6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 98

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028; FRL- ]

RIN 2060-AR61

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program: Final Amendments and Confidentiality 

Determinations for Subpart I 

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 Subpart I, 

Electronics Manufacturing, of 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 the new and revised data elements under the amendments to subpart I. This 

notice also finalizes amendments to Subpart A, General Provisions, to incorporate by reference a 

standardized method and to amend Table A-7 to remove entries for data elements that are being 

moved from reporting to recordkeeping.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on 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 
Page 2 of 241

http://www.regulations.gov

FOR FURTHER GENERAL INFORMATION CONTACT: Carole Cook, Climate Change 

Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC–6207J), Environmental Protection Agency, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343–9263; fax 

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

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.

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:
Page 3 of 241

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 [INSERT THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 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 
Page 4 of 241

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 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

ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers

. The following acronyms and abbreviations are used in this 

document.

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
Page 5 of 241

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

The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble. 

A. Organization of this Preamble

I. General Information

A. Organization of this Preamble

B. Background
Page 6 of 241

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

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 

B. Background

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 
Page 7 of 241

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 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.
Page 8 of 241

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).

The EPA is promulgating these rule amendments to Part 98 under its existing CAA 

authority, specifically authorities provided in CAA section 114. 

C. Legal Authority

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) 
Page 9 of 241

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.

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.

D. How do these amendments apply to 2013 and 2014 reports?

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
Page 10 of 241

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-electro-mechanical 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
Page 11 of 241

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:

• Etch emission factors: The proposed etch emission factors and by-product formation rates 

for semiconductor manufacturing have been updated since proposal to account for new 

data submitted in public comments.

Default Emission Factors:

• 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. 

• 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.

Abatement System Requirements:

• 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), sitespecific 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.
Page 12 of 241

• 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 by-products 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.

Stack Testing Alternative:

• 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).

• Equations I-26, I-27, and I-28 have been revised to calculate only a fab-wide DRE, not a 

facility-wide DRE, when more than one fab is present.

Facility-Wide DRE Calculation:

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 
Page 13 of 241

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.

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 byproduct formation rates in Tables I-13 and I-14 are based on the 2006 Intergovernmental Panel 

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-GHG-containing gas stream originating from one or more fab 

processes is, or has the potential to be, released to the atmosphere. For purposes of subpart I, 

stack systems do not include emergency vents or bypass stacks through which emissions are not 

usually vented under typical operating conditions.
Page 14 of 241

on Climate Change (IPCC) Tier 2a factors1

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 site-specific DRE if the 

abatement system was not specifically designed to abate F-GHG. If uptime data from the 

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 

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. 

 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.
Page 15 of 241

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 I15 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; 
Page 16 of 241

(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 fab-specific consumption of each 

F-GHG for the test period.
Page 17 of 241

Reporters are required to measure emissions for all F-GHGs used as input gases and any 

expected or possible by-product 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 FGHGs 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 
Page 18 of 241

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 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 low-emitting 

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: 
Page 19 of 241

(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 prorated 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 
Page 20 of 241

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 by-product 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

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 

. 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. 
Page 21 of 241

procedures, the range of test conditions over which the validation is intended to be applicable, 

and an alternative means of calculating the fab-level F-GHG emissions if the Administrator 

denies the use of the results of the alternative method. The reporter 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 
Page 22 of 241

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 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.

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). 

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. 
Page 23 of 241

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 sitespecific 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
Page 24 of 241

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.
Page 25 of 241

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

For gases generated as by-products, the fab-specific emission factor is the mass of the byproduct 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 by-products and is not 

used for gases consumed as input gases.

. 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 FGHG gas consumption (average kg/hr). The fab-specific 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). 
Page 26 of 241

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 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 FGHGs, 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 FGHG as an input are being accounted by Equation I-19. For calculating emissions from an FGHG 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 by-product 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 

low-emitting stack systems that are exempt from testing. However, to offer flexibility, the EPA 
Page 27 of 241

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 
Page 28 of 241

data must be approved by the Administrator (or an authorized representative) on a case-by-case 

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 low-use F-GHG (see “Stack testing requirements” in 

Section II.A.1 of this preamble), the reporter is required to re-test using that gas. Additionally, if 

there is: (1) A decrease by more than 10 percent in the fraction of tools with abatement systems, 

compared to the fraction of tools with abatement systems during the most recent emissions test; 

(2) a change in the wafer or substrate size used by the fab since the most recent emissions test; or 

(3) a change in a stack system that formerly met the criteria as a low-emitting stack system for 
Page 29 of 241

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 re-evaluate 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.

2. Revise the Default Gas Utilization Rates and By-Product Formation Rates for the Plasma Etch 

Process Category for Facilities that Manufacture Semiconductors
Page 30 of 241

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 FGHG 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 by-product 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 
Page 31 of 241

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/sub-types: (1) Plasma etch/wafer cleaning process type; and (2) chamber cleaning 

process type, including (2a) in situ plasma chamber cleaning; (2b) remote plasma chamber 

cleaning; and (2c) in situ thermal chamber cleaning.

If gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates are not available for a gas/process 

combination in Tables I-3 or I-4 of subpart I, 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 byproduct 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 
Page 32 of 241

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.

The EPA is removing the provisions to use recipe-specific gas utilization rates and byproduct formation rates in 40 CFR 98.93(a)(2)(ii)(A), (a)(3), and (a)(4), as proposed. 

3. Removing the Provisions for Using Recipe-Specific Gas Utilization Rates and By-Product 

Formation Rates for Facilities that Manufacture Electronics

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 recipe-specific 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 

recipe-specific 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. 
Page 33 of 241

Finally, we are revising 40 CFR 98.93(a)(6) to remove the option to develop recipespecific 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.

The EPA is revising the calculation to determine annual capacity for electronics 

manufacturing facilities, which is used in the calculation to determine whether a facility meets

the reporting threshold. 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 

4. Applicability and Calculating Annual Manufacturing Capacity for Facilities that Manufacture 

Electronics
Page 34 of 241

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,” 
Page 35 of 241

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 recipe-specific utilization and byproduct 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.

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)). 

5. Integrated Production and R&D Activities 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 

6. Accuracy and Precision of Monitoring Instrumentation for Facilities that Manufacture 

Electronics 
Page 36 of 241

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)).

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.

7. Facility-Wide Gas Specific Heel Factor for Facilities that Manufacture Electronics

We are also clarifying, since proposal, that the facility is not required to estimate the fabspecific 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 gas-specific 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 
Page 37 of 241

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.

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 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 FGHGs 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. 

8. Apportioning Model Verification for Facilities that Manufacture Electronics 

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, 
Page 38 of 241

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.

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 N2O-using 

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.

9. Calculating N2O Emissions for Facilities that Manufacture Electronics

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. 

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 

10. Abatement System Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE) for Facilities that 

Manufacture Electronics 
Page 39 of 241

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 FGHG 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

 2 Benaway, B., Hall, S., Laush, C., Ridgeway, R., Sherer, M., & Trammell, S. (2009). "Guideline for Environmental 

Characterization of Semiconductor Process Equipment - Revision 2", TT#06124825B-ENG, International 

SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative (ISMI), December 2009. Available at: 

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 

http://www.sematech.org/docubase/document/4825beng.pdf.
Page 40 of 241

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 three-point 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 
Page 41 of 241

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 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 
Page 42 of 241

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 fab-specific 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.
Page 43 of 241

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.
Page 44 of 241

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 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.
Page 45 of 241

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.

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 

11. Abatement System Uptime for Facilities that Manufacture Electronics
Page 46 of 241

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 by-product 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 by-product 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 
Page 47 of 241

equivalent to a full year if at least one tool was installed and operating at all times throughout the 

year. 

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.

12. Triennial Technology Report for Semiconductor Manufacturing

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 
Page 48 of 241

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 

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 byproduct 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 by-product formation rates and DRE values 

under the new conditions, and a planned analysis of the effect on overall facility emissions using 

a representative gas-use profile for a 200 mm, 300 mm, or 450 mm fab (depending on which 
Page 49 of 241

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 by-product 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 by-product formation rates and DRE values 

should be included in revised values; and (3) Whether new data are available that would expand 

the existing data set to include new gases, tools, or processes not included in the existing data set 

(i.e. gases, tools, or processes for which no data are currently available). 

The EPA 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.

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. 

13. Final Amendments to Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
Page 50 of 241

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 by-product 

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 subtype.

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 FGHG or N2O during the reporting 

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)
Page 51 of 241

Data Element Change/Revision

Original 

Citation

New or 

Revised 

Citation

year. For all F-GHGs and N2O 

used at your facility for which you 

have not calculated emissions 

using Equations I–6, I–7, I–8, I–9, 

and I–10, the chemical name of the 

GHG used, the annual 

consumption of the gas, and a brief 

description of its use.

All inputs used to calculate gas 

consumption in Equation I-11 for 

each F-GHG and N2O used.

