[Federal Register: April 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 69)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 18651-18723]
[DOCID:fr12ap10-22]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part IV

Environmental Protection Agency

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

40 CFR Part 98

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Additional Sources of
Fluorinated GHGs; Proposed Rule

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 98

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927; FRL-9130-7]
RIN 2060-AQ00

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Additional Sources of
Fluorinated GHGs

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is revising and supplementing its initial proposed actions
to require reporting of fluorinated greenhouse gas (fluorinated GHG)
emissions from certain source categories. Specifically, EPA is revising
and supplementing its initial proposal to require reporting of
fluorinated GHG emissions from electronics manufacturing, production of
fluorinated gases, and use of electrical transmission and distribution
equipment. EPA is also proposing to require such reporting from
manufacture or refurbishment of electrical equipment and import and
export of pre-charged equipment and closed cell foams. This proposed
rule would not require control of greenhouse gases; rather it would
require only that sources above certain threshold levels monitor and
report emissions.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 11, 2010. There will
be a public hearing from 9 a.m. to 12 noon on April 20, 2010 at 1310 L
St., NW., Room 152, Washington, DC 20005.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0927 by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: EPA Docket Center, Attention Docket OAR-2009-0927,
Mail code 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading
Room, Room 3334, EPA West Building, Attention Docket OAR-2009-0927,
1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0927. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not
submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected
through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment
directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov your
e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: 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., 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 EPA's Docket Center,
Public Reading Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For technical information contact the
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To obtain
information about the public hearings or to register to speak at the
hearings, please go to http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/
ghgrulemaking.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additional Information on Submitting
Comments: To expedite review of your comments by Agency staff, you are
encouraged to send a separate copy of your comments, in addition to the
copy you submit to the official docket, to Carole Cook, U.S. EPA,
Office of Atmospheric Programs, Climate Change Division, Mail Code
6207-J, Washington, DC 20460, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    As indicated above, although EPA previously proposed a version of
some parts of this rule, that proposal has not become final. This
proposal partly supplements and partly replaces that initial proposal.
Comments on the initial proposal will be considered only to the extent
they remain relevant. To ensure that their comments on newly proposed
or re-proposed provisions are considered, parties should submit or re-
submit them at this time.
    Regulated Entities. The Administrator determined that this action
is subject to the provisions of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(d). See
CAA section 307(d)(1)(V) (the provisions of section 307(d) apply to
``such other actions as the Administrator may determine.''). This is a
proposed regulation. If finalized, these regulations would affect
owners or operators of electronics manufacturing facilities,
fluorinated gas production facilities, electric power systems, and
electrical equipment manufacturing facilities, as well as importers and
exporters of pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams. Regulated
categories and entities would include those listed in Table 1 of this
preamble:

           Table 1--Examples of Affected Entities by Category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Examples of affected
             Category                 NAICS            facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronics Manufacturing.........     334111  Microcomputers
                                                manufacturing
                                                facilities.
                                       334413  Semiconductor,
                                                photovoltaic (solid-
                                                state) device
                                                manufacturing
                                                facilities.
                                       334419  LCD unit screens
                                                manufacturing
                                                facilities.
                                       334419  MEMS manufacturing
                                                facilities.
Fluorinated GHG Production........     325120  Industrial gases
                                                manufacturing
                                                facilities.
Electrical Equipment Use..........     221121  Electric bulk power
                                                transmission and control
                                                facilities.
Electrical Equipment Manufacture        33531  Power transmission and
 or Refurbishment.                              distribution switchgear
                                                and specialty
                                                transformers
                                                manufacturing
                                                facilities.
Importers and Exporters of Pre-        423730  Air-conditioning
 charged Equipment and Closed-Cell              equipment (except room
 Foams.                                         units) merchant
                                                wholesalers.
                                       333415  Air-conditioning
                                                equipment (except motor
                                                vehicle) manufacturing.
                                       423620  Air-conditioners, room,
                                                merchant wholesalers.
                                       443111  Household Appliance
                                                Stores.
                                       326150  Polyurethane foam
                                                products manufacturing.
                                       335313  Circuit breakers, power,
                                                manufacturing.
                                       423610  Circuit breakers merchant
                                                wholesalers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 lists the types of facilities that EPA
is now aware could be potentially affected by the reporting
requirements. Other types of facilities and companies not listed in the
table could also be subject to reporting requirements. 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 the
relevant criteria in the proposed subparts related to electronics
manufacturing facilities, fluorinated gas production facilities,
electrical equipment use, electrical equipment manufacturing or
refurbishment facilities, and importers and exporters of pre-charged
equipment and closed-cell foams. 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.
    Many facilities that would be affected by the proposed rule have
GHG emissions from multiple source categories listed in 40 CFR part 98
or in this proposed rule. Table 2 of this preamble has been developed
as a guide to help potential reporters in the source categories subject
to the proposed rule identify the source categories (by subpart) that
they may need to (1) consider in their facility applicability
determination, and/or (2) include in their reporting. The table should
only be seen as a guide. Additional subparts in 40 CFR part 98 may be
relevant for a given reporter. Similarly, not all listed subparts are
relevant for all reporters.

            Table 2--Source Categories and Relevant Subparts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Source category (and main applicable   Subparts recommended for review
                subpart)                   to determine  applicability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electricity Generation.................  Electrical Equipment Use.
Electronics Manufacturing..............  General Stationary Fuel
                                          Combustion.
Fluorinated GHG Production.............  General Stationary Fuel
                                          Combustion. Suppliers of
                                          Industrial Greenhouse Gases.
Electrical Equipment Use...............  General Stationary Fuel
                                          Combustion.
Imports and Exports of Fluorinated GHGs  Suppliers of Industrial
 Inside Pre-charged Equipment and         Greenhouse Gases.
 Closed-Cell Foams.
                                         Sulfur Hexafluoride and PFCs
                                          from Electrical Equipment
                                          Manufacture and Refurbishment.
Electrical Equipment Manufacture or      General Stationary Fuel
 Refurbishment.                           Combustion
                                         Imports and Exports of
                                          Fluorinated GHGs Inside Pre-
                                          charged Equipment and Closed-
                                          Cell Foams.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and
abbreviations are used in this document.

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BAMM Best Available Monitoring Methods
CAA Clean Air Act
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBI confidential business information
CFC chlorofluorocarbon
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e CO2-equivalent
EIA Economic Impact Analysis
EO Executive Order
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
F-GHG fluorinated greenhouse gas
FTIR fourier transform infrared (spectroscopy)
FID flame ionization detector
GC gas chromatography
GHG greenhouse gas
GWP global warming potential
HCFC hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HFC hydrofluorocarbon
HFE hydrofluoroether
HTF heat transfer fluid
ICR information collection request
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
kg kilograms
LCD liquid crystal displays
MEMS microelectromechanical devices
MMTCO2e million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent
MRR mandatory greenhouse gas reporting rule
MS mass spectrometry
N2O nitrous oxide
NACAA National Association of Clean Air Agencies
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NERC North American Energy Reliability Corporation
NESHAP National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NF3 nitrogen trifluoride

NMR nuclear magnetic resonance
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PFC perfluorocarbon
PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration
PV photovoltaic cells
QA quality assurance
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
R&D research and development
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RGGI Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
TCR The Climate Registry
TSD technical support document
U.S. United States
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
VOC volatile organic compound(s)
WCI Western Climate Initiative

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Organization of This Preamble
    B. Background on the Proposed Rule
    C. Legal Authority
    D. Relationship to other Federal, State and Regional Programs
II. Summary of and Rationale for the Reporting, Recordkeeping and
Verification Requirements for Specific Source Categories
    A. Electronics Manufacturing
    B. Fluorinated Gas Production
    C. Electric Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use
    D. Imports and Exports of Fluorinated GHGs inside pre-charged
equipment and closed-cell foams
    E. Electrical Equipment Manufacture or Refurbishment
    F. Subpart A Revisions
III. Economic Impacts on the Rule
    A. How were compliance costs estimated?
    B. What are the costs of the rule?
    C. What are the economic impacts of the rule?
    D. What are the impacts of the rule on small businesses?
    E. What are the benefits of the rule for society?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

I. Background

A. Organization of This Preamble

    This preamble is broken into several large sections, as detailed
above in the Table of Contents. The paragraphs below describe the
layout of the preamble and provide a brief summary of each section.
    The first section of this preamble contains the basic background
information about the origin of this proposed rule, including a brief
discussion of the initial proposed requirements for electronics,
fluorinated gas production, and use of electrical transmission and
distribution equipment. This section also discusses EPA's use of our
legal authority under the CAA to collect the proposed data, and the
benefits of collecting the data.
    The second section of this preamble provides a brief summary of,
and rationale for, the key design elements on which EPA is seeking
comment today for each subpart. Depending on the subpart, this section
may include EPA's rationale for (i) the definition of the source
category, (ii) selection of reporting threshold, (iii) selection of
proposed reporting and monitoring methods, (iv) selection of procedures
for estimating missing data, (v) selection of data reporting
requirements, and (vi) selection of records that must be retained. EPA
describes the proposed options for each design element, as well as the
other options considered. Throughout this discussion, EPA highlights
specific issues on which we solicit comment. Please refer to the
specific source category of interest for more details.
    The third section provides the summary of the cost impacts,
economic impacts, and benefits of this proposed rule from the Economic
Analysis. Finally, the last section discusses the various statutory and
executive order requirements applicable to this proposed rulemaking.

B. Background on the Proposed Rule

    The Final Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule (Final MRR), (40 CFR part
98) was signed by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson on September 22, 2009
and published in the Federal Register on October 30, 2009 (74 FR
56260). The Final MRR, which became effective on December 29, 2009,
included reporting of GHGs from the facilities and suppliers that EPA
determined should be included to appropriately respond to the direction
in the 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act.\1\ These source categories
capture approximately 85 percent of U.S. GHG emissions through
reporting by direct emitters as well as suppliers of fossil fuels and
industrial gases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110-161,
121 Stat. 1844, 2128.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the April 2009 proposed mandatory GHG reporting rule, the
electronics, fluorinated GHG production, and electrical equipment use
source categories were included as subparts I, L, and DD. In addition,
EPA requested comment on requiring reporting under subpart OO of the
quantities of fluorinated GHGs imported and exported inside pre-charged
equipment and foams. EPA received a number of lengthy, detailed
comments regarding proposed subparts I and L, several comments
regarding the definition of ``facility'' under subpart DD, and several
comments regarding a reporting requirement for imports and exports of
fluorinated GHGs contained inside pre-charged equipment and foams.
These comments, which are described in more detail in the discussions
of the individual source categories below, raised concerns about the
costs and technical feasibility of implementing subparts I and L as
initially proposed, requested clarification of how ``facility'' should
be interpreted under subpart DD, and both favored and opposed a
requirement to report imports of fluorinated GHGs contained in imported
and exported pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams.
    EPA recognized the concerns raised by stakeholders, and decided not
to finalize subparts I, L, and DD with the Final MRR, but instead to
re-propose significant pieces of these subparts. For subparts I and L
this proposal incorporates a number of changes including, but not
limited to, the addition of different methodologies that provide
improved emissions coverage at a lower cost burden to facilities as
compared to the initial proposal. Where aspects of the initial
proposals for subparts I and L are retained in this proposal, such as
in the basic mass-balance methodology for subpart L (as an option for
some facilities) and in many of the equations for subpart I, today's
proposal adds more flexibility in how and how frequently the underlying
data are gathered. In addition, EPA is proposing requirements to report
emissions from manufacture or refurbishment of electrical equipment and
to report the quantities of fluorinated GHGs imported and exported
inside pre-charged equipment and foams.
    We believe the monitoring approaches proposed in this action, which
combine direct measurement and facility-specific calculations,
effectively balance

accuracy and costs, and that they are warranted even though the rule
does not contain any emissions reduction requirements. As we stated in
the Final MRR, the data collected by the rule are expected to be used
in analyzing and developing a range of potential CAA GHG policies and
programs. A consistent and accurate data set is crucial to serve this
intended purpose.
    Under this proposed rule, facilities not already reporting but
required to report under this rule would begin data collection in 2011
following the methods outlined in the proposed rule and would submit
data to EPA by March 31, 2012. As is the case under the Final MRR,
facilities would have the option to use Best Available Monitoring
Methods (BAMM) for the first quarter of the first reporting year for
the source categories included in this proposed rule. Thus, for these
source categories, facilities could use BAMM through March 31, 2011.

