[Federal Register: December 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 230)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 74773-74861]
[DOCID:fr01de10-16]

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

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 98

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 98

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927; FRL-9226-8]
RIN 2060-AQ00

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Additional Sources of
Fluorinated GHGs

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing a regulation to require monitoring and
reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from additional sources of
fluorinated greenhouse gases, including electronics manufacturing,
fluorinated gas production, electrical equipment use, electrical
equipment manufacture or refurbishment, as well as importers and
exporters of pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams. This rule
requires monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gases for these source
categories only for sources with carbon dioxide equivalent emissions,
imports, or exports above certain threshold levels. This rule does not
require control of greenhouse gases.

DATES: The final rule is effective on December 31, 2010. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of December 31,
2010.

ADDRESSES: EPA established a single docket under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0927 for this rule. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
EPA's Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Avenue, 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
(202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carole Cook, Climate Change Division,
Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC-6207J), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For technical information and implementation
materials, please go to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program Web site
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html. To
submit a question, select Rule Help Center, followed by Contact Us.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 CAA section 307(d) apply to ``such other actions as the
Administrator may determine.''). This final rule affects owners and
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 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  Liquid Crystal Display
                                                 (LCD) unit screens
                                                 manufacturing
                                                 facilities.
                                        334419  Micro-electro-mechanical
                                                 systems (MEMS)
                                                 manufacturing
                                                 facilities.
Fluorinated Gas 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-                   equipment (except room
 Cell Foams.                                     units) merchant
                                                 wholesalers.
                                        333415  Air-conditioning
                                                 equipment (except motor
                                                 vehicle) manufacturing.
                                        336391  Motor vehicle air-
                                                 conditioning
                                                 manufacturing.
                                        423620  Air-conditioners, room,
                                                 merchant wholesalers.
                                        443111  Household appliance
                                                 stores.
                                        423730  Automotive air-
                                                 conditioners merchant
                                                 wholesalers.
                                        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 of this preamble 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 subparts related to electronics
manufacturing facilities, fluorinated gas production facilities,
electric power transmission or distribution facilities, 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
GENERAL INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    Many facilities that are affected by the final rule have greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions from multiple source categories listed in 40 CFR
part 98. Table 2 of this preamble has been developed as a guide to help
potential reporters in the source categories subject to this reporting
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       Subparts recommended for review to
        applicable subpart)                determine applicability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electricity Generation............  Electrical Equipment Use.
Electronics Manufacturing.........  General Stationary Fuel Combustion.
Fluorinated Gas Production........  General Stationary Fuel Combustion
                                     Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse
                                     Gases.
Electrical Equipment Use..........  General Stationary Fuel Combustion.
Imports and Exports of Fluorinated  Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse
 GHGs Inside Pre-charged Equipment   Gases.
 and Closed-Cell Foams.             Sulfur Hexafluoride and PFCs from
                                     Electrical Equipment Manufacture
                                     and Refurbishment.
Electrical Equipment Manufacture    General Stationary Fuel Combustion
 or Refurbishment.                   Imports and Exports of Fluorinated
                                     GHGs Inside Pre-charged Equipment
                                     and Closed-Cell Foams.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    What is the effective date? The final rule is effective on December
31, 2010. Section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5
U.S.C. Chapter 5, generally provides that rules may not take effect
earlier than 30 days after they are published in the Federal Register.
EPA is issuing this final rule under section 307(d)(1) of the Clean Air
Act, which states: ``The provisions of section 553 through 557 * * * of
Title 5 shall not, except as expressly provided in this section, apply
to actions to which this subsection applies.'' Thus, section 553(d) of
the APA does not apply to this rule. EPA is nevertheless acting
consistently with the purposes underlying APA section 553(d) in making
this rule effective on December 31, 2010. Section 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)
allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication ``as
otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published
with the rule.'' As explained below, EPA finds that there is good cause
for this rule to become effective on or before December 31, 2010, even
if this results in an effective date fewer than 30 days from date of
publication in the Federal Register.
    While this action is being signed prior to December 1, 2010, there
is likely to be a significant delay in the publication of this rule as
it contains complex diagrams, equations, and charts, and is relatively
long in length. As an example, EPA signed a shorter technical
amendments package related to the same underlying reporting rule on
October 7, 2010, and it was not published until October 28, 2010, 75 FR
66434, three weeks later.
    The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in 5 U.S.C.
553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their
behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. Where, as
here, the final rule will be signed and made available on the EPA Web
site more than 30 days before the effective date, but where the
publication is likely to be delayed due to the complexity and length of
the rule, that purpose is still met. Moreover, through June 30, 2011,
facilities covered by this rule may use Best Available Monitoring
Methods (BAMM) for any parameter for which it is not reasonably
feasible to acquire, install, or operate a required piece of monitoring
equipment in a facility, or to procure measurement services from
necessary providers. This will provide facilities a substantial
additional period to adjust their behavior to the requirements of the
final rule. Accordingly, we find good cause exists to make this rule
effective on or before December 31, 2010, consistent with the purposes
of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We recognize that this rule could be published at least 30
days before December 31, 2010, which would negate the need for this
good cause finding, and we plan to request expedited publication of
this rule in order to decrease the likelihood of a printing delay.
However, as we cannot know the date of publication in advance of
signing this rule, we are proceeding with this good cause finding
for an effective date on or before December 31, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Judicial Review.
    Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final rule is
available only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by January 31, 2011. Under
CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), only an objection to this final rule that was
raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment
can be raised during judicial review. This section also provides a
mechanism for EPA to convene a proceeding for reconsideration, ``[i]f
the person raising an objection can demonstrate to EPA that it was
impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for public
comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period
for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review)
and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of this
rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration to EPA should
submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Room 3000, Ariel Rios
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004, with a
copy to the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and
Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20004. Note, under CAA section 307(b)(2), the
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to
enforce these requirements.
    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
BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics
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
DE destruction efficiency
DRE destruction or removal efficiency
ECD electron capture detector
EFC emission factor for the valve-hose combination
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
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCFC hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HFC hydrofluorocarbon
HFE hydrofluoroether
HTF heat transfer fluid
IBR incorporation by reference
ICR information collection request
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
kg kilograms
LCD liquid crystal displays
LED light-emitting diode
MEMS micro-electro-mechanical systems
MMTCO2e million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent
MRR mandatory greenhouse gas reporting rule
MS mass spectrometry
MVAC motor vehicle air conditioner
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
NRECA National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PFC perfluorocarbon
POHC principal organic hazardous constituent
PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration
PSEF process-vent-specific emission factor
PV photovoltaic cells
QA quality assurance
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QMS Quadrapole Mass Spectroscopy
R&D research and development
RF radio frequency
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RGGI Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
RPS remote plasma source
SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
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 Final Rule
    C. Legal Authority
II. Requirements for Specific Source Categories
    A. Overview of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program
    B. Overview of Confidentiality Determination for Data Elements
in the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rules
    C. Summary of Changes to the General Provisions of the General
Provisions of 40 CFR Part 98 Related to the Addition of Subparts I,
L, DD, QQ, and SS
    D. Electronics Manufacturing (Subpart I)
    E. Fluorinated Gas Production (Subpart L)
    F. Electrical Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use
(Subpart DD)
    G. Importers and Exporters of Fluorinated GHGs Inside Pre-
Charged Equipment or Closed-Cell Foams (Subpart QQ)
    H. Electrical Equipment Manufacture or Refurbishment (Subpart
SS)
III. Economic Impacts of the Final 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
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. Background

A. Organization of This Preamble

    This preamble is broken into several large sections, as detailed 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 rule, including a brief discussion
of the rationale for revising the initially proposed requirements for
subparts L, DD, and SS. This section also discusses EPA's use of our
legal authority under the CAA to collect the required data, and the
benefits of collecting the data.
    The second section of this preamble provides a brief summary of the
key design elements for each subpart. For each subpart, this section
includes (1) The definition of the source category, (2) GHGs to report,
(3) GHG emission calculating and monitoring methods, (4) data reporting
requirements, and (5) records that must be retained. Each subpart also
includes a summary of major changes since proposal and a summary of
comments and responses. 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 rule from the Economic Analysis.
Finally, the last section discusses the various statutory and executive
order requirements applicable to this rule.

B. Background on the Final Rule

    This action finalizes monitoring and reporting requirements for the
following five source categories: Electronics manufacturing,
fluorinated gas production, electrical equipment use, electrical
equipment manufacture and refurbishment, and importers and exporters
and pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams.
    EPA initially proposed reporting requirements for electronics,
fluorinated GHG production, and electrical equipment use on April 12,
2009 (74 FR 16448) as part of a larger rulemaking effort to establish a
GHG reporting program for all sectors of the economy. In that proposal,
EPA also requested comment on requiring reporting of the quantities of
fluorinated GHGs imported and exported inside pre-charged equipment and
foams. However, EPA did not include requirements for these source
categories in the Final Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule (Part 98) (40 CFR
part 98), which was signed by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson on
September 22, 2009 and published in the Federal Register on October 30,
2009 (74 FR 56260).
    EPA deferred action on these source categories because EPA received
a number of lengthy, detailed comments regarding the proposed
requirements for these source categories. These comments, which are
described in more detail in the discussions of the individual source
categories in the April 12, 2010 proposed rule, 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 fluorinated GHGs contained in

imported and exported pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams.
    EPA recognized the concerns raised by stakeholders, and decided to
re-propose significant pieces of these subparts. The revised proposed
rule was published in the Federal Register on April 12, 2010. A public
hearing on the proposed rule was held on April 20, 2010 in Washington,
DC, and the 60-day public comment period ended on June 11, 2010.
    For subparts I and L this rule incorporates a number of technical
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 April 2009 proposal.
Where aspects of the initial proposals for subparts I and L are
retained in this rule, 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, this rule adds more flexibility in how and how
frequently the underlying data are gathered. In addition, EPA is
requiring facilities 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 have concluded that the monitoring approaches required in this
rule, which combine direct measurement and facility-specific
calculations, effectively balance accuracy and costs, and that they are
warranted because the resulting data will enable EPA to analyze and
develop a range of potential CAA GHG policies and programs. A
consistent and accurate data set is crucial to serve this intended
purpose.
    Under this rule, facilities and suppliers will begin data
collection in 2011 following the methods outlined in this rule and will
submit data to EPA by March 31, 2012. EPA is allowing facilities and
suppliers to use the Best Available Monitoring Methods (BAMM) through
June 30, 2011 without submitting a petition to EPA. EPA is also
allowing facilities to request an extension for the use of BAMM beyond
the initial 6-month period. For details on BAMM extension requests,
including their due dates and required contents, refer to the
Monitoring and QA/QC Requirements section of each subpart and to the
preamble discussions for subparts I and L.

