36472 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

during normal business hours at the Air 

Protection Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality, 629 East Main 

Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gregory Becoat, (215) 814–2036, or by 

e-mail at becoat.gregory@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

For further information, please see the 

information provided in the direct final 

action, with the same title, ‘‘Approval 

and Promulgation of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Adoption of the Revised Nitrogen 

Dioxide Standards and Update of 

Appendices,’’ that is located in the 

Rules and Regulations section of this 

Federal Register publication. 

Dated: June 6, 2011. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2011–15456 Filed 6–21–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 98 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0927; FRL–9322–2] 

RIN A2060 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse 

Gases; Changes to Provisions for 

Electronics Manufacturing (Subpart I) 

To Provide Flexibility 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing changes to 

the calculation and monitoring 

provisions in the Electronics 

Manufacturing portion (Subpart I) of the 

Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting 

Rule for the ‘‘largest’’ semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities (i.e., those that 

fabricate devices on wafers measuring 

300 millimeters or less in diameter and 

that have an annual manufacturing 

capacity of greater than 10,500 square 

meters). More specifically, for reporting 

years 2011 and 2012 this action 

proposes to allow the largest 

semiconductor facilities the option to 

calculate emissions using default 

emission factors already contained in 

Subpart I, instead of recipe-specific 

utilization and by-product formation 

rates (recipe-specific emission factors) 

for the plasma etching process type. 

These proposed changes are in response 

to a request for reconsideration of 

specific provisions submitted by the 

Semiconductor Industry Association. 

This action would only apply to the 

initial years of compliance while the 

Agency continues to better understand 

industry’s concerns with Subpart I and 

considers longer-term alternative 

options. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before July 22, 2011. 

Public Hearing. EPA does not plan to 

conduct a public hearing unless 

requested. To request a hearing, please 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

by June 29, 2011. If requested, the 

hearing will be conducted July 7, 2011, 

in the Washington, DC area. If a hearing 

is held, EPA will accept comments that 

rebut or supplement information 

presented at the hearing through August 

8, 2011. EPA will provide further 

information about the hearing on its 

Web page if a hearing is requested. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit your 

comments, identified by Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0927 by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: 

GHGReportingFGHG@epa.gov. Include 

docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0927 [and/or RIN number 2060–XXXX] 

in the subject line of the message. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. 

• Mail: Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), 

Mailcode 28221T, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0927, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket 

Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West 

Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0927. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West 

Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This 

Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. 

to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the Air Docket is (202) 566– 

1742. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 36473 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Carole Cook, Climate Change Division, 

Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC– 

6207J), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number (202) 343–9263; fax (202) 343– 

2342; e-mail address: 

GHGReportingRule@epa.gov. For 

technical information, please go to the 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule Program 

Web site http://www.epa.gov/ 

climatechange/emissions/ 

ghgrulemaking.html. To submit a 

question, select Rule Help Center, 

followed by Contact Us. To obtain 

information about the public hearing or 

to register to speak at the hearing, please 

go to http://www.epa.gov/ 

climatechange/emissions/ 

ghgrulemaking.html. Alternatively, 

contact Carole Cook at 202–343–9263. 

Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition 

to being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of this proposal will 

also be available through the WWW. 

Following the Administrator’s signature, 

a copy of this action will be posted on 

EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting 

Program Web site at http:// 

www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ 

ghgrulemaking.html. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Additional Information on Submitting 

Comments: To expedite review of your 

comments by Agency staff, you are 

encouraged to send a separate copy of 

your comments, in addition to the copy 

you submit to the official docket, to 

Carole Cook, U.S. EPA, Office of 

Atmospheric Programs, Climate Change 

Division, Mail Code 6207–J, 

Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 

343–9263, e-mail address: 

GHGReportingRule@epa.gov. 

Regulated Entities. The Administrator 

determined that this action is subject to 

the provisions of Clean Air Act (CAA) 

section 307(d). See CAA section 

307(d)(1)(V) (the provisions of section 

307(d) apply to ‘‘such other actions as 

the Administrator may determine’’). 

These are proposed changes to existing 

regulations. If finalized, these amended 

regulations would affect owners or 

operators of certain manufacturers of 

electronic devices. Regulated categories 

and examples of affected entities 

include those listed in Table 1 of this 

preamble: 

TABLE 1—EXAMPLES OF AFFECTED ENTITIES BY CATEGORY

Category NAICS Examples of affected facilities 

Electronics Manufacturing 334111 Microcomputer manufacturing facilities. 

334413 Semiconductor, photovoltaic (solid-state) device manufacturing facilities. 

334419 Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) unit screens manufacturing facilities. 

