# Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program: Final Amendments and Confidentiality Determinations for Electronics Manufacturing > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2013-23804 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Rule - **Published:** November 13, 2013 - **Citation:** 78 FR 68162 ## Text ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 98 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028; FRL-9845-6] RIN 2060-AR61 Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program: Final Amendments and Confidentiality Determinations for Electronics Manufacturing AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule; Notice of Final Action on Reconsideration. SUMMARY: The EPA is amending the calculation and monitoring methodologies for electronics manufacturers covered by the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. These changes include revising certain calculation methods and adding a new method, amending data reporting requirements, and clarifying terms and definitions. The EPA is also making confidentiality determinations for new and revised data elements pertaining to electronics manufacturing. This rule also finalizes amendments to the general provisions of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule to remove entries for data elements that are being moved from reporting to recordkeeping. DATES: This final rule is effective on January 1, 2014. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 1, 2014. ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028. All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carole Cook, Climate Change Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC-6207J), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343-9263; fax number: (202) 343-2342; email address: GHGReportingRule@epa.gov . For technical information and implementation materials, please go to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule Program Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/ . To submit a question, select Rule Help Center, followed by “Contact Us.” Worldwide Web (WWW) . In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this final rule will also be available through the WWW. Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of this action will be posted on the EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/ . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities . The Administrator determined that this action is subject to the provisions of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(d). These amended regulations may affect owners or operators of certain electronic manufacturing facilities. Regulated categories and entities may include those listed in Table 1 of this preamble: Table 1—Examples of Affected Entities by Category Source category NAICS Examples of affected facilities Electronics Manufacturing 334111 Microcomputers manufacturing facilities. 334413 Semiconductor, photovoltaic (solid-state) device manufacturing facilities. 334419 Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) unit screens manufacturing facilities. 334419 Micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) manufacturing facilities. Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding facilities likely to be affected by this action. Table 1 of this preamble lists the types of facilities of which the EPA is aware may be potentially affected by the reporting requirements. Other types of facilities not listed in the table may also be affected. To determine whether you are affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR part 98, subpart A and 40 CFR part 98, subpart I. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular facility, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Judicial Review . Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) by January 13, 2014. Under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), only an objection to this final rule that was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during judicial review. Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA also provides a mechanism for the EPA to convene a proceeding for reconsideration, “[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate to EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.” Any person seeking to make such a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW. Washington, DC 20004. Note that under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce these requirements. Acronyms and Abbreviations . The following acronyms and abbreviations are used in this document. ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials BAMM best available monitoring methods CAA Clean Air Act CBI confidential business information CFR Code of Federal Regulations CO 2 carbon dioxide CO 2 e carbon dioxide equivalent CVD chemical vapor deposition DRE destruction or removal efficiency EIA Economic Impact Analysis EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FDL field detection limit F-GHG fluorinated greenhouse gas FR Federal Register FTIR Fourier transform infrared GHG greenhouse gas GHGRP Greenhouse gas reporting period GWP global warming potential HQ Headquarters HTF heat transfer fluid IBM International Business Machines Corporation IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ISMI International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative kg kilograms LCD liquid crystal display MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology MEMS micro-electro-mechanical systems mtCO 2 e metric ton carbon dioxide equivalent N 2 O nitrous oxide NAICS North American Industrial Classification System NF 3 nitrogen trifluoride NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 OMB Office of Management & Budget POU point of use ppbv parts per billion by volume ppm parts per million PV photovoltaic QA/QC quality assurance/quality control QMS quadrupole mass spectroscopy R&D research and development RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act RICE Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines RIN Regulatory Information Number RSASTP random sampling abatement system testing program RSD relative standard deviation SEMATECH Semiconductor Manufacturing Technology SIA Semiconductor Industry Association TI Texas Instruments Incorporated U.S. United States UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 VCS voluntary consensus standard VOC volatile organic compound WWW Worldwide Web I. General Information A. Organization of This Preamble The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble. I. General Information A. Organization of this Preamble B. Background C. Legal Authority D. How do these amendments apply to 2013 and 2014 reports? II. Overview of Final Amendments to the Electronics Manufacturing Source Category and Responses to Major Public Comments A. Final Amendments to the Electronics Manufacturing Source Category B. Responses to Major Comments Submitted on the Electronics Manufacturing Source Category III. Confidentiality Determinations for New and Revised Subpart I Data Elements and Responses to Public Comments A. Final Confidentiality Determinations for New and Revised Subpart I Data Elements B. Public Comments on the Proposed Confidentiality Determinations IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations K. Congressional Review Act B. Background The GHG reporting requirements for subpart I were finalized on December 1, 2010 (75 FR 74774, hereafter referred to as “final subpart I rule”). Following the publication of the final subpart I rule in the Federal Register , the Semiconductor Industry Association (hereafter referred to as the “SIA” or “the Petitioner”) submitted on January 31, 2011 an administrative petition titled “Petition for Reconsideration and Request for Stay Pending Reconsideration of Subpart I of the Final Rule for Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases” (hereafter referred to as the “Petition for Reconsideration,” available in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927), requesting reconsideration of numerous provisions in the final subpart I rule. Since that petition was filed, the EPA has published five actions related to subpart I. • Additional Sources of Fluorinated GHGs: Extension of Best Available Monitoring Provisions for Electronics Manufacturing (76 FR 36339, published June 22, 2011). Granted the Petition for Reconsideration with respect to the provisions for the use of Best Available Monitoring Methods (BAMM). Extended three of the deadlines in subpart I related to using the BAMM provisions from June 30, 2011 to September 30, 2011. • Changes to Provisions for Electronics Manufacturing to Provide Flexibility (76 FR 59542, published September 27, 2011). Amended the calculation and monitoring provisions for the largest semiconductor manufacturing facilities to provide flexibility through the end of 2013 and extended two deadlines in the BAMM provisions. • Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for Subpart I and Proposed Amendments to Subpart I Best Available Monitoring Methods Provisions (77 FR 10434, published February 22, 2012). Re-proposed confidentiality determinations for data elements in subpart I and proposed amendments to the provisions regarding the calculation and reporting of emissions from facilities that use BAMM. • Revisions to Heat Transfer Fluid Provisions (77 FR 10373, published February 22, 2012). Amended the definition of fluorinated heat transfer fluids (fluorinated HTFs) and the provisions to estimate and report emissions from fluorinated HTFs. • Final Confidentiality Determinations for Nine Subparts and Amendments to Subparts A and I under the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule; Final Rule (77 FR 48072, published August 13, 2012). Final confidentiality determinations for data elements in subpart I and final amendments to the provisions regarding the calculation and reporting of emissions from facilities that use BAMM. In response to the Petition for Reconsideration, the EPA published a proposal to amend provisions in subpart I related to calculation and monitoring methodologies, data reporting and recordkeeping requirements, clarifying terms and definitions, and confidentiality determinations to provide greater flexibility to facilities. The proposal was published on October 16, 2012 (77 FR 63538). The public comment period for the proposed rule amendments was initially scheduled to end on December 17, 2012. The EPA received a request to extend the public comment period and published a notice in the Federal Register on November 20, 2012 (77 FR 69585) extending the public comment period to January 16, 2013. In this action, the EPA is finalizing amendments to provisions in the final subpart I that were proposed in the October 16, 2012 notice. Responses to comments submitted on the proposed amendments can be found in Sections II.B and III.B of this preamble and the document, “Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule—Technical Revisions to the Electronics Manufacturing Category of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Responses to Public Comments” (see Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028). C. Legal Authority The EPA is promulgating these rule amendments to Part 98 under its existing CAA authority, specifically authorities provided in CAA section 114. As stated in the preamble to the 2009 final rule (74 FR 56260, October 30, 2009) and the Response to Comments on the Proposed Rule, Volume 9, Legal Issues, CAA section 114 provides the EPA broad authority to obtain the information in Part 98, including subpart I, because such data would inform and are relevant to the EPA's carrying out a wide variety of CAA provisions. As discussed in the preamble to the initial Part 98 proposal (74 FR 16448, April 10, 2009), CAA section 114(a)(1) authorizes the Administrator to require emissions sources, persons subject to the CAA, manufacturers of control or process equipment, or persons whom the Administrator believes may have necessary information to monitor and report emissions and provide such other information the Administrator requests for the purposes of carrying out any provision of the CAA. In addition, the EPA has made confidentiality determinations for subpart I data elements that are added or revised by this rule under its authorities provided in sections 114, 301, and 307 of the CAA. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, CAA section 114 provides the EPA authority to obtain the information in Part 98, including those in subpart I. Section 114(c) requires that the EPA make publicly available information obtained under section 114 except for information (excluding emission data) that qualifies for confidential treatment. The Administrator has determined that this action (finalized amendments and confidentiality determinations) is subject to the provisions of section 307(d) of the CAA. D. How do these amendments apply to 2013 and 2014 reports? These final amendments are effective on January 1, 2014. Facilities are required to follow one of the methods in subpart I as amended through this action to estimate emissions beginning in 2014. The first reports of emissions estimated using the new methods will be submitted in early 2015. As a result of these finalized amendments, the EPA does not expect reporters will need to purchase and install any new monitoring equipment to continue to comply with subpart I since reporters will still have the option to use default utilization and by-product formation rates. Additionally, unless reporters choose to estimate F-GHG emissions using the optional stack test method, the EPA does not expect reporters will be required to make any substantial modifications to their recordkeeping procedures. For the reasons discussed here, in addition to the absence of any opposition to the timeline received during the public comment period, the EPA believes that the effective date of January 1, 2014 is reasonable. For the reports of emissions in calendar year 2013 (reporting year 2013) that are to be submitted in early 2014, reporters must calculate emissions and other relevant data using the requirements under Part 98 that predated today's revisions. Those requirements include the flexibility for the largest semiconductor manufacturing facilities added in the September 27, 2011 rule titled “Changes to Provisions for Electronics Manufacturing to Provide Flexibility.” II. Overview of Final Amendments to the Electronics Manufacturing Source Category and Responses to Major Public Comments The EPA is finalizing amendments to the calculation and monitoring methodologies in the final subpart I rule. In addition, the EPA is finalizing conforming changes to the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of subpart I. Changes include revising certain calculation methods and adding a new method, amending data reporting requirements, and clarifying terms and definitions. The EPA is finalizing these amendments to (1) Modify calculation methods and data requirements to better reflect new industry data and current practice; (2) provide additional calculation methods to allow individual facilities to choose the method best suited for their operations; (3) reduce the burden associated with existing requirements; and (4) address potential disclosure concerns raised by members of the SIA. Amendments being finalized today affect all facilities subject to subpart I that manufacture electronics including those that manufacture semiconductors (including light emitting diodes), micro-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 In this rulemaking, the EPA is taking final action on its proposed reconsideration on all issues in the Petition for Reconsideration not already addressed in the final rules published June 22, 2011 (Additional Sources of Fluorinated GHGs: Extension of Best Available Monitoring Provisions for Electronics Manufacturing); September 27, 2011 (Changes to Provisions for Electronics Manufacturing to Provide Flexibility); and August 13, 2012 (Confidentiality Determinations for Subpart I and Amendments to Subpart I Best Available Monitoring Methods Provisions). Those final rules are described in Section I.B of this preamble. Section II.A discusses the final amendments to the subpart I rule in response to the petition. The EPA is completing its response to the Petition for Reconsideration through this rulemaking. The major changes to the final rule since proposal are the following: Default Emission Factors: • Etch emission factors: The proposed etch emission factors and by-product formation rates for semiconductor manufacturing have been updated since proposal to account for new data submitted in public comments. • Nitrous oxide (N 2 O) emission factors: The proposed revised emission factor for all “other” (e.g., non-CVD) N 2 O emitting processes is not being adopted in the final rule. Abatement System Requirements: • The proposed default abatement system destruction or removal efficiency (DRE) factors have been updated since proposal to account for new data submitted in public comments and for a revised statistical approach to calculating the default DRE factors. • The certification requirements for abatement systems have been revised to refer to the site maintenance plan for abatement systems. • The abatement system requirements have been revised to allow the use of either default DREs or site-specific measured DRE values; however, if an abatement system was not specifically designed for F-GHG removal and the reporter elects to account for the effect of that abatement system when using either the emission factors and calculation methods in 40 CFR 98.93(a) and (b) or the stack testing alternative in 40 CFR 98.93(i), site-specific DRE values must be used. • The calculation of abatement system uptime has been revised so that only a single equation is used to calculate uptime for both input gases and their associated by-product gases for a given input gas and process combination. Stack Testing Alternative: • The rule designates a list of five “expected” by-product gases (CF 4 , CHF 3 , CH 3 F, C 2 F 6 , and CH 2 F 2 ) and four “possible” by-product gases (C 3 F 8 , C 4 F 6 , c-C 4 F 8 , and C 5 F 8 ) 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. • The maximum allowed field detection limits (FDLs) have been increased by a factor of four compared to the proposed FDLs. • The final rule allows the use of ASTM D6348-03, Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, as an alternative to EPA Method 320. • The Tier 2a emission factors on Tables I-11 and I-12 for semiconductors have been updated since proposal to account for new data submitted in public comments, and to include weighting by the amount of gas used in each process type (as opposed to not being weighted). Facility-Wide DRE Calculation: • Equations I-26, I-27, and I-28 have been revised to calculate only a fab-wide DRE, not a facility-wide DRE, when more than one fab is present. The following sections of this preamble summarize the final amendments to subpart I. 1. Stack Testing as an Alternative Emission Monitoring Method for Facilities That Manufacture Electronics The EPA is promulgating amendments to revise subpart I to include a stack testing option for estimating annual F-GHG emissions at 40 CFR 98.93(i). This option applies to all electronic manufacturing facilities, including those making semiconductors, MEMS, LCDs, and PV cells. The stack testing option is not available for estimating N 2 O emissions. The finalized amendments to the provisions and emission factors for estimating N 2 O emissions are discussed in Section II.A.9 of this preamble. In this action, we are also finalizing the option to allow all electronics manufacturing facilities to use separate methods (i.e., stack testing or default utilization and by-product formation rates) to estimate emissions from each fab within a single facility. (A facility must use only a single method for each fab.) Additionally, we are also finalizing the requirements for facilities to report GHG emissions on a fab basis but submit reports on a “facility” basis, as defined in 40 CFR 98.6. There may be one or more fabs at each facility. A “fab” is defined in subpart I as “the portion of an electronics manufacturing facility located in a separate physical structure that began manufacturing on a certain date.” Selection of Stack Systems for Testing . Under the final amendments, reporters are required to develop a preliminary estimate of the annual emissions from each “stack system” in a fab and are not required to test those stack systems that account for relatively small emissions. A stack system is considered to be one or more stacks that are connected by a common header or manifold, through which a F-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. The reporter must develop a preliminary estimate of F-GHG emissions from each stack system on a metric ton carbon dioxide equivalent (mtCO 2 e) basis. To develop the preliminary estimate, the reporter must use the gas consumption in the tools associated with the stack system and gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates in Tables I-11 through I-15. Facilities must also include any intermittent low-use F-GHGs in the preliminary estimate. The reporter must also account for the DRE of the “point of use” (POU) abatement systems and the uptime of the POU systems (the fraction of time the system is operating within the parameters specified in the facility's site maintenance plan for abatement systems). The gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates in Tables I-13 and I-14 are based on the 2006 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Tier 2a factors 1 for LCD and PV manufacturing, respectively. The factors in Table I-13 for MEMs manufacturing are based on the 2006 IPCC Tier 2a factors for semiconductor manufacturing due to the similarities in the manufacturing processes. The factors in Tables I-11 and I-12 for semiconductor manufacturing facilities were updated from the 2006 IPCC factors based on utilization rate and by-production formation rate data collected by the Petitioner (see “Technical Support for Modifications to the Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimation Method Option for Semiconductor Facilities under Subpart I,” Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028) in addition to data submitted to the EPA during the comment period. The default factors for each gas in Tables I-11 and I-12 were also updated by weighting the emission factor data for each gas and process type or subtype based on the gas consumption for that process type or sub-type. The EPA did not update the factors in Tables I-13 through I-15 based on the data collected by the Petitioner or submitted during the comment period because none of the data were for LCD, PV, or MEMS manufacturing. The EPA did not receive additional data on LCD, PV, or MEMs manufacturing processes, therefore, it was not feasible to propose revised factors for these processes. Furthermore, because MEMS are generally 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. 