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 “recipespecific” 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 facilityspecific 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 

Corrected citation. 98.96(m)(iii) 98.96(m)(3)
Page 52 of 241

Data Element Change/Revision

Original 

Citation

New or 

Revised 

Citation

mass basis, at your facility in the 

reporting year for the plasma

etching process type and the 

chamber cleaning process type.

The result of the calculation 

comparing the actual and modeled 

gas consumption under 40 CFR 

98.94(c)(2)(iii).

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 FGHG 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)

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 

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. 

98.96(p) NA
Page 53 of 241

Data Element Change/Revision

Original 

Citation

New or 

Revised 

Citation

process type for which these 

systems treat exhaust.

Revised to not require reporting the 

model number of the tools 

associated with each abatement 

system, and to remove the recipespecific references.

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

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).

98.96(q) 98.97(d)

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, I27, 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 

Removed requirement. 98.96(t) NA
Page 54 of 241

Data Element Change/Revision

Original 

Citation

New or 

Revised 

Citation

parameter measured or estimated 

using the method, and the time 

period during which the “best 

available monitoring method” was 

used.

For reporting year 2012 only, the 

date on which you began 

monitoring emissions of F-HTF 

whose vapor pressure falls below 1 

mm of Hg absolute at 25 degrees 

C.

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)

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).
Page 55 of 241

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

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 fab-specific emission factor, the amount of each FGHG 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.

These records must be made available to the EPA for 

review upon request.

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. 

 3 These reporting elements include data elements that have been designated as “inputs to emissions equations” in the 

August 25, 2011 final rule titled, “Change to the Reporting Date for Certain Data Elements Required Under the 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule” (76 FR 53057), and listed in Table A-7 of subpart A. Consistent 

with the 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. 
Page 56 of 241

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 fab-wide 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 
Page 57 of 241

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 sub-type and the 

appropriate default gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates in Tables I-3 to I-8 and I11 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 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 
Page 58 of 241

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.

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). 

14. Changes to Remove BAMM Provisions and Language Specific to Reporting Years 2011, 

2012, and 2013

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. 
Page 59 of 241

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.

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). 

B. Responses to Major Comments Submitted on the Electronics Manufacturing Source Category

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-
Page 60 of 241

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 consumption-weighted 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 
Page 61 of 241

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 representative operating data 

from a previous period covering 30 days or more.

Response

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 

: 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. 
Page 62 of 241

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

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

: 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 straight-forward 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 compound-specific 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. 
Page 63 of 241

for other determinations (e.g., hazardous air pollutants) and was used in Intel stack testing for FGHG 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

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 

: 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.”
Page 64 of 241

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 x (100/%R).As noted by the 

commenter, the use of ASTM D6348-03 could result in the loss of the ability to generate 

compound-specific 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. 
Page 65 of 241

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 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 
Page 66 of 241

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 lowuse 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 by-product 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 
Page 67 of 241

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 
Page 68 of 241

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 

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 
Page 69 of 241

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

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. 

: 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.
Page 70 of 241

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 byproducts 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” by-product 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 byproducts (C3F8, C4F6, c-C4F8 and C5F8) were found in only a handful of tests. The commenter 
Page 71 of 241

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

This approach simplifies the rule, provides certainty for purposes of implementation, and 

relieves facilities of the burden of determining which by-products should be tested for or 

assumed to be emitted if they are not detected. By establishing a comprehensive list of byproducts to include in testing, it also avoids routine underestimates of emissions that could result 

if a facility did not test for a by-product that was in fact emitted. 

: The EPA agrees with the commenters’ suggestion to designate specific FGHGs 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 onehalf of the FDL. If possible by-products are not detected during a round of testing, facilities are 

required to equate their emissions to zero for that round of testing.

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 
Page 72 of 241

identified as a by-product 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 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 
Page 73 of 241

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 
Page 74 of 241

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 EPAHQ-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-HQOAR-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 

re-analyzed 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 
Page 75 of 241

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 I10 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 
Page 76 of 241

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 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 
Page 77 of 241

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 oneyear 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). 
Page 78 of 241

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 re-test, 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 
Page 79 of 241

intermittent low-use 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 retest 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 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 an intermittent lowuse 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.

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 
Page 80 of 241

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 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 by-product 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 

: 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.
Page 81 of 241

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

The commenter provided 168 additional gas utilization and by-product 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 

: Several commenters supported the use of default gas utilization rates and byproduct 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.
Page 82 of 241

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 byproducts would have no discernible effect on reported emissions because the by-product

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:
Page 83 of 241

(1) Used a simple arithmetic averaging method to develop default utilization and byproduct 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 by-product emissions to input F-GHGs 

used in a process by dividing the measured mass emitted of a specific by-product by the total 

mass of all input F-GHGs for that process and assigning this by-product factor to each input FGHG 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 previously available (for C5F8 as an input gas) and revised the utilization rates of nine FGHGs. 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 by-products 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 
Page 84 of 241

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 
Page 85 of 241

EPA used the simple arithmetic mean of all available non-zero by-product emission factor data 

for each gas, wafer size, and process-type or subtype using the revised etch emissions 

database. If additional by-product emission factor data are made available to the EPA in the 

future, and those data include instances where a by-product was looked for, but not detected, and 

field detection limits are provided, the EPA may reassess the by-product 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 byproduct 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.
Page 86 of 241

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 
Page 87 of 241

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 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.

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 

4. Calculating N2O Emissions for Facilities that Manufacture Electronics
Page 88 of 241

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 non-CVD 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.
Page 89 of 241

Comment

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."

: 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.

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 
Page 90 of 241

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 N2O-emitting 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.
Page 91 of 241

5. Abatement System Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE) for Facilities that Manufacture 

Electronics

Comment

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.

: 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.”

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 FGHG or N2O abatement for certain gases and some facilities may wish to account for this 

abatement in calculating emissions. 
Page 92 of 241

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 sitespecific 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 
Page 93 of 241

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

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 site-specific DRE for a particular gas 

and process type/sub-type combination, especially if a facility began a program of adding 

: 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.
Page 94 of 241

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 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:
Page 95 of 241

(1) Include the measured DRE for the unit in the calculation of the site-specific 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 site-specific 

average would enable a facility to choose whether it wants to accept a lower DRE for its sitespecific 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 
Page 96 of 241

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. 
Page 97 of 241

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 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 

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.

 4 The 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). 
Page 98 of 241

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 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 
Page 99 of 241

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 sitespecific 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. 
Page 100 of 241

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-OAR2011-0028-0074, 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 fabaverage would still fully protect against the risk of under-estimating emissions in reporting due 

to a default DRE that is too high. The commenters suggested that the majority of fabs would 

 5 p. 3 of Technical Support for Accounting for Destruction or Removal Efficiency for Electronics Manufacturing 

Facilities under Subpart I, EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0082.
Page 101 of 241

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 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:

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. 

(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 

 6 See EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0095.
Page 102 of 241

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 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 

under-estimation 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 
Page 103 of 241

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.
Page 104 of 241

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 

Fabs Devices Analysis)

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
Page 105 of 241

Gas/Process Number of 

 

Mean Standard Deviations Calculated DRE 

 

 

NF3 31 98.51 0.0 4.20 96.3

Chamber Clean

NF3 (All subtypes 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 site-specific 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 
Page 106 of 241

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 
Page 107 of 241

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 (σ(Fabs) and σ(Devices)) for the carbonbased 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. 
Page 108 of 241

Table 4. Combined Etch DRE for Non-CF4 Carbon-Based F-GHG 

Input 

Gas

DRE 

Fixed 

Effect

DRE 

Count Fabs σ(Fabs)

σ(Device

s) 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

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 sitespecific 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.

: Several commenters expressed concern regarding the certification 

requirements for abatement systems under proposed 40 CFR 98.94(f) and 40 CFR 98.96(q). 

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, 
Page 109 of 241

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-HQOAR-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.

 7 Questions Generated from SIA/EPA Conference Calls and Outstanding Questions from Work Plan Appendices, 

March 29, 2012.
Page 110 of 241

Response

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 

: 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 fab-specific 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).
Page 111 of 241

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 

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 
Page 112 of 241

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 sitespecific 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 
Page 113 of 241

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 
Page 114 of 241

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 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 I24). 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 
Page 115 of 241

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
Page 116 of 241

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
Page 117 of 241

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 high-volume 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 
Page 118 of 241

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

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 

: 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.

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.
Page 119 of 241

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 recipe-specific 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 widespread 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 
Page 120 of 241

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 recipespecific 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 
Page 121 of 241

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-
Page 122 of 241

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 site-wide 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. 

Response

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 

: 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 facility-wide 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)
Page 123 of 241

calculate the facility-wide 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 
Page 124 of 241

Equation I-24, regardless of any accounting for GWPs, would result in an artificially high fabwide 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 FGHGs 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 by-product 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. 
Page 125 of 241

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.

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).

9. Technical corrections in response to public comments.

III. Confidentiality Determinations for New and Revised Subpart I Data Elements and 

Responses to Public Comments

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.