334419 Micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) manufacturing facilities. 

Although Table 1 of this preamble 

lists the types of facilities that could be 

potentially affected by this action, other 

types of facilities not listed in the table 

could also be affected. To determine 

whether you are affected by this action, 

you should carefully examine the 

applicability criteria found in 40 CFR 

part 98, subpart I or the relevant criteria 

in the sections related to electronics 

manufacturing. If you have questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular facility or supplier, 

consult the person listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT Section. 

Acronyms and Abbreviations. The 

following acronyms and abbreviations 

are used in this document. 

BAMM .. best available monitoring methods 

CAA ...... Clean Air Act 

CBI ....... confidential business information 

CFR ...... Code of Federal Regulations 

EO ........ Executive Order 

EPA ...... U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency 

FR ........ FEDERAL REGISTER

GHG ..... greenhouse gas 

m2 ......... square meters 

mm ....... millimeter 

OMB ..... Office of Management and Budget 

RFA ...... Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RIA ....... Regulatory Impact Analysis 

SBA ...... Small Business Administration 

SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act 

U.S. ...... United States 

UMRA .. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

USC ..... United States Code 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. Organization of This Preamble 

B. Background on This Action 

C. Legal Authority 

II. Proposed Revisions to Subpart I of 40 CFR 

part 98 

A. Proposed Changes to Subpart I 

Provisions for the Largest Semiconductor 

Manufacturing Facilities 

B. Subpart I BAMM Provisions 

C. Apportioning Model Verification 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. Background 

A. Organization of This Preamble 

The first section of this preamble 

contains the basic background 

information about the origin of these 

proposed rule amendments and request 

for public comment. This section also 

discusses EPA’s use of our legal 

authority under the Clean Air Act to 

collect data under the Mandatory 

Reporting of Greenhouse Gases rule. 

The second section of this preamble 

describes in detail the changes that are 

being proposed to Subpart I. In addition, 

this section presents EPA’s rationale for 

the proposed changes, and also 

describes related actions affecting 

Subpart I that are published in a 

separate notice in today’s Federal 

Register. 

Finally, the last (third) section of the 

preamble discusses the various statutory 

and executive order requirements 

applicable to this proposed rulemaking. 

B. Background on This Action 

On October 30, 2009, EPA published 

a rule for the mandatory reporting of 

GHGs (also referred to as 40 CFR part 98 

or part 98) from large GHG emission 

sources and suppliers in the United 

States (74 FR 56260). The rule requires 

annual reporting to EPA of GHG 

emissions and supply from certain 

sectors of the economy, and applies to 

certain downstream facilities that emit 

GHGs, as well as to certain upstream 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
36474 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

suppliers of products that will result in 

GHG emissions when combusted, 

released or oxidized. Part 98 regulations 

require only that source categories 

subject to the rule monitor and report 

GHGs in accordance with the methods 

specified in the individual subparts. 

EPA initially proposed reporting 

requirements for electronics 

manufacturing on April 12, 2009 (74 FR 

16448) as part of a larger rulemaking 

effort to establish a GHG reporting 

program for all sectors of the economy. 

However, EPA did not include 

requirements for electronics 

manufacturing, along with several other 

source categories, in the final part 98 in 

October 2009 because EPA received a 

number of lengthy, detailed comments 

regarding the proposed requirements. 

On April 12, 2010, EPA published a 

revised proposal (75 FR 18652) 

concerning the monitoring and 

reporting methods for electronics 

manufacturing facilities. After 

considering public comments on the 

revised proposal, EPA published 

Subpart I: Electronics Manufacturing of 

the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule on 

December 1, 2011 (40 CFR part 98, 

subpart I) (75 FR 74774) (Subpart I). 

In that rule, among other provisions, 

EPA finalized two different methods for 

facilities that manufacture 

semiconductors wafers measuring 300 

millimeters (mm) or less in diameter to 

calculate and report their fluorinated 

GHGs, depending on the facility’s 

manufacturing capacity: (1) A method 

for facilities that have an annual 

manufacturing capacity that is less than 

or equal to 10,500 square meters (m2) of 

substrate (hereinafter referred to as 

‘‘other semiconductor manufacturing 

facilities’’), and (2) a method for those 

that have an annual manufacturing 

capacity greater than 10,500 m2 of 

substrate (hereinafter referred to as the 

‘‘largest semiconductor manufacturing 

facilities’’). Pursuant to 40 CFR 

98.93(a)(2)(i), semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities that fabricate 

devices on wafers measuring 300 mm or 

less in diameter and that have an annual 

manufacturing capacity of less than or 

equal to 10,500 m2 of substrate must 

calculate and report their fluorinated 

GHG emissions using default emission 

factors for the following five process 

types and sub-types: 

• Plasma etching process type. 

