Procedural Review Voting Sheet s1

Procedural Review Voting Sheet 2012 Cycle 4 REGION: North America COMMITTEE: NA Metrics EVENT: SEMICON West 2012 DATE OF MEETING: 7/11/2012 PLACE OF MEETING: San Francisco Marriott Marquis in San Francisco, CA COMMITTEE CO-CHAIRS: David Bouldin/Fab Consulting, Mark Frankfurth/Cymer SEMI STAFF: Michael Tran

A&R Voter: Name/Company Date: 200X/MM/DD

I. Document Number & Title Document Revision to SEMI E33-94, Specification for #3847D Semiconductor Manufacturing Facility Electromagnetic Compatibility with title change to: Guide for Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC)

II. Tally (Staff to fill in)

Voting Tally: As-cast tally after close of voting period A minimum of 60% of the voting interests that have voting members within the technical committee must return votes. (Regulations ¶ 9.6.1)

Return Distribution Return Rate Yellow 27 ÷ 45 = 60.0% >=60%

Lilac & Others 10 ------Total Vote 37

Reject 4

Accept 19

Not approved A&R Reason: III. Rejects Reject 1 - SHIGEHITO IBUKA (Tokyo Electron) Negative 1 of Reject 1 Referenced *TF/Committee to fill in if necessary N e Section 5.1.8 g a

t *Original negative comment and justification should be included. i v e Reason No description in the main body of the document.

GO TO “Related” X No withdrawal made section Withdrawal GO TO “Final”  Withdrawal document received by staff on XXXX (A) “Related” is mutually agreed upon. X *This motion can be appended to the motion for Persuasive (See Motion and Persuasive Section) Reason Negative is related (needs over 1/3 votes to pass) Negative is not related (needs 2/3 or more votes to pass) Reason XXXX R Motion by/2nd by Name (Company)/Name (Company) e l a t e Discussion d

XX-XX [Negative is related] > 1/3 GO TO “Persuasive” Result of Vote [Negative is not related] < 2/3 (check ONE) 2/3=< [Negative is not related] GO TO “Final”  (B)

Negative is related and persuasive (needs over 1/3 votes to pass) Motion and X Negative is related and not persuasive (needs 2/3 or more votes to pass) Reason Editorial change proposed to remove the acronym in section Reason 5.1.8 since it is not used anywhere in the document. Motion by/2nd by Vladimir Kraz (Best ESD)/Arnold Steinman (Electronics Workshop)

P Discussion None. e r s 4-0. Motion passed. u a s

i [Negative is related and persuasive] > 1/3 v GO TO “Final”  e (E) [Negative is related and not persuasive] < 2/3 Result of Vote (check ONE) GO TO “Final”  2/3=<[Negative is related and not persuasive] <90% (C)

X 90% =< [Negative is related and not persuasive] GO TO “Not Signifi- cant Finding Option”  

GO TO (D) GO TO (C) Related” Related” “

(D) (C

ection A)   GO s GO“Final” TO ( GO TO GO TO GO TO XXXX in disposition) in j DOCUMENT FAILS DOCUMENT in disposition) in in disposition) i h (needs 2/3 or more votestoor more pass) 2/3 (needs

(needs over 1/3 votes to pass) 1/3 to over votes (needs passed with simple majority passed failed with simple majority failed XXXX Motion Motion Motion withdrawn (counted under (counted withdrawn under related (counted not persuasive (significant) and not related significant under (counted not and persuasive related on Related” ismutually upon. agreed Related” Negative is related Negative is related related Negative is not No withdrawal madeNo withdrawal staff on byreceived Withdrawal document “ *This motion can be Section) Persuasive appended to the motion for Persuasive (See Reas (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) #xcomment See generated. Comment It is mutually agreed upon to term the negative “not significant” “not term the negative to upon agreed is mutually It “significant” term the negative to upon agreed is mutually It significant”. is“not negative The XX-XX XX-XX X (Company) (Company)/Name Name XX-XX *TF/Committee to fill in fillif tonecessary in *TF/Committee 5.2.2 comment bejustification should included. negativeand *Original for understand what to “EMI”It theis difficult ballot. Item from is previous deleted definition general from for “EMI”. Thisdefinition different is definition. the is this X Negative is: Negative X X (Company) (Company)/Name Name Notapproved Reason: Vote Motion Reason Section Reason Final Motion andMotion Discussion Referenced Withdrawal Motion by/2nd by Motion by/2nd Motion by/2nd by Motion by/2nd This option can only be used “if thecommittee finds a negative not persuasiveby a vote equal to or greater than9.5.3.3.2) 90% of the persons voting on the action”. (Regulations ¶ A&R Not Significant Finding Option

Negative 2 of Reject 1 Negative of 2 Reject Negative [Negative is related] > 1/3 GO TO “Persuasive” [Negative is not related] < 2/3 Result of Vote R (check ONE) 2/3=< [Negative is not related] GO TO “Final”  (B) e l a Negative is related and persuasive (needs over 1/3 votes to pass) X Negative is related and not persuasive (needs 2/3 or more votes to pass) Motion and The new definition of 5.2.2 “electromagnetic interference (EMI)” Reason is taken from the industry terminology. The remaining comments Reason were due to the “marked deletion” of the term due to ballot formatting issues.

P Motion by/2nd by Vladimir Kraz (Best ESD)/Arnold Steinman (Electronics Workshop) e r Discussion None. s u a 4-0. Motion passed. s i v e [Negative is related and persuasive] > 1/3 GO TO “Final”  (E) [Negative is related and not persuasive] < 2/3 Result of Vote (check ONE) GO TO “Final”  2/3=<[Negative is related and not persuasive] <90% (C)

X 90% =< [Negative is related and not persuasive] GO TO “Not Signifi- cant Finding Option”

This option can only be used “if the committee finds a negative not persuasive by a vote N o equal to or greater than 90% of the persons voting on the action”. (Regulations ¶ t

i 9.5.3.3.2) g n i f i c a GO TO  n X It is mutually agreed upon to term the negative “not significant” t

(D) F i n GO TO  d It is mutually agreed upon to term the negative “significant” i n (C) g

O Motion The negative is “not significant”. p t i o Motion by/2nd by Name (Company)/Name (Company) n XX-XX Motion passed with simple majority GO TO  (D) Vote XX-XX Motion failed with simple majority GO TO  (C) Negative is: (A) withdrawn (counted under h in disposition) (B) not related (counted under i in disposition) Final (C) related and not persuasive (significant) X (D) not significant (counted under j in disposition) (E) related and persuasive DOCUMENT FAILS Comment generated. See comment #x Not approved A&R Reason: Negative 3 of Reject 1 Referenced *TF/Committee to fill in if necessary N e Section 5.2.13 g a

t *Original negative comment and justification should be included. i v e Reason Related to the comment for 5.2.2.