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 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 CO 2 e using the global warming potential (GWP) values for F-GHGs in Table A-1 of subpart A of Part 98. For F-GHGs in Tables I-11 through I-15 for which Table A-1 of subpart A of Part 98 does not list a GWP value, reporters must use a default value of 2,000 for the GWP for the purposes of this estimate. Based on this preliminary estimate, the reporter must rank the F-GHG emitting stack systems at the facility from the lowest to highest emitting. The reporter is not required to test emissions from low-emitting stack systems if those F-GHG emitting stack systems meet all of the following three criteria: (1) The sum of the F-GHG emissions from all combined stack systems in the fab that are not tested is less than 10,000 mtCO 2 e per year; (2) Each of the stack systems that are not tested are within the fab's lowest F-GHG emitting stack systems that together emit 15 percent or less of total CO 2 e 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. 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 F-GHGs are defined as F-GHGs that meet all of the following: (1) The F-GHG is used by the fab but was not used on the day of the actual stack testing; (2) The emissions of that F-GHG do not constitute more than 5 percent of the total annual F-GHG emissions from the fab on a CO 2 e basis; (3) The sum of all F-GHGs that are considered intermittent low-use F-GHGs does not exceed 10,000 mtCO 2 e for that year; and (4) The F-GHG is not an expected or possible by-product identified in Table I-17 of subpart I. Reporters must calculate annual emissions of intermittent low-use F-GHGs using the gas consumption and the gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates in Tables I-11 through I-15 in the rule, accounting for the DRE and uptime of the POU systems during the year for which emissions are being estimated. The testing period must be at least 8 hours for each stack, although reporters may choose to conduct testing over a longer period. Reporters are not required to measure all stacks simultaneously, but reporters must certify that no significant changes in stack flow configuration occur during and in between tests conducted for any particular fab in a reporting year. Specifically, reporters must certify that no more than 10 percent of the total number of F-GHG emitting process tools have been connected or disconnected from the stack system during testing. Reporters must also certify that no process tools that were in operation at the start of the testing period were moved to a different stack system during testing and that no POU abatement systems have been permanently removed from service during the testing period. Reporters must document and keep records of any changes in the number of tools connected to or disconnected from the stack system and the uptime of each POU abatement system during the testing period for each system. The tests must be conducted during a period in which the fab is operating at a representative operating level and with the POU abatement systems connected to the stack being tested operating with at least 90 percent average uptime during the 8-hour (or longer) period, or at no less than 90 percent of the uptime measured during the previous reporting year, averaged over all abatement systems connected to the stack being tested. The representative operating level is defined in subpart I as operating the fab, in terms of substrate starts for the period of testing, at no less than 50 percent of installed production capacity or no less than 70 percent of the average production rate for the reporting year, where production rate for the reporting year is represented in average monthly substrate starts. For the purposes of stack testing, the period for determining the representative operating level must be the 30-day period ending on the same date on which testing is concluded. To convert the measured F-GHG emission rates into fab-specific emission 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: (1) Drawing from single gas containers in cases where gas is normally drawn from a series of containers supplying a manifold; (2) Increasing the length of the test period to greater than 8 hours; or (3) Calculating consumption from long-term consumption (e.g., monthly) that is pro-rated to the test duration. Stack test methods. The EPA is finalizing the requirement that the F-GHG concentrations in stacks systems be measured using EPA Method 320. We are also allowing the use of ASTM D6348-03 as an alternative to EPA Method 320 with the following additional requirements: (1) The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to ASTM D6348-03, Sections A1 through A8 are mandatory; and (2) In ASTM D6348-03 Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent recovery (%R) must be determined for each target analyte (Equation A5.5). The reporter must also follow Section 4.1 of ASTM D6348-03 to ensure the F-GHG remains in the gas phase. In order for the test data to be acceptable for a compound, the percent recovery must be between 70 and 130 percent. If the percent recovery does not meet this criterion for a target compound, the test data are not acceptable for that compound and the test must be repeated for that analyte (i.e., the sampling and/or analytical procedure should be adjusted before a retest). The percent recovery value for each compound must be reported in the test report, required under 40 CFR 98.94(j)(4), and all field measurements must be corrected with the calculated percent recovery value for that compound. The use of ASTM D6348-03 was added since proposal, as discussed in section II.B of this preamble. F-GHGs not detected. We are also finalizing the following provisions to account for different scenarios in which a F-GHG is used, expected to be emitted as a by-product, or possibly emitted as a by-product, but may occur in concentrations that are below the FDL. The FDL of a by-product is the lowest concentration of the by-product that should be detectable through measurements, as defined in Method 320. • If a F-GHG is consumed during testing, but emissions are not detected, the reporter must use one-half of the FDL for the concentration of that F-GHG in calculations. • If a F-GHG is consumed during testing and detected intermittently during the test run, the reporter must use the measured concentration for the value of that F-GHG when available and use one-half of the FDL for the value when the F-GHG is not detected. • If a F-GHG is not consumed during testing but is detected intermittently as a by-product gas, the reporter must use the measured concentration when available and use one-half of the FDL for the value when the F-GHG is not detected. • If a F-GHG is an expected 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. We are finalizing the option for reporters to use an alternative stack test method (other than EPA Method 320 or ASTM D6348-03) to measure the concentration of each F-GHG in each stack provided that the method is validated using EPA Method 301 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A (hereafter “EPA Method 301”), and the EPA approves its use. Under the promulgated approval process in 40 CFR 98.94(k), the reporter is required to notify the Administrator (or authorized representative) of the intent to use an alternative test method. The notification must include a test plan describing the alternative method and procedures, the range of test conditions over which the validation is intended to be applicable, and an alternative means of calculating the 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 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. To account for the effect of POU abatement system downtime in estimating emissions using the stack testing method, reporters must record the abatement system downtime in each fab during testing and for the entire reporting year. Using the downtime measured during testing, reporters are required to correct the measured emission factors to assume no abatement system downtime (i.e., 100 percent abatement system uptime). The downtime measured over the entire reporting year is then used to calculate the excess F-GHG emissions that occur as a result of abatement system downtime events. The reporter is required to measure the amount of POU abatement system downtime (in minutes) during the emission tests for any tools that are vented to the stacks being tested. For example, if five POU abatement systems are down for times of 10, 15, 25, 30, and 40 minutes during an 8-hour test, the total POU system downtime would be 120 minutes, or 5.0 percent of the total possible abatement system and tool operating time for the five tools (2,400 minutes). Using these data and the average DRE for the POU abatement systems, the emission factor measured during the testing is adjusted to an emission factor representing POU abatement systems with 100 percent uptime (zero percent downtime). The DRE for the abatement systems may be a default DRE or a site-specific measured DRE; however, the reporter must use a site-specific measured DRE if the abatement system is not specifically designed for F-GHG abatement. The downtime measured over the year is used to determine an average uptime factor that is an aggregate for all abatement systems in the fab, and calculated using Equation I-23 in subpart I. Abatement system downtime is considered any time during which the abatement system was not operating according to the site maintenance plan for abatement systems. The reporter must determine the sum of the downtime for all abatement systems during the year, and divide this sum by the sum of the possible annual operating time for each of the tools connected to those abatement systems in the fab to determine the downtime fraction. The