A. Final Confidentiality Determinations for New and Revised Subpart I Data Elements

8

 8 The 2011 Final CBI Rule created 11 direct emitter data categories, including the 10 data categories listed in Table 

5 of this preamble and an inputs to emissions equations data category. However, EPA has not made final 

confidentiality determinations for any data element assigned to the inputs to emissions equations data category either 

in the 2011 Final CBI Rule or any other rulemaking. 

The 25 

new or revised data elements are assigned to one of the 10 data categories listed in 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. 
Page 126 of 241

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 Dataa

Data That Are 

Not Emission 

Data and Not 

CBI

Data That Are 

Not Emission 

Data But Are 

CBIb

Facility and Unit Identifier 

Information

X

Emissions X

Calculation Methodology and 

Methodological Tier

X

Data Elements Reported for 

Periods of Missing Data that are 

Not Inputs to Emission Equations

X

Unit/Process “Static” 

Characteristics that are Not Inputs 

to Emission Equations

Xc Xc

Unit/Process Operating 

Characteristics that are Not Inputs 

to Emission Equations

Xc Xc

Test and Calibration Methods X

Production/Throughput Data that 

are Not Inputs to Emission 

Equations

X

Raw Materials Consumed that are 

Not Inputs to Emission Equations

X

Process-Specific and Vendor Data 

Submitted in BAMM Extension 

Requests

X

a Under CAA section 114(c), “emission data” are not entitled to confidential treatment. The term 

“emission data” is defined at 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i).

b Section 114(c) of the CAA affords confidential treatment to data (except emission data) that are 

considered CBI.

c In the 2011 Final CBI Rule, this data category contains both data elements determined to be CBI and 

those determined not to be CBI. See discussion in Section 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 
Page 127 of 241

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-HQOAR-2011-0028.

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.

B. Public Comments on 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.
Page 128 of 241

Comment: One commenter questioned the determination that the confidentiality of the 

identification of the quantifiable metric used in the fab-specific 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 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 fab-specific instead of facilityspecific 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 facility-specific 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 fabbased and facility-based quantifiable metrics may be the same. Because the commenter did not 

: 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-by-case basis, in accordance with existing confidentiality 

regulations in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
Page 129 of 241

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, 
Page 130 of 241

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 
Page 131 of 241

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 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 

: 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 process-specific 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. 
Page 132 of 241

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.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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).

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

Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

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
Page 133 of 241

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.

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 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

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. 

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.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Page 134 of 241

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-for-profit 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 USC 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 as 

economically and technically burdensome. In addition, the EPA has provided a number of 
Page 135 of 241

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 FGases: Subpart I Final Report,” August 2012). We have therefore concluded that this final rule 

will relieve regulatory burden for all affected small entities.

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). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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 
Page 136 of 241

processes that are subject to reporting under subpart I and which would be affected by these final 

rule amendments.

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. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

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 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).

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 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments
Page 137 of 241

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).

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.

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

Risks

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.

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

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 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.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Page 138 of 241

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 
Page 139 of 241

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.

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive 

policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations
Page 140 of 241

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 lowincome 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.

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 

K. Congressional Review Act

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.
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program: Final Amendments 

and Confidentiality Determinations for Subpart I

Page 141 of 241

List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 98

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Greenhouse gases, 

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated:

Gina McCarthy

Administrator
Page 142 of 241

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

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

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart A—[Amended]

1. 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/semiconductorpfc/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).

* * * * *
Page 143 of 241

(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).

2. 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).”

Subpart I—[Amended]

3. 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:

(a) * * *

§ 98.91 Reporting threshold.

(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) * * *

* * * * *
Page 144 of 241

WX = Maximum substrate starts of fab f in month x (m2 per month).

* * * * *

4. 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:

(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:

§ 98.92 GHGs to report.

(1) Fluorinated GHGs emitted.

* * * * *

(6) All fluorinated GHGs and N2O consumed.

* * * * *

5. 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);
Page 145 of 241

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 additions read as follows:

(a) You must calculate total annual emissions of each fluorinated GHG emitted by

electronics manufacturing production processes from each fab (as defined in § 98.98) at your 

facility, including each input gas and each by-product gas. You must use either default gas 

utilization rates and by-product formations rates according to the procedures in paragraphs 

(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. 

§ 98.93 Calculating GHG emissions.

(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).
Page 146 of 241

(Eq. I-6)

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.

(Eq. I-7)

Where:

ProcesstypeBEk = Annual emissions of by-product gas k from the processes type on a 

fab basis (metric tons).

BEijk = Annual emissions of by-product gas k formed from input gas i used 

for process sub-type or process type j as calculated in Equation I–9 of 

this subpart (metric tons).

N = The total number of process sub-types j that depends on the 

electronics manufacturing fab and emission calculation methodology. 

If BEijk is calculated for a process type j in Equation I–9 of this 

subpart, N = 1.

i = Input gas.

j = Process sub-type, or process type.

k = By-product gas.

(i) You must calculate annual fab-level emissions of each fluorinated GHG used for the 

plasma etching/wafer cleaning process type using default utilization and by-product formation 
Page 147 of 241

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.

Eij = Cij ∗ (1 − Uij) ∗ �1 − (aij ∗ dij ∗ UTij)� ∗ 0.001 (Eq. I-8)

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.

BEijk = Bijk ∗ Cij ∗ �1 − (aij ∗ djk ∗ UTijk)� ∗ 0.001 (Eq. I-9)

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).
Page 148 of 241

Bijk = By-product formation rate of gas k created as a by-product per 

amount of input gas i (kg) consumed by process sub-type or process 

type j (kg).

Cij = Amount of input gas i consumed for process sub-type, or process type 

j, as calculated in Equation I–13 of this subpart, on a fab basis (kg).

aij = Fraction of input gas i used for process sub-type, or process type j 

with abatement systems, on a fab basis (expressed as a decimal 

fraction).

djk = Fraction of by-product gas k destroyed or removed in abatement 

systems connected to process tools where process sub-type, or process 

type j is used, on a fab basis (expressed as a decimal fraction). This is 

zero unless the facility adheres to the requirements in § 98.94(f). 

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 fab-level emissions of each fluorinated GHG used for each 

of the process sub-types associated with the chamber cleaning process type, including in-situ 

plasma chamber clean, remote plasma chamber clean, and in-situ thermal chamber clean, using 

default utilization and by-product formation rates as shown in Table I–3 or I–4 of this subpart, 

and by using Equations I–8 and I–9 of this subpart.

(iii) If default values are not available for a particular input gas and process type or subtype 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 fab-level 

emissions of each fluorinated GHG used for the plasma etching and chamber cleaning process 
Page 149 of 241

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 fab-level 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 (b)(2) of 

this section. If your fab uses less than 50 kg of N2O in one reporting year, you may calculate fab 

emissions as equal to your fab’s annual consumption for N2O as calculated in Equation I–11 of 

this subpart.

E(N2O)j = CN2O,j ∗ (1 − UN2O,j) ∗ �1 − (aN2O,j ∗ dN2O,j ∗ UTN2O)� ∗ 0.001 (Eq. I-10)
Page 150 of 241

Where:

E(N2O)j = Annual emissions of N2O for N2O-using process j, on a fab basis

(metric tons).

CN2O,j = Amount of N2O consumed for N2O-using process j, as calculated in 

Equation I–13 of this subpart and apportioned to N2O process j, on a 

fab basis (kg).

UN2O,j = Process utilization factor for N2O-using process j (expressed as a 

decimal fraction) from Table I-8 of this subpart.

aN2O,j = Fraction of N2O used in N2O-using process j with abatement 

systems, on a fab basis (expressed as a decimal fraction).

dN2O,j = Fraction of N2O for N2O-using process j destroyed or removed in 

abatement systems connected to process tools where process j is used, 

on a fab basis (expressed as a decimal fraction). This is zero unless 

the facility adheres to the requirements in § 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 
Page 151 of 241

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 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 § 
Page 152 of 241

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).
Page 153 of 241

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.

(f) [Reserved.]

(g) If you report controlled emissions pursuant to § 98.94(f), you must calculate the 

uptime of all the abatement systems for each combination of input gas or by-product gas, and 

process sub-type or process type, by using Equation I–15 of this subpart.

UTij = 1 − ∑p Tdijp

∑p UTijp

(Eq. I-15)

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 
Page 154 of 241

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 
Page 155 of 241

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

(1) 

. As an alternative to the default emission factor method in 

paragraph (a) of this section, you may calculate fab-level fluorinated GHG emissions using fabspecific 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 

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.

Preliminary estimate of emissions by stack system in the fab

(i) When you are calculating preliminary estimates for the purpose of this paragraph 

(i)(1), you must consider the subscript “j” in Equations I-8 and I-9, and I-13 of this subpart to 

mean “stack system” instead of “process sub-type or process type.” For the value of aij, the 

. 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.
Page 156 of 241

fraction of input gas i that is used in tools with abatement systems, for use in Equations I-8 and I9, 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 
Page 157 of 241

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.
Page 158 of 241

(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

(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.