C. Legal Authority

    EPA is finalizing requirements for five source categories
(electronics manufacturing, production of fluorinated gases, use of
electrical transmission and distribution equipment, manufacture or
refurbishment of electrical equipment, and imports and exports of pre-
charges equipment and closed cell-foams) under its existing CAA
authority; specifically, authorities provided in CAA section 114. As
discussed in detail in Sections I.C and II.Q of the preamble to the
2009 final rule (74 FR 56260, October 30, 2009), CAA section 114(a)(1)
provides EPA with broad authority to require emissions sources, persons
subject to the CAA, manufacturers of process or control equipment, or
persons whom the Administrator believes may have necessary information
to monitor and report emissions and provide such other information the
Administrator requests for the purposes of carrying out any provision
of the CAA. Further information is available in ``Mandatory Greenhouse
Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments, Legal Issues''
(available in EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508)

II. Requirements for Specific Source Categories

A. Overview of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program

    On October 30, 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
published a rule for the mandatory reporting of greenhouse gases (GHG)
(also referred to as 40 CFR part 98) from large GHG emissions sources
in the United States. Implementation of 40 CFR Part 98 is referred to
as the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP).
    The rule requires reporting of GHG emissions and supply from
certain sectors of the economy, and apply to certain downstream
facilities that emit GHGs, as well as to certain upstream suppliers of
fossil fuels and industrial GHGs. The regulations require annual
reporting of GHGs including carbon dioxide (CO2, methane
(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6),
and other fluorinated compounds (e.g., hydrofluoroethers (HFEs)).
    Part 98 regulations require only that source categories subject to
the rule monitor and report GHGs in accordance with the methods
specified in the individual subparts. In this action, EPA is adding
five source categories to part 98. For a list of the specific GHGs to
be reported and the GHG calculation procedures, monitoring, missing
data procedures, recordkeeping, and reporting required for facilities
subject to subparts I, L, DD, QQ, and SS see the relevant subpart
description below.

B. Overview of Confidentiality Determination for Data Elements in the
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rules

    This action does not address whether data reported under subparts
I, L, DD, QQ, or SS will be treated as confidential business
information (CBI). EPA published a proposed confidentiality
determination on July 7, 2010 (75 FR 39094) which addressed this issue.
In that action, EPA proposed which specific data elements would be
treated as CBI and which data elements must be available to the public
under CAA section 114. EPA has received several comments on the
proposal, and is in the process of considering these comments. A final
determination will be issued before any data is released, and the final
determination will include all of the data elements under these
subparts.

C. Summary of Changes to the General Provisions of the General
Provisions of 40 CFR Part 98 Related to the Addition of Subparts I, L,
DD, QQ, and SS

    Changes to Applicability. We are making changes to 40 CFR
98.3(c)(5) to be consistent with previous revisions that were made on
July 12, 2010. On July 12, 2010 (75 FR 39736), we made a number of
conforming changes to the General Provisions (subpart A to part 98) to
accommodate the addition of new source categories that were being added
to Part 98. In the July 12, 2010 notice, we added Tables A-3 through A-
5 to replace the list of source categories and supplier categories in
40 CFR 98.2(a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(4), respectively. Under this revised
approach, as new subparts are adopted, a new row is added to the
appropriate table for the year in which reporting is required to
commence for the new source category or supplier category. As a
conforming change, the text of 40 CFR 98.3(c)(4) was reworded to refer
to ``Table A-3 and Table A-4'' instead of ``subparts C-JJ.''
    In this action, we are amending Tables A-3, A-4, and A-5 to subpart
A to add entries for five subparts: DD, SS, I, L, and QQ. Because we
are now adding a new supplier category to the reporting requirements,
we are also making a conforming change to 40 CFR 98.3(c)(5)(i) and (ii)
to replace the reference to ``subparts KK through PP'' with a reference
to ``Table A-5.'' This conforming change does not alter any reporting
requirements.
    The following source categories have been added to the list of
source categories in Table A-3 to subpart A because they have a
production capacity

or gas consumption threshold rather than a CO2e emission
threshold.
     Electric power transmission or distribution facilities
that include the total nameplate capacity located within the facility,
when added to the total nameplate capacity of SF6 and PFC
containing equipment that is not located within the facility but is
under common ownership or control, exceeds 17,820 pounds of sulfur
hexafluoride (SF6)or perfluorocarbons (PFCs) (subpart DD).
     Electric power equipment manufacturing or refurbishing
facilities with total annual SF6 and PFC purchases
(combined) that exceed 23,000 pounds per year (subpart SS).
    The following source categories are subject to the rule if facility
emissions are equal to or greater than 25,000 metric tons
CO2e per year. Therefore, these source categories have been
added to the list of emission threshold source categories referenced in
Table A-4 to subpart A.
     Fluorinated gas production facilities whose emissions
would exceed 25,000 mtCO2e in the absence of control
technologies (subpart L).
     Electronics manufacturing facilities whose emissions would
exceed 25,000 mtCO2e in the absence of control technologies
(subpart I).
    For all of these facilities, whether they are listed in Table A-3
or A-4 to subpart A, the annual GHG report must cover stationary fuel
combustion sources, miscellaneous uses of carbonates, and all
applicable source categories listed in Table A-3 and Table A-4 to
subpart A.
    Importers and exporters of certain types of pre-charged equipment
or closed-cell foam products containing fluorinated GHGs,
N2O, or CO2 (subpart QQ) have been added to Table
A-5 to subpart A because they are suppliers of GHGs.
    As is true for the source categories covered by the final Part 98,
a facility or supplier in any of these source categories may cease
reporting if their emissions are less than 25,000 mtCO2e per
year for five consecutive years or less than 15,000 mtCO2e
per year for three consecutive years, subject to the procedures at 40
CFR 98.2(i).
    Reporting CO2e emissions. EPA is adding a paragraph to 40 CFR
98.3(c)(4) to clarify that facilities that emit fluorinated GHGs are
required to calculate and report CO2e emissions only for
those fluorinated GHGs that are listed in Table A-1 of this subpart,
not for other fluorinated GHGs. However, it is important to note that
fluorinated GHG emitters are still required to report all fluorinated
GHGs emitted under 40 CFR 98.3(c)(4)(iii) (in metric tons of GHG). This
change clarifies that emitters are not required to develop GWPs for
fluorinated GHGs that are not listed in Table A-1 and ensures
consistent reporting of such fluorinated GHGs among different
reporters. The change is being made in parallel with a similar change
to 40 CFR 98.3(c)(5) through a separate rulemaking.
    Definitions. EPA is revising one definition in 40 CFR part 98
subpart A and is adding a number of definitions applicable to specific
source categories to the corresponding subparts. The definition that is
being revised in subpart A is the definition of ``destruction
efficiency,'' which is being revised to be expressed in tons of
specific greenhouse gases rather than tons of CO2e. This revision and
the rationale for it are discussed in more detail in Section II.E of
this preamble.
    The definitions that are applicable to specific source categories
are not being added to the definitions section in 40 CFR part 98
subpart A because they do not have broader applicability to part 98.
EPA has sought to avoid any conflict between these subpart-specific
definitions and the definitions in Subpart A. In one instance, for
electric power systems, EPA is applying a category-specific definition
of facility rather than the general definition of facility in the
General Provisions. The reasons for this source-category-specific
definition of facility are set forth in Section II.G of this preamble.
The remaining definitions are intended as supplements to the
definitions section in the General Provisions. EPA does not expect
these definitions to create conflicts with the General Provisions. To
the extent regulated entities are in doubt as to which definition
applies, they should assume that the category-specific definitions are
controlling.
    Incorporation by Reference (IBR). We are amending 40 CFR 98.7
(incorporation by reference) to include standard methods used in the
subparts. In particular, for subpart I, we are adding the following
three standards: the 2006 International SEMATECH Manufacturing
Initiative's Guideline for Environmental Characterization of
Semiconductor Process Equipment (International SEMATECH
06124825A-ENG), the 2001 International SEMATECH's Guidelines
for Environmental Characterization of Semiconductor Equipment
(International SEMATECH 01104197A-XFR), and EPA's Protocol for
Measuring Destruction or Removal Efficiency (DRE) of Fluorinated
Greenhouse Gas Abatement Equipment in Electronics Manufacturing,
Version 1, EPA 430-R-10-003. These standards are referenced in 40 CFR
98.94 (Monitoring and QA/QC requirements for subpart I), 40 CFR 98.96
(Data reporting requirements for subpart I), 40 CFR 98.97 (Records that
must be retained for subpart I), and 40 CFR 98.98 (Definitions for
subpart I).
    In addition, for subpart L, we are revising the paragraphs listing
several ASME standards and one ASTM standard that are already contained
in 40 CFR 98.7 to indicate that these standards are also referenced by
40 CFR 98.124 (Monitoring and QA/QC requirements in 40 CFR part 98,
subpart L, fluorinated gas production). We are also adding the
following seven standards: ASTM D2879-97 (Reapproved 2007) Standard
Test Method for Vapor Pressure-Temperature Relationship and Initial
Decomposition Temperature of Liquids by Isoteniscope; ASTM D7359-08
Standard Test Method for Total Fluorine, Chlorine and Sulfur in
Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Their Mixtures by Oxidative Pyrohydrolytic
Combustion followed by Ion Chromatography Detection (Combustion Ion
Chromatography-CIC); Tracer Gas Protocol for the Determination of
Volumetric Flow Rate Through the Ring Pipe of the Xact Multi-Metals
Monitoring System (also known as Other Test Method 24); Approved
Alternative Method 012: An Alternate Procedure for Stack Gas Volumetric
Flow Rate Determination (Tracer Gas); the Emission Inventory
Improvement Program, Volume II: Chapter 16, Methods for Estimating Air
Emissions from Chemical Manufacturing Facilities; Protocol for
Equipment Leak Emission Estimates; and EPA's Protocol for Measuring
Destruction or Removal Efficiency (DRE) of Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas
Abatement Equipment in Electronics Manufacturing, Version 1, EPA 430-R-
10-003. These are referenced in 40 CFR 98.123 (Calculating GHG
emissions for subpart L), 40 CFR 98.124 (Monitoring and QA/QC
requirements for subpart L), and 40 CFR 98.128 (Definitions for subpart
L).

D. Electronics Manufacturing (Subpart I)

1. Summary of the Final Rule
    Source Category Definition. The electronics manufacturing source
category consists of any of the following five production processes.
Facilities that use these processes include, but are not limited to,
those facilities that manufacture micro-electro-mechanical systems
(MEMS), liquid crystal displays (LCDs), photovoltaic cells (PV), and
semiconductors (including light-emitting diodes).