GO TO “Related” X No withdrawal made section Withdrawal GO TO “Final”  Withdrawal document received by staff on XXXX (A) “Related” is mutually agreed upon. X *This motion can be appended to the motion for Persuasive (See Motion and Persuasive Section) Reason Negative is related (needs over 1/3 votes to pass) Negative is not related (needs 2/3 or more votes to pass) Reason XXXX

R Motion by/2nd by Name (Company)/Name (Company) e l a t e Discussion d

Negative is related and persuasive (needs over 1/3 votes to pass) Motion and X Negative is related and not persuasive (needs 2/3 or more votes to pass) Reason Editorial change proposed to remove the strikethrough on Reason “supplier” since the strikethrough was introduced due to a conversion error between MS word 2010 template to pdf. Motion by/2nd by Vladimir Kraz (Best ESD)/Arnold Steinman (Electronics Workshop) P e Discussion None. r s u 4-0. Motion passed. a s i v [Negative is related and persuasive] > 1/3 e GO TO “Final”  (E) [Negative is related and not persuasive] < 2/3 Result of Vote (check ONE) GO TO “Final”  2/3=<[Negative is related and not persuasive] <90% (C)

(D) (C

ection A)   GO s GO“Final” TO ( GO TO GO TO GO TO XXXX in disposition) in j DOCUMENT FAILS DOCUMENT in disposition) in in disposition) i h (needs 2/3 or more votestoor more pass) 2/3 (needs

(needs over 1/3 votes to pass) 1/3 to over votes (needs passed with simple majority passed failed with simple majority failed XXXX Motion Motion Motion withdrawn (counted under (counted withdrawn under related (counted not persuasive (significant) and not related significant under (counted not and persuasive related on Related” ismutually upon. agreed Related” Withdrawal document received by staff on byreceived Withdrawal document Negative is related related Negative is not No withdrawal madeNo withdrawal “ *This motion can be Section) Persuasive appended to the motion for Persuasive (See Reas (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) #xcomment See generated. Comment It is mutually agreed upon to term the negative “not significant” “not term the negative to upon agreed is mutually It “significant” term the negative to upon agreed is mutually It significant”. is“not negative The XX-XX XX-XX X (Company) (Company)/Name Name *TF/Committee to fill in fillif tonecessary in *TF/Committee 6 comment bejustification should included. negativeand *Original areperformanceC criteria B described A, as which and do understand not We onlyapplicableandThis not is toimmunity presupposition. of explanations without eachsection address 6 testcontent, is Sincedoes not E33 related to emission. awkward. X Negative is: Negative X X (Company) (Company)/Name Name Notapproved Reason: Vote Motion Reason Section Reason Final Motion andMotion Referenced Withdrawal Motion by/2nd by Motion by/2nd Motion by/2nd by Motion by/2nd This option can only be used “if thecommittee finds a negative not persuasiveby a vote equal to or greater than9.5.3.3.2) 90% of the persons voting on the action”. (Regulations ¶ A&R Not Significant Finding Option

Negative 4 of Reject 1 Negative of 4 Reject Negative Discussion

XX-XX [Negative is related] > 1/3 R GO TO “Persuasive” Result of Vote [Negative is not related] < 2/3 e (check ONE) l 2/3=< [Negative is not related] GO TO “Final”  (B) a t e Negative is related and persuasive (needs over 1/3 votes to pass) Motion and X Negative is related and not persuasive (needs 2/3 or more votes to pass) Reason The referred § 6 does not apply to compliance to the EMC Reason directive tests per ¶ 7.2, but applies when it is triggered per negotiated optional additional recommendation per ¶ 7.3 bullet 1. Motion by/2nd by Vladimir Kraz (Best ESD)/Arnold Steinman (Electronics Workshop) P e Discussion None. r s u 4-0. Motion passed. a s i v [Negative is related and persuasive] > 1/3 e GO TO “Final”  (E) [Negative is related and not persuasive] < 2/3 Result of Vote (check ONE) GO TO “Final”  2/3=<[Negative is related and not persuasive] <90% (C)

O Motion The negative is “not significant”. p t i o Motion by/2nd by Name (Company)/Name (Company) n XX-XX Motion passed with simple majority GO TO  (D) Vote XX-XX Motion failed with simple majority GO TO  (C) Negative is: (A) withdrawn (counted under h in disposition) (B) not related (counted under i in disposition) Final (C) related and not persuasive (significant) X (D) not significant (counted under j in disposition) (E) related and persuasive DOCUMENT FAILS Comment generated. See comment #x Not approved A&R Reason:

Disposition of Reject 1 4 Original number of Negatives (g) 0 # of Negatives withdrawn (h) 0 # of Negatives found not related (i)

4 # of Negatives found not significant (j)

X g-(h+i+j)=0  Reject is Not Valid and is not included in the denominator of § VI. Approval Conditions Check

Final g-(h+i+j)>0  Reject is included in the denominator of § VI. Approval Conditions Check Reject without a

Negative  Not Valid Note: If all of the negative material included with a reject vote is withdrawn, determined to be not related, or determined to be not significant, the reject vote is not valid. (Regulations ¶ 9.4.3.3)

Not approved A&R Reason:

Reject 2 - Bert Planting (ASML) Negative 1 of Reject 2 Referenced *TF/Committee to fill in if necessary Section In general

N *Original negative comment and justification should be included. e g a Description: t i v In general I lack reference to EMF (exposure of workers to electromagnetic fields). e Reason Proposal: Please mention to use and apply ICNIRP EMF guidelines 1998 on radio frequency + Guidelines on static fields 2009 GO TO “Related” X No withdrawal made section Withdrawal GO TO “Final”  Withdrawal document received by staff on XXXX (A) “Related” is mutually agreed upon. X *This motion can be appended to the motion for Persuasive (See Motion and Persuasive Section) Reason Negative is related (needs over 1/3 votes to pass) Negative is not related (needs 2/3 or more votes to pass) Reason XXXX Motion by/2nd by Name (Company)/Name (Company) Discussion

XX-XX [Negative is related] > 1/3 R GO TO “Persuasive” Result of Vote [Negative is not related] < 2/3 e (check ONE) l 2/3=< [Negative is not related] GO TO “Final”  (B) a t e Negative is related and persuasive (needs over 1/3 votes to pass) Motion and X Negative is related and not persuasive (needs 2/3 or more votes to pass) Reason Reason E33 is not a safety document applied to workers. Motion by/2nd by Vladimir Kraz (Best ESD)/Arnold Steinman (Electronics Workshop)

P Discussion None. e r 4-0. Motion passed. s u a

s [Negative is related and persuasive] > 1/3

i GO TO “Final”  v e (E) [Negative is related and not persuasive] < 2/3 Result of Vote (check ONE) GO TO “Final”  2/3=<[Negative is related and not persuasive] <90% (C)

O Motion The negative is “not significant”. p t i o Motion by/2nd by Name (Company)/Name (Company) n XX-XX Motion passed with simple majority GO TO  (D) Vote XX-XX Motion failed with simple majority GO TO  (C) Negative is: (A) withdrawn (counted under h in disposition) (B) not related (counted under i in disposition) Final (C) related and not persuasive (significant) X (D) not significant (counted under j in disposition) (E) related and persuasive DOCUMENT FAILS Comment generated. See comment #x A&R Not approved Reason:

Negative 2 of Reject 2 Referenced *TF/Committee to fill in if necessary Section In general

N *Original negative comment and justification should be included. e g a Description: t i v The term EMF is not correctly used in this SEMI guide. e Reason Proposal: EMF should refer to human exposure. Not to electromagnetic fields to which machines are being exposed to. GO TO “Related” X No withdrawal made section Withdrawal GO TO “Final”  Withdrawal document received by staff on XXXX (A) “Related” is mutually agreed upon. X *This motion can be appended to the motion for Persuasive (See Motion and Persuasive Section) Reason Negative is related (needs over 1/3 votes to pass) Negative is not related (needs 2/3 or more votes to pass) Reason XXXX

Negative is related and persuasive (needs over 1/3 votes to pass) Motion and X Negative is related and not persuasive (needs 2/3 or more votes to pass) Reason Reason E33 is not a safety document related to human exposure. Motion by/2nd by Vladimir Kraz (Best ESD)/Arnold Steinman (Electronics Workshop) Discussion None. Result of Vote 4-0. Motion passed. (check ONE) [Negative is related and persuasive] > 1/3 GO TO “Final”  (E) [Negative is related and not persuasive] < 2/3 2/3=<[Negative is related and not persuasive] <90% GO TO “Final”  (C) X 90% =< [Negative is related and not persuasive] GO TO “Not Signifi- P cant Finding Option” e r s u

Negative 3 of Reject 2 Referenced *TF/Committee to fill in if necessary Section Page 7

N *Original negative comment and justification should be included. e g a t i Description: v e Reason Upper frequency limit of ELF is 3kHz, what is the lower limit?

