturing 

process j in the fab, 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 fab, expressed in metric ton CO2

equivalents as calculated in Equation I– 

27 of this subpart. 

SFGHG = Total unabated emissions of 

fluorinated GHG emitted from 

electronics manufacturing processes in 

the fab, expressed in metric ton CO2

equivalents, as calculated in Equation I– 

28 of this subpart. 

CN2O,j = Consumption of N2O in each N2O 

emitting process j, expressed in metric 

ton CO2 equivalents. 

1–UN2O,j = N2O emission factor for each N2O 

emitting process j from Table I–8 of this 

subpart. 

GWPi = GWP of emitted fluorinated GHG i 

from Table A–1 of this part. For those 

fluorinated GHGs for which Table A–1 to 

subpart A of this part does not define a 

GWP value, use a GWP value of 2,000 for 

purposes of this equation. 

GWPN2O = GWP of N2O from Table A–1 of 

this part. 

i = Fluorinated GHG. 

j = Process Type. 

(1) Use Equation I–27 of this subpart 

to calculate total unabated emissions, in 

metric tons CO2e, of all fluorinated GHG 

emitted from electronics manufacturing 

processes whose emissions of 

fluorinated GHG you calculated 

according to the default utilization and 

by-product formation rate procedures in 

§ 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). 

Where: 

UAFGHG = Total unabated emissions of 

fluorinated GHG emitted from 

electronics manufacturing processes in 

the fab, expressed in metric ton CO2e for 

which you calculated total emission 

according to the procedures in § 98.93(a) 

or § 98.93(i)(4). 

Cij = Total consumption of fluorinated GHG 

i, apportioned to process j, expressed in 

metric ton CO2e, which you used to 

calculate total emissions according to the 

procedures in § 98.93(a) or § 98.93(i)(4). 

Uij = Process utilization rate for fluorinated 

GHG i, process type j, which you used 

to calculate total emissions according to 

the procedures in § 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 for 

purposes of this equation. 

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 for purposes of this 

equation. 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2ER13NO13.015</GPH> ER13NO13.016</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68217 

consumption (Cif), input gas emission 

factors (EFif), by-product gas emission 

factors (EFkf), fractions of tools abated 

(aif and af), and destruction efficiencies 

(dif and dkf) to calculate unabated 

emissions as you used to calculate 

emissions. 

Where: 

SFGHG = Total unabated emissions of 

fluorinated GHG emitted from 

electronics manufacturing processes in 

the fab, expressed in metric ton CO2e for 

which you calculated total emission 

according to the procedures in 

§ 98.93(i)(3). 

EFif = Emission factor for fluorinated GHG 

input gas i, emitted from fab f, as 

calculated in Equation I–19 of this 

subpart (kg emitted/kg input gas 

consumed). 

aif = Fraction of fluorinated GHG input gas 

i used in fab f in tools with abatement 

systems (expressed as a decimal 

fraction). 

dif = Fraction of fluorinated GHG i destroyed 

or removed in abatement systems 

connected to process tools in fab f, 

which you used to calculate total 

emissions according to the procedures in 

§ 98.93(i)(3) (expressed as a decimal 

fraction). 

Cif = Total consumption of fluorinated GHG 

input gas i, of tools vented to stack 

systems that are tested, for fab f, for the 

reporting year, expressed in metric ton 

CO2e, which you used to calculate total 

emissions according to the procedures in 

§ 98.93(i)(3) (expressed as a decimal 

fraction). 

EFkf = Emission factor for fluorinated GHG 

by-product gas k, emitted from fab f, as 

calculated in Equation I–20 of this 

subpart (kg emitted/kg of all input gases 

consumed in tools vented to stack 

systems that are tested). 

af = Fraction of input gases used in fab f in 

tools with abatement systems (expressed 

as a decimal fraction). 

dkf = Fraction of fluorinated GHG by-product 

k destroyed or removed in abatement 

systems connected to process tools in fab 

f, which you used to calculate total 

emissions according to the procedures in 

§ 98.93(i)(3) (expressed as a decimal 

fraction). 

GWPi = GWP of emitted fluorinated GHG i 

from Table A–1 of this part. For those 

fluorinated GHGs for which Table A–1 of 

subpart A to this part does not define a 

GWP value, use a GWP value of 2,000 for 

purposes of this equation. 

GWPk = GWP of emitted fluorinated GHG 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 for purposes of this 

equation. 

i = Fluorinated GHG. 

k = Fluorinated GHG by-product. 

(s) Where missing data procedures 

were used to estimate inputs into the 

fluorinated heat transfer fluid mass 

balance equation under § 98.95(b), the 

number of times missing data 

procedures were followed in the 

reporting year and the method used to 

estimate the missing data. 

* * * * * 

(w) If you elect to calculate fab-level 

emissions of fluorinated GHG using the 

stack test methods specified in 

§ 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 for 

purposes of this paragraph. 

(y) If your semiconductor 

manufacturing facility emits more than 

40,000 metric ton CO2e of GHG 

emissions, based on your most recently 

submitted annual report (beginning with 

the 2015 reporting year) as required in 

paragraph (c) of this section, from the 

electronics manufacturing processes 

subject to reporting under this subpart, 

you must prepare and submit a triennial 

(every 3 years) technology assessment 

report to the Administrator (or an 

authorized representative) that meets 

the requirements specified in 

paragraphs (y)(1) through (6) of this 

section. Any other semiconductor 

manufacturing facility may voluntarily 

submit this report to the Administrator. 

(1) The first report must be submitted 

with the annual GHG emissions report 

that is due no later than March 31, 2017, 

and subsequent reports must be 

delivered every 3 years no later than 

March 31 of the year in which it is due. 

(2) The report must include the 

information described in paragraphs 

(y)(2)(i) through (v) of this section. 

(i) It must describe how the gases and 

technologies used in semiconductor 

manufacturing using 200 mm and 300 

mm wafers in the United States have 

changed in the past 3 years and whether 

any of the identified changes are likely 

to have affected the emissions 

characteristics of semiconductor 

manufacturing processes in such a way 

that the default utilization and byproduct formation rates or default 

destruction or removal efficiency factors 

of this subpart may need to be updated. 

(ii) It must describe the effect on 

emissions of the implementation of new 

process technologies and/or finer line 

width processes in 200 mm and 300 mm 

technologies, the introduction of new 

tool platforms, and the introduction of 

new processes on previously tested 

platforms. 

(iii) It must describe the status of 

implementing 450 mm wafer technology 

and the potential need to create or 

update default emission factors 

compared to 300 mm technology. 