downtime fraction is the decimal fraction of operating time that the abatement systems were not operating according to the site maintenance plan for abatement systems. The average uptime factor used in the emissions calculations is equal to 1 minus the downtime fraction. The total possible annual tool operating time is calculated by assuming that tools that were installed for the whole of the reporting year were operated for the entire year. The total possible tool operating time is prorated to account for the days in which a tool was not installed; any partial day that a tool was installed is treated as a full day of tool operation. For an abatement system with more than one connected tool, the tool operating time is equivalent to a full year if at least one tool was installed at all times throughout the year. The reporter has the option to account for time that tools are idle and no gas is flowing through the tools to the abatement system. It is important to note that the calculation of the uptime factor is different when a reporter is using the promulgated stack testing method than when the reporter is using the default gas utilization rate and by-product formation rate method. In the stack testing method, uptime is not determined for each gas and process type combination, as it is under the final revisions to the default emission factor method. Instead, the uptime factor is based on an aggregate for all tools and gases in the fab for which the stack testing method is being used. In contrast, the default gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates are based on “unabated emissions” of each gas, and the uptime factor needs to be determined for each gas and process type combination to determine the portion of emissions that have been abated. “Unabated emissions” are gas streams containing F-GHG or N 2 O which has exited the process, but which has not yet been introduced into an abatement system to reduce the mass of F-GHG or N 2 O 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 N 2 O 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—d if ), where d if ) is the average weighted fraction of F-GHG is destroyed or removed in the POU abatement system(s) in the fab. The factor d if ) is calculated using Equation I-24 in subpart I, based on the gas consumption and destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) for the abatement system(s) for each gas and process type combination. When calculating annual emissions, the reporter must continue to collect abatement system downtime data and calculate the fraction of abatement system uptime for the fab. Excess emissions from abatement system downtime events are determined based on the actual amount of downtime as a percent of the total annual abatement system operating time for the reporting year. For example, if a fab had 2.0 percent downtime for the year, then the unabated emission factor is applied to 2.0 percent of the gas consumption for the year to calculate the excess emissions. The abated emission factor is applied to the other 98 percent of gas consumption for the fab. The excess emissions and the abated emissions are added together to determine the total annual emission from the fab. Calculating an average fab-specific emission factor. The reporter must calculate an average fab-specific emission factor using Equation I-19 in subpart I for each input F-GHG and Equation I-20 for each by-product F-GHG, based on the testing results (average kg/hr) and the F-GHG gas consumption (average kg/hr). The 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). For gases generated as by-products, the fab-specific emission factor is the mass of the by-product emitted divided by the summed masses of all the F-GHGs consumed, as presented in Equation I-20. This equation applies to those F-GHGs that are emitted as by-products and is not used for gases consumed as input gases. The reporter must calculate annual emissions for each F-GHG by-product gas as the product of the fab-specific emission factor and the total annual amount of F-GHG consumed, corrected for any POU abatement system downtime as described in this section of the preamble. In some cases, emissions of a particular F-GHG input gas may exceed consumption of that gas because the F-GHG is generated as a by-product of the other input gases. This is often the case for CF 4 . In these cases, the reporter must use 1.0 as the input F-GHG emission factor and treat the remainder of that F-GHG's emissions as a by-product of the other input gases. The reporter must use Equation I-20 to calculate the emission factor for the by-product emissions. For example, if during the testing, the fab consumed 100 kg of an F-GHG, but the stack testing measured 300 kg of that gas, the reporter must assign 100 kg of that F-GHG as an input gas used in proposed Equation I-19, and 200 kg of that gas as a by-product gas used in proposed Equation I-20. In this instance, the denominator in Equation I-20 includes the consumption of all other F-GHGs, with the exception of the F-GHG being included in the numerator. This treatment of the denominator reflects the fact that we are assuming that the F-GHG in the numerator is formed as a by-product from all other F-GHGs, while the emissions from the actual consumption of that F-GHG as an input are being accounted by Equation I-19. For calculating emissions from an F-GHG with an input emission factor equal to 1.0 and with a by-product emission factor, the input F-GHG emissions are assumed to equal consumption of that F-GHG, and the by-product emissions are determined by multiplying the 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 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 CO 2 e 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 CO 2 e emissions is less than 20 percent, the facility may use the averages of the three emission factors for each F-GHG for annual reporting for that year and the next 4 years without testing, unless conditions change that affect the emission factors and trigger retesting, as specified in 40 CFR 98.94(j)(8) and described in this section of the preamble. If the variability among the three tests does not meet these criteria, then the facility must use the emission factors from the most recent testing for reporting for that year and continue the annual testing. Facilities may repeat the RSD analysis each year using the previous three sets of data. In addition, previously completed tests that were performed and verified according to EPA Method 320, ASTM D6348-03, or an alternative method validated using EPA Method 301 may be applied towards the three tests required under this option, as long as all three tests were completed no earlier than January 1, 2011 and they meet the final rule requirements for stack testing under 40 CFR 98.94(j). We are also allowing reporters to use previously completed tests that include minor deviations from the requirements for stack testing. However, the use of such data must be approved by the Administrator (or an authorized representative) on a case-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 CO 2 e, relative to gas consumption in CO 2 e 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 CO 2 e to more than 35 percent of CO 2 e, 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 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 The EPA is amending the default plasma etch and chamber cleaning gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates and the requirements in 40 CFR 98.93(a)(2) for estimating F-GHG emissions from plasma etch processes at semiconductor manufacturing facilities. The EPA is not amending the default emission factors for other types of electronics manufacturing facilities. First, the EPA is providing that all semiconductor manufacturing facilities, regardless of manufacturing capacity, have the option to calculate F-GHG emissions from the plasma etching process type using the appropriate default gas utilization rates and 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 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 by-product formation rates are zero (i.e., assume that emissions of a gas equals consumption of that gas). This approach is consistent with the methodology in the current subpart I rule, except that we are removing the option for facilities to develop recipe-specific factors. All other provisions related to the method using default gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates, such as the wafer size classes used for the default emission factors in Tables I-3 and I-4, remain the same. The only exception is that the default emission factors in Table I-4 that apply to 300 mm wafers also apply to 450 mm wafers. As more data (i.e., utilization and by-product formation rates) become available for the semiconductor manufacturing industry in the future, the EPA will consider adding new default emission factors to Tables I-3 and I-4 for new gas and process type/sub-type combinations, including adding any new default emission factors specifically for semiconductor manufacturing facilities using 450 mm wafers. However, for these final amendments, facilities using wafers greater than 300 mm diameter must use the same default emission factors as those using 300 mm wafers. Section II.A.12 of this preamble describes the process that EPA will follow for updating default emission factors as more information is collected from the electronics manufacturing industry. 3. Removing the Provisions for Using Recipe-Specific Gas Utilization Rates and By-Product Formation Rates for Facilities That Manufacture Electronics The EPA is removing the provisions to use recipe-specific gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates in 40 CFR 98.93(a)(2)(ii)(A), (a)(3), and (a)(4), as proposed. Although the EPA has deferred the mandatory use of recipe-specific gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates through the end of 2013 (76 FR 59542, September 27, 2011), as a result of these final amendments, no semiconductor manufacturing facility has the option to use the recipe-specific method or report those data elements after the end of 2013. In addition, we are removing the recipe-specific method as an option for other electronics manufacturing facilities. No facilities have used the 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. Finally, we are revising 40 CFR 98.93(a)(6) to remove the option to develop recipe-specific gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates for F-GHG and process combinations for which no default emission factors are available. We are also revising 40 CFR 98.93(b)(1)(i) and (b)(2)(i) to remove the option to develop facility-specific N 2 O 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 N 2 O 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 N 2 O emission factors. EPA is not revising the current default N 2 O emission factors in this final rule. The emission factor for CVD processes is 0.8 and the emission factor for the aggregate of all other manufacturing production processes is 1.0. 