Proposal: Please mention this. GO TO “Related” X No withdrawal made section Withdrawal GO TO “Final”  Withdrawal document received by staff on XXXX (A)  

  (C) GO TO (D) GO TO NotSignifi “ ) (D) (C (B)

   GO TO “Final” GO“Final” TO (E) GO“Final” TO (C GO TO cantFinding Option”

frequencies cannot be GO TO GO TO GO TO “Persuasive” This could be clarified in a GO TO GO TO GO “Final” /3 (needs 2/3 or more votes to pass) to votes 2/3 (needsor more 1

> (needs over 1/3 votes to pass) votesto 1/3 over (needs

/3 (needs 2/3 or more votestoor more pass) 2/3 (needs

> (needs over 1/3 votes to pass) 1/3 to over votes (needs passed with simple passedmajority failed with majority simple failed A1-1.2 addresses the lower limit negativesince (i.e., ≥0) for ELFs EMFs. thisof document. version future XXXX is not related] 2/3 < isnot related] isrelated]

[Negative is related and not persuasive] and not is related [Negative Motion Motion Motion < on =

Related” is mutually agreed ismutuallyupon. agreed Related” Negative is related Negative is related related Negative is not It is mutually agreed upon to term the negative “not significant” “not the term negative to upon agreed is mutually It “significant” the term negative to upon agreed is mutually It significant”. is“not negative The [Negative is related and persuasive] and persuasive] is related [Negative

Related Persuasive Not Significant Finding Option Negative is: (A) withdrawn (counted under h in disposition) (B) not related (counted under i in disposition) Final (C) related and not persuasive (significant) X (D) not significant (counted under j in disposition) (E) related and persuasive DOCUMENT FAILS Comment generated. See comment #x Not approved A&R Reason:

Negative 4 of Reject 2 Referenced *TF/Committee to fill in if necessary Section Page 7 *Original negative comment and justification should be included.

Description:

N I totally lack limits on acceptable levels of ELF and VLF EMF (not human related) e and for what. g a Only one is given explicitly for Overhead transport systems (OHT). What about t i v other items? e Reason Proposal: I lack limits for ELF/ VLF when the source for the ELF/ VLF disturbance is located to the side of the bottom of a semicon manufacturing tool. (for example The power supply for OHT systems is usually standing against to wall in a fab area and not against the ceiling or in the sub fab. Many other noise sources may be present under “transparent” floors that could still affect equipment above it). GO TO “Related” X No withdrawal made section Withdrawal GO TO “Final”  Withdrawal document received by staff on XXXX (A) “Related” is mutually agreed upon. X *This motion can be appended to the motion for Persuasive (See Motion and Persuasive Section) Reason Negative is related (needs over 1/3 votes to pass) Negative is not related (needs 2/3 or more votes to pass) Reason XXXX Motion by/2nd by Name (Company)/Name (Company)

Discussion

Result of Vote XX-XX (check ONE) [Negative is related] > 1/3 GO TO “Persuasive” [Negative is not related] < 2/3 2/3=< [Negative is not related] GO TO “Final”  (B)

R e l a Negative is related and persuasive (needs over 1/3 votes to pass) Motion and X Negative is related and not persuasive (needs 2/3 or more votes to pass) Reason The methodology in § A1-2 and the general limit levels in Table Reason A1-1 were comprised of inputs from various companies in semi industry dealing with such issues. Motion by/2nd by Vladimir Kraz (Best ESD)/Arnold Steinman (Electronics Workshop) P e Discussion None. r s u 4-0. Motion passed. a s i v [Negative is related and persuasive] > 1/3 e GO TO “Final”  (E) [Negative is related and not persuasive] < 2/3 Result of Vote (check ONE) GO TO “Final”  2/3=<[Negative is related and not persuasive] <90% (C)

O Motion The negative is “not significant”. p t i o Motion by/2nd by Name (Company)/Name (Company) n XX-XX Motion passed with simple majority GO TO  (D) Vote XX-XX Motion failed with simple majority GO TO  (C) Negative is: (A) withdrawn (counted under h in disposition) (B) not related (counted under i in disposition) Final (C) related and not persuasive (significant) X (D) not significant (counted under j in disposition) (E) related and persuasive DOCUMENT FAILS Comment generated. See comment #x Not approved A&R Reason: Negative 5 of Reject 2 Referenced *TF/Committee to fill in if necessary

N Section Page 15 e g *Original negative comment and justification should be included. a t i v e Reason Description: contains a graph without units, I don’t know how to scale this graph both horizontally and vertically. GO TO “Related” X No withdrawal made section Withdrawal GO TO “Final”  Withdrawal document received by staff on XXXX (A) “Related” is mutually agreed upon. X *This motion can be appended to the motion for Persuasive (See Motion and Persuasive Section) Reason Negative is related (needs over 1/3 votes to pass) Negative is not related (needs 2/3 or more votes to pass) Reason XXXX R Motion by/2nd by Name (Company)/Name (Company) e l a t e Discussion d

Negative is related and persuasive (needs over 1/3 votes to pass) X Negative is related and not persuasive (needs 2/3 or more votes to pass) -Some details of Figure R2-2 disappeared from the MS Word 2010 template to pdf conversion. Motion and -Figure R2-2 was provided for graphical representation only. Reason Plotting Equation R2-4 will produce the same graph in figure R2- Reason 2. Section R2-3.5.4 defines the ranges for the horizontal and vertical scales. -Correct conversion of the document will be applied before publication. Motion by/2nd by Vladimir Kraz (Best ESD)/Arnold Steinman (Electronics Workshop) Discussion None. Result of Vote 4-0. Motion passed. (check ONE) [Negative is related and persuasive] > 1/3 GO TO “Final”  (E) [Negative is related and not persuasive] < 2/3

GO TO “Final”  2/3=<[Negative is related and not persuasive] <90% (C)

P e X 90% =< [Negative is related and not persuasive] GO TO “Not Signifi- r cant Finding Option” s u

Negative 6 of Reject 2 Referenced *TF/Committee to fill in if necessary Section Page 16 Reason *Original negative comment and justification should be included. Description: EN61000-3-3 has expired since Sept 2011.

Proposal: If that is no issue, then I lack notion of EN61000-3-11 (limits for voltage Flicker and fluctuations for equipment with rated current between 16A and 75A per phase). And second, I lack notion of EN61000-3-12 (limits for mains harmonics for equipment with rated current between 16A and 75A per phase) N Keep in mind that these mentioned products have not been tested on this, because e there has been no need (private nets or current rating >75A). PAS machines and g some early Twinscan models could be subject to this, if more than one system is a connected to a mains transformer. (that makes it a public net again). We lack tooling ti to do so. (this is not easily done and requires a lot of technical knowledge on mains v power quality and soft/ hard switching to analyze, test and solve). e Consider to make this remark to SEMI for this ballot. GO TO “Related” X No withdrawal made section Withdrawal GO TO “Final”  Withdrawal document received by staff on XXXX (A) “Related” is mutually agreed upon. X *This motion can be appended to the motion for Persuasive (See Motion and Persuasive Section) Reason Negative is related (needs over 1/3 votes to pass) Negative is not related (needs 2/3 or more votes to pass) Reason XXXX R Motion by/2nd by Name (Company)/Name (Company) e l a t e Discussion d

Negative is related and persuasive (needs over 1/3 votes to pass) X Negative is related and not persuasive (needs 2/3 or more votes to pass) The referred document EN61000-3-3 is listed in Related

P Motion and Information 3, which is referenced in the main body in Note 3 with e r Reason the Notice that unless otherwise indicated, all documents cited s u Reason shall be the latest published version. This document is still a s available even though it may have expired. The status of this i v

e document will be researched and the updated information may be included in the next revision of E33. Motion by/2nd by Vladimir Kraz (Best ESD)/Arnold Steinman (Electronics Workshop) Discussion None. 4-0. Motion passed. [Negative is related and persuasive] > 1/3 GO TO “Final”  (E) [Negative is related and not persuasive] < 2/3 Result of Vote GO TO “Final”  (check ONE) 2/3=<[Negative is related and not persuasive] <90% (C)

Reject 3 - Brian Claes (Lam Research Corp) Negative 1 of Reject 3 Referenced *TF/Committee to fill in if necessary Section 4.2 *Original negative comment and justification should be included. N e g Comment/Negative: a t i Revise the clause header to: "European Commission (EC) v e Reason Regulations/Directives/Standards"

Reason/Justification: No regulations or standards are addressed. Additionally, it implies that European standards are in the scope of E33. GO TO “Related” X No withdrawal made section Withdrawal GO TO “Final”  Withdrawal document received by staff on XXXX (A) “Related” is mutually agreed upon. X *This motion can be appended to the motion for Persuasive (See Motion and Persuasive Section) Reason Negative is related (needs over 1/3 votes to pass) Negative is not related (needs 2/3 or more votes to pass) Reason XXXX Motion by/2nd by Name (Company)/Name (Company)

Discussion

Result of Vote XX-XX (check ONE) [Negative is related] > 1/3 GO TO “Persuasive” [Negative is not related] < 2/3 2/3=< [Negative is not related] GO TO “Final”  (B) R e l a Negative is related and persuasive (needs over 1/3 votes to pass) X Negative is related and not persuasive (needs 2/3 or more votes to pass) Editorial change to remove “Regulations/” and “/Standards” from Motion and the subsection 4.2 heading to harmonize with the only document Reason listed under subsection 4.2 with the proper name of the industry Reason document as a Directive. From: “European Commission (EC) Regulations/Directives/Standards”

P To: “European Commission (EC) Directives” e r

s Motion by/2nd by Vladimir Kraz (Best ESD)/Arnold Steinman (Electronics Workshop) u a Discussion None. s i v 4-0. Motion passed. e

[Negative is related and persuasive] > 1/3 GO TO “Final”  (E) [Negative is related and not persuasive] < 2/3 Result of Vote (check ONE) GO TO “Final”  2/3=<[Negative is related and not persuasive] <90% (C)

Negative 2 of Reject 3 Referenced *TF/Committee to fill in if necessary Section 7.1 *Original negative comment and justification should be included.

Comment/Negative: N Revise to: "Conformance to the requirements of applicable EMC-related regulations e g (e.g., codes, directives) in the location where semiconductor manufacturing a t i equipment is to be used should"" supersede this Guide. Considerations v e Reason beyond regulatory requirements should be negotiated between the supplier and the user."

Reason/Justification: The regulatory requirement should supersede the requirement of E33. Complying with the additional recommendations stated in E33 should be agreed upon between the supplier and the user. GO TO “Related” X No withdrawal made section Withdrawal GO TO “Final”  Withdrawal document received by staff on XXXX (A) “Related” is mutually agreed upon. X *This motion can be appended to the motion for Persuasive (See Motion and Persuasive Section) Reason Negative is related (needs over 1/3 votes to pass) Negative is not related (needs 2/3 or more votes to pass) Reason XXXX R Motion by/2nd by Name (Company)/Name (Company) e l a t e Discussion d

Negative is related and persuasive (needs over 1/3 votes to pass) Motion and X Negative is related and not persuasive (needs 2/3 or more votes to pass) Reason The proposed removal of “be independent of and may” from ¶ 7.1 Reason does not significantly change the intended meaning as stated. Motion by/2nd by Vladimir Kraz (Best ESD)/Arnold Steinman (Electronics Workshop) Discussion None. 4-0. Motion passed. [Negative is related and persuasive] > 1/3 GO TO “Final”  (E) [Negative is related and not persuasive] < 2/3

Result of Vote GO TO “Final”  2/3=<[Negative is related and not persuasive] <90% P (check ONE) (C) e r X 90% =< [Negative is related and not persuasive] GO TO “Not Signifi- s cant Finding Option” u

Negative 3 of Reject 3 Referenced *TF/Committee to fill in if necessary Section 7.2 *Original negative comment and justification should be included. N e Comment/Negative: g a Revise to: "Conformance to the requirements of the EMC Directive 2004/108/EC is t i v recommended and represents the expectation for meeting the e Reason recommendations in this Guide."

Reason/Justification: Meeting the EMC directive should be sufficient and additional recommendations stated in E33 should be agreed upon between the supplier and the user. GO TO “Related” X No withdrawal made section Withdrawal GO TO “Final”  Withdrawal document received by staff on XXXX (A) “Related” is mutually agreed upon. X *This motion can be appended to the motion for Persuasive (See Motion and Persuasive Section) Reason Negative is related (needs over 1/3 votes to pass) Negative is not related (needs 2/3 or more votes to pass) Reason XXXX R Motion by/2nd by Name (Company)/Name (Company) e l a t e Discussion d

Negative is related and persuasive (needs over 1/3 votes to pass) X Negative is related and not persuasive (needs 2/3 or more votes to pass) -Editorial change to remove word “level” in ¶ 7.2. -From: “Conformance to the requirements of the EMC Directive 2004/108/EC is the recommended performance level of the equipment and represents the expectation for meeting the Motion and recommendations in this Guide.” Reason -To: “Conformance to the requirements of the EMC Directive Reason 2004/108/EC is the recommended performance of the equipment and represents the expectation for meeting the recommendations in this Guide.” P e -Justification: There is no existing association for the word “level” r s in the performance requirements of the EMC directive. (to u a reduce ambiguity) s i v Motion by/2nd by Vladimir Kraz (Best ESD)/Arnold Steinman (Electronics Workshop) e Discussion None. 4-0. Motion passed.

requested ) TO

(D) (C

ection A)   ( GO s GO“Final” TO GO TO GO TO GO TO XXXX in disposition) in j DOCUMENT FAILS DOCUMENT in disposition) in in disposition) i h (needs over 1/3 votes to pass) 1/3 to over votes (needs passed with simple majority passed failed with simple majority failed , they should be negotiated and agreed upon between the supplier supplier the between upon and agreed should negotiated be , they Motion Motion Motion withdrawn (counted under (counted withdrawn under related (counted not persuasive (significant) and not related significant under (counted not and persuasive related Related” ismutually upon. agreed Related” No withdrawal madeNo withdrawal staff on byreceived Withdrawal document Negative is related “ *This motion can be Section) Persuasive appended to the motion for Persuasive (See (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) #xcomment See generated. Comment It is mutually agreed upon to term the negative “not significant” “not term the negative to upon agreed is mutually It “significant” term the negative to upon agreed is mutually It significant”. is“not negative The XX-XX XX-XX Reason/Justification: the additionalrequirements. whom? desiring by is Clarifying who desired X X *TF/Committee to fill in fillif tonecessary in *TF/Committee 7.3 comment bejustification should included. negativeand *Original Comment/Negative: the beyond characteristics performance equipment to: "If additional Revise listedare thosebelow) as the EMC Directive of (such requirements the user by the user." and Negative is: Negative X X (Company) (Company)/Name Name Notapproved Reason: Vote Motion Reason Reason Section Final Motion andMotion Referenced Withdrawal Motion by/2nd by Motion by/2nd This option can only be used “if thecommittee finds a negative not persuasiveby a vote equal to or greater than9.5.3.3.2) 90% of the persons voting on the action”. (Regulations ¶ A&R Not Significant Finding Option

Negative 4 of Reject 3 Negative of 4 Reject Negative Negative is not related (needs 2/3 or more votes to pass) Reason XXXX Motion by/2nd by Name (Company)/Name (Company)

Discussion

XX-XX R e [Negative is related] > 1/3 GO TO “Persuasive” l Result of Vote [Negative is not related] < 2/3 a (check ONE) t 2/3=< [Negative is not related] GO TO “Final”  (B) e d Negative is related and persuasive (needs over 1/3 votes to pass) X Negative is related and not persuasive (needs 2/3 or more votes to pass) Editorial change to replace word “desired” with “requested” in ¶ 7.3. From: “If additional equipment performance characteristics Motion and beyond the requirements of the EMC Directive (such as those Reason listed below) are desired, they should be negotiated between the Reason supplier and the user.” To: “If additional equipment performance characteristics beyond the requirements of the EMC Directive (such as those listed P e below) are requested, they should be negotiated between the r s supplier and the user.” u a Motion by/2nd by s Vladimir Kraz (Best ESD)/Arnold Steinman (Electronics Workshop) i v

e Discussion None. 4-0. Motion passed.

This option can only be used “if the committee finds a negative not persuasive by a vote equal to or greater than 90% of the persons voting on the action”. (Regulations ¶ 9.5.3.3.2)

X It is mutually agreed upon to term the negative “not significant” GO TO  (D) It is mutually agreed upon to term the negative “significant” GO TO  (C) Motion The negative is “not significant”. Motion by/2nd by Name (Company)/Name (Company) Vote XX-XX Motion passed with simple majority GO TO  (D) XX-XX Motion failed with simple majority GO TO  (C) N o t

S i g n i f i c a n t Negative is: (A) withdrawn (counted under h in disposition) (B) not related (counted under i in disposition) Final (C) related and not persuasive (significant) X (D) not significant (counted under j in disposition) (E) related and persuasive DOCUMENT FAILS Comment generated. See comment #x Not approved A&R Reason:

Negative 5 of Reject 3 Referenced *TF/Committee to fill in if necessary Section Appendix 1 *Original negative comment and justification should be included. N e g a Comment/Negative: t i v Add references for sources of technical requirements e Reason Reason/Justification: Since E33 offers multiple compliance tracks, users of Appendix 1 should know which track or tracks are addressed by the Appendix. GO TO “Related” X No withdrawal made section Withdrawal GO TO “Final”  Withdrawal document received by staff on XXXX (A)  

  GO TO (C) GO TO (D) NotSignifi “ ) (D) (C (B)

   GO TO “Final” GO“Final” TO (E) GO“Final” TO (C GO TO cantFinding Option”

GO TO GO TO GO TO “Persuasive” GO TO GO TO GO “Final” /3 (needs 2/3 or more votes to pass) to votes 2/3 (needsor more 1

> (needs over 1/3 votes to pass) votesto 1/3 over (needs

/3 (needs 2/3 or more votestoor more pass) 2/3 (needs

> (needs over 1/3 votes to pass) 1/3 to over votes (needs passed with simple passedmajority failed with majority simple failed The methodology and limitsvarious companies were in comprised semi industry ofReference dealing inputs with such industrial from issues. corp.com/interferenceconcerns_acfields.php4. documents, such as http://www.fms- XXXX is not related] 2/3 < isnot related] isrelated]

[Negative is related and not persuasive] and not is related [Negative Motion Motion Motion < on =

Related” is mutually agreed ismutuallyupon. agreed Related” Negative is related Negative is related related Negative is not It is mutually agreed upon to term the negative “not significant” “not the term negative to upon agreed is mutually It “significant” the term negative to upon agreed is mutually It significant”. is“not negative The [Negative is related and persuasive] and persuasive] is related [Negative

Related Persuasive Not Significant Finding Option Negative is: (A) withdrawn (counted under h in disposition) (B) not related (counted under i in disposition) Final (C) related and not persuasive (significant) X (D) not significant (counted under j in disposition) (E) related and persuasive DOCUMENT FAILS Comment generated. See comment #x Not approved A&R Reason:

Negative 6 of Reject 3 Referenced *TF/Committee to fill in if necessary Section Figure R2-2 *Original negative comment and justification should be included. N e g Comment/Negative a t i Add some sort of scaling on the Frequency and Distance axes. v e Reason Reason/Justification Without scaling the user doesn't know whether the depicted curve relates to linear or logarithmic criteria, rendering the curve relatively meaningless.

GO TO “Related” X No withdrawal made section Withdrawal GO TO “Final”  Withdrawal document received by staff on XXXX (A) “Related” is mutually agreed upon. X *This motion can be appended to the motion for Persuasive (See Motion and Persuasive Section) Reason Negative is related (needs over 1/3 votes to pass) Negative is not related (needs 2/3 or more votes to pass) Reason XXXX

Motion and Negative is related and persuasive (needs over 1/3 votes to pass) Reason X Negative is related and not persuasive (needs 2/3 or more votes to pass) -Some details of Figure R2-2 disappeared from the MS Word 2010 template to pdf conversion. -Figure R2-2 was provided for graphical representation only. Plotting Equation R2-4 will produce the same graph in figure R2- Reason 2. Section R2-3.5.4 defines the ranges for the horizontal and vertical scales. -Correct conversion of the document will be applied before publication. Motion by/2nd by Vladimir Kraz (Best ESD)/Arnold Steinman (Electronics Workshop) Discussion None. P 4-0. Motion passed. e r [Negative is related and persuasive] > 1/3 GO TO “Final”  s (E) [Negative is related and not persuasive] < 2/3 u Result of Vote a (check ONE) GO TO “Final”  2/3=<[Negative is related and not persuasive] <90% s (C) i v X 90% =< [Negative is related and not persuasive] GO TO “Not Signifi- e cant Finding Option”

Reject 4 - Sean Larsen (Lam AG) Negative 1 of Reject 4 Referenced *TF/Committee to fill in if necessary Section 5.2.2

N *Original negative comment and justification should be included. e g a What is the term that is intended to be defined by “the degradation of the t i v performance of an equipment, transmission channel, or system caused by an e Reason electromagnetic disturbance.”? Suggestion / Justification With all the markings in the text but no indication of what they indicate, it is very hard to tell what is being voted on. GO TO “Related” X No withdrawal made section Withdrawal GO TO “Final”  Withdrawal document received by staff on XXXX (A) “Related” is mutually agreed upon. X *This motion can be appended to the motion for Persuasive (See Motion and Persuasive Section) Reason Negative is related (needs over 1/3 votes to pass) Negative is not related (needs 2/3 or more votes to pass) Reason XXXX R Motion by/2nd by Name (Company)/Name (Company) e l a t e Discussion d

XX-XX [Negative is related] > 1/3 GO TO “Persuasive” Result of Vote [Negative is not related] < 2/3 (check ONE) 2/3=< [Negative is not related] GO TO “Final”  (B)  

  GO TO (D) GO TO (C) NotSignifi “ ) (D) (C

)   GO TO GO“Final” TO (E) GO“Final” TO (C GO TO cantFinding Option” GO TO GO TO GO TO /3 (needs 2/3 or more votes to pass) to votes 2/3 or (needsmore 1

in disposition) in > j (needs over 1/3 votes to pass) tovotes 1/3 over (needs

DOCUMENT FAILS DOCUMENT in disposition) in in disposition) i h passed with simple passedmajority failed with simple majority failed -Correct conversion of publication. the document will be applied before [Negative is related and not persuasive] and not is related [Negative Motion Motion Motion < withdrawn (counted under (counted withdrawn under related (counted not persuasive (significant) and not related significant under (counted not and persuasive related =

Comment generated. See comment #x comment See generated. Comment (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) 90% significant”“not term the negative to upon agreed is mutually It “significant” term the negative to upon agreed is mutually It significant”. is“not negative The Negative is related and not persuasive is related and Negative Reason and persuasive] is related [Negative

Persuasive 4 Negative of 2 Reject Same issue as LMAG2 for what may be a definition of supplier. Suggestion / Justification With all the markings in the text but no indication of what they indicate, it is very hard to tell what is being voted on. N e g a GO TO “Related” X No withdrawal made section Withdrawal GO TO “Final”  Withdrawal document received by staff on XXXX (A) “Related” is mutually agreed upon. X *This motion can be appended to the motion for Persuasive (See Motion and Persuasive Section) Reason Negative is related (needs over 1/3 votes to pass) Negative is not related (needs 2/3 or more votes to pass) Reason XXXX R Motion by/2nd by Name (Company)/Name (Company) e l a t e Discussion d

Negative is related and persuasive (needs over 1/3 votes to pass) Motion and X Negative is related and not persuasive (needs 2/3 or more votes to pass) Reason Editorial change proposed to remove the strikethrough on Reason “supplier” since the strikethrough was introduced due to a conversion error between MS word 2010 template to pdf. Motion by/2nd by Vladimir Kraz (Best ESD)/Arnold Steinman (Electronics Workshop) P e Discussion None. r s u 4-0. Motion passed. a s i v [Negative is related and persuasive] > 1/3 e GO TO “Final”  (E) [Negative is related and not persuasive] < 2/3 Result of Vote (check ONE) GO TO “Final”  2/3=<[Negative is related and not persuasive] <90% (C)

GO TO (D) GO TO (C) ) (D) (C

  GO TO GO TO GO TO in disposition) in j DOCUMENT FAILS DOCUMENT in disposition) in in disposition) i h passed with simple majority passed failed with simple majority failed Motion Motion Motion withdrawn (counted under (counted withdrawn under related (counted not persuasive (significant) and not related significant under (counted not and persuasive related (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) #xcomment See generated. Comment It is mutually agreed upon to term the negative “not significant” “not term the negative to upon agreed is mutually It “significant” term the negative to upon agreed is mutually It significant”. is“not negative The XX-XX XX-XX *TF/Committee to fill in fillif tonecessary in *TF/Committee 9.2.4 comment bejustification should included. negativeand *Original Negative is: Negative X X (Company) (Company)/Name Name Notapproved Reason: Vote Motion Section Reason Final Referenced Motion by/2nd by Motion by/2nd This option can only be used “if thecommittee finds a negative not persuasiveby a vote equal to or greater than9.5.3.3.2) 90% of the persons voting on the action”. (Regulations ¶ A&R Not Significant Finding Option Negative 3 of Reject 4 Negative of 3 Reject For the purposes of this document or this industry, how is “in situ” testing defined? IEC 55011 (which is commonly used for SME) § 9 indicates that in situ testing is conducted “after the equipment has been installed on the user’s premises” and provides differing conformance criteria for such testing. IEC 61000-4-2 and 4-4 translate “in situ” as “post installation”.

Most SME EMC testing that I am aware of uses the term as testing outside of a controlled radiation test environment (generally in the equipment manufacturers facility) as very little of SME can be placed within and supported at a radiation test environment.. Suggestion / Justification N As “This Guide applies to equipment constructed for the purpose of manufacturing e semiconductor devices”, it should clearly make recommendations on the practices g that this industry thinks is acceptable, such as a • conducting “in situ” testing at their equipment manufacturing facilities t rather than at the “user’s premises”, i v • whether it is acceptable to use test criteria indicated for at the user’s e facilities when the tests are conducted within their facilities, for example o waiving conducted emissions as 55011 doesn’t provide in situ limits rather than testing against test site limits using a CDN o Testing against the different 55011 in situ limits for radiated emissions GO TO “Related” X No withdrawal made section Withdrawal GO TO “Final”  Withdrawal document received by staff on XXXX (A) “Related” is mutually agreed upon. X *This motion can be appended to the motion for Persuasive (See Motion and Persuasive Section) Reason Negative is related (needs over 1/3 votes to pass) Negative is not related (needs 2/3 or more votes to pass) Reason XXXX R Motion by/2nd by Name (Company)/Name (Company) e l a t e Discussion d

Negative is related and persuasive (needs over 1/3 votes to pass) Motion and X Negative is related and not persuasive (needs 2/3 or more votes to pass) Reason Editorial change: add new Note 9 and renumber following Notes: Reason “Note 9: In situ testing may be in a simulated use environment or at the user’s facility.” Motion by/2nd by Vladimir Kraz (Best ESD)/Arnold Steinman (Electronics Workshop) Discussion None. 4-0. Motion passed.

[Negative is related and persuasive] > 1/3 GO TO “Final”  (E) [Negative is related and not persuasive] < 2/3 Result of Vote P (check ONE) GO TO “Final”  2/3=<[Negative is related and not persuasive] <90% e (C) r s X 90% =< [Negative is related and not persuasive] GO TO “Not Signifi- u cant Finding Option” a This option can only be used “if the committee finds a negative not persuasive by a vote N o equal to or greater than 90% of the persons voting on the action”. (Regulations ¶ t

Negative 4 of Reject 4 Referenced *TF/Committee to fill in if necessary Section Whole document *Original negative comment and justification should be included. N e g

a I have yet to see a single piece of equipment that has been evaluated to the power fre- t i v quency magnetic field criteria of 61000-4-8 (although I admit it could be used for small- e Reason er metrology equipment) I believe largely due to a severe lack of test equipment that is large enough to fit around a piece of promising equipment. Suggestion / Justification I think it would be worthwhile for this document to address whether this is a valid test for SME or possibly conditions when it could be a valid test. Withdrawal X No withdrawal made GO TO “Related” section GO TO “Final”  Withdrawal document received by staff on XXXX (A) “Related” is mutually agreed upon. X *This motion can be appended to the motion for Persuasive (See Motion and Persuasive Section) Reason Negative is related (needs over 1/3 votes to pass) Negative is not related (needs 2/3 or more votes to pass) Reason XXXX R Motion by/2nd by Name (Company)/Name (Company) e l a t e Discussion d

Negative is related and persuasive (needs over 1/3 votes to pass) Motion and X Negative is related and not persuasive (needs 2/3 or more votes to pass) Reason No change to the document. May be researched and added to Reason the next revision of the document. Motion by/2nd by Vladimir Kraz (Best ESD)/Arnold Steinman (Electronics Workshop)