(iv) It must provide any utilization 

and by-product formation rates and/or 

destruction or removal efficiency data 

that have been collected in the previous 

3 years that support the changes in 

semiconductor manufacturing processes 

described in the report. 

(v) It must describe the use of a new 

gas, use of an existing gas in a new 

process type or sub-type, or a 

fundamental change in process 

technology. 

(3) If, on the basis of the information 

reported in paragraph (y)(2) of this 

section, the report indicates that GHG 

emissions from semiconductor 

manufacturing may have changed from 

those represented by the default 

utilization and by-product formation 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2ER13NO13.017</GPH>
68218 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

rates in Tables I–3 or I–4, or the default 

destruction or removal efficiency values 

in Table I–16 of this subpart, the report 

must lay out a data gathering and 

analysis plan focused on the areas of 

potential change. The plan must 

describe the elements in paragraphs 

(y)(3)(i) and (ii). 

(i) The testing of tools to determine 

the potential effect on current 

utilization and by-product formation 

rates and destruction or removal 

efficiency values under the new 

conditions. You must follow the QA/QC 

procedures in the International 

SEMATECH #60124825A–ENG 

(incorporated by reference, see § 98.7) 

when measuring and calculating process 

sub-type and process type fluorinated 

GHG and N2O utilization and byproduct formation rates. 

(ii) A planned analysis of the effect on 

overall facility emissions using a 

representative gas-use profile for a 200 

mm, 300 mm, or 450 mm fab 

(depending on which technology is 

under consideration). 

(4) Multiple semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities may submit a 

single consolidated 3-year report as long 

as the facility identifying information in 

§ 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, I–4, I–11, 

and I–12 of this subpart and default 

destruction or removal efficiency values 

in Table I–16 of this subpart based on 

the following: 

(i) Whether the revised default 

utilization and by-product formation 

rates and destruction or removal 

efficiency values will result in a 

projected shift in emissions of 10 

percent or greater. 

(ii) Whether new platforms, processes, 

or facilities that are not captured in 

current default utilization and 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 a determination whether it is 

necessary to update any default 

utilization and by-product formation 

rates and/or destruction or removal 

efficiency values. If the Administrator 

determines it is necessary to update 

default utilization and by-product 

formation rates and/or destruction or 

removal efficiency values, you will then 

have 180 days from the date you receive 

notice of the determination to execute 

the data collection and analysis plan 

described in the report and submit those 

data to the Administrator. 

■ 9. Section 98.97 is amended by: 

■ a. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(b); 

■ b. Revising paragraph (c); 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (d) 

introductory text, (d)(1), and (4), and 

add paragraphs (d)(5) through (9); and 

■ d. Adding paragraphs (i) through (s). 

The revisions and additions 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 (iv) of this 

section: 

(i) Documentation to certify that each 

abatement system or group of abatement 

systems is installed, maintained, and 

operated in accordance with the site 

maintenance plan for abatement systems 

that is specified in paragraph (d)(9) of 

this section. 

(ii) Documentation from the 

abatement system supplier describing 

the abatement system’s designed 

purpose and emission control 

capabilities for fluorinated GHG and 

N2O for which the systems or group of 

systems is certified to abate, where 

available. 

(iii) If you use default destruction or 

removal efficiency values in your 

emissions calculations under § 98.93(a), 

(b), and/or (i), certification that the 

abatement systems for which emissions 

are being reported were specifically 

designed for fluorinated GHG and N2O 

abatement, as required under 

§ 98.94(f)(3), and certification that the 

site maintenance plan includes 

manufacturer’s recommendations and 

specifications for installation, operation, 

and maintenance for all applicable 

abatement systems. 

(iv) Certification that you have 

included and accounted for all 

abatement systems and any respective 

downtime in your emissions 

calculations under § 98.93(i)(3), as 

required under § 98.94(f)(3). 

* * * * * 

(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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68219 

systems operating during the reporting 

year for each process type and gas 

combination. 

(iii) A description of the calculation 

used to determine the average 

destruction or removal efficiency for 

each process type and gas combination, 

including all inputs to the calculation. 

(iv) The records of destruction or 

removal efficiency measurements for 

abatement systems for all tests that have 

been used to determine the site-specific 

destruction or removal efficiencies 

currently being used. 

(v) A description of the method used 

for randomly selecting abatement 

systems for testing. 

(vi) The total number of systems for 

which destruction or removal efficiency 

was properly measured for each process 

type and gas combination for the 

reporting year. 

(5) In addition to the inventory 

specified in § 98.96(p), the information 

in paragraphs (d)(5)(i) though (iii) of this 

section: 

(i) The number of abatement systems 

of each manufacturer, and model 

numbers, and the manufacturer’s 

claimed fluorinated GHG and N2O 

destruction or removal efficiency, if any. 

(ii) Records of destruction or removal 

efficiency measurements over the in-use 

life of each abatement system. 

(iii) A description of the tool, with the 

process type or sub-type, for which the 

abatement system treats exhaust. 

(6) Records of all inputs and results of 

calculations made accounting for the 

uptime of abatement systems used 

during the reporting year, in accordance 

with Equations I–15 or I–23 of this 

subpart, as applicable. The inputs 

should include an indication of whether 

each value for destruction or removal 

efficiency is a default value or a 

measured site-specific value. 

(7) Records of all inputs and results of 

calculations made to determine the 

average weighted fraction of each gas 

destroyed or removed in the abatement 

systems for each stack system using 

Equation I–24 of this subpart, if 

applicable. The inputs should include 

an indication of whether each value for 

destruction or removal efficiency is a 

default value or a measured site-specific 

value. 

(8) Records of all inputs and the 

results of the calculation of the facilitywide emission destruction or removal 

efficiency factor calculated according to 

Equations I–26, I–27, and I–28 of this 

subpart. 

(9) A site maintenance plan for 

abatement systems, which must be 

maintained on-site at the facility as part 

of the facility’s GHG Monitoring Plan as 

described in § 98.3(g)(5), and be 

developed and implemented according 

to paragraphs (d)(9)(i) through (iii) of 

this section. 

(i) The site maintenance plan for 

abatement systems must be based on the 

abatement system manufacturer’s 

recommendations and specifications for 

installation, operation, and maintenance 

if you use default destruction and 

removal efficiency values in your 

emissions calculations under § 98.93(a), 

(b), and/or (i). If the manufacturer’s 

recommendations and specifications for 

installation, operation, and maintenance 

are not available, you cannot use default 

destruction and removal efficiency 

values in your emissions calculations 

under § 98.93(a), (b), and/or (i). If you 

use an average of properly measured 

destruction or removal efficiencies 

determined in accordance with the 

procedures in § 98.94(f)(4)(i) through 

(vi), the site maintenance plan for 

abatement systems must be based on the 

abatement system manufacturer’s 

recommendations and specifications for 

installation, operation, and 

maintenance, where available. If you 

deviate from the manufacturer’s 

recommendations and specifications, 

you must include documentation that 

demonstrates how the deviations do not 

negatively affect the performance or 

destruction or removal efficiency of the 

abatement systems. 