. 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.
Page 159 of 241

(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 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.

m

N

s

ism

is i j t

X

SV

E = MW Q ∑ ∆ = *

10

*

10

1 * 1 * *

3 1 9 (Eq. I-17)

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).

∆tm = 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. 

m

N

m

ksm

ks k s t

X

SV

E = MW Q ∑ ∆ = *

10

*

10

1 * 1 * *

3 1 9 (Eq. I-18)

Where:

Eks = Total fluorinated GHG by-product gas k, emitted from stack system s, 

during the sampling period (kg).
Page 160 of 241

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/gmole).

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).

∆tm = 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 by-product, 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.
Page 161 of 241

(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.

( )

































−

− +

=

∑

1 ( * )

1

*

if if

f

if f

s

is

if

a d

UT

Activity UT

E

EF (Eq. I-19)

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, 
Page 162 of 241

as determined following the procedures specified in § 98.94(j)(3) (kg 

consumed).

UTf = The total uptime of all abatement systems for fab f, during the 

sampling period, as calculated in Equation I-23 of this subpart 

(expressed as decimal fraction). If the stack system does not have 

abatement systems on the tools vented to the stack system, the value 

of this parameter is zero.

aif = Fraction of fluorinated GHG input gas i used in fab f in tools with 

abatement systems (expressed as a decimal fraction).

dif = Fraction of fluorinated GHG input gas i destroyed or removed in 

abatement systems connected to process tools in fab f, as calculated in 

Equation I-24 of this subpart (expressed as decimal fraction). If the 

stack system does not have abatement systems on the tools vented to 

the stack system, the value of this parameter is zero.

f = Fab.

i = Fluorinated GHG input gas.

s = Stack system.

(iv) You must calculate a fab-specific emission factor for each fluorinated GHG formed 

as a by-product (in kg of fluorinated GHG per kg of total fluorinated GHG consumed) in the 

tools vented to stack systems that are tested, as applicable, using Equation I-20 of this subpart. 

When calculating the by-product emission factor for an input gas for which emissions exceeded 

its consumption, exclude the consumption of that input gas from the term “∑(Activityif).”

( )

∑( )

∑

































−

− +

=

i f kf

f

if f

s

ks

kf

( a * d )

UT

Activity * UT

E

EF

1

1

(Eq. I-20)

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).
Page 163 of 241

Eks = Mass emission of fluorinated GHG by-product gas k, emitted from 

stack system s, during the sampling period (kg emitted).

Activityif = Consumption of fluorinated GHG input gas i for fab f in tools vented 

to stack systems that are tested, during the sampling period as 

determined following the procedures specified in § 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 fab-level emissions of each fluorinated GHG consumed

using Equation I-21 of this section. 

( ) ( ) if f

if if

if

if if if f C UT

a d

EF

E EF C UT − − = + * * 1

1 ( * )

* * (Eq. I-21)

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).
Page 164 of 241

UTf = The total uptime of all abatement systems for fab f, during the 

reporting year, as calculated using Equation I-23 of this subpart 

(expressed as a decimal fraction).

aif = Fraction of fluorinated GHG input gas i used in fab f in tools with 

abatement systems (expressed as a decimal fraction).

dif = Fraction of fluorinated GHG input gas i destroyed or removed in 

abatement systems connected to process tools in fab f that are 

included in the stack testing option, as calculated in Equation I-24 of 

this subpart (expressed as decimal fraction).

f = Fab.

i = Fluorinated GHG input gas.

(vi) You must calculate annual fab-level emissions of each fluorinated GHG by-product 

formed using Equation I-22 of this section. 

( ) ∑ ∑ ( − ) − = +

i

if f

f kf

kf

f

i

kf kf if C UT

a d

EF

E EF C UT * * 1

1 ( * )

* * (Eq. I-22)

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 f that are 

included in the stack testing option, as calculated in Equation I-24 of 

this subpart (expressed as decimal fraction).

f = Fab.
Page 165 of 241

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.

UTf = 1 − ∑p Tdpf

∑p UTpf

(Eq. I-23)

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.
Page 166 of 241

dif = ∑j Cijf∗DREij

∑j Cijf

(Eq. I-24)

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 
Page 167 of 241

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 low-use 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 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 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 byproduct 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 
Page 168 of 241

each fluorinated GHG from all fabs at your facility to determine the facility-level emissions of 

each fluorinated GHG.

6. Section 98.94 is amended by:

a. Removing and reserving paragraph (a);

b. Revising paragraph (b), paragraph (c) introductory text, and paragraph (c)(2);

c. Adding paragraph (c)(3);

d. Removing and reserving paragraphs (d) and (e);

e. Revising paragraph (f);

f. Removing and reserving paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2);

g. Revising paragraphs (g)(3) and (g)(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: 

(a) [Reserved.]

§ 98.94 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.

(b) For purposes of Equation I–12 of this subpart, you must estimate fab-wide gasspecific 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 low-use fluorinated GHG for which you calculate emissions according to § 

98.93(i)(4)(i).
Page 169 of 241

(1) Base your fab-wide gas-specific heel factors on the trigger point for change out of a 

container for each container size and type for each gas used. Fab-wide gas-specific heel factors 

must be expressed as the ratio of the trigger point for change out, in terms of mass, to the initial 

mass in the container, as determined by paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section.

(2) The trigger points for change out you use to calculate fab-wide gas-specific heel 

factors in paragraph (b)(1) of this section must be determined by monitoring the mass or the 

pressure of your containers. If you monitor the pressure, convert the pressure to mass using the 

ideal gas law, as displayed in Equation I–25 of this subpart, with the appropriate Z value selected 

based upon the properties of the gas.

(Eq. I-25)

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 
Page 170 of 241

of gas. When using mass-based trigger points for change out, you must determine if an 

exceptional circumstance has occurred based on the net weight of gas in the container, excluding 

the tare weight of the container.

(i) For containers with a maximum storage capacity of less than 9.08 kg (20 lbs) of gas, 

an exceptional circumstance is a change out point that differs by more than 50 percent from the 

trigger point for change out used to calculate your fab-wide gas-specific heel factor for that gas 

and container type.

(ii) For all other containers, an exceptional circumstance is a change out point that differs 

by more than 20 percent from the trigger point for change out used to calculate your fab-wide 

gas-specific heel factor for that gas and container type.

(5) You must re-calculate a fab-wide gas-specific heel factor if you execute a process 

change to modify the trigger point for change out for a gas and container type that differs by 

more than 5 percent from the previously used trigger point for change out for that gas and 

container type.

(c) You must develop apportioning factors for fluorinated GHG and N2O consumption

(including the fraction of gas consumed by process tools connected to abatement systems as in 

Equations I-8, I-9, I-10, 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.
Page 171 of 241

* * * * *

(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.
Page 172 of 241

(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 fluorinated-GHG 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 fab-specific engineering model, you may develop apportioning factors 

through the use of direct measurement using gas flow meters and weigh scales to measure 

process sub-type, process type, stack system, or fab-specific input gas consumption. You may 

use a combination of apportioning factors developed using a fab-specific engineering model and 

apportioning factors developed through the use of direct measurement, provided this is 

documented in your site GHG Monitoring Plan as required under 98.3(g)(5). 

(d) [Reserved.]

(e) [Reserved.]

(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 
Page 173 of 241

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 
Page 174 of 241

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 sub-type 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 
Page 175 of 241

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 subtype or process type combination, as applicable. Following testing on 20 percent of abatement 

systems for that gas and process sub-type or process type combination, you must calculate the 

average destruction or removal efficiency as the arithmetic mean of all test results for that gas 

and process sub-type or process type combination, until you have tested at least 30 percent of all 
Page 176 of 241

abatement systems for each gas and process sub-type or process type combination. After testing 

at least 30 percent of all systems for a gas and process sub-type or process type combination, you 

must use the arithmetic mean of the most recent 30 percent of systems tested as the average 

destruction or removal efficiency. 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 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 
Page 177 of 241

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) * * *

(1) [Reserved.]

(2) [Reserved.]

(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 
Page 178 of 241

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

(1) 

. 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. 

Stack system testing

(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 

. Conduct an emissions test for each applicable stack system 

according to the procedures in paragraphs (j)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.
Page 179 of 241

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 
Page 180 of 241

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

(3) 

. You must adhere to the applicable test methods and 

procedures specified in Table I-9 to this subpart, or adhere to an alternative method approved by 

the Administrator (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.

Fab-specific fluorinated GHG consumption measurements

(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 

. 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).
Page 181 of 241

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 period-beginning, sampling period-ending, and container 

change-out pressures to masses using Equation I-25 of this subpart, with the appropriate Z value 

selected based upon the properties of the gas (e.g., the Z value yielded by the Redlich, Kwong, 

Soave equation of state with appropriate values for that gas). Apply the temperatures measured at 

or nearest to the beginning and end of the sampling period and to the time(s) when containers are 

changed out, as applicable. For each gas, the consumption during the sampling period is the 

difference between the masses of the containers of that gas at the beginning and at the end of the 

sampling period, summed across containers, including containers that are changed out. 