4. Applicability and Calculating Annual Manufacturing Capacity for Facilities That Manufacture Electronics The EPA is revising the calculation to determine annual capacity for electronics manufacturing facilities, which is used in the calculation to determine whether a facility meets the reporting threshold. First, we are revising Equation I-5 to clarify that reporters must sum the annual manufacturing across each fab to determine the annual manufacturing capacity of the facility. This is a change since proposal to reflect other changes in the rule that calculate emissions per fab. The EPA is replacing the phrase “maximum designed substrate starts of a facility” in Equation I-5 with the phrase “maximum substrate starts of the fab,” as proposed. Likewise, as proposed, we are replacing the definition in 40 CFR 98.98 of “maximum designed substrate starts” with that for “maximum substrate starts,” which is defined as “the maximum quantity of substrates, expressed as surface area, that could be started each month during a reporting year based on the equipment installed in that fab and assuming that the installed equipment were fully utilized. Manufacturing equipment is considered installed when it is on the manufacturing floor and connected to required utilities.” A reporter must continue to use Equation I-5, with these revisions, to determine the annual manufacturing capacity of the facility to determine if they meet the threshold for reporting under subpart I. The final rule includes revised requirements, as proposed, in 40 CFR 98.96(a) and (b) to calculate and report the maximum annual capacity and the actual annual production, respectively, for each fab in the facility, and to clarify that the maximum capacity is based on the equipment on-site in the reporting year, assuming it is fully utilized, rather than the design capacity. The changes do not affect the applicability of subpart I to any facility that is already reporting GHG emissions under subpart I. The mere fact that a facility that is already reporting would not meet the applicability test in 40 CFR 98.91 under the revised subpart I does not relieve its obligation to report. Facilities may cease reporting only if they meet the criteria in 40 CFR 98.2(i). We are also removing the requirement, as proposed, that semiconductor manufacturing facilities calculate and report their F-GHG emissions based on the annual manufacturing capacity of the facility and the size of wafers that the facility is manufacturing. Subpart I currently distinguishes between “large” and “other” semiconductor facilities based on the calculated annual manufacturing capacity. Except as provided in the September 27, 2011 final rule titled “Changes to Provisions for Electronics Manufacturing to Provide Flexibility in 2011 to 2013,” subpart I requires “large” semiconductor facilities (facilities with an annual manufacturing capacity of greater than 10,500 m 2 of substrate) and those facilities that manufacture wafers greater than 300 mm in diameter to calculate emissions using recipe-specific utilization and by-product formation rates. As discussed in Sections II.A.1 through II.A.3 of this preamble, we are revising the calculation methodologies for semiconductor manufacturers. The calculation methods apply to all semiconductor manufacturers and there is no longer a need to distinguish “large” facilities based on manufacturing capacity. 5. Integrated Production and R&D Activities for Facilities That Manufacture Electronics The EPA is finalizing provisions, as proposed, to allow all electronics manufacturing facilities covered by subpart I to report R&D emissions with their total facility emissions and to identify that emissions associated with R&D activities are included in their overall emissions estimates. We are also requiring facilities that report integrated R&D emissions to report an estimate of the range of the percentage of total emissions from their R&D activities as part of their annual report (40 CFR 98.96(x)), and to keep records documenting that determination (40 CFR 98.97(j)). 6. Accuracy and Precision of Monitoring Instrumentation for Facilities That Manufacture Electronics The EPA is removing the requirements in 40 CFR 98.94(i) that all measuring devices meet an accuracy and precision of 1 percent of full scale or greater. Instead, as proposed, we are requiring electronics manufacturing facilities subject to subpart I to meet the existing General Provision calibration accuracy requirements in subpart A (40 CFR 98.3(i)). The calibration accuracy requirements for gas flow measurement devices are 5 percent, as specified in 40 CFR 98.3(i). Further, other measuring devices (e.g., weigh scales and thermometers) are required to be calibrated to an accuracy based on an applicable operating standard, including, but not limited to, device manufacturer's specifications and industry standards (40 CFR 98.3(i)(1)(i)). 7. Facility-Wide Gas Specific Heel Factor for Facilities That Manufacture Electronics The EPA is amending, as proposed, the requirements in subpart I to clarify that recalculating the heel factor is only needed when the trigger point for a specific gas and cylinder type is changed, and not as a result of variation in the actual heel remaining in a cylinder. We are amending 40 CFR 98.94(b)(5) to clarify that a gas-specific heel factor must be recalculated when the facility executes a process change to modify the trigger point for a gas and container type that differs by more than 5 percent from the previously used trigger point for that gas and container type. We are also clarifying, since proposal, that the facility is not required to estimate the fab-specific heel factor for F-GHGs or N 2 O 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 the established heel factor, if the difference in the change out point is greater than 1 pound. In this example, this 1 pound difference (based on the 50-percent criteria for an exceptional circumstance) represents less than 8 percent of the usable gas in the cylinder. 8. Apportioning Model Verification for Facilities That Manufacture Electronics The EPA is amending the apportioning model verification requirements. First, the final amendments, as proposed, allow reporters the option to use direct measurements of gas consumption to avoid the need to develop an apportioning model, and to develop an apportioning factor for each process type, sub-type, stack system, or fab using gas flow meters or weigh scales. The final amendments also retain the option to use an apportioning model and the verification requirements. Reporters opting to use the apportioning model must verify the model by comparing actual gas consumption to modeled gas consumption. The reporter must select for comparison the F-GHG that corresponds to the largest quantity, on a mass basis, of F-GHG used at the fab that has to be apportioned. Reporters may alternatively verify the model for two F-GHGs on an aggregate use basis if one of the gases selected is used in the largest quantity at each fab that is required to be apportioned. In this option, the predicted total mass consumed of the two gases combined must match the actual total mass consumed within the verification percent difference requirements for the apportioning model. Second, where a facility opts to develop and use an apportioning model, we are revising, as proposed, the verification standard to increase the allowable difference between the actual and modeled gas consumption from a maximum 5 percent difference to a maximum of 20 percent difference. We are finalizing changes, as proposed, to allow facilities to select a period of the reporting year when the fab is at a “representative operating level,” as defined in 40 CFR 98.98, for the model verification, instead of at a minimum percent of design capacity, or instead of at the highest 30-day average utilization. Under these final amendments, the representative period must still be at least 30 days, but we are clarifying that it can be up to the whole calendar reporting year in duration. 9. Calculating N 2 O Emissions for Facilities That Manufacture Electronics The EPA is revising the language for calculating N 2 O 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 N 2 O utilization factors in Table I-8 of subpart I, and removing the option to measure and use facility-specific N 2 O emission factors. However, the EPA is not revising the default factors of 0.8 for CVD processes and 1.0 for all other N 2 O-using manufacturing processes in the current Table I-8 of subpart I. The reasons for not adopting the default N 2 O emission factors that were proposed are described in section II.B of this preamble. The EPA is revising 40 CFR 98.93(b), as proposed, to clarify that facilities must report two N 2 O emission values for each fab at a facility: one for the aggregate of all CVD processes and one for the aggregate of all other N 2 O using manufacturing processes. We are finalizing similar changes to the reporting requirements in 40 CFR 98.96(c) for consistency and clarification. 10. Abatement System Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE) for Facilities That Manufacture Electronics The EPA is revising provisions for directly measuring abatement system DRE, and the basis for determining average DRE values for groups of similar abatement systems. These amendments apply to all electronics manufacturers. All reporters covered under subpart I still have the option of using either default DRE factors or a measured DRE value to calculate abated emissions. We are finalizing the option, as proposed, to allow reporters to establish a measured DRE value for gas and process type combinations, rather than for each abatement system or “class” of abatement systems. Reporters may measure the DRE for a gas and process type combination in which F-GHG and N 2 O are used in tools with abatement systems and for which abated emissions are calculated. Reporters may use a combination of measured and default DRE values; however, if a reporter develops a measured DRE value for abatement systems for a specific gas and process type combination for a fab, the resulting measured DRE must be used for that gas and process type combination and a default DRE factor cannot be used for that fab. In addition, the default DRE values may only be used for abatement systems specifically designed for F-GHG or N 2 O abatement. If a reporter elects to claim abatement for a system that is not specifically designed for F-GHG or N 2 O abatement, they must use a measured site-specific DRE for that system. We are also amending subpart I to allow reporters, as proposed, to use methods adapted from the 2009 ISMI Guideline tracer release/FTIR monitoring approach for determining abatement system DRE (hereafter, the “2009 ISMI Guideline”) 2 and also an alternative method to locate sampling sites. These alternatives are included in Appendix A to subpart I. We are also promulgating, as proposed, provisions that allow facilities to use an adaptation of Section 8.1 of EPA Method 7E at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4 as an alternative to determine whether the injected tracer is well mixed in the duct system or is stratified (i.e., poorly mixed), and to adjust the sampling if it is stratified. The concentration of the tracer must be measured at three traverse points at 16.7, 50.0, and 83.3 percent of the diameter of the duct and must be sampled for a minimum of twice the system response time. If the tracer gas concentration at each traverse point differs from the mean concentration for all traverse points by no more than ±5.0 percent of the mean concentration, the gas stream may be considered un-stratified and the facility is allowed collect samples from a single point that most closely matches the mean. If the 5.0 percent criterion is not met, but the concentration at each traverse point differs from the mean concentration for all traverse points by no more than ±10.0 percent of the mean, a facility may take samples from two points and use the average of the two measurements. The two points must be spaced at 16.7, 50.0, or 83.3 percent of the line. If the concentration at each traverse point differs from the mean concentration for all traverse points by more than ±10.0 percent of the mean but less than ±20.0 percent, the facility must take samples from three points at 16.7, 50.0, and 83.3 percent of the measurement line and use the average of the three measurements. If the gas stream is found to be stratified because the ±20.0 percent criterion for a 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. 