• Chamber cleaning process type, 

which includes the following three 

process sub-types: 

—In-situ plasma chamber cleaning 

process sub-type. 

—Remote plasma chamber cleaning 

process sub-type. 

—In-situ thermal chamber cleaning 

process sub-type. 

• Wafer cleaning process type. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 98.93(a)(2)(ii), 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities 

that fabricate devices on wafers 

measuring 300 mm or less in diameter 

and that have an annual manufacturing 

capacity greater than 10,500 m2 of 

substrate (i.e., the largest semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities) must calculate 

and report their emissions using a 

combination of default emission factors 

and directly measured recipe-specific 

emission factors. For the following four 

process types and sub-types, the largest 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities 

must calculate emissions using only the 

default emission factors: 

• Chamber cleaning process type 

which includes the following three 

process sub-types: 

—In-situ plasma chamber cleaning 

process sub-type. 

—Remote plasma chamber cleaning 

process sub-type. 

—In-situ thermal chamber cleaning 

process sub-type. 

• Wafer cleaning process type. 

For the plasma etching process type, 

the largest semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities are required to 

calculate emissions using only directly 

measured recipe-specific emission 

factors. 

EPA also included provisions for all 

electronics manufacturing facilities to 

use and/or request the use of best 

available monitoring methods (BAMM) 

in lieu of following specified parameters 

for calculating GHG emissions for a 

specific period of time. To estimate 

emissions from January 1, 2011 through 

June 30, 2011, owners or operators may 

use BAMM for any parameter that 

cannot reasonably be measured 

according to the monitoring and QA/QC 

requirements of Subpart I without 

submitting a request and receiving 

approval from the EPA Administrator 

(40 CFR 98.94(a)(1)). To extend the use 

of BAMM to estimate emissions that 

occur beyond June 30, 2011, owners and 

operators must submit a request and 

receive approval from the Administrator 

consistent with the following: 

• Requests for extension of the use of 

BAMM to estimate emissions that occur from 

July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011 for 

parameters other than recipe-specific 

utilization and by-product formation rates for 

the plasma etching process type must have 

been submitted to EPA no later than February 

28, 2011 (40 CFR 98.94(a)(2)). 

• Requests for extension of the use of 

BAMM to estimate emissions that occur from 

July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011 for 

recipe-specific utilization and by-product 

formation rates for the plasma etching 

process type must be submitted to EPA no 

later than June 30, 2011 (40 CFR 98.94(a)(3)); 

• Requests for extension of the use of 

BAMM to estimate emissions beyond 

December 31, 2011 for unique and extreme 

circumstances must be submitted to EPA no 

later than June 30, 2011 (40 CFR 98.94(a)(4)). 

Following the publication of Subpart 

I in the Federal Register, the 

Semiconductor Industry Association 

(SIA) sought reconsideration of several 

provisions in the final rule. In 

particular, in their Petition (available in 

docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0927), SIA 

raised concerns about the individual 

recipe measurement approach, that is, 

the requirement that the largest facilities 

develop and use recipe-specific 

emission factors for etch processes. 

More specifically, SIA stated that the 

individual recipe measurement 

approach is technically impractical, 

burdensome, threatens intellectual 

property, and would hamper 

innovation. SIA stated, ‘‘* * * Final 

Subpart I suffers from serious flaws 

relating to the infeasibility of 

compliance with a recipe-based 

emission reporting requirement; the 

incompatibility of a recipe-based 

emission reporting requirement to the 

semiconductor manufacturing process; 

the serious confidentiality concerns 

relating to the sharing of intellectual 

property inherent to a recipe-based 

reporting requirement; and the grossly 

understated compliance costs contained 

in EPA’s economic analysis.’’ 

SIA reported that a manufacturer may 

run hundreds to thousands of different 

recipes per year. They argued that 

determining the utilization and byproduct formation rates for each recipe 

would present an unreasonable cost and 

technical burden on reporting facilities. 

They also argued that the burden is 

compounded by the fact that hundreds 

of recipes may be added every year, for 

which new factors would need to be 

determined. To support their arguments, 

SIA provided the results of a survey of 

industry members regarding the number 

of recipes for which factors would need 

to be determined, and a cost estimate of 

the final reporting requirements (for 

more information, please see SIA’s 

Petition for Reconsideration available in 

docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0927). 

In addition to their concerns about the 

recipe-specific measurements, SIA also 

specifically cited the BAMM provisions 

and their timing as problematic. In 

particular, SIA stated that the BAMM 

provisions raise ‘‘substantive 

compliance issues.’’ SIA stated that the 

substantive compliance issues relate to 

the following aspects of the BAMM 

provisions: The requirement to 

recalculate and resubmit estimated 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 36475 

1 74 FR 16448 (April 10, 2009) and 74 FR 56260 

(October 30, 2009). Response to Comments 

Documents can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ 

climatechange/emissions/responses.html. 