C. Legal Authority

    EPA is proposing this rule under its existing CAA authority,
specifically authorities provided in CAA section 114. As discussed
further below and in ``Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's
Response to Public Comments, Legal Issues'' (available in EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0508), EPA is not citing the FY 2008 Consolidated Appropriations
Act as the statutory basis for this action. While that law required
that EPA spend no less than $3.5 million on a rule requiring the
mandatory reporting of GHG emissions, it is the CAA, not the
Appropriations Act, that EPA is citing as the authority to gather the
information proposed by this rule.
    As stated in the Final MRR, CAA section 114 provides EPA broad
authority to require the information proposed by this rule because such
data would inform and are relevant to EPA's carrying out a wide variety
of CAA provisions. As discussed in the initial proposed rule (74 FR
16448, April 10, 2009), CAA section 114(a)(1) authorizes the
Administrator to require emissions sources, persons subject to the CAA,
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. EPA notes that while climate change
legislation approved by the U.S. House of Representatives, and pending
in the U.S. Senate, would provide EPA additional authority for a GHG
registry similar to this proposed rule, and would do so for purposes of
that pending legislation, this proposed rule is authorized by, and the
information being gathered by this proposed rule is relevant to
implementing, the existing CAA. EPA expects, however, that the
information collected by this proposed rule would also prove useful to
legislative efforts to address GHG emissions.
    For further information about EPA's legal authority, see the
proposed and Final MRR.

D. Relationship to Other Federal, State and Regional Programs

    In developing this proposed rule, EPA reviewed monitoring methods
included in international guidance (e.g., Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change), as well as Federal voluntary programs (e.g., EPA PFC
Reduction/Climate Partnership for the Semiconductor Industry and the
U.S. Department of Energy Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases
Program (1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act), corporate protocols (e.g.,
World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable
Development GHG Protocol) and industry guidance (e.g., 2006 ISMI
Guideline for Environmental Characterization of Semiconductor Process
Equipment).
    EPA also reviewed State reporting programs (e.g., California and
New Mexico) and Regional partnerships (e.g., Regional Greenhouse Gas
Initiative, Western Climate Initiative, The Climate Registry). These
are important programs that not only led the way in reporting of GHG
emissions before the Federal government acted but also assist in
quantifying the GHG reductions achieved by various policies. Many of
these programs collect different or additional data as compared to this
proposed rule. For example, State programs may establish lower
thresholds for reporting, request information on areas not addressed in
EPA's reporting rule, or include different data elements to support
other programs (e.g., offsets). For further discussion on the
relationship of this proposed rule to other programs, please refer to
the preamble to the Final MRR.

II. Summary of and Rationale for the Reporting, Recordkeeping and
Verification Requirements for Specific Source Categories

A. Electronics Manufacturing

1. Overview of Reporting Requirements
    Electronics manufacturing includes, but is not limited to, the
manufacture of semiconductors, liquid crystal displays (LCDs), micro-
electro-mechanical systems (MEMS), and photovoltaic cells (PV). The
electronics industry uses multiple long-lived fluorinated greenhouse
gases (fluorinated GHGs) such as perfluorocarbons (PFCs),
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and
nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), as well as nitrous oxide
(N2O). This proposed rule would apply to electronics
manufacturing facilities where emissions from electronics manufacturing
processes such as plasma etching, chemical vapor deposition, chamber
cleaning, and heat transfer fluid use as well as stationary fuel
combustion units equal or exceed 25,000 metric tons of CO2e
per year.\2\ In this action, we are proposing methods to estimate
emissions from cleaning and etching for semiconductor, LCD, MEMS, and
PV manufacture and also methods for estimating N2O emissions
from chemical vapor deposition and other manufacturing processes such
as chamber cleaning. We are also clarifying methods for estimating
emissions from heat transfer fluids. And lastly, we are proposing
methods for reporting controlled emissions from abatement systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As discussed further below, EPA is proposing that
uncontrolled emissions be used for purposes of determining whether a
facility's emissions are equal to or greater than 25,000
mtCO2e.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Major Changes Since Initial Rule Proposed
    In the initial proposal for electronics manufacturing, we included
the following provisions for reporting emissions from electronics
manufacture: (1) A capacity-based threshold for semiconductors, LCDs,
and MEMS facilities and an emissions-based threshold for PV facilities;
(2) methods for estimating fluorinated GHG emissions from etching and
cleaning; (3) methods for estimating N2O emissions during
etching and cleaning; (4) methods for verifying destruction or removal
efficiency (DRE) of abatement systems; and (5) methods for estimating
emissions from heat transfer fluids.
    As noted in the preamble to the Final MRR, we received a number of
lengthy, detailed comments regarding the electronics manufacturing
subpart. In total, we received comments from approximately 10 entities
on the proposed rule regarding electronics manufacture. The commenters
generally opposed the proposed reporting requirements for large
semiconductor facilities and stated that excessive monitoring and
reporting were required. For example, commenters asserted that they do
not currently collect the data required to report using an IPCC Tier 3

approach, and that to collect such data would entail significant burden
and capital costs. In most cases, commenters provided alternative
approaches to each of the reporting requirements.
    We have carefully reviewed the comments, issues, and suggestions
raised by stakeholders regarding electronics manufacturing. In
response, we are revising our initial proposal and are proposing the
following reporting provisions for electronics manufacture: (1) A
single emissions-based reporting threshold for all semiconductor, LCD,
MEMS, and PV facilities; (2) modified methods for estimating emissions
from cleaning and etching activities for semiconductor facilities and
other electronics facilities including those that manufacture LCDs,
MEMS, and PVs; (3) modified methods for estimating facility
N2O emissions; (4) clarified methods for estimating
emissions from heat transfer fluids; and (5) revised methods for
reporting controlled emissions from abatement systems.
    In the paragraphs below, we summarize the main provisions included
in the initial proposal for reporting emissions from electronics
manufacturing and we briefly summarize the major changes that are being
proposed today. For more detailed information on the initial proposal,
see the electronics manufacturing section of EPA's proposed MRR (74 FR
16448, April 10, 2009).
    Reporting Threshold. In the initial proposal, we proposed a
capacity-based threshold, requiring those facilities with emissions
equal to or greater than the thresholds to report their GHG emissions.
We proposed production capacity-based thresholds of 1,080 m \2\, 1,020
m \2\, and 236,000 m \2\ of substrate for semiconductor, MEMS, and LCD
manufacturing facilities, respectively. The capacity-based threshold
proposed were equivalent to 25,000 mtCO2e using the IPCC
2006 Tier 1 default factors and assumed no abatement. Where IPCC 2006
Tier 1 default emission factors were unavailable (i.e., MEMS), the
emission factor was estimated based on relevant IPCC Tier 1 emission
factors for semiconductor production. Due to a lack of information on
use and emissions of fluorinated GHGs for PV manufacture, we proposed
an emissions-based threshold of 25,000 mtCO2e for those
facilities. We proposed to use a capacity-based threshold based on the
published capacities of facilities, as opposed to an emissions-based
threshold, where possible, because we believed that it simplified the
applicability determination.
    Several commenters stated that the proposed capacity-based
threshold created ambiguity. For example, one commenter noted that it
was unclear how production capacity was defined as actual manufacturing
levels could fluctuate year by year. In response to these comments, we
are now proposing a single emissions-based threshold equal to or
greater than 25,000 metric tons of CO2e per year for
electronics manufacturing facilities. We have concluded that a single
emissions-based threshold will simplify the applicability determination
and that by applying the method for determining whether the threshold
is met, a facility will be able to quickly determine whether they must
report under this rule.
    Estimating Emissions from Cleaning and Etching Processes. With
respect to estimating emissions from chamber cleaning and etching, in
our initial proposal, we outlined two different methods; one method for
relatively large semiconductor facilities, and another method for all
other semiconductor facilities and LCD, MEMS, and PV facilities
required to report. We defined large semiconductor facilities as those
facilities with annual capacities of greater than 10,500 m\2\ silicon
(equivalent to 29 out of 175 total semiconductor manufacturing
facilities). For large semiconductor facilities we proposed an approach
based on the IPCC Tier 3 method that required the use of company-
specific data for (1) gas consumption, (2) gas utilization,\3\ (3) by-
product formation \4\, and (4) DRE for all emissions abatement
processes at the facility. As we stated in the initial proposal, we had
concluded that large semiconductor facilities were already using Tier 3
methods and/or had the necessary data readily available either in-house
or from suppliers to apply the highest Tier method. For smaller
semiconductor facilities and LCD, MEMS, and PV facilities, we proposed
an approach based on the IPCC Tier 2b method, which required using
default emission factors for process utilization, by-product formation,
and site-specific DRE measurements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For purposes of electronics manufacturing, we are using the
term ``gas utilization'' to describe the fraction of input
N2O or fluorinated GHG converted to other substances
during the etching, deposition, and/or chamber/wafer cleaning
processes. Gas utilization is expressed as a rate or factor for
specific manufacturing processes. ``Utilization'' should not be
confused with ``use;'' ``use'' refers to gas consumption or the
quantity of gas fed into process at an electronics manufacturing
facility.
    \4\ For purposes of electronics manufacturing, ``by-product
formation'' is the quantity of fluorinated GHGs created during
electronics manufacturing processes. Fluorinated GHG by-products may
also be formed by abatement devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments received in response to our initial proposal stated that
the 2006 IPCC Tier 3 method would be overly burdensome for
semiconductor manufacturers and that process-specific emission factors
do not exist for many tools and processes. The commenters noted that
most semiconductor facilities do not track gas consumption by tool or
process-type and that currently, only one large semiconductor company
uses the Tier 3 method. Generally, commenters requested the use of the
2006 IPCC Tier 2b method.
    In response to these comments, we are now proposing the use of a
``Refined Method'' for estimating these emissions from semiconductor
facilities. Our revised methodology includes a simpler approach to
estimating emissions from cleaning and etching as compared to the Tier
3 method that was initially proposed for larger semiconductor
facilities. To this end, we estimate that our proposed methodology will
result in a reduction in burden compared to the Tier 3 method for those
facilities previously defined as large semiconductor facilities, and an
improvement in accuracy of the emissions estimate as compared to the
2006 IPCC Tier 2b method. Furthermore, since we anticipate that all
semiconductor facilities already have, or have ready access to, the
information required by this proposed methodology, we are also
proposing to require all semiconductor facilities required to report to
estimate emissions using the Refined Method. We have concluded the
method we are proposing is the most appropriate method taking into
account both the cost to the reporter as well as accuracy of emissions
achieved.
    For LCD, MEMS, and PV facilities, in this action we are proposing
to require an approach based on a slightly modified 2006 IPCC Tier 2b
method which would include (1) gas-and facility-specific heel factors
(consistent with the requirements we are proposing for semiconductor
facilities), (2) gas consumption apportioned to 2006 IPCC Tier 2b
process categories (i.e. clean and etch), (3) default factors
consistent with the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b factors, and (4) methods for
reporting controlled emissions from abatement systems (as proposed
below). The main difference between the method proposed in this revised
proposal and in the initial proposal is the addition of a gas-and
facility-specific heel factor to determine overall gas consumption. We
did not receive any comments on the Tier 2b method that we proposed for
LCD, MEMS, and PV facilities in our initial proposal. We are proposing
to add the requirement of gas-and-facility specific

