[Federal Register: April 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 64)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 17940-17944]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02ap08-21]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0086, FRL-8549-9]
RIN 2060-AN80
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Semiconductor Manufacturing
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On October 19, 2006, EPA proposed amendments to the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Semiconductor
Manufacturing, published on May 22, 2003. The purpose of the proposed
amendments was to clarify the emission requirements for process vents
by establishing a new maximum achievable control technology floor level
of control for existing combined hazardous air pollutants process vent
streams containing inorganic and organic hazardous air pollutants and
adding requirements for new and reconstructed combined hazardous air
pollutants process vents. For existing combined hazardous air
pollutants process vents, EPA had proposed that the floor was no
control. In light of Sierra Club v. EPA, we are re-proposing the
requirements for existing and new combined hazardous air pollutants
process in this supplemental proposal.
DATES: Comments must be received by EPA on or before May 2, 2008,
unless a public hearing is requested by April 14, 2008. If a hearing is
requested, EPA will hold a public hearing on April 17, 2008. If a
hearing is requested, written comments must be received by May 19,
2008. If you are interested in attending the public hearing, contact
Mr. John Schaefer at (919) 541-0296 to verify that a hearing will be
held.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0086, by one of the following methods:
www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
E-mail: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0086.
Fax: (202) 566-9744
Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: EPA Docket
Center (2822T), Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0086, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total
of two copies.
Hand Delivery: In person or by courier, deliver comments to: EPA
Docket Center (2822T), Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0086,
EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information. Please include a total of two
copies.
Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPAHQ-OAR-2002-
0086. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
Send or deliver information identified as CBI to only the following
address: Mr. Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer, EPA
(C404-02), Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0086, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. The www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/
epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket. All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0086, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center 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 EPA
Docket Center is (202) 566-1742. A reasonable fee may be charged for
copying docket materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John Schaefer, EPA, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division,
Measurement Policy Group (D243-05), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;
telephone number (919) 541-0296; fax number (919) 541-1039; e-mail
address schaefer.john@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities. Entities potentially affected by the proposed
amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Semiconductor Manufacturing include:
[[Page 17941]]
Table 1.--Regulated Entities Table
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category NAICS \1\ entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...................... 334413 Semiconductor crystal
growing facilities,
semiconductor wafer
fabrication facilities,
semiconductor test and
assembly facilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that may potentially 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
questions regarding the applicability of the proposed amendments to a
particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified
as CBI only to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this
document. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you
claim to be CBI. For CBI information submitted on a disk or CD-ROM that
you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific
information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version
of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the
comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be
submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of today's proposal will also be available through
the WWW. Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of this action
will be posted on EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN) policy and
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. Information may also be obtained from the Web
page for the proposed rulemaking at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/pcem/
pcempg.html. The TTN at EPA's Web site provides information and
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 10
a.m. at the EPA's Environmental Research Center Auditorium, Research
Triangle Park, NC, or at an alternate site nearby.
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:
I. Background
II. Summary of the Proposed Amendments
III. Rationale for the Proposed Amendments
IV. Impacts of the Proposed Amendments
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 Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. Background
On May 22, 2003 (68 FR 27913), we issued the national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for semiconductor
manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBB). The NESHAP implement
section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) by requiring all major
sources to meet emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (HAP)
reflecting application of the maximum achievable control technology
(MACT). The NESHAP establish emission limitations for emission sources
at operations used to manufacture p-type and n-type semiconductors and
active solid-state devices from a wafer substrate.
After promulgation of the NESHAP, it was brought to our attention
that while the NESHAP established separate emission standards for
organic and inorganic HAP from process vents, there was one plant that
has a different process vent approach system. Specifically, this plant
combines inorganic and organic vent streams into a single atmospheric
process vent. At the time we developed the MACT standard, we were not
aware of any sources that combined their inorganic and organic vent
streams, and, therefore, we had no data on such sources. Rather, during
the development phase of the rule, we determined that since 1980
industry practice has been to strictly separate process vent emissions
into streams containing either organic or inorganic HAP (71 FR 61701,
61702-03, October 19, 2006). In order to address the combined process
vent stream segment of which we are now aware, on October 19, 2006, we
proposed amending the final rule by establishing emission standards for
existing and new combined process vent streams (71 FR 61701). For the
limited number of existing combined process vents, we proposed no
control. For new and reconstructed combined HAP process vents, we
proposed the same requirements that currently apply to new inorganic
HAP process vents and new organic HAP process vents (71 FR 61703).
In light of the DC Circuit's decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 479
F.3d 875 (DC Circuit 2007), we are issuing this supplementary proposal
to change the requirements for existing and new combined HAP process
vents that we proposed in the October 2006 amendments. This
supplementary proposal is limited to revising the emission standards
for existing and new combined HAP process vents, and we are requesting
comments only on these proposed changes.
II. Summary of the Proposed Amendments
The October 2006 proposed amendments proposed no control
requirements for existing combined HAP process vents. In addition, for
new and reconstructed combined HAP process vents, we proposed the
requirement for inorganic HAP components to be the same as the current
requirement for inorganic HAP process vents and the requirement for
organic HAP to be the same as the requirement for organic HAP process
vents (71 FR 61703).
These proposed amendments establish the following emission limit
for HAP emitted from new and existing combined HAP process vents: 14.22
parts per million by volume (ppmv).
[[Page 17942]]
III. Rationale for the Proposed Amendments
In the October 2006 proposed amendments, we proposed the
requirements for existing combined HAP process vents would be no
reductions in emissions or no control. Subsequently, the DC Circuit in
Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875 (DC Circuit 2007) found that EPA's
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 are proposing revised standards for existing and new
combined HAP process vents in this supplementary proposal.
Specifically, we are proposing that existing combined HAP process
vents achieve a control level of 14.22 ppmv, which is the average level
of emissions control achieved by the best performing four combined HAP
process vents that we are aware of at maximum representative operating
conditions. We are basing the MACT floor on four combined HAP process
vents because we only identified four such vents in our recent
assessment of the semiconductor industry. This level of control
represents the level actually achieved by the best performing sources,
consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA 479 F.3d 875 (DC Circuit 2007) and
CAA section 112(d)(3).
In addition, we are proposing that new combined HAP process vents
also achieve a control level of 14.22 ppmv. This is because, for new
and reconstructed sources, CAA section 112(d)(3) requires that we set
emissions limitations that are no less stringent than the emissions
control achieved in practice by the best performing similar source,
which in this instance are the existing four combined HAP process
vents. Our technical analysis of these four process vents, the
information used to develop the 14.22 ppmv limitation, and the beyond
the MACT floor analysis is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
We examined establishing limitations beyond the floor level of
control for existing and new combined HAP process vents. Establishing a
meaningful control level below the 14.22 ppmv limitation would require
the segregation of organic and inorganic process vent streams and
process heat into separate vent streams. The separate organic and
inorganic process vents could then be controlled by add-on control
devices. We looked at one option that segregated the process vents into
organic and inorganic constituents and controlled the inorganic process
streams with a wet scrubber as needed to meet the existing emission
limit for inorganic process vent streams. We rejected this control
option because the associated costs were calculated to be in excess of
$7.5 million per ton of HAP controlled. We believe that this option is
not a reasonable beyond the floor control option because the associated
costs are prohibitive. Therefore, we are proposing the selected
limitation or control level of 14.22 ppmv as the floor level of control
for existing combined HAP process vents.
IV. Impacts of the Proposed Amendments
The proposed amendments do not affect the level of emissions
control required by the existing NESHAP and therefore, there is no
change to the analysis of nonair, health, environmental, and energy
impacts from the final rule. This is because the proposed MACT level of
control is achieved by three of the four process vents evaluated. We
expect the fourth process vent will be able to meet the standard
through operational changes rather than through the use of add on
control devices. In addition, we do not expect new semiconductor
manufacturing facilities will utilize combined HAP process vents, so we
do not expect any new combined HAP process vents will be constructed in
the future. Therefore, a re-evaluation of costs associated with the
final rule was not necessary.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is a ``significant regulatory action.'' Accordingly, EPA
submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review under Executive Order 12866 and any changes made in response to
OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
The information collection requirements in the final rule have not been
changed by these proposed amendments. However, 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 2060-0591. 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 (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administrations' regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,
county, town, school district or special district with a population of
less than 50,000; 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 proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small entities.
We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.
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 to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to 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
[[Page 17943]]
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.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the
private sector in any one year. This rule affects only one facility in
the nation. Total rule impacts were estimated to be approximately
$22,000. Thus, this proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. EPA has determined that this proposed
rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments because it contains no requirements
that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them.
Therefore, the proposed rule is not subject to section 203 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'' is 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 proposed 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. None of the affected
semiconductor facilities are owned or operated by State or local
governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
proposed rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 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 proposed rule does not have tribal
implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes. No tribal governments own or operate
semiconductor manufacturing facilities and are not subject to the
proposed standards. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
proposed rule. EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this
proposed rule from tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology
performance and not on health or safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as
defined in Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This rule
does not require the use of add-on control devices and will therefore
not have any adverse energy effects.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 112(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-113, 12(d)(15 U.S.C. 272 note),
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The
NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when
the Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any VCS.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 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 proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any
[[Page 17944]]
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on any population, including any minority or low-income
population. This proposed rule affects one facility in the nation. This
facility emits approximately one ton per year of regulated HAP and does
not significantly affect the local population.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental Protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 27, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63, of the Code of the Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as
follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart BBBBB--[Amended]
2. Section 63.7184 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.7184 What emission limitations, operating limits, and work
practice standards must I meet?
* * * * *
(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).
[FR Doc. E8-6816 Filed 4-1-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P