2The ‘‘largest’’ semiconductor manufacturing 

facilities are defined as those facilities that fabricate 

devices on wafers measuring 300 mm or less in 

diameter and that have an annual manufacturing 

capacity of greater than 10,500 m2 of substrate. 

3Pursuant to Subpart I, to be included in a set 

of similar recipes, a recipe must be similar to the 

recipe in the set for which recipe-specific 

utilization and by-product formation rates have 

been measured. 

emissions, the individual requirementby-requirement BAMM request process, 

the documentation requirement, the 

timeframe for assembling the 

documentation, and the unique and 

extreme circumstances provision. 

Further, SIA stated that the deadlines 

for submitting the request to use BAMM 

were ‘‘unreasonable.’’ 

C. Legal Authority 

EPA is proposing these rule 

amendments under its existing CAA 

authority, specifically authorities 

provided in CAA section 114. 

As stated in the preamble to the 2009 

final rule (74 FR 56260) and the 

Response to Comments on the Proposed 

Rule, Volume 9, Legal Issues, CAA 

section 114 provides EPA broad 

authority to require the information 

proposed to be gathered by this rule 

because such data would inform and are 

relevant to EPA’s carrying out a wide 

variety of CAA provisions. As discussed 

in the preamble to the initial proposed 

rule (74 FR 16448, April 10, 2009), CAA 

section 114(a)(1) authorizes the 

Administrator to require emissions 

sources, persons subject to the CAA, 

manufacturers of control or process 

equipment, or persons whom the 

Administrator believes may have 

necessary information to monitor and 

report emissions and provide such other 

information the Administrator requests 

for the purposes of carrying out any 

provision of the CAA. For further 

information about EPA’s legal authority, 

see the preambles to the 2009 proposed 

and final rules and EPA’s Response to 

Comments, Volume 9.1

II. Proposed Revisions to Subpart I of 

40 CFR part 98 

A. Proposed Changes to Subpart I 

Provisions for the Largest 

Semiconductor Manufacturing Facilities 

In this action, EPA is proposing to 

amend Subpart I to allow the largest 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities 2

flexibility in the initial years of 

compliance to estimate fluorinated GHG 

emissions from the plasma etching 

process type. Specifically, EPA is 

proposing to amend 40 CFR 

98.93(a)(2)(ii) so that the largest 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities 

may use the same methods for 

estimating emissions from clean and 

etch processes as the other 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities 

for reporting years 2011 and 2012. EPA 

is proposing this action in response to 

a request for reconsideration of specific 

provisions, including the provisions 

requiring the largest facilities to use 

recipe-specific emission factors and the 

BAMM provisions. 

Under this proposal, for reporting 

years 2011 and 2012, the largest 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities 

would be able to use the default 

utilization and by-product formation 

rates already contained within Subpart 

I in Tables I–3 and I–4 to estimate 

fluorinated GHG emissions for the 

plasma etching process type, instead of 

using directly measured recipe-specific 

emission factors for each individual 

recipe or set of similar recipes.3 This 

proposed modification to the 

calculation and monitoring 

requirements for the largest 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities 

would not change any of the other 

provisions in Subpart I that 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities 

are required to follow for calculating 

GHG emissions. Further, EPA is 

proposing to provide flexibility for a 

limited time while the Agency 

continues to explore and evaluate 

industry’s concerns with Subpart I and 

considers alternative methods that are 

being proposed by the industry as 

discussed in more detail in paragraphs 

below. 

The proposed change in 40 CFR 

98.93(a)(2)(ii) to the method used by the 

largest semiconductor manufacturing 

facilities would not affect the number of 

facilities that report, and would not 

affect the GHG emissions that are 

covered by the Subpart I reporting 

requirements. It would provide greater 

flexibility to the largest facilities in the 

initial two years of implementation of 

Subpart I. Under this proposal, 

beginning in the 2013 reporting year, 

the largest facilities would be required 

to use recipe-specific utilization and byproduct formation rates as specified in 

40 CFR 98.93(a)(2)(ii)(A). 

Pursuant to provisions in Subpart I, 

any semiconductor manufacturing 

facility subject to Subpart I may use 

and/or request to use BAMM (40 CFR 

98.94(a)). Under the BAMM provisions 

in Subpart I, any owner and operator 

that uses BAMM must follow the 

calculation methodologies and 

equations in Subpart I (40 CFR 98.93), 

but may use BAMM for specific 

parameters and for a specific time 

period for which it is approved. EPA 

included this flexibility in the final rule 

for those facilities that are unable to 

meet the monitoring and/or QA/QC 

provisions in Subpart I by January 1, 

2011. 

