[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 8, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30848-30863]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-11298]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL-7207-7]
RIN 2060-AG93


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Semiconductor Manufacturing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP) for semiconductor manufacturing operations. The 
EPA has identified these operations as major sources of emissions of 
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) such as hydrochloric acid (HCl), 
hydrofluoric acid (HF), glycol ethers, methanol, and xylene. These HAP 
are associated with a variety of adverse health effects. These adverse 
health effects include irritation of the lung, skin, and mucus 
membranes, effects on the central nervous system, and damage to the 
skeleton system. These proposed NESHAP would require all semiconductor 
manufacturing facilities that are major sources to meet emission 
standards reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control 
technology (MACT).

DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before July 8, 2002.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a 
public hearing by May 28, 2002, a public hearing will be held on June 
7, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Comments. By U.S. Postal Service, send comments (in 
duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information 
Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-97-15, U.S. EPA, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. In person or by 
courier, deliver comments (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention Docket Number 
A-97-15, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. The EPA 
requests a separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed in 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at the 
EPA's Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina, or an alternate site nearby.
    Docket. Docket No. A-97-15 includes source category-specific 
supporting information for Semiconductor Manufacturing. The docket is 
located at the U.S. EPA, Air and Radiation Docket and Information 
Center, Waterside Mall, Room M-1500 (ground floor), 401 M Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20460, and may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the 
proposed rule, contact Mr. John Schaefer, US EPA, Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, 
telephone (919) 541-0296, e-mail: [email protected].

[[Page 30849]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Comments. Comments and data may be submitted by electronic mail (e-
mail) to: [email protected]. Electronic comments must be submitted 
as an ASCII file to avoid the use of special characters and encryption 
problems and will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 
format. All comments and data submitted in electronic form must note 
the appropriate docket number (see ADDRESSES). No confidential business 
information (CBI) should be submitted by e-mail. Electronic comments 
may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.
    Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for 
consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other 
comments and clearly label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such 
proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to 
the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not 
inadvertently placed in the docket: Attention: John Schaefer, c/o OAQPS 
Document Control Officer (Room 740B), 411 W. Chapel Hill Street, 
Durham, North Carolina 27701. The EPA will disclose information 
identified as CBI only to the extent allowed by the procedures set 
forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies a 
submission when it is received by the EPA, the information may be made 
available to the public without further notice to the commenter.
    Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or 
inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Ms. 
Maria Noell, Organic Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-
13), US EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711, telephone 
number (919) 541-5607 at least 2 days in advance of the public hearing. 
Persons interested in attending the public hearing should also call Ms. 
Noell to verify the time, date, and location of the hearing. The public 
hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to present 
data, views, or arguments concerning these proposed emission standards.
    Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of the record 
compiled by the EPA in the development of this rulemaking. The docket 
is a dynamic file because material is added throughout the rulemaking 
process. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the 
public and industries involved to readily identify and locate documents 
so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process. 
Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles, 
the contents of the docket will serve as the record in the case of 
judicial review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).) 
The regulatory text and other materials related to this rulemaking are 
available for review in the docket or copies may be mailed on request 
from the Air Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be 
charged for copying docket materials.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of the proposed rule will also be available on the 
WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, 
a copy of the rule will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page 
for newly proposed or promulgated rules http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. 
The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas 
of air pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN is 
needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
by this action include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                NAICS                    Examples of
          Category               code     SIC code   regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial..................     334413       3674  Semiconductor
                                                     crystal growing
                                                     facilities,
                                                     semiconductor wafer
                                                     fabrication
                                                     facilities,
                                                     semiconductor test
                                                     and assembly
                                                     facilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, 
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.7181 of the 
proposed subpart. If you have any questions regarding the applicability 
of this action to a particular entity, consult the person(s) listed in 
the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as 
follows:

I. Background
    A. What is the source of authority for development of NESHAP?
    B. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP?
    C. What are the health effects associated with the pollutants 
emitted from semiconductor manufacturing operations?
II. Summary of the Proposed NESHAP
    A. What is the source category to be regulated?
    B. What are the primary sources of emissions and what are the 
baseline emissions?
    C. What is the affected source?
    D. What are the emission limits?
    E. When must I comply with these proposed NESHAP?
    F. What are the testing and initial and continuous compliance 
requirements?
    G. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements?
III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards
    A. How did we select the source category?
    B. How did we select the affected source?
    C. How did we determine the basis and level of the proposed 
standards for existing and new sources?
    D. Did we consider control options more stringent than the MACT 
floor?
    E. How did we select the compliance, monitoring, recordkeeping, 
and reporting requirements?
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the secondary and energy impacts associated with 
these proposed NESHAP?
    B. What are the cost impacts?
    C. What are the economic impacts?
V. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    D. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    H. Paperwork Reduction Act
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

I. Background

A. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?

    Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and 
subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish 
NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. The 
Semiconductor Manufacturing source

[[Page 30850]]

category was listed on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). As specified in 
section 112(a) of the CAA, a major source of HAP is any stationary 
source or group of stationary sources within a contiguous area and 
under common control that emits or has the potential to emit, 
considering controls, in the aggregate, 10 tons per year (tpy) or more 
of any single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP.

B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?

    Section 112 of the CAA requires us to establish NESHAP for the 
control of HAP from both new and existing major sources. The CAA 
requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in 
emissions of HAP that is achievable, taking into consideration the cost 
of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and 
environmental impacts, and energy requirements. This level of control 
is commonly referred to as MACT.
    The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and 
is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT 
floor ensures that all major sources achieve the level of control 
already achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting sources in 
each source category or subcategory. For new sources, NESHAP cannot be 
less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice 
by the best-controlled similar source. The NESHAP for existing sources 
can be less stringent than standards for new sources, but they cannot 
be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the 
best-performing 12 percent of existing sources (or the best-performing 
5 sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources).
    In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more 
stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent 
than the floor following consideration of cost, any health and 
environmental impacts, and energy requirements.

C. What Are the Health Effects Associated With the Pollutants Emitted 
From Semiconductor Manufacturing Operations?

    The primary HAP emitted by the semiconductor manufacturing industry 
are HCl, HF, glycol ethers, methanol, and xylene.
    Glycol ethers. Glycol ethers are a large group of related 
compounds. Acute (short-term) exposure in humans to high levels of 
glycol ethers results in narcosis, pulmonary edema, and severe liver 
and kidney damage. Chronic (long-term) exposure to glycol ethers may 
result in neurological and blood effects, including fatigue, nausea, 
tremors, and anemia. No information is available on the reproductive, 
developmental, or carcinogenic effects of glycol ethers in humans. 
Animal studies have reported reproductive and developmental effects, 
including testicular damage, reduced fertility, maternal toxicity, 
early embryonic death, birth defects, and delayed development. The EPA 
has not classified any glycol ether compounds for carcinogenicity.
    Hydrochloric acid. Hydrochloric acid is corrosive to the eyes, 
skin, and mucous membranes. Acute inhalation exposure may cause eye, 
nose, and respiratory tract irritation and inflammation and pulmonary 
edema in humans. Chronic occupational exposure to HCl has been reported 
to cause gastritis, bronchitis, and dermatitis in workers. Prolonged 
exposure to low concentrations may also cause dental discoloration and 
erosion. No information is available on the reproductive or 
developmental effects of HCl in humans. In rats exposed to HCl by 
inhalation, altered estrus cycles have been reported in females, and 
increased fetal mortality and decreased fetal weight have been reported 
in offspring. The EPA has not classified HCl for carcinogenicity.
    Hydrogen fluoride. Acute inhalation exposure to gaseous HF can 
cause severe respiratory damage in humans, including severe irritation 
and pulmonary edema. While the respiratory effects are attributable to 
the HF compound, other effects, including those associated with chronic 
exposures are attributable to the fluoride ion absorbed into the body 
(as a result of inhalation or ingestion of various fluoride compounds, 
including HF). Chronic exposure to fluoride at certain levels may cause 
dental fluorosis or mottling, while very high exposures through 
drinking water or air can result in crippling skeletal fluorosis. One 
study reported menstrual irregularities in women occupationally exposed 
to fluoride. The EPA has not classified HF for carcinogenicity.
    Methanol. Acute or chronic exposure of humans to methanol by 
inhalation or ingestion may result in blurred vision, headache, 
dizziness, and nausea. No information is available on the reproductive, 
developmental, or carcinogenic effects of methanol in humans. Birth 
defects have been observed in the offspring of rats and mice exposed to 
methanol by inhalation. A methanol inhalation study using rhesus 
monkeys reported a decrease in the length of pregnancy and limited 
evidence of impaired learning ability in offspring. The EPA has not 
classified methanol with respect to carcinogenicity.
    Xylene. Short-term inhalation of mixed xylenes (a mixture of three 
closely-related compounds) in humans may cause irritation of the nose 
and throat, nausea, vomiting, gastric irritation, mild transient eye 
irritation, and neurological effects. Long-term inhalation of xylenes 
in humans may result in nervous system effects such as headache, 
dizziness, fatigue, tremors, and incoordination. Other reported effects 
include labored breathing, heart palpitation, severe chest pain, 
abnormal electrocardiograms, and possible effects on the blood and 
kidneys. The EPA has classified mixed xylenes as Group D carcinogens, 
not classifiable with respect to human carcinogenicity.