(ii) For each fluorinated GHG gas for which consumption is too low to be accurately 

measured during the sampling period using gas flow meters, scales, or pressure measurements as 

specified in paragraph (j)(3)(i) of this section, you must follow at least one of the procedures 

listed in paragraph (j)(3)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section to obtain a consumption measurement.

(A) Draw the gas from a single gas container if it is normally supplied from multiple 

containers connected by a shared manifold. 
Page 182 of 241

(B) Calculate consumption from pro-rated long-term consumption data (for example, 

calculate and use hourly consumption rates from monthly consumption data).

(C) Increase the duration of the sampling period for consumption measurement beyond 

the minimum duration specified in Table I-9 of this subpart.

(4) Emission test results

(5) 

. 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. 

Emissions testing frequency

(i) 

. You must conduct emissions testing to develop fabspecific emission factors on a frequency according to the procedures in paragraph (j)(5)(i) or (ii) 

of this section.

Annual testing

(ii) 

. 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.

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 
Page 183 of 241

(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 CO2e in paragraphs 

(j)(5)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section.
Page 184 of 241

(6) Subsequent measurements

(7) 

. 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.

Previous measurements

(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.

. 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.

(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.
Page 185 of 241

(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 re-test does not 

extend the date of the next scheduled test that was established prior to meeting the requirement to 

perform a re-test. If the criteria specified in paragraph (j)(5)(ii) of this section are not met using 

the results from the re-test and the two most recent stack tests, you must use the emission factors 

developed from the most recent testing to calculate emissions and resume annual testing. You 
Page 186 of 241

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.
Page 187 of 241

(k) You may request approval to use an alternative stack test method and procedure or to 

use an alternative method to determine abatement system destruction or removal efficiency by 

adhering to the requirements in paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(6) of this section. An alternative 

method is any method of sampling and analyzing for a fluorinated GHG or N2O, or the 

determination of parameters other than concentration, for example, flow measurements, that is 

not a method specified in this subpart and that has been demonstrated to the Administrator’s 

satisfaction, using Method 301 in appendix A of part 63, to produce results adequate for the 

Administrator’s determination that it may be used in place of a method specified elsewhere in 

this subpart.

(1) You may use an alternative method from that specified in this subpart provided that 

you:

(i) Notify the Administrator (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 rationale for not using the specified method.
Page 188 of 241

(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 
Page 189 of 241

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.

7. Section 98.96 is amended by:

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

b. Revising paragraphs (c) introductory text, (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3); 

c. Adding paragraph (c)(5);

d. Removing and reserving paragraphs (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), and (l);
Page 190 of 241

e. Revising paragraph (m) introductory text; 

f. Redesignating paragraphs (m)(i) through (m)(iv) as paragraphs (m)(1) through (m)(4), 

and revising new paragraphs (m)(1), (m)(3) and (m)(4); 

g. Adding paragraph (m)(5);

h. Removing and reserving paragraphs (n) and (o);

i. Revising paragraphs (p), (q), (r), and (s);

j. Removing and reserving paragraphs (t), (u), and (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 sub-type as 

calculated in Equations I–8 and I–9 of this subpart, as applicable.
Page 191 of 241

(3) N2O emitted from all chemical vapor deposition processes and N2O emitted from the 

aggregate of other N2O-using manufacturing processes as calculated in Equation I–10 of this 

subpart.

* * * * *

(5) When you use the procedures specified in § 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.

(2) The start and end dates selected under § 98.94(c)(2)(i).

(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.

* * * * *
Page 192 of 241

(p) Inventory and description of all abatement systems through which fluorinated GHGs 

or N2O flow at your facility and for which you are claiming destruction or removal efficiency, 

including:

(1) The number of abatement systems controlling emissions for each process sub-type, or 

process type, as applicable, for each gas used in the process sub-type or process type. 

(2) The basis of the destruction or removal efficiency being used (default or site specific 

measurement according to § 98.94(f)(4)(i)) for each process sub-type or process type and for 

each gas. 

(q) For all abatement systems through which fluorinated GHGs or N2O flow at your 

facility, for which you are reporting controlled emissions, 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.
Page 193 of 241

(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 fab-wide 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. 





















+ + −

+

= −

∑

∑ ∑

j

N O j N O j N O

j

j N O

i

i i

FAB UAFGHG SFGHG C U GWP

FGHG GWP N O GWP

DRE

2 , 2 , 2

2 2

* (1 ) *

* *

1 (Eq. I-26)

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 N2O-emitting 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.
Page 194 of 241

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).

= ∑∑ − + ∑∑

i j

ij ijk k

i j

UAFGHG Cij* (1 Uij )* GWPi C * B * GWP (Eq. I-27)

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.
Page 195 of 241

GWPk = GWP of emitted fluorinated GHG by-product k, from Table A-1 of 

this part. For those fluorinated GHGs for which Table A-1 to subpart 

A of this part does not define a GWP value, use a GWP value of 

2,000 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 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.

( ( )) ( ( )) ∑ ∑ ∑ 















− +

















− = k

k

i

if

f kf

kf

i

if i

if if

if C GWP a d

EF

C GWP a d

EF

SFGHG * * 1 * * * 1 *

Eq. I-28)

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). 
Page 196 of 241

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 by-product k, from Table A-1 of 

this part. For those fluorinated GHGs for which Table A-1 to subpart 

A of this part does not define a GWP value, use a GWP value of 

2,000 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.

* * * * *
Page 197 of 241

(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 
Page 198 of 241

section. Any other semiconductor manufacturing facility may voluntarily submit this report to 

the Administrator.

(1) The first report must be submitted with the annual GHG emissions report that is due 

no later than March 31, 2017, and subsequent reports must be delivered every 3 years no later 

than March 31 of the year in which it is due.

(2) The report must include the information described in paragraphs (y)(2)(i) through (v) 

of this section.

(i) It must describe how the gases and technologies used in semiconductor manufacturing 

using 200 mm and 300 mm wafers in the United States have changed in the past 3 years and 

whether any of the identified changes are likely to have affected the emissions characteristics of 

semiconductor manufacturing processes in such a way that the default utilization and by-product 

formation rates or default destruction or removal efficiency 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. 
Page 199 of 241

(v) It must describe the use of a new gas, use of an existing gas in a new process type or 

sub-type, or a fundamental change in process technology.

(3) If, on the basis of the information reported in paragraph (y)(2) of this section, the 

report indicates that GHG emissions from semiconductor manufacturing may have changed from 

those represented by the default utilization and by-product formation rates in Tables I-3 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 byproduct 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 by-product 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,
Page 200 of 241

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 by-product formation rates and destruction or removal efficiency values should be 

included in revised values.

(iii) Whether new data are available that could expand the existing data set to include 

new gases, tools, or processes not included in the existing data set (i.e. gases, tools, or processes 

for which no data are currently available). 

(6) The Administrator will review the reports within 120 days and will notify you of 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.

8. Section 98.97 is amended by:

a. Removing and reserving paragraph (b);

b. Revising paragraph (c); 

c. Revising paragraph (d); and 

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

The revisions and additions read as follows: 
Page 201 of 241

* * * * *

§ 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:
Page 202 of 241

(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 site-specific destruction or removal efficiencies are used to 

report emissions, the information in paragraphs (d)(4)(i) though (vi) of this section: 

(i) Dated certification by the technician who made the measurement that the destruction 

or removal efficiency is calculated in accordance with methods in EPA 430–R–10–003 

(incorporated by reference, see § 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 
Page 203 of 241

EPA 430–R–10–003 (incorporated by reference, see § 98.7) and, if applicable, the records and 

documentation specified in Appendix A of this subpart including the information required in 

paragraph (b)(7) of Appendix A of this subpart, or a final report as specified in an alternative 

method approved by the Administrator as specified in § 98.94(k).

(ii) The average destruction or removal efficiency of the abatement systems operating 

during the reporting year for each process type and gas combination.

(iii) A description of the calculation used to determine the average destruction or removal 

efficiency for each process type and gas combination, including all inputs to the calculation.

(iv) The records of destruction or removal efficiency measurements for abatement 

systems for all tests that have been used to determine the site-specific destruction or removal 

efficiencies currently being used.

(v) A description of the method used for randomly selecting abatement systems for 

testing.

(vi) The total number of systems for which destruction or removal efficiency was 

properly measured for each process type and gas combination for the reporting year.

(5) In addition to the inventory 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.
Page 204 of 241

(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 sitespecific value.

(8) Records of all inputs and the results of the calculation of the facility-wide emission 

destruction or removal efficiency factor calculated according to 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 
Page 205 of 241

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 fab-specific emission factor, including the actual fab-specific emission factor, the 
Page 206 of 241

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 by-product, 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.
Page 207 of 241

(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. 

(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. 
Page 208 of 241

(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.