heel factors based on comments received from semiconductor facilities
in response to the initial proposal. It is our understanding that LCD,
MEMS, and PV facilities have the data required to develop a gas-and-
facility specific heel factors and that it can be implemented with
minimal burden.
    Estimating Facility N2O Emissions. In our initial proposal, our
approach required that facilities estimate annual N2O
emissions using a simple mass-balance method. This method assumed that
all N2O consumed is emitted (i.e., not converted or
destroyed). We also requested comment on utilization factors for
N2O as well as on data on N2O by-product
formation.
    In response to our initial proposal, we received comments that
clarified that N2O is used primarily in the chemical vapor
deposition process. Commenters opposed our proposed method for
estimating N2O emissions, which assumed 100 percent
N2O used is emitted, and asserted that semiconductor
facilities should be permitted to use measured N2O emission
factors where these factors were measured using methods consistent with
the December 2006 International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative's
Guideline for Environmental Characterization of Semiconductor Process
Equipment (2006 ISMI Guidelines). Commenters also noted that facilities
that have not developed N2O emission factors should be
allowed to use a default emission factor of 60 percent, reflecting
N2O utilization of 40 percent.\5\ Lastly, commenters
asserted that those companies that have a measured DRE for
N2O abatement be allowed to apply these DREs in the emission
estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The 40% utilization rate (60% emission factor) was
identified based on a survey of industry conducted by ISMI and
provided in comments in response to the initial proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are now proposing two methods for estimating N2O
emissions from electronics manufacturing: one for estimating
N2O emissions from chemical vapor deposition and another for
estimating N2O emissions from all other manufacturing
processes such as chamber cleaning.
    Reporting Controlled Emissions From Abatement Systems. The
emissions estimation method originally proposed accounted for
destruction by abatement systems only if facilities verified the
performance of their systems using one of two methods. In particular,
we proposed to require that the DRE be verified by either (1)
measurement by the facility using the methods described in EPA's
Protocol for Measuring Destruction or Removal Efficiency of Fluorinated
Greenhouse Gas Abatement Equipment in Electronics Manufacturing (EPA's
DRE Protocol), or (2) purchase by the facility of abatement systems
that were tested by a third party using a standard protocol such as
EPA's DRE Protocol.
    We also proposed to require that facilities use the systems within
the manufacturer's specified system lifetime, operate the system within
the manufacturer specific limits for the gas mix and exhaust flow rate
intended for the fluorinated GHG destruction, and maintain the
equipment according to the manufacturer's guidelines.
    In response to the initial proposal, commenters were generally
opposed to EPA's initial approach for measuring DRE, noting that
according to the Results of the ISMI ESH Technology Center Greenhouse
Gas Facility Survey, less than one percent of installed abatement
systems have been properly tested using the draft EPA Protocol and that
generally, facilities use the IPCC default factors or manufacturer-
supplied measurements. In addition, commenters were also opposed to
EPA's proposed requirement that facilities rely on manufacturer-
specified system lifetime as properly maintained and serviced abatement
systems can last beyond the manufactures' specified lifetime. For
purposes of this reporting rule, we are now proposing that facilities
that wish to document and report fluorinated GHG and N2O
emissions reflecting the use of abatement systems adhere to a method
that would require (1) documentation to certify that the abatement
device is installed, operated, and maintained according to
manufacturers' specifications, (2) accounting for the system's uptime,
and (3) either certification that the abatement system is specifically
designed for fluorinated GHG and N2O abatement and the use
of EPA default DRE value, or directly and properly measured DRE (i.e.,
in accordance with EPA DRE Protocol) confirming abatement system's
performance.
    Estimating Emissions from Heat Transfer Fluids. To estimate the
emissions from heat transfer fluids we proposed to require that
electronics manufacturers use the 2006 IPCC Tier 2 approach, which is
based on a mass-balance method. As we stated in the initial proposal,
the 2006 IPCC Tier 2 approach uses company-specific data and accounts
for differences among facilities' heat transfer fluids, leak rates, and
service practices.
    In comments we received on our initial proposal, it was noted that
our proposed method for estimating emissions from heat transfer fluids
would require companies to compile a detailed inventory of all
fluorinated heat transfer equipment and its nameplate capacity.
Comments stated that such a mass balance approach would be overly
burdensome.
    In evaluating these comments, we believe that there was some
confusion regarding our intended method. As a result, we are not
changing the broad outlines of our initial proposal, but we are
clarifying required data elements.
3. Definition of the Source Category
    The electronics industry uses multiple long-lived fluorinated GHGs
such as PFCs, HFCs, SF6, and NF3, as well as
N2O, during manufacturing of semiconductors, LCDs, MEMS, and
PV. We understand that there are other electronics manufacturers such
as those facilities that manufacture light-emitting diodes (LEDs) and
disk readers that use fluorinated GHGs in similar manufacturing
processes as semiconductors. As a result, we are seeking information on
fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions associated with the
manufacture of these products and also comment on whether to include
them as part of the electronics manufacturing source category. It is
our intent to include these other sources as part of the electronics
manufacturing source category in the final rule where their emissions
meet or exceed our proposed threshold of 25,000 mtCO2e.
    Fluorinated GHGs are used for plasma etching of silicon materials,
cleaning deposition tool chambers, and wafer cleaning. N2O
is also used in depositing certain films and chamber cleaning.
Additionally, electronics manufacturing employs fluorinated GHGs
(typically liquids at ambient temperature) as heat transfer fluids. The
most common fluorinated GHGs in use for these purposes are
CHF3 (HFC-23), CF4, C2F6,
NF3, SF6 and FluorinertTM and
Galden[reg] heat transfer fluids; other compounds such as
perfluoropropane (C3F8) and perfluorocyclobutane
(c-C4F8) are also used in smaller quantities
(EPA, 2008a). Table 3 of this preamble presents fluorinated GHGs
typically used during manufacture of electronics devices.

 Table 3--Examples of Fluorinated GHGs Used by the Electronics Industry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fluorinated GHGs used during
              Product type                         manufacture
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronics (e.g., Semiconductor, MEMS,  CF4, C2F6, C3F8, c-C4F8, c-
 LCD, PV).                                C4F8O, C4F6, C5F8, CHF3,
                                          CH2F2, NF3, SF6, and Heat
                                          Transfer Fluids (CF3-(O-
                                          CF(CF3)-CF2)n-(O-CF2)m-O-CF3,
                                          CnF2n+2, CnF2n+1(O)CmF2m+1,
                                          CnF2nO, (CnF2n+1)3N) \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ IPCC Guidelines do not specify the fluorinated GHGs used for MEMS
  production. Literature reviews revealed that among others CF4, SF6,
  and the Bosch process (consisting of alternating steps of SF6 and c-
  C4F8) are used to manufacture MEMS. For further information, see the
  Electronics Manufacturing TSD in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-
  HQ-OAR-2009-0927).

    Description of Electronics Manufacturing Processes and Activities.
Fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions result from the following
electronics processes and activities:
    (1) Plasma etching;
    (2) Chemical vapor deposition;
    (3) Chamber cleaning;
    (4) Wafer cleaning; and
    (5) Heat transfer fluid use.
    Plasma etching, essential to fabricating intricate, nanometer size
features in contemporary electronic devices, is the removal of solid
material from a substrate surface with gaseous reactants, in plasma, to
produce gaseous products, which are then pumped away and disposed.
Unless abated, unreacted fluorinated reactants or fluorinated GHG by-
products from etching are emitted into the atmosphere.
    Typical fluorinated GHG etching reagents, used either individually
or in combination, are CF4, CHF3,
C2F6 and c-C4F8 for silicon
dioxide and nitride films; CF4, NF3 and
SF6 for polysilicon films; and CHF3 for aluminum
and SF6 for tungsten films. A typical fluorinated GHG by-
product from etching processes is CF4; in some instances
C2F6 may also be formed.
    Deposition is a fundamental step in the fabrication of a variety of
electronic devices. During deposition, layers of dielectric, barrier,
or electrically conductive films are deposited or grown on a wafer or
other substrate. Chemical vapor deposition enables the deposition of
dielectric or metal films. During the chemical vapor deposition
process, gases that contain atoms of the material to be deposited react
on the wafer surface to form a thin film of solid material. Films
deposited by chemical vapor deposition may be silicon oxide, single-
layer crystal epitaxial silicon, amorphous silicon, silicon nitride,
dielectric anti-reflective coatings, low k dielectric, aluminum,
titanium, titanium nitride, polysilicon, tungsten, refractory metals or
silicides. Nitrous oxide may be the oxidizer of choice during
deposition of silicon oxide films.
    Chambers used for depositing polysilicon, dielectric and metal
films are cleaned periodically using fluorinated GHGs, N2O,
and other gases. During the cleaning cycle, the gas is converted to
fluorine atoms in plasma, which etches away residual silicon-containing
material from chamber walls, electrodes, and chamber hardware.
Undissociated fluorinated gases and other fluorinated and non-
fluorinated products pass from the chamber to waste streams and, unless
emissions control systems are employed, into the atmosphere.
    Typical fluorinated GHGs used for chamber cleaning are
NF3, C2F6 and
C3F8. N2O may also be used to reduce
particle formation during chamber cleaning. As with etching films,
fluorinated GHG by-products may be formed during chamber cleaning,
typically CF4.
    During wafer processing, any residual photoresist material can be
removed through an ashing process, which consists of placing partially
processed wafers in an oxygen plasma to which CF4 may be
added. The edges of wafers (the bevel) may require
additional cleaning to remove yield-reducing residual material. Bevel
cleaning may also use a plasma process with fluorinated gas chemistry.
In both of these wafer cleaning processes, unused fluorinated GHGs are
emitted unless abated.
    Fluorinated GHG liquids (at ambient temperature) such as fully
fluorinated linear, branched or cyclic alkanes, ethers, tertiary amines
and aminoethers, and mixtures thereof are used as heat transfer fluids
at several semiconductor facilities to cool process equipment, control
temperature during device testing, and solder semiconductor devices to
circuit boards. The fluorinated heat transfer fluid's high vapor
pressures can lead to evaporative losses during use.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Electronics Manufacturing TSD (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927); 2006
IPCC Guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our understanding is that heat transfer fluids are widely used
within semiconductor manufacturing. We are seeking comment on the
extent of use and annual replacement quantities of heat transfer fluids
in other electronics sectors, such as their use for cooling or cleaning
during LCD manufacture.
    Total U.S. Emissions From Electronics Manufacturing. Emissions of
fluorinated GHGs from 216 electronics facilities were estimated to be
6.1 million metric tons CO2e in 2006. Below is a breakdown
of emissions by electronics product type.
    Semiconductors. Emissions of fluorinated GHGs, including heat
transfer fluids, from 175 semiconductor facilities were estimated to be
5.9 million metric tons CO2e in 2006. Of the total estimated
semiconductor emissions, 5.4 million metric tons CO2e are
from etching/chamber cleaning and 0.5 million metric tons
CO2e are from heat transfer fluid usage.
    MEMS. Emissions of fluorinated GHGs from 12 MEMS facilities were
estimated to be 0.1 million metric tons CO2e in 2006.
    LCDs. Emissions of fluorinated GHGs from 9 LCD facilities were
estimated to be 0.02 million metric tons CO2e in 2006.
    PV. Emissions of fluorinated GHGs from 20 PV facilities were
estimated to be 0.07 million metric tons CO2e in 2006. We
request comment on the number and capacity of PV facilities that employ
thin film technologies (i.e., amorphous silicon) and other PV
manufacturing facilities in the United States using fluorinated GHGs.
    For additional background information on the electronics industry,
refer to the Electronics Manufacturing Technical Support Document (TSD)
in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927).
4. Threshold for Reporting
    For facilities that manufacture semiconductors, LCD, MEMS, and PV,
we are proposing an emissions-based threshold of 25,000
mtCO2e. Consistent with other sections of the Final MRR, EPA
is proposing that for the purposes of determining whether a facility
emits amounts equal to or greater than 25,000 mtCO2e, a
facility must include emissions from all source categories for which
methods are provided in the rule. For purposes of the threshold
determination under subpart I, we are proposing two different methods,
depending on whether the facility