II. Summary of the Proposed NESHAP

A. What Is the Source Category To Be Regulated?

    The Semiconductor Manufacturing source category includes operations 
used to manufacture p-type and n-type semiconductors and active solid-
state devices from a wafer substrate. Research and development 
activities located at a site manufacturing p-type and n-type 
semiconductors and active solid-state devices are included in the 
definition of semiconductor manufacturing. Examples of semiconductor or 
related solid-state devices include semiconductor diodes, semiconductor 
stacks, rectifiers, integrated circuits, and transistors. The source 
category includes all manufacturing from crystal growth through wafer 
fabrication, and test and assembly.
    The crystal growing stage is where crystalline wafers of silicon or 
other specific semiconducting materials are manufactured for use as the 
substrate in the wafer fabrication process. Crystal growing begins with 
the storage of the raw materials (usually trichlorosilane, which is 
refined from ordinary sand) and ends with the final polishing of a 
wafer.
    The wafer fabrication process is where a group of integrated 
circuits are created on the wafer through a series of pattern-forming 
processes. Wafer fabrication begins at the point where the wafer 
receives its first protective oxidative layer and ends when a 
functional integrated circuit or circuits have been created on a wafer.
    The test and assembly process is the final step in the integrated 
circuit manufacturing process and begins when a wafer is cut into 
individual chips. The chips are then mounted onto a metal

[[Page 30851]]

frame, connected to the leads, and enclosed in a protective housing. 
The process endpoint is the last test performed at an assembly facility 
to verify proper function of a completed integrated circuit housing.

B. What Are the Primary Sources of Emissions and What Are the Baseline 
Emissions?

    We estimate nationwide HAP emissions from the semiconductor 
manufacturing industry to be 636 tpy. More than 90 percent of these 
emissions come from process vents at these facilities. We estimate that 
five chemicals comprise over 90 percent of the total HAP emissions: 
HCl, HF, glycol ethers, methanol, and xylene.

C. What Is the Affected Source?

    For the Semiconductor Manufacturing source category, the affected 
source includes the collection of all semiconductor manufacturing units 
used to manufacture p-type and n-type semiconductors and active solid-
state devices from a wafer substrate, research and development 
activities on a semiconductor manufacturing site, and storage tanks 
located at a major source.
    A semiconductor manufacturing unit is the equipment assembled and 
connected by duct work or hard-piping including: furnaces and 
associated unit operations; associated wet and dry work benches; 
associated recovery devices; feed, intermediate, and product storage 
tanks; product transfer racks and connected ducts and piping; pumps, 
compressors, agitators, pressure-relief devices, sampling connection 
systems, open-ended valves or lines, valves, connectors, and 
instrumentation systems; and control devices. We have identified three 
distinct processes used in the manufacture of these semiconductors and 
devices: crystal growing, wafer fabrication, and assembly and test. A 
semiconductor manufacturing unit is typically engaged in one of these 
processes.

D. What Are the Emission Limits?

    We are proposing NESHAP that would regulate HAP emissions from 
process vents and storage tank vents at semiconductor manufacturing 
facilities. We are proposing the same requirements for existing and new 
sources. We are proposing that all major sources reduce process vent 
HAP outlet concentrations by 98 percent from their uncontrolled levels. 
As an alternative, process vents may be controlled to a level below 20 
parts per million volume (ppmv) HAP, corrected to 3 percent oxygen. We 
are proposing that all major sources reduce storage tank vent HAP 
outlet concentrations by 99 percent from their uncontrolled levels. As 
an alternative, storage tank vents may be controlled to a level below 1 
ppmv HAP.

E. When Must I Comply With These Proposed NESHAP?

    Existing semiconductor manufacturing affected sources must comply 
with the rule no later than 3 years from the effective date of the 
promulgated subpart. New or reconstructed affected sources that startup 
before the effective date of the promulgated subpart must comply with 
the rule no later than the effective date of the promulgated subpart 
unless the provisions in section 112(i)(2) of the CAA apply. New or 
reconstructed affected sources that startup after the effective date of 
the promulgated subpart must comply with the rule upon startup of the 
affected source.

F. What Are the Testing and Initial and Continuous Compliance 
Requirements?

    We are proposing testing and initial and continuous compliance 
requirements that are, where appropriate, based on procedures and 
methods that we have previously developed and used for sources similar 
to those for which standards are being proposed today. For example, we 
are proposing compliance determination procedures, performance tests, 
and test methods to determine what level of control a process vent 
needs to achieve to demonstrate compliance with the standards.
    We are proposing compliance procedures to determine process vent 
and storage tank vent flow rates and HAP concentrations. The proposed 
test methods parallel what we have used for process vents in previous 
organic HAP emissions standards (e.g., the Hazardous Organic NESHAP 
(HON)). For measuring vent stream flow rate, we propose the use of 
Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. For 
measuring total vent stream organic HAP concentration to determine 
whether it is below a specified level, we propose the use of Method 18 
of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. For measuring the total HAP 
concentration of emission streams with inorganic HAP to determine if it 
is below a specified level, we propose the use of Method 320 of 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A.
    Additionally, we are proposing to require initial performance tests 
for all process vent and storage tank vent HAP emission control devices 
other than flares and certain boilers and process heaters. For vents 
controlled using flares, we are not requiring performance tests because 
we have developed design specifications that ensure these devices will 
achieve 98 percent destruction efficiency. As with the HON, we are not 
proposing a requirement to perform an initial performance test for 
boilers and process heaters larger than 44 megawatts (MW) because they 
operate at high temperatures and residence times. In general, the 
higher the temperature and residence time, the greater the level of HAP 
destruction that is achieved by a control device. Therefore, boilers 
and process heaters larger than 44 MW easily achieve the required 98 
percent destruction efficiency or the alternative requirement to reduce 
outlet concentrations below 20 ppmv.
    For all other types of control devices, the proposed NESHAP require 
the owner or operator to conduct a performance test to demonstrate that 
the control device can achieve the required control level and to 
establish operating parameters to be maintained to demonstrate 
continuous compliance. The proposed testing requirements for 
semiconductor manufacturing list the parameters that can be monitored 
for the common types of combustion devices. For other control devices, 
we require that an owner or operator establish site-specific parameter 
ranges for monitoring purposes through the Notification of Compliance 
Status Report and through the facility's operating permit. Parameters 
selected are required to be good indicators of continuous control 
device performance.

G. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 
Requirements?

    We are proposing notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements in accordance with the part 63 General Provisions (40 CFR 
part 63, subpart A) and other previously promulgated NESHAP for similar 
source categories.
    We are proposing that owners or operators of semiconductor 
manufacturing affected sources submit the following four types of 
reports: an Initial Notification Report, a Notification of Compliance 
Status Report, periodic compliance reports, reports of changes and 
other specified events. Records of reported information and other 
information necessary to document compliance with the promulgated 
standards would be required to be kept for 5 years. Equipment design 
records would be required to be kept for the life of the equipment.
    For the Initial Notification Report, we are proposing that you list 
the

[[Page 30852]]

semiconductor manufacturing operations at your facility, and the 
provisions of the rule that may apply. The Initial Notification Report 
must also state whether your facility can achieve compliance by the 
specified compliance date. You must submit this notification within 1 
year after the date of promulgation of these NESHAP for existing 
sources, and within 180 days before commencement of construction or 
reconstruction of an affected source.
    For the Notification of Compliance Status Report, we are proposing 
that you submit the information necessary to demonstrate that 
compliance has been achieved, such as the results of performance tests 
and design analyses. For each test method that you use for a particular 
kind of emission point (e.g., process vent), you must submit one 
complete test report. This notification must also include the specific 
range established for each monitored parameter for each emission point 
for demonstrating continuous compliance, and the rationale for why this 
range indicates proper operation of the control device.
    We are proposing that you submit semiannual compliance reports. 
These reports must include a statement that no deviations from the 
emission limitations occurred during the reporting period, and that no 
continuous monitoring system (CMS) was inoperative, inactive, 
malfunctioning, out-of-control, repaired, or adjusted. Additionally, a 
statement must be included if you had a startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction during the reporting period, and you took actions 
consistent with your Startup Shutdown and Malfunction Plan (SSMP). For 
process and storage tank vents, records of continuously monitored 
parameters must be kept. Records that such inspections or measurements 
were performed must be kept, but results are included in your periodic 
report only if there is a deviation from the operating limit. For each 
deviation from an emission limit, the semiannual compliance reports 
must document the time periods of each deviation; its cause; whether it 
occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction; and 
whether and what time periods the CMS was inoperative or out of 
control.
    We are proposing that you submit an immediate startup, shutdown, 
and malfunction report if you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction 
that is not consistent with your SSMP.
    Other proposed reporting requirements include reports to notify the 
regulatory authority before or after a specific event (e.g., if a 
process change is made, requests for extension of repair period).