(ii) The site maintenance plan for 

abatement systems must include a 

defined preventative maintenance 

process and checklist. 

(iii) The site maintenance plan for 

abatement systems must include a 

corrective action process that you must 

follow whenever an abatement system is 

found to be not operating properly. 

* * * * * 

(i) Retain the following records for 

each fab for which you elect to calculate 

fab-level emissions of fluorinated GHG 

using the procedures specified in 

§ 98.93(i)(3) or (4). 

(1) Document all stack systems with 

emissions of fluorinated GHG that are 

less than 10,000 metric tons of CO2e per 

year and all stack systems with 

emissions of 10,000 metric tons CO2e 

per year or more. Include the data and 

calculation used to develop the 

preliminary estimate of emissions for 

each stack system. 

(2) For each stack system, identify the 

method used to calculate annual 

emissions; either § 98.93(i)(3) or (4). 

(3) The identity and total annual 

consumption of each gas identified as 

an intermittent low use fluorinated GHG 

as specified in § 98.93(i)(4)(i) and 

defined in § 98.98. 

(4) 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. The report 

must also contain any changes in the 

stack system configuration during or 

between tests in a reporting year. 

(5) The fab-specific emission factor 

and the calculations and data used to 

determine the fab-specific emission 

factor for each fluorinated GHG and byproduct, as calculated using Equations 

I–19 and I–20 of § 98.93(i)(3). 

(6) Calculations and data used to 

determine annual emissions of each 

fluorinated GHG for each fab. 

(7) Calculations and data used to 

determine and document that the fab 

was operating at representative 

operating levels, as defined in § 98.98, 

during the stack testing period. 

(8) A copy of the certification that no 

significant changes in stack system flow 

configuration occurred between tests 

conducted for any particular fab in a 

reporting year, as required by 

§ 98.94(j)(1)(iv) and any calculations 

and data supporting the certification. 

(9) The number of tools vented to 

each stack system in the fab. 

(j) If you report the approximate 

percentage of total GHG emissions from 

research and development activities 

under § 98.96(x), documentation for the 

determination of the percentage of total 

emissions of each fluorinated GHG and/ 

or N2O attributable to research and 

development activities, as defined in 

§ 98.6. 

(k) Annual gas consumption for each 

fluorinated GHG and N2O as calculated 

in Equation I–11 of this subpart, 

including where your fab used less than 

50 kg of a particular fluorinated GHG or 

N2O used at your facility for which you 

have not calculated emissions using 

Equations I–6, I–7, I–8, I–9, I–10, I–21, 

or I–22 of this subpart, the chemical 

name of the GHG used, the annual 

consumption of the gas, and a brief 

description of its use. 

(l) All inputs used to calculate gas 

consumption in Equation I–11 of this 

subpart, for each fluorinated GHG and 

N2O used. 

(m) Annual amount of each 

fluorinated GHG consumed for process 

sub-type, process type, stack system, or 

fab, as appropriate, and the annual 

amount of N2O consumed for the 

aggregate of all chemical vapor 

deposition processes and for the 

aggregate of all other electronics 

manufacturing production processes, as 

calculated using Equation I–13 of this 

subpart. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
68220 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

(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–15 and/or 

I–23 of this subpart, as applicable. 

(r) For fluorinated heat transfer fluid 

emissions, inputs to the fluorinated heat 

transfer fluid mass balance equation, 

Equation I–16 of this subpart, for each 

fluorinated heat transfer fluid used. 

(s) Where missing data procedures 

were used to estimate inputs into the 

fluorinated heat transfer fluid mass 

balance equation under § 98.95(b), the 

estimates of those data. 

■ 10. Section 98.98 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the definitions of 

‘‘Abatement system’’ and ‘‘By-product 

formation’’; 

■ b. Removing the definition of ‘‘Class’’; 

■ c. Adding a definition for ‘‘Fab’’ and 

‘‘Fully fluorinated GHGs’’; 

■ d. Revising the definition of ‘‘Gas 

utilization’’; 

■ e. Removing the definition of 

‘‘Individual recipe’’; 

■ f. Adding definitions for ‘‘Input gas’’ 

and ‘‘Intermittent low-use fluorinated 

GHG’’; 

■ g. Removing the term ‘‘Maximum 

designed substrate starts’’; 

■ h. Adding the term ‘‘Maximum 

substrate starts’’; 

■ i. Revising the definitions of 

‘‘Operational mode,’’ ‘‘Process types,’’ 

‘‘Properly measured destruction or 

removal efficiency’’ and ‘‘Redundant 

abatement systems’’; 

■ j. Adding a definition for 

‘‘Representative operating levels’’; 

■ k. Removing the definitions of 

‘‘Similar, with respect to recipes’’; 

■ l. Adding a definition for ‘‘Stack 

system’’; 

■ m. Revising the definitions of ‘‘Trigger 

point for change out,’’ 

■ n. Adding a definition for ‘‘Unabated 

emissions’’; and 

■ o. Revising the definitions of 

‘‘Uptime’’ and ‘‘Wafer passes.’’ 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 98.98 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Abatement system means a device or 

equipment that is designed to destroy or 

remove fluorinated GHGs or N2O in 

exhaust streams from one or more 

electronics manufacturing production 

processes, or for which the destruction 

or removal efficiency for a fluorinated 

GHG or N2O has been properly 

measured according to the procedures 

under § 98.94(f)(4), even if that 

abatement system is not designed to 

destroy or remove fluorinated GHGs or 

N2O. The device or equipment is only 

an abatement system for the individual 

fluorinated GHGs or N2O that it is 

designed to destroy or remove or for the 

individual fluorinated GHGs or N2O for 

which destruction or removal 

efficiencies were properly measured 

according to the procedures under 

§ 98.94(f)(4). 

* * * * * 

By-product formation means the 

creation of fluorinated GHGs during 

electronics manufacturing production 

processes or the creation of fluorinated 

GHGs by an abatement system. Where 

the procedures in § 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 

fluorinated GHG input gases. 

* * * * * 

Fab means the portion of an 

electronics manufacturing facility 

located in a separate physical structure 

that began manufacturing on a certain 

date. 