manufacturers semiconductors, MEMS, LCDs or PVs (see proposed section
98.91). It is important to note that these methods are only for
determining whether a facility exceeds the threshold; the proposed
methods required for monitoring and reporting emissions data are
presented in section 5 below.
    To determine whether a manufacturer falls above or below the
proposed 25,000 mtCO2e threshold, we are proposing that
semiconductor, MEMS, and LCD facilities use gas specific emission
factors assuming 100 percent manufacturing capacity to calculate annual
metric tons of emissions in CO2 equivalents. Because we
understand that heat transfer fluids are widely used within
semiconductor manufacturing, we are proposing that semiconductor
manufacturers add 10 percent of total clean and etch emissions at a
facility to their estimate. For applicability purposes, we propose that
manufacturing capacity means the facility's full planned design
capacity.
    The gas specific emission factors we are proposing to use for
threshold applicability for semiconductors and LCD facilities are
consistent with the 2006 IPCC Tier 1 emission factors. For MEMS,
because there are no IPCC factors available, we are assuming that
SF6 accounts for 100 percent of the sector's total
emissions. The emission factor we are proposing for threshold
applicability is based on the assumption that the MEMS SF6
emission factor is equivalent to the IPCC Tier 1 SF6
emission factor for semiconductors, scaled up by a factor of 5.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For a more detailed explanation of MEMS default factor,
please refer to the Electronics Manufacturing TSD (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-
0927).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are proposing that PV facilities multiply annual fluorinated GHG
purchases or consumption by the gas-appropriate 100-year GWPs, as
defined in Table A-1 of subpart A of part 98, to calculate annual
metric tons of emissions in CO2 equivalents. None of these
calculations would account for emission abatement systems.
    We are proposing to require an emissions estimating method that
does not account for destruction by abatement systems because actual
emissions from facilities employing abatement systems may exceed
estimates when based on the manufacturers' rated DREs of the equipment
and may therefore exceed the 25,000 mtCO2e threshold without
the knowledge of the facility operators. When abatement equipment is
used, electronics manufacturers often estimate their emissions using
the manufacturer-supplied DRE for the system. However, an abatement
system may fail to achieve its rated DRE either because it was not
installed properly, is not being properly operated and maintained, or
because the DRE value itself was incorrectly measured due to a failure
to properly account for the effects of dilution. For example, reported
DREs for CF4 can be overstated by as much as a factor of 20
to 50, and the corresponding figure for C2F6 can
be overstated by a factor of up to 10 because of failure to properly
account for dilution (Burton, 2007).
    In our analysis of the emissions thresholds, we considered
thresholds of 1,000 mtCO2e, 10,000 mtCO2e, 25,000
mtCO2e, and 100,000 mtCO2e per year. To estimate
the number of semiconductor facilities that would have to report under
each of the various thresholds, we estimated emissions for each
facility in the U.S. by using IPCC Tier 1 emission factors. These
emissions estimates were then evaluated to determine how many
facilities would meet the various thresholds. To estimate the
collective emissions from the facilities that would have to report
under the various thresholds, we used information from EPA's PFC
Reduction/Climate Partnership for Semiconductors and the EPA PFC
Emissions Vintaging Model.
    To estimate the number of LCD and PV facilities that would have to
report under the various thresholds, as well as the collective
emissions from these facilities, we used IPCC Tier 1 emission factors.
Because IPCC emission factors for MEMS are not available, the number of
facilities that would have to report and the collective emissions from
these facilities were determined using an emission factor based on a
relevant IPCC Tier 1 emission factor for semiconductor production.\8\
All of our analyses assumed no abatement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For a more detailed explanation of MEMS default emission
factor, please refer to the Electronics Manufacturing TSD (EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0927).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 4 of this preamble shows emissions and facilities that would
be captured by the respective emissions thresholds.

                              Table 4--Threshold Analysis for Electronics Industry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Emissions covered       Facilities covered
Emission threshold level metric tons     Total     Total number ------------------------------------------------
               CO2e/yr                  national        of       metric tons
                                       emissions    facilities     CO2e/yr     Percent    Facilities    Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,000...............................    5,984,463           216    5,962,091       99.6           165         76
10,000..............................    5,984,463           216    5,813,200         97           114         53
25,000..............................    5,984,463           216    5,622,570         94            94         44
100,000.............................    5,984,463           216    4,737,622         79            55         26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We selected the 25,000 mtCO2e per year threshold because
it maximizes emissions reporting, while excluding small facilities that
do not contribute significantly to the overall GHG emissions.
    Table 5 of this preamble shows the estimated emissions and number
of facilities that would report for each type of source under the
proposed emissions-based thresholds.

                                          Table 5--Summary of Rule Applicability Under the Proposed Thresholds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total        Emissions covered       Facilities covered
                                                                                Total      emissions  ------------------------------------------------
              Emissions source                           Threshold              national     of source
                                                                               facilities     (metric    metric tons   Percent    Facilities    Percent
                                                                                tons CO2e)    CO2e/yr
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Semi-conductors.............................  25,000 Mt CO2 Eq..............           175    5,741,676    5,492,066         96            91         52

MEMS........................................  25,000 Mt CO2 Eq..............            12      146,115       96,164         66             2         17
LCD.........................................  25,000 Mt CO2 Eq..............             9       23,632            0          0             0          0
PV..........................................  25,000 Mt CO2 Eq..............            20       73,039       34,340         47             1          5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed emissions-based thresholds are estimated to include
approximately 50 percent of semiconductor facilities and between
approximately 5 percent and 17 percent of the facilities manufacturing
PV and MEMS, respectively. At the same time, the thresholds are
expected to cover nearly 96 percent of fluorinated GHG emissions from
semiconductor facilities, 66 percent of fluorinated GHG emissions from
facilities manufacturing MEMS, and 47 percent of fluorinated GHG
emissions from facilities manufacturing PV. Combined, these emissions
are estimated to account for close to 94 percent of fluorinated GHG
emissions from the electronics industry as a whole.
    Based on our current analysis, facilities manufacturing LCDs are
not expected to meet the proposed threshold. In addition, only 2 MEMS
facilities and 1 PV facility are expected to be covered. The data and
information that we currently have on MEMS, LCD, and PV manufacturing,
however, is limited and incomplete. We are including these sectors
because they have similar fluorinated GHG and N2O use and
manufacturing processes as those of semiconductor manufacturing and
they are high growth sectors. We estimate that emissions from MEMS,
LCD, and PV may be higher than our data show currently and we expect
them to increase in the future.
    For additional background information on the threshold analysis,
refer to the Electronics Manufacturing TSD. For specific information on
costs, including unamortized first year capital expenditures, please
refer to the EIA and the EIA cost appendix.
5. Selection of Proposed Monitoring Methods
    We are proposing methods to monitor and estimate fluorinated GHG
and N2O emissions from semiconductor, LCD, MEMS, and PV
manufacture. The proposed methods discussed below include the
following: (a) Estimating emissions from cleaning and etching
processes; (b) estimating facility N2O emissions; (c)
estimating emissions from heat transfer fluids; and (d) reporting
controlled emissions from abatement equipment. The methods described
and proposed in this section are for estimating emissions that would be
required to be reported under this subpart (see proposed sections 98.93
and 98.94). It is important to note that these methods differ from
those proposed in the section above which are for determining
applicability of the subpart.
a. Methods for Estimating Emissions From Cleaning and Etching Processes
    We are proposing different methods for estimating fluorinated GHG
emissions from etching and cleaning based on whether the facility is a
semiconductor manufacturer or an LCD, MEMS, or PV manufacturer.
    Method for Semiconductor Facilities. Under this proposal, all
semiconductor manufacturers that have emissions equal to or greater
than 25,000 mtCO2e would be required to estimate and report
emissions from etching and cleaning using one of two approaches. First,
we are proposing an approach, hereinafter referred to as the ``Refined
Method,'' that is based on:
    (1) Gas consumption as calculated using the facility's purchase
records, inventory, and gas- and facility-specific heel factors,
    (2) Facility-specific methods for apportioning gas consumption by
process category \9\ using indicators of GHG-using activity (e.g.,
wafer passes),
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For purposes of electronic manufacturing, ``process
category'' is a set of similar manufacturing steps, performed for
the same purpose, associated with substrate (e.g., wafer) processing
during device manufacture for which fluorinated GHG and
N2O emissions and fluorinated GHG and N2O
usages are calculated and reported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Emission factors for utilization and by-product formation rates
based on refined process categories (e.g., categories with more
specificity than the simpler cleaning and etching categories listed in
the 2006 IPCC Guidelines), and
    (4) Methods for reporting controlled emissions (as proposed below).
    Alternatively, we are proposing to permit those facilities that
have monitoring infrastructure or the necessary data to estimate
emissions obtained through recipe-specific measurements to report their
emissions using their data by following an approach consistent with the
2006 IPCC Tier 3 method. In addition, for those semiconductor
manufacturers that fabricate electronic devices on wafers of measuring
greater than 300 mm in diameter, we are proposing to require that they
estimate and report their emissions using recipe-specific measurements
and follow an approach consistent with the IPCC Tier 3 method. Each of
these approaches is discussed below.
    Refined Method.
    The Refined Method would apply to all covered semiconductor
facilities and would not make a distinction between relatively large
and other facilities. In the paragraphs below, we discuss in detail
each one of the components we are proposing to require under this
approach.
    Gas consumption as calculated using the facility's purchase
records, inventory, and gas- and facility-specific heel factors.
Notwithstanding the definition of ``heel'' in subpart A of this
rule,\10\ we are proposing that for purposes of electronics
manufacturing that a heel means, ``the amount of gas that remains in a
gas cylinder or container after it is discharged or off-loaded (this
may vary by cylinder or container type and facility).'' We are not
planning to use the subpart A definition because it contains a default
value of 10 percent. In this action, we are proposing to require
facilities to calculate gas- and facility-specific heel factors rather
than using a default value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Pursuant to subpart A of the Final MRR, ``heel'' means the
amount of gas that remains in a shipping container after it is
discharged or off-loaded (that is no more than ten percent of the
volume of the container).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of determining each facility's overall usage of each gas
for a reporting period, we are proposing that a facility use their
purchase records, inventory, and gas- and facility-specific heel
factors. More specifically, for each cylinder/container type for each
gas used, we are proposing that semiconductor facilities be required to
base their heel factors on the residual

weight or pressure of the gas cylinder or container that a facility
uses to change out that cylinder/container. This is common practice in
the industry and is typically referred to as the ``trigger point for
change out.'' These points, one for each gas and cylinder/container
type, together with the initial container mass or pressure, are used to
calculate the unused gas for each container, which when expressed as a
fraction of the initial amount in the container is the ``heel'' (or
unused fraction of the container). This gas- and facility-specific heel
factor would then be applied to each container for that gas to
determine the net amount of that gas used at a facility. In cases where
the ``trigger point for change out'' used at a facility differs by more
than one percentage point from that used to calculate the previous gas-
specific heel factor, we propose that the gas- and facility-specific
heel factor must be recalculated.
    Currently most semiconductor facilities rely upon the IPCC default
heel factor of 10 percent and apply that value to each cylinder/
container. Based on information provided in an industry study of
facility-specific, gas-specific heel factors, the heel factor in a
given facility for individual cylinders/containers can vary from 3
percent to 25 percent. Given this variation, we conclude that gas- and
facility-specific heel factors would provide improved accuracy in
emissions estimates over the use of the IPCC default heel factor.
    We understand that there are exceptional circumstances when
facilities do not always change cylinders/containers exactly when they
reach the targeted residual weight or pressure. In those instances,
which we expect are infrequent, we are proposing that the cylinder/
container must be weighed or the pressure measured using a pressure
gauge; as opposed to using the facility-wide gas-specific heel factor
as part of determining the net amount of gas used at a facility. We are
proposing to define an exceptional circumstance as one which the
cylinder/container is changed at a residual mass or pressure that
differs by more than 20 percent from the ``trigger point for change
out.'' We request comment on the frequency of these exceptional
circumstances and also the percentage difference (i.e. 20 percent) for
which we are proposing to require that the exceptional cylinder/
container be weighed or the pressure measured.
    When taking an annual inventory, we understand that multiple
cylinders/containers are in service. We request comment on the
significance of accounting for the quantity of fluorinated GHGs or
N2O remaining in cylinders/containers in service at the end
of the reporting period. We also request comment and detailed
information on other methods and technologies (i.e. other than purchase
records) that facilities may be using for determining annual gas
consumption (e.g., recorded data from an automated gas inventory
system).
    We are proposing that all flowmeters, weigh scales, pressure
gauges, and thermometers used to measure quantities that are monitored
or used in calculations in this proposal have an accuracy and precision
of 1 percent of full scale or better. We request comment on this
requirement including alternative accuracy and precision requirements
and detailed information about why particular instruments can not meet
the proposed 1 percent standard.
    Apportioning gas consumption to process categories. Estimating
facility emissions requires apportioning annual facility-wide gas
consumption across a facility's emitting process categories by way of
applying facility-specific apportioning factors. A facility's
uncontrolled emissions are the product of that apportioned gas
consumption and the corresponding emission factor. To determine the
share of each gas used by each process category, we are proposing to
require that semiconductor facilities use a quantifiable indicator (or
metric) of gas usage activity. More specifically, we are proposing
facilities track wafer passes as an indicator of activity with which to
apportion the facility's gas consumption. Wafer passes is a count of
the number of times a silicon wafer is processed for a specific process
category. The total number of wafer passes over a reporting year is the
number of wafer passes per tool times the number of operational process
tools during the reporting year.
    To illustrate a case where wafer passes is used as a facility-
specific engineering model, consider a facility that uses
NF3 for chamber cleaning with remote plasma systems and for
etching polysilicon and oxide films. With knowledge of the
NF3-specfic heel and the number of NF3 containers
used, the facility knows the amount of NF3 consumed. To
estimate emissions, the facility must now apportion NF3
usage between the chamber cleaning and oxide and polysilicon etching
processes. To do this it might use the total number of wafer passes
through each and every NF3-cleaning system together with the
time and nominal (not measured actual) gas flow rate for each and every
NF3-cleaning system and the corresponding figures for oxide
and polysilicon etch processes to arrive at the proportion of
NF3 used for cleaning chambers and etching oxide and
polysilicon films. Once developed, these apportioning factors would be
used to estimate NF3 gas usage for the cleaning and etching
process categories proposed in our method. This example is illustrated
further in Table 6 of this preamble.

                        Table 6--Illustrative Calculation for NF3 Example at One Facility
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Process
                                                                                category
       Gas type--annual usage, kg.              Process category            Apportioning factor       gas usage,
                                                                                kg.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NF3--56,286 kg..........................  RPS Chamber Cleaning.......  82%                                46,202
                                          Polysilicon Etch...........  17%                                 9,561
                                          Oxide Etch.................  1%                                    523
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual gas usage presented is the modeled usage not the nominal usage.

    We request comment on using wafer passes as an appropriate
quantifiable indicator of activity, and on our description and example
of how it would be used.
    We recognize that facilities may use other types of quantifiable
indicators of gas-usage activity data to develop facility-specific
engineering models to estimate gas consumption. We may include
additional indicators as options in the final rule if they are
quantifiable and if we receive adequate information regarding how they
were developed and how they are used, including descriptions, examples,
and any additional information that may be necessary to understand how
such indicators of activity would be developed and used in a facility-
specific engineering model to apportion annual

facility-wide gas usage across a facility's emitting process
categories. The use of engineering judgment, for example, is not based
on a quantitative metric and would not be considered an acceptable
quantifiable indicator of gas usage. We also request comment on the use
of a representative sampling method for tracking activity indicators
such as wafer passes that may be used in the engineering model.
    In many cases, EPA anticipates that the development of apportioning
factors will result in a facility-wide consumption estimates that are
independent of the estimates calculated using purchase records,
inventory, and facility-specific heel factors. In such cases, we
propose that facilities report these consumption estimates.
    Emission factors for refined process categories. We are proposing
that semiconductor facilities estimate their emissions using a specific
set of process categories. Our proposed method would simplify the
reporting requirements as compared to the 2006 IPCC Tier 3 method by
lowering the number of emitting process categories from up to 455 per
facility down to a fixed figure of approximately nine. Our goal in
establishing the process categories is to account for most of the
variability in emission factors across processes while limiting the
total number of process categories whose gas usage must be tracked by
semiconductor facilities.
    Under this approach, we are proposing to require reporting of
fluorinated GHG emissions for the following nine emitting process
categories: four subcategories for wafer patterning (etching), three
subcategories for chamber cleaning, and two subcategories for wafer
cleaning. The nine process categories we are proposing account for
distinct and widely-used manufacturing activities during production of
discrete, logic and memory devices. We anticipate that these nine
categories effectively capture current and projected processes and the
differences in emission factors across various semiconductor
manufacturing technologies.
    Our proposed definitions of these nine emitting categories are:
    Wafer patterning subcategories:
    Oxide etch means any process using fluorinated GHG reagents to
selectively remove SiO2, SiOx-based or fully
organic-based thin-film material that has been deposited on a wafer
during semiconductor device manufacturing.
    Nitride etch means any process using fluorinated GHG reagents to
selectively remove SiN, SiON, Si3N4, SiC, SiCO,
SiCN, etc. (represented by the general chemical formula,
SiwOxNyXz where w,x,y and z
are zero or integers and X can be some other element such as carbon)
that has been deposited on a wafer during semiconductor manufacturing.
    Silicon etch also often called polysilicon etch means any process
using fluorinated GHG reagents to selectively remove silicon during
semiconductor manufacturing.
    Metal etch means any process using fluorinated GHG reagents
associated with removing metal films (such as aluminum or tungsten)
that have been deposited on a wafer during semiconductor manufacturing.
    Chamber cleaning subcategories:
    In situ plasma means cleaning thin-film production chambers, after
processing one or more wafers, with a fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent
that is dissociated into its cleaning constituents by a plasma
generated inside the chamber where the film was produced.
    Remote plasma system means cleaning thin-film production chambers,
after processing one or more wafers, with a fluorinated GHG cleaning
reagent dissociated by a remotely located (e.g., upstream) plasma
source.
    In situ thermal means cleaning thin-film production chambers, after
processing one or more wafers, with a fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent
that is thermally dissociated into its cleaning constituents inside the
chamber where the thin-film (or thin films) was (were) produced.
    Wafer cleaning subcategories:
    Bevel cleaning means any process using fluorinated GHG reagents
with plasma to clean the edges of wafers during semiconductor
manufacture.
    Ashing means any process using fluorinated GHG reagents with plasma
to remove photoresist materials during wafer manufacture.
    We request comment on the nine process categories we are proposing,
their definitions as specified above, and whether they clearly define a
specific process without ambiguity. In addition we request comment on
whether the categories should be further refined to better capture the
variability in emission rates among fluorinated GHG using manufacturing
activities (e.g., whether any additional categories should be added or
whether the proposed categories should be combined, and the definition
of those categories).
    Under this approach of defining a specific set of process
categories, we are also considering additional patterning and chamber
cleaning subcategories. The alternative patterning subcategories, which
may replace or complement the four thin-film based subcategories
defined previously, are: contact etch, self-alignment contact etch,
gate etch, deep trench etch, isolation trench etch, through silicon
vias and regular vias. Each of these subcategories represents a
specific feature achieved through etching (instead of subcategories
based on the type of thin film etched).
    Alternative chamber cleaning categories may distinguish between the
types of films being removed from the chamber during cleaning. These
might include distinguishing between chambers coated with tungsten and
silicon-based films, or distinguishing between thin-film deposition
equipment manufacturers. We request comment on these additional process
categories and whether or not we should include alternative process
categories in addition to the nine process categories that we are
proposing. We also request comment on other methods of categorizing
processes and detailed information on those categories.
    We are proposing nine process categories differentiated by
production technology generation (i.e., wafer size). For each of the
proposed nine process categories, we are proposing to establish a
default emission factor within a range of values presented in Tables I-
6, I-7, I-8 of subpart I. Within each process category, factors account
for (1) the mass fraction of the input gas that is utilized during
(i.e., not emitted from) the process and (2) the mass of each
fluorinated GHG by-product formed as a fraction of the mass of the
dominant fluorinated GHG input gas used.\11\ EPA is proposing a range
of values for each default emission factor because the Agency has not
yet received sufficient data to select a specific value within each
range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In the case of mixtures of fluorinated GHGs, the
``dominant'' fluorinated GHG constitutes the largest mass of gas
used for that process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To develop the proposed ranges for each emission factor, EPA
requested from semiconductor device manufacturers and equipment
suppliers, information on utilization and by-product formation rates
and details on the associated measurement approach (e.g., measured in
accordance with the 2006 ISMI Guidelines). EPA evaluated the data
received as well as the standard deviations provided in Table 6.9 from
Chapter 3 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. For additional information on
how the ranges were developed, please refer to the Electronics
Manufacturing TSD (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927).
    In a final rule, EPA intends to publish default emission factors
for gas utilization and by-product formation rates for each process
category,

differentiating amongst 150 mm, 200 mm and 300 mm wafer technology to
the extent feasible. To this end, EPA requests additional utilization
and by-product formation rates and supporting information on how they
were developed. More specifically, EPA requests emission factors and
by-product formation rates and information including but not limited to
the specific measurement method used (e.g., measurement using the 2006
ISMI Guidelines), the date of measurement, achievement of fluorine mass
balance, associated standard deviations of measured factors, the
relevant emissions process types and categories (for the patterning/
etching process type noting both film type and etched feature where
applicable), substrate size (i.e., 150 mm, 200 mm, or 300 mm), the
number of wafers used in the measurement study, and the equipment
manufacturer name and model number where not considered confidential.
    Using additional data received, EPA intends to develop default
emission factors for each process category using a method of
aggregation similar to the 2006 IPCC factor development
methodology.\12\ Where available emission factor data are very limited
or produce highly uncertain average factors, EPA may develop emissions
factors that are conservative and less likely to underestimate actual
emissions. If additional data are received in a timely fashion, EPA may
develop draft emission factors prior to issuance of the final rule and
will determine an appropriate way to promptly and clearly inform the
regulated community. We welcome comments on such draft emission
factors, recognizing that depending on when the emission factors are
made available, such comments could be submitted after the close of the
formal comment period. We will make every effort to consider such
comments, including late comments, to the extent practicable in the
development of the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For additional information on the 2006 IPCC factor
development methodology, see Emission Factors for Semiconductor
Manufacturing: Sources, Methods, and Results (February 2006)
available in the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In developing emission factors for the final rule, EPA is also
considering developing weighted average emission factors, for each
wafer technology, with the weights based on the market penetration
rates of process recipes used in current device manufacturing
practices.\13\ Such weighted emission factors, if possible, may better
represent actual emissions from installed manufacturing equipment and
operating processes. We request comment on using a weighting scheme and
detailed information on how it would be developed and implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Note, in the creation of the IPCC factors, sufficient
information was not available to weigh each general process type
(i.e., etch and clean categories for the IPCC Tier 2b method).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The uncertainties associated with the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b method are
associated with aggregating, for each gas, all usage into just two
process categories (i.e., etching and chamber cleaning) and all wafer
technologies (i.e., 150 mm, 200 mm, and 300 mm wafer sizes) into one,
and giving equal weights to all process recipes. A method based on
refined processes categories keeps those processes separate, which
reflects actual device manufacturing practices and as a result,
produces a more representative and accurate emissions estimate.
    As an alternative, we are also considering an approach where each
facility would develop for themselves or acquire from process equipment
manufacturers emission factors (i.e., gas utilization and by-product
formation rates) for the nine process categories. Under this approach,
we would require the gas utilization and by-product formation rates to
be developed using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines. Facilities would be
required to construct and apply averages for each process category. One
advantage of this approach is that these facility-specific emission
factors would be expected to be more representative of the particular
processes at that facility than the default emission factors. On the
other hand, we estimate the burden associated with each facility
developing its own emission factors would be greater compared to using
the factors published by EPA. We request comment on this approach.
    We recognize that given the dynamic manufacturing processes by the
industry, updates to the process categories and emission factors may be
necessary. We request comment on the frequency with which those should
be updated.
    We estimate that our Refined Method will result in a reduction in
burden for the large semiconductor facilities (annual capacities
greater than 10,000 m \2\ silicon) and an increase in accuracy as
compared to the IPCC Tier 2b method. We estimate the uncertainty from
using a set of refined process categories to be roughly one-half the
uncertainty of the Tier 2b method, assuming similar methods for
apportioning gas usage for each method. For the Tier 2b method the
fluorinated GHG consuming processes used during semiconductor
production are collapsed into just two categories, resulting in
considerable variability for each category. For the Refined Method
there are nine fluorinated GHG-using categories, resulting in less
variability, on average, per category. Please refer to the Electronics
Manufacturing TSD for a more detailed discussion of our uncertainty
analysis.
    For the relatively smaller semiconductor facilities (annual
production of less than 10,500 m \2\ of silicon) we estimate an
increase in burden as compared to our initial proposal where we
required the use of the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b method; however, we
anticipate that these facilities have the necessary data available to
comply. The increase in burden for estimating emissions using the
Refined Method, as opposed to the IPCC Tier 2b method, can be
attributed to the increased level of effort to distinguish between nine
refined process categories in comparison to two broad clean and etch
categories, respectively.
    Recipe-specific measurements. As an alternative to the Refined
Method where EPA default factors would be used, we are also proposing
to permit those facilities that have monitoring infrastructure or the
necessary data to estimate emissions obtained through recipe-specific
measurements to report their emissions using their data (see proposed
sections in 98.93 98.94(d)). This approach, consistent with the 2006
IPCC Tier 3 method, is based on (1) gas consumption as calculated using
the facility's purchase records, inventory, and gas-and facility-
specific heel factors (as described above), (2) facility-specific
methods for apportioning gas consumption by individual process using
indicators of GHG-using activity, (3) recipe-specific gas utilization
and by-product formation factors, and also (4) methods for reporting
controlled emissions from abatement devices (as proposed below). Under
this approach, gas utilization and by-product formation rates would be
required to be developed using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines for all
fluorinated GHG-using process types at that facility.
    According to information provided by one of the commenters in
response to our initial proposal, only one company currently estimates
their emissions using an approach consistent with the Tier 3 method.
Nevertheless, if a facility is using a method that provides more
accurate data, then we believe that they should be permitted to use
such method. We request comment on the number of companies that are
currently

or expecting to in the near future, report their emissions using this
method.
    We are also proposing to require semiconductor manufacturers that
fabricate devices on wafers measuring larger than 300 mm in diameter to
estimate their emissions based on an approach consistent with the IPCC
Tier 3 method and gas- and facility-specific heel factors for
estimating and reporting GHG emissions. Under this approach, gas
utilization and by-product formation rates would be required to be
developed using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines for all fluorinated GHG using
process types at that facility. We understand the industry's conversion
to 450 mm is expected to begin in 2011 or shortly thereafter. We are
proposing this requirement because we estimate that this method that
uses recipe-specific gas utilization and by-product formation factors
results in the most accurate facility-specific emission estimate. By
including this requirement for only the 450 mm or larger wafers in this
proposal, we anticipate a reduction in burden as compared to requiring
existing large semiconductor facilities to estimate their emissions
using an approach consistent with the IPCC Tier 3 method for the
smaller sized wafers as well (i.e. 300 mm and smaller). We anticipate a
reduction in burden because emission factors (i.e. gas utilization and
by-product formation rates) can be developed over a number of years as
semiconductor manufacturers begin to transition to 450 mm tools and
develop the estimating and reporting infrastructure. The commissioning
process for new tools is an ideal opportunity for emission factor
development and/or verification. We request comment on requiring
semiconductor manufacturers that fabricate electronic devices on wafers
of diameter 450 mm or larger to estimate their emissions based on an
approach consistent with the IPCC Tier 3 method.
    During the development of this proposal, the 2006 International
SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative's Guideline for Environmental
Characterization of Semiconductor Process Equipment was revised and
republished (December 2009). We request comment on requiring the use of
the revised version of the ISMI Guidelines to measure emission factors
as opposed to the 2006 version of the ISMI Guidelines, and also
information on emission factors (including utilization by-product
formation rates) measured using the revised ISMI Guidelines.
    Method for LCD, MEMS, and PV Facilities. In this action for LCD,
MEMS, and PV facilities, we are proposing an approach based on a
slightly modified 2006 IPCC Tier 2b method which would include (1) gas
consumption calculated using the facility's purchase records,
inventory, and gas- and facility-specific heel factors (as described
above for semiconductor manufacturing facilities), (2) gas consumption
apportioned to 2006 IPCC Tier 2b broad process categories, clean and
etch, (3) default emission factors consistent with the 2006 IPCC Tier
2b factors, and (4) methods for reporting controlled emissions from
abatement equipment (as proposed below).
    The method proposed to develop the gas- and facility-specific heel
factors for LCD, MEMS, and PV facilities is the same as proposed for
semiconductor facilities including the provisions for exceptional
circumstances. Although we don't have complete information on how LCD,
MEMS, and PV facilities are currently estimating their emissions from
manufacture and how they are currently accounting for heels, their gas
use and manufacturing processes are similar to that of semiconductor
manufacturing. As a result, we have concluded these facilities have the
data required to develop a gas- and facility-specific heel factors and
this method can be implemented with minimal burden. Similar to the
semiconductor manufacturing case, the use of a gas- and facility-
specific heel factor is expected to result in improved accuracy when
compared to the IPCC's 10 percent default factor. We request comment on
our proposal to require LCD, MEMS, and PV facilities to use gas- and
facility-specific heel factors and our understanding that these
facilities have the data to develop such a factor with minimal burden.
    Under this approach consistent with the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b method,
we propose that LCD, MEMS, and PV manufacturing facilities use the
calculated mass of gas consumed and apportion this amount to the
simplified process categories (i.e. etch and chemical vapor deposition
chamber cleaning.) The associated emission factors including
utilization and by-product formation rates, would then be used to
calculate uncontrolled fluorinated GHG emissions. The emission factors
being proposed are consistent with the 2006 IPCC default values. For
MEMS manufacturing, where an IPCC default value does not exist, we
propose the use of factors consistent with the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b
factors for semiconductor manufacturing. We selected these factors
because we understand MEMS manufacturing is silicon wafer-based and
uses processes similar to those found in semiconductor manufacturing.
    Additionally, we are proposing that LCD, MEMS, and PV manufacturing
facilities abide by the requirements proposed for reporting controlled
emissions from abatement systems as proposed below.
    We are requesting information on emissions and emission factors
from LCD, MEMS, and PV manufacturing. We are requesting such
information as a means to verify that the Tier 2b emission factors for
each of the manufacturing types are reflective of current fluorinated
GHG emitting processes. Based on new information we receive, we may
consider updating the emission factors in the final rule.
    We expect that LCD, MEMS, and PV manufacturers may also use
engineering models and quantifiable indicators (e.g., substrate-area
based) of manufacturing activity for apportioning gas consumption by
process category similar to the approach described for semiconductors
above (e.g., wafer passes). We request detailed information on those
indicators, how they were developed, and how they are used in a
facility-specific engineering model to apportion annual facility-wide
gas usage across a facility's emitting process categories.
    We request comment on permitting those LCD, MEMS, and PV
manufacturing facilities that have monitoring infrastructure or the
necessary data to estimate emissions obtained through recipe-specific
measurements to report their emissions using their data by following an
approach consistent with the 2006 IPCC Tier 3 method.
    Review of Existing Reporting Programs and Methodologies and
Consideration of Alternative Methods. EPA considered various methods
for estimating emissions from etching and cleaning processes for
electronics manufacturing facilities including the 2006 IPCC Tier 1,
2a, 2b, and Tier 3 method as well as a Tier 2b/3 hybrid which would
apply Tier 3 to the most heavily used fluorinated GHGs in all
facilities. For a detailed description of our evaluation of these
options, please see the Electronics Manufacturing section of the
initial Mandatory Reporting Rule (74 FR 16499).
    For this proposal, to estimate emissions from all semiconductor
manufacturing facilities, we are also considering the alternative of a
modified Tier 2b method (our preferred option for other electronics
manufacturers) which would require the use of the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b
default factors and gas- and facility-specific data on heels and gas

use by process category. This approach would be based on a modified
version of the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b method for estimating emissions and
would require semiconductor facilities to report emissions using (1)
gas consumption as calculated using the facility's purchase records,
inventory, and gas- and facility-specific heel factors (as described
above), (2) facility-specific methods for apportioning gas usage by
process category using indicators of activity (as described above,
e.g., wafer pass), (3) IPCC Tier 2b emission factors, and (4) methods
for reporting controlled emissions using our proposed approach
discussed below. We request comment on this approach.
    As an alternative to the Refined Method, we are also considering
requiring all semiconductor manufacturing facilities to estimate their
emissions using an approach consistent with the IPCC Tier 3 method
based on (1) gas consumption as calculated using the facility's
purchase records, inventory, and gas- and facility-specific heel
factors, (2) facility-specific methods for apportioning gas consumption
by individual process using indicators of GHG-using activity, (3)
recipe-specific gas utilization and by-product formation factors, and
also (4) methods for reporting controlled emissions from abatement
devices (as proposed below). Under this approach, facilities would be
required to develop gas utilization and by-product formation rates
using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines for all fluorinated GHG-using process
types at that facility. We request comment on this approach.
    Another option we are considering is to evaluate emissions from
electronics manufacturing using continuous emission monitoring
system(s) (CEMS). Under this approach, facilities would be required to
install and operate CEMS to measure process emissions. A typical
electronics manufacturing facility may have many individual process
tools that influence emissions. Process tool exhaust is managed within
the facility using stainless steel plumbing and ductwork. Due to the
complexity of the manufacturing layout, CEMS would be attached either
to every tool or to one or more final exhaust points (e.g., scrubber
stacks). One possible option is to use Fourier Transform Infrared
Spectrometers (FTIRs) in scrubber stacks to measure facility emissions.
FTIR spectroscopy is presently used to conduct short-term fluorinated
GHG emission measurements from single tools. EPA requests comment on
the use of CEMS at electronics manufacturing facilities. We also
request data and other information evaluating the use of CEMS in
electronics facilities to determine fluorinated GHG and N2O
emissions.
(b) Method for Estimating N2O Emissions
    We are proposing that electronics manufacturers estimate
N2O emissions from chemical vapor deposition processes and
all other electronics manufacturing processes such as chamber cleaning,
and that they estimate those emissions using the following proposed
methods.
    To estimate N2O emissions from chemical vapor deposition
we are proposing the use of a facility-specific emission factor based
on facility measurements of N2O utilization for chemical
vapor deposition, using 2006 ISMI Guidelines. Under this approach, we
propose to permit the facility to apply the average N2O
utilization emission factor to all N2O using chemical vapor
deposition recipes. In cases where a facility has not developed a
facility-specific N2O utilization factor for chemical vapor
deposition processes, we are proposing a default value in the range of
0 to 40 percent. We are taking comment on this range due to a lack of
information for N2O utilization for chemical vapor
deposition processes.
    In comments received in response to our initial proposal, industry
provided information to support a N2O utilization factor of
40 percent, primarily in 300 mm chemical vapor deposition processes.
Taking the industry-provided 40 percent utilization into account, we
propose to select a N2O utilization factor in the range from
0 to 40 percent. In the industry's survey, the measured utilization
factors are largely from newer 300 mm manufacturing equipment. We do
not expect these data fairly represent the entire population of all
N2O processes and installed equipment, many of which are
older tools. In addition, the industry comments did not fully identify
the specific processes from which the average N2O
utilization factor was calculated. For these reasons, and because we
understand that N2O is most commonly used for chemical vapor
deposition as opposed to other processes, we are proposing to establish
a default value within a range of values with 40 percent as the upper
bound and 0 percent as the lower bound to be conservative, reducing
potential for underestimating emissions.
    To estimate N2O emissions from all other manufacturing
processes (e.g., chamber cleaning), we are proposing either a facility-
specific utilization factor based on measurements using 2006 ISMI
Guidelines, or applying a default utilization factor of 0 percent which
assumes N2O is not converted or destroyed during the
manufacturing process. We are proposing this method due to a lack of
information regarding other processes for which N2O is used
and N2O utilization data in those processes.
    We request comment on values within the range that we are proposing
to estimate N2O emissions from chemical vapor deposition
processes and our approach for estimating N2O emissions from
all other manufacturing processes. We also request additional
information on N2O uses and N2O utilization in
electronics manufacturing processes. More specifically, we request
N2O emission factors and detailed supporting information
including but not limited to the specific measurement method used, date
of measurement, standard deviation of measured factors, identification
of manufacturing process or process category, substrate size, and
equipment manufacturer name and model number where not considered
confidential.
    In addition, we request comment on using wafer passes or other
appropriate quantifiable indictors of activity for apportioning
N2O consumption to chemical vapor deposition and other
manufacturing processes.
    We are proposing that as part of determining annual facility
N2O emissions, if a facility employs abatement systems and
it wishes to report N2O emission reductions due to these
systems it must adhere to the methods for reporting controlled
emissions included in this proposal.
(c) Method for Estimating Emissions of Heat Transfer Fluids
    To estimate the emissions of heat transfer fluids, we propose that
electronics manufacturers use the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b approach, which is
a mass-balance approach. We are not changing the broad outlines of our
initial proposal; however, we are clarifying required data elements.
    In evaluating the comments we received, we understand that there
was some confusion regarding our intended method. The proposed method
required data on the total nameplate capacity \14\ of equipment that
``is installed during the reporting year.'' We intended ``installed
during the reporting year'' to mean newly installed during the period,

not in place from the beginning of that period. To eliminate confusion,
we are clarifying that facilities are required to provide the total
nameplate capacity (charge) of equipment that is ``newly installed''
during the reporting year. We anticipate that facilities will find it
straightforward to track the nameplate capacities of equipment that is
newly installed or retired during the reporting year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Nameplate capacity means the full and proper charge of gas
specified by the equipment manufacturer to achieve the equipment's
specified performance. The nameplate capacity is typically indicated
on the equipment's nameplate; it is not necessarily the actual
charge, which may be influenced by leakage and other emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, we are also clarifying that a facility may only
subtract the amount of fluorinated heat transfer fluids sent off site
if the heat transfer fluids are properly recovered, stored, and sent
off site for verifiable recycling or destruction during the reporting
year. We are adding this clarification because we understand that
facilities may be recovering, storing, and removing from their
facility, fluorinated heat transfer fluids in a manner that does not
effectively prevent the substance(s) from evaporating to the
atmosphere. In such cases, the users of the chemicals would be required
to account for these emissions using the mass-balance calculation
provided.
    As we stated in our initial proposal, in developing our proposal
for estimating heat transfer fluid emissions, we reviewed both the IPCC
Tier 1 and IPCC Tier 2 approaches. The Tier 1 approach for heat
transfer fluid emissions is based on the utilization capacity of the
semiconductor facility multiplied by a default emission factor.
Although the Tier 1 approach has the advantages of simplicity, it is
less accurate than the Tier 2 approach according to the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines. The IPCC Tier 2 approach uses company-specific data and
accounts for differences among facilities' heat transfer fluids (which
vary in their GWPs), leak rates, and service practices. It has an
uncertainty on the order of 20 percent at the 95 percent
confidence interval according to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
(d) Method for Reporting Controlled Emissions From Abatement Systems
    For this proposed rule, we are defining DRE as the efficiency of a
control system designed to destroy or remove fluorinated GHGs,
N2O, or both. The DRE is equal to one minus the ratio of the
mass of all relevant GHGs exiting the emission abatement system to the
mass of GHGs entering the emission abatement system. When fluorinated
GHGs are formed in an abatement system, DRE is expressed as one minus
the ratio of amounts of exiting GHGs to the amounts entering the system
in units of CO2-equivalents. In addition, we are clarifying
facilities may account for all abatement systems (e.g., multi-chamber
POU, central devices) provided that they abide by the requirements
below.
    We are proposing to use the term destruction or removal efficiency
(DRE) as opposed to ``destruction efficiency'' or ``destruction,''
terms that are already defined in subpart A of the Final MRR. We are
proposing to use DRE because it is the term generally used by the
electronics manufacturing industry. Furthermore, in addition to
capturing the destruction of materials in the exhaust, the term also
captures materials in the exhaust that are recycled or captured for
reuse.
    For purposes of this reporting rule, we propose that facilities
that wish to document and report fluorinated GHG and N2O
emissions reflecting the use of abatement systems adhere to a method
that would require: (1) Documentation to certify that the abatement
system is installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with
manufacturers' specifications, (2) accounting for the system's
uptime,\15\ and (3) either certification that the abatement system is
specifically designed for fluorinated GHG and N2O abatement
and the use of an EPA default DRE value, or direct, proper DRE
measurement to confirm the performance of the abatement system. Proper
DRE measurement means measured in accordance with EPA's Protocol for
Measuring Destruction or Removal Efficiency of Fluorinated Greenhouse
Gas Abatement Equipment in Electronics Manufacturing (EPA's DRE
Protocol). EPA's DRE Protocol is available for review in the docket
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927). Our proposed approach is depicted as a decision
tree in Figure 1 of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Uptime means the total time during the reporting year when
the abatement system for which controlled emissions will be reported
was properly installed, operated, and maintained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed approach requires annual certification to ensure that
abatement systems for which controlled emissions are reported are
installed, operating, and maintained according to manufacturers'
specifications. Our approach would also require that any DRE used in
reporting emissions be based on an EPA default DRE value or on recent
on-site measurements and actual uptime of the system, accounting for
system redundancy. When process tools are equipped with multiple
abatement systems designed for fluorinated GHGs and N2O, the
facility may account for the combined uptime for the specific
calculation of controlled emissions. Each one of these components is
discussed in detail in the paragraphs below. We anticipate this method
for reporting controlled emissions will ensure that abatement systems
have been properly installed, operated and maintained during each
reporting period and that best available measured DRE values are used
to estimate and report emissions.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.037

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
    Proper Installation, Operation, and Maintenance. We are proposing
that all facilities that use abatement systems and would like to
reflect these emissions reductions in their annual emissions
estimations be required to document and certify the abatement
equipment's proper installation, operation, and maintenance. There are
many manufacturers, and for each manufacturer multiple models, that are
marketed as fluorinated GHG-destruction capable (Beu, 2005). While some
abatement systems may be capable of destroying some fluorinated GHGs,
they may not be effective in abating CF4 (Beu, 2005), which
in some processes can constitute 10 percent--20 percent (by volume) of
fluorinated GHG exhaust composition (EPA, 2006). It appears that this
variability may be partially attributable to installation as well as
operating and maintenance practices although variations in how
destruction is measured may also contribute to this variability (Beu,
2005). Evidence indicates abatement devices must be properly installed
to ensure achievement of the manufacturer's design goals. For this
reason, we propose devices be installed in

accordance with manufacturers' specifications.
    In terms of operation and maintenance, we also propose to require
that abatement systems be operated and maintained in accordance with
the manufacturers' specifications. It is well known across the industry
that abatement system performance varies greatly depending on a variety
of abatement device and process parameters such as temperature, flow
and exhaust composition (Beu, 2005, EPA 2006, 2007)). Our proposed
requirement that abatement systems be operated and maintained in
accordance with manufacturers' specifications is intended to ensure
best performance.
    We understand that many times a facility may have an independent
quality assurance expert certify the installation, operation, and
maintenance of abatement equipment. We are considering the inclusion in
the final rule, a requirement for annual, on-site independent
inspections of abatement system installation, operation, and
maintenance, which could include a review of records and physical
inspection of installed equipment. We request comment on whether to
require an independent quality assurance audit/inspection for abatement
system installation, operation, and maintenance.
    Accounting for Abatement System Uptime. We are proposing that
facilities account for abatement systems' uptime to report controlled
emissions. Uptime is the total time during the reporting year when the
abatement systems for which controlled emissions are being reporting
was properly installed, operated, and maintained. Uptime is calculated
as the sum of time during the reporting period that an abatement system
is in a standby, productive, and engineering state as described in SEMI
Standard E10-0304, Specification for Definition and Measurement of
Equipment Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability (2004).
Abatement system uptime is expressed as the sum of an abatement
system's operational productive, standby, and engineering times divided
by the total operations time of its associated manufacturing tool. For
example, the time during which a system is in by-pass mode, undergoing
maintenance, or not operating with O2-flow (in the case of a
CF4 combustion system) is not included in uptime. An
exception to this is time during which exhaust flows are passed through
a redundant abatement system that is in the same abatement system class
(discussed below) as the primary abatement system. Such time may be
included in the uptime of the primary system.
    We are proposing this requirement because we anticipate accounting
for uptime (i.e., tracking incidents when abatement systems may be
``bypassed'' or otherwise not in service) will produce a more accurate
emissions estimate. We request comment on our proposal to account for
and report the uptime of abatement systems. We also request detailed
information on how uptime may be monitored and calculated.
    EPA Default DRE Value. In addition to certifying that an abatement
system is installed, operated, and maintained according to
manufacturers' specifications, and accounting for the system's uptime,
the first approach we are proposing includes the following two key
elements: (1) Certification that the abatement system is specifically
designed for fluorinated GHG and N2O abatement, and (2) an
EPA default DRE value. By applying the EPA default DRE value, the
facility is not required to measure the DRE of their abatement
system(s). We are proposing the use of a default DRE value of 60
percent if the facility certifies that the abatement systems for which
this value is applied are specifically designed for fluorinated GHG and
N2O abatement.
    To develop the default DRE of 60 percent, we reviewed the
individual DREs measured under our in-fab DRE measurement program and
selected those that constituted discrete values \16\ for systems that
had been properly installed, operated and maintained. Of the data from
the DRE measurement program, those that met the stated criteria were
values for CF4. We calculated the mean and the lower one
sided tolerance interval of the (CF4) DRE data set. This
yielded an understated, default DRE, reducing the likelihood that the
DRE of any particular system will be either overestimated or greatly
underestimated. For additional information on how the EPA default DRE
was developed, please refer to the Electronics Manufacturing TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Using data available from the in-fab DRE measurement
program, we selected discrete numbers rather than the lower bound
(e.g., >= 99%).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While we are now proposing the use of an EPA default DRE value,
consistent with our initial proposal we are not planning to permit use
of the 2006 IPCC default factors or the manufacturer's DRE values. We
are not permitting their use because once installed, abatement
equipment may fail to achieve the default or a supplier's claimed DRE.
DRE performance claimed by equipment suppliers and upon which the 2006
IPCC default factors were based may have been incorrectly measured due
to a failure to account for the effects of dilution (e.g.,
CF4 can be off by as much as a factor of 20 to 50 and
C2F6 can be off by a factor of up to 10 [Burton,
2007].) This understanding is supported by industry assessments as
presented in Beu, 2005.
    We are permitting the use of our default DRE value because we
estimate that it strikes an appropriate balance between being
conservative and being representative where equipment is properly
operated and maintained. Our default DRE value was calculated using
data from measurements assured to properly account for the effects of
dilution. In addition, the tested systems were properly installed,
operated, and maintained.
    We request comment on our proposed default DRE value, and
additional data and supporting documentation on DREs from studies that
have been conducted on properly installed, operated, and maintained
abatement systems and consistent with EPA's DRE Protocol.
    Proper Measurement of the Abatement DRE. The second proposed
approach for quantifying, documenting, and reporting controlled
emissions from abatement systems, described below, would require proper
measurement of the abatement system DRE in addition to documentation to
certify that the abatement system is installed, operated, and
maintained in accordance with manufacturers' specifications, and
accounting for uptime.
    Consistent with our initial proposal, this second proposed method
permits facilities to account for destruction if the abatement system
performance is measured and verified using EPA's DRE Protocol. To
measure DRE, we propose requiring facilities to conduct annual sampling
through a random sampling abatement system testing program (RSASTP),
spanning all abatement classes using the methods outlined in EPA's DRE
Protocol. ``Class'' refers to a category of abatement systems grouped
by manufacturer model number(s) and by gas for which the system is used
to abate, including N2O and CF4 direct and by-
product formation, and all other fluorinated GHG gas direct and by-
product formation.\17\ ``Classes'' may also include any other abatement
systems for which the reporting facility wishes to report controlled
emissions provided that class is identified. For each class, the
representative or average DRE

factors would then be applied to the yet unmeasured abatement devices
of that class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ CF4 is a very stable chemical and especially
difficult to effectively destroy. It may be used as an input gas and
generated as a byproduct of other fluorinated GHG process reactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An annual representative sample as part of the RSASTP would consist
of three or 20 percent of installed abatement systems, whichever is
greater, for each class each year, measuring the DRE for a different
three or 20 percent set of systems each year. Where 20 percent of total
abatement systems do not equal a whole number, the number of systems to
be tested would be rounded up to the nearest integer (e.g., 16
abatement devices, 20 percent of which equals 3.2; therefore, four
abatement systems would be measured each year). Using the RSASTP and
our rounding convention, all systems in each class would be tested
within a five-year period. EPA is seeking comment on the required
frequency of abatement system performance measurement.
    When reporting controlled emissions from manufacturing, we propose
that the facility either use the measured DRE or, in those instances
where an individual abatement system has not yet undergone proper DRE
testing, a simple average of the measured DREs for systems of that
class would be used. If redundant abatement systems were used during
periods of maintenance or repair, then we propose that the measured or
average DRE for that system's class would be used. In any of these
cases, the DRE used to report emissions would be adjusted to account
for the actual uptime of the system. For example, if the uptime for a
device is 98 percent over the reporting period, then the measured DRE
(or class average of measured DREs when a system has not yet been
measured) would be multiplied by 0.98.
    Under the RSASTP, all systems in each class would be tested within
a five-year period, after which the process would be repeated as long
as controlled emissions were reported. There are two reasons for
requiring the DRE to be measured for each abatement device over a time
period and by specific class. Some fluorinated GHGs, particularly
CF4, are harder to destroy than others; thus, the
performance of abatement systems with one fluorinated GHG cannot
necessarily be assumed to apply to other fluorinated GHGs.\18\ Second,
even if abatement systems rely on the same operating principle (e.g.,
thermal oxidation) and are used on the same gases, their performance
can vary depending on their operation and maintenance.\19\ Moreover,
maintenance that is adequate for abatement systems in some applications
may not be adequate for abatement systems in others (e.g., those that
handle high volumes of etched or cleaned material, which can be
deposited inside abatement equipment and clog lines). This argues for
gradually testing all of the abatement systems within a class, and for
retesting individual abatement systems over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ There are many manufacturers, and for each manufacturer
many models, that are marketed as fluorinated GHGs-destruction
capable (Beu, 2005). While some abatement devices may be capable of
destroying some fluorinated GHGs, they may not be effective in
abating CF4 (Beu, 2005), which in some processes can constitute 10%-
20% (by volume) of fluorinated GHGs exhaust composition (EPA, 2006).
    \19\ Some variability in performance may be partially
attributable to installation as well as operating and maintenance
practices although variations in how destruction is measured may
also contribute to this variability (Beu, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We request comment on the method proposed for proper measurement of
DRE at a facility and the proposed RSASTP for abatement systems by
class.
6. Selection of Procedures for Estimating Missing Data
    In general, it is not expected that data to estimate emissions from
electronics manufacturing would be missing; gas consumption data and
indicators of activity data (e.g., wafer passes) is collected as
business as usual. For this reason, we are not proposing procedures for
estimating missing data from emissions from cleaning, etching or
deposition processes. Because our proposal includes an EPA default DRE
value for estimating and reporting controlled emissions, we propose
that no missing data procedures would apply.
    When estimating heat transfer fluid emissions during electronics
manufacture, the use of the mass-balance approach requires facilities
to correct records for all inputs. Should the facility be missing
records for a given input, heat transfer fluid emissions may be
estimated using the arithmetic average of the emission rates for the
year immediately preceding the period of missing data and the months
immediately following the period of missing data. Alternatively it may
be possible that the heat transfer fluid supplier has information in
their records for the facility.
7. Selection of Data Reporting Requirements
    We are proposing that owners and operators be required to report
fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions for the facility for each
electronics manufacturing process as well as all heat transfer fluid
use. In addition, facilities would be required to report the following:
method used to calculate emissions; factors used for gas utilization
and by-product formation rates and the source for each factor for each
fluorinated GHG and N2O; production in terms of substrate
surface area (e.g., silicon, PV-cell, LCD); for each fluorinated GHG
and N2O, annual gas consumed during the reporting year and
gas- and facility-specific heel factors used; the apportioning factors
used, a description of the engineering model used for apportioning gas
usage, and facility-wide consumption estimates based upon development
of the apportioning factors, independent of the consumption value
calculated using purchase records; fraction of each gas fed into each
process type that is fed into tools with abatement systems;
descriptions and information about abatement systems through which
fluorinated GHGs and N2O flow; inputs in the mass-balance
equation (for heat transfer fluid emissions); and example calculations.
Where process categories defined in the Refined Method and/or default
gas utilization and by-product formation rates are not used, we propose
that facilities provide descriptions of individual processes or
processes categories used to estimate emissions consistent with the
IPCC Tier 3 method.
    For each abatement system for which a facility is reporting
controlled emissions, we propose that facilities be required to report
the following: certification that the abatement device is installed,
operated, and maintained according to manufacturers' specifications;
the uptime and the calculations to determine uptime for that reporting
year; the DRE used (i.e. either the EPA default DRE value or a properly
measured DRE); and documentation for the EPA default DRE value or a
properly measured DRE.
    These data form the basis of the calculations and are needed for us
to understand the reported emissions and verify their reasonableness.
8. Selection of Records That Must Be Retained
    We propose that facilities keep records of data used to estimate
emissions, records supporting values used to estimate emissions,
purchase records, and invoices for gas purchases and sales. For those