EPA believes that the changes being 

proposed today to the calculation 

methodologies for the largest 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities 

are preferable to relying on the BAMM 

process to address concerns with the 

recipe-specific emission factors for the 

plasma etching process type during 

2011 and 2012. First, adopting these 

changes would reduce burden for such 

facilities and for EPA. In other words, 

rather than requiring each owner and 

operator to prepare and submit a BAMM 

request to EPA to use BAMM for the 

directly measured recipe-specific 

emission factors, EPA is proposing to 

allow those facilities to use default 

emission factors during the initial years 

of compliance. Second, it would make 

transparent the methodology that would 

apply to the largest facilities in 2011 

and 2012, which would not necessarily 

occur if each facility were using their 

own facility-specific BAMM. 

This proposed change would apply 

only for 2011 and 2012. During this 

time, EPA will continue to better 

understand and evaluate industry’s 

concerns with Subpart I. In addition, 

EPA will also consider alternatives to 

the use of recipe-specific emission 

factors by the largest facilities that have 

been proposed by the industry. 

In a letter dated May 26, 2011 

(available in docket EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0927), SIA identified the 

following three alternatives that they are 

proposing and for which they are 

currently collecting information to 

support their development: (1) Etch 

Process Subcategories and Default 

Emissions Factors; (2) Direct Estimation 

of Emissions Based on Use Allocation 

and Application of Abatement Unit 

Destruction Efficiency (DRE); and, (3) 

Stack Testing. For more information on 

the three options, please refer to SIA’s 

letter (available in docket EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2009–0927). 

As stated in their letter, ‘‘SIA and its 

member companies, in collaboration 

with technical support from the 

International Sematech Manufacturing 

Initiative (ISMI), are implementing a 

workplan under a robust schedule to 

collect and analyze data on each 

proposed alternative.’’ SIA noted that 

they plan to submit information to EPA, 

including data and analyses, on the 

proposed alternatives beginning in June 

2011, July 2011, and September 2011, 

depending on the alternative. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
36476 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

After SIA provides EPA with initial 

data to support the development of the 

three alternatives, EPA plans to 

undertake comprehensive analyses to 

evaluate whether the methodologies 

meet EPA’s stated goals. One of those 

goals is to gather facility-level emissions 

estimates for the largest semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities that are more 

precise and accurate than the estimates 

developed using the method that is 

required for the other semiconductor 

facilities, thereby ensuring the level of 

rigor is commensurate with potential to 

emit. While EPA is open to evaluating 

the three options that SIA has proposed, 

at this time, EPA has not made any 

decisions about which alternatives may 

be included in a subsequent action. 

EPA requests comment on whether to 

extend the use of the default emission 

factors for the plasma etching process 

type for the largest semiconductor 

facilities beyond December 31, 2012. 

More specifically, EPA is requesting 

comment on whether to allow the 

largest semiconductor manufacturing 

facilities to use the method required for 

the other semiconductor manufacturing 

facilities for an additional year until 

December 31, 2013. EPA is requesting 

comment on this extension in the event 

that the Agency determines that 

additional time would be necessary to 

develop and promulgate one or more 

alternative methodologies for the largest 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities 

that continue to have concerns with the 

recipe-specific measurement approach. 

While it is EPA’s goal to finalize a 

revision to Subpart I that would allow 

the largest semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities to implement 

one or more alternative methodologies 

on January 1, 2013, EPA is considering 

whether additional time may be 

necessary given the technical 

complexities associated with the 

development of alternatives. 

In a separate action also published in 

today’s Federal Register, EPA is 

extending three of the deadlines 

contained in the Subpart I BAMM 

provisions that relate to when owners 

and operators may use or request to use 

BAMM from June 30, 2011 to September 

30, 2011. As EPA explains in the 

preamble to that action, extending the 

dates by which owners and operators 

may use and/or request to use BAMM 

will allow EPA additional time to 

consider comments and take final action 

on this proposal to allow the largest 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities 

to use default emission factors for the 

plasma etching process type during the 

initial years of implementation. In 

addition, the extension allows owners 

and operators of affected facilities 

additional time to assess their facilities 

to determine if it will be necessary for 

them to apply for BAMM for any other 

aspect of Subpart I beyond 2011 for 

unique and extreme circumstances. For 

more information, please refer to the 

preamble to the final rule, Mandatory 

Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: 

Additional Sources of Fluorinated 

GHGs: Extension of Best Available 

Monitoring Provisions for Electronics 

Manufacturing. 