* * * * * 

Fully fluorinated GHGs means 

fluorinated GHGs that contain only 

single bonds and in which all available 

valence locations are filled by fluorine 

atoms. This includes, but is not limited 

to, saturated perfluorocarbons, SF6, NF3, 

SF5CF3, C4F8O, fully fluorinated linear, 

branched, and cyclic alkanes, fully 

fluorinated ethers, fully fluorinated 

tertiary amines, fully fluorinated 

aminoethers, and perfluoropolyethers. 

Gas utilization means the fraction of 

input N2O or fluorinated GHG converted 

to other substances during the etching, 

deposition, and/or wafer and chamber 

cleaning processes. Gas utilization is 

expressed as a rate or factor for specific 

electronics manufacturing process 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 method, means a 

fluorinated GHG that meets all of the 

following: 

(1) The fluorinated GHG is used by 

the fab but is not used during the period 

of stack testing for the fab/stack system. 

(2) The emissions of the fluorinated 

GHG, estimated using the methods in 

§ 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. 

(4) The fluorinated GHG is not an 

expected or possible by-product 

identified in Table I–17 of this subpart. 

Maximum substrate starts means for 

the purposes of Equation I–5 of this 

subpart, the maximum quantity of 

substrates, expressed as surface area, 

that could be started each month during 

a reporting year based on the equipment 

installed in that facility and assuming 

that the installed equipment were fully 

utilized. Manufacturing equipment is 

considered installed when it is on the 

manufacturing floor and connected to 

required utilities. 

* * * * * 

Operational mode means the time in 

which an abatement system is properly 

installed, maintained, and operated 

according to the site maintenance plan 

for abatement systems as required in 

§ 98.94(f)(1) and defined in 

§ 98.97(d)(9). This includes being 

properly operated within the range of 

parameters as specified in the site 

maintenance plan for abatement 

systems. 

* * * * * 

Process types are broad groups of 

manufacturing steps used at a facility 

associated with substrate (e.g., wafer) 

processing during device manufacture 

for which fluorinated GHG emissions 

and fluorinated GHG consumption is 

calculated and reported. The process 

types are Plasma etching/Wafer 

Cleaning and Chamber cleaning. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68221 

Properly measured destruction or 

removal efficiency means destruction or 

removal efficiencies measured in 

accordance with EPA 430–R–10–003 

(incorporated by reference, see § 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). 

* * * * * 

Redundant abatement systems means 

a system that is specifically designed, 

installed and operated for the purpose 

of destroying fluorinated GHGs and N2O 

gases, or for which the destruction or 

removal efficiency for a fluorinated 

GHG or N2O has been properly 

measured according to the procedures 

under § 98.94(f)(4), and that is used as 

a backup to the main fluorinated GHGs 

and N2O abatement system during those 

times when the main system is not 

functioning or operating in accordance 

with design and operating 

specifications. 

* * * * * 

Representative operating levels means 

(for purposes of verification of the 

apportionment model or for determining 

the appropriate conditions for stack 

testing) operating the fab, in terms of 

substrate starts for the period of testing 

or monitoring, at no less than 50 percent 

of installed production capacity or no 

less than 70 percent of the average 

production rate for the reporting year, 

where production rate for the reporting 

year is represented in average monthly 

substrate starts. For the purposes of 

stack testing, the period for determining 

the representative operating level must 

be the period ending on the same date 

on which testing is concluded. 

Stack system means one or more 

stacks that are connected by a common 

header or manifold, through which a 

fluorinated GHG-containing gas stream 

originating from one or more fab 

processes is, or has the potential to be, 

released to the atmosphere. For 

purposes of this subpart, stack systems 

do not include emergency vents or 

bypass stacks through which emissions 

are not usually vented under typical 

operating conditions. 

Trigger point for change out means 

the residual weight or pressure of a gas 

container type that a facility uses as an 

indicator that operators need to change 

out that gas container with a full 

container. The trigger point is not the 

actual residual weight or pressure of the 

gas remaining in the cylinder that has 

been replaced. 

Unabated emissions means a gas 

stream containing fluorinated GHG or 

N2O that has exited the process, but 

which has not yet been introduced into 

an abatement system to reduce the mass 

of fluorinated GHG or N2O in the 

stream. If the emissions from the 

process are not routed to an abatement 

system, or are routed to an abatement 

device that is not in an operational 

mode, unabated emissions are those 

fluorinated GHG or N2O released to the 

atmosphere. 

Uptime means the ratio of the total 

time during which the abatement 

system is in an operational mode, to the 

total time during which production 

process tool(s) connected to that 

abatement system are normally in 

operation. 

* * * * * 

Wafer passes is a count of the number 

of times a wafer substrate is processed 

in a specific process sub-type, or type. 

The total number of wafer passes over 

a reporting year is the number of wafer 

passes per tool multiplied by the 

number of operational process tools in 

use during the reporting year. 

* * * * * 

■ 11. Table I–1 to subpart I of Part 98 

is amended by revising the Note to read 

as follows: 

Table I–1 to Subpart I of Part 98— 

Default Emission Factors for Threshold 

Applicability Determination 

* * * * * 

Notes: NA denotes not applicable based 

on currently available information. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
68222 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

■ 12. Table I–3 to subpart I of Part 98 

is revised to read as follows: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2ER13NO13.018</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68223 

■ 13. Table I–4 to subpart I of Part 98 

is revised to read as follows: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2ER13NO13.019</GPH>
68224 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2ER13NO13.020</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68225 

■ 14. Table I–5 to subpart I of Part 98 

is amended by revising the heading and 

entries for ‘‘CVD 1–Ui,’’ ‘‘CVD BCF4,’’ 

and ‘‘CVD BC3F8;’’ and by revising the 

Note to read as follows: 

■ 15. Table I–6 to subpart I of Part 98 

is amended by revising the heading, 

entries for ‘‘CVD 1–Ui’’ and by the Note 

to read as follows: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2ER13NO13.021</GPH> ER13NO13.022</GPH>
68226 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

■ 16. Table I–7 to subpart I of part 98 

is amended by revising the heading, 

entries for ‘‘CVD 1–Ui’’ and ‘‘CVD BCF4’’ 

and the Note to read as follows: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2ER13NO13.030</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68227 

■ 17. Subpart I is amended by adding 

Table I–9 to subpart I to read as follows: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2ER13NO13.031</GPH>
68228 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

■ 18. Subpart I is amended by adding 

Table I–10 to subpart I to read as 

follows: 

TABLE I–10 TO SUBPART I OF PART 98—MAXIMUM FIELD DETECTION LIMITS APPLICABLE TO FLUORINATED GHG 

CONCENTRATION MEASUREMENTS FOR STACK SYSTEMS

Fluorinated GHG Analyte 

Maximum field 

detection 

limit (ppbv) 