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: http://www.sematech.org/docubase/document/4825beng.pdf. In addition, we are also allowing reporters, as proposed, to request approval to use an alternative sampling and analysis method to measure abatement system DRE that is not included in subpart I, provided the reporter follows the process to obtain the Administrator's approval specified in 40 CFR 98.94(k). The approval process is the same process used to obtain the Administrator's approval to use an alternative stack testing method (see “Alternative stack test methods” in Section II.A.1 of this preamble). We are amending the random sampling abatement system testing program (RSASTP), as proposed, to reduce the amount of testing that must be performed by an individual facility. These final amendments require that facilities test 10 percent of systems annually over a 2-year period (20 percent total) to set a baseline DRE for the given gas and process type combination. The systems must be randomly selected. A facility may test 20 percent of abatement systems in the first year. Until the facility measures 20 percent of abatement systems for a gas and process type combination (e.g., for calculating emissions in the first year if they test only 10 percent of systems per year), they must use the default DRE factors to calculate emissions. For every 3-year period after, facilities are required to randomly select and test 15 percent of the systems to validate the site-specific DRE. The reporter may opt to test 15 percent of the systems in the first year of the 3-year period, but must test at least 5 percent of the systems each year until 15 percent are tested. If testing of a particular randomly selected abatement system is disruptive to production, the reporter may replace that system with another randomly selected system and return the other to the sampling pool for subsequent testing. We are finalizing the requirement that a system cannot be returned to the subsequent testing pool for more than three consecutive selections and must be tested on the third selection. We are also allowing a reporter to specifically include in one of the next two sampling years a system that could not be tested when it was first selected so that the reporter can plan for the testing of that system when it will be less disruptive. We are finalizing the requirement, as proposed, that the average DRE for each gas and process type combination must be calculated first as the arithmetic mean of the first 2 years of measurements. Beginning in the third year of testing, the average DRE must be the arithmetic mean of all test results for that gas and process type combination, until the facility tests at least 30 percent of all systems for each gas and process combination. After testing at least 30 percent of all systems for a gas and process combination, the facility must use the arithmetic mean of the most recent 30 percent of systems tested as the average DRE in the emissions calculations. To account for measurements that may be affected by improper maintenance or operation of the abatement systems during a DRE measurement, the measured DRE value must be used as follows: (1) Where the DRE of some abatement units is below the design and default DRE, and the abatement system is installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the site maintenance plan for abatement systems, the data from the low DRE test must be included in calculating the 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. 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 N 2 O abatement (as applicable) and that are operated and maintained according to the facility's abatement system site maintenance plan that is based on the abatement system(s) manufacturer's recommendations and specifications for installation, operation, and maintenance. For semiconductor manufacturing facilities, we are revising and expanding the available DRE default values that may be used to calculate emissions. The revised default DREs for semiconductor manufacturing facilities are included in Table I-16. We are not revising or expanding default DRE factors for other electronics manufacturers (MEMS, LCDs, and PV cells); no changes to these DRE factors were proposed. Facilities manufacturing MEMS, LCDs, and PV cells must use the 60 percent default DRE if they do not develop facility-specific DRE values and elect to account for abatement system DRE in their reported emissions. We are revising the default DRE factors for semiconductors since proposal to reflect the results of the EPA's analysis of DRE test data for specific gas and process type combinations, which includes data that were submitted to the EPA during the comment period. The final default DRE factors also reflect a change since proposal in the statistical method used to calculate the default DRE factors as a result of public comments. The change in the method and EPA's rationale for adopting the different method is discussed in more detail in section II.B.5 of this preamble. The revised default DRE factors for the gas and process type combinations for semiconductor manufacturing are shown in Table I-16 of Subpart I. The EPA will add new or revised default DRE factors when appropriate data become available in the future. See Section II.A.12 of this preamble for the process for updating default emission factors and default DRE factors as more data are collected for the semiconductor manufacturing industry. In order to ensure that the abatement systems used are performing in a way that meets the default DRE or the measured DRE, we are requiring, as proposed, that facilities certify that abatement systems are properly installed, operated, and maintained according to the site maintenance plan for abatement systems (40 CFR 98.97(d)(9)). The site maintenance plan for abatement systems must define the required operation and maintenance procedures for each type of abatement system used at the facility, and must include corrective action procedures for when an abatement unit is not operating properly. The site maintenance plan must be based on the manufacturer's recommendations and specifications for installation, operation, and maintenance, where available. The site maintenance plan for abatement systems must also include documentation where the operation and maintenance deviate from the manufacturer's specifications, including an explanation of how the deviations have a positive or neutral effect on the performance or destruction or removal efficiency of the abatement system. For example, a reporter may include documentation of more frequent maintenance checks or tighter operating parameters that optimize system performance. The site maintenance plan for abatement systems must be kept as part of the GHG monitoring plan required by 40 CFR 98.3(g)(5). We are also specifying that if the manufacturer's recommendations and specifications for installation, operation, and maintenance are not available (e.g., for older fabs that want to claim abatement in their reported emissions), then facilities may not use the default DRE factors found in Table I-16 for those abatement systems, but do have the option to properly measure site-specific DREs following the requirements of 40 CFR 98.94(f)(4). Facilities also have the option to report their annual emissions without accounting for abatement. This is a change since proposal, and the rationale for this change is discussed in more detail in section II.B of this preamble. Furthermore, we are also requiring that facilities using the default emission factors who elect to claim abatement for reporting purposes and elect to use the default DRE values must also certify that the abatement systems are specifically designed for F-GHG abatement (or N 2 O 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 N 2 O, as appropriate) in exhaust streams from one or more electronics manufacturing production processes, or for which a site-specific DRE has been measured according to 40 CFR 98.94(f). We are also revising 40 CFR 98.94(f), in response to comments since proposal, to clarify that if facilities elect to use the stack test alternative in 40 CFR 98.93(i) and elect to account for abatement, they must certify that the system is designed to abate F-GHGs, or they must measure a site-specific DRE according to 40 CFR 98.94(f). We have also included a requirement that facilities using the stack test alternative must certify that that all abatement systems that are designed to abate F-GHGs or for which a site-specific DRE has been measured are fully accounted for when calculating annual emissions and accounting for excess emissions from downtime using the methods in 40 CFR 98.93(i)(3). If an abatement system is not designed to abate F-GHG, then reporters may elect to not account for any incidental F-GHG abatement from that system under the stack testing alternative. 