B. Subpart I BAMM Provisions 

In this notice, EPA is requesting 

comment on whether to extend until 

December 31, 2011 the period during 

which an owner or operator subject to 

Subpart I may, without submitting a 

petition, use BAMM to estimate 2011 

emissions. Pursuant to the final rule 

published today, to estimate emissions 

that occur from January 1, 2011 to 

September 30, 2011, owners and 

operators may use BAMM without 

submitting a request for approval to the 

EPA Administrator. This means that 

starting October 1, 2011, owners and 

operators subject to Subpart I must 

discontinue using BAMM and begin 

following all applicable monitoring and 

QA/QC requirements of Subpart I unless 

they have submitted a request and 

received an approval from the 

Administrator to use BAMM to estimate 

emissions beyond September 30, 2011. 

EPA is requesting comment on whether 

to extend the date by which owners and 

operators may use BAMM without 

submitting a request for approval by the 

Administrator to December 31, 2011. 

Under this approach, owners and 

operators could use BAMM without 

submitting a request for approval by the 

Administrator to estimate emissions that 

occur from January 1, 2011 to December 

31, 2011. Starting January 1, 2012, 

owners and operators subject to Subpart 

I would have to discontinue using 

BAMM unless a request to use BAMM 

beyond December 31, 2011 were 

approved by the Administrator. This 

extension would provide flexibility for 

any facility that was unable to meet the 

February 28, 2011 deadline for 

submitting a request for extension in the 

use of BAMM in 2011 for parameters 

other than recipe-specific emission 

factors. We are considering this 

flexibility in light of the short period of 

time between publication of the rule 

and the February 28, 2011 deadline. 

EPA is also requesting comment on 

whether to extend the other two 

relevant BAMM deadlines by which an 

owner or operator may request the use 

of BAMM for recipe-specific emission 

factors in 2011 and for estimating 

emissions beyond December 31, 2011. 

In the final rule published today, EPA 

extended two deadlines by which an 

owner or operator must submit a 

petition to the Administrator to request 

the use of BAMM. First, EPA extended 

the deadline by which an owner or 

operator may submit a BAMM request 

for approval by the Administrator for 

recipe-specific utilization and byproduct formation rates for the plasma 

etching process type in 2011 from June 

30, 2011 to September 30, 2011. And 

second, EPA extended the date by 

which an owner or operator may submit 

a request for approval by the 

Administrator to extend the use of 

BAMM beyond December 31, 2011 for 

unique and extreme circumstances from 

June 30, 2011 to September 30, 2011. 

EPA believes that both of those 

deadlines are appropriate and that they 

should not be further delayed for the 

following reasons. First, with respect to 

the deadline to submit a BAMM request 

for recipe-specific emission factors, if 

today’s proposal is finalized, EPA does 

not anticipate receiving requests for the 

use of BAMM for recipe-specific 

emission factors in 2011 because it will 

no longer be required for the largest 

facilities for 2011 and 2012. Second, for 

requests to use BAMM to estimate 

emissions beyond December 31, 2011 

for unique and extreme circumstances, 

EPA believes that a deadline of 

September 30, 2011 is appropriate 

because sufficient time is needed for 

EPA to review the request and respond 

to the owner or operator before the 

beginning of the next reporting period 

on January 1, 2012. If today’s proposed 

action to allow flexibility for the largest 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities 

is finalized, EPA anticipates receiving 

only limited requests to use BAMM to 

estimate emissions beyond December 

31, 2011. Nevertheless, EPA requests 

comment on extending the deadlines by 

which an owner or operator may submit 

a request to use BAMM for recipespecific emission factors in 2011 and for 

estimating emissions beyond December 

31, 2011. 

C. Apportioning Model Verification 

EPA is requesting comment on the 

issue raised in SIA’s Petition for 

Reconsideration with regard to the 

verification requirement for facilityspecific engineering models used to 

apportion gas consumption. Pursuant to 

40 CFR 98.94(c)(2), a facility must 

demonstrate that the difference between 

the actual and modeled gas 

consumption for the gas used in the 

largest quantity on a mass basis for the 

plasma etching process type is less than 

or equal to 5 percent. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 36477 

In the 2010 proposed rule (75 FR 

18652), EPA proposed to require 

electronics manufacturing facilities to 

apportion consumption of each 

fluorinated GHG used at a facility across 

process categories in which that gas was 

used based on the quantifiable indicator 

of number of wafer passes. EPA also 

requested comment, including 

background information, on what 

quantifiable indicators other than wafer 

passes might be appropriately used to 

apportion consumption. In response to 

the proposed rule, commenters argued 

that using a facility-specific engineering 

model based on wafer passes was overly 

burdensome and not currently feasible. 

Some commenters suggested more 

flexible methods in which the 

apportioning was based on at least one 

quantifiable indicator and engineering 

knowledge. Commenters also asserted 

that EPA should not prescribe specific 

quantifiable indicators for apportioning 

gas consumption in the final rule. 

In response to the comments on the 

proposed wafer pass-based apportioning 

model, EPA revised the requirements for 

gas apportioning models in the final 

2010 rule (FR 74774) to provide 

flexibility to facilities. Unlike the 

proposal, the final rule does not specify 

the quantifiable metric that must be 

used in apportioning models; reporters 

are allowed to select the quantifiable 

metric(s) on which to base their facilityspecific engineering model. Because 

EPA provided for flexibility in the final 

rule, EPA included a verification 

process to ensure consistency among 

reporting entities. This is because 

facilities will use different models and 

information to apportion gas 

consumption and calculate emissions, 

and because a minimum level of 

certainty and accuracy must be 

maintained across reporting facilities. 

We view the verification requirement 

in the final rule (40 CFR 98.94(c)(2)) as 

a logical outgrowth of the proposal. In 

the final rule, EPA balanced the need for 

flexibility with the need for accuracy in 

the consumption estimate. Nonetheless, 

we would like Petitioners and others to 

have the opportunity to comment on the 

approach adopted in the final rule and 

to provide additional information they 

believe to be relevant. For these reasons, 

we request public comment on this 

approach. We will consider these 

comments and evaluate whether 

changes are warranted, including 

whether to propose an alternative 

approach in a subsequent action. 

Specifically, we request comment on 

whether the requirement to meet the 5 

percent verification standard is overly 

burdensome, and if so, why. To support 

this explanation, we request detailed 

information and facility-specific 

examples. We also request comment on 

whether existing equipment or 

instruments (e.g., mass flow controllers 

already installed and used on every 

process tool) can be used to measure 

actual gas consumption for the purposes 

of model verification, and the associated 

costs of using that equipment or 

instrumentation. If these costs vary from 

facility to facility, we request comment 

on the range of costs across facilities 

and the approximate numbers of 

facilities that would incur the various 

costs. In addition, we request comment 

on the specific actions or modifications 

a facility would have to take to comply 

with the requirement and the associated 

costs (e.g., install new software for mass 

flow controllers, purchase and install 

flow meters or scales, etc.). Where these 

actions or modifications vary from 

facility to facility, we request comment 

on the range across facilities, and the 

approximate number of facilities that 

would have to take particular actions or 

modifications. Lastly, we request 

comment on other approaches that 

could be used to verify modeled gas 

consumption to a similar level of 

accuracy as the current requirement 

(i.e., whether verification could be 

accomplished through other means). 

Note that those approaches should not 

be based on subjective information (e.g., 

engineering judgment). 

In today’s notice, EPA is not taking 

any other action on other issues raised 

by SIA in their Petition for 

Reconsideration. EPA recognizes that 

the Petition raises other issues. 

Although EPA is aware of these 

concerns, we are not proposing changes 

relating to those concerns in this action, 

and we are not seeking comment on 

those issues at this time. EPA reserves 

the right to further consider those issues 

at a later time. EPA is also taking no 

action at this time on issues raised by 

3M Company in their January 28, 2011 

Petition for Reconsideration of Subpart 

I. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and is therefore not 

subject to review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden. These 

proposed amendments do not make any 

substantive changes to the reporting 

requirements in the subpart for which 

amendments are being proposed. The 

proposed amendments to the reporting 

requirements are expected to reduce the 

reporting burden by allowing reporters 

to use default values instead of recipespecific values for the first two reporting 

years (2011 and 2012). However, the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has previously approved the 

information collection requirements 

contained in the existing regulations, 

40 CFR 98 subpart I (75 FR 74774, 

December 1, 2010), under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned 

OMB control number 2060–0650. The 

OMB control numbers for EPA’s 

regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 

40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

The RFA generally requires an agency 

to prepare a regulatory flexibility 

analysis of any rule subject to notice 

and comment rulemaking requirements 

under the Administrative Procedure Act 

or any other statute unless the agency 

certifies that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this proposed rule on small entities, 

small entity is defined as: (1) A small 

business as defined by the Small 

Business Administration’s regulations at 

13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small 

governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed rule on 

small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. In determining whether a rule 

has a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

impact of concern is any significant 

adverse economic impact on small 

entities, since the primary purpose of 

the regulatory flexibility analyses is to 

identify and address regulatory 

alternatives ‘‘which minimize any 

significant economic impact of the rule 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
36478 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

on small entities.’’ 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 

Thus, an agency may certify that a rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities if the rule relieves regulatory 

burden, or otherwise has a positive 

economic effect on all of the small 

entities subject to the rule. The 

proposed rule amendments will reduce 

the burden for the largest semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities by providing 

flexibility during the initial years of 

compliance. The proposed action does 

not impose any new requirements on 

regulated entities. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule 

amendments on small entities and 

welcome comments on issues related to 

such impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538, requires Federal agencies, 

unless otherwise prohibited by law, to 

assess the effects of their regulatory 

actions on State, local, and Tribal 

governments and the private sector. 

Federal agencies must also develop a 

plan to provide notice to small 

governments that might be significantly 

or uniquely affected by any regulatory 

requirements. The plan must enable 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates and must 

inform, educate, and advise small 

governments on compliance with the 

regulatory requirements. 

The proposed rule amendments do 

not contain a Federal mandate that may 

result in expenditures of $100 million or 

more for State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or the 

private sector in any one year. Thus, the 

proposed rule amendments are not 

subject to the requirements of section 

202 and 205 of the UMRA. This rule is 

also not subject to the requirements of 

section 203 of UMRA because it 

contains no regulatory requirements that 

might significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments. The proposed 

amendments will not impose any new 

requirements for 40 CFR part 98, and 

the rule amendments would not unfairly 

apply to small governments. Therefore, 

this action is not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of the 

UMRA. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. 

These amendments apply directly to 

facilities that use and emit fluorinated 

GHGs in the manufacture of certain 

electronic devices. They do not apply to 

governmental entities because no 

government facilities would be affected. 

This regulation also does not limit the 

power of States or localities to collect 

GHG data and/or regulate GHG 

emissions. Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this action. 

Although section 6 of Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this action, EPA 

did consult with State and local officials 

or representatives of State and local 

governments during the development of 

the Mandatory Reporting Rule. A 

summary of EPA’s consultations with 

State and local governments is provided 

in Section VIII.E of the preamble to the 

2009 final rule. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and State and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicits comment on this 

proposed action from State and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have Tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). The proposed rule amendments 

would not result in any changes to the 

requirements that are not currently 

required for 40 CFR part 98. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action. 

Although Executive Order 13175 does 

not apply to this action, EPA sought 

opportunities to provide information to 

Tribal governments and representatives 

during the development of the 

Mandatory Reporting Rule. A summary 

of the EPA’s consultations with Tribal 

officials is provided in Sections VIII.D 

and VIII.F of the preamble to the 2009 

final Mandatory Reporting Rule (74 FR 

56260, October 30, 2009) and Section 

IV.F of the preamble to the 2010 final 

rule for Subpart I (75 FR 74774). 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because it does 

not establish an environmental standard 

intended to mitigate health or safety 

risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action 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 and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 

104–113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

This proposed rulemaking does not 

involve technical standards. Any 

technical standards that are required 

under Subpart I were already included 

in promulgation of the final Subpart I 

provisions on December 1, 2011 (75 FR 

74774). Therefore, EPA is not 

considering the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards in this action. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 36479 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment because it is a rule 

addressing information collection and 

reporting procedures. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 98 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedures, 

Air pollution control, Monitoring, 

Reporting and recordkeeping. 

Dated: June 15, 2011. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 98—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 98 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart I—[Amended] 

2. Section 98.93 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii) introductory 

text to read as follows: 

§ 98.93 Calculating GHG emissions. 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) If your facility has an annual 

manufacturing capacity of greater than 

10,500 m2 of substrate, as calculated 

using Equation I–5 of this subpart, you 

must adhere to the procedures in 

paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(A) through 

(a)(2)(ii)(C) of this section, except that 

you may use the procedures specified in 

paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section for the 

2011 and 2012 reporting years. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–15651 Filed 6–21–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 174 and 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0602; FRL–8878–1] 

Receipt of a Pesticide Petition Filed for 

Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or 

on Various Commodities 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of filing of petition and 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: This document announces the 

Agency’s receipt of an initial filing of a 

pesticide petition requesting the 

establishment or modification of 

regulations for residues of pesticide 

chemicals in or on various commodities. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 22, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0602 and 

the pesticide petition number (PP), by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs 

(OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001. 

• Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public 

Docket (7502P), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Rm. S–4400, One 

Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. 

Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket 

Facility’s normal hours of operation 

(8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays). 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. The 

Docket Facility telephone number is 

(703) 305–5805. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2010– 

0602 and the pesticide petition number 

(PP). EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the docket 

without change and may be made 

available on-line at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through regulations.gov or email. The regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

regulations.gov, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the docket and made available 

on the Internet. If you submit an 

electronic comment, EPA recommends 

that you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the docket index available 

at http://www.regulations.gov. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either in the 

electronic docket at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the OPP 

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S– 

4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 

2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The 

hours of operation of this Docket 

Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The Docket Facility telephone 

number is (703) 305–5805. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie 

Chao, Registration Division (7505P), 

Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 308–8735; e-mail address: 

chao.julie@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. Potentially 

affected entities may include, but are 

not limited to: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS