Browse by Year
/ 2008
/ July
/ Tuesday, July 22, 2008
[Federal Register: July 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 141)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 42529-42532]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22jy08-8]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0086, FRL-8695-9]
RIN 2060-AN80
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Semiconductor Manufacturing
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is issuing amendments to the national emission standards
for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for semiconductor manufacturing.
These amendments establish a new maximum achievable control technology
floor level of control for existing and new combined hazardous air
pollutants process vent streams containing inorganic and organic
hazardous air pollutants and clarify the emission requirements for
process vents by adding definitions for organic, inorganic, and
combined hazardous air pollutant process vent streams that contain both
organic and inorganic hazardous air pollutant.
DATES: This final rule is effective on July 22, 2008.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0086. All documents in the docket are listed in the
Federal Docket Management System index at http://www.regulations.gov.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., confidential business information 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
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Semiconductor Manufacturing Docket,
EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the
Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John Schaefer, Sector Policies and
Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (D243-
05), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-0296; fax number: (919)
541-3207; e-mail address: Schaefer.john@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Outline
The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document?
C. Judicial Review
II. Background Information
III. Summary of the Final Amendments
IV. Summary of Comments and Responses
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by these
final amendments include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category NAICS code \1\ entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry....................... 334413 Semiconductor crystal
growing facilities,
semiconductor wafer
fabrication
facilities,
semiconductor test and
assembly facilities.
Federal government............. .............. Not affected.
State/local/tribal government.. .............. Not affected.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action,
you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR
63.7181 of the rule. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult either the
air permit authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative
as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General Provisions).
B. Where can I get a copy of this document?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW)
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a
copy of this final action will be posted on the TTN's policy and
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following
address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information
and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
C. Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review
of these final rules is available only by filing a petition for review
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by
September 22, 2008. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an
objection to these final rules that was
[[Page 42530]]
raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment
can be raised during judicial review. This section also provides a
mechanism for us to convene a proceeding for reconsideration, ``[i]f
the person raising an objection can demonstrate to EPA that it was
impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for public
comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period
for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review)
and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the
rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration to us should
submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Room 3000, Ariel Rios
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a
copy to the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and
Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20004. Moreover, under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA,
only an objection to these final rules that was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during
judicial review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the
requirements established by these final rules may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to
enforce these requirements.
II. Background Information
On May 22, 2003, we promulgated the NESHAP for semiconductor
manufacturing, under section 112(d) of the CAA. (68 FR 27913); 40 CFR
part 63, subpart BBBBB). The NESHAP requires all semiconductor
manufacturing facilities that are major sources of hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) to meet standards reflecting application of the
maximum achievable control technology (MACT). The NESHAP establishes
emissions limitations for the control of HAP from semiconductor
manufacturing operations. The compliance date for the NESHAP
requirements was May 22, 2006.
After promulgation, it was brought to our attention that while the
NESHAP established separate emission standards for organic and
inorganic HAP from process vents, one plant had a different process
vent system. Specifically, we learned that this plant combined
inorganic and organic vent streams into a single atmospheric process
vent. At the time we developed the MACT standard, however, we had
determined that since at least 1980 industry practice has been to
strictly separate process vent emissions into streams containing either
organic or inorganic HAP (71 FR 61701). This was because we were not
aware of any sources that combined their inorganic and organic vent
streams, and, therefore, had no data on such sources. Therefore, the
NESHAP failed to account for the existence of combined organic and
inorganic HAP process vents.
On October 19, 2006, in order to address these combined process
vent streams, we proposed amending the NESHAP by establishing emission
standards for existing and new combined process vent streams (71 FR
61701). We proposed no control for the limited number of existing
combined process vents. Additionally, for new and reconstructed
combined HAP process vents, we proposed the requirement for inorganic
HAP process vents to be the same as the requirement that currently
apply to inorganic HAP process vents and the requirement for organic
HAP process vents to be the same as the requirement that currently
apply to organic HAP process vents (71 FR 61703). Further, we proposed
new definitions that clarified the applicability of the NESHAP to
inorganic, organic and combined HAP process vents.
Subsequently, the DC Circuit in Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875
(DC Circuit 2007), found that our decision to set no control emission
floors for source categories where the best performing sources did not
use emission control technology was in direct contravention of CAA
section 112(d)(3). In response to this decision, we issued a
supplemental proposal on April 2, 2008 that proposed an emission
limitation for existing and new combined HAP process vents.
Specifically, we proposed that new and existing combined HAP process
vents achieve a control level of 14.22 parts per million by volume
(ppmv) (73 FR 17942). We also proposed no beyond the floor control
options because we determined as prohibitive the costs associated with
the one control option we evaluated.
III. Summary of the Final Amendments
In today's rule we are taking final action on both our October 2006
(71 FR 61703), and April 2008 proposals (73 FR 17940). Therefore, we
are finalizing, as proposed in October 2006, definitions that clarify
the applicability of the NESHAP to inorganic, organic and combined HAP
process vents. We are also promulgating, as proposed in April 2008, an
emission limitation of 14.22 ppmv for new and existing combined HAP
process vents.
IV. Summary of Comments and Responses
We received 3 comments on our October 2006 and April 2008
proposals. The commenters were generally supportive of both proposals.
A summary of the significant issues raised in the comments are included
below.
Comment: One commenter expressed support for the development of a
separate MACT floor level of control for combined HAP process vents
contained in the April 2, 2008, proposal. The commenter stated, ``This
action appropriately recognizes that a limited number of process vents
at older, existing facilities have unique emission characteristics that
warrant distinction from the process vents used to establish the
original MACT floor.'' The commenter gave a description of the typical
construction of a modern semiconductor facility indicating that clean
rooms are situated on a single floor with semiconductor manufacturing
tools arranged in cells of similar tools (e.g., web benches, furnaces,
etc. are grouped together). The commenter stated that these features
and other features in a modern semiconductor facility make the
segregation and treatment of concentrated organic and inorganic HAP
emission streams feasible. However, segregating emission streams into
their organic and inorganic constituents was near infeasible for some
older facilities, such as the one described by the commenter, where
tools are located on three separate floors, and are not grouped
together in cells according to tool function and type. Due to these
reasons the commenter indicated strong support for EPA's development of
a separate MACT floor for combined HAP process vents.
Response: We agree with the commenter that the proposed changes to
the standard are necessary to account for the limited number of older
facilities that do not segregate their emissions due to facility design
limitations. Today's rule reflects our conclusion that a separate MACT
floor for these facilities is appropriate. Therefore, as stated earlier
we are promulgating definitions that clarify the applicability of the
existing NESHAP and an emissions limitation of 14.22 ppmv for new and
existing combined HAP process vents.
[[Page 42531]]
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
is therefore not subject to review under the EO.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
These amendments clarify applicability of the final rule. Therefore,
the Information Collection Request (ICR) has not been revised.
However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously
approved the information collection requirements contained in the
existing regulations 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBB under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned
OMB control number 2060-0519. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-
profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For the purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that meets
the Small Business Administration size standards for small businesses
found at 13 CFR 121.201 (less than 500 employees for NAICS codes
331511, 331512, and 331513); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that
is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or special
district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final
rule will not impose any requirements on small entities since we do not
create any new requirements or burdens that were not already included
in the economic impact assessment for the existing rule.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
This final rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. The final amendments are expected to
result in an overall reduction in expenditures for the private sector
and are not expected to impact State, local, or tribal governments.
Thus, the final amendments are not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have
federalism implications'' are defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government.''
This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. These final amendments do not
impose any requirements on State and local governments. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. In the spirit of Executive
Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communication
between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicited
comment on the proposed rule from State and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have tribal implications.'' This final rule does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. These final
amendments impose no requirements on tribal governments. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying
to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such
that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO
13045 because it is based solely on technology performance.
[[Page 42532]]
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-114, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because they do not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. These final amendments do not relax the control measures
on sources regulated by the rule and therefore will not cause emissions
increases from these sources.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing these final
amendments and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the final amendments in the Federal
Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is
published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective on July 22,
2008.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: July 15, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63,
of the Code of the Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
0
2. Section 63.7184 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) and
adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7184 What emission limitations, operating limits, and work
practice standards must I meet?
* * * * *
(b) Process vents--organic HAP emissions. For each organic HAP
process vent, other than process vents from storage tanks, you must
limit organic HAP emissions to the level specified in paragraph (b)(1)
or (2) of this section. These limitations can be met by venting
emissions from your process vent through a closed vent system to any
combination of control devices meeting the requirements of Sec.
63.982(a)(2).
(1) Reduce the emissions of organic HAP from the process vent
stream by 98 percent by weight.
(2) Reduce or maintain the concentration of emitted organic HAP
from the process vent to less than or equal to 20 parts per million by
volume (ppmv).
(c) Process vents--inorganic HAP emissions. For each inorganic HAP
process vent, other than process vents from storage tanks, you must
limit inorganic HAP emissions to the level specified in paragraph
(c)(1) or (2) of this section. These limitations can be met by venting
emissions from your process vent through a closed vent system to a
halogen scrubber meeting the requirements of Sec. Sec. 63.983 (closed
vent system requirements) and Sec. 63.994 (halogen scrubber
requirements); the applicable general monitoring requirements of Sec.
63.996; the applicable performance test requirements; and the
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements referenced
therein.
(1) Reduce the emissions of inorganic HAP from the process vent
stream by 95 percent by weight.
(2) Reduce or maintain the concentration of emitted inorganic HAP
from the process vent to less than or equal to 0.42 ppmv.
* * * * *
(f) Process vents--combined HAP emissions. For each combined HAP
process vent, other than process vents from storage tanks, you must
reduce or maintain the concentration of emitted HAP from the process
vent to less than or equal to 14.22 ppmv. These limitations can be met
by venting emissions from your process vent through a closed vent
system to any combination of control devices meeting the requirements
of Sec. 63.982(a)(2).
0
3. Section 63.7195 is amended by adding definitions in alphabetical
order for ``Combined HAP process vent'', ``Organic HAP process vent'',
and ``Inorganic HAP process vent'' to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7195 What definitions apply to this subpart?
* * * * *
Combined HAP process vent means a process vent that emits both
inorganic and organic HAP to the atmosphere.
* * * * *
Inorganic HAP process vent means a process vent that emits only
inorganic HAP to the atmosphere.
Organic HAP process vent means a process vent that emits only
organic HAP to the atmosphere.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E8-16746 Filed 7-21-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Browse by Year
/ 2008
/ July
/ Tuesday, July 22, 2008
|
|