     Electronics manufacturing production processes in which
the etching process uses plasma-generated fluorine atoms and other
reactive fluorine-containing fragments, which chemically react with
exposed thin-films (e.g., dielectric, metals) or substrate (e.g.,
silicon) to selectively remove portions of material.
     Electronics manufacturing production processes in which
chambers used for depositing thin films are cleaned periodically using
plasma-generated fluorine atoms and other reactive fluorine-containing
fragments.
     Electronics manufacturing production process in which
wafers are cleaned using plasma generated fluorine atoms or other
reactive fluorine-containing fragments to remove residual material from
wafer surfaces, including the wafer edge.
     Electronics manufacturing production processes in which
the chemical vapor deposition process (CVD) or other manufacturing
processes use N2O.
     Production processes which use fluorinated GHGs as heat
transfer fluids to cool process equipment, to control temperature
during device testing, to clean substrate surfaces and other parts, and
for soldering (e.g., vapor phase reflow). Heat transfer fluids commonly
used in electronics manufacturing include those sold under the trade
names ``Galden[supreg]'' and ``Fluorinertsu.\TM\''
    Reporting Threshold. Electronics manufacturing facilities that meet
the applicability criteria in the General Provisions (40 CFR 98.2) must
report GHG emissions. Electronics manufacturing facilities covered by
subpart I are those that have emissions equal to or greater than 25,000
mtCO2e. For electronics manufacturing, EPA is requiring that
uncontrolled emissions be used for purposes of determining whether a
facility's emissions are equal to or greater than 25,000
mtCO2e.\2\ Facilities must determine if they meet the
applicability criteria in the General Provisions (40 CFR 98.2(a)(2)) by
using the methods in 40 CFR 98.91 and summarized as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For purposes of calculating and reporting emissions for this
subpart, facilities may report controlled emissions if they abide by
provisions in 40 CFR 98.94(f) of this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Semiconductor, MEMS, and LCD manufacturing facilities are
required to use gas specific emission factors and 100 percent of annual
manufacturing capacity. Because heat transfer fluids are widely used in
semiconductor manufacturing, to account for emissions from heat
transfer fluids, semiconductor manufacturing facilities are required to
add 10 percent of total clean and etch emissions at a facility to their
total estimate. For semiconductor and LCD manufacturing facilities, the
gas specific emission factors are consistent with the 2006 IPCC Tier 1
emission factors. For MEMS manufacturing facilities, because there is
no IPCC factor available, the emission factor was developed by EPA and
is based on the IPCC Tier 2b SF6 emission factor for
semiconductors.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For a more detailed explanation of the MEMS default factor,
please refer to the Electronics Manufacturing TSD (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-
0927).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     PV manufacturing facilities are required to multiply
annual fluorinated GHG purchases or consumption by the gas-appropriate
100-year GWPs (provided in Table A-1 to subpart A of this part).
    It is important to clarify that these methods for determining
whether a manufacturer exceeds the threshold are different from those
used to calculate and report annual GHG emissions. The methods for
calculating GHG emissions and consumption for reporting purposes are
provided in the following paragraphs.
    GHGs to Report. Each facility must calculate and report the
following GHG emissions and consumption:
     Fluorinated GHG emissions from plasma etching, chamber
cleaning, and wafer cleaning.
     N2O emissions from chemical vapor deposition
and other electronics manufacturing processes.
     Fluorinated GHG emissions from heat transfer fluid use.
     Consumption for all fluorinated GHGs and N2O
including gases used for manufacturing processes other than those
listed above.
     CO2, CH4, and N2O
combustion emissions from stationary combustion units by following the
requirements of 40 CFR part 98, subpart C (General Stationary Fuel
Combustion Sources).
    GHG Emissions Calculation and Monitoring. To calculate fluorinated
GHG and N2O emissions from electronics manufacturing,
reporters must use the following methods, as appropriate for each
electronics manufacturing facility (depending on the product
manufactured, i.e., MEMS, LCD, PV, or semiconductors).
Fluorinated GHG Emissions
    All electronics manufacturing facilities are required to calculate
fluorinated GHG emissions from etch and clean processes by estimating
emissions of input fluorinated GHGs and of by-product fluorinated GHGs.
This is done by applying utilization factors and by-product formation
factors (collectively referred to as ``emission factors'' below) to the
consumption of each fluorinated GHG by each process type, process sub-
type or recipe, as appropriate. However, the methods prescribed for use
by different types of electronics manufacturing facilities differ in
the values of these emission factors, the level of aggregation to which
the factors are applied (process type, process sub-type, or recipe),
and whether defaults or recipe-specific factors are applied. This
framework is discussed in detail in the following paragraphs.
    To calculate and report fluorinated GHG emissions, reporters must
adhere to the typology shown in Figure 1 of this preamble.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.000

    At the top of the typology figure are process types, which consist
of plasma etching, chamber cleaning, and wafer cleaning. The second
level in the figure consists of process sub-types, which are identified
for only the chamber cleaning process type. As explained in Section
II.D.2 of this preamble (Summary of Major Changes Since the Proposal)
and Section II.D.3 of this preamble (Summary of Comments and
Responses), EPA is only establishing sub-types for the chamber cleaning
process type because sufficient information was available for these
sub-types to establish default emission factors. The three chamber
cleaning process sub-types are in-situ plasma, remote plasma, and in-
situ thermal cleans. The bottom of the figure displays production
process recipes. Definitions are provided in the paragraphs below.
    Process Type. EPA is defining a process type as a broad group of
manufacturing steps used at a facility associated with substrate (e.g.,
wafer) processing during device manufacture for which fluorinated GHG
emissions and fluorinated GHG usages are calculated and reported. The
process types are plasma etching, chamber cleaning, and wafer
cleaning.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As defined in the final rule, the plasma etching process
type consists of any production process using fluorinated GHG
reagents to selectively remove materials that have been deposited on
a substrate during electronics manufacturing. Also as defined in the
final rule, the wafer cleaning process type consists of any
production process using fluorinated GHG reagents to clean wafers at
any step during production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Process Sub-type. EPA is defining a process sub-type as a set of
similar manufacturing steps, more closely related within a broad
process type. (For clarity, EPA is referring to what was previously
termed process categories in the April 2010 proposed rule (75 FR 18652)
as process sub-types).
    In situ plasma process sub-type consists of the cleaning of thin-
film production chambers, after processing substrates, with a
fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent that is dissociated into its cleaning
constituents by a plasma generated inside the chamber where the films
are produced.
    Remote plasma process sub-type consists of the cleaning of thin-
film production chambers, after processing substrates, with a
fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent dissociated by a remotely located
(e.g., upstream) plasma source.
    In situ thermal process sub-type consists of the cleaning of thin-
film production chambers, after processing substrates, with a
fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent that is thermally dissociated into its
cleaning constituents inside the chamber where one or more thin films
are produced.
    Production Process Recipe (Recipe). EPA has included definitions of
``individual recipe'' and ``similar'' with respect to recipes in this
final rule as an aid to understanding the portions of the rule where a
facility is required or allowed to calculate emissions on a recipe-
specific basis. The final rule uses the term ``individual recipe'' to
refer to a specific combination of gases, under specific conditions of
reactor temperature, pressure, flow, radio frequency (RF) power and
duration, used repeatedly to fabricate a specific feature on a specific
film or substrate. EPA is also introducing the term ``similar,'' with
respect to recipes, to refer to recipes that are composed of the same
set of chemicals and have the same flow stabilization times and where
the documented differences, considered separately, in reactor pressure,
individual gas flow rates, and applied RF power are less than or equal
to plus or minus 10 percent. For purposes of comparing and documenting
recipes that are similar, facilities may use either the best known
method provided by an equipment manufacturer or the process of record,
for which emission factors for either have been measured (see the
Electronics Manufacturing TSD (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927) for supporting
information). Generally, where facilities develop recipe-specific
utilization and by-product formation rates, they may apply the
utilization and by-product formation rates developed for an individual
recipe to any ``similar recipe.\5\ ''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ To be included in a set of similar recipes for the purposes
of this subpart, a recipe must be similar to the recipe in the set
for which recipe-specific utilization and by-product formation rates
have been measured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Electronics manufacturing facilities must calculate and report
emissions of each fluorinated GHG used at the facility by adhering to
typologies discussed and defined earlier in this section, as
appropriate, and using the following methods based on the use of (1)
Gas consumption, and (2) emission factors for fluorinated-GHG
utilization and by-product formation rates. Where facilities are
required to estimate and calculate emissions for sub-types or recipes,
they are also required to report those emissions in aggregate by
process type.
    The required methods are summarized in Table 3 of this preamble.
EPA is naming the methodologies described below using a format similar
to that used in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories. While EPA's methodologies may be viewed generally as an
extension from and building upon the IPCC's methods, EPA's approach is
distinct in terms of its applicability and level of detail.

Table 3--Summary of Final Provisions for Electronics Manufacturing Facilities To Estimate and Report Fluorinated
                                GHG Emissions From Etching and Cleaning Processes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Manufactured wafer                           Required            Optional
      Product manufactured               size         Annual capacity\a\      methodology         methodology
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PV, MEMS, LCDs..................  NA................  NA................  Modified Tier 2b--  Tier 3--Use recipe-
                                                                           Use EPA default     specific emission
                                                                           emission            factors for all
                                                                           factors\b\ for      production
                                                                           plasma etching      processes that
                                                                           and chamber         use fluorinated
                                                                           cleaning process    GHGs.
                                                                           types.\c\
Semiconductors..................  300 mm and smaller  Less than or equal  Tier 2c--Use EPA    Tier 3--Use recipe-
                                                       to 10,500 m\2\ of   default emission    specific emission
                                                       substrate.          factors for         factors for all
                                                                           plasma etching,     production
                                                                           chamber cleaning    processes that
                                                                           (including in-      use fluorinated
                                                                           situ plasma         GHGs.
                                                                           cleaning, remote
                                                                           plasma cleaning,
                                                                           in-situ thermal
                                                                           cleaning sub-
                                                                           types), and wafer
                                                                           cleaning process
                                                                           types.\c\

Semiconductors..................  300 mm and smaller  Greater than        Tier 2d--Use EPA    Tier 3--Use recipe-
                                                       10,500 m\2\ of      default emission    specific emission
                                                       substrate.          factors for         factors for all
                                                                           chamber cleaning    production
                                                                           (including in-      processes that
                                                                           situ plasma         use fluorinated
                                                                           cleaning, remote    GHGs.
                                                                           plasma cleaning,
                                                                           in-situ thermal
                                                                           cleaning sub-
                                                                           types), and wafer
                                                                           cleaning process
                                                                           types, and recipe-
                                                                           specific emission
                                                                           factors for
                                                                           plasma
                                                                           etching.\c\
Semiconductors..................  Larger than 300 mm  NA................  Tier 3--Use recipe- None.
                                                                           specific emission
                                                                           factors for all
                                                                           production
                                                                           processes that
                                                                           use fluorinated
                                                                           GHG.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 \a\ Manufacturing capacity is 100 percent of annual manufacturing capacity of a facility as determined by
  summing the area of maximum designed substrate starts of a facility per month over the reporting period.
 \b\ These emission factors are consistent with emission factors published in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
 \c\ Where default emission factors are not provided in Tables I-3, I-4, I-5, I-6, or I-7 for a particular
  fluorinated GHG and process type or sub-type combination, a facility must either use utilization and by-
  product formation rates of 0 or use directly measured recipe-specific emission factors using the procedures of
  this subpart.

