[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 99 (Thursday, May 22, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27913-27931]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-5519]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[OAR-2002-0086, FRL-7461-3]
RIN 2060-AG93


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Semiconductor Manufacturing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for 
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing semiconductor 
manufacturing operations located at major sources of emissions of 
hazardous air pollutants (HAP). The final standards implement section 
112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), which requires the Administrator to 
regulate emissions of HAP listed in section 112(b) of the CAA. The 
intent of the standards is to protect public health and the environment 
by requiring new and existing major sources to control emissions to the 
level attainable by implementing the maximum achievable control 
technology (MACT). The primary HAP that will be controlled with this 
action include hydrochloric acid (HCl), hydrogen flouride (HF), 
methanol, glycol ethers, and xylene. Exposure to these substances has 
been demonstrated to cause adverse health effects such as irritation of 
the lung, eye, and mucous membranes; effects on the central nervous 
system; liver and kidney damage; and, possibly cancer. We do not have 
the type of current detailed data on each of the facilities and the 
people living around the facilities covered by today's final rule for 
this source category that would be necessary to conduct an analysis to 
determine the actual population exposures to the HAP emitted from these 
facilities and the potential for resultant health effects. Therefore, 
we do not know the extent to which the adverse health effects described 
above occur in the populations surrounding these facilities. However, 
to the extent the adverse effects do occur, and today's final rule 
reduces emissions, subsequent exposures will be reduced.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Docket No. A-97-15 and E-Docket No. OAR-2002-0086 contain 
supporting information used in developing the standards for the 
semiconductor manufacturing source category. The docket is located at 
EPA Docket Center (Air Docket), U.S. EPA, 1301 Constitution Avenue, 
NW., Room B108, Mail Code: 6102T, Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John Schaefer, U.S. EPA, Office of 
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Emission Standards Division (C504-
05), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-0296, 
electronic mail (e-mail) address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Docket. The docket is an organized and 
complete file of all the information considered by the EPA in the 
development of the rule. The docket is a dynamic file because material 
is added throughout the rule development 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 rule development 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 CAA.) The regulatory text and other 
materials related to the final rule are available for review in the 
docket or copies may be mailed on request from the Air and Radiation 
Docket and Information Center by calling (202) 566-1742. A reasonable 
fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
    Electronic Docket Access. You may access the final rule 
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register'' 
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the 
public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and 
comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to view public comments, access the index listing 
of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those 
documents in the public docket that are available electronically. 
Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you 
may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through 
the docket facility in the above paragraph entitled ``Docket.'' Once in 
the system, select ``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket 
identification number.
    World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of the final rule will also be available on the WWW 
through the EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following 
signature by the EPA Administrator, a copy of the final rule will be 
posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or 
promulgated rules at 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 those listed on the following table. This table 
is not intended to be exhaustive, but is just a guide to entities 
likely to be regulated by these standards. It lists the types of 
entities that may be regulated, but you

[[Page 27914]]

should examine the applicability criteria in Sec. Sec.  63.7181 and 
63.7182 of the final rule to decide whether your facility is regulated 
by the standards. If you have any questions about whether your facility 
is subject to the standards, call the person listed in the preceding 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

     Categories and Entities Potentially Regulated by the Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             NAICS     SIC       Examples of regulated
         Category             code     code            entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial................   334413     3674  Semiconductor crystal
                                               growing facilities,
                                               semiconductor wafer
                                               fabrication facilities,
                                               semiconductor test and
                                               assembly facilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Judicial Review. Under section 307(b) of the CAA, judicial review 
of the final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in 
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
by July 21, 2003. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an 
objection to the rule which was raised with reasonable specificity 
during the period for public comment can be raised during judicial 
review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements 
established by this final action may not be challenged separately in 
any civil or criminal proceeding we bring to enforce these 
requirements.
    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 Do We Use in the Development of NESHAP?
II. What Changes and Clarifications Have We Made for the Final 
Standards?
    A. MACT Floors and Emission Limits
    B. Compliance Options and Procedures
III. Response to Comments on the Proposed NESHAP for Semiconductor 
Manufacturing
IV. What Are the Final Standards?
    A. What Is the Source Category?
    B. What Is the Affected Source?
    C. What Are the Emission Standards?
V. When Must I Comply With the Final Rule?
VI. What Are the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements?
    A. Test Methods and Procedures
    B. Monitoring Requirements
VII. What Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements 
Must I Follow?
VIII. What Are the Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts of 
the Final Rule?
    A. What Are the Secondary and Energy Impacts?
    B. What Are the Cost Impacts?
    C. What Are the Economic Impacts?
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health & Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Congressional Review 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. On July 16, 
1992, major source categories covered by the NESHAP were listed under 
the Semiconductor Manufacturing industry group (57 FR 31576). Major 
sources of HAP are those that have the potential to emit considering 
controls, in the aggregate, 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of any HAP 
or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP.

B. What Criteria Do We Use in the Development of NESHAP?

    Section 112 of the CAA requires that we 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. 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 the standard is set at a level that assures that all 
major sources achieve the level of control at least as stringent as 
that already achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting 
sources in each source category or subcategory. For new sources, the 
MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is 
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT 
standards for existing sources can be less stringent than the 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 in the category or subcategory (or the best performing 
five sources for categories 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 based on consideration of the cost of achieving the 
emission reductions, any health and environmental impacts, and energy 
requirements.

II. What Changes and Clarifications Have We Made for the Final 
Standards?

    In response to public comments received on the proposed standards, 
we made several changes in developing the final rule. Some of the 
changes had a direct effect on the MACT floors and emission limits, 
while other changes clarified the substantive requirements for the 
final rule. A more comprehensive summary of comments and responses can 
be found in Docket No. A-97-15 and E-Docket No. OAR-2002-0086.

A. MACT Floors and Emission Limits

    Process vents. When we developed the original MACT floors for 
process vents, we first determined the control efficiency, expressed as 
percent emission reduction, for each process vent for which we had 
inlet and outlet HAP concentration data. We then ranked the process 
vents based on the control efficiency achieved. Based on the best 
performing five process vents, we determined that thermal oxidation was 
used for emission control on four of them. Consequently, we selected 
thermal oxidation as the MACT floor. For the emission limit, we chose 
98 percent control as representative of the level of control typically 
achieved by thermal oxidizers in practice. We decided not to base the 
emission limit on the reported performance of the thermal oxidizers 
because, in all cases, the inlet streams were high volume with low 
concentration of HAP. Under those conditions, measurements of the 
actual performance of a thermal oxidizer can be unreliable. As such, we 
believe

[[Page 27915]]

choosing 98 percent control efficiency is more representative of what 
the thermal oxidizers can consistently achieve in practice.
    One commenter objected to this procedure, stating that the CAA 
directs us to consider only the actual performance of the sources used 
to establish the MACT floor. The commenter believed that we should 
revise the MACT floor and emission limits based on the reported 
performance of the five best performing sources. While we agree that 
the CAA directs us to base the MACT floors on actual performance, we 
believe that the test data do not accurately represent actual 
performance because of the high-volume, low-concentration nature of the 
emission streams.
    In response to this comment, we decided to reevaluate the process 
vent MACT floor by considering organic and inorganic streams 
separately, as suggested by another commenter. By doing so, we can more 
accurately assess the performance of the different control devices used 
for these two types of emission streams.
    Organic emission streams are almost always controlled by some type 
of thermal oxidation. As discussed above, measurements of thermal 
oxidizer performance can be unreliable for high-volume, low-
concentration streams. Thus, we continue to believe that the test data 
for organic HAP emission control we obtained for thermal oxidizers 
controlling semiconductor manufacturing process vents may not 
accurately portray actual performance. Thus, our original selection of 
a known achievable emission reduction percentage, as used for MACT in 
rules such as the Hazardous Organic NESHAP or HON (57 FR 19402), better 
represents actual performance as directed by the CAA. For the final 
rule, we retained 98 percent control as the emission limit for organic 
emission streams from process vents. We also retained the alternative 
emission limit of 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv) for organic 
emission streams.
    For inorganic emissions from process vents, all the data we 
obtained showed that scrubbers were used to control those emissions. 
Unlike thermal oxidizers, scrubbers experience less erratic performance 
characteristics with high-volume, low-concentration emission streams. 
Accordingly, we were able to use the actual performance data to 
establish the MACT floor for the control of inorganic emissions from 
process vents. Again, using the top five best performing process vents, 
we established the MACT floor as 95 percent control. Based on the 
actual outlet emissions of those five process vents, we established the 
alternative emission limit as 0.42 ppmv.
    Storage tanks. We received comments on whether all of the tanks we 
included in the MACT floor analysis were the type of tank we intended 
to regulate through the rulemaking. The comments provided additional 
clarifying information on a number of the tanks we used to develop the 
MACT floor. Specifically, the comments questioned whether storage tanks 
for wastewater with very low concentration of HAP, waste storage tanks 
already covered under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
(RCRA), and wastewater treatment tanks should have been included in the 
MACT floor analysis.
    With the exception of wastewater treatment tanks, it was our intent 
to include all of these types of tanks in the affected source. However, 
based on the additional information provided by the industry, we have 
concluded that it was not appropriate to develop one MACT floor for all 
types of tanks due to the wide range of emissions from the each type of 
tank. Therefore, we developed separate MACT floors for chemical storage 
tanks (including waste storage tanks regulated under RCRA) and 
wastewater storage tanks.
    We found that the level of control, based on the top five best 
performing sources in each data set, is the same for each type of tank. 
The level of control is to reduce emissions through the use of a 
scrubber and is identical to the level of control used to establish the 
MACT floor that was the basis of the emission limits in the proposed 
rule. However, based on other comments we received, we have decided not 
to use the same MACT floor procedure for the final rule.
    Since the semiconductor industry storage tank emission streams will 
have similar characteristics to those of process vents (i.e., low 
pollutant concentration), rather than hydrochloric acid production 
industry storage tanks, we now believe the most representative similar 
sources for evaluating the MACT floor for storage tanks are the 
semiconductor industry process vents. Therefore, in response to the 
comments concerning our use of hydrochloric acid production industry 
storage tanks as the most representative similar source, we are 
adopting the process vent inorganic HAP emission limits for all storage 
tanks required to control emissions in the final rule.
    The comments we received clarified that the reported wastewater 
treatment tanks were not actually storage tanks but flow-through tanks 
used for certain continuous treatment processes such as pH adjustment. 
The tank volume merely allows for a buffer so that the treatment can be 
adequately carried out. All of the flow-through tanks in the data 
supplied by the industry are controlled by scrubbers. However, the 
industry also provided information that the purpose of all of these 
scrubbers was primarily to control ammonia odors. We do not believe 
that requiring scrubbers on flow-through tanks would result in 
significant reductions of HAP emissions, nor was it our intent in the 
proposed rule to regulate such tanks. Therefore, the definition of 
storage tank that we added to the final rule clarifies that flow-
through tanks are not considered storage tanks for the purposes of the 
final rule.
    We made an additional change for the final rule based on our 
revised storage tank MACT floor analysis. Because we eliminated several 
tanks from the data set used in the MACT floor analysis, the cutoff for 
the smallest size tank for which the final rule applies increased from 
800 gallons to 1,500 gallons. We also revised our analysis of 
alternatives more stringent than the MACT floor to reflect the 
increased tank size. We found that the cost per ton of additional 
emission reduction (approximately $300,000/ton) is still too great to 
warrant a more stringent level of control. We have also included a 
definition for ``storage tank'' to 40 CFR 63.7195 to clarify which 
tanks we intended to be subject to the final rule.

B. Compliance Options and Procedures

    As part of our reevaluation of the MACT floors for process vents as 
described above, we also considered other compliance options to reflect 
our position on the performance of control devices. While we believe 
the performance of scrubbers controlling high-volume, low-concentration 
emission streams can be measured, we also recognize that control 
efficiency cannot always be reliably predicted for such streams. Also, 
facilities may choose to use a control device other than a scrubber 
which may be more difficult to measure performance. For these 
situations, we have included a compliance option to the final rule (see 
40 CFR 63.7187(i)) that allows a source to perform a design evaluation 
of the add-on control device. If the inlet concentration of inorganic 
HAP is less than or equal to 20 ppmv, then the facility may choose to 
perform a design evaluation of the control device that demonstrates the 
device is capable of achieving the required control efficiency.
    We chose 20 ppmv as the cutoff for allowing a design evaluation 
because the data we obtained showed erratic

[[Page 27916]]

performance measurement values below this level. The test results show 
control device performance decreasing as the inlet concentration 
decreases. However, the last entry shows that even at very low inlet 
concentrations, control device performance can sometimes be high. These 
data show the difficulty of measuring control device performance with 
high-volume, low-concentration inlet streams, and why we believe a 
design evaluation procedure is necessary. In the final rule, we have 
adopted the design evaluation procedure alternative from the 
Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG).
    During our review of the proposed rule, we realized that we 
inadvertently omitted Method 26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, for 
analysis of emission streams for inorganic HAP. The final rule includes 
this test method.

III. Response to Comments on the Proposed NESHAP for Semiconductor 
Manufacturing

    Comment: One commenter requested that EPA consider providing 
exemptions that would exclude insignificant sources from regulation. 
The commenter argued that the administrative burdens associated with 
the proposed rule are unwarranted for such sources. The commenter 
further argued that if additional add-on control devices would be 
required, it would result in insignificant HAP reductions. Another 
commenter suggested that storage tanks are insignificant HAP emission 
sources and should be excluded from the final rule.
    Response: While we understand the commenters' concern with the 
burden imposed by regulation of sources with low annual emissions, the 
CAA does not provide a mechanism by which we can exempt such emission 
sources from the affected source solely on the basis of emissions. 
Additionally, some facilities in the semiconductor industry are 
characterized by multiple point sources of emissions, many of which 
have low annual emissions. If we exempted all such sources, there is a 
possibility that a large portion of the emissions from the facility 
could escape regulation. For these reasons, we are not exempting 
sources with low HAP emissions from the final rule.
    Comment: One commenter contended that EPA's exemption of sources 
during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction is a violation of 
the requirement for continuous compliance. The commenter argued that 
EPA may only allow unavoidable deviations from emissions standards and 
must require that sources use best air pollution control practices 
during those periods.
    Response: We disagree with the commenter's interpretation of the 
proposed rule. The General Provisions at 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) require 
that sources must at all times, including periods of startup, shutdown, 
and malfunction, maintain the affected source in a manner such that 
emissions are minimized to the level required by the relevant standard. 
That section further clarifies that this means to ``meet the emission 
standards or comply with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.'' 
The purpose of the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP), as 
described in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3)(i)(A), is to:

[e]nsure that, at all times, the owner or operator operate and 
maintain affected sources, including associated air pollution 
control and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety 
and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions to 
at least the levels required by the relevant standards.

    A properly written SSMP does not allow the source to emit at 
whatever levels they want merely because they comply with what they 
have written in the SSMP. Under the SSMP, the source must detail the 
procedures that will be used to maintain emissions within the limits 
set by the rule during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. 
In this case, the SSMP is analogous to parameter monitoring for 
evaluating continuous compliance of add-on control devices. Just as 
maintaining the temperature of a thermal oxidizer at the proper 
operating temperature as determined during the initial compliance 
demonstration is deemed to be compliance with the emission limits, 
following the SSMP is deemed to be compliance with emission limits 
during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    Comment: One commenter was concerned with the burden of compliance 
as proposed at facilities that are classified as major sources of HAP 
due to processes other than semiconductor manufacturing and that only 
conduct minimal production of semiconductors for research and 
development purposes. The commenter requested that EPA add a de minimis 
threshold for rule applicability.
    Response: Through our data gathering efforts, we found that 
research and development activities are often integrated into the 
production activities at semiconductor manufacturing facilities. Such 
research and development activities are often used in actual production 
because the technology upon which the manufacturing process is based 
undergoes substantial change every few years. This extremely short 
technology life cycle results in constant research and development 
efforts geared toward developing and implementing new manufacturing 
technologies. The continual research and development efforts result in 
an ongoing integration of new technologies into mainstream production 
operations. New manufacturing operations are typically not developed 
apart from existing manufacturing operations, but rather side-by-side 
with them. The new operations are gradually integrated into mainstream 
production. As such, the majority of research and development work is 
done in a manner nearly indistinguishable from the existing 
manufacturing process.
    Given the manner in which research and development activities are 
integrated into production, there is no bright line distinction between 
research and development and production. They are located in the same 
clean rooms and, more importantly, share the same exhaust plenums and 
emission control devices. For these reasons, the research and 
development activities are considered part of the production process 
and are within the affected source.
    We note, however, that the research and development operations have 
to be located at a semiconductor manufacturing facility to be 
considered a semiconductor manufacturing process unit. Therefore, 
research and development activities that are not used to produce 
semiconductors for commerce, or produce them only for captive use, 
would not be semiconductor manufacturing process units and would not be 
subject to the final rule. Nor would research and development 
operations that are stand alone activities (that is, not integrated 
into the production process) be subject to the final rule. We modified 
40 CFR 63.7182(b) of the final rule to clarify this point.
    Comment: One commenter argued that EPA must regulate all major 
sources and believed the proposed rule fails to do this because it does 
not apply to sources that installed add-on control devices after the 
facility was designed and commenced operation. The commenter 
interpreted the court's ruling in Alabama Power (Alabama Power Co. v. 
U.S. EPA, 636 F.2d 323 (DC Cir. 1979)) as specifying that controls must 
be incorporated into the original design of the facility in order to be 
considered when calculating the facility's potential to emit.

[[Page 27917]]

    Response: We believe the commenter incorrectly interpreted the 
court's decision in Alabama Power. That case addressed, in part, the 
interpretation of ``potential to emit'' in the definition of major 
source in the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) regulations 
(also part of the CAA, but unrelated to hazardous air pollutant 
regulations). The court found that EPA ``must look to the facility's 
`design capacity' a concept which not only includes a facility's 
maximum productive capacity * * * but also takes into account the 
anticipated functioning of the air pollution control equipment designed 
into the facility.'' (Alabama Power, 636 F.2d at 353). The commenter 
has interpreted this statement to mean that only controls that were 
part of the original design of the facility can be taken into account 
when calculating potential to emit. Nowhere does the court state or 
even imply such a result in its decision. The commenter failed to take 
into account that the PSD regulations define a preconstruction 
permitting process. Because the air emission sources under 
consideration in the PSD process have yet to be constructed, the 
permitting process must necessarily deal with only designs of future 
air emission sources. We believe the court's language reflects only 
this aspect of the PSD review process, not the interpretation given by 
the commenter.
    The NESHAP program, on the other hand, is concerned with air 
emission sources already in existence, as well as new sources. If we 
were to apply the wording of Alabama Power to the NESHAP program, our 
interpretation would be that the phrase ``designed into the facility'' 
means any air emission control equipment in use at the facility at the 
time a major source determination must be made, not the interpretation 
given by the commenter. This is reflected in our memorandum \1\ on the 
interim policy on federal enforceability of limitations on potential to 
emit. In this memorandum, we stated:

    \1\ ``Release of Interim Policy on Federal Enforceability of 
Limitations on Potential to Emit'' (January 22, 1996) (available at 
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t5/memoranda/pte122.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[T]he EPA regulations provide that ``controls'' (i.e., both 
pollution control equipment and operational restrictions) that limit 
a source's maximum capacity to emit a pollutant may be considered in 
determining its potential to emit. Historically, large numbers of 
new or modified sources that otherwise would be subject to PSD and 
NSR permitting requirements have limited their PTE in order to 
obtain ``synthetic minor'' status and thereby avoid major source 
requirements. With the advent of operating permit programs under 
Title V and the MACT program under section 112, many sources that 
otherwise would be subject to these new requirements under the Clean 
Air Act Amendments of 1990 also have obtained, or plan to obtain, 
PTE limits to avoid coverage.

    The phrase ``have obtained, or plan to obtain'' implies that these 
sources will be adding controls to limit emissions. Since these 
controls would be added to an existing facility, they could not have 
been designed into the facility before it was ever constructed. Thus, 
the commenter's interpretation is incorrect, and we have made no 
changes for the final rule in response to this comment.
    Comment: One commenter requested that a definition for ``process 
vent'' be added to the final rule. Additionally, the commenter further 
argued that if EPA cannot exclude research and development vents from 
the definition of process vents, then the final rule must provide an 
exemption for research and development activities consistent with 
section 112(c)(7) of the CAA.
    A second commenter was also concerned with the absence of a 
definition for process vent. The commenter pointed out that the absence 
of a definition results in ambiguity regarding compliance obligations. 
The commenter also suggested that a process vent definition would allow 
EPA to exclude categories of emission points with negligible emissions 
potential.
    Response: We agree that a definition of ``process vent'' would be 
beneficial in determining which emission points at a semiconductor 
manufacturing facility are subject to the emission limitations in 40 
CFR 63.7184 of the final rule. Because the affected source is defined 
in terms of semiconductor manufacturing process units (see 40 CFR 
63.7182), the process vents subject to regulation necessarily must 
originate from these process units. Therefore, we have included the 
following definition to 40 CFR 63.7195: Process vent means the point at 
which HAP emissions are released to the atmosphere from a semiconductor 
manufacturing process unit or storage tank by means of a stack, 
chimney, vent, or other functionally equivalent opening. The HAP 
emission points originating from wastewater treatment equipment, other 
than storage tanks, are not considered to be a process vent, unless the 
wastewater treatment equipment emission points are connected to a 
common vent or exhaust plenum with other process vents.
    We do not believe any of the other process vent exemptions 
requested by these commenters are appropriate. Research and development 
operations are considered to be part of the overall semiconductor 
manufacturing process unless they are stand alone operations. We 
believe that relief valve discharge points, process analyzers, and 
conservation vents can be adequately connected to process vent exhaust 
ducts, if this is not already the case. Emergency electrical generators 
are not included in the definition of semiconductor manufacturing 
process unit, so there is no need to exclude them from the definition 
of process vent.
    Comment: One commenter was concerned about the broad definition of 
``control device'' in 40 CFR 63.981(a). According to the commenter, 
this paragraph could be interpreted to mean that certain devices that 
are part of the process (not an add-on control device) would be subject 
to the rule.
    Response: We agree that there are certain devices used by the 
semiconductor industry that could be construed as control devices but 
are in fact an inherent part of the process, and that clarification is 
necessary in the final rule. In response, we have included the 
following definition to 40 CFR 63.7195: Control device means a 
combustion device, recovery device, recapture device, or any 
combination of these devices used for the primary purpose of reducing 
emissions to comply with this subpart. Devices that are inherent to a 
process or are integral to the operation of a process are not 
considered control devices for the purposes of this subpart, even 
though these devices may have the secondary effect of reducing 
emissions.
    Comment: One commenter objected to the EPA's approach of using area 
source information to establish the MACT floor as being inconsistent 
with section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. The commenter believed that area 
sources are not part of the semiconductor manufacturing category for 
major sources and should not be relied on for establishing the MACT 
floor.
    Response: Section 112(a)(1) of the CAA defines major source as 
``any stationary source or group of stationary sources * * * that emits 
or has the potential to emit considering controls, in the aggregate, 10 
tpy or more of any hazardous air pollutant or 25 tpy or more of any 
combination of hazardous air pollutants.'' An area source is then 
defined in section 112(a)(2) as any stationary source that is not a 
major source. The facilities which we used to establish the MACT floor 
were ``synthetic minor'' sources, meaning that they reduced their 
potential to emit below the major source threshold (here, through the 
use of add-on control devices and material substitution). Without these 
controls, these facilities

[[Page 27918]]

would have the potential to emit at major source levels.
    We disagree that the MACT floors must be based solely on major 
sources of HAP emissions. Section 112(d)(1) of the CAA directs us to 
promulgate rules for categories of major and area sources of HAP 
emissions. Then, section 112(d)(2) mandates that these standards 
``shall require the maximum degree of reduction in emissions * * * 
achievable for new or existing sources.'' Section 112(d)(3) specifies 
how we are to determine the maximum degree of emission reduction and 
describes it as ``not less stringent than the emission control that is 
achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source'' for new 
sources, and for existing sources describes it as ``the average 
emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of the 
existing sources * * *'' Even though Congress saw fit to distinguish 
between major and area sources in many other places in section 112 of 
the CAA, they specifically did not require that the floor be based on 
major sources. Throughout section 112(d), Congress simply used the term 
``source.'' We interpret this to mean that Congress left it to our 
discretion to determine the most appropriate sources on which to base 
the MACT floors. Accordingly, for the proposed rule we used both major 
sources and synthetic minor sources as the basis of the MACT floors. We 
believe our interpretation of section 112(d) of the CAA is correct, and 
no changes were made for the final rule as a result of these comments.
    Comment: One commenter contended that EPA may not set floors for 
process vents based on the technology of thermal oxidizers, but must 
identify the best performing process vents, determine their actual 
performance, and calculate floors based on the average of that 
performance. Another commenter questioned the validity of establishing 
a single concentration for total HAP emissions from process vents and 
requested that different control and concentration limits be set for 
the organic HAP and inorganic HAP emissions.
    Response: After reviewing the procedure we used to establish the 
MACT floors in light of these comments, we agree that we should first 
establish a MACT floor for both organic and inorganic HAP emissions 
from process vents (other than storage tanks) and then evaluate the 
appropriate emission limits for each. Based on a revised analysis, we 
calculated the MACT floor for organic process vents to be 98 percent 
control, or an organic HAP emission limit of 20 ppmv, which were the 
emission limits in the proposed rule. For inorganic HAP, we calculated 
the MACT floor to be 95 percent control or an inorganic emission limit 
of 0.42 ppmv. We have written 40 CFR 63.7184 of the final rule to 
reflect these revised MACT floors.
    Comment: One commenter had several concerns with the approach used 
to establish the MACT floor for storage tanks. The commenter believed 
that area source semiconductor manufacturing facilities and HCl 
production sources are not part of the major source semiconductor 
manufacturing category and should not have been relied on to set the 
storage tank MACT floor. Two commenters requested that any storage tank 
limits should be limited specifically to tanks storing HCl or 
hydrofluoric acid (HF).
    Another commenter argued that EPA improperly based floors for 
storage tanks over 800 gallons on the performance of scrubbers. The 
commenter stated that EPA must identify the relevant best performing 
storage tanks, determine their actual performance, and recalculate 
floors for storage tanks over 800 gallons based on the average of that 
performance. The commenter also contended that EPA must conduct beyond-
the-floor analysis for storage tanks under 800 gallons to determine the 
maximum degree of emissions reductions achievable.
    One commenter argued that any final rule should exclude hazardous 
waste storage tanks and vessels storing wastewater. The commenter 
contended that EPA has not made the required MACT finding for hazardous 
waste storage tanks and vessels storing wastewater. The commenter 
further argued that hazardous waste storage vessels and vessels storing 
wastewater have low HAP concentrations and do not warrant regulation 
beyond RCRA requirements.
    Response: We agree that the procedure outlined by these commenters 
is the best procedure for determining the MACT floors, assuming that 
the appropriate data are available. In the case of storage tanks, we 
had no such data. The only data the industry could provide to us were 
the size of the tank, contents of the tank, and whether emissions from 
the tank were controlled. No performance data were available for the 
tank emission controls used by the semiconductor industry. For these 
reasons, we used data on the performance of the most representative 
similar source for which data were available, which were for scrubbers 
on HCl storage tanks obtained from the HCl manufacturing industry. 
Based on these comments, we now believe it is more appropriate to 
develop separate MACT floors for the different types of storage tanks 
in the semiconductor industry, and that it was inappropriate to use 
storage tanks from the HCl production industry as the most 
representative similar source.
    It was always our intent to include all storage and wastewater 
tanks containing HAP in the affected source. However, based on the 
additional information provided by the industry, we have concluded that 
it was not appropriate to develop one MACT floor for all types of tanks 
due to the wide range of emissions from the each type of tank. While we 
cannot exempt an emission source solely due to the low annual emissions 
from that source, we thought that the MACT floor level of control could 
be influenced by the level of emissions from each type of tank and the 
existing regulations (i.e., RCRA) to which some tanks may be subject. 
Therefore, we developed separate MACT floors for chemical storage tanks 
(including waste storage tanks regulated under RCRA), wastewater 
storage tanks, and wastewater treatment tanks.
    We found that the MACT floor level of control for both chemical 
storage tanks and wastewater storage tanks, based on the top five best 
performing sources in each data set, is the same for each type of tank. 
The level of control is to reduce emissions through the use of a 
scrubber and is identical to the level of control used to establish the 
emission limits as proposed. However, based on other comments we 
received, we decided not to use the same procedure to establish the 
emission limits for the final rule. For wastewater treatment tanks, we 
determined the MACT floor level of control to be no emissions 
reduction.
    The data set we used to establish the original MACT floor for 
storage tank emissions included the type of control (e.g., scrubbers), 
but no information on the performance of the control devices or 
pollutant concentration in the outlet streams. In order to establish 
emission limits, we previously relied on the performance of controls 
used by the HCl production industry on HCl storage tanks. We used these 
data because the majority of tanks reported by the semiconductor 
industry contained HCl as well. We considered the HCl production 
industry data to be the most representative similar source for which we 
had data.
    The comments we received questioned whether these storage tanks 
were representative, similar sources. In response to these comments, we 
further investigated the similarities and differences of the 
semiconductor manufacturing industry storage tanks

[[Page 27919]]

and the HCl production industry tanks. We first determined that there 
is a large size differential between the tanks used by the 
semiconductor industry and those used by the HCl production industry. 
The largest reported semiconductor industry storage tank was 16,000 
gallons, and most were less than 10,000 gallons. In contrast, most of 
the storage tanks reported by the HCl production industry ranged from 
200,000 gallons to over 2 million gallons. We then determined that the 
HCl stored by the semiconductor industry was often diluted, while the 
HCl production industry almost exclusively stored concentrated HCl. 
Based on the larger tank size and the higher concentration of material 
stored, the emission streams from the HCl production industry storage 
tanks will have a considerably higher pollutant concentration than from 
the semiconductor industry storage tanks. We believe this is a more 
important consideration when establishing emission limits than simply 
looking at the similarity of the material stored. Thus, we expect that 
the emissions streams from the semiconductor manufacturing industry 
storage tanks will have a very low concentration of pollutants.
    Since the semiconductor industry storage tank emission streams will 
have similar characteristics to those of process vents (i.e., low 
pollutant concentration), we now believe the most representative 
similar sources for evaluating the MACT floor for storage tanks are the 
semiconductor industry process vents. Therefore, in response to the 
comments concerning our use of HCl production industry storage tanks as 
the most representative similar source, we are adopting the process 
vent inorganic HAP emission limits for storage tanks in the final rule.
    We also agree that we should have given further consideration to 
controls more stringent than the MACT floor for storage tanks less than 
800 gallons (now 1,500 gallons in the final rule as discussed below) 
and wastewater treatment tanks. The MACT floor for both of these types 
of tanks was determined to be no control. However, controls more 
stringent than the MACT floor (i.e., scrubbers) are technically 
feasible as demonstrated by the data provided by the industry on tanks 
greater than 1,500 gallons.
    In order to include emission limits more stringent than the MACT 
floor level of control in the final rule, they must be feasible on both 
a technical and cost basis. Technical feasibility is assumed based on 
similar control on larger tanks as reported by the industry. To 
evaluate cost feasibility, we estimated the HAP emissions from a 1,500 
gallon tank containing concentrated HCl, assuming one complete turnover 
per day. These parameters will result in the maximum amount of HAP 
emissions from the tank that we would expect for the semiconductor 
manufacturing industry. We then estimated the cost of a scrubber to 
control these emissions by 99 percent. Finally, we calculated the cost 
per ton of additional HAP emission reduction achieved above the MACT 
floor level of control, which was more than $285,000 per ton. Based on 
this result, we considered this level of control to be infeasible on a 
cost basis and did not require emission control more stringent than the 
MACT floor for storage tanks less than 1,500 gallons or wastewater 
treatment tanks in the final rule.
    We made an additional change for the final rule based on our 
revised storage tank MACT floor analysis. Because we eliminated several 
tanks from the data set used in the MACT floor analysis, the cutoff for 
the smallest size tank for which the final rule applies increased from 
800 gallons to 1,500 gallons.
    While the storage tanks that were used to establish the MACT floor 
level of control stored either HCl or HF, we believe this level of 
control is applicable to any material stored by a semiconductor 
manufacturing facility. Therefore, we do not believe that the emission 
limits must necessarily be limited to these two chemicals, as suggested 
by one of the commenters.
    In our final analysis, we determined that the level of control 
already existing on waste storage tanks regulated under RCRA is 
equivalent to the storage tank MACT floor level of control. We also 
determined that the MACT floor for wastewater treatment tanks was no 
emissions reduction. Accordingly, we excluded both types of tanks from 
any requirements in the final rule. We added the following definition 
(based on the definition of ``tank'' in 40 CFR 63.901, (subpart OO--
National Emission Standards for Tanks-Level 1) and 40 CFR 63.1101 
(subpart YY--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
for Source Categories: Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology 
Standards)) for ``storage tank'' to 40 CFR 63.7195 that clarifies which 
tanks we intended to be covered under the final rule: Storage tank 
means a stationary unit that is constructed primarily from nonearthen 
materials (such as wood, concrete, steel, fiberglass, or plastic) which 
provides structural support and is designed to hold an accumulation of 
liquids or other materials used in or generated by a semiconductor 
manufacturing process unit. The following are not storage tanks for the 
purposes of the final rule:
    [sbull] Tanks permanently attached to motor vehicles such as 
trucks, railcars, barges, or ships;
    [sbull] Flow-through tanks where wastewater undergoes treatment 
(such as pH adjustment) before discharge, and are not used to 
accumulate wastewater;
    [sbull] Bottoms receiver tanks; and
    [sbull] Surge control tanks.
    Comment: One commenter reiterated a previous request for EPA to 
delist the Semiconductor Manufacturing source category and provided 
information to support their request. The commenter claimed that this 
information shows that there will be no stand alone semiconductor 
manufacturing facilities. Therefore, since EPA listed this category on 
the MACT source category list at a time when there were stand alone 
facilities that were major sources, the basis for listing the category 
no longer exists. The commenter cited the preamble language from the 
initial source category listing notice (57 FR 31576, July 16, 1992) and 
the first notice revising the list (61 FR 28200, June 4, 1996) to 
support their interpretation of when a category should be included on 
the source category list. The commenter stated that if a stand alone 
major source did come into existence in the future, EPA could 
promulgate a MACT standard at that time. Additionally, the commenter 
pointed out that case-by-case MACT determinations under section 112(g) 
of the CAA could also be used to control emissions from such a source.
    The commenter also pointed to other EPA actions to support their 
position. The commenter noted that EPA guidance issued after the 
National Mining Association court case (National Mining Association v. 
U.S. EPA, 59 F.3d 1351 (D.C. Cir. 1995)) states that section 112(d) 
standards should be applied to source categories that contain stand 
alone major sources or that have sources ``commonly located'' at major 
source facilities. The commenter also noted that EPA, in promulgating 
MACT standards for industrial process cooling towers (IPCT), had found 
that co-location of an IPCT on a major source site is not sufficient to 
trigger applicability of the rule, rather, the IPCT must be co-located 
and an integral part of the facility.
    The commenter disagreed with EPA's interpretation that a source 
category delisting can proceed only under section 112(c)(9) of the CAA. 
The commenter believed that EPA has a non-discretionary duty under 
section

[[Page 27920]]

112(c)(1) to periodically revise the list in response to new 
information. Under the provisions specified in section 112(c)(1), which 
the commenter believes are wholly separate from the delisting procedure 
in section 112(c)(9), EPA has the authority and the latitude to remove 
a previously listed source category from the MACT standard source 
category list.
    Response: In the preamble to the proposed rule for semiconductor 
manufacturing, we acknowledged receipt of the pre-proposal request to 
remove the Semiconductor Manufacturing source category from the list of 
source categories and indicated we would respond in the final 
rulemaking (67 FR 30852, May 8, 2002).
    Section 112(d)(1) of the CAA directs EPA to promulgate regulations 
for categories of major sources of HAP emissions. We interpret section 
112(a) as requiring consideration of all emissions sources in 
determining major source status. Thus, if a source emits 10 tons or 
more per year of any single HAP or 25 tons or more per year of any 
combination of HAP, it is a major source. Similarly, if a source is co-
located with sources in other categories and the aggregate emissions of 
the combined sources is 10 or more tons per year of a single HAP or 25 
tons or more per year of any combination of HAP, that group of co-
located sources is a major source. This interpretation is consistent 
with the legislative history on the definition of ``major source,'' 
which indicates clearly that all portions of a major source are subject 
to MACT even if, standing alone, individual portions of that source 
would not qualify as major. [136 Cong. Rec. S. 16927 (October 27, 
1990)].
    The definition of major source also includes provisions to assure 
that stationary sources which would otherwise be subject to the 
emissions standards are not excluded from control requirements as the 
result of arbitrary subdivision or description of the source. A 
stationary source potentially subject to an emissions standard because 
it emits a listed air pollutant is to be defined to include all 
emission points and units of such source located within a contiguous 
area and under common control.
    Because the statute instructs EPA to consider co-located sources as 
major sources, we believe we must list and promulgate standards for 
source categories that are major sources as a result of co-location. 
Accordingly, when we published the initial list of source categories, 
we ``includ[ed] categories of major sources where there was reasonable 
certainty that at least one stationary source is a major source or 
where sources in the category [were] commonly located on the premises 
of major sources.'' (57 FR 31576, July 16,1992). The EPA continues to 
believe that major source determinations must be based on facility-wide 
emissions and that a major source can be either a stand alone major 
source or co-located with other sources that in combination emit or 
have the potential to emit over the major source threshold.
    We disagree with the commenter's reading of the preamble to the 
IPCT MACT standard. In promulgating the MACT standard, we said that 
even though no individual source in the IPCT source category is itself 
a major source, we promulgated a MACT standard in light of IPCT being 
co-located with other major sources of HAP (59 FR 46339, September 8, 
1994). The IPCT MACT provides clear precedent both for promulgating a 
semiconductor MACT standard and to not remove the Semiconductor 
Manufacturing source category from the list of source categories.
    Accordingly, because section 112(d) requires EPA to promulgate MACT 
standards for all major sources, and since the Semiconductor 
Manufacturing source category is a category of major sources, albeit, 
because existing sources are co-located with other sources that in 
combination emit or have the potential to emit over the major source 
thresholds, EPA will not revise the list of source categories to remove 
the Semiconductor Manufacturing source category.
    Finally, we also believe this source category is not static and 
that changes (either economic or process) may trigger operational 
changes that could result in increased HAP emissions. Thus, it is not 
entirely clear whether those sources that are currently ``synthetic 
area sources'' will continue to be ``synthetic area sources.'' And 
accordingly, it is not inconceivable that the MACT standards 
promulgated today will eventually be applicable to more than the one 
currently co-located facility. In addition, there is always the 
possibility of new major sources being constructed in the future.
    Comment: One commenter requested that EPA reconsider delisting this 
source category using de minimis principles under section 112(c)(1) of 
the CAA. The commenter proposed exemption of all nonmajor semiconductor 
process units from regulation in a manner consistent with the approach 
to applicability in section 112(g) of the CAA.
    Response: The commenter's suggested de minimis cutoff levels are 
inconsistent with the CAA's prescribed method for determining the MACT 
floor. We do not believe that the CAA authorizes exempting an emission 
source solely due to the low annual emissions from that source. The 
outlet concentration limits for both inorganic and organic emissions 
serve as the minimum applicable limits for the affected sources. If the 
outlet concentration is below the applicable emission limit, no 
controls are required to demonstrate compliance.

IV. What Are the Final Standards?

A. What Is the Source Category?

    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 integrated into the 
manufacturing process (that is, they are not stand alone operations), 
and these 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 
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 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.

[[Page 27921]]

B. What Is the Affected Source?

    We define an affected source as a stationary source, group of 
stationary sources, or part of a stationary source to which specific 
NESHAP apply. Within a source category, we select the specific emission 
sources (emission points or groupings of emission points) that will 
make up the affected source for that category. To select these emission 
sources, we mainly consider the constituent HAP and quantity emitted 
from individual or groups of emission points.
    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 integrated into the manufacturing process at a semiconductor 
manufacturing site, and storage tanks located at a major source.
    A semiconductor manufacturing process 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.

C. What Are the Emission Standards?

    Emission limits. We are promulgating standards that regulate HAP 
emissions from process vents and storage tank vents at semiconductor 
manufacturing facilities. The standards are the same for existing and 
new sources. All major sources must reduce process vent organic HAP 
outlet concentrations by 98 percent from their uncontrolled levels and 
reduce uncontrolled inorganic HAP outlet concentrations by 95 percent. 
As an alternative, process vents may be controlled to a level below 20 
ppmv organic HAP and 0.42 ppmv inorganic HAP. In addition, all major 
sources must reduce storage tank vent HAP outlet inorganic HAP 
concentrations by 95 percent from their uncontrolled levels. As an 
alternative, storage tank vents may be controlled to a level below 0.42 
ppmv inorganic HAP.
    General Provisions. The General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart 
A) also apply to you as outlined in the final rule. The General 
Provisions codify certain procedures and criteria for all 40 CFR part 
63 NESHAP. The General Provisions contain administrative procedures, 
preconstruction review procedures for new sources, and procedures for 
conducting compliance-related activities such as notifications, 
reporting, and recordkeeping, performance testing, and monitoring. The 
final rule refers to individual sections of the General Provisions to 
emphasize key sections that you should be aware of. However, unless 
otherwise specifically excluded in the final rule, all of the relevant 
General Provisions requirements apply to you.

V. When Must I Comply With the Final Rule?

    Existing semiconductor manufacturing affected sources must comply 
with the final rule no later than 3 years after May 22, 2003. The 
effective date is May 22, 2003. New or reconstructed affected sources 
must comply upon start-up or May 22, 2003, whichever is later. Details 
of the compliance requirements can be found in the General Provisions, 
as outlined in Table 2 to the subpart.

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

    In addition to the specific testing and monitoring requirements 
specified below for the affected source, the final rule adopts the 
testing requirements specified in 40 CFR 63.7.
    We are promulgating 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 promulgated today. For example, 
we are promulgating 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 promulgating compliance procedures to determine process vent and 
storage tank vent flow rates and HAP concentrations. The promulgated 
test methods parallel what we have used for process vents in previous 
organic HAP emissions standards (e.g., the HON) and inorganic HAP 
emission standards. For measuring vent stream flow rate, you must use 
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, you must use 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, you must use Method 320 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. 
For measuring inorganic HAP that are hydrogen halides, such as HCl or 
HF, you must use Method 26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
    Additionally, we are requiring 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 
promulgating 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 final rule requires you 
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 
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 you 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.

VII. What Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements Must 
I Follow?

    We are promulgating notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements in accordance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart A and other 
previously promulgated NESHAP for similar source categories.

[[Page 27922]]

    We are requiring 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 are 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 requiring that you list 
the semiconductor manufacturing operations at your facility, and the 
provisions of the final 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 by May 
21, 2004, 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 requiring 
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 requiring 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 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 requiring 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 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).

VIII. What Are the Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts of the 
Final Rule?

    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 will be built on the site of another 
major HAP emitting operation. We also project that the types of 
technologies that have evolved (e.g., producing larger wafers), which 
are in general emit fewer HAP per chip manufactured, will continue.

A. What Are the Secondary and Energy Impacts?

    We do not anticipate any significant increase in national annual 
energy usage as a result of the final rule. Energy impacts include 
changes in 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 and scrubbers--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 the final rule 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 the final rule. 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 the annualized cost for the one major source affected 
by this final rule to be $2,300, solely to comply with monitoring, 
inspecting, reporting and recordkeeping requirements. (Note: This 
source meets the CAA section 112 definition of ``major source'' not 
because it emits 10 tons or more of any one HAP or 25 tons or more of 
HAP in aggregate, but because it is collocated at a plant site that is 
a major source subject to other NESHAP. We estimate this semiconductor 
manufacturing source emits less than one ton of HAP per year.) We 
project there will be no capital or operating costs for control 
equipment. Further, we estimate a one-time total cost of $33,000 for 
the approximately 126 non-major sources to read the rule. We estimate 
that there will be no impacts on new sources because we do not project 
that any new major sources will be built over the next 3 years.

C. What Are the Economic Impacts?

    The final rule applies 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 $6,956 over a 3-
year period. Therefore, no economic impact on the industry is expected.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we must 
determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) 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,

[[Page 27923]]

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 obligation 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 this rule is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is 
therefore not subject to OMB review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in the final rule have been 
submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501, et seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document 
has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 2042.01) and a copy may be obtained 
from Susan Auby by mail at the Collection Strategies Division (2822), 
U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, by e-
mail at [email protected], or by calling (202) 566-1672. A copy may 
also be downloaded off the internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. The 
information requirements are not enforceable 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 EPA pursuant 
to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of 
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency 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 41 labor hours per year at a total 
annual cost of $2,319. This estimate includes a one-time plan for 
demonstrating compliance, annual compliance certification reports, 
notifications, and recordkeeping. Total labor burden associated with 
the monitoring requirements over the 3-year period of the ICR are 
estimated at $6,956.
    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 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. The OMB 
control number for the information collection requirements in this rule 
will be listed in an amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in a subsequent Federal 
Register document after OMB approves the ICR.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a 
regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with the final rule. The 
EPA has also determined that this final rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this final 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.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on 
small entities, EPA has concluded that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Based on the above definition of small entities, the EPA has determined 
that there are no small businesses within this source category that 
would be subject to the final rule.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rule 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 an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    The EPA has determined that the final rule does not contain a 
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more 
to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the 
private sector in any 1 year. The maximum total annual cost of the 
final rule for any year has been estimated to be about $35,800. Thus, 
the final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 
205 of the UMRA. In addition, EPA has determined that the standards 
contains no regulatory

[[Page 27924]]

requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments because it contains no requirements that apply to such 
governments or impose obligations upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' are defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    The final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does 
not apply to the rule. Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does 
not apply to the rule, EPA did consult with State and local officials 
to enable them to provide timely input in the development of the final 
rule.

F. 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 the 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.'' The final rule 
does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 
13175. No tribal governments own or operate semiconductor manufacturing 
facilities. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the final 
rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health & 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 EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the EPA 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 regulation. The final rule is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology 
performance and not on an assessment of health or safety risks. 
Furthermore, the final rule has been determined not to be 
``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action 
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 
the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their 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, business practices) developed or adopted by one or 
more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide 
Congress, through annual reports to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB), with explanations when an agency does not use available and 
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    The final rule involves technical standards. The EPA cites the 
following standards in this rule: EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 
2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 18, 25, 25A, 26, 26A, and 320. Consistent with the 
NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify voluntary consensus standards 
in addition to these EPA method. No applicable voluntary consensus 
standards were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G. The 
search and review results have been documented and are placed in the 
docket A-97-15 for the final rule.
    The voluntary 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 this rule in 
addition to EPA Method 18 codified at 40 CFR Part 60 Appendix A for the 
measurement of toluene and total organic HAP.
    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: (1) The target compound(s) are those listed in Section 1.1 
of ASTM D6420-99, and (2) the target concentration is between 150 ppbv 
and 100 ppmv.
    For target compound(s) not listed in Section 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 Section 1.1 of ASTM 
D6420-99, and not amenable to detection by mass spectrometry, ASTM 
D6420-99 does not apply.
    As a result, EPA will cite ASTM D6420-99 in this rule. 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 standard EPA cites in this 
rule, the search for emissions measurement procedures identified 14 
other voluntary consensus standards. The EPA determined that 11 of 
these 14 standards identified for measuring emissions of the HAPs or 
surrogates subject to emission standards in this rule were impractical 
alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of this rule. 
Therefore, EPA does not intend to adopt these standards for this 
purpose. The reasons for this

[[Page 27925]]

determination for the 11 methods are discussed in the docket.
    Two of the 14 voluntary consensus standards identified in this 
search were not available at the time the review was conducted for the 
purposes of the final rule 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); and ASME/BSR 
MFC 12M, ``Flow in Closed Conduits Using Multiport Averaging Pitot 
Primary Flowmeters,'' for EPA Method 2.
    The voluntary consensus standard ASTM D6348-98, ``Determination of 
Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform 
(FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' has been reviewed by the EPA as a potential 
alternative to EPA Method 320. Suggested revisions to ASTM D6348-98 
were sent to ASTM by the EPA that would allow the EPA to accept ASTM 
D6348-98 as an acceptable alternative. The ASTM Subcommittee D22-03 is 
currently undertaking a revision of ASTM D6348-98. Because of this, we 
are not citing this standard as a acceptable alternative for EPA Method 
320 in the final rule today. However, 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. In the interim, facilities have the option to 
request ASTM D6348-98 as an alternative test method under 40 CFR 
63.7(f) and 63.8(f) on a case-by-case basis.
    Table 1 to subpart BBBBB lists the EPA testing methods included in 
the final rule. Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 63.8(f) of subpart A, a source 
may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or 
alternative monitoring requirements in place of any of the EPA testing 
methods, performance specifications, or procedures.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by 
the SBREFA, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the 
agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes 
a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the 
Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report 
containing the rule and other required information to the United States 
Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller 
General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the 
Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after 
it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major 
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The rule will be effective May 
22, 2003.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 
substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: February 28, 2003.
Christine T. Whitman,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of 
the Code of the Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:


    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

0
2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart BBBBB to read as follows:

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

Sec.

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

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 
integrated into a semiconductor manufacturing process unit. A 
semiconductor manufacturing process 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

[[Page 27926]]

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 May 22, 2003, then 
you must comply with the emission standards for new and reconstructed 
sources in this subpart no later than May 22, 2003.
    (2) If you start up your affected source after May 22, 2003, 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 
May 22, 2003.
    (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.  63.7182(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 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 all applicable 
emission limitations in this section on and after the compliance dates 
specified in Sec.  63.7183.
    (b) Process vents--organic HAP emissions. For each process vent 
that emits organic HAP, other than process vents from storage tanks, 
you must limit organic HAP emissions to the level specified in 
paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section. These limitations can be met 
by venting emissions from your process vent through a closed vent 
system to any combination of control devices meeting the requirements 
of Sec.  63.982(a)(2).
    (1) Reduce the emissions of organic HAP from the process vent 
stream by 98 percent by weight.
    (2) Reduce or maintain the concentration of emitted organic HAP 
from the process vent to less than or equal to 20 parts per million by 
volume (ppmv).
    (c) Process vents--inorganic HAP emissions. For each process vent 
that emits inorganic HAP, other than process vents from storage tanks, 
you must limit inorganic HAP emissions to the level specified in 
paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section. These limitations can be met 
by venting emissions from your process vent through a closed vent 
system to a halogen scrubber meeting the requirements of Sec. Sec.  
63.983 (closed vent system requirements) and 63.994 (halogen scrubber 
requirements); the applicable general monitoring requirements of Sec.  
63.996; the applicable performance test requirements; and the 
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements referenced 
therein.
    (1) Reduce the emissions of inorganic HAP from the process vent 
stream by 95 percent by weight.
    (2) Reduce or maintain the concentration of emitted inorganic HAP 
from the process vent to less than or equal to 0.42 ppmv.
    (d) Storage tanks. For each storage tank, 1,500 gallons or larger, 
you must limit total HAP emissions to the level specified in paragraph 
(d)(1) or (2) of this section if the emissions from the storage tank 
vent contains greater than 0.42 ppmv inorganic 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 
Sec. Sec.  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 inorganic HAP from each storage tank by 
95 percent by weight.
    (2) Reduce or maintain the concentration of emitted inorganic HAP 
from the process vent to less than or equal to 0.42 ppmv.
    (e) 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).

[[Page 27927]]

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 to 
measure the total organic regulated material or total organic carbon 
(TOC) concentration. The EPA Methods 26 and 26A are 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 26 or 26A must be used for testing 
regulated material containing inorganic HAP. 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 an organic HAP concentration of 20 ppmv or less or an 
inorganic HAP concentration of 0.42 ppmv or less, or your storage tank 
vent stream has an inorganic HAP concentration of 0.42 ppmv or less, 
you may 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) If you are using a control device to comply with the emission 
limitations in Sec.  63.7184 and the inlet concentration of HAP to the 
control device is 20 ppmv or less, then you may demonstrate that the 
control device meets the percent by weight HAP emission reduction 
limitation in Sec.  63.7184(c)(1) or (d)(1) by conducting a design 
evaluation as specified in paragraph (i) of this section. Your design 
evaluation 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 design evaluation.
    (d) During periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, you must 
operate in accordance with your SSMP.
    (e) For each monitoring system required in this section, you must 
develop and submit for approval a site-specific monitoring plan that 
addresses the criteria specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of 
this section.
    (1) 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);
    (2) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample 
interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer, 
and the data collection and reduction system; and
    (3) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria 
(e.g., calibrations).
    (f) In your site-specific monitoring plan, you must also address 
the procedural processes in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this 
section.
    (1) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with 
the general requirements of Sec.  63.8(c)(1), (3), (4)(ii), (7), and 
(8);
    (2) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with 
the general requirements of Sec.  63.8(d); and
    (3) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance 
with the general requirements of Sec.  63.10(c), (e)(1), and (e)(2)(i).
    (g) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CMS in 
accordance with your site-specific monitoring plan.
    (h) You must operate and maintain the CMS in continuous operation 
according to the site-specific monitoring plan.
    (i) Design evaluation. To demonstrate that a control device meets 
the required percent by weight inorganic HAP emission reduction 
limitation in Sec.  63.7184(c)(1) or (d)(1), a design evaluation must 
address the composition of the inorganic HAP concentration of the vent 
stream entering the control device. A design evaluation also must 
address other vent stream characteristics and control device operating 
parameters as specified in any one of paragraphs (i)(1) through (5) of 
this section, depending on the type of control device that is used. If 
the vent stream is not the only inlet to the control device, the 
efficiency demonstration must also consider all other vapors, gases, 
and liquids, other than fuels, received by the control device.
    (1) For a condenser, the design evaluation shall consider the vent 
stream flow rate, relative humidity, and temperature and shall 
establish the design outlet organic HAP compound concentration level, 
design average temperature of the condenser exhaust vent stream, and 
the design average temperatures of the coolant fluid at the condenser 
inlet and outlet. The temperature of the gas stream exiting the 
condenser must be measured and used to establish the outlet organic HAP 
concentration.
    (2) For a carbon adsorption system that regenerates the carbon bed 
directly onsite in the control device such as a fixed-bed adsorber, the 
design evaluation shall consider the vent stream flow rate, relative 
humidity, and temperature and shall establish the design exhaust vent 
stream organic compound concentration level, adsorption cycle time, 
number and capacity of carbon beds, type and working capacity of 
activated carbon used for carbon beds, design total regeneration stream 
mass or volumetric flow over the period of each complete carbon bed 
regeneration cycle, design carbon bed temperature after regeneration, 
design carbon bed regeneration time, and design service life of carbon. 
For vacuum desorption, the pressure drop shall be included.
    (3) For a carbon adsorption system that does not regenerate the 
carbon bed directly onsite in the control device such as a carbon 
canister, the design evaluation shall consider the vent stream mass or 
volumetric flow rate, relative humidity, and temperature and shall 
establish the design exhaust vent stream organic compound concentration 
level, capacity of carbon bed, type and working capacity of activated 
carbon used for carbon bed, and design carbon replacement interval 
based on the total carbon working capacity of the control device and 
source operating schedule.
    (4) For a scrubber, the design evaluation shall consider the vent 
stream composition, constituent concentrations, liquid-to-vapor ratio, 
scrubbing liquid flow rate and concentration, temperature, and the 
reaction kinetics of the constituents with the scrubbing liquid. The 
design evaluation shall establish the design exhaust vent stream 
organic compound concentration level and will include the additional 
information in paragraphs (i)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section for trays 
and a packed column scrubber.
    (i) Type and total number of theoretical and actual trays;

[[Page 27928]]

    (ii) Type and total surface area of packing for entire column, and 
for individual packed sections if column contains more than one packed 
section.


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 Sec. Sec.  63.983 through 63.995. If you 
used the design evaluation procedure in Sec.  63.7187(i) to demonstrate 
compliance, you must use the information from the design evaluation to 
establish the operating parameter level for monitoring of the control 
device.

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 
Sec. Sec.  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 May 22, 2003, you must submit an Initial Notification not 
later than 120 calendar days after May 22, 2003.
    (c) As specified in Sec.  63.9(b)(3), if you start up your new or 
reconstructed affected source on or after May 22, 2003. 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. If you used the 
design evaluation procedure in Sec.  63.7187(i) to demonstrate 
compliance, you must include the results of the design evaluation in 
the Notification of Compliance Status.
    (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 you 
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 40 CFR 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

[[Page 27929]]

paragraphs (d)(1) through (2) 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.
    (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 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions 
in Sec. Sec.  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 (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 
Sec. Sec.  63.2 and 63.981, the General Provisions of this part (40 CFR 
part 63, subpart A), and in this section as follows:
    Control device means a combustion device, recovery device, 
recapture device, or any combination of these devices used for the 
primary purpose of reducing emissions to comply with this subpart. 
Devices that are inherent to a process or are integral to the operation 
of a process are not considered control devices for the purposes of 
this subpart, even though these devices may have the secondary effect 
of reducing emissions.
    Process vent means the point at which HAP emissions are released to 
the atmosphere from a semiconductor manufacturing process unit or 
storage tank by means of a stack, chimney, vent, or other functionally 
equivalent opening. The HAP emission points originating from wastewater 
treatment equipment, other than storage tanks, are not considered to be 
a process vent, unless the wastewater treatment equipment emission 
points are connected to a common vent or exhaust plenum with other 
process vents.
    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

[[Page 27930]]

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 associated with 
semiconductor manufacturing and conducted at a semiconductor 
manufacturing facility are considered to be semiconductor manufacturing 
process units.
    Storage tank means a stationary unit that is constructed primarily 
from nonearthen materials (such as wood, concrete, steel, fiberglass, 
or plastic) which provides structural support and is designed to hold 
an accumulation of liquids or other materials used in or generated by a 
semiconductor manufacturing process unit. The following are not storage 
tanks for the purposes of this subpart:
    (1) Tanks permanently attached to motor vehicles such as trucks, 
railcars, barges, or ships;
    (2) Flow-through tanks where wastewater undergoes treatment (such 
as pH adjustment) before discharge, and are not used to accumulate 
wastewater;
    (3) Bottoms receiver tanks; and
    (4) Surge control tanks.

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:

                    Table 1 to Subpart BBBBB of Part 63.--Requirements for Performance Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      According to the following
             For . . .                   You must . . .            Using . . .            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 (if
                                      the number of           A.                      emission reduction or
                                      traverse ports.                                 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 only;
                                      rate.                   part 60, appendix A.    not necessary for
                                                                                      determining compliance
                                                                                      with a ppmv concentration
                                                                                      limit.
                                     c. Conduct gas          i. Method 3, 3A, or 3B  For flow rate determination
                                      molecular weight        of 40 CFR part 60,      only.
                                      analysis.               appendix A.
                                                             ii. ASME PTC 19.10-     You may use ASME PTC 19.10-
                                                              1981-Part 10.           1981-Part 10 (available
                                                                                      for purchase from Three
                                                                                      Park Avenue, New York, NY
                                                                                      10016-5990) as an
                                                                                      alternative to EPA Method
                                                                                      3B.
                                     d. Measure moisture     Method 4 of 40 CFR      For flow rate determination
                                      content of the stack    part 60, appendix A.    and correction to dry
                                      gas.                                            basis, if necessary.
2. Process vent stream.............  a. Measure organic and  i. Method 18, 25, or    (1) To determine compliance
                                      inorganic HAP           25A of 40 CFR part      with the percent by weight
                                      concentration (two      60, appendix A, AND     emission reduction limit,
                                      method option).        ii. Method 26 or 26A     conduct simultaneous
                                                              of 40 CFR part 60,      sampling at inlet and
                                                              appendix A.             outlet of control device
                                                                                      and analyze for same
                                                                                      organic and inorganic HAP
                                                                                      at both inlet and outlet;
                                                                                      and
                                                                                     (2) 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 gas is at
                                                                                      least 20 times the
                                                                                      standard deviation of the
                                                                                      response from the zero
                                                                                      calibration gas when the
                                                                                      instrument is zeroed on
                                                                                      its most sensitive scale.
                                                                                     --The span value of the
                                                                                      analyzer must be less than
                                                                                      100 ppmv.
                                                                                     To determine compliance
                                                                                      with 98 percent reduction
                                                                                      limit, conduct
                                                                                      simultaneous sampling at
                                                                                      inlet and outlet of
                                                                                      control device and analyze
                                                                                      for same organic and
                                                                                      inorganic HAP at both
                                                                                      inlet and outlet.
                                     c. Measure organic and  Method 320 of 40 CFR    To determine compliance
                                      inorganic HAP           part 63, appendix A.    with the percent by weight
                                      simultaneously (one                             emission 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 26 or 26A of 40  To determine compliance
                                      concentration.          CFR part 60, appendix   with percent by weight
                                                              A, or Method 320 of     emission reduction limit,
                                                              40 CFR part 63,         conduct simultaneous
                                                              appendix A.             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:

[[Page 27931]]



     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 Abbreviations  Yes.
Sec.   63.4............  Prohibited Activities    Yes.
                          and Circumvention.
Sec.   63.5............  Construction and         Yes.
                          Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.6............  Compliance with          Yes.
                          Standards and
                          Maintenance.
Sec.   63.7............  Performance Testing      Yes, with the
                          Requirements.            exception of Sec.
                                                   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 Requirements  Monitoring
                                                   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.
Sec.   63.10...........  Recordkeeping and        Yes, with the
                          Reporting Requirements.  exception of Sec.
                                                   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. 03-5519 Filed 5-21-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U