Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by these final amendments include:
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to 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 any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult either the air permit authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General Provisions).
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this final action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of this final action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following address:
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review of these final rules is available only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by September 22, 2008. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to these final rules that was
On May 22, 2003, we promulgated the NESHAP for semiconductor manufacturing, under section 112(d) of the CAA. (68 FR 27913); 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBB). The NESHAP requires all semiconductor manufacturing facilities that are major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) to meet standards reflecting application of the maximum achievable control technology (MACT). The NESHAP establishes emissions limitations for the control of HAP from semiconductor manufacturing operations. The compliance date for the NESHAP requirements was May 22, 2006.
After promulgation, it was brought to our attention that while the NESHAP established separate emission standards for organic and inorganic HAP from process vents, one plant had a different process vent system. Specifically, we learned that this plant combined inorganic and organic vent streams into a single atmospheric process vent. At the time we developed the MACT standard, however, we had determined that since at least 1980 industry practice has been to strictly separate process vent emissions into streams containing either organic or inorganic HAP (71 FR 61701). This was because we were not aware of any sources that combined their inorganic and organic vent streams, and, therefore, had no data on such sources. Therefore, the NESHAP failed to account for the existence of combined organic and inorganic HAP process vents.
On October 19, 2006, in order to address these combined process vent streams, we proposed amending the NESHAP by establishing emission standards for existing and new combined process vent streams (71 FR 61701). We proposed no control for the limited number of existing combined process vents. Additionally, for new and reconstructed combined HAP process vents, we proposed the requirement for inorganic HAP process vents to be the same as the requirement that currently apply to inorganic HAP process vents and the requirement for organic HAP process vents to be the same as the requirement that currently apply to organic HAP process vents (71 FR 61703). Further, we proposed new definitions that clarified the applicability of the NESHAP to inorganic, organic and combined HAP process vents.
Subsequently, the DC Circuit in
In today's rule we are taking final action on both our October 2006 (71 FR 61703), and April 2008 proposals (73 FR 17940). Therefore, we are finalizing, as proposed in October 2006, definitions that clarify the applicability of the NESHAP to inorganic, organic and combined HAP process vents. We are also promulgating, as proposed in April 2008, an emission limitation of 14.22 ppmv for new and existing combined HAP process vents.
We received 3 comments on our October 2006 and April 2008 proposals. The commenters were generally supportive of both proposals. A summary of the significant issues raised in the comments are included below.
This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the EO.
This action does not impose any new information collection burden. These amendments clarify applicability of the final rule. Therefore, the Information Collection Request (ICR) has not been revised.
However, the Office of Management and Budget (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
The Regulatory Flexibility Act 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 would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For the purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that meets the Small Business Administration size standards for small businesses found at 13 CFR 121.201 (less than 500 employees for NAICS codes 331511, 331512, and 331513); (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 rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule will not impose any requirements on small entities since we do not create any new requirements or burdens that were not already included in the economic impact assessment for the existing rule.
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 by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by 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.
This final rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. The final amendments are expected to result in an overall reduction in expenditures for the private sector and are not expected to impact State, local, or tribal governments. Thus, the final amendments are not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
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” 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.”
This 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. These final amendments do not impose any requirements on State and local governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communication between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicited comment on the proposed rule from State and local officials.
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 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 final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. These final amendments impose no requirements on tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 13045 because it is based solely on technology performance.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law No. 104-114, 12(d) (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 (
This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
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 final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because they do not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. These final amendments do not relax the control measures on sources regulated by the rule and therefore will not cause emissions increases from these sources.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801,
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401,
(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).
(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.