Gas Consumption
    Electronics manufacturing facilities must use the following methods
to calculate and apportion fluorinated GHG consumption:
     Total annual gas consumption, for all fluorinated GHGs,
calculated using the facility's purchase records, disbursements, gas
container inventories, and gas- and facility-specific heel factors.
     Total annual gas consumption apportioning factors
developed using facility-specific engineering models based on
quantifiable metrics (i.e., a metric that is proportional to gas usage)
of fluorinated GHG-using activity. Facilities must document these
models in their site GHG Monitoring Plans (as required under 40 CFR
98.3) and verify them. At a minimum, facilities must verify and
document the information listed in 40 CFR 98.94(c) and 40 CFR 98.97(c),
respectively. This information must be updated each reporting year.

Fluorinated GHG Utilization and By-Product Formation Rates (Emission
Factors)
    Electronics manufacturing facilities must use the following methods
for applying (and in some cases, developing) fluorinated GHG emission
factors, as appropriate. Where a facility uses less than 50 kg of a
fluorinated GHG in one reporting year, rather than calculate emissions
using an emission factor, they may report the emissions of that gas as
equal to consumption.
Facilities That Manufacture MEMS, LCDs, and PV
    Facilities that manufacture MEMS, LCDs, and PV are required to
calculate and report their fluorinated GHG emissions from two process
types: Plasma etching and chamber cleaning. These facilities are
required to use default emission factors presented in Tables I-5, I-6,
or I-7 to subpart I for MEMS, LCDs, PV, respectively. EPA is using the
term ``Modified Tier 2b Method'' to refer to this methodology.
    A facility may use directly measured recipe-specific emission
factors in lieu of defaults for all production processes that use
fluorinated GHGs only if the recipe-specific emission factors are
measured using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines, International SEMATECH
06124825A-ENG, with limited exceptions.\6\ The facility must
develop recipe-specific factors for each individual recipe except that
a factor developed for one individual recipe may be applied to similar
recipes. In a given reporting year, a facility must develop new recipe-
specific emission factors only for recipes which are not similar to any
recipe used in a previous reporting year. Facilities that choose the
recipe-specific approach must also aggregate the recipe-specific
emissions and report the total emissions by process type (plasma
etching and chamber cleaning). In addition, where a facility reports
using recipe-specific emission factors, they are required to report the
film or substrate that was etched/cleaned and the feature type that was
etched.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ EPA is permitting facilities to use emission factors
measured using the 2001 ISMI Guidelines, International SEMATECH
01104197A-XFR, provided the emissions factors were measured
prior to January 1, 2007. Documentation for the measurements is
required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A facility that is using a method based on default emission
factors, but uses a fluorinated GHG for a particular process type for
which default emission factors are not provided in Tables I-5, I-6, or
I-7, must either use utilization and by-product formation rates of 0
or, in that particular instance, use directly measured recipe-specific
emission factors measured using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines, International
SEMATECH 06124825A-ENG, with limited exceptions.\7\ The
facility must develop and report the recipe-specific emission factors
using the same procedures as discussed in the paragraph above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See footnote 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the exception of where default emission factors are not
provided in Tables I-5, I-6, or I-7 for a particular process type, EPA
is prohibiting a facility from creating and using a hybrid method to
ensure consistent methods of calculating and reporting emissions. This
means that a single facility must choose between using only default
emission factors or using recipe-specific emission factors for all
process types; hybrid methods using both default emission factors and
recipe-specific factors within the same reporting year are not
permitted. This restriction will enable EPA to analyze emissions and
trends using a consistent set of data.
Facilities That Manufacture Semiconductors
    EPA is requiring facilities that manufacture semiconductors to use
a method to calculate and report their fluorinated GHG emissions which
varies depending on the size of wafers that the facility is
manufacturing (i.e., whether the facility manufactures wafers measuring
300 mm and less or greater than 300 mm). This distinction was proposed
in the April 2010 proposed rule (75 FR 18652). For facilities that
manufacture wafers measuring 300 mm and less, EPA is requiring the use
of one of two following methods for calculating and reporting
emissions, depending on the facility's manufacturing capacity: (1) A
method for facilities that have an annual manufacturing capacity that
is less than or equal to 10,500 m\2\ of substrate, and (2) a method for
those

that have an annual manufacturing capacity greater than 10,500 m\2\ of
substrate. A facility's manufacturing capacity (as calculated using
Equation I-5 of subpart I) is 100 percent of the maximum designed
substrate starts, expressed as surface area, for the reporting year.
This distinction in manufacturing capacity was part of EPA's initial
April 2009 proposed rule (74 FR 16448).
Semiconductor Manufacturing Facilities That Fabricate Devices on Wafers
Measuring 300 mm or Less in Diameter and That Have an Annual
Manufacturing Capacity of Less Than or Equal to 10,500 m\2\ of
Substrate
    Semiconductor manufacturing facilities that fabricate devices on
wafers measuring 300 mm or less in diameter and that have an annual
manufacturing capacity of less than or equal to 10,500 m\2\ of
substrate \8\ must calculate and report their fluorinated GHG emissions
using the following five process types and sub-types, and the
corresponding default emission factors presented in Tables I-3 and I-4
to subpart I:

    \8\ As calculated in Equation I-5 of subpart I, manufacturing
capacity is 100 percent of annual manufacturing capacity of a
facility as determined by summing the area of maximum designed
substrate starts of a facility per month over the reporting period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Plasma etching process type.
 Chamber cleaning process type which includes the following
three process sub-types:
--In-situ plasma chamber cleaning process sub-type.
--Remote plasma chamber cleaning process sub-type.
--In-situ thermal chamber cleaning process sub-type.
 Wafer cleaning process type.

    Default emission factors are differentiated by 150/200 mm and 300
mm wafer technologies. The default emission factors were developed
using the data provided in Table 5 of the report Draft Emission Factors
for Refined Semiconductor Manufacturing Process Categories (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0927-0073). EPA is using the term ``Tier 2c Method'' to refer to
this methodology.
    A facility may use directly measured recipe-specific emission
factors for each individual recipe or recipe that is not a similar
recipe in lieu of defaults only if the recipe-specific emission factors
are measured using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines, International SEMATECH
06124825A-ENG, with limited exceptions.\9\ The facility must
develop recipe-specific factors for each individual recipe except that
factors developed for one individual recipe may be applied to similar
recipes. In a given reporting year, a facility must develop recipe-
specific emission factors only for new recipes which are not similar to
any recipe used in a previous reporting year. Facilities that choose
the recipe-specific approach must also aggregate the recipe-specific
emissions and report the total emissions by process type (plasma
etching, chamber cleaning, and wafer cleaning). In addition, where a
facility reports using recipe-specific emission factors, they are
required to report the film or substrate that was etched/cleaned and
the feature type that was etched.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See footnote 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A facility that is using a method based on default emission
factors, but uses a fluorinated GHG for a particular process type or
sub-type for which default emission factors are not provided in Tables
I-3 and I-4, must either use utilization and by-product formation rates
of 0 or, in that particular instance, use directly measured recipe-
specific emission factors measured using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines,
International SEMATECH 06124825A-ENG, with limited
exceptions.\10\ The facility must develop and report the recipe-
specific emission factors using the same procedures as discussed in the
paragraph above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See footnote 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the exception of where default emission factors are not
provided in the Tables I-3 and I-4 for a particular process type or
sub-type, a facility must use either default emission factors only, or
recipe-specific emission factors only for all process types and sub-
types; creating and using a hybrid method is not permitted for the
reasons discussed earlier in this section.
Semiconductor Manufacturing Facilities That Fabricate Devices on Wafers
Measuring 300 mm or Less in Diameter and That Have an Annual
Manufacturing Capacity of Greater Than 10,500 m\2\ of Substrate
    Semiconductor manufacturing facilities that fabricate devices on
wafers measuring 300 mm or less in diameter and that have an annual
manufacturing capacity greater than 10,500 m\2\ of substrate (the
``largest'' semiconductor manufacturing facilities) \11\ must calculate
and report their emissions using a combination of default emission
factors and directly measured recipe-specific emission factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ EPA estimates that the largest semiconductor facilities
comprise 29 facilities out of 175 total semiconductor facilities.
See the Electronics Manufacturing TSD available in the docket (EPA-
HQ-OAR-2009-0927) for EPA's analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the following four process types and sub-types, facilities must
calculate emissions using only the default emission factors in Tables
I-3 and I-4 of subpart I:

 Chamber cleaning process type:
--In-situ plasma chamber cleaning process sub-type.
--Remote plasma chamber cleaning process sub-type.
--In-situ thermal chamber cleaning process sub-type.
 Wafer cleaning process type.

    Default emission factors are differentiated by 150/200 mm and 300
mm wafer technologies. These emission factors, which are the same
emission factors as specified for the Tier 2c method, were developed
using the data provided in Table 5 of the report Draft Emission Factors
for Refined Semiconductor Manufacturing Process Categories (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0927-0073). EPA is using the term ``Tier 2d Method'' to refer to
this methodology.
    For the plasma etching process type, facilities must calculate
emissions using only directly measured recipe-specific emission
factors. The facility must develop recipe-specific factors for each
individual recipe except that factors developed for one individual
recipe may be applied to similar recipes. In a given reporting year, a
facility must develop new recipe-specific emission factors only for
recipes which are not similar to any recipe used in a previous
reporting year. Plasma etching recipe-specific emission factors must be
measured using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines, International SEMATECH
06124825A-ENG, with limited exemptions.\12\ Facilities must
also aggregate the recipe-specific emissions and report the total
emissions by plasma etching process type. In addition, the facility is
required to report the film or substrate that was etched/cleaned and
the feature type that was etched for recipes used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See footnote 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A facility also has the option of using directly measured recipe-
specific emission factors in lieu of default emission factors for the
chamber and wafer cleaning process types, but only if the recipe-
specific factors are measured using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines,
International SEMATECH 06124825A-ENG, with limited
exceptions.\13\ The facility must develop recipe-specific factors for
each individual recipe except that factors developed for one individual
recipe may be applied to similar recipes. In a given reporting year, a
facility must develop new recipe-