9. Section 98.98 is amended by:

a. Removing the definitions of “Class,” “Individual recipe,” and “Similar, with respect to 

recipes.”

b. Adding a definition for “Fab,” “Fully fluorinated GHGs,” “Input gas,” “Intermittent 

low-use fluorinated GHG,” “Representative operating levels,” “Stack system,” and “Unabated 

emissions.”

c. Revising the definitions of “Abatement system,” “By-product formation,” “Gas 

utilization,” “Operational mode,” “Process types,” “Properly measured destruction or removal 

efficiency,” “Trigger point for change out,” “Uptime,” and “Wafer passes.”

d. Revising the definition of “Maximum designed substrate starts” to “Maximum 

substrate starts.”

The revisions read as follows:

* * * * *

§ 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 
Page 209 of 241

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.
Page 210 of 241

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

(1) The fluorinated GHG is used by the fab but is not used during the period of stack 

testing for the fab/stack system.

, for the purposes of determining fluorinated GHG 

emissions using the stack testing method, means a fluorinated GHG that meets all of the 

following:

(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 I17 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 
Page 211 of 241

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.

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.
Page 212 of 241

* * * * *

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.
Page 213 of 241

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.

10. Table I-1 to subpart I is amended by revising the footnote to read as follows:

Table I–1 to Subpart I of Part 98—Default Emission Factors for Threshold Applicability 

Determination

* * * * *

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

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

Table I–3 to Subpart I of Part 98—Default Emission Factors (1–Uij) for Gas Utilization 

Rates (Uij) and By-Product Formation Rates (Bijk) for Semiconductor Manufacturing for 

150mm and 200 mm Wafer Sizes

Process 

Type/

SubType

Process Gas i

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

ETCHING/ WAFER CLEANING

1-Ui 0.81 0.72 0.50 0.13 0.064 0.51 NA 0.14 0.19 0.55 0.17 0.072 NA

BCF4 NA 0.10 0.085 0.079 0.077 NA NA 0.11 0.0040 0.13 0.13 NA NA

BC2F6 0.046 NA 0.030 0.025 0.024 NA NA 0.037 0.025 0.11 0.11 0.014 NA

BC4F6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

BC4F

8

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

BC3F8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

BC5F

8

0.0012 NA 0.0012 NA NA NA NA 0.0086 NA NA NA NA NA

BCH

F3

0.10 0.047 NA 0.049 NA 0.0034 NA 0.040 NA 0.0012 0.066 0.0039 NA
Page 214 of 241

Process 

Type/

SubType

Process Gas i

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

CHAMBER CLEANING

In situ plasma cleaning

1-Ui 0.92 0.55 NA NA NA NA 0.40 0.10 0.18 NA NA NA 0.14

BCF4 NA 0.21 NA NA NA NA 0.20 0.11 0.050 NA NA NA 0.13

BC2F6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.045

BC3F8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Remote plasma cleaning

1-Ui NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.018 NA NA NA NA

BCF4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.015 NA NA NA NA

BC2F6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

BC3F8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

In situ thermal cleaning

1-Ui NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

BCF4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

BC2F6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

BC3F8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Notes: NA = Not applicable; i.e., there are no applicable default emission factor measurements for this 

gas. This does not necessarily imply that a particular gas is not used in or emitted from a particular 

process sub-type or process type.
Page 215 of 241

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

Table I–4 to Subpart I of Part 98–Default Emission Factors (1–Uij) for Gas Utilization Rates (Uij) and By-Product Formation 

Rates (Bijk) for Semiconductor Manufacturing for 300 mm and 450 mm Wafer Size

Process 

Type/SubType

Process Gas i

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

ETCHING/WAFER CLEANING

1-Ui 0.65 0.80 0.42 0.21 0.33 0.30 0.18 0.15 0.32 0.15 0.10 NA

BCF4 NA 0.21 0.095 0.049 0.045 0.21 0.045 0.046 0.040 0.059 0.11 NA

BC2F6 0.079 NA 0.064 0.052 0.00087 0.18 0.031 0.045 0.044 0.074 0.083 NA

BC4F6 NA NA 0.00010 NA NA NA 0.018 NA NA NA NA NA

BC4F8 0.00063 NA 0.00080 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

BC3F8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.00012 NA

BCHF3 0.011 NA NA 0.050 0.0057 0.012 0.027 0.025 0.0037 0.019 0.0069 NA

BCH2F2 NA NA 0.0036 NA 0.0023 NA 0.0015 0.00086 0.000029 0.000030 NA NA

BCH3F 0.0080 NA 0.0080 0.0080 NA 0.00073 NA 0.0080 NA NA NA NA

CHAMBER CLEANING

In situ plasma cleaning

1-Ui NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.23 NA NA NA NA

BCF4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.037 NA NA NA NA

BC2F6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

BC3F8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Remote plasma cleaning

1-Ui NA NA NA NA NA 0.063 NA 0.018 NA NA NA NA

BCF4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.075 NA NA NA NA
Page 216 of 241

Process 

Type/SubType

Process Gas i

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

BC2F6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

BC3F8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

In situ thermal cleaning

1-Ui NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.28 NA NA NA NA

BCF4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.010 NA NA NA NA

BC2F6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

BC3F8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Notes: NA = Not applicable; i.e., there are no applicable default emission factor measurements for this gas. This does not necessarily imply that a 

particular gas is not used in or emitted from a particular process sub-type or process type.
Page 217 of 241

13. Table I-5 to subpart I is amended by revising the entries for “CVD 1-Ui,” “CVD 

BCF4,” and “CVD BC3F8;” and by revising the footnote to read as follows: 

Table I–5 to Subpart I of Part 98—Default Emission Factors (1–Uij) for Gas Utilization 

Rates (Uij) and By-Product Formation Rates (Bijk) for MEMS Manufacturing

Process type factors

Process gas i

CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C3F8 c-C4F8

NF3

Remote NF3SF6 C4F6a C5F8a C4F8Oa

* * * * * * *

CVD Chamber Cleaning 1–Ui 0.9 0.6 NA NA 0.4 0.1 0.02 0.2 NA NA 0.1 0.1

CVD Chamber Cleaning BCF4 NA 0.1 NA NA 0.1 0.1 b0.02 b0.1 NA NA 0.1 0.1

CVD Chamber Cleaning BC3F8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.4

Notes: NA = Not applicable; i.e., there are no applicable default emission factor measurements for this 

gas. This does not necessarily imply that a particular gas is not used in or emitted from a particular 

process sub-type or process type. a Estimate includes multi-gas etch processes.

b Estimate reflects presence of low-k, carbide and multi-gas etch processes that may contain a Ccontaining fluorinated GHG additive.

14. Table I-6 to subpart I is amended by revising the entries for “CVD 1-Ui” and by 

revising the footnote to read as follows: 

Table I–6 to Subpart I of Part 98—Default Emission Factors (1–Uij) for Gas Utilization 

Rates (Uij) and By-Product Formation Rates (Bijk) for LCD Manufacturing

Process type factors

Process Gas i

CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C3F8 c-C4F8

NF3

Remote NF3 SF6

* * * * * * *

CVD Chamber Cleaning 1–Ui NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.03 0.3 0.9

Notes: NA = Not applicable; i.e., there are no applicable default emission factor measurements for this 

gas. This does not necessarily imply that a particular gas is not used in or emitted from a particular 

process sub-type or process type.

15. Table I-7 to subpart I is amended by revising the entries for “CVD 1-Ui” and “CVD 

BCF4” and by revising the footnote to read as follows: 
Page 218 of 241

Table I–7 to Subpart I of Part 98—Default Emission Factors (1–Uij) for Gas Utilization 

Rates (Uij) and By-Product Formation Rates (Bijk) for PV Manufacturing

Process type factors

Process Gas i

CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C3F8 c-C4F8

NF3

Remote NF3 SF6

* * * * * * *

CVD Chamber Cleaning 1–Ui NA 0.6 NA NA 0.1 0.1 NA 0.3 0.4

CVD Chamber Cleaning BCF4 NA 0.2 NA NA 0.2 0.1 NA NA NA

Notes: NA = Not applicable; i.e., there are no applicable default emission factor measurements for this 

gas. This does not necessarily imply that a particular gas is not used in or emitted from a particular 

process sub-type or process type.

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

Table I-9 to Subpart I of Part 98—Methods and Procedures for Conducting Emissions 

Tests for Stack Systems

For each stack system for 

which you use the “stack 

test method” to calculate 

annual emissions... You must... Using...

For each fluorinated GHG Measure the concentration in the 

stack system.

Method 320 at 40 CFR part 63, 

appendix A or ASTM D6348-03a 

(incorporated by reference, see § 

98.7). Conduct the test run for a 

minimum of 8 hours for each 

stack system.

Select sampling port locations 

and the number of traverse 

points.

Method 1 or 1A at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-1. 

Determine gas velocity and 

volumetric flow rate.

Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G 

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1 

and A-2.