CF4 ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20 

C2F6 ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 20 

C3F8 ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 20 

C4F6 ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 20 

C5F8 ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 20 

c–C4F8 .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 20 

CH2F2 ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 40 

CH3F ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 40 

CHF3 ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 20 

NF3 ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20 

SF6 ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 

Other fully fluorinated GHGs ........................................................................................................................................................... 20 

Other fluorinated GHGs ................................................................................................................................................................... 40 

ppbv—Parts per billion by volume. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2ER13NO13.032</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68229 

■ 19. Subpart I is amended by adding 

Table I–11 to subpart I to read as 

follows: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2ER13NO13.023</GPH>
68230 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

■ 20. Subpart I is amended by adding 

Table I–12 to subpart I to read as 

follows: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2ER13NO13.024</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68231 

■ 21. Subpart I is amended by adding 

Table I–13 to subpart I to read as 

follows: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2ER13NO13.025</GPH>
68232 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

■ 22. Subpart I is amended by adding 

Table I–14 to subpart I to read as 

follows: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2ER13NO13.026</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68233 

■ 23. Subpart I is amended by adding 

Table I–15 to subpart I to read as 

follows: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2ER13NO13.027</GPH>
68234 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

■ 24. Subpart I is amended by adding 

Table I–16 to read as follows: 

TABLE I–16 TO SUBPART I OF PART 98—DEFAULT EMISSION DESTRUCTION OR REMOVAL EFFICIENCY (DRE) FACTORS

FOR ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURING

Manufacturing type/process type/gas 

Default 

DRE 

(percent) 

MEMS, LCDs, and PV Manufacturing ......................................................................................................................................... 60 

Semiconductor Manufacturing: 

Plasma Etch/Wafer Clean Process Type: 

CF4 ................................................................................................................................................................................ 75 

CH3F .............................................................................................................................................................................. 97 

CHF3 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 97 

CH2F2 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 97 

C2F6 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 97 

C3F8 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 97 

C4F6 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 97 

C4F8 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 97 

C5F8 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 97 

SF6 ................................................................................................................................................................................. 97 

NF3 ................................................................................................................................................................................ 96 

All other carbon-based plasma etch/wafer clean fluorinated GHG ............................................................................................. 60 

Chamber Clean Process Type: 

NF3 ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 88 

All other chamber clean fluorinated GHG ............................................................................................................................ 60 

N2O Processes: ................................

CVD and all other N2O-using processes ............................................................................................................................. 60 

■ 25. Subpart I is amended by adding 

Table I–17 to subpart I to read as 

follows: 

TABLE I–17 TO SUBPART I OF PART 98—EXPECTED AND POSSIBLE BY-PRODUCTS FOR ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURING

For each stack system for 

which you use the ‘‘stack 

test method’’ to calculate 

annual emissions, you must 

measure the following: 

If emissions are detected intermittently, use the 

following procedures: 

If emissions are not detected, use the 

following procedures: 

Expected By-products: ........

CF4

C2F6

CHF3

CH2F2

CH3F 

Use the measured concentration for ‘‘Xksm’’ in Equation 

I–18 when available and use one-half of the field detection limit you determined for the fluorinated GHG 

according to § 98.94(j)(2) for the value of ‘‘Xksm’’ when 

the fluorinated GHG is not detected.

Use one-half of the field detection limit you determined 

for the fluorinated GHG according to § 98.94(j)(2) for 

the value of ‘‘Xksm’’ in Equation I–18. 

Possible By-products: .........

C3F8

C4F6

c-C4F8

C5F8

Use the measured concentration for ‘‘Xksm’’ in Equation 

I–18 when available and use one-half of the field detection limit you determined for the fluorinated GHG 

according to § 98.94(j)(2) for the value of ‘‘Xksm’’ when 

the fluorinated GHG is not detected.

Assume zero emissions for that fluorinated GHG for the 

tested stack system. 

■ 26. Subpart I is amended by adding 

Appendix A to Subpart I of Part 98 to 

read as follows: 

Appendix A to Subpart I of Part 98— 

Alternative Procedures for Measuring 

Point-of-Use Abatement Device 

Destruction or Removal Efficiency 

If you are measuring destruction or 

removal efficiency of a point-of-use 

abatement device according to EPA 430–R– 

10–003 (incorporated by reference, see § 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 3 of 

section 2.2.7 of EPA 430–R–10–003 

(incorporated by reference, see § 98.7). 

(2) Sampling location. The sample at the 

inlet of the point-of-use abatement device 

must be taken downstream of the process tool 

and pump package. The sample exhaust must 

be vented back into the corrosive house 

ventilation system at a point downstream of 

the sample inlet location. 

(3) Sampling conditions. For etch 

processes, destruction or removal efficiencies 

must be determined while etching a substrate 

(product, dummy, or test). For chemical 

vapor deposition processes, destruction or 

removal efficiencies must be determined 

during a chamber clean after deposition 

(destruction or removal efficiencies must not 

be determined in a clean chamber). All 

sampling must be performed non-intrusively 

during wafer processing. Samples must be 

drawn through the mass spectrometer source 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68235 

by an external sample pump. Because of the 

volatility, vapor pressure, stability and 

inertness of CF4, C2F6, C3F8, CHF3, NF3, and 

SF6, the sample lines do not need to be 

heated. 

(4) Mass spectrometer parameters. The 

specific mass spectrometer operating 

conditions such as electron energy, 

secondary electron multiplier voltage, 

emission current, and ion focusing voltage 

must be selected according to the 

specifications provided by the mass 

spectrometer manufacturer, the mass 

spectrometer system manual, basic mass 

spectrometer textbook, or other such sources. 

The mass spectrometer responses to each of 

the target analytes must all be calibrated 

under the same mass spectrometer operating 

conditions. 

(5) Flow rates. A sample flow rate of 0.5– 

1.5 standard liters per minute (slm) must be 

drawn from the process tool exhaust stream 

under study. 

(6) Sample frequency. The mass 

spectrometer sampling frequency for etch 

processes must be in the range of 0.5 to 1 

cycles per second, and for chemical vapor 

deposition processes must be in the range of 

0.25 to 0.5 cycles per second. As an 

alternative you may use the sampling 

frequencies specified in section 2.2.4 of EPA 

430–R–10–003 (incorporated by reference, 

see § 98.7). 