P Discussion None. e r s 4-0. Motion passed. u a s

i [Negative is related and persuasive] > 1/3 v GO TO “Final”  e (E) [Negative is related and not persuasive] < 2/3 Result of Vote (check ONE) GO TO “Final”  2/3=<[Negative is related and not persuasive] <90% (C)

IV. Comments Comment 1 Referenced *TF/Committee to fill in if necessary Section C o

m From Alan Crockett (KLA-Tencor) m Doc 3847D (E33) e n Comment Section 5.2.13 "supplier" was crossed through, it should not be deleted. t

Provide correct conversion of the document to restore “supplier”. Discussion The committee agreed to do one of the following actions. X *No motion is required in this step. X No further action was taken by the committee. Refer to the task force for more consideration. New Business Other A Not approved A&R Reason:

Comment 2 Referenced *TF/Committee to fill in if necessary

C Section o

m From Vladimir Kraz (BestESD) m

e SEM E.33 balloted document needs to be corrected to match submitted document. n Comment t Provide correct conversion of the document. Discussion The committee agreed to do one of the following actions. X p r

A *No motion is required in this step. o c p t

o X No further action was taken by the committee. i o s n e Refer to the task force for more consideration. d New Business Other Not approved A&R Reason:

Comment 3 Referenced *TF/Committee to fill in if necessary Section Page 3 From Bert Planting (ASML) C

o Description:

m lack a description of the ports in figure 1. m

e Comment

n Proposal: t What is a process measurement port? (in which way does it differ from a signal port?)

No changes in the document. This Figure was carried over from the original Discussion document and only the ground port is referenced in the text.

The committee agreed to do one of the following actions. X p r

Comment 4 Referenced *TF/Committee to fill in if necessary Section Section 6 From Bert Planting (ASML) Description: I do not understand the meaning of describing performance criteria here. C o

m Proposal: m Comment Does the SEMI E33 guide wish to set different criteria for the immunity standards applicable to semi- e

n con manufacturing equipment, then what is mentioned by the standard itself? t If yes, then I would like to see a list of all minimum required performance criteria for each immunity test phenomenon (and applicable to which port of the device)

No changes in document because the referred § 6 does not apply to compliance to the EMC directive tests per ¶ 7.2, but applies when it is triggered per negotiated Discussion optional additional recommendation per ¶ 7.3 bullet 1.

Comment 5 Referenced *TF/Committee to fill in if necessary Section 9.1 From Bert Planting (ASML) C

o Description:

m Mention here that it is not mandatory to use the harmonized test method standards to show compli- m ance to the limits are mentioned in the product or general standards. e

n Comment This would make this SEMI E33 guide in conformance with the European directive 2004/108/EC and t FCC vol. 47 CFR part 18. Especially as reference to these documents is made throughout the SEMI E33 guide.

No changes made to the ballot. Discussion The committee agreed to do one of the following actions. X p r

o X No further action was taken by the committee. i o s n e Refer to the task force for more consideration. d New Business Other A&R Not approved Reason:

Comment 6 Referenced *TF/Committee to fill in if necessary Section Page 17 From Bert Planting (ASML) Description : do not understand is the intention to name as much emission and immunity related standards as possi- C

o ble here.

m This creates conflicts on which (part of) standard to apply for which environment. m

e Comment n Proposal: t prefer to read here about one standard for emission and one for immunity. proposition in this case: Emission: EN61000-6-4 Immunity: EN61000-6-2 No changes in the current version. The subject will be researched and the updated Discussion information may be included in the next revision of the document.

Comment 7 Referenced *TF/Committee to fill in if necessary Section Page 17 C o From Bert Planting (ASML) m

m Many of these general and product standards are harmonized already. They all refer to the same e Comment methods of testing and only differ on the application of limits. There is no need to name them all n t No changes in the current version. The subject will be researched and the Discussion updated information may be included in the next revision of the document.

o X No further action was taken by the committee. i o s n e Refer to the task force for more consideration. d New Business Other Not approved A&R Reason: Comment 8 Referenced *TF/Committee to fill in if necessary Section general From Bert Planting (ASML) Description: Furthermore I would like to see a statement on the applicability of multiple standards in case of integration of (partially) custom made equipment into semi con manufacturing equipment, particularly C

o I’d like to see, what remains applicable after integration. m

m For example: Can I demand to change the original spec of EN61326 (lab equipment for use in lab en- e Comment n vironments), into EN61326 (lab equipment to be used in industrial environments, equaling EN61000- t 6-2) for a part that is to be integrated in a machine that is going to be used in an environment where EN61000-6-2 is required.

The most severe requirement prevails. It avoids integration problems and avoid the introduction of a vulnerability in a semicon manufacturing product. No changes in the current version. The subject will be researched and the updated Discussion information may be included in the next revision of the document.

Comment 9 Referenced *TF/Committee to fill in if necessary Section Whole ballot From Sean Larsen (Lam Research AG) C

o Description: m What is intended to be indicated by the underlines and strikethroughs? The formatting appears like a m line item ballot indicating what has been changed and what has been deleted, but it doesn’t appear to e

n be a change record from the existing published document. This may cause some reviewers to limit t Comment their review to the indicated changes rather than to all that is changing in this ballot. Suggestion / Justification Format the ballot per the guidelines provided by SEMI and clearly indicate what any marks in the ballot are intended to demonstrate. Discussion Provide proper conversion of document. The committee agreed to do one of the following actions. X p r

Comment 10 Referenced *TF/Committee to fill in if necessary Section 6.1.1, 6.1.2 From Sean Larsen (Lam Research AG) Description: While I realize that this text is taken from other documents, as written it implies that for

C process equipment, the EMC test results claiming performance criteria A or B would need

o to include wafer data to demonstrate that no or a permissible loss of performance is at- m

m tained during the tests. This would be a large change from current testing practice for

e Comment semiconductor processing equipment. n

t Suggestion / Justification Since this document is intended to document industry practice, either rewrite within 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 or in a subordinate paragraph(s), suggest to make a statement that for substrate processing equipment, that this paragraph is not intended to require wafer data to indicate no process drift either during or immediately after the test. the referred ¶¶ 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 do not apply to compliance to the EMC directive Discussion tests per ¶ 7.2, but apply when § 6 is triggered per negotiated optional additional recommendation per ¶ 7.3 bullet 1. The committee agreed to do one of the following actions. X p r

Comment 11 Referenced *TF/Committee to fill in if necessary Section 7.2

C From Sean Larsen (Lam Research AG) o

m Description: m Why was the word “minimum” deleted when this document is suggesting additional testing e

n Comment be completed in the Appendix 1 and RIs? t Suggestion / Justification Suggest adding it back if the markings are indicating it is being deleted. minimum was removed due to prior feedback on an earlier ballot and does not Discussion essentially change the intended meaning. The committee agreed to do one of the following actions. X p r

Comment 12 Referenced *TF/Committee to fill in if necessary Section 9.2.3 From Sean Larsen (Lam Research AG)

C Description:

o Following the advice of this paragraph would mean that you would have difficulty claim- m

m ing conformance to Criteria A or B as you would not have a measure of process perfor-

e Comment mance. This would not align with IEC 61000-6-2 which suggests these levels for most n

t tests. Suggestion / Justification See suggested change for LMAG4 the referred ¶¶ 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 (i.e., Criteria A and B) do not apply to compliance to Discussion the EMC directive tests per ¶ 7.2, but apply when § 6 is triggered per negotiated optional additional recommendation per ¶ 7.3 bullet 1. The committee agreed to do one of the following actions. X p r

Comment 13 Referenced *TF/Committee to fill in if necessary

C Section A1-2.2.1 o m From Sean Larsen (Lam Research AG) m

e This paragraph strongly implies that there is a test or engineering method to determine this n

t Comment sensitivity. If so, it should be referenced here. If not, this document should provide a immunity test method that will yield useful information? Discussion No change to the document The committee agreed to do one of the following actions. X p r

Comment 14 Referenced *TF/Committee to fill in if necessary Section R1-4.3 From Sean Larsen (Lam Research AG) Description: A recommendation for additional testing without a test method and reporting suggestions is less than useful to a non-EMC expert. Suggestion / Justification Please provide suggestions for a test plan and reporting that would provide useful information. Plan should include: Comment  Length of time sampling should occur  Test conditions that should be done  Suggestions on test methods or equipment needed for both radiated and conducted measurements Reporting guidance should indicate what information should be kept and in what format to be useful. No change to the document. May be researched and added to the next revision of Discussion the document. The committee agreed to do one of the following actions. X p r

Comment 15 Referenced *TF/Committee to fill in if necessary Section Figure R2-2 C o

m From Sean Larsen (Lam Research AG) m Description: e

n Can you add some units to the figure, or is this just to demonstrate the high level concept? t Comment Suggestion / Justification I believe this can be done as an editorial change as it is in an RI. Discussion Provide proper conversion of the document. The committee agreed to do one of the following actions. X p r

Comment 16 Referenced *TF/Committee to fill in if necessary Section R2-4-4-1 From Sean Larsen (Lam Research AG) Description: Again, either references to appropriate methods or some suggestions on what would Comment generate a useful data set for this recommended testing is make this much more useful for us non-EMC experts. C o Discussion No change to the document. m m The committee agreed to do one of the following actions. X p r

V. Summary of Editorial Changes Note: Original section number and at least one full sentence are required in “FROM” and “TO” fields. Proposed Change: In section 5.1.8 of ballot 3847D, delete the acronym “EMO — emergency off” FROM: Section 5.1.8 5.1.8 EMO — emergency off 1 TO: Section 5.1.8 5.1.8 EMO — emergency off Justification: (if necessary) The acronym “EMO — emergency off” does not appear anywhere else in the document so there is no need to provide an entry for this. Removing this acronym does not change the technical content of the document. 2 Proposed Change: In section 5.2.13 of ballot 3847D, remove the strikethrough from “supplier” FROM: Section 5.2.13

5.2.12 5.2.13 supplier — provider of equipment and related services to the user (e.g., unit manufacturer). Also called equipment vendor or original equipment manufacturer (OEM). [SEMI E10]party that provides equipment to, and directly communicates with, the user (see also the definition for user). A supplier may be a manufacturer, equipment distributor, or equipment representative.

TO: Section 5.2.13 5.2.12 5.2.13 supplier — provider of equipment and related services to the user (e.g., unit manufacturer). Also called equipment vendor or original equipment manufacturer (OEM). [SEMI E10]party that provides equipment to, and directly communicates with, the user (see also the definition for user). A supplier may be a manufacturer, equipment distributor, or equipment representative. Justification: (if necessary) Editorial change to correct a ballot preparation error introduced during conversion from MS word to pdf. The proposed new definition for “supplier” is the same definition provided in SEMI E10 as referenced above. Proposed Change: Revise section 4.2 of ballot 3847D. FROM: Section 4.2 “European Commission (EC) Regulations/Directives/Standards” 3 TO: Section 4.2 “European Commission (EC) Directives” Justification: (if necessary) Editorial change proposed to reduce ambiguity. The proper name of the referenced industry document is a Directive. Proposed Change: Revise section 7.2 of ballot 3847D.

FROM: Section 7.2 Conformance to the requirements of the EMC Directive 2004/108/EC is the recommended performance level of the equipment and represents the expectation for meeting the recommendations in this Guide.” 4 TO: Section 7.2 Conformance to the requirements of the EMC Directive 2004/108/EC is the recommended performance of the equipment and represents the expectation for meeting the recommendations in this Guide.” Justification: (if necessary) Editorial change proposed to reduce ambiguity. There is no existing association for the word “level” in the performance requirements of the EMC directive. Proposed Change: Revise section 7.3 of ballot 3847D. FROM: Section 7.3 If additional equipment performance characteristics beyond the requirements of the EMC Directive (such as those listed below) are desired, they should be negotiated between the supplier and the user.” 5 TO: Section 7.3 If additional equipment performance characteristics beyond the requirements of the EMC Directive (such as those listed below) are requested, they should be negotiated between the supplier and the user.” Justification: (if necessary) Editorial change proposed for clarification purpose. Proposed Change: Add a new NOTE 9 and renumber following Notes.

FROM: Section 9 6 TO: Section 9 NOTE 9: In situ testing may be in a simulated user environment or at the user’s facility.

Justification: (if necessary) Addition of an editorial note. Motion To approve the above editorial changes Motion Vladimir Kraz (Best ESD)/Arnold Steinman (Electronics Workshop) by/2nd by None. Discussion Vote 4-0 Motion passed Not approved A&R Reason: VI. Approval Conditions Check

APPROVAL CONDITION 1: All negatives have been discussed and were withdrawn, found not related, or not persuasive. (Regulations ¶ 9.6.2)

APPROVAL CONDITION 2: At least 90% of the sum of the valid accept and reject votes must be accept. (Regulations ¶ 9.6.3)

Note: if both approval conditions are not satisfied, the document fails.

(Accepts + Accepts Valid Rejects)

Approval Rate = 19 / 19 = 100.0% >=90%

VII. Safety Check See § 14 of the Regulations for further information This is not a Safety Document: when all safety-related information is removed, the document is X M still technically sound and complete. o t i This is a Safety Document: when all safety-related information is removed, the document is not o n technically sound and complete. : Safety Checklist (Regulations ¶ 14.3) is complete and has been included with the document throughout the balloting process. Motion by/2nd by Vladimir Kraz (Best ESD)/Arnold Steinman (Electronics Workshop) None. Discussion Vote 4-0 Motion passed Not approved A&R Reason:

VIII. Intellectual Property Check Note: This ballot may be all or part of a Standard or Safety Guideline. This IP check applies to the entire Standard or Safety Guideline. See § 15 of the Regulations for further information X The meeting chair asked those present in person or by electronic link, if they were aware of any potentially material patented technology or copyrighted items* in the Standard or Guideline. X No potentially material patented technology or copyrighted items GO TO SECTION IX are known Potentially material patented technology or copyrighted items are known but a Letter of Assurance (LOA) or copyright release for GO TO SECTION IX such material has been obtained or presented to the committee. Potentially material patented technology or copyrighted items are known but an LOA or copyright release for some of the material(s) has NOT been obtained or presented to the committee

M Ask ISC for special permission to publish O T I

O Quit activity N Wait for LOA for patented technology or release of copyrighted items. Motion by/2nd by Name (Company)/Name (Company) Discussion XXXX Vote XX-XX Motion Passed Final Action Motion Failed Not approved A&R Reason:

* Note: Such potentially material patented technology or copyrighted items might have become known since the Standard or Safety Guideline was last reviewed, or might become relevant due to this ballot. IX. Action for this document This document passed committee review as balloted and will be forwarded to the A&R for

M procedural review. o t

i This document passed committee review with editorial changes and will be forwarded to the o X n A&R for procedural review.

This document failed committee review and will be returned to the task force for rework. This document failed committee review and work will be discontinued. Motion by/2nd Vladimir Kraz (Best ESD)/Arnold Steinman (Electronics Workshop) by None. Discussion Vote 4-0 X Motion passed Final Action Motion failed Approved A&R Not approved Reason: