Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0086-0015
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2008-04-02T04:00Z

SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 	6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR–2002–0086, FRL–    ]

RIN 2060-AN80

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Semiconductor Manufacturing

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  

ACTION:  Proposed Rule.

SUMMARY:  On October 19, 2006,   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 EPA proposed
amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Semiconductor Manufacturing, published on May 22, 2003.  
 SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The purpose of the proposed amendments was to
clarify the emission requirements for process vents by establishing a
new maximum achievable control technology floor level of control for
existing combined hazardous air pollutants process vent streams
containing inorganic and organic hazardous air pollutants and adding
requirements for new and reconstructed combined hazardous air pollutants
process vents.  For existing combined hazardous air pollutants process
vents, EPA proposed that the floor was no control.  In light of Sierra
Club v. EPA, we are re-proposing the requirements for existing and new
combined hazardous air pollutants process in this supplemental proposal.

DATES:    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Comments must be
received by EPA on or before [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF
PUBLICATION], unless a public hearing is requested by [INSERT 10 DAYS
FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION].  If a hearing is requested, EPA will hold a
public hearing on [INSERT THE DATE 15 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION]. 
If a hearing is requested, written comments must be received by [INSERT
DATE 45 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION].  If you are interested in
attending the public hearing, contact Mr. John Schaefer at (919)
541-0296 to verify that a hearing will be held.

ADDRESSES:  Comments.  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0086, by one of the following methods:

www.regulations.gov:  Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.

E-mail:  a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0086.

Fax:  (202) 566-9744

Mail:  U.S. Postal Service, send comments to:   EPA Docket Center
(2822T), Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0086, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460.  Please include a total of two copies.
 

Hand Delivery:  In person or by courier, deliver comments to:  EPA
Docket Center (2822T), Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0086, EPA
West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
20004.  Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.  Please include a total of two copies. 

Instructions.  Direct your comments to Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002–0086.  EPA’s policy is that all comments received
will be included in the public docket without change and may be made
available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to
be confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.  Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or
e-mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI to only the
following address:  Mr. Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer,
EPA (C404-02), Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0086, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711.  Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI.  The www.regulations.gov website
is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment.  If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet.  If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit.  If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may
not be able to consider your comment.  Electronic files should avoid the
use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any
defects or viruses.  For additional information about EPA’s public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm" 
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm .

Docket.  All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index.  Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.  Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0086, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC.  The EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Public Reading
Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket
Center is (202) 566-1742.  A reasonable fee may be charged for copying
docket materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Mr. John Schaefer, EPA, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division,
Measurement Policy Group (D243-05), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;
telephone number (919) 541-0296; fax number (919) 541-1039; e-mail
address schaefer.john@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulated Entities.  Entities potentially affected by the proposed
amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Semiconductor Manufacturing include:

Table 1.  Regulated Entities Table

Category	NAICS1	Examples of Regulated Entities

Industry	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 334413	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1
Semiconductor crystal growing facilities, semiconductor wafer
fabrication facilities, semiconductor test and assembly facilities.

1 North American Industry Classification System

	This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action.  This table lists the types of entities that may potentially be
affected by this action.  To determine whether your facility is
regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability
criteria in 40 CFR 63.7181 of the rule.  If you have questions regarding
the applicability of the proposed amendments to a particular entity,
consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section. 

Submitting CBI.  Do not submit this information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail.  Send or deliver information identified
as CBI only to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this
document.  Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you
claim to be CBI.  For CBI information submitted on a disk or CD ROM that
you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific
information that is claimed as CBI.  In addition to one complete version
of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the
comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be
submitted for inclusion in the public docket.  Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.     

Worldwide Web (WWW).  In addition to being available in the docket, an
electronic copy of today(s proposal will also be available through the
WWW.  Following the Administrator(s signature, a copy of this action
will be posted on EPA(s Technology Transfer Network (TTN) policy and
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/.  Information may also be obtained from
the webpage for the proposed rulemaking at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/pcem/pcempg.html" 
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/pcem/pcempg.html .  The TTN at EPA(s web site
provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air
pollution control.

Public Hearing.  If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 10:00
a.m. at the EPA’s Environmental Research Center Auditorium, Research
Triangle Park, NC, or at an alternate site nearby.

Outline.	The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:

I.  Background

II.  Summary of the Proposed Amendments

III.  Rationale for the Proposed Amendments

IV.  Impacts of the Proposed Amendments

V.  Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A.  Executive Order 12866:  Regulatory Planning and Review

B.  Paperwork Reduction Act

C.  Regulatory Flexibility Act

D.  Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

E.  Executive Order 13132:  Federalism

F.  Executive Order 13175:  Consultation and Coordination with 

    Indian Tribal Governments

G.  Executive Order 13045:  Protection of Children from 

    Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

H.  Executive Order 13211:  Actions Concerning Regulations That 

    Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

I.  National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

I.  Background

On May 22, 2003 (68 FR 27913), we issued the national emission standards
for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for semiconductor manufacturing
(40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBB).  The NESHAP implement section 112(d) of
the Clean Air Act (CAA) by requiring all major sources to meet emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants (HAP) reflecting application of
the maximum achievable control technology (MACT).  The NESHAP establish
emission limitations for emission sources at operations used to
manufacture p-type and n-type semiconductors and active solid-state
devices from a wafer substrate.  

After promulgation of the NESHAP, it was brought to our attention that
while the NESHAP established separate emission standards for organic and
inorganic HAP from process vents, one plant of which we are now aware
has a different process vent approach system.  Specifically, this plant
combines inorganic and organic vent streams into a single atmospheric
process vent.  At the time we developed the MACT standard, we were not
aware of any sources that combined their inorganic and organic vent
streams, and, therefore, we had no data on such sources.  Rather, during
the development phase of the rule, we determined that since 1980
industry practice has been to strictly separate process vent emissions
into streams containing either organic or inorganic HAP (71 FR 61701,
61702-03, October 19, 2006).  In order to address the combined process
vent stream segment of which we are now aware, on October 19, 2006, we
proposed amending the final rule by establishing emission standards for
existing and new combined process vent streams (71 FR 61701). For the
limited number of existing combined process vents, we proposed no
control.  For new and reconstructed combined HAP process vents, we
proposed the same requirements that currently apply to new inorganic HAP
process vents and new organic HAP process vents (71 FR 61703).

In light of the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 479
F.3d 875 (D.C. Circuit 2007), we are issuing this supplementary proposal
to change the requirements for existing and new combined HAP process
vents that we proposed in the October 2006 amendments.  This
supplementary proposal is limited to revising the emission standards for
existing and new combined HAP process vents, and we are requesting
comments only on these proposed changes.  

II.  Summary of the Proposed Amendments

The October 2006 proposed amendments proposed no control requirements
for existing combined HAP process vents.  In addition, for new and
reconstructed combined HAP process vents, we proposed the requirement
for inorganic HAP components to be the same as the current requirement
for inorganic HAP process vents and the requirement for organic HAP to
be the same as the requirement for organic HAP process vents (71 FR
61703).

These proposed amendments establish the following emission limit for HAP
emitted from new and existing combined HAP process vents:  14.22 parts
per million by volume (ppmv).  

III.  Rationale for the Proposed Amendments

In the October 2006 proposed amendments, we proposed the requirements
for existing combined HAP process vents would be no reductions in
emissions or no control.  Subsequently, the D.C. Circuit in Sierra Club
v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875 (D.C. Circuit 2007) found that EPA’s decision to
set no control emission floors for source categories where the best
performing sources did not use emission control technology was in direct
contravention of CAA section 112(d)(3).  In response to this decision,
we are proposing revised standards for existing and new combined HAP
process vents in this supplementary proposal.

Specifically, we are proposing that existing combined HAP process vents
achieve a control level of 14.22 ppmv, which is the average level of
emissions control achieved by the best performing four combined HAP
process vents that we are aware of at maximum representative operating
conditions.  We are basing the MACT floor on four combined HAP process
vents because we only identified four such vents in our recent
assessment of the semiconductor industry.  This level of control
represents the level actually achieved by the best performing sources,
consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA 479 F.3d 875 (D.C. Circuit 2007) and
CAA section 112(d)(3).

In addition, we are proposing that new combined HAP process vents also
achieve a control level of 14.22 ppmv.  This is because, for new and
reconstructed sources, CAA section 112(d)(3) requires that we set
emissions limitations that are no less stringent than the emissions
control achieved in practice by the best performing similar source,
which in this instance are the existing four combined HAP process vents.
 Our technical analysis of these four process vents, the information
used to develop the 14.22 ppmv limitation, and the beyond the MACT floor
analysis is available in the docket for this rulemaking. 

We examined establishing limitations beyond the floor level of control
for existing and new combined HAP process vents.  Establishing a
meaningful control level below the 14.22 ppmv limitation would require
the segregation of organic and inorganic process vent streams and
process heat into separate vent streams.  The separate organic and
inorganic process vents could then be controlled by add-on control
devices.  We looked at one option that segregated the process vents into
organic and inorganic constituents and controlled the inorganic process
streams with a wet scrubber as needed to meet the existing emission
limit for inorganic process vent streams.  We rejected this control
option because the associated costs were calculated to be in excess of
$7.5 million per ton of HAP controlled.  We believe that this option is
not a reasonable beyond the floor control option because the associated
costs are prohibitive.  Therefore, we are proposing the selected
limitation or control level of 14.22 ppmv as the floor level of control
for existing combined HAP process vents.

IV.  Impacts of the Proposed Amendments

The proposed amendments do not affect the level of emissions control
required by the existing NESHAP for the nonair, health, environmental,
and energy impacts.  In the October 2006 rule, we estimated that no
additional add-on controls would be required.  These proposed amendments
do not change the impacts associated with the final rule.  

This is because the proposed MACT level of control is achieved by three
of the four process vents evaluated.  We expect the forth process vent
will be able to meet the standard through operational changes rather
than through the use of add on control devices.  In addition, we do not
expect new semiconductor manufacturing facilities will utilize combined
HAP process vents, so we do not expect any new combined HAP process
vents will be constructed in the future.  Therefore, a re-evaluation of
costs associated with the final rule was not necessary.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 V.  Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A.  Executive Order 12866:  Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action
is a “significant regulatory action.”  Accordingly, EPA submitted
this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review
under Executive Order 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB
recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.

B.  Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not impose any new information collection burden.  The
information collection requirements in the final rule have not been
changed by these proposed amendments.  However, OMB has previously
approved the information collection requirements contained in the
existing regulations (40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBB) under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., and
has assigned OMB control number 2060-0519, EPA ICR number 2042.03.  A
copy of the OMB approved Information Collection Request (ICR) may be
obtained from Susan Auby, Collection Strategies Division; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW,
Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202) 566-1672.

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 in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C.  Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.  Small entities include small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities,
small entity is defined as:  (1) A small business as defined by the
Small Business Administrations’ regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county,
town, school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant
in its field.  

After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.  This
proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small entities.

We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed
rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such
impacts.	

D.  Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

	Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector.  Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with "Federal mandates" that may
result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one
year.  Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome 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.

	 We have determined that this proposed rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the
private sector in any one year.  This rule affects only one facility in
the nation.  Total rule impacts were estimated to be approximately
$22,000.  Thus, this proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.  In addition, EPA has determined that
this proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it contains
no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations
upon them.  Therefore, the proposed rule is not subject to section 203
of the UMRA.

E.  Executive Order 13132:  Federalism

	Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure "meaningful and timely input by
State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that
have federalism implications."  "Policies that have federalism
implications" is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have "substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government." 

	This proposed rule does not have federalism implications.  It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132.  None of the affected semiconductor
facilities are owned or operated by State or local governments.  Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule.  

	In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy
to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments,
EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and
local officials.

F.  Executive Order 13175:  Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments

	Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure "meaningful and timely input by
tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
tribal implications."  This proposed rule does not have tribal
implications as specified in Executive Order 13175.  It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian
tribes.  No tribal governments own or operate semiconductor
manufacturing facilities and are not subject to the proposed standards. 
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.  EPA
specifically solicits addition comment on this proposed rule from tribal
officials.

G.  Executive Order 13045:  Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

	Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule
that:  (1) is determined to be "economically significant" as defined
under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children.  If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency.

	EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the
potential to influence the regulation.  This proposed rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology
performance and not on health or safety risks.

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

	This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined
in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution,
or use of energy.  This rule does not require the use of add-on control
devices and will therefore not have any adverse energy effects.  

I.  National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

	Section 112(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note),
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical.  VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies.  The NTTAA
directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the
Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.

	This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. 
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any VCS.

	EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and,
specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-applicable VCS
and to explain why such standards should be used in this regulation.

Executive Order 12898:  Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice.  Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by
identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.  

EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or
low-income population.  This proposed rule affects one facility in the
nation.  This facility emits approximately one ton per year of regulated
HAP and does not significantly affect the local population.



List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental Protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances,
Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements.

______________

Dated:

______________________

Stephen L. Johnson

Administrator.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 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]

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

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

Subpart BBBBB--[AMENDED]

2. Section 63.7184 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as
follows:

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

*  *  *  *  *

(f)  Process vents – combined HAP emissions.  For each combined HAP
process vent, other than process vents from storage tanks, you must
reduce or maintain the concentration of emitted HAP from the process
vent to less than or equal to 14.22 ppmv.  These limitations can be met
by venting emissions from your process vent through a closed vent system
to any combination of control devices meeting the requirements of
§63.982(a)(2).

	 

 PAGE   

 PAGE   21 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Semiconductor Manufacturing

Page   PAGE  22  of   NUMPAGES  23 

23

 PAGE   19