III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards

A. How Did We Select the Source Category?

    The Semiconductor Manufacturing source category includes facilities 
that grow crystalline wafers for use in the manufacture of 
semiconductors, engage in the manufacture of p-type and n-type 
semiconductors and active solid-state devices, or engage in the 
assembly and test of semiconductor devices. The Semiconductor 
Manufacturing source category was included on the initial source 
category list at 57 FR 31576 (July 16, 1992). It was included on the 
list because there were facilities emitting HAP at major source levels, 
as defined in section 112(a) of the CAA.
    However, since the initial listing, most of these semiconductor 
facilities have controlled emissions to levels below major source 
thresholds. As a result, during the course of developing this 
rulemaking, EPA received several requests from the Semiconductor 
Industry Association (SIA) to delist the semiconductor source category 
pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(1). These requests and comments are 
included in the docket (A-97-15).
    We recognize this proposal will be of limited significance because 
it would regulate only a single source that, standing alone, has very 
small emissions. We nonetheless believe promulgation of standards for 
this source category is compelled by the Act. Section 112(a) defines 
``major source'' as ``any stationary source or group of stationary 
sources located within a contiguous area and under common control, that 
emits or has the potential to emit considering controls, in the 
aggregate, 10 tons per year or more of any hazardous air pollutant or 
25 tons per year or more of any combination of hazardous air 
pollutants.'' Thus, sources such as the semiconductor manufacturing 
source subject to this rule are considered part of a major source when 
they are collocated with other sources at facilities that in 
combination have the potential to emit over the major source 
thresholds. Because the statute is clear that such collocated sources 
must be considered major, we believe it is also clear in the statute 
that we must list categories that include such sources and promulgate 
standards for those categories pursuant to section 112(d).
    Notwithstanding our reading of the Act, EPA requests comments on 
the appropriateness of including semiconductor manufacturing as a 
source category for regulation under CAA section 112(d). We will 
respond to SIA's pre-proposal requests and all additional comments in 
any final action on this rulemaking. We believe this approach is 
consistent with the approach outlined in section 112(e)(4), which 
indicates that EPA's decision to list a source category is not a 
reviewable final agency action unless, and until, EPA issues emissions 
standards for that category. See also National Asphalt Paving Ass'n v. 
EPA, 539 F.2d 775, 779 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (describing similar 
approach for category listing under CAA section 111).

B. How Did We Select the Affected Source?

    In selecting the affected source for the Semiconductor 
Manufacturing source category, we included all equipment that emits HAP 
or has the potential to emit HAP, such as process vents, storage tanks, 
wastewater, and fugitive sources. We also included within the affected 
source other auxiliary equipment that is necessary to make the 
operation run, but which may not emit HAP. We did this to ensure that 
all equipment necessary to run a semiconductor manufacturing operation 
is included under these proposed NESHAP. In addition, we also included 
all research and development activities located at a site engaged in 
the manufacture of semiconductors. Thus, we are defining the affected 
source broadly to include the sum of all operations engaged in the 
manufacture of semiconductors.

C. How Did We Determine the Basis and Level of the Proposed Standards 
for Existing and New Sources?

    We identified six facilities as having the potential to emit 
greater than the major source emissions threshold, but for the presence 
of add-on controls. A seventh facility was identified as being a major 
source due to the fact that it is collocated with other HAP-emitting 
processes. These seven facilities were evaluated to determine the MACT 
floor level of control.
    Based on data gathering efforts that included site visits, industry 
survey responses, and literature searches, we identified three 
potential sources of HAP emissions for the semiconductor manufacturing 
industry: Process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater treatment. We 
did not consider equipment leaks as a separate emissions source because 
any potential emissions from this source are emitted into the 
manufacturing buildings and are included as part of process vent 
emissions.

[[Page 30853]]

    We established a floor for process vents based on testing data that 
we collected for several vents. Additionally, we established a floor 
for storage tanks based on testing data we collected for HCl storage 
tanks in the HCl production industry. We could identify no emission 
controls, work practices, or other techniques currently used at these 
facilities to reduce HAP emissions from wastewater treatment based on 
the information obtained from the data gathering efforts. Therefore, 
MACT for wastewater treatment is based on no emission reduction.
    For a source category with under 30 sources, section 112(d)(3) of 
the CAA directs that the MACT floor for existing sources be based on 
the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing five 
sources. The MACT floor for new sources in a source category is 
required to reflect the level of control being achieved by the best 
controlled similar source. The term ``average'' is not defined in the 
CAA, but we have interpreted ``average,'' as used in section 112(d)(3), 
to include the mean, median, mode, or some other measure of central 
tendency (59 FR 29196, June 6, 1994). In this MACT floor analysis, we 
chose a modal analysis to determine the most frequently used control 
technology reported by the best performing sources.
    For both the process vent and storage tank MACT floor analyses, we 
evaluated performance in terms of control device removal efficiency. In 
other words, the ``best performing'' semiconductor manufacturing 
facilities are those with the highest removal efficiencies.
    Semiconductor manufacturing units typically produce process vent 
emission streams that contain either organic or inorganic compounds. At 
some facilities, the organic and inorganic process vent emission 
streams are segregated to facilitate control, while others combine them 
into one or more common exhaust streams. For purposes of the MACT floor 
analysis, all the data obtained for process vents were considered 
together. We made no distinction between organic, inorganic, or 
combined emission streams for the test data because the same level of 
control can be achieved whether the streams are segregated or combined.
    A total of 26 process vents were reported at the seven facilities 
that make up the MACT floor data set. We calculated removal efficiency 
from the inlet and outlet concentration values for each process vent 
emission stream. We then ranked process vents from highest to lowest 
removal efficiency. We performed the ranking this way to determine the 
most prevalent control technology, not to determine the average removal 
efficiency, since the performance of control devices in the 
semiconductor manufacturing industry is affected by highly variable 
inlet conditions. The performance of these control devices varies in 
response to inlet conditions and is more erratic at lower inlet 
conditions. Any single control device will perform at peak efficiency 
on an episodic basis under optimum conditions, but the removal 
efficiencies represented by these test results cannot be maintained 
under all operating conditions that are typical in the semiconductor 
manufacturing industry.
    We determined the MACT floor for process vents for existing sources 
from the best performing five sources, rather than the average of the 
top 12 percent because fewer than 30 sources are represented. Four of 
the top five best performing sources use some form of thermal 
oxidation; therefore, thermal oxidation is the technology basis of the 
MACT floor.
    Consistent with other previously promulgated NESHAP for process 
vents, such as the HON (40 CFR part 63, subpart G), the level of 
control deemed to be generally achievable by a combustion control 
device, such as thermal oxidation, is 98 percent removal efficiency. We 
selected this value as the MACT floor for process vents at existing 
semiconductor manufacturing facilities. Because the same considerations 
for low concentration, high flow exhaust streams apply equally to new 
sources, and the best controlled source uses a thermal oxidizer, we 
also selected this level of control as the new source MACT floor for 
vents.
    In order to account for the variability in the performance of 
control devices used in the semiconductor manufacturing industry, as 
well as the increased variability inherent in the test methods when 
analyzing the high flow, low concentration process vent emission 
streams typically controlled by these devices, the MACT floor includes 
an alternate format based on outlet concentration of HAP. This 
alternate format is intended to provide facilities with added 
flexibility to comply with the standard when the inlet concentration of 
the add-on control device drops below the point where optimum control 
efficiency can be achieved, and it would not be feasible to require 
optimum performance levels (expressed in terms of removal efficiency) 
to be met. To again be consistent with previous NESHAP that have 
specified a control level of 98 percent through the use of a combustion 
control device, we selected the alternate format for the MACT floor 
that would allow a facility to meet a HAP concentration limit of 20 
ppmv for their vents. This level has been used in many other rules, 
including 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, which is referenced by this 
action.
    We obtained data on control of HAP emissions from storage tanks 
from six semiconductor manufacturing facilities, representing a total 
of 56 storage tanks. Emission controls were reported on 29 of these 
tanks. The materials stored in the controlled tanks were HCl and HF. In 
all cases, the control device was a scrubber. Therefore, scrubbers were 
selected as the technology basis of the storage tank MACT floor.
    The semiconductor manufacturing industry was unable to provide 
control device removal efficiency or emissions data for the storage 
tank scrubbers. Therefore, we developed a floor based on scrubber 
performance data from scrubbers applied to storage tank vents in the 
HCl production industry, which would be expected to have similar 
characteristics.
    We reviewed data from 17 sources in the HCl production source 
category. Because we had less than 30 sources, we based the floor on 
the best performing five facilities. The performance of the scrubber at 
the median facility of the best performing five was 99 percent HAP 
removal. Therefore, we chose 99 percent HAP removal as the floor. 
Similar to process vents, the concentration of HAP in storage tank 
exhaust streams is low and can vary widely. Low and variable inlet 
concentrations can result in high variability in scrubber removal 
efficiency. For this reason, we are proposing an alternative emission 
limit of 1 ppmv for storage vents. The value of 1 ppmv is the detection 
limit of the test method we are proposing for HCl and HF. Therefore, 
this is the lowest level outlet concentration we can specify because 
this is the lowest level we can measure.
    We have no data on the performance of these scrubbers in reducing 
HF emissions. However, because HF has a similar solubility to HCl, it 
is reasonable to assume that scrubbers can also reduce HF emissions by 
99 percent or to 1 ppmv.
    The semiconductor industry reported storage tank capacities ranging 
from 300 gallons to 16,000 gallons. We ranked the tanks by their 
capacity and examined which tanks reported controls on their vents. The 
smallest storage tank with controls is 800 gallons. Five storage tanks 
in our data set are smaller than 800 gallons and do not control their 
emissions. Therefore, we have