(7) Dynamic dilution calibration 

parameters. The quadrupole mass 

spectrometer must be calibrated for both 

mass location and response to analytes. A 

dynamic dilution calibration system may be 

used to perform both types of mass 

spectrometer system calibrations using two 

mass flow controllers. Use one mass flow 

controller to regulate the flow rate of the 

standard component used to calibrate the 

system and the second mass flow controller 

to regulate the amount of diluent gas used to 

mix with the standard to generate the 

calibration curve for each compound of 

interest. The mass flow controller must be 

calibrated using the single component gas 

being used with them, for example, nitrogen 

(N2) for the diluent. A mass flow controller 

used with calibration mixtures must be 

calibrated with the calibration mixture 

balance gas (for example, N2 or He) if the 

analyte components are 2 percent or less of 

the volume of the sample. All calibration 

mixtures must be National Institute of 

Standards and Technology Traceable gases or 

equivalent. They must be calibrated over 

their range of use and must be operated in 

their experimentally determined dynamic 

linear range. If compressed gas standards 

cannot be brought into the fab, metered gas 

flows of target compounds into the process 

chamber, under no thermal or plasma 

conditions and with no wafer(s) present, and 

with no process emissions from other tools 

contributing to the sample location, must 

then be performed throughout the 

appropriate concentration ranges to derive 

calibration curves for the subsequent 

destruction or removal efficiency tests. 

(8) Mass location calibration. A mixture 

containing 1 percent He, Ar, Kr, and Xe in 

a balance gas of nitrogen must be used to 

assure the alignment of the quadrupole mass 

filter (see EPA Method 205 at 40 CFR part 51, 

appendix M as reference). The mass 

spectrometer must be chosen so that the mass 

range is sufficient to detect the predominant 

peaks of the components under study. 

(9) Quadrupole mass spectrometer 

response calibration. A calibration curve 

must be generated for each compound of 

interest. 

(10) Calibration frequency. The mass 

spectrometer must be calibrated at the start 

of testing a given process. The calibration 

must be checked at the end of testing. 

(11) Calibration range. The mass 

spectrometer must be calibrated over the 

expected concentration range of analytes 

using a minimum of five concentrations 

including a zero. The zero point is defined 

as diluent containing no added analyte. 

(12) Operating procedures. You must 

follow the operating procedures specified in 

paragraphs (a)(12)(i) through (v) of this 

appendix. 

(i) You must perform a qualitative mass 

calibration by running a standard (or by 

flowing chamber gases under non-process 

conditions) containing stable components 

such as Ar, Kr, and Xe that provide 

predominant signals at m/e values 

distributed throughout the mass range to be 

used. You must adjust the quadrupole mass 

filter as needed to align with the inert gas 

fragments. 

(ii) You must quantitatively calibrate the 

quadrupole mass spectrometer for each 

analyte of interest. The analyte 

concentrations during calibration must 

include the expected concentrations in the 

process effluent. The calibration must be 

performed under the same operating 

conditions, such as inlet pressure, as when 

sampling process exhaust. If the calibration 

inlet pressure differs from the sampling inlet 

pressure then the relationship between inlet 

pressure and quadrupole mass spectrometer 

signal response must be empirically 

determined and applied to correct for any 

differences between calibration and process 

emissions monitoring data. 

(iii) To determine the response time of the 

instrument to changes in a process, a process 

gas such as C2F6 must be turned on at the 

process tool for a fixed period of time (for 

example, 20 seconds), after which the gas is 

shut off. The sample flow rate through the 

system must be adjusted so that the signal 

increases to a constant concentration within 

a few seconds and decreases to background 

levels also within a few seconds. 

(iv) You must sample the process effluent 

through the quadrupole mass spectrometer 

and acquire data for the required amount of 

time to track the process, as determined in 

paragraph (a)(12)(iii) of this appendix. You 

must set the sample frequency to monitor the 

changes in the process as specified in 

paragraph (a)(6) of this appendix. You must 

repeat this for at least five substrates on the 

same process and calculate the average and 

standard deviation of the analyte 

concentration. 

(v) You must repeat the quantitative 

calibration at the conclusion of sampling to 

identify any drifts in quadrupole mass 

spectrometer sensitivity. If drift is observed, 

you must use an internal standard to correct 

for changes in sensitivity. 

(13) Sample analysis. To determine the 

concentration of a specific component in the 

sample, you must divide the ion intensity of 

the sample response by the calibrated 

response factor for each component. 

(14) Deconvolution of interfering peaks. 

The effects of interfering peaks must be 

deconvoluted from the mass spectra for each 

target analyte. 

(15) Calculations. Plot ion intensity versus 

analyte concentration for a given compound 

obtained when calibrating the analytical 

system. Determine the slope and intercept for 

each calibrated species to obtain response 

factors with which to calculate 

concentrations in the sample. For an 

acceptable calibration, the R2 value of the 

calibration curve must be at least 0.98. 

(b) In place of the Fourier Transform 

Infrared Spectroscopy protocol requirements 

specified in section 2.2.4 of EPA 430–R–10– 

003 (incorporated by reference, see § 98.7), 

you may conduct Fourier Transform Infrared 

Spectroscopy testing in accordance with the 

provisions in paragraph (b)(1) through (17) of 

this appendix, including the laboratory study 

phase described in paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(7), and the field study phase described in 

paragraphs (b)(8) through (17) of this 

appendix. 

(1) Conformance with provisions 

associated with the Calibration Transfer 

Standard. This procedure calls for the use of 

a calibration transfer standard in a number of 

instances. The use of a calibration transfer 

standard is necessary to validate optical 

pathlength and detector response for 

spectrometers where cell temperature, cell 

pressure, and cell optical pathlength are 

potentially variable. For fixed pathlength 

spectrometers capable of controlling cell 

temperature and pressure to within +/¥ 10 

percent of a desired set point, the use of a 

calibration transfer standard, as described in 

paragraphs (b)(2) to (17) this appendix is not 

required. 

(2) Defining spectroscopic conditions. 

Define a set of spectroscopic conditions 

under which the field studies and subsequent 

field applications are to be carried out. These 

include the minimum instrumental 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 three 

reference spectra is sufficient for a small 

expected concentration range (e.g., a 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
68236 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

difference of 30 percent of the range between 

the low and high ends of the range), but a 

minimum of four spectra are needed where 

the range is greater, especially for 

concentration ranges that may differ by 

orders of magnitude. If the measurement 

method is not linear then multiple linear 

ranges may be necessary. If this approach is 

adopted, then linear range must be 

demonstrated to pass the required quality 

control. When the set of spectra is ordered 

according to absorbance, the absorbance 

levels of adjacent reference spectra should 

not differ by more than a factor of six. 

Reference spectra for each analyte should be 

available at absorbance levels that bracket the 

analyte’s expected concentration range; 

minimally, the spectrum whose absorbance 

exceeds each analyte’s expected maximum 

concentration or is within 30 percent of it 

must be available. The reference spectra must 

be collected at or near the same temperature 

and pressure at which the sample is to be 

analyzed under. The gas sample pressure and 

temperature must be continuously monitored 

during field testing and you must correct for 

differences in temperature and pressure 

between the sample and reference spectra. 

Differences between the sample and 

reference spectra conditions must not exceed 

50 percent for pressure and 40 °C for 

temperature. 

(4) Spectra without reference libraries. If 

reference spectral libraries meeting the 

criteria in paragraph (b)(3) of this appendix 

do not exist for all the analytes and 

interferants or cannot be accurately generated 

from existing libraries exhibiting lower 

minimum instrumental line-width values 

than those proposed for the testing, prepare 

the required spectra according to the 

procedures specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) 

and (ii) of this appendix. 

(i) Reference spectra at the same 

absorbance level (to within 10 percent) of 

independently prepared samples must be 

recorded. The reference samples must be 

prepared from neat forms of the analyte or 

from gas standards of the highest quality 

commonly available from commercial 

sources. Either barometric or volumetric 

methods may be used to dilute the reference 

samples to the required concentrations, and 

the equipment used must be independently 

calibrated to ensure suitable accuracy. 

Dynamic and static reference sample 

preparation methods are acceptable, but 

dynamic preparations must be used for 

reactive analytes. Any well characterized 

absorption pathlength may be employed in 

recording reference spectra, but the 

temperature and pressure of the reference 

samples should match as closely as possible 

those of the proposed spectroscopic 

conditions. 

(ii) If a mercury cadmium telluride or other 

potentially non-linear detector (i.e., a 

detector whose response vs. total infrared 

power is not a linear function over the range 

of responses employed) is used for recording 

the reference spectra, you must correct for 

the effects of this type of response on the 

resulting concentration values. As needed, 

spectra of a calibration transfer standard 

must be recorded with the laboratory 

spectrometer system to verify the absorption 

pathlength and other aspects of the system 

performance. All reference spectral data must 

be recorded in interferometric form and 

stored digitally. 

(5) Sampling system preparation. 

Construct a sampling system suitable for 

delivering the proposed sample flow rate 

from the effluent source to the infrared 

absorption cell. For the compounds of 

interest, the surfaces of the system exposed 

to the effluent stream may need to be 

stainless steel or Teflon; because of the 

potential for generation of inorganic 

automated gases, glass surfaces within the 

sampling system and absorption cell may 

need to be Teflon-coated. The sampling 

system should be able to deliver a volume of 

sample that results in a necessary response 

time. 

(6) Preliminary analytical routines. For the 

proposed absorption pathlength to be used in 

actual emissions testing, you must prepare an 

analysis method containing of all the effluent 

compounds at their expected maximum 

concentrations plus the field calibration 

transfer standard compound at 20 percent of 

its full concentration as needed. 

(7) Documentation. The laboratory 

techniques used to generate reference spectra 

and to convert sample spectral information to 

compound concentrations must be 

documented. The required level of detail for 

the documentation is that which allows an 

independent analyst to reproduce the results 

from the documentation and the stored 

interferometric data. 

(8) Spectroscopic system performance. The 

performance of the proposed spectroscopic 

system, sampling system, and analytical 

method must be rigorously examined during 

and after a field study. Several iterations of 

the analysis method may need to be applied 

depending on observed concentrations, 

absorbance intensities, and interferences. 

During the field study, all the sampling and 

analytical procedures envisioned for future 

field applications must be documented. 

Additional procedures not required during 

routine field applications, notably dynamic 

spiking studies of the analyte gases, may be 

performed during the field study. These 

additional procedures need to be performed 

only once if the results are acceptable and if 

the effluent sources in future field 

applications prove suitably similar to those 

chosen for the field study. If changes in the 

effluent sources in future applications are 

noted and require substantial changes to the 

analytical equipment and/or conditions, a 

separate field study must be performed for 

the new set of effluent source conditions. All 

data recorded during the study must be 

retained and documented, and all spectral 

information must be permanently stored in 

interferometric form. 

(9) System installation. The spectroscopic 

and sampling sub-systems must be assembled 

and installed according to the manufacturers’ 

recommendations. For the field study, the 

length of the sample lines used must not be 

less than the maximum length envisioned for 

future field applications. The system must be 

given sufficient time to stabilize before 

testing begins. 

(10) Pre-Test calibration. Record a suitable 

background spectrum using pure nitrogen 

gas; alternatively, if the analytes of interest 

are in a sample matrix consistent with 

ambient air, it is beneficial to use an ambient 

air background to control interferences from 

water and carbon dioxide. For variable 

pathlength Fourier Transform Infrared 

Spectrometers, introduce a sample of the 

calibration transfer standard gas directly into 

the absorption cell at the expected sample 

pressure and record its absorbance spectrum 

(the ‘‘initial field calibration transfer 

standard spectrum’’). Compare it to the 

laboratory calibration transfer standard 

spectra to determine the effective absorption 

pathlength. If possible, record spectra of field 

calibration gas standards (single component 

standards of the analyte compounds) and 

determine their concentrations using the 

reference spectra and analytical routines 

developed in paragraphs (b)(2) through (7) of 

this appendix; these spectra may be used 

instead of the reference spectra in actual 

concentration and uncertainty calculations. 

(11) Deriving the calibration transfer 

standard gas from tool chamber gases. The 

calibration transfer standard gas may be 

derived by flowing appropriate 

semiconductor tool chamber gases under 

non-process conditions (no thermal or 

plasma conditions and with no wafer(s) 

present) if compressed gas standards cannot 

be brought on-site. 

(12) Reactivity and response time checks. 

While sampling ambient air and 

continuously recording absorbance spectra, 

suddenly replace the ambient air flow with 

calibration transfer standard gas introduced 

as close as possible to the probe tip. Examine 

the subsequent spectra to determine whether 

the flow rate and sample volume allow the 

system to respond quickly enough to changes 

in the sampled gas. Should a corrosive or 

reactive gas be of interest in the sample 

matrix it would be beneficial to determine 

the reactivity in a similar fashion, if practical. 

Examine the subsequent spectra to ensure 

that the reactivities of the analytes with the 

exposed surfaces of the sampling system do 

not limit the time response of the analytical 

system. If a pressure correction routine is not 

automated, monitor the absorption cell 

temperature and pressure; verify that the 

(absolute) pressure remains within 2 percent 

of the pressure specified in the proposed 

system conditions. 

(13) Analyte spiking. Analyte spiking must 

be performed. While sampling actual source 

effluent, introduce a known flow rate of 

calibration transfer standard gas into the 

sample stream as close as possible to the 

probe tip or between the probe and extraction 

line. Measure and monitor the total sample 

flow rate, and adjust the spike flow rate until 

it represents 10 percent to 20 percent of the 

total flow rate. After waiting until at least 

four absorption cell volumes have been 

sampled, record four spectra of the spiked 

effluent, terminate the calibration transfer 

standard spike flow, pause until at least four 

cell volumes are sampled, and then record 

four (unspiked) spectra. Repeat this process 

until 12 spiked and 12 unspiked spectra have 

been obtained. If a pressure correction 

routine is not automated, monitor the 

absorption cell temperature and pressure; 

verify that the pressure remains within 2 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68237 

percent of the pressure specified in the 

proposed system conditions. Calculate the 

expected calibration transfer standard 

compound concentrations in the spectra and 

compare them to the values observed in the 

spectrum. This procedure is best performed 

using a spectroscopic tracer to calculate 

dilution (as opposed to measured flow rates) 

of the injected calibration transfer standard 

(or analyte). The spectroscopic tracer should 

be a component not in the gas matrix that is 

easily detectable and maintains a linear 

absorbance over a large concentration range. 

Repeat this spiking process with all effluent 

compounds that are potentially reactive with 

either the sampling system components or 

with other effluent compounds. The gas 

spike is delivered by a mass flow controller, 

and the expected concentration of analyte of 

interest (AOITheoretical) is calculated as 

follows: 

Where: 

AOITheoretical = Theoretical analyte of 

interest concentration (parts per million 

(ppm)). 

Tracersample = Tracer concentration (ppm) 

as seen by the Fourier Transform 

Infrared Spectrometer during spiking. 

Tracercylinder = The concentration (ppm) of 

tracer recorded during direct injection of 

the cylinder to the Fourier Transform 

Infrared Spectrometer cell. 

AOIcylinder = The supplier-certified 

concentration (ppm) of the analyte of 

interest gas standard. 

AOInative = The native AOI concentration 

(ppm) of the effluent during stable 

conditions. 

(14) Post-test calibration. At the end 

of a sampling run and at the end of the 

field study, record the spectrum of the 

calibration transfer standard gas. The 

resulting ‘‘final field calibration transfer 

standard spectrum’’ must be compared 

to the initial field calibration transfer 

standard spectrum to verify suitable 

stability of the spectroscopic system 

throughout the course of the field study. 

(15) Amendment of analytical 

routines. The presence of unanticipated 

interferant compounds and/or the 

observation of compounds at 

concentrations outside their expected 

concentration ranges may necessitate 

the repetition of portions of the 

procedures in paragraphs (b)(2) through 

(14) of this appendix. Such amendments 

are allowable before final analysis of the 

data, but must be represented in the 

documentation required in paragraph 

(b)(16) of this appendix. 

(16) Documentation. The sampling 

and spiking techniques used to generate 

the field study spectra and to convert 

sample spectral information to 

concentrations must be documented at a 

level of detail that allows an 

independent analyst to reproduce the 

results from the documentation and the 

stored interferometric data. 

(17) Method application. When the 

required laboratory and field studies 

have been completed and if the results 

indicate a suitable degree of accuracy, 

the methods developed may be applied 

to practical field measurement tasks. 

During field applications, the 

procedures demonstrated in the field 

study specified in paragraphs (b)(8) 

through (16) of this appendix must be 

adhered to as closely as possible, with 

the following exceptions specified in 

paragraphs (b)(17)(i) through (iii) of this 

appendix: 

(i) The sampling lines employed 

should be as short as practically 

possible and not longer than those used 

in the field study. 

(ii) Analyte spiking and reactivity 

checks are required after the installation 

of or major repair to the sampling 

system or major change in sample 

matrix. In these cases, perform three 

spiked/unspiked samples with 

calibration transfer standard or a 

surrogate analyte on a daily basis if time 

permits and gas standards are easy to 

obtain and get on-site. 

(iii) Sampling and other operational 

data must be recorded and documented 

as during the field study, but only the 

interferometric data needed to 

sufficiently reproduce actual test and 

spiking data must be stored 

permanently. The format of this data 

does not need to be interferograms but 

may be absorbance spectra or single 

beams. 

(c) When using the flow and dilution 

measurement protocol specified in 

section 2.2.6 of EPA 430–R–10–003 

(incorporated by reference, see § 98.7), 

you may determine point-of-use 

abatement device total volume flow 

with the modifications specified in 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this 

appendix. 

(1) You may introduce the nonreactive, non-native gas used for 

determining total volume flow and 

dilution across the point-of-use 

abatement device at a location in the 

exhaust of the point-of-use abatement 

device. For abatement systems operating 

in a mode where specific F–GHG are not 

readily abated, you may introduce the 

non-reactive, non-native gas used for 

determining total volume flow and 

dilution across the point-of-use 

abatement device prior to the point-ofuse abatement system; in this case, the 

tracer must be more difficult to destroy 

than the target compounds being 

measured based on the thermal stability 

of the tracer and target. 

(2) You may select a location for 

downstream non-reactive, non-native 

gas analysis that complies with the 

requirements in this paragraph (c)(2) of 

this appendix. The sampling location 

should be traversed with the sampling 

probe measuring the non-reactive, 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, 

and 83.3 percent of the measurement 

line and use the average of the three 

measurements. If the gas stream is found 

to be stratified because the 20.0 percent 

criterion for a 3-point test is not met, 

locate and sample the non-reactive, nonVerDate Mar<15>2010 17:35 Nov 12, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13NOR2.SGM 13NOR2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2ER13NO13.028</GPH>
68238 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

native gas from traverse points for the 

test in accordance with Sections 11.2 

and 11.3 of EPA Method 1 in 40 CFR 

part 60, Appendix A–1. A minimum of 

40 non-reactive gas concentration 

measurements will be collected at three 

to five different injected non-reactive 

gas flow rates for determination of 

point-of-use abatement device effluent 

flow. The total volume flow of the 

point-of-use abatement device exhaust 

will be calculated consistent with the 

EPA 430–R–10–003 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 98.7) Equations 1 

through 7. 

(3) You must determine the 

measurement system response time 

according to paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through 

(iii) of this appendix. 

(i) Before sampling begins, introduce 

ambient air at the probe upstream of all 

sample condition components in system 

calibration mode. Record the time it 

takes for the measured concentration of 

a selected compound (for example, 

carbon dioxide) to reach steady state. 

(ii) Introduce nitrogen in the system 

calibration mode and record the time 

required for the concentration of the 

selected compound to reach steady 

state. 

(iii) Observe the time required to 

achieve 95 percent of a stable response 

for both nitrogen and ambient air. The 

longer interval is the measurement 

system response time. 

[FR Doc. 2013–23804 Filed 11–12–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2