11. Abatement System Uptime for Facilities That Manufacture Electronics The EPA is revising the methods used to calculate abatement system uptime. For facilities that are using the default gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates, we are amending 40 CFR 98.93(g) to allow reporters to calculate the uptime of all the abatement systems for each combination of input gas or by-product gas and each process type or sub-type combination, using the same process categories in which F-GHG use and emissions are calculated. We are revising Equation I-15 to calculate the average uptime factor for all abatement system connected to process tools for a given input gas and process type or subtype. The same uptime factor will be used for both input gases and the associated 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 equivalent to a full year if at least one tool was installed and operating at all times throughout the year. 12. Triennial Technology Report for Semiconductor Manufacturing We are requiring certain semiconductor manufacturing facilities, as proposed, to provide a report to the EPA every 3 years, beginning in 2017, that addresses technology and process changes at the facility that could affect GHG emissions. The report must address how technology and processes have changed in the industry over the previous 3 years and the extent to which any of the identified changes are likely to have affected the GHG emissions characteristics (i.e., the identity, amount, frequency, concentration, or other characteristics related to GHG emissions) of semiconductor manufacturing processes in such a way that the default gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates and/or default DRE factors in subpart I may need to be updated or augmented. The EPA plans to have reporters submit this report using the Electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool (e-GGRT) system. We are requiring, as proposed, that the first 3-year report be due with the annual GHG emissions report submitted in 2017. Only semiconductor manufacturing facilities subject to subpart I and with emissions from subpart I processes greater than 40,000 mtCO 2 e per year CO 2 e 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 mtCO 2 e for reporting year 2015 must submit the 3-year report due in 2017. To reduce burden, we are allowing the option for multiple semiconductor manufacturing facilities (regardless of whether they are owned by the same parent company) to submit a single consolidated 3-year report. Facilities with reported emissions at or below 40,000 mtCO 2 e 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 by-product formation rate or DRE data that have been collected in the previous 3 years that support the changes or continuities in semiconductor manufacturing processes described in the report. If the report indicates that the emissions characteristics of semiconductor manufacturing processes may have changed (i.e., the identity, amount, frequency, or concentration), the report must include a data gathering and analysis plan describing the testing of tools to determine the potential effect on current gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates and DRE values under the new conditions, and a planned analysis of the effect on overall facility emissions using a representative gas-use profile for a 200 mm, 300 mm, or 450 mm fab (depending on which technology is under consideration). The EPA 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. 13. Final Amendments to Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements In this action, the EPA is finalizing several changes (additions as well as revisions) to the data reporting and recordkeeping requirements in subpart I. Table 2 of this preamble summarizes the changes to the reporting elements, and notes those elements that were changed since proposal. Table 2—Changes to Reporting Requirements Data element Change/revision Original citation New or revised citation Annual manufacturing capacity of facility as determined in Equation I-5 Revised to report manufacturing capacity on a fab basis, rather than facility 1 98.96(a) NA. The diameter of wafers manufactured at the facility Revised to report wafer size on a fab basis, rather than facility 1 98.96(b) NA. Annual emissions of each F-GHG emitted from each process type for which your facility is required to calculate emissions as calculated in Equations I-6 and I-7 Revised to apply only when default gas utilization rate and 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 sub-type Removed requirement to report emissions by individual recipe (including those in a set of similar recipes). Revised so that requirement applies to “fab” instead of facility 98.96(c)(2) NA. Emissions of N 2 O emitted from each chemical vapor deposition process and from other N 2 O using manufacturing processes as calculated in Equation I-10 Revised to clarify that facilities report N 2 O emitted from the aggregate of all chamber cleaning processes and from the aggregate of other N 2 O-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 N 2 O 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 N 2 O as calculated in Equation I-11 of this subpart, including where your facility used less than 50 kg of a particular F-GHG or N 2 O during the reporting year. For all F-GHGs and N 2 O used at your facility for which you have not calculated emissions using Equations I-6, I-7, I-8, I-9, and I-10, the chemical name of the GHG used, the annual consumption of the gas, and a brief description of its use Changed to recordkeeping requirement. Revised so that requirement applies to “fab” instead of facility. Added applicable equation references for the stack testing option 98.96(g) 98.97(k). All inputs used to calculate gas consumption in Equation I-11 for each F-GHG and N 2 O used Changed to recordkeeping requirement 98.96(h) 98.97(k)(1). Disbursements for each F-GHG and N 2 O 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 N 2 O used in Equation I-12 including all facility-wide gas-specific heel factors used for each F-GHG and N 2 O 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 N 2 O consumed for each chemical vapor deposition and other electronics manufacturing production processes, as calculated using Equation I-13 Changed to recordkeeping requirement. Removed “recipe-specific” requirements. Revised to refer to the annual amount of N 2 O 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 N 2 O consumption Changed to recordkeeping requirement 98.96(l) 98.97(c)(1). Identification of the quantifiable metric used in your facility-specific engineering model to apportion gas consumption, and an indication if direct measurements were used in addition to, or instead of, a quantifiable metric Corrected citation and revised to indicate whether direct measurements used 98.96(m)(i) 98.96(m)(1). Start and end dates selected under 40 CFR 98.94(c)(2)(i) Corrected citation 98.96(m)(ii) 98.96(m)(2). Certification that the gases you selected under 40 CFR 98.94(c)(2)(ii) correspond to the largest quantities consumed on a mass basis, at your facility in the reporting year for the plasma etching process type and the chamber cleaning process type Corrected citation 98.96(m)(iii) 98.96(m)(3). The result of the calculation comparing the actual and modeled gas consumption under 40 CFR 98.94(c)(2)(iii) Corrected citation and revised to refer to modeled gas consumption under 40 CFR 98.94(c)(2)(iii) and (iv), as applicable 98.96(m)(iv) 98.96(m)(4). If you are required to apportion F-GHG consumption between fabs, certification that the gases you selected under 40 CFR 98.94(c)(2)(ii) correspond to the largest quantities consumed on a mass basis, of F-GHG used at your facility during the reporting year for which you are required to apportion Added requirement NA 98.96(m)(5). Fraction of each F-GHG or N 2 O 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 N 2 O 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 N 2 O flow at your facility, including the number of systems of each manufacturer, model numbers, manufacturer claimed F-GHG and N 2 O destruction or removal efficiencies, if any, and records of destruction or removal efficiency measurements over their in-use lives. The inventory of abatement systems must describe the tools with model numbers and the recipe(s), process sub-type, or process type for which these systems treat exhaust Revised the inventory to include only those systems for which the facility is claiming F-GHG or N 2 O destruction or removal Revised to report only (1) the number of devices controlling emissions for each process type, for each gas used in that process for which control credit is being taken; and (2) the basis of the DRE being used (default or site specific testing) for each process type and for each gas Revised to not require reporting the model number of the tools associated with each abatement system, and to remove the recipe-specific references 98.96(p) NA. Certification that each abatement system is installed, maintained, and operated according to manufacturer recommendations and specifications. All inputs to abatement system uptime calculations, the default or measured DRE used for each abatement system, and the description of the calculations and inputs used to calculate class averages for measured DRE values The certification is revised to include that all systems are installed, maintained, and operated according to the site operation and maintenance plan for abatement systems, including documentation where the process deviates from the manufacturer's recommendations and specifications, and an explanation of why the deviation does not have a negative effect on system performance 1 98.96(q) 98.97(d) All inputs to abatement system uptime calculations, the default or measured DRE used for each abatement system, and the description of the calculations and inputs used to calculate class averages for measured DRE values moved to recordkeeping in 98.97(d) In place of reporting the information and data on uptime and DRE calculations for abatement systems, the reporter must calculate and report an effective fab-wide DRE, as required in 98.96(r) Inputs to the F-HTF mass balance equation, Equation I-16, for each F-HTF Changed to recordkeeping 98.96(r) 98.97(r). An effective fab-wide DRE calculated using Equation I-26, I-27, and I-28, as appropriate Added requirement 1 NA 98.96(r). Estimates of missing data where missing data procedures were used to estimate inputs into the F-HTF mass balance equation under 40 CFR 98.95(b) Changed to recordkeeping 98.96(s) 98.97(s). A brief description of each “best available monitoring method” used according to 40 CFR 98.94(a), the parameter measured or estimated using the method, and the time period during which the “best available monitoring method” was used Removed requirement 98.96(t) NA. For reporting year 2012 only, the date on which you began monitoring emissions of F-HTF whose vapor pressure falls below 1 mm of Hg absolute at 25 degrees C Removed requirement 98.96(v) NA. The date of any stack testing conducted during the reporting year, and the identity of the stack tested Added requirement in conjunction with stack testing option NA 98.96(w)(1). An inventory of all stacks from which process F-GHGs are emitted. For each stack system, indicated whether the stack is among those for which stack testing was performed as per 40 CFR 98.3(i)(3) or not performed per 40 CFR 98.93(i)(2) Added requirement in conjunction with stack testing option NA 98.96(w)(2). If emissions reported under 40 CFR 98.96(c) include emissions from research and development activities, the approximate percentage of total GHG emissions that are attributable to research and development activities Added requirement NA 98.96(x). If your semiconductor manufacturing facility emits more than 40,000 mtCO 2 e, a triennial technology assessment report that includes information such as how gases and technologies have changed, the effect on emissions of the implementation of new process technologies, and default utilization and by-product formation rates collected in the previous 3 years Added requirement NA 98.96(y). NA—Not applicable. 1 Data element revised from proposed rule (77 FR 635380, October 16, 2012). The EPA is amending subpart I such that, with the addition of certain new data elements, several previous data reporting elements are not required to be reported to the EPA and, instead, are to be kept as records, as proposed. 3 These records must be made available to the EPA for review upon request. 3 These reporting elements include data elements that have been designated as “inputs to emissions equations” in the August 25, 2011 final rul titled, “Change to the Reporting Date for Certain Data Elements Required Under the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule” (76 FR 53057), and listed in Table A-7 of subpart A. Consistent with the final amendments to subpart I, we are removing these subpart I inputs to emissions equations data elements from table A-7 so that they are not required to be reported by March 31, 2015. More information on this final change can be found in Section III of this preamble. 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 F-GHG consumed, and data on the operating time and performance of abatement systems, but they are not required to report these data. Other data needed to determine the amount of F-GHG used in a process type or sub-type are not reported, but rather kept as records. The EPA has also included additional recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 98.97 to verify compliance with the factors that trigger a retest, including the identity and total annual consumption of each gas identified as an intermittent, low-use F-GHG, and the total number of tools at each stack in the fab. The final amendments to the default gas utilization rate and by-product formation rate approach require facilities to monitor and keep records of the amount of each F-GHG consumed in each process type and sub-type, and data on the operating time and performance of abatement systems, but do not require facilities to report these data. The final amendments to the reporting requirements move the information on the number and DRE of abatement systems at each facility from the reporting requirements to the recordkeeping requirements as proposed. In order to determine the extent to which GHG emissions from this category are being abated, we are including in 40 CFR 98.96(r) a requirement for reporters to calculate and report effective fab-wide DRE factors for the emissions from the electronics manufacturing processes at each fab. In the October 16, 2012 proposed amendments to subpart I, the EPA proposed to require facilities to report facility-wide DRE factors in order to assist in our verification of reported GHG emissions (77 FR 63569). Following proposal, the EPA determined that because facilities are already collecting information to determine emissions on a fab-level basis using either the methods in 40 CFR 98.93(a), (b), or (i), a fab-wide DRE factor (instead of facility-wide) is more appropriate to ascertain the extent to which GHGs are being abated. The 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 N 2 O in each process type or sub-type, and the default gas utilization rates and by-product formation rates in Tables I-3 to I-8, and I-11 to I-15 of subpart I. This calculation does not require reporters to collect any additional information because the information on F-GHG and N 2 O 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 N 2 O 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 I-11 to I-15 of subpart I. The second method is used to calculate the emissions without abatement from stack systems in cases where the reporter calculated emissions based on stack testing conducted according to 40 CFR 98.93(i)(4). In this method, reporters must calculate emissions without abatement from the reported GHG emissions using the inverse of the DRE and the fraction of each gas in each process type that is abated. This method uses default values or values that are already measured and used in the equations that a reporter uses to calculate GHG emissions in the stack testing option. In this notice we are also finalizing changes, as proposed, to Table A-7 of subpart A, General Provisions. Table A-7 lists those data elements for which the reporting date has been deferred to March 31, 2015 for the 2011 to 2013 reporting years. We are revising Table A-7 for the rows specific to subpart I to remove the references to those data elements described in Table 4 of this preamble that are moved from reporting in 40 CFR 98.96 to recordkeeping under 40 CFR 98.97, or that are removed entirely from subpart I because of the removal of the relevant emission calculation requirement. Since these data elements were originally deferred until 2015 and reporters are no longer required to report these data elements after January 1, 2014, this final rule revises these data elements from reporting requirements to recordkeeping requirements for 2011, 2012, and 2013, as well as 2014 and beyond. Reporters are still required to maintain records of these data elements according to the procedures outlined in 98.97. 14. Changes To Remove BAMM Provisions and Language Specific to Reporting Years 2011, 2012, and 2013 We are removing the provisions in 40 CFR 98.94(a) for best available monitoring methods (BAMM), as proposed. The requirements of 40 CFR 98.94(a)(1) through (a)(3) provide an option for reporters to request and use BAMM for calendar year 2011 reporting for monitoring parameters that cannot be reasonably measured according to the monitoring and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) methods provided in subpart I. The provisions require that, starting no later than January 1, 2012, the reporter must discontinue using BAMM and begin following all applicable monitoring and QA/QC requirements of this part, unless the EPA has approved the use of BAMM beyond 2011 under 40 CFR 98.98(a)(4). As discussed in Section I.D of this preamble, these amendments will become effective on January 1, 2014. Facilities are required to follow one of the new methods to estimate emissions beginning in 2014, submitting the first reports of emissions estimated using the new methods in 2015. The BAMM provisions of 40 CFR 98.94(a) will be outdated on the effective date. The provisions of 40 CFR 98.94(a)(1) to (a)(3) are limited to 2011, and the deadline for requesting an extension under 40 CFR 98.94(a)(4) also occurred in 2011. Therefore, we are removing all the BAMM provisions in the current subpart I, because they will no longer be applicable starting in 2014, which is when this final rule will be effective. We are not promulgating any new BAMM provisions because we expect that all facilities will be in compliance with the monitoring and QA/QC methods required under subpart I for the 2014 calendar year. We are also removing 40 CFR 98.93(h)(2), as proposed, which provided an option for reporters to calculate and report emissions of fluorinated heat transfer fluids using select time periods in 2012, and the corresponding reporting requirement at 40 CFR 98.96(v). In addition, we are removing language in 40 CFR 98.94(h)(3) that is specific to the monitoring of fluorinated heat transfer fluids in 2012. These provisions will no longer be applicable on the effective date of these final amendments, since both data elements are specific to 2012. B. Responses to Major Comments Submitted on the Electronics Manufacturing Source Category This section contains a brief summary of the major comments and responses on the proposed changes to the final subpart I rule. The EPA received comments on the proposed changes from the SIA, five semiconductor manufacturers (GlobalFoundries, IBM, Intel, Samsung, and Texas Instruments), and Environmental Defense Fund (an environmental advocacy group). A summary of all of the comments and the responses thereto that are not included in this preamble can be found in the document, “Reporting of Greenhouse Gases—Technical Revisions to the Electronics Manufacturing Category of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Responses to Public Comments” (see EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028). 1. Stack Testing as an Alternative Emission Monitoring Method for Facilities That Manufacture Electronics Comment: One commenter could not duplicate the EPA's calculation for all of the Tier 2a emission factors in Tables I-11 and I-12 of subpart I that are to be used to screen which stacks are to be tested under the stack testing alternative, and for calculating emissions from certain low-emitting stacks in that alternative. Based on their review of the EPA's explanation of how the factors in Tables I-11 and I-12 of subpart I were derived (see EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0090), the commenter recommended the following changes for the final amendments to subpart I: • EPA should continue to use the default factors by process type and process sub-type in Tables I-3 and I-4 of subpart I, or the underlying data, as the starting point for the derivation of the simpler factors in Tables I-11 and I-12 of subpart I. To the extent the factors in Tables I-3 and I-4 are updated between proposal and final rulemaking, those updated factors should be used to update the factors in Tables I-11 and I-12. • The commenter noted that the EPA used the arithmetic averages of the different process specific factors when deriving the factors in Tables I-11 and I-12 of subpart I. The commenter stated that weighting the individual factors for each process type by the amount of gas used in that process type is technically more appropriate than sample weighting (i.e., taking the arithmetic average of all the data points for that gas and process type). The commenter encouraged the EPA to re-compute the Table I-11 and I-12 factors with gas-use weighting. Where gas use information is not available, the commenter noted that sample weighting of available emission factor data would be acceptable. • The commenter recommended that the EPA should revise the nitrogen trifluoride (NF 3 ) emission factors to give proper weighting to the emissions factor for remote clean, which represents the largest use of NF 3 . Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that the factors in [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2013-23804. Public record. Not legal advice.