Determine gas molecular weight. Method 3, 3A, or 3B at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-2 using the 

same sampling site and time as 

fluorinated GHG sampling.

Measure gas moisture content. Method 4 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-3, or using FTIRb.

a Reporters may use ASTM D6348-03 (incorporated by reference, see § 98.7) as an alternative to Method 
Page 219 of 241

320 at 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, 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 F-GHG remain 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 x (100/% R). b Extractive FTIR is an acceptable method, in lieu of Method 4 at 40 CFR part 60 appendix A, of 

determining the volumetric concentrations of moisture in semiconductor stack gas streams. The spectral 

calibrations employed should bracket the anticipated range of optical depths (H2O concentration in parts 

per million multiplied by FTIR sample cell path length) measured in the field for moisture saturated 

(relative humidity approximately 100 percent) air streams at temperatures characterized via Method 2 at 

40 CFR part 60 appendix A, within the stack. The HITRAN molecular spectroscopic database is an 

example of a widely used international standard of IR absorption parameters that provide accurate H2O 

FTIR calibrations at atmospheric conditions. Field measurements should be verified to be in line with 

moisture saturated wet scrubber exhaust concentrations at measured temperatures. Field measurements at 

saturated conditions should be verified to be consistent with published water vapor pressure curves at the 

current stack temperatures (Perry, R.H. and D.W. Green. Perry’s Chemical Engineer’s Handbook (8th

Edition). McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, Inc. New York, New York. 2008). For unsaturated 

conditions, field measurements should be verified using a single point verification of the FTIR moisture 

reading using Method 4 at 40 CFR part 60 appendix A, or a NIST traceable hygrometer accurate to +/- 2 

percent relative humidity. The FTIR moisture reading shall agree within 10 percent of the moisture 

measurement obtained using Method 4 at 40 CFR part 60 appendix A or a NIST traceable hygrometer.

17. 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
Page 220 of 241

Fluorinated

GHG Analyte

Maximum Field

Detection Limit

(ppbv)

CH3F 40

CHF3 20

NF3 20

SF6 4

Other fully fluorinated GHGs 20

Other fluorinated GHGs 40

ppbv – Parts per billion by volume
Page 221 of 241

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

Table I–11 to Subpart I of Part 98–Default Emission Factors (1–Uij) for Gas Utilization Rates (Uij) and By-Product Formation 

Rates (Bijk) for Semiconductor Manufacturing for use with the Stack Test Method (150 mm and 200 mm wafers)

All 

Processes

Process Gas i

CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C2HF5 CH3F C3F8 C4F8 NF3

NF3

Remote SF6 C4F6 C5F8

C4F8

O

1-Ui 0.85 0.56 0.50 0.13 0.064 0.51 0.40 0.13 0.16 0.018 0.55 0.17 0.072 0.14

BCF4 NA 0.19 0.085 0.079 0.077 NA 0.20 0.11 0.045 0.015 0.13 0.13 NA 0.13

BC2F6 0.046 NA 0.030 0.025 0.024 0.0034 NA 0.037 0.025 NA 0.11 0.11 0.014 0.045

BC4F6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

BC4F8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

BC3F8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

BC5F8 0.0012 NA 0.0012 NA NA NA NA 0.0086 NA NA NA NA NA NA

BCHF3 0.10 0.047 NA 0.049 NA NA NA 0.040 NA NA 0.0012 0.066 0.0039 NA

Notes: NA = Not applicable; i.e., there are no applicable emission factor measurements for this gas. This does not necessarily imply that a 

particular gas is not used in or emitted from a particular process sub-type or process type.
Page 222 of 241

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

Table I–12 to Subpart I of Part 98–Default Emission Factors (1–Uij) for Gas Utilization Rates (Uij) and By-Product Formation 

Rates (Bijk) for Semiconductor Manufacturing for use with the Stack Test Method (300 mm and 450 mm Wafer Sizes)

All 

Processes

Process Gas i

CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 CH3F C3F8 C4F8 NF3

NF3

Remote SF6 C4F6 C5F8

C4F8

O

1-Ui 0.65 0.80 0.42 0.21 0.33 0.20 0.18 0.20 0.018 0.32 0.15 0.10 NA

BCF4 NA 0.21 0.095 0.049 0.045 0.21 0.045 0.040 0.075 0.040 0.059 0.11 NA

BC2F6 0.079 NA 0.064 0.052 0.00087 0.18 0.031 0.045 NA 0.044 0.074 0.083 NA

BC4F6 NA NA 0.00010 NA NA NA 0.018 NA NA NA NA NA NA

BC4F8 0.00063 NA 0.00080 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

BC3F8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.00012 NA

BCH2F2 NA NA 0.0036 NA 0.0023 NA 0.0015 0.00086 NA 0.000029 0.000030 NA NA

BCH3F 0.0080 NA 0.0080 0.0080 NA 0.00073 NA 0.0080 NA NA NA NA NA

BCHF3 0.011 NA NA 0.050 0.0057 0.012 0.027 0.025 NA 0.0037 0.019 0.0069 NA

Notes: NA = Not applicable; i.e., there are no applicable emission factor measurements for this gas. This does not necessarily imply 

that a particular gas is not used in or emitted from a particular process sub-type or process type.

20. Subpart I is amended by adding Table I-13 to subpart I to read as follows: 
Page 223 of 241

Table I–13 to Subpart I of Part 98—Default Emission Factors (1–Uij) for Gas Utilization Rates (Uij) and By-Product 

Formation Rates (Bijk) for LCD Manufacturing for use with the Stack Test Method

Process Gas (i)

Process Gas i

CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C3F8 c-C4F8

NF3

Remote NF3 SF6

1–Ui 0.6 NA 0.2 NA NA 0.1 0.03 0.3 0.6

BCF4 NA NA 0.07 NA NA 0.009 NA NA NA

BCHF3 NA NA NA NA NA 0.02 NA NA NA

BC2F6 NA NA 0.05 NA NA NA NA NA NA

BC3F8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Notes: NA = Not applicable; i.e., there are no applicable emission factor measurements for this gas. This does not necessarily imply 

that a particular gas is not used in or emitted from a particular process sub-type or process type.

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

Table I–14 to Subpart I of Part 98—Default Emission Factors (1–Uij) for Gas Utilization Rates (Uij) and By-Product 

Formation Rates (Bijk) for PV Manufacturing for use with the Stack Test Method

Process Gas (i)

Process Gas i

CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C3F8 c-C4F8

NF3

Remote NF3 SF6

1–Ui 0.7 0.6 0.4 NA 0.4 0.2 NA 0.2 0.4

BCF4 NA 0.2 NA NA 0.2 0.1 NA 0.05 NA

BC2F6 NA NA NA NA NA 0.1 NA NA NA

BC3F8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Notes: NA = Not applicable; i.e., there are no applicable emission factor measurements for this gas. This does not necessarily imply that a 

particular gas is not used in or emitted from a particular process sub-type or process type.
Page 224 of 241

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

Table I–15 to Subpart I of Part 98–Default Emission Factors (1–Uij) for Gas Utilization Rates (Uij) and By-Product Formation 

Rates (Bijk) for MEMS Manufacturing for use with the Stack Test Method

All 

Processes

Process Gas i

CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C3F8 c-C4F8

NF3

Remote NF3 SF6 C4F6 C5F8 C4F8O

1-Ui 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1

BCF4 NA 0.2 0.07 0.08 0.1 0.1 a0.02 0.09 NA 0.3 0.1 0.1

BC2F6 NA NA NA NA NA a0.04 NA NA NA 0.2 0.04 NA

BC3F8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Notes: NA = Not applicable; i.e., there are no applicable emission factor measurements for this gas. This does not necessarily imply that a 

particular gas is not used in or emitted from a particular process sub-type or process type. a Estimate reflects presence of low-k, carbide and multi-gas etch processes that may contain a C-containing fluorinated GHG additive.
Page 225 of 241

23. 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

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%
Page 226 of 241

24. 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.
Page 227 of 241

25. Subpart I is amended by adding “Appendix A” to read as follows:

Appendix A to Subpart I of Part 98—Alternative Procedures for Measuring Point-of-Use 

Abatement Device Destruction or Removal Efficiency.

If you are measuring destruction or removal efficiency of a point-of-use abatement device 

according to EPA 430–R–10–003 (incorporated by reference, see § 98.7) as specified in §

98.94(f)(4), you may follow the alternative procedures specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of 

this appendix.

(a) In place of the Quadrupole Mass Spectrometry protocol requirements specified in 

section 2.2.4 of EPA 430–R–10–003 (incorporated by reference, see § 98.7), you must conduct 

mass spectrometry testing in accordance with the provisions in paragraph (a)(1) through (a)(15) 

of this appendix.

(1) Detection limits

(2) 

. 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). 

Sampling location

(3) 

. 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.

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 
Page 228 of 241

through the mass spectrometer source by an external sample pump. Because of the volatility, 

vapor pressure, stability and inertness of CF4, C2F6, C3F8, CHF3, NF3, and SF6, the sample 

lines do not need to be heated.

(4) Mass spectrometer parameters

(5) 

. 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. 

Flow rates

(6) 

. 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. 

Sample frequency

(7) 

. 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).

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 
Page 229 of 241

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

(9) 

. 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.

Quadrupole mass spectrometer response calibration

(10) 

. A calibration curve must be 

generated for each compound of interest.

Calibration frequency

(11) 

. The mass spectrometer must be calibrated at the start of 

testing a given process. The calibration must be checked at the end of testing.

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. 
Page 230 of 241

(12) Operating procedures

(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.

. You must follow the operating procedures specified in 

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

(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 
Page 231 of 241

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

(14) 

. 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.

Deconvolution of interfering peaks

(15) 

. The effects of interfering peaks must be 

deconvoluted from the mass spectra for each target analyte. 

Calculations

(b) In place of the Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy protocol requirements 

specified in section 2.2.4 of EPA 430–R–10–003 (incorporated by reference, see § 98.7), you 

may conduct Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy testing in accordance with the provisions 

in paragraph (b)(1) through (b)(17) of this appendix, including the laboratory study phase 

described in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(7), and the field study phase described in paragraphs 

(b)(8) through (b)(17) of this appendix.

. 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.

(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 
Page 232 of 241

for spectrometers where cell temperature, cell pressure, and cell optical pathlength are potentially 

variable. For fixed pathlength spectrometers capable of controlling cell temperature and pressure 

to within +/- 10 percent of a desired set point, the use of a calibration transfer standard, as 

described in paragraphs (b)(2) to (b)(17) this appendix is not required.

(2) Defining spectroscopic conditions

(3) 

. Define a set of spectroscopic conditions under 

which the field studies and subsequent field applications are to be carried out. These include the 

minimum instrumental line-width, spectrometer wave number range, sample gas temperature, 

sample gas pressure, absorption pathlength, maximum sampling system volume (including the 

absorption cell), minimum sample flow rate, and maximum allowable time between consecutive 

infrared analyses of the effluent.

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 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 
Page 233 of 241

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 40oC for temperature.

(4) Spectra without reference libraries

(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 

. If reference spectral libraries meeting the criteria 

in paragraph (b)(3) of this appendix do not exist for all the analytes and interferants or cannot be 

accurately generated from existing libraries exhibiting lower minimum instrumental line-width

values than those proposed for the testing, prepare the required spectra according to the 

procedures specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) and (b)(4)(ii) of this appendix.
Page 234 of 241

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

(6) 

. 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.

Preliminary analytical routines

(7) 

. 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. 

Documentation. The laboratory techniques used to generate reference spectra and to 

convert sample spectral information to compound concentrations must be documented. The 
Page 235 of 241

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

(9) 

. 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.

System installation

(10) 

. 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.

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 
Page 236 of 241

of the calibration transfer standard gas directly into the absorption cell at the expected sample 

pressure and record its absorbance spectrum (the “initial field calibration transfer standard

spectrum”). Compare it to the laboratory calibration transfer standard spectra to determine the 

effective absorption pathlength. If possible, record spectra of field calibration gas standards 

(single component standards of the analyte compounds) and determine their concentrations using 

the reference spectra and analytical routines developed in paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(7) of this 

appendix; these spectra may be used instead of the reference spectra in actual concentration and 

uncertainty calculations.

(11) Deriving the calibration transfer standard gas from tool chamber gases

(12) 

. 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.

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.
Page 237 of 241

(13) Analyte spiking

( ) ( ) native

cylinder

sample

cylinder

cylinder

sample

Theoretical AOI

Tracer

Tracer

AOI

Tracer

Tracer

AOI

































+ − 















= 1

. Analyte spiking must be performed. While sampling actual source 

effluent, introduce a known flow rate of calibration transfer standard gas into the sample stream 

as close as possible to the probe tip or between the probe and extraction line. Measure and 

monitor the total sample flow rate, and adjust the spike flow rate until it represents 10 percent to 

20 percent of the total flow rate. After waiting until at least four absorption cell volumes have 

been sampled, record four spectra of the spiked effluent, terminate the calibration transfer 

standard spike flow, pause until at least four cell volumes are sampled, and then record four 

(unspiked) spectra. Repeat this process until 12 spiked and 12 unspiked spectra have been 

obtained. If a pressure correction routine is not automated, monitor the absorption cell 

temperature and pressure; verify that the pressure remains within 2 percent of the pressure 

specified in the proposed system conditions. Calculate the expected calibration transfer standard

compound concentrations in the spectra and compare them to the values observed in the 

spectrum. This procedure is best performed using a spectroscopic tracer to calculate dilution (as 

opposed to measured flow rates) of the injected calibration transfer standard (or analyte). The 

spectroscopic tracer should be a component not in the gas matrix that is easily detectable and 

maintains a linear absorbance over a large concentration range. Repeat this spiking process with 

all effluent compounds that are potentially reactive with either the sampling system components 

or with other effluent compounds. The gas spike is delivered by a mass flow controller, and the 

expected concentration of analyte of interest (AOITheoretical) is calculated as follows:

Where:

AOITheoretical = Theoretical analyte of interest concentration (parts per million (ppm)).
Page 238 of 241

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

(15) 

. 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.

Amendment of analytical routines

(16) 

. The presence of unanticipated interferant 

compounds and/or the observation of compounds at concentrations outside their expected 

concentration ranges may necessitate the repetition of portions of the procedures in paragraphs 

(b)(2) through (b)(14) of this appendix. Such amendments are allowable before final analysis of 

the data, but must be represented in the documentation required in paragraph (b)(16) of this 

appendix.

Documentation

(17) 

. 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.

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 
Page 239 of 241

demonstrated in the field study specified in paragraphs (b)(8) through (b)(16) of this appendix 

must be adhered to as closely as possible, with the following exceptions specified in paragraphs 

(b)(17)(i) through (b)(17)(iii) of this appendix:

(i) The sampling lines employed should be as short as practically possible and not longer 

than those used in the field study.

(ii) Analyte spiking and reactivity checks are required after the installation of or major 

repair to the sampling system or major change in sample matrix. In these cases, perform three 

spiked/unspiked samples with calibration transfer standard or a surrogate analyte on a daily basis 

if time permits and gas standards are easy to obtain and get on-site.

(iii) Sampling and other operational data must be recorded and documented as during the 

field study, but only the interferometric data needed to 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 

(c)(3) of this appendix.

(1) You may introduce the non-reactive, non-native gas used for determining total 

volume flow and dilution across the point-of-use abatement device at a location in the exhaust of 

the point-of-use abatement device. For abatement systems operating in a mode where specific FGHG 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 
Page 240 of 241

point-of-use 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, non-native gas 

concentrations to ensure homogeneity of the non-reactive gas and point-of-use abatement device 

effluent (i.e., stratification test). To test for stratification, measure the non-reactive, non-native

gas concentrations at three points on a line passing through the centroidal area. Space the three 

points at 16.7, 50.0, and 83.3 percent of the measurement line. Sample for a minimum of twice 

the system response time, determined according to paragraph (c)(3) of this appendix, at each 

traverse point. Calculate the individual point and mean non-reactive, non-native gas 

concentrations. If the non-reactive, non-native gas concentration at each traverse point differs 

from the mean concentration for all traverse points by no more than ±5.0 percent of the mean 

concentration, the gas stream is considered unstratified and you may collect samples from a 

single point that most closely matches the mean. If the 5.0 percent criterion is not met, but the 

concentration at each traverse point differs from the mean concentration for all traverse points by 

no more than ±10.0 percent of the mean, you may take samples from two points and use the 

average of the two measurements. Space the two points at 16.7, 50.0, or 83.3 percent of the 

measurement line. If the concentration at each traverse point differs from the mean concentration 

for all traverse points by more than ±10.0 percent of the mean but less than 20.0 percent, take 

samples from three points at 16.7, 50.0, 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, non-native gas 
Page 241 of 241

from traverse points for the test in accordance with Sections 11.2 and 11.3 of EPA Method 1 in 

40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-1. A minimum of 40 non-reactive gas concentration measurements 

will be collected at three to five different injected non-reactive gas flow rates for determination 

of point-of-use abatement device effluent flow. The total volume flow of the point-of-use

abatement device exhaust will be calculated consistent with the EPA 430-R-10-003 

(incorporated by reference, see § 98.7) Equations 1 through 7.

(3) You must determine the measurement system response time according to paragraphs 

(c)(3)(i) through (c)(3)(iii) of this appendix. 

(i) Before sampling begins, introduce ambient air at the probe upstream of all sample 

condition components in system calibration mode. Record the time it takes for the measured 

concentration of a selected compound (for example, carbon dioxide) to reach steady state. 

(ii) Introduce nitrogen in the system calibration mode and record the time required for the 

concentration of the selected compound to reach steady state. 

(iii) Observe the time required to achieve 95 percent of a stable response for both 

nitrogen and ambient air. The longer interval is the measurement system response time.