specific emission factors only for recipes which are not similar to any
recipe used in a previous reporting year. Facilities that choose the
recipe-specific approach for the chamber and wafer cleaning process
types must also aggregate the recipe-specific emissions and report the
total emissions by those process types. In addition, where a facility
reports using recipe-specific emission factors, they are required to
report the film or substrate that was etched/cleaned and the feature
type that was etched.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See footnote 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A facility that is using a method based on default emission
factors, but uses a fluorinated GHG for a particular process type or
sub-type for which default emission factors are not provided in Tables
I-3 and I-4, must either use utilization and by-product formation rates
of 0 or, in that particular instance, use directly measured recipe-
specific emission factors measured using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines,
International SEMATECH 06124825A-ENG, with limited
exceptions.\14\ The facility must develop and report the recipe-
specific emission factors using the same procedures as discussed in the
paragraph above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See footnote 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the exception of where default emission factors are not
provided in the Tables I-3 and I-4 for a particular process type or
sub-type, a hybrid method using both default emission factors and
recipe-specific factors for the chamber cleaning and wafer cleaning
process types within the same reporting year is not permitted for
reasons discussed earlier in this section.
Semiconductor Facilities That Fabricate Devices on Wafers Measuring
Greater Than 300 mm in Diameter
    Semiconductor manufacturing facilities that fabricate devices on
wafers measuring greater than 300 mm in diameter, regardless of
capacity, must calculate and report all of their emissions from
processes that use fluorinated GHGs (including plasma etching, chamber
cleaning, and wafer cleaning process types) using directly measured
recipe-specific emission factors (i.e., an approach consistent with the
2006 IPCC Tier 3 methodology). EPA is using the term ``Tier 3 Method''
to refer to this methodology. In a given reporting year, a facility
must develop new recipe-specific emission factors only for recipes
which are not similar to any recipe used in a previous reporting year.
Emission factors must be measured using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines,
International SEMATECH 06124825A-ENG, with limited
exceptions.\15\ Facilities must also aggregate the recipe-specific
emissions and report the total emissions by process type (plasma
etching, chamber cleaning, and wafer cleaning). In addition, each
facility is required to report the film or substrate that was etched/
cleaned and the feature type that was etched for recipes used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See footnote 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    N2O Emissions: Electronics manufacturing facilities must
calculate emissions of N2O using:
     Requirements for calculating and apportioning gas
consumption as outlined above for ``Fluorinated GHG Emissions.''
     Production process emission factors for chemical vapor
deposition and other electronics manufacturing processes using either
defaults provided in Table I-8 to subpart I or facility-specific
N2O emission factors based on facility measurements of
N2O. Emission factors must be measured using the 2006 ISMI
Guidelines, International SEMATECH 06124825A-ENG, with limited
exceptions.\16\ Where a facility uses less than 50 kg of N2O
in one reporting year, rather than calculate emissions using an
emission factor, they may report the emissions as equal to consumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See footnote 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Heat Transfer Fluid Emissions: Electronics manufacturing facilities
must calculate and report emissions from heat transfer fluids using a
mass balance approach.
    Reporting Controlled Emissions from Abatement Systems: Electronics
manufacturing facilities that wish to calculate and report controlled
fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions from the use of abatement
systems must certify that their abatement systems are installed,
operated, and maintained in accordance with the manufacturers'
specifications, as well as account for uptime of abatement systems.\17\
Facilities must calculate controlled emissions from abatement systems
using either:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ In the final rule, EPA is defining controlled emissions as
the quantity of emissions that are released to the atmosphere after
application of an emission control device (e.g., abatement system).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Destruction or removal efficiencies based on a default
value of 60 percent. This approach requires certification that the
abatement system is specifically designed for fluorinated GHG and
N2O abatement. A facility must support its certification
that the abatement system is specifically designed for fluorinated GHG
and N2O abatement by documenting the suppliers
specifications; or
     Directly measured destruction or removal efficiencies
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), Version 1, EPA 430-R-
10-003. These destruction or removal efficiencies must be measured at a
frequency specified by EPA's random sampling abatement system testing
program (RSASTP).
    Best Available Monitoring Methods. EPA is allowing electronics
manufacturing facilities to use Best Available Monitoring Methods
(BAMM) through June 30, 2011 for this source category without
submitting a request. The owner or operator must use the calculation
methodologies and equations in the Calculating GHG Emissions section of
subpart I (40 CFR 98.93), but may use BAMM for any parameter for which
it is not reasonably feasible to acquire, install, or operate a
required piece of monitoring equipment in a facility, or to procure
measurement services from necessary providers. EPA is allowing
facilities to use BAMM for 6 months based on EPA's experience
implementing the Final MRR issued in October 2009 and because it has
determined that some electronics manufacturing facilities may need
additional time to comply with the requirements in the final rule.
    Facilities wishing to extend the use of BAMM beyond the initial 6-
month period, but no later than December 31, 2011, must submit a
petition to EPA by February 28, 2011. Requests for BAMM extensions must
include detailed explanations and supporting documentation to describe
why it is not reasonably feasible for the facility to comply with the
required provisions. In general, extension requests must include
detailed descriptions and evidence that it is not reasonably feasible
to acquire, install, or operate a required piece of monitoring
equipment in a facility, or to procure necessary measurement services
from providers by July 1, 2011.
    Where a facility is required to estimate emissions using recipe-
specific utilization and by-product formation rates for the plasma
etching process type (i.e., the Tier 2d method) and they are unable to
develop those factors, EPA is requiring the facility to provide reasons
why it is not reasonably feasible to obtain, install, or operate the
needed equipment, or to procure necessary measurement services, before
December 31, 2011 (in lieu of July 1, 2011) because recipe-specific
emission factors may be measured at any time during the reporting year.
These facilities must

submit a petition to EPA by June 30, 2011.
    BAMM extension requests must also document the facility's efforts
to comply with the requirements and explain the best available
monitoring method that the facility will use, should EPA approve the
request.
    EPA is requiring that if a facility is allowed to use BAMM in 2011
the facility must recalculate and resubmit 2011 emissions with their
report for the 2012 reporting year (to be submitted in 2013). For
example, such a facility having been granted BAMM may use a default
etch emission factor to calculate and report its 2011 emissions. This
facility must then recalculate and report its 2011 emissions with its
2012 report. Where a facility is allowed to use BAMM for apportioning
gas consumption it is not required to verify its 2011 engineering model
with its recalculated report.
    EPA does not anticipate approving the use of BAMM beyond December
31, 2011; however, EPA reserves the right to approve any such requests
submitted by June 30, 2011 for unique and extreme circumstances which
include safety, technical infeasibility, or inconsistency with other
local, State or Federal regulations. Facilities requesting BAMM past
December 31, 2011 would have to submit similar documentation to support
the request as was required for BAMM requests in 2011. In addition,
these facilities would be required to describe the unique and extreme
circumstances which necessitate the extended use of BAMM. Facilities
allowed to use BAMM through 2012 would be required to recalculate and
resubmit their 2012 emissions. The recalculated emissions must be
reported with the 2013 report (submitted in 2014). Where a facility is
allowed to use BAMM for apportioning gas consumption it is not required
to verify its 2012 engineering model with its recalculated report.
    Data Reporting. In addition to the information required to be
reported by the General Provisions (40 CFR 98.3(c)), reporters must
annually submit additional data used to calculate GHG emissions and
consumption. A list of the specific data to be reported for this source
category is contained in 40 CFR 98.96.
    Recordkeeping. In addition to the records required by the General
Provisions (40 CFR 98.3(g)), reporters must keep records of additional
data used to calculate GHG emissions and consumption. A list of
specific records that must be retained for this source category is
included in 40 CFR 98.97.
2. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal
    The major changes in this rule since the April 2010 proposal are
identified in the following list. The rationales for these, and the
identification of and rationale for other significant changes to the
proposed rule can be found below or in ``Mandatory Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments, Subpart I:
Electronics Manufacturing'' (available in the docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-
0927). Relevant comments on EPA's initial April 2009 proposal for
electronics manufacturing are included below or in the Response to
Comment Document. In addition to the changes identified below, EPA
reorganized sections of the proposed regulatory text and made editorial
changes to improve clarity and readability.
    Definition of the source category:
     EPA has clarified that semiconductors include, among
others, light-emitting diodes (LEDs). As explained in more detail in
``Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public
Comments, Subpart I: Electronics Manufacturing,'' (available in the
docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927), LEDs are a semiconductor light source.
When a LED is switched on, electrons are able to recombine with holes
within the device, releasing energy in the form of light whose color is
governed by the nature of the semiconductor. Many LEDs are manufactured
on a wafer (usually different than silicon) using methods that are
similar to the manufacture of integrated circuits.
    Reporting threshold:
     EPA has clarified what manufacturing capacity of a
facility means by providing a new equation (Equation I-5 of this rule)
in the final rule that specifies manufacturing capacity is 100 percent
of annual manufacturing capacity of a facility as determined by summing
the area of maximum designed substrate starts of a facility per month
over the reporting period. EPA has also provided a definition of
maximum designed substrate starts.
    Calculating GHG emissions:
     EPA has revised the requirements for semiconductor
manufacturing facilities that fabricate devices on wafers measuring 300
mm or less in diameter to calculate and report fluorinated GHG
emissions from etching and cleaning process types. In the final rule,
EPA is requiring these facilities to use one of two different
methodologies, depending on the manufacturing capacity of the facility.
     EPA has modified the requirement for semiconductor
manufacturing facilities that fabricate devices on wafers measuring 300
mm or less in diameter to require those facilities that have an annual
manufacturing capacity of less than or equal to 10,500 m\2\ of
substrate to calculate and report fluorinated GHG emissions based on
five process types and sub-types, as opposed to nine emitting process
sub-types as proposed in the April 2010 rule. These facilities must
calculate and report fluorinated GHG emissions from the etching process
type, the chamber cleaning process type and its associated sub-types
(in-situ plasma, remote plasma, in-situ thermal), and the wafer
cleaning process type. The five process types and sub-types are
differentiated by two wafer technologies (150/200 mm and 300 mm wafer
size). EPA is using the term ``Tier 2c'' to refer to this methodology.
EPA is combining default emission factors for 150 mm and 200 mm wafer
technologies because EPA did not have sufficient measured emissions
data to establish different factors for these two technologies. For
each of these process types and associated sub-types, EPA provides
default emission factors accounting for (1) The mass fraction of the
input gas that is utilized during manufacturing (i.e., not emitted from
the process type or sub-type), and (2) the mass of each reportable
fluorinated GHG by-product formed as a fraction of the mass of the
fluorinated GHG input gas with the largest mass flow used.
     EPA has added provisions to require the largest
semiconductor facilities (defined as facilities with annual capacities
of greater than 10,500 m\2\ of substrate) to calculate and report their
emissions from the plasma etching process type using directly measured
recipe-specific emission factors, while using EPA's default emission
factors for chamber cleaning sub-types, and for the wafer cleaning
process type. EPA is using the term ``Tier 2d'' to refer to this hybrid
methodology. All emission factors (utilization and by-product formation
rates) for the etch processes are required to be measured using the
2006 ISMI Guidelines, with limited exceptions.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See footnote 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The requirement for semiconductor manufacturing facilities to
calculate their emissions using process-specific process utilization
and by-product formation rates (i.e., recipe-specific emission factors)
was originally proposed in EPA's initial April 2009 proposal (74 FR
16448). In that proposed rule, EPA proposed to require the large
semiconductor manufacturing