[[Page 30854]]

concluded that it is not feasible to control storage tanks of less than 
800 gallons. We are proposing that facilities control HAP emissions 
from vents by 99 percent or reduce HAP emissions to no more than 1 ppmv 
for all storage tanks 800 gallons or larger.

D. Did We Consider Control Options More Stringent Than the MACT Floor?

    We considered control options more stringent than the MACT floor 
for process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater treatment. No such 
control options were determined to be feasible.
    The MACT floor of 98 percent control for process vents was 
determined to be the highest level of control achievable on a 
consistent basis. While control devices such as thermal oxidizers can 
be operated under certain conditions to achieve greater than 98 percent 
removal efficiency, this was not deemed achievable on a consistent 
basis for the varying emission streams present throughout the 
semiconductor manufacturing industry. Thus, no regulatory alternatives 
above the floor value of 98 percent control were identified that were 
expected to be technically feasible.
    For storage tanks, the MACT floor of 99 percent control was 
determined to be the highest level of control achievable on a 
consistent basis. Like thermal oxidizers, scrubbers can be operated 
under certain conditions to achieve greater than 99 percent removal 
efficiency. However, due to the variability of HAP concentrations in 
storage tank emission streams, this was not deemed achievable on a 
consistent basis. Thus, no regulatory alternatives above the floor 
value of 99 percent control were identified that were expected to be 
technically feasible.
    No wastewater HAP emission controls were identified for the 
semiconductor manufacturing industry. Wastewater streams from the 
semiconductor manufacturing industry consist predominately of acids 
(e.g., HCl), which do not readily volatilize. In addition, the 
concentration of HAP contained in these wastewater streams is very 
small, typically on the order of 3 to 4 ppmv. Due to these factors, the 
potential for emissions is very small. Due to this low level of 
emissions, we could not identify any technically or economically 
feasible control options.
    Finally, we examined process changes that would reduce the amount 
of HAP used, and thus, have the potential to reduce HAP emissions from 
all emission points. Specifically, we considered requiring industry to 
increase the size of wafers used in the manufacture of integrated 
circuits. Industry studies indicate that going from one wafer size to 
the next larger size decreases a facility's HAP usage by about 20 to 30 
percent. Typically, sizes used are 4, 6, and 8 inch wafers.
    We have determined, however, that these process changes are not 
cost effective because an increase in wafer size requires replacing 
most of the equipment in a wafer fabrication facility. The one major 
source covered by these NESHAP would need to replace approximately $150 
million worth of equipment in order to reduce HAP emissions by several 
hundred pounds. Therefore, we determined that process changes would not 
be a cost-effective or practical method for reducing HAP emissions at 
this time without a further evaluation of risk.

E. How Did We Select the Compliance, Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and 
Reporting Requirements?

    The general recordkeeping and reporting requirements of these 
proposed NESHAP are very similar to those found in the HON (40 CFR part 
63, subparts F, G, and H). You are also required to comply with the 
notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63 subpart A). We have included a table in the 
proposed subpart BBBBB that designates which sections of subpart A 
apply.
    General compliance, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements for emission points are contained within the proposed 
NESHAP. We specify compliance procedures necessary to determine the 
required level of control for process vents. We based the selection of 
emission point and/or control device-specific monitoring (including 
continuous monitoring), recordkeeping, and reporting requirements on 
the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS for closed 
vent systems, control devices, recovery devices and routing to a fuel 
gas system or a process. Subpart SS contains a common set of 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. We established 
these subparts to ensure consistency among emission requirements 
applied to similar emission points with pollutant streams containing 
gaseous HAP. We have proposed changes to the performance specifications 
for continuous compliance monitoring devices contained within subpart 
SS (65 FR 76408, December 6, 2000). Background information and public 
comments on the proposed changes can be found in Docket A-97-17. 
Interested parties should consider the proposed changes to subpart SS 
when reviewing and commenting on today's action for the Semiconductor 
Manufacturing source category.
    As with the HON, we are not proposing a requirement to perform an 
initial performance test for boilers and process heaters larger than 44 
MW because they operate at high temperatures and residence times. 
Analysis shows that when vent streams are introduced into the flame 
zone of these boilers and process heaters, greater than 98 weight-
percent of HAP emissions are reduced, or the outlet concentration of 
HAP is below 20 ppmv, corrected to 3 percent oxygen. For flares, a 
percent reduction or outlet concentration measurement is not feasible. 
Therefore, we determined that a performance test is not necessary for 
boilers and process heaters larger 44 MW, or for flares. For all other 
types of control devices, the proposed NESHAP require the owner or 
operator to conduct a performance test to demonstrate that the control 
device can achieve the required control level and to establish 
operating parameters to be maintained to demonstrate continuous 
compliance. We believe that the compliance, monitoring, recordkeeping, 
and reporting requirements of the proposed NESHAP are consistent with 
subpart SS and the HON.

IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts

    This section presents projected impacts for existing sources only. 
We did not calculate impacts for new sources because we do not project 
any new major sources will commence construction in the foreseeable 
future. We expect that any new sources will have HAP emissions below 
major source thresholds. The industry trend over the past several years 
has been that HAP emissions have decreased while semiconductor 
production has increased. As a result, only one source in the industry 
is still a major source of HAP, and only because it is collocated at a 
facility with other HAP-emitting operations. We do not project that any 
other new semiconductor sources would be built on the site of another 
operation. We also project that the types of technologies that have 
evolved (e.g., producing larger wafers), which are inherently less 
emitting, will continue.

A. What Are the Secondary and Energy Impacts Associated With These 
Proposed NESHAP?

    We do not anticipate any significant increase in national annual 
energy usage as a result of these proposed NESHAP. Energy impacts 
include changes in

[[Page 30855]]

energy use, typically increases, and secondary air impacts associated 
with increased energy use. Increases in energy use are associated with 
the operation of control equipment--in this case, the use of thermal 
oxidizers--to control process vents. Secondary air impacts associated 
with increased energy use are the emission of particulates, sulfur 
oxides (SOX), and nitrogen oxides (NOX). These 
secondary impacts are associated with power plants that would supply 
the increased energy demand. Since we project these NESHAP will apply 
to only one existing major source, no significant new control equipment 
requirements are expected. Therefore, secondary and energy impacts will 
be negligible.