facilities to calculate and report emissions from all fluorinated GHG
using processes using such an approach. Further, in EPA's April 2010
proposal (75 FR 18652), EPA proposed, as an alternative to the Refined
Method, to require all semiconductor manufacturing facilities to
estimate and report using recipe-specific emission factors.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ EPA's ``Refined Method'' as proposed in April 2010 (75 FR
18652) is based on nine process sub-types under the etching, chamber
cleaning, and wafer cleaning process types (four etching process
sub-types, three chamber cleaning process sub-types, and two wafer
cleaning process sub-types) and EPA-published default emission
factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     EPA clarified the requirement for recipe-specific
measurements to facilitate the implementation of the Tier 2d and Tier 3
methods. EPA provided definitions of ``individual recipe'' and
``similar'' with respect to recipes. For recipe-specific emission
factors, rather than requiring each and every individual recipe to be
measured, EPA is permitting a facility to apply one measured recipe-
specific emission factor to a group of ``similar recipes.'' In a given
reporting year, a facility must develop new recipe-specific emission
factors only for recipes which are not similar to any recipe used in a
previous reporting year. In addition, where a facility reports using
recipe-specific emission factors, EPA is requiring that they report the
film or substrate that was etched/cleaned and the feature type that was
etched.
    Monitoring and QA/QC requirements:
     EPA has modified the procedures by which facilities must
develop gas consumption apportioning factors. In the final rule,
facilities must apportion gas consumption using facility-specific
engineering models based on quantifiable metrics of activity.
Facilities must verify these models as specified by EPA in 40 CFR
98.96(c) and document them in their site GHG Monitoring Plans (as
required under 40 CFR 98.3). EPA will permit the use of facility-
specific gas apportionment models based on quantifiable metrics, such
as wafer pass or wafer starts, provided the facility documents and
verifies the model. As part of these new requirements, EPA has added
definitions for actual gas consumption, modeled gas consumption,
repeatable, and wafer starts. Further, EPA has clarified that all
electronics manufacturing facilities must apportion consumption of
fluorinated GHGs and N2O used at a facility using the
apportioning methods outlined in the final rule.
     EPA has revised the requirement to recalculate gas- and
facility-specific heel factors. EPA is requiring facilities to
recalculate gas- and facility-specific heel factors if the trigger
point for change out used to establish a gas- and facility-specific
heel factor differs by more than 5 percent, expressed as a percent of
the previously used trigger point for change out. To clarify
requirements to develop gas- and facility-specific heel factors, EPA
has added a definition for trigger point for change out.
    EPA made this revision in response to comments received on its
proposal. EPA agrees with commenters that asserted the proposed
requirement to recalculate the heel factor when the percentage change
from the original trigger point exceeded 1 percent was too burdensome.
Please refer to ``Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's
Response to Public Comments, Subpart I: Electronics Manufacturing''
(available in the docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927) for additional
information on EPA's rationale.
     EPA has added equations specifying how to calculate uptime
and how to account for uptime in DREs for abatement systems where a
facility is calculating and reporting controlled emissions. EPA has
also modified how uptime is calculated by defining an ``operational
mode'' for abatement systems and removing the reference to SEMI
Standard E-10-0304\E\, Specification for Definition and Measurement of
Equipment Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability.
     EPA has modified the Best Available Monitoring Methods
(BAMM) provisions for subpart I to allow electronics manufacturing
facilities to use BAMM through June 30, 2011 without submitting a
request to EPA. Facilities wishing to extend the use of BAMM beyond the
initial 6-month period, but no later than December 31, 2011, must
submit a petition to EPA by February 28, 2011 (or June 30, 2011 where a
facility is requesting the use of BAMM for recipe-specific emission
factors for the plasma etching process type). EPA anticipates
facilities will need to use best available monitoring methods only
under limited circumstances. See Section II.D.1 of this preamble for
additional information about the BAMM provisions.
    Based on comments received on EPA's proposed rules (i.e., EPA's
April 2009 and April 2010 proposed rules for electronics manufacturing)
regarding the complexities perceived in implementing the methods
contained in the final rule, EPA has concluded that some electronics
manufacturing facilities may need additional time to fully meet the
requirements finalized in this rule. However, EPA expects all
electronics manufacturing facilities will be prepared to fully comply
with this rule's requirements no later than year-end 2011. Therefore,
extension of BAMM provisions beyond 2011 would only be granted in
unique and extreme circumstances which include safety, technical
infeasibility, or inconsistency with other local, State or Federal
regulations. For a more detailed discussion on EPA's rationale, see
``Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public
Comments, Subpart I: Electronics Manufacturing'' (available in the
docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927).
3. Summary of Comments and Responses
    This section contains a brief summary of major comments and
responses. A large number of comments were received on this subpart
covering numerous topics. Responses to additional significant comments
received can be found in ``Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule:
EPA's Response to Public Comments, Subpart I: Electronics
Manufacturing'' (available in the docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927).
    Comment: EPA received a broad range of comments stating that the
initial and revised methodologies for calculating GHG emissions in
subpart I were overly burdensome and costly. For example, with respect
to EPA's revised proposal (75 FR 18652, April 2010), commenters
asserted that the requirements for apportioning of gas usage without
the use of ``engineering judgment'' would require the development of
complex software systems and monitoring of activity data at a level of
detail that would be costly and time-intensive. In another example, in
regards to EPA's initial proposal (74 FR 16448, April 2009), commenters
argued that the direct measurement requirement would result in high
costs associated with the development of process-specific gas
utilization and by-product formation factors for the largest
semiconductor manufacturing facilities.
    Response: EPA considered all of these comments, and evaluated
alternative methods for calculating GHG emissions for electronics
manufacturing, controlled and uncontrolled. EPA considered alternative
methods that would result in reduced burden on industry while
maintaining or improving the quality and breadth of reported data. EPA
also considered the gaps in the available emission factor knowledge
base and has implemented a method to gain additional data to improve
EPA's efforts to characterize the sector's GHG emissions.

    EPA has made every effort to reduce burden to the industry while
maintaining requirements that it has determined are necessary to obtain
facility-specific emission estimates. For example, based on comments
received, EPA has revised the gas apportioning method to allow for the
use of quantifiable metrics other than wafer passes. In the final rule,
facilities will be allowed to develop apportioning factors based on
other quantifiable metrics provided the method is described in writing,
is repeatable, and is verified through comparison with actual gas
consumption. This approach provides facilities flexibility in the
choice of apportioning methods and assures a high degree of data
quality. Additional details on the gas apportioning method are
described in this Section II.D.3 (Summary of Comments and Responses) of
the preamble.
    As another means to reduce burden to the industry, EPA is only
requiring the largest semiconductor manufacturing facilities to
calculate and report emissions using directly measured recipe-specific
emission factors, ensuring that burden is commensurate with potential
to emit. The largest semiconductor manufacturing facilities account for
nearly two-thirds of uncontrolled emissions while accounting for less
than 20 percent of all facilities expected to report under subpart I.
In addition, the largest semiconductor manufacturing facilities are
only required to directly measure etch process emissions. Etch
processes are the least understood of the electronics manufacturing
processes in terms of GHG emissions, and EPA lacks sufficient data to
establish default emission factors for multiple etch processes. Lastly,
in the final rule, EPA is also allowing the use of ``similar recipe''
emission factors to reduce the number and burden of direct measurements
required.
    Additional details on steps taken to reduce the burden are
described in this section II.D.3 (Summary of Comments and Responses)
and in ``Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to
Public Comments, Subpart I: Electronics Manufacturing'' (available in
the docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927).
    In general, while commenters asserted that EPA's proposed
requirements were too burdensome and costly, comments lacked sufficient
quantitative detail or substantiation. However, in response to concerns
that EPA did not fully account for compliance costs in its economic
analysis, EPA did update its costs estimates to reflect the costs
associated with the requirements finalized in the rule. EPA has
concluded that its final cost estimates appropriately account for the
compliance burden under this rule. For details on how EPA developed its
final costs for this rule, please see Sections 4 & 5 of the Economic
Impact Analysis (EIA) (available in the docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927).
Method for Calculating GHG Emissions
    Comment: While some commenters supported EPA's intent for the
Refined Method to gather representative and accurate facility level
emissions estimates, they argued that the Refined Method itself was not
supported for several reasons.\20\ Commenters asserted that the Refined
Method stemmed from a technically flawed uncertainty analysis and
apparent misunderstandings of current process realities. Commenters
also stated that extending the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b etch category
(``process type'') from one to four refined categories (``sub-types'')
was not justified given the limited data available for developing
emissions factors. Several commenters suggested that etch emission
factors could be developed through another process (i.e., not part of
the rule) such as through the existing Memorandum of Understanding
between EPA and the semiconductor industry.\21\ As an alternative to
EPA's Refined Method, many commenters suggested an ``Alternative
Refined Method,'' that they argued would achieve greater accuracy than
the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b method and would avoid uncertainty issues created
by EPA's Refined Method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See footnote 19.
    \21\ Since 1996, EPA has maintained a partnership with the U.S.
semiconductor industry, EPA's PFC Reduction/Climate Partnership for
the Semiconductor Industry. As part of the Partnership,
semiconductor facilities have committed to reduce fluorinated GHG
emissions by at least 10 percent below the industry's 1995 baseline
level by year-end 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ``Alternative Refined Method,'' as described in comments, would
be comprised of five process types and sub-types, which include: The
three chamber clean sub-types (remote plasma clean, in-situ plasma
clean, and in-situ thermal clean), the wafer cleaning process type, and
one process type for all etch processes. Commenters suggested that this
method would be superior to EPA's proposed Refined Method in terms of
accuracy and cost.
    One commenter stated that the use of EPA's Refined Method to
estimate emissions would result in less accurate emission data as
compared to the 2006 IPCC Tier 3 Method. This commenter encouraged EPA
to require the use of the 2006 IPCC Tier 3 method for all semiconductor
facilities given the need for accurate data and the significant
emissions from this sector, but argued that at a minimum EPA should
rely on Tier 3 estimation for ``large facilities,'' as it did in its
initial proposal.
    Response: In general, EPA agrees with commenters that stated the
available data as of the proposal was sufficient to establish default
emissions factors for multiple chamber clean process sub-types, but
insufficient to support establishing default emission factors for
multiple etch process sub-types. EPA did not receive enough additional
data during the comment period to address this insufficiency.\22\
Accordingly, EPA is not establishing default emissions factors for etch
sub-types in this final rule. EPA also agrees with the commenter that
stated an estimation approach based on the IPCC Tier 3 method would
result in the most accurate data. However, EPA is mindful of the burden
that would be imposed by requiring all covered facilities to use an
approach based on the 2006 IPCC Tier 3 method for all emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ In its proposed rule (75 FR 18652, April 2010), for each
emission factor for the nine proposed process categories, EPA
published a range of values. EPA proposed a range of values because
it had not received sufficient data to select a specific value
within each range. Based on additional information received after
publication of the proposed rule, EPA published a Notice of Data
Availability where it made available to the public draft default
emission factors for semiconductor manufacturing refined process
categories (75 FR 26904, May 2010). As of publication of this final
rule, EPA has not received additional data (i.e., utilization and
by-product formation rates).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this final rule, EPA is requiring semiconductor facilities to
calculate and report fluorinated emissions by adhering to one of three
different emission estimation methodologies, depending on the wafer
size manufactured and the facility's manufacturing capacity.\23\ These
requirements are presented in section II.D.1 (Summary of the Final
Rule) of this preamble and summarized in Table 3 of this preamble. EPA
has determined that the requirements in the final rule effectively
balance EPA's objectives with an appropriate level of burden to
industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ As calculated in Equation I-5 of this rule, manufacturing
capacity is 100 percent of annual manufacturing capacity of a
facility as determined by summing the area of maximum designed
substrate starts of a facility per month over the reporting period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to comments received on EPA's proposed methodology for
semiconductor manufacturing facilities, EPA undertook another analysis
to evaluate the uncertainty associated with emission estimation
methods. Specific information on the analysis can be

found in the Electronics Manufacturing TSD (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927). In
summary, results from this exercise showed (a) emissions estimated with
a Tier 2b method are understated, (b) more facility-level, emissions-
relevant information would permit an uncertainty analysis to be
performed with more meaningful and robust results, and (c) moving from
the use of a default factor(s) for etch sub-types to the use of recipe-
specific measurements appears to increase certainty in emission
calculations. These results support the methodology finalized in the
final rule.
    Given the current lack of available facility-level gas usage and
emission information for etching in particular, and EPA's need for
increased accuracy in emission estimates relative to the 2006 Tier 2b
method, EPA is requiring that the largest semiconductor facilities
estimate and report recipe-specific emission factors for all etch
processes. EPA views the generation of such data as essential to
improving future efforts to characterize this sector's GHG emissions.
    While EPA recognizes that more than half of the gas consumed in
semiconductor manufacturing is for chamber cleaning, EPA also
recognizes that most of the variability in gas consumption, and hence
emissions, across many facilities is found for recipes used under the
plasma etch process type. Etch recipes utilize many gases
(approximately six or more either alone or in combination) with varying
GWPs. Process recipes vary between facilities because they are a
crucial part of company competitiveness and innovation.
    While EPA is finalizing the Tier 2c method for some semiconductor
facilities (i.e., not the largest semiconductor manufacturing
facilities) and has determined that it is an improvement over the 2006
IPCC Tier 2b method, EPA maintains that estimating emissions based on
process sub-types for etch with robust default factors would result in
more accurate facility-level emission estimates as compared to
estimating emissions using a single broad etch process type. To this
end, in future years, EPA may evaluate the recipe-specific emission
factors received through this final rule to determine whether a
sufficiently robust data set exists to establish default emission
factors for plasma etching process sub-types. In the future, EPA may
consider requiring the semiconductor facilities that will be using a
default emission factor for the etch process type under this final rule
to estimate and report emissions using an approach based on multiple
etch and chamber clean process sub-types similar to the Refined Method
EPA proposed in April 2010.
    EPA is requiring only the largest facilities to report recipe-
specific emission factors for etching processes, rather than requiring
all semiconductor facilities to report all etch processes regardless of
capacity, or requiring the largest facilities to report all process
emissions using recipe-specific emission factors, because EPA has
concluded that this approach minimizes burden to industry. Further,
this requirement ensures that the burden associated with reporting is
proportional to the magnitude of a facility's potential emissions.
    EPA selected 10,500 m\2\ of substrate as the threshold for large
facilities because facilities above this threshold are expected to
account for nearly two-thirds of uncontrolled emissions while
accounting for less than 20 percent of all facilities expected to
report under subpart I. Based on EPA's analysis, the expected number of
the ``largest'' facilities is 29 of the 175 total facilities. EPA
originally proposed this distinction (i.e., facilities with an annual
manufacturing capacity of greater than 10,500 m\2\) in its initial
proposal for semiconductor manufacturing facilities (75 FR 18652, April
2009). In response to EPA's proposal, some commenters stated that in
the semiconductor industry, ``large'' facilities do not inherently have
higher emissions of fluorinated GHGs. These commenters noted that
beginning with the second generation of 200 mm facilities, transitions
to NF3 remote cleans and deployment of point of use
abatement resulted in significantly lower emissions as compared to
older facilities. In response, while EPA acknowledges qualitative
reports on second generation 200 mm wafer facilities adopting
NF3 remote plasma cleans and point of use abatement systems
as presented in comments, it is unaware of published studies that
quantitatively document the market penetration of either NF3
remote plasma source (RPS) or point of use fluorinated GHG abatement
systems in those facilities.
    In the final rule, EPA is also clarifying what meets the
requirement for recipe-specific measurements to facilitate
implementation of the Tier 2d and Tier 3 methods. EPA recognizes a
facility may employ potentially hundreds of recipes. Therefore, as a
means to reduce burden for facilities that are required or elect to
develop recipe-specific measurements, EPA is permitting a facility to
apply the same emission factor to a group of ``similar recipes.'' In
this regard, once a facility develops a recipe-specific emission factor
for an individual recipe, it may apply that emission factor to recipes
that are similar. This provision allows a facility to measure fewer
manufacturing processes to develop the emission factors required for
Tier 2d and Tier 3, thereby reducing burden in comparison to a more
stringent approach which would require measurements for each and every
individual recipe used at a facility. As another means to reduce burden
EPA is clarifying that in a given reporting year, a facility must
develop new recipe-specific emission factors only for recipes which are
not similar to any recipe used in a previous reporting year.
    EPA is defining an individual recipe as a specific combination of
gases, under specific conditions of reactor temperature, pressure,
flow, RF power, and duration, used repeatedly to fabricate a specific
feature on a specific film or substrate. EPA is defining similar, with
respect to recipes, as those recipes that are composed of the same set
of chemicals and have the same flow stabilization times and where the
documented differences, considered separately, in reactor pressure,
individual gas flow rates, and applied RF power are less than or equal
to plus or minus 10 percent. For purposes of comparing and documenting
recipes that are similar, facilities may use either the best known
method provided by an equipment manufacturer or the process of record,
for which emission factors for either have been measured (see the
Electronics Manufacturing TSD for supporting information).
Monitoring and QA/QC Requirements
    Comment: Many commenters voiced concerns regarding the burden
associated with EPA's proposed requirement to measure DRE of abatement
equipment in accordance with EPA's DRE Protocol, (EPA 430-R-10-003).
Some commenters also argued the required frequency of measurements in
the proposed random sampling abatement system testing program (RSASTP)
is overly burdensome and unnecessary.
    With respect to EPA's requirement to measure DRE in accordance with
EPA's Protocol, commenters noted few facilities have characterized the
DRE of installed abatement systems using EPA's DRE Protocol because the
Protocol was published in 2010. One commenter requested that EPA permit
the use of measurements made prior to the publication of EPA's DRE
Protocol as long as the facility can demonstrate the measurements were
based on test

methods substantially similar to those outlined in EPA's Protocol. In
addition to providing comments on the required use of the DRE Protocol,
commenters also requested that EPA allow the use of CF4 as a
tracer to determine dilution when an abatement system is in ``low
fire'' and that EPA permit the use of a Fourier Transform Infrared
Spectroscopy (FTIR) without the additional use of Quadrapole Mass
Spectroscopy (QMS).
    In regards to EPA's proposed RSASTP, many commenters asserted that
the burden placed on facilities to comply with the RSASTP is not
necessary. One commenter noted that that RSASTAP is an excessive burden
as large facilities may have hundreds of abatement systems. Further,
commenters argued that new abatement systems should not be required to
be tested as long as the facility has installed, operated, and
maintained the equipment properly. Some commenters asserted that
testing should be required only for new models of abatement systems
that are not simply a variant of an existing system used at a facility.
Other commenters also suggested alternative testing regimes to the
RSASTP that would place most of the DRE measurement burden in the early
years of testing.
    Response: In general, EPA does not agree with commenters and is
finalizing the requirements for measurement of abatement DRE using
EPA's DRE Protocol and for the testing frequency described in the
RSASTP.
    EPA is finalizing the requirement that facilities measure abatement
system DREs in accordance with EPA's DRE Protocol because it will
ensure that measured DREs are accurate through properly accounting for
dilution and by meeting EPA's established performance standard (as
specified in EPA's DRE Protocol). EPA's DRE Protocol is the only
protocol (i.e., standard measurement method, not guideline) that exists
to date for measuring DREs of abatement equipment used in electronics
manufacturing. EPA's DRE Protocol is reliable because it was based upon
and validated by actual experience and data collection in fully
operational manufacturing facilities during multiple measurement
studies performed by EPA in collaboration with industry.\24\ EPA's DRE
Protocol has been through two public peer review processes over the
course of two years and is based on input from national and
international industry experts. For documentation of the comments
received during these peer reviews, and EPA's response, please refer to
the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ For more information about the three studies, please see
the following reports: Developing a Reliable Fluorinated Greenhouse
Gas (F-GHG) Destruction or Removal Efficiency (DRE) Measurement
Method for Electronics Manufacturing: A Cooperative Evaluation with
IBM (EPA 430-R-10-004); Developing a Reliable Fluorinated Greenhouse
Gas (F-GHG) Destruction or Removal Efficiency (DRE) Measurement
Method for Electronics Manufacturing: A Cooperative Evaluation with
NEC Electronics, Inc. (EPA 430-R-10-005); and Developing a Reliable
Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas (F-GHG) Destruction or Removal Efficiency
(DRE) Measurement Method for Electronics Manufacturing: A
Cooperative Evaluation with Qimonda (EPA 430-R-08-017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is important to clarify that EPA is not specifically prohibiting
the use of previously measured DREs; a facility may use previously
measured DREs provided the facility can demonstrate that the
measurements were made in accordance with EPA's DRE Protocol. EPA's DRE
Protocol permits flexibility in measurement practices provided the
measurements achieve a performance standard that, among other things,
ensures dilution is properly measured.
    EPA does not wholly prohibit the use of CF4 as a tracer
in the DRE Protocol. Specifically, with respect to measuring systems
that do not abate CF4 and/or SF6, EPA's DRE
Protocol states, ``In such systems, CF4 or SF6
can be used in place of an inert gas since their DREs are zero percent.
Table 2 of the Protocol provides a list of acceptable gases for
measuring total abatement system flows, along with their use
conditions.'' As discussed in this excerpt, EPA's DRE Protocol does not
permit the use of either CF4 or SF6 as tracer
gases in abatement systems designed to abate these gases. Additionally,
EPA prohibits use of CF4 as a tracer in fluorinated GHG
abatement systems operating in ``low fire'' because reviewers of early
drafts of EPA's DRE Protocol made repeated claims that one could not be
certain some abatement was not occurring.
    EPA does not agree with commenters who suggested that the use of
only an FTIR and not a QMS to measure dilution, and hence DREs, should
always be permitted. The DRE Protocol permits the use of an FTIR in
place of a QMS when tracer gases, such as CF4 and
SF6, are used in place of an inert gas to measure dilution
(provided the abatement system which is being tested does not abate the
tracer gas (CF4 or SF6)). The DRE Protocol does
not permit, however, the use of an FTIR in place of a QMS for measuring
dilution with tracers that are inert because while a method that uses
FTIR-measurable gases may become available, EPA is not aware of robust
measurements that demonstrate such a method.
    With respect to EPA's requirement to measure DREs with the
frequency prescribed in the RSASTP, EPA does not agree with commenters
who suggested the RSASTP is burdensome and unnecessary. Commenters did
not provide EPA sufficient information or data to support their claim
that the RSASTP is unnecessary. As described below, the RSASTP provides
a much less burdensome device measurement scheme when compared to
requiring a facility to test all abatement systems used annually, but
still allows EPA to ensure a facility has measured DREs accurately and
at least once every five years.
    EPA considered commenters' concerns about the RSASTP and EPA does
not agree with commenters who state that new abatement systems should
not be required to be tested as long as the facility has installed,
operated, and maintained the equipment properly. Abatement manufacturer
specified installation, operation and maintenance practices are based
upon the testing and development of abatement systems in controlled
settings. When using these systems in actual facility settings,
ensuring the proper installation, operation, and maintenance of
abatement systems may not always be a means to guarantee that the
abatement system will run exactly as abatement manufacturers intended,
or that the manufacturer supplied DRE will be achieved. However, EPA is
maintaining the requirement for facilities to properly install,
operate, and maintain abatement systems according to system
manufacturer specifications. This practice is expected to reduce the
likelihood of inaccurate estimations of DREs.
    Even if abatement systems rely on the same operating principle
(e.g., thermal oxidation) and are used to abate the same gases, their
performance can vary depending on their operation and maintenance.
Thus, 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).
    EPA has concluded that there is a need for gradually testing all of
the abatement systems within a class, and for retesting individual
abatement systems over time. As EPA stated in the preamble to the April
2010 proposed rule (75 FR 18652), some fluorinated GHGs, such as
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. 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.\25\ As stated by many commenters, facilities
develop and ultimately use new processes potentially every year, and
the parameters of these processes vary. To this end, by requiring the
gradual testing and retesting of abatement systems over time through
the RSASTP, EPA can ensure properly measured DREs and DRE class
averages used at a facility will accurately reflect controlled
emissions. In addition, through the use of the RSASTP, EPA is reducing
burden, for instance, for facilities that continually modify their
processes. EPA is basing the RSASTP around classes defined as abatement
systems grouped by manufacturer model number(s) and by the gas which
the system is used to abate; varying process parameters, such as flows,
temperature and exhaust composition do not factor into the requirements
of the RSASTP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Beu, L. (2005). ``Reduction of Perfluorocarbon (PFC)
Emissions: 2005 State-of-the-Technology Report'',
TT0510469AENG, International SEMATECH Manufacturing
Initiative (ISMI), December 2005. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/
highgwp/semiconductor-pfc/documents/final_tt_report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: In general, most commenters supported the inclusion of a
default DRE value, but opposed EPA's proposed default DRE value of 60
percent. Commenters argued EPA's proposed default DRE factor of 60
percent was unreasonably low, in part because the 60 percent default
factor was based on CF4 destruction data and therefore,
should not be applied to other fluorinated GHGs. Commenters noted that
CF4 is the most stable compound and the most difficult among
all fluorinated GHG to destroy and, as a result, it should be addressed
separately to avoid significantly overestimating emissions. Further,
one commenter asserted that the unreasonably low value for the default
DRE penalizes semiconductor manufacturers who have operated voluntarily
and in good faith under EPA's MOU and other GHG reduction programs to
install and maintain control devices.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See footnote 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an alternative, commenters recommend that IPCC and/or abatement
system manufacturer default DREs should be permitted, and potentially
discounted by 10 percent to account for differences between field and
lab certification conditions. Commenters also suggested that EPA
provide additional default factors for C2F6 and
other fluorinated GHGs that are easier to abate than CF4.
    One commenter opposed EPA's default DRE value and asserted that
default DREs should not be permitted at all because a default DRE does
not capture the potentially high variability in DREs across different
systems and across similar systems installed at different facilities.
In addition, the commenter noted that EPA's default value was based on
only 11 actual measured DRE values. The commenter encouraged EPA to
require only direct measurement of DREs in accordance with EPA's DRE
Protocol and disallow any application of a default DRE.
    Response: EPA disagrees with commenters that asserted EPA should
permit electronics manufacturing facilities to report controlled
emissions from abatement systems using 2006 IPCC default factors or the
manufacturer's DRE values, with or without applying a 10 percent
discount. As EPA stated in the proposal, EPA is not permitting the use
of the IPCC 2006 default factors or the manufacturer's DRE values
because once installed, abatement equipment may fail to achieve the
IPCC 2006 default or 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 up to 10 (Burton, 2007). This understanding is supported
by industry assessments as presented in Beu, 2005. As EPA stated in the
proposal, the 60 percent 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.
    EPA is including the option for facilities to use a default DRE in
the final rule to permit those facilities that have fluorinated GHG and
N2O abatement systems to calculate and report controlled
emissions using an approach that is less burdensome than directly
measuring abatement systems in accordance with EPA's DRE Protocol. The
default DRE is based on EPA's practical experience measuring the
performance of abatement systems during the development of the DRE
Protocol.\27\ Further, for a facility to use the default DRE, they are
required to certify that their abatement systems are installed,
operated, and maintained in accordance with the manufacturers'
specifications, and provide certification that the abatement system is
specifically designed for fluorinated GHG and N2O.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See footnote 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proud of its extensive collaboration with the semiconductor
industry via the PFC Reduction/Climate Partnership for the
Semiconductor Industry.\28\ EPA and its Partners have investigated the
origins and magnitude of GHG emissions as well as technologies to
minimize this pollution. EPA does not agree with one commenter's claim
that the 60 percent default DRE penalizes Partner's facilities. One of
many important lessons learned by the Partnership concerns the
challenge of properly measuring and maintaining fluorinated GHG
abatement system performance. As discussed above, the 60 percent
default DRE value is based upon EPA's technical experience studying
abatement systems, properly installed, operated and measured in actual
production settings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ http://www.epa.gov/semiconductor-pfc/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, EPA does not agree with commenters' suggestion to apply a
10 percent discount to the manufacturer's DRE values to account for
differences between field and lab certification conditions. The 10
percent discount appears arbitrary and was not accompanied by any
empirical data. To this end, EPA is not permitting electronics
manufacturing facilities to apply a 10 percent discount to
manufacturers' DRE values.
    EPA agrees with commenters, in principle, that default DRE values
could be developed for specific fluorinated GHGs, for example those
that are easier to abate than CF4. However, EPA does not
have sufficient DRE data for other fluorinated GHGs that were measured
using EPA's DRE Protocol and thus assured to properly account for the
effects of dilution. Further, commenters did not provide any such data
in their comments to the proposed rule. In future years, EPA may
consider establishing default DRE values for other fluorinated GHGs and
N2O using data received from DRE measurements made in
accordance with EPA's DRE Protocol.
    Comment: Most commenters opposed EPA's proposed procedures to
account for abatement system uptime. Although several commenters agreed
that accounting for uptime of abatement systems used at a facility is
reasonable, some commenters asserted that EPA's proposed procedures may
not reflect actual practices at most facilities.
    In some cases, commenters stated that tools and abatement systems
are

interlocked (i.e., a tool can not be operated if an abatement device is
not operating). As an alternative, commenters suggested that EPA allow
facilities to monitor uptime by documenting where abatement systems and
production tools are interlocked and recording instances when abatement
systems fail.
    One commenter asserted that EPA's inclusion, in the uptime
calculation procedures, of SEMI Standard E-10-0304\E\, Specification
for Definition and Measurement of Equipment Reliability, Availability,
and Maintainability was incorrect. The commenter noted that the SEMI
Standard E-10-0304\E\ does not include the concept of co-dependent
uptime of different equipment in any of its metrics. As a result, the
commenter urged EPA to remove the reference to the SEMI standard and to
define the appropriate calculation and its individual terms in the
regulation unless EPA determines that one of the SEMI E-10-0304\E\
formulas may in fact be used.
    Response: EPA took into consideration all concerns from commenters
about the methods by which EPA proposed to calculate uptime of
abatement systems. In response, EPA has modified the procedures
required for monitoring and accounting for uptime by removing reference
to SEMI E-10-0304\E\ because EPA agrees with the commenter that SEMI E-
10-0304\E\ does not fit appropriately in this rule. To this end, the
final rule allows a facility to calculate an abatement system's uptime
by taking the ratio of (1) The total time during which the abatement
system is in an operational mode with fluorinated GHGs or
N2O flowing through production process tool(s) connected to
that abatement system, to (2) the total time during which fluorinated
GHGs or N2O are flowing through production process tool(s)
connected to that abatement system. Further, EPA has defined
operational mode as the time in which an abatement system is being
operated within the range of parameters as specified in the operations
manual provided by the system manufacturer. For clarification purposes,
EPA has also added a discrete equation for calculating uptime into this
rule. Lastly, also for clarification, EPA has added an equation that
provides direction for facilities to account for uptime in overall
facility emissions calculations.
    With respect to the commenter who suggested that EPA allow
facilities to monitor and track uptime by documenting that tools are
interlocked and instances in which abatement systems have failed, EPA
appreciates the comment, but is not modifying the uptime requirements
as suggested by the commenter. EPA expects facilities with interlocked
abatement systems should be able to easily monitor and account for
uptime of abatement systems using the methods provided in this rule.
Also, EPA is not permitting facilities to use the method suggested by
the commenter as this would allow the use of multiple methods to
monitor and account for uptime. Where feasible, EPA would like to