B. What Are the Cost Impacts?

    Although we estimate there are approximately 127 facilities engaged 
in semiconductor production, we estimate that the source category 
contains only one existing major source subject to the regulatory 
provisions specified under these proposed NESHAP. The remaining 
facilities are either area sources or synthetic minor sources, which 
are sources that have the potential to emit above major source 
thresholds but have taken enforceable permit conditions limiting their 
HAP emissions to below these major source thresholds.
    We estimate that the one existing major source will not incur any 
control costs or annual operating and maintenance costs to comply with 
these proposed NESHAP. We estimate the one major source will incur a 
$5,180 cost to conduct all monitoring, inspection, reporting, and 
recordkeeping (MIRR) activities during the first 3 years after 
promulgation of the NESHAP. Other sources will not incur any costs from 
these proposed NESHAP. Because no capital costs will be incurred by the 
one major source, the total cost of the proposed NESHAP will be $5,180 
in MIRR costs.

C. What Are the Economic Impacts?

    The proposed NESHAP apply to only one major existing source, and no 
significant new control equipment requirements are expected. We 
estimate the MIRR costs for this facility to be only $5,180 over a 3-
year period. Therefore, no economic impact on the industry is expected.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we must 
determine whether a proposed regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and 
the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines 
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a 
rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    It has been determined that the proposed rule is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 
12866 and is, therefore, not subject to OMB review.

B. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental 
health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    The 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 rule. This proposed rule is not subject 
to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology performance 
and not on health or safety risks. Additionally, the proposed rule is 
not economically significant as defined by Executive Order 12866.

C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (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. No facilities subject to the 
proposed rule are owned by State or local governments, and the rule 
imposes no other obligations on State and 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.

D. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and 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.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. 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, as specified in Executive Order 13175. No 
tribal governments own or operate semiconductor manufacturing 
facilities, and the rule imposes no obligations on

[[Page 30856]]

tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this 
rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13175 and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and tribal governments, 
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from 
tribal officials.

E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations 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.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    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, we 
must generally 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 
1 year. Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is 
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us 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 us 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 we establish any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, we 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 our regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    We have determined that the proposed rule does not contain a 
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more 
by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the 
private sector in any 1 year. The total cost to the private sector is 
approximately $22,700 per year. The proposed rule contains no mandates 
affecting State, local, or Tribal governments. Thus, today's proposed 
rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the 
UMRA.
    We have also determined that the proposed rule contains no 
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments because the proposal contains no requirements that 
apply to such governments nor imposes obligations upon them.

G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.

    The 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 today's proposed rule on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business 
according to Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards for 
NAICS code 334413 (i.e., semiconductor crystal growing facilities, 
semiconductor wafer fabrication facilities, semiconductor test and 
assembly facilities) whose parent company has 500 or fewer employees; 
(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.
    Based on the above definition of small entities, the Agency has 
determined that there are no small businesses within this source 
category that would be subject to these proposed NESHAP. Therefore, 
because these proposed NESHAP will not impose any requirements on small 
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction 
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The EPA has prepared an Information 
Collection Request (ICR) document (ICR No. 2042.01), and you may obtain 
a copy from Sandy Farmer by mail at the U.S. EPA, Office of 
Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division (2822), 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at 
[email protected], or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may also be 
downloaded off the Internet at 
http://www.epa.gov/icr. The information requirements are not effective 
until OMB approves them.
    The information requirements are based on notification, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all 
operators subject to national emission standards. These recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 
of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA 
pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a 
claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to EPA 
policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. The annual monitoring, 
reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this collection, as averaged 
over the first 3 years after the effective date of the rule, is 
estimated to be 35 labor hours per year at a total annual cost of 
$1,727. This estimate includes a one-time plan for demonstrating 
compliance, annual compliance certificate reports, notifications, and 
recordkeeping. Total labor burden associated with the monitoring 
requirements over the 3-year period of the ICR are estimated at $5,180.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of

[[Page 30857]]

information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of 
information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
    Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information, 
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested 
methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of 
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the 
Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. EPA (2822), 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk 
Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Since 
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 
days after May 8, 2002, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its 
full effect if OMB receives it by June 7, 2002. The final rule will 
respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection 
requirements contained in this proposal.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 
EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in our regulatory and 
procurement 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) developed or adopted by 
one or more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 
provide Congress, through OMB, with explanations when an agency does 
not use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    These proposed NESHAP involve technical standards. The EPA proposes 
in this rule to use EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 
3B, 4, 18, 25, 25A, 26, 26A, 316, and 320. Consistent with the NTTAA, 
EPA conducted searches to identify voluntary consensus standards in 
addition to these EPA methods. No applicable voluntary consensus 
standards were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, and 316. 
The search and review results have been documented and are placed in 
Docket A-97-15.
    The consensus standard, ASTM D6420-99, Standard Test Method for 
Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas 
Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS), is appropriate in the cases 
described below for inclusion in these proposed NESHAP for measurement 
of xylene, in addition to EPA Method 18, codified at 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A.
    Similar to EPA's performance-based Method 18, ASTM D6420-99 is also 
a performance-based method for measurement of gaseous organic 
compounds. However, ASTM D6420-99 was written to support the specific 
use of highly portable and automated GC/MS. While offering advantages 
over the traditional Method 18, the ASTM method does allow some less 
stringent criteria for accepting GC/MS results than required by Method 
18. Therefore, ASTM D6420-99 is a suitable alternative to Method 18 
only where the target compound(s) are those listed in section 1.1 of 
ASTM D6420-99, and the target concentration is between 150 parts per 
billion volume and 100 ppmv.
    For target compound(s) not listed in Table 1.1 of ASTM D6420-99, 
but potentially detected by mass spectrometry, the regulation specifies 
that the additional system continuing calibration check after each run, 
as detailed in Section 10.5.3 of the ASTM method, must be followed, 
met, documented, and submitted with the data report, even if there is 
no moisture condenser used or the compound is not considered water 
soluble. For target compound(s) not listed in Table 1.1 of ASTM D6420-
99, and not amenable to detection by mass spectrometry, ASTM D6420-99 
does not apply.
    As a result, EPA proposes to incorporate ASTM D6420-99 into 40 CFR 
63.14 by reference for application under subpart SS of part 63. ASTM 
D6420-99 is being incorporated as an alternative to Method 18 for 
applicable situations discussed above. The EPA will also cite Method 18 
as a gas chromatography (GC) option in addition to ASTM D6420-99. This 
will allow the continued use of GC configurations other than GC/MS.
    In addition to the voluntary consensus standards EPA proposes to 
use in these NESHAP, this search for emissions measurement procedures 
identified 17 other voluntary consensus standards. The EPA determined 
that 13 of these 17 standards identified for measuring emissions of HAP 
or surrogates subject to emission standards in the proposed NESHAP were 
impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of these 
proposed NESHAP. Therefore, EPA does not propose to adopt these 
standards today.
    The following three of the 17 voluntary consensus standards 
identified in this search were not available at the time the review was 
conducted for the purposes of these proposed NESHAP because they are 
under development by a voluntary consensus body: ASME/BSR MFC 13M, 
``Flow Measurement by Velocity Traverse,'' for EPA Method 2 (and 
possibly 1); ASME/BSR MFC 12M, ``Flow in Closed Conduits Using 
Multiport Averaging Pitot Primary Flowmeters,'' for EPA Method 2; and 
ISO/DIS 12039, ``Stationary Source Emissions--Determination of Carbon 
Monoxide, Carbon Dioxide, and Oxygen--Automated Methods,'' for EPA 
Method 3A. While we are not proposing to include these three voluntary 
consensus standards in today's proposed NESHAP, the EPA will consider 
the standards when final.
    One of the 17 voluntary consensus standards identified in this 
search, ASTM D6348-98, ``Determination of Gaseous Compounds by 
Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' is 
under consideration by the EPA as an alternative for EPA Method 320. 
This ASTM standard has been reviewed by EPA and comments were sent to 
ASTM. Currently, the ASTM Subcommittee D22-03 is now undertaking a 
revision of the ASTM standard. Upon successful ASTM balloting and 
demonstration of technical equivalency with the EPA FTIR methods, the 
revised ASTM standard could be incorporated by reference for EPA 
regulatory applicability.
    The EPA takes comment on the compliance demonstration requirements 
in these NESHAP and specifically invites the public to identify 
potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards. Commenters should 
also explain why this proposed rule should adopt these voluntary 
consensus standards in lieu of, or in addition to, EPA standards. 
Emission test methods submitted for evaluation should be accompanied 
with a basis for the recommendation, including method validation data 
and the procedure used to validate the candidate method (if a method 
other than Method 301, 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, was used).
    Section 63.7193 and table 1 to proposed subpart BBBBB lists the EPA 
testing methods included in the

[[Page 30858]]

proposed NESHAP. Under 40 CFR 63.8 (the General Provisions), a source 
may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative monitoring in place 
of any of the EPA testing methods.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous air 
pollutants, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic 
compounds.

    Dated: May 1, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
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.

    2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart BBBBB to read as follows:
Sec.
Subpart BBBBB--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Semiconductor Manufacturing

What This Subpart Covers

63.7180   What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.7181   Am I subject to this subpart?
63.7182   What parts of my facility does this subpart cover?
63.7183   When do I have to comply with this subpart?

Emission Standards

63.7184   What emission limitations, operating limits, and work 
practice standards must I meet?

Compliance Requirements

63.7185   What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?
63.7186   By what date must I conduct performance tests or other 
initial compliance demonstrations?
63.7187   What performance tests and other compliance procedures 
must I use?
63.7188   What are my monitoring installation, operation, and 
maintenance requirements?

Applications, Notifications, Reports, and Records

63.7189     What applications and notifications must I submit and 
when?
63.7190   What reports must I submit and when?
63.7191   What records must I keep?
63.7192   In what form and how long must I keep my records?

Other Requirements and Information

63.7193   What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.7194   Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.7195   What definitions apply to this subpart?

Tables to Subpart BBBBB of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart BBBBB of Part 63-Requirements for Performance 
Tests
Table 2 to Subpart BBBBB of Part 63-Applicability of General 
Provisions to Subpart BBBBB

Subpart BBBBB--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Semiconductor Manufacturing

What This Subpart Covers


Sec. 63.7180  What is the purpose of this subpart?

    This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP) for semiconductor manufacturing facilities. 
This subpart also establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and 
continuous compliance with the emission standards.


Sec. 63.7181  Am I subject to this subpart?

    (a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a 
semiconductor manufacturing process unit that is a major source of 
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions or that is located at, or is 
part of, a major source of HAP emissions.
    (b) A major source of HAP emissions is any stationary source or 
group of stationary sources located within a contiguous area and under 
common control that emits or has the potential to emit, considering 
controls, in the aggregate, any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per 
year (tpy) or more or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tpy or 
more.


Sec. 63.7182  What parts of my facility does this subpart cover?

    (a) This subpart applies to each new, reconstructed, or existing 
affected source that you own or operate that manufactures 
semiconductors.
    (b) An affected source subject to this subpart is the collection of 
all semiconductor manufacturing process units used to manufacture p-
type and n-type semiconductors and active solid-state devices from a 
wafer substrate, including research and development activities at a 
semiconductor manufacturing site. A semiconductor manufacturing unit 
includes the equipment assembled and connected by ductwork or hard-
piping, including furnaces and associated unit operations; associated 
wet and dry work benches; associated recovery devices; feed, 
intermediate, and product storage tanks; product transfer racks and 
connected ducts and piping; pumps, compressors, agitators, pressure-
relief devices, sampling connecting systems, open-ended valves or 
lines, valves, connectors, and instrumentation systems; and control 
devices.
    (c) Your affected source is a new affected source if you commence 
construction of the affected source after May 8, 2002, and you meet the 
applicability criteria in Sec. 63.7181 at the time you commence 
construction.
    (d) Your affected source is a reconstructed affected source if you 
meet the criteria for ``reconstruction,'' as defined in Sec. 63.2.
    (e) Your source is an existing affected source if it is not a new 
or reconstructed affected source.


Sec. 63.7183  When do I have to comply with this subpart?

    (a) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source, you must 
comply with this subpart according to paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this 
section.
    (1) If you start up your affected source before [DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], then you must 
comply with the emission standards for new and reconstructed sources in 
this subpart no later than [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN 
THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
    (2) If you start up your affected source after [DATE OF PUBLICATION 
OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], then you must comply with 
the emission standards for new and reconstructed sources in this 
subpart upon startup of your affected source.
    (b) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with 
the emission standards for existing sources no later than 3 years from 
[DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
    (c) If you have an area source that increases its emissions or its 
potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP and an 
affected source subject to this subpart, paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of 
this section apply.
    (1) Any portion of your existing facility that is a new affected 
source as specified at Sec. 63.7182(c), or a reconstructed affected 
source as specified at Sec. 63.1782(d), must be in compliance with this 
subpart upon startup.
    (2) Any portion of your facility that is an existing affected 
source, as specified at Sec. 63.7182(e), must be in compliance with 
this subpart by not later than 3 years after it becomes a major source.
    (d) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec. 63.7189 and 
in subpart A of this part. You must submit some of the notifications 
(e.g., Initial

[[Page 30859]]

Notification) before the date you are required to comply with the 
emission limitations in this subpart.
Emission Standards


Sec. 63.7184  What emission limitations, operating limits, and work 
practice standards must I meet?

    (a) If you have a new, reconstructed, or existing affected source, 
as defined in Sec. 63.7182(b), you must comply with one of the emission 
limitations in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section for each process 
vent that emits HAP. 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 total HAP from the process vent stream 
by 98 percent by weight, corrected to 3 percent oxygen.
    (2) Reduce or maintain the concentration of emitted HAP from the 
process vent to less than or equal to 20 parts per million volume 
(ppmv).
    (b) If you have a new, reconstructed, or existing affected source, 
as defined in Sec. 63.7182(b), you must comply with one of the emission 
limitations in paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section for each storage 
tank (including waste and wastewater storage tanks) 800 gallons or 
larger if the emissions from the storage tank vent contains greater 
than 1 ppmv HAP. These limitations can be met by venting emissions from 
your storage tank through a closed vent system to a halogen scrubber 
meeting the requirements of Secs. 63.983 (closed vent system 
requirements) and 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 total HAP from each storage tank by 99 
percent by weight.
    (2) Reduce or maintain the concentration of emitted HAP from the 
process vent to less than or equal to 1 ppmv.
    (c) If you have a new, reconstructed, or existing affected source, 
as defined at Sec. 63.7182(b), you must comply with the applicable work 
practice standards and operating limits contained in Sec. 63.982(a)(1) 
and (2). The closed vent system inspection requirements of 
Sec. 63.983(c), as referenced by Sec. 63.982(a)(1) and (2), do not 
apply.
Compliance Requirements


Sec. 63.7185  What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?

    (a) You must be in compliance with the requirements of Sec. 63.7184 
at all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction.
    (b) You must always operate and maintain your affected source, 
including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to 
the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i).
    (c) You must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan (SSMP). Your SSMP must be prepared in accordance with 
the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(3).
    (d) You must perform all the items listed in paragraphs (d)(1) 
through (3) of this section:
    (1) Submit the necessary notifications in accordance with 
Sec. 63.7189.
    (2) Submit the necessary reports in accordance with Sec. 63.7190.
    (3) Maintain all necessary records you have used to demonstrate 
compliance with this subpart in accordance with Sec. 63.7191.


Sec. 63.7186  By what date must I conduct performance tests or other 
initial compliance demonstrations?

    For each process vent or storage tank vent emission limitation in 
Sec. 63.7184 for which initial compliance is demonstrated by meeting a 
percent by weight HAP emissions reduction, or a HAP concentration 
limitation, you must conduct performance tests or an initial compliance 
demonstration within 180 days after the compliance date that is 
specified for your source in Sec. 63.7183 and according to the 
provisions in Sec. 63.7(a)(2).


Sec. 63.7187  What performance tests and other compliance procedures 
must I use?

    (a) You must conduct each performance test in Table 1 to this 
subpart that applies to you as specified for process vents in 
Sec. 63.982(a)(2) and storage tanks in Sec. 63.982(a)(1). Performance 
tests must be conducted under maximum operating conditions or HAP 
emissions potential. Section 63.982(a)(1) and (2) only includes methods 
for the measure of total organic regulated material or total organic 
carbon (TOC) concentration. The EPA Method 301 is included in Table 1 
to this subpart in addition to the test methods contained within 
Sec. 63.982(a)(1) and (2). The EPA Method 301 must be used for testing 
regulated material containing inorganic HAP. The EPA Method 320 of 40 
CFR part 63, appendix A, must be used to measure total vapor phase 
organic and inorganic HAP concentrations.
    (b) If, without the use of a control device, your process vent 
stream has a HAP concentration of 20 ppmv or less, or your storage tank 
vent stream has a HAP concentration of 1 ppmv or less, you must 
demonstrate that the vent stream is compliant by engineering 
assessments and calculations or by conducting the applicable 
performance test requirements specified in Table 1 to this subpart. 
Your engineering assessments and calculations, as with performance 
tests (as specified in Sec. 63.982(a)(1) and (2)), must represent your 
maximum operating conditions or HAP emissions potential and must be 
approved by the Administrator. You must demonstrate continuous 
compliance by certifying that your operations will not exceed the 
maximum operating conditions or HAP emissions potential represented by 
your engineering assessments, calculations, or performance test.
    (c) During periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, you must 
operate in accordance with your SSMP.
    (d) For each monitoring system required in this section, you must 
develop and submit for approval a site-specific monitoring plan that 
addresses the following three criteria:
    (i) Installation of the continuous monitoring system (CMS) sampling 
probe or other interface at a measurement location relative to each 
affected process unit such that the measurement is representative of 
control of the exhaust emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the last 
control device);
    (ii) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample 
interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer, 
and the data collection and reduction system; and
    (iii) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria 
(e.g., calibrations).
    (e) In your site-specific monitoring plan, you must also address 
the following three procedural processes:
    (i) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with 
the general requirements of Sec. 63.8(c)(1), (3), (4)(ii), (7), and 
(8);
    (ii) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with 
the general requirements of Sec. 63.8(d); and
    (iii) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance 
with the general requirements of Sec. 63.10(c), (e)(1), and (e)(2)(i).
    (f) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CMS in 
accordance with your site-specific monitoring plan.

[[Page 30860]]

    (g) You must operate and maintain the CMS in continuous operation 
according to the site-specific monitoring plan.


Sec. 63.7188  What are my monitoring installation, operation, and 
maintenance requirements?

    If you comply with the emission limitations of Sec. 63.7184 by 
venting the emissions of your semiconductor process vent through a 
closed vent system to a control device, you must comply with the 
requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
    (a) You must meet the applicable general monitoring, installation, 
operation, and maintenance requirements specified in Sec. 63.996.
    (b) You must meet the monitoring, installation, operation, and 
maintenance requirements specified for closed vent systems and 
applicable control devices in Secs. 63.938 through 63.995.
Applications, Notifications, Reports, and Records


Sec. 63.7189  What applications and notifications must I submit and 
when?

    (a) You must submit all of the applications and notifications in 
Secs. 63.7(b) and (c); 63.8(e), (f)(4) and (f)(6); and 63.9(b) through 
(e), (g) and (h) that apply to you by the dates specified.
    (b) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2), if you start up your affected 
source before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 
REGISTER], you must submit an Initial Notification not later than 120 
calendar days after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 
FEDERAL REGISTER].
    (c) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(3), if you start up your new or 
reconstructed affected source on or after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must submit an Initial 
Notification not later than 120 calendar days after you become subject 
to this subpart.
    (d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you must 
submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test at least 
60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin as 
required in Sec. 63.7(b)(1).
    (e) If you are required to conduct a performance test or other 
initial compliance demonstration, you must submit a Notification of 
Compliance Status according to Sec. 63.9(h)(2)(ii) and according to 
paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) For each initial compliance demonstration that does not include 
a performance test, you must submit the Notification of Compliance 
Status before the close of business on the 30th calendar day following 
the completion of the initial compliance demonstration.
    (2) For each initial compliance demonstration required that 
includes a performance test conducted according to the requirements in 
Table 1 to this subpart, you must submit a notification of the date of 
the performance evaluation at least 60 days prior to the date the 
performance evaluation is scheduled to begin as required in 
Sec. 63.8(e)(2).


Sec. 63.7190  What reports must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit each of the following reports that apply to 
you.
    (1) Periodic compliance reports. You must submit a periodic 
compliance report that contains the information required under 
paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section, and any requirements 
specified to be reported for process vents in Sec. 63.982(a)(2) and 
storage tanks in Sec. 63.982(a)(1).
    (2) Immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction report. You must 
submit an immediate Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Report if you 
had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the reporting period 
that is not consistent with your SSMP. Your report must contain actions 
taken during the event. You must submit this report by fax or telephone 
within 2 working days after starting actions inconsistent with your 
SSMP. You are required to follow up this report with a report 
specifying the information in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii) by letter within 7 
working days after the end of the event unless you have made 
alternative arrangements with your permitting authority.
    (b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for 
submission of reports under Sec. 63.10(a), you must submit each report 
by the date according to paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) The first periodic compliance report must cover the period 
beginning on the compliance date that is specified for your affected 
source in Sec. 63.7183 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever 
date is the first date following the end of the first 12 calendar 
months after the compliance date that is specified for your source in 
Sec. 63.7183.
    (2) The first periodic compliance report must be postmarked or 
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date follows 
the end of the first 12 calendar months after the compliance date that 
is specified for your affected source in Sec. 63.7183.
    (3) Each subsequent periodic compliance report must cover the 
semiannual reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the 
semiannual reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
    (4) Each subsequent periodic compliance report must be postmarked 
or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the 
first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period.
    (5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting 
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or part 71, and if the 
permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual 
reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent periodic 
compliance reports according to the dates the permitting authority has 
established instead of according to the dates in paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (4) of this section.
    (c) The periodic compliance report must contain the information 
specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) Company name and address.
    (2) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name, 
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness 
of the content of the report.
    (3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting 
period.
    (4) If there are no deviations from any emission limitations that 
apply to you, a statement that there were no deviations from the 
emission limitations during the reporting period and that no CMS was 
inoperative, inactive, malfunctioning, out-of-control, repaired, or 
adjusted.
    (5) If you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the 
reporting period and you took actions consistent with your SSMP, your 
periodic compliance report must include the information in 
Sec. 63.10(d)(5) for each startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (d) For each deviation from an emission limitation that occurs at 
an affected source where you are not using a CMS to comply with the 
emission limitations, the periodic compliance report must contain the 
information in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) The total operating time of each affected source during the 
reporting period.
    (2) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations 
(including unknown cause, if applicable, other than downtime associated 
with calibration checks).
    (3) Information on the number, duration, and cause for monitor 
downtime incidents (including

[[Page 30861]]

unknown cause, if applicable, other than downtime associated with 
calibration checks).
    (e) For each deviation from an emission limitation occurring at an 
affected source where you are using a CMS to demonstrate compliance 
with the emission limitation, you must include the information in 
paragraphs (e)(1) through (8) of this section.
    (1) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped, 
and the reason it was inoperative.
    (2) The date and time that each CMS was inoperative, except for 
calibration checks.
    (3) The date and time that each CMS was out-of-control, including 
the information in Sec. 63.8(c)(8).
    (4) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and 
whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, 
or malfunction or during another period, and the cause of the 
deviation.
    (5) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the 
reporting period, and the total duration as a percent of the total 
source operating time during that reporting period.
    (6) A summary of the total duration of CMS downtime during the 
reporting period, and the total duration of CMS downtime as a percent 
of the total source operating time during the reporting period.
    (7) An identification of each HAP that was monitored at the 
affected source.
    (8) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit.


Sec. 63.7191  What records must I keep?

    (a) You must keep the records listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through 
(3) of this section.
    (1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to 
comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any 
Notification of Compliance Status and periodic report of compliance 
that you submitted, according to the requirements in 
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
    (2) The records in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to 
startup, shutdown, and malfunctions.
    (3) Records of performance tests and performance evaluations as 
required in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(viii).
    (b) For each CMS, you must keep the records listed in paragraphs 
(b)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) Records described in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi) through (xi).
    (2) All required measurements needed to demonstrate compliance with 
a relevant standard (e.g., 30-minute averages of CMS data, raw 
performance testing measurements, raw performance evaluation 
measurements).
    (3) All required CMS measurements (including monitoring data 
recorded during unavoidable CMS breakdowns and out-of-control periods).
    (4) Records of the date and time that each deviation started and 
stopped, and whether the deviation occurred during a period of startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction or during another period.
    (5) Records for process vents according to the requirements 
specified in Sec. 63.982(a)(2) and storage tank vents according to the 
requirements specified in Sec. 63.982(a)(1).


Sec. 63.7192  In what form and how long must I keep my records?

    (a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available 
for expeditious review, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1).
    (b) As specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record for 
5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, 
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record.
    (c) You must keep each record on site for at least 2 years after 
the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective 
action, report, or record, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1). You can keep 
the records offsite for the remaining 3 years.
Other Requirements and Information


Sec. 63.7193  What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

    Table 2 of this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions 
in Secs. 63.1 through 63.13 apply to you.


Sec. 63.7194  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), or a delegated authority 
such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA 
Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or tribal 
agency, then that agency has the authority to implement and enforce 
this subpart. You should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find 
out if this subpart is delegated to your State, local, or tribal 
agency.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section 
are retained by the U.S. EPA Administrator and are not transferred to 
the State, local, or tribal agency.
    (c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or 
tribal agencies are as listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this 
section.
    (1) Approval of alternatives to the non-opacity emission 
limitations in Sec. 63.7184 under Sec. 63.6(g).
    (2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under 
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
    (3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f) 
and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
    (4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting 
under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.


Sec. 63.7195  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in 
Secs. 63.2 and 63.981, the General Provisions of this part (40 CFR part 
63, subpart A), and in this section as follows:
    Semiconductor manufacturing means the collection of semiconductor 
manufacturing process units used to manufacture p-type and n-type 
semiconductors or active solid state devices from a wafer substrate, 
including processing from crystal growth through wafer fabrication, and 
testing and assembly. Examples of semiconductor or related solid state 
devices include semiconductor diodes, semiconductor stacks, rectifiers, 
integrated circuits, and transistors.
    Semiconductor manufacturing process unit means the collection of 
equipment used to carry out a discrete operation in the semiconductor 
manufacturing process. These operations include, but are not limited 
to, crystal growing; solvent stations used to prepare and clean 
materials for subsequent processing or for parts cleaning; wet chemical 
stations used for cleaning (other than solvent cleaning); photoresist 
application, developing, and stripping; etching; gaseous operation 
stations used for stripping, cleaning, doping, etching, and layering; 
separation; encapsulation; and testing. Research and development 
operations conducted at a semiconductor manufacturing facility are 
considered to be semiconductor manufacturing process units.

Tables to Subpart BBBBB of Part 63

    As stated in Sec. 63.7187, you must comply with the requirements 
for performance tests in the following table:

[[Page 30862]]



                    Table 1 to Subpart BBBBB of Part 63.--Requirements for Performance Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             According to the
              For * * *                     You must * * *            Using * * *         following requirements
                                                                                                  * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Process or storage tank vent       a. Select sampling       Method 1 or 1A of 40     Sampling sites must be
 streams.                               port's location and      CFR part 60, appendix    located at the inlet
                                        the number of traverse   A.                       (if emission reduction
                                        ports.                                            or destruction
                                                                                          efficiency testing is
                                                                                          required) and outlet
                                                                                          of the control device
                                                                                          and prior to any
                                                                                          releases to the
                                                                                          atmosphere.
                                       b. Determine velocity    Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D,    For HAP reduction
                                        and volumetric flow      2F, or 2G of 40 CFR      efficiency testing
                                        rate.                    part 60, appendix A.     only; not necessary
                                                                                          for determining
                                                                                          compliance with a ppmv
                                                                                          concentration limit.
                                       c. Conduct gas           Method 3, 3A, or 3B of   For flow rate
                                        molecular weight         40 CFR part 60,          determination only.
                                        analysis.                appendix A.
                                       d. Measure moisture      Method 4 of 40 CFR part  For flow rate
                                        content of the stack     60, appendix A.          determination and
                                        gas.                                              correction to dry
                                                                                          basis, if necessary.
(2) Process vent stream..............  a. Measure oxygen        Method 3A or 3B of 40    For correcting HAP
                                        concentration.           CFR part 60, appendix    concentrations
                                                                 A.                       measured from
                                                                                          combustion control
                                                                                          devices to 3 percent
                                                                                          O2.
                                       b. Measure organic and   Method 18, 25, or 25A    To determine compliance
                                        inorganic HAP            of 40 CFR part 60,       with the 98 percent
                                        concentration (two       appendix A.              reduction limit,
                                        method option).                                   conduct simultaneous
                                                                                          sampling at inlet and
                                                                                          outlet of control
                                                                                          device and analyze for
                                                                                          same organic and
                                                                                          inorganic HAP at both
                                                                                          inlet and outlet. If
                                                                                          you use Method 25A to
                                                                                          determine the TOC
                                                                                          concentration for
                                                                                          compliance with the 20
                                                                                          ppmv emission
                                                                                          limitation, the
                                                                                          instrument must be
                                                                                          calibrated on methane
                                                                                          or the predominant
                                                                                          HAP. If you calibrate
                                                                                          on the predominant
                                                                                          HAP, you must comply
                                                                                          with each of the
                                                                                          following:
                                                                                          The organic
                                                                                          HAP used as the
                                                                                          calibration gas must
                                                                                          be the single organic
                                                                                          HAP representing the
                                                                                          largest percent of
                                                                                          emissions by volume.
                                                                                          The results
                                                                                          are acceptable if the
                                                                                          response from the high
                                                                                          level calibration.
                                       c. Measure organic and   Method 320 of 40 CFR     To determine compliance
                                        inorganic HAP            part 63, appendix A.     with 98 percent
                                        simultaneously (``one                             reduction limit,
                                        method'' option).                                 conduct simultaneous
                                                                                          sampling at inlet and
                                                                                          outlet of control
                                                                                          device and analyze for
                                                                                          same organic and
                                                                                          inorganic HAP at both
                                                                                          inlet and outlet.
(3) Storage tank vent stream.........  Measure inorganic HAP    Method 301 of 40 CFR     To determine compliance
                                        concentration.           part 63, appendix A.     with 99 percent
                                                                                          reduction limit,
                                                                                          conduct simultaneous
                                                                                          sampling at inlet and
                                                                                          outlet of control
                                                                                          device and analyze for
                                                                                          same inorganic HAP at
                                                                                          both inlet and outlet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in Sec. 63.7193, you must comply with the applicable 
General Provisions requirements according to the following table:

     Table 2 to Subpart BBBBB of Part 63.--Applicability of General
                       Provisions to Subpart BBBBB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Applicable to Subpart
           Citation                  Subject               BBBBB?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.1....................  Applicability....  Yes.
Sec.  63.2....................  Definitions......  Yes.
Sec.  63.3....................  Units and          Yes.
                                 Abbreviations.
Sec.  63.4....................  Prohibited         Yes.
                                 Activities and
                                 Circumvention.
Sec.  63.5....................  Construction and   Yes.
                                 Reconstruction.
Sec.  63.6....................  Compliance With    Yes.
                                 Standards and
                                 Maintenance.
Sec.  63.7....................  Performance        Yes, with the
                                 Testing            exception of Sec.
                                 Requirements.      63.7(e)(1). The
                                                    requirements of Sec.
                                                     63.7(e)(1) do not
                                                    apply. Performance
                                                    testing requirements
                                                    that apply are
                                                    specified in this
                                                    subpart and in Sec.
                                                    63.982(a)(1) and
                                                    (2).
Sec.  63.8....................  Monitoring         Monitoring
                                 Requirements.      requirements are
                                                    specified in this
                                                    subpart and in Sec.
                                                    63.982(a)(1) and
                                                    (2). The closed vent
                                                    system inspection
                                                    requirements of Sec.
                                                     63.983(c), as
                                                    referenced by Sec.
                                                    63.982(a)(1) and
                                                    (2), do not apply.
Sec.  63.9....................  Notification       Yes.
                                 Requirements.

[[Page 30863]]

 
Sec.  63.10...................  Recordkeeping and  Yes, with the
                                 Reporting          exception of Sec.
                                 Requirements.      63.10(e). The
                                                    requirements of Sec.
                                                     63.10(e) do not
                                                    apply. In addition,
                                                    the recordkeeping
                                                    and reporting
                                                    requirements
                                                    specified in this
                                                    subpart apply.
Sec.  63.11...................  Flares...........  Yes.
Sec.  63.12...................  Delegation.......  Yes.
Sec.  63.13...................  Addresses........  Yes.
Sec.  63.14...................  Incorporation by   Yes.
                                 Reference.
Sec.  63.15...................  Availability of    Yes.
                                 Information.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 02-11298 Filed 5-7-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P