[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 240 (Thursday, December 14, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75182-75186]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-21296]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0009; FRL-8256-2]
RIN 2060-AK22


National Air Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, 
Halogenated Solvent Cleaning: Notice of Data Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of data availability.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing this Notice of Data Availability (NODA) in 
support of the proposed rule issued August 17, 2006, entitled 
``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants--Halogenated 
Solvent Cleaning''. EPA received a number of comments on the proposed 
rule and is in the process of evaluating those comments. This NODA 
addresses certain new data and information that EPA received concerning 
the unique nature and size of the degreasing machines used by the 
following facilities: narrow tubing manufacturing facilities, 
facilities that manufacture specialized products requiring continuous 
web cleaning, aerospace manufacturing and maintenance facilities, large 
military vehicle maintenance operations, and facilities that use 
multiple degreasing machines. Specifically, the new data and 
information that form the basis of this NODA relates to the following 
three issues; the ability of the above-noted facilities meeting the 
proposed facility-wide emission limits; the cost impacts associated 
with the above-noted facilities implementing the proposed facility-wide 
emission limits; and, the time frame needed for the above-noted 
facilities to comply with the proposed facility-wide emission limits.
    Although we recognize that the public has access to comments 
submitted during the comment period, we are nonetheless issuing this 
NODA because the new data and information at issue in this NODA are 
directly relevant to the alternative proposed standards described in 
the proposed rule. We are seeking comment only on the three issues 
identified above that relate to the unique nature and size of the 
degreasing machines used by the facilities specified above. We do not 
intend to respond to comments addressing any other aspect of the 
proposed rule.

DATES: Comments on the NODA must be received on or before January 29, 
2007.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the NODA should be submitted to Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0009. Comments may be submitted by one of the following 
methods: Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    Agency Web site: http://www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPA's 
electronic public docket and comment system is EPA's preferred method 
for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting 
comments.
    E-mail: [email protected].
    Mail: Air Docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants--Halogenated Solvent Cleaning, Environmental Protection 
Agency, Mail Code: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20460. Please include a total of two copies.
    Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Room B108, Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only accepted during the 
Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be 
made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Note: The EPA Docket Center suffered damage due to the flooding 
during the last week of June 2006. The Docket Center is continuing 
to operate. During the cleanup, however, there will be temporary 
changes to Docket Center telephone numbers, addresses, and hours of 
operation for people who wish to make hand deliveries or visit the 
Public Reading Room to view documents. Consult the EPA Web site at 
http://www.epa.gov/eaphome/dockets.htm for current information on 
docket operations, locations and telephone numbers. The Docket 
Center's mailing address for U.S. mail and the procedure for 
submitting comments to www.regulations.gov are not affected by the 
flooding and will remain the same.

    Instructions: Direct your comments on the NODA to Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0009. The EPA's policy is that all comments received 
will be included in the public docket(s) without change and may be made 
available online at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, 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 EDOCKET, 
regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPA EDOCKET and the Federal 
regulations.gov Web sites are ``anonymous access'' systems, 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 EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your 
E-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of 
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on 
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that 
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index 
at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed in the index, some 
information is

[[Page 75183]]

not publicly available (i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure 
is restricted by statute). Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available 
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are 
available either electronically in EDOCKET or in hard copy at the EPA 
Docket Center, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC. The 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 Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: H. Lynn Dail, U.S. EPA, Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Planning Division, 
Natural Resources and Commerce Group (E143-03), Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-2363, e-mail at 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information presented in this NODA is 
organized as follows:

I. Additional Information on Submitting Comments
    A. How Can I Help EPA Ensure That My Comments Are Reviewed 
Quickly?
    B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
    1. Submitting CBI
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
II. Why Is EPA Issuing This NODA and What Are the Issues on Which 
EPA Is Soliciting Comment?
III. Proposed Emission Limit Options
    A. What Are the Proposed Emissions Limits?
    B. What Is the New Information or Data That EPA Is Making 
Available for Review and Comment?
    C. What Additional Supporting Data or Documentation Do I Need To 
Provide With My Comments?
IV. EPA's Proposed Cost Assessment
    A. What Are the Estimated Compliance Costs?
    B. What Is the New Information EPA Is Making Available for 
Review and Comment?
    C. What Additional Supporting Data or Documentation Do I Need To 
Provide With My Comments?
V. EPA's Proposed Compliance Schedule
    A. What Is the Proposed Compliance Schedule?
    B. What Is the New Information EPA Is Making Available for 
Review and Comment?
    C. What Additional Supporting Data or Documentation Do I Need To 
Provide With My Comments?

I. Additional Information on Submitting Comments

A. How Can I Help EPA Ensure That My Comments Are Reviewed Quickly?

    To expedite review of your comments by Agency staff, you are 
encouraged to send a separate copy of your comments, in addition to the 
copy you submit to the official docket, to H. Lynn Dail, U.S. EPA, 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Natural Resources and 
Commerce Group, Mail Code E143-03, Research Triangle Park, North 
Carolina 27711, telephone (919) 541-2363, e-mail [email protected].

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI information to EPA through 
EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of 
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information 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 or documents declared as CBI will not be disclosed 
except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, 
remember to:
    a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying 
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    b. Follow directions--The Agency may ask you to respond to specific 
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and 
substitute language for your requested changes.
    d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information 
and/or data that you used.
    e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
    f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
    g. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline 
identified.

II. Why Is EPA Issuing This NODA and What Are the Issues on Which EPA 
Is Soliciting Comment?

    In August 2006, pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(6) and (f)(2), EPA 
issued the proposed rule entitled, ``National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants--Halogenated Solvent Cleaning'' (Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0009) (the ``proposed rule''). See 71 FR 47670 (Aug. 
17, 2006). In developing the proposed rule, EPA used the best available 
data that it had before it at the time. Detailed background information 
describing the proposed rulemaking may be found in the proposed rule 
and the docket in support of that rule.
    During the public comment period, EPA received certain new data and 
information concerning the unique nature and size of the degreasing 
machines used by the following facilities: narrow tubing manufacturing 
facilities, facilities that manufacture specialized products requiring 
continuous web cleaning,\1\ aerospace manufacturing and maintenance 
facilities, large military vehicle maintenance operations, and 
facilities that use multiple degreasing machines. The new data and 
information at issue in this NODA are directly relevant to the 
alternative proposed standards described in the proposed rule. To 
better inform our decision making, we are identifying the new data and 
information received from the above-noted facilities and soliciting 
comment on the following three discrete issues: (1) The ability of the 
above-noted facilities meeting the proposed facility-wide emission 
limits, (2) the cost impacts associated with the above-noted facilities 
implementing the proposed facility-wide emission limits, and (3) the 
time frame needed for the above-noted facilities to comply with the 
proposed facility-wide emission limits. The EPA will consider only 
comments, data or information related to these three issues. We do not 
intend to respond to comments addressing any other aspect of the 
proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On December 2, 1994, EPA promulgated HSC NESHAP that 
established both control device and work practice requirements for 
batch and in-line solvent cleaning machines (59 FR 61801). 
Continuous web cleaning machines are a subset of in-line cleaning 
machines. Subsequently, we clarified the applicability of certain 
compliance options under the HSC NESHAP, and also specified 
alternative compliance requirements for continuous web cleaning 
machines (64 FR 67793, 67794-67796 (December 3, 1999)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All the comments, information and data submitted by commenters and 
discussed in this NODA are available in the Air Docket, National 
Emission

[[Page 75184]]

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants--Halogenated Solvent Cleaning, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0009.

III. Proposed Emissions Limit Options

A. What Are the Proposed Emissions Limits?

    The proposed rule presented an emissions limit approach whereby 
emissions of the hazardous air pollutants (HAP), perchloroethylene 
(PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE), and methylene chloride (MC) from 
facilities operating halogenated solvent cleaning machines are capped 
at levels determined to protect public health with an ample margin of 
safety and to prevent adverse environmental effects.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA's proposed determination pursuant to CAA section 
112(d)(6) is set forth in the proposed rule at 71 FR 47684-47685.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, under the proposed rule, the owner or operator of 
each affected facility would ensure that the facility-wide PCE, TCE, 
and MC emissions from all halogenated solvent cleaning machines subject 
to the MACT standards are less than or equal to specific solvent 
emissions limits, as identified in the proposed rule. The proposed rule 
identified six different regulatory alternatives in this regard, 
including the two co-proposed options of 25,000 kilograms per year (kg/
yr) and 40,000 kg/yr of MC equivalent.
    We believe that there are multiple ways in which facilities can 
comply with the proposed rule, and while we analyzed and identified in 
the proposed rule some of the methods that may effectively reduce 
emissions, we neither proposed specific compliance options nor did we 
limit the options by which facilities could comply. Under the proposed 
revised standards, the HSC MACT requirements for all applicable new and 
existing sources would remain applicable. See 71 FR 47675-47676 and 
47683-47684 for a complete discussion of the proposed facility-wide 
solvent emission limit and compliance options. Nothing in the proposed 
rule precludes a facility from using a compliance option not identified 
in the proposal. Sources may implement compliance options identified in 
the MACT or whatever compliance options they choose regardless of 
whether it is mentioned in the August 2006 proposal or the MACT.

B. What Is the New Information or Data That EPA Is Making Available for 
Review and Comment?

     Comments and data provided by the Halogenated Solvents 
Industry Alliance (HSIA) concerning the technical infeasibility of 
using solvent switching, retrofitting, and installation of vacuum-to-
vacuum machines on applications in the narrow tubing and aerospace 
industries, facilities that use continuous web cleaners and large 
military vehicle maintenance facilities. HSIA states that these 
degreasing applications use large machines and the current low-emitting 
cleaning machines are technically infeasible because these industries 
degrease parts of uncommon sizes and shapes that these machines have 
not been commonly designed to handle. The commenter provides instances 
where particular companies have installed low-emitting equipment yet 
were unable to meet the 1994 HSC NESHAP. The commenter stated that the 
EPA should revise its emission reduction estimate for vacuum cleaning 
machines and have this new estimate confirmed by companies that have 
recently installed vacuum-to-vacuum machines.
     Comments and data provided by the American Safety Razor 
Company, concerning the technical infeasibility of solvent switching, 
retrofitting and vacuum-to-vacuum machines for facilities using 
continuous web cleaning machines because the cleaning process is so 
unique and different from the other forms of degreasing, batch cold and 
vapor cleaning. The commenter states that EPA incorrectly concluded 
that solvent switching will work for continuous web cleaners because, 
according to the commenter, a majority of alternative HAP and non-HAP 
solvents are incompatible with its products. Without any supporting 
data, the commenter also states that EPA's proposal significantly 
overstates the potential for emission reductions in the source 
category.
     Comments and data provided by Delta Air Lines suggesting 
that EPA should establish limits on each degreaser in terms of either 
kilograms per degreaser or kilograms per square meter of solvent/air 
interface area. The commenter indicates that low-emitting technology 
such as the vacuum-to-vacuum machines are not feasible when considering 
the unique shape and size of the parts they clean because of shape, 
size, metallurgy, corrosion resistance and that many aerospace 
maintenance procedures are approved by the Federal Aviation 
Administration. The commenter further suggests that EPA create 
emissions limits for an aerospace degreasing subcategory.
     Comments and data provided by Spirit Aerosystems on 
compliance options for the proposed facility-wide emissions limits. The 
commenter compels EPA to consider regulatory approaches other than the 
single facility-wide emissions limit that do not result in a 
disproportionate and unfair regulatory burden on large facilities with 
unique, complex and stringent production requirements related to 
materials cleaning and for whom few compliance options are available. 
In simple terms, the commenter states that reducing emissions to the 
emission limit, when compared to smaller facilities, the aerospace 
facilities faces greater liability and burden than most other 
degreasing facilities.
     Comments provided by Eastman Kodak Company indicate their 
belief that facility-wide emission limits leave source owners only two 
compliance options: (1) establish internal production restrictions or 
(2) install add-on capture and control equipment to insure operating 
flexibility.
     Comments and data provided by narrow tubing manufacturers, 
such as Salem Tubing, Superior Tubing, Plymouth Tubing, Accellent 
Endoscopy and Summerill Tubing, on the technical infeasibility of 
achieving the degree of emissions reduction projected by EPA. The 
commenters contend that there may be no technology or degreasing method 
available to their industry that would allow them to reduce emissions 
further. The commenters state that switching to an alternative solvent 
could present a myriad of problems including incompatibility with 
materials being cleaned, solvent performance, and worker safety 
concerns, especially with MC. The commenters also explain that many 
facilities have retrofitted their equipment and that emission reduction 
option would not be available to them. They also state that vacuum-to-
vacuum cleaning machines have not been engineered or built to the large 
size necessary to effectively degrease specialized tubing such as 40-
foot lengths of tubing and large coils. The commenters provided data to 
support these comments.

C. What Additional Supporting Data or Documentation Do I Need To 
Provide With My Comments?

    The EPA is soliciting comment on the new data provided. EPA also 
seeks additional data and information concerning the specific comments 
described above that relate to the three issues identified at the 
outset of this NODA. In addition, with respect to narrow tubing 
manufacturing facilities, aerospace manufacturing and maintenance 
facilities, large military vehicle maintenance operations, facilities 
that use multiple degreaser machines, and facilities that use 
continuous web cleaners, EPA seeks

[[Page 75185]]

additional data and information from these facilities that includes, 
but is not limited to, any technology or other methods or approaches 
that may achieve the proposed emission limits. The EPA is also 
requesting that commenters provide detailed comments if their responses 
indicate that there are no technologies or other methods available or 
feasible. Commenters may also provide details of any barriers that may 
exist to prevent lowering of emission levels. The EPA further requests 
that commenters provide data on the operational life expectancy of HSC 
machines, and the difference in floor space needed to install low-
emitting machines.

IV. EPA's Proposed Cost Assessment

A. What Are the Estimated Compliance Costs?

    Pursuant to the CAA section 112(f), EPA evaluated the remaining 
risk to public health and the environment following implementation of 
the technology-based rule for HSC machines. The EPA proposed more 
stringent standards in order to protect the public health with an ample 
margin of safety and to prevent adverse environmental impacts. In the 
second step of the ample margin of safety analysis, EPA considered the 
issue of costs consistent with section 112(f)(2).
    EPA analyzed and presented the nationwide cost impacts and 
emissions reductions associated with each of the six regulatory 
alternatives identified in the proposal. Two of those alternatives 
include the 25,000 kilograms per year (kg/yr) and 40,000 kg/yr of MC 
equivalent alternatives noted above. See 71 FR 47681-47683 for a 
complete discussion of our estimated costs to reduce HAP emissions from 
HSC machines.

B. What Is the New Information EPA Is Making Available for Review and 
Comment?

     Comments and cost information for design and installation 
of new vacuum-to-vacuum machines was provided by the narrow tube 
manufacturers. They also included comments and data that indicates that 
EPA's capital cost basis is approximately fifteen times below industry 
projected costs range. They also indicate that EPA failed to factor in 
the costs associated with facilities expanding current building to 
accommodate vacuum-to-vacuum machines that may require a larger floor 
space.
     Comments and data provided by an aerospace industry 
association indicates that EPA understated compliance costs for the 
aerospace industry because any action by the facility to switch 
solvents must go through a rigorous approval process to meet the 
requirements of the original equipment manufacturer and the Federal 
Aviation Administration (FAA) to ensure that safety and quality 
criteria are met. This process is not a common process for other HSC 
facilities. The commenter also reports that there are few manufacturers 
of vacuum-to-vacuum degreasing machines and they are not aware if the 
technology can effectively degrease parts of specific types and sizes. 
The commenter reported that similar facilities that installed the 
technology incurred costs of over $1 million with new annualized costs 
of approximately $80,000 per year.
     Comments and data provided by the HSIA indicating that EPA 
failed to meet the duty to reasonably consider the economic effects of 
the rulemaking on small businesses. Comments and data provided by HSIA 
indicate that EPA's costs are understated because, in actuality, fewer 
facilities than estimated by EPA can comply with the rule by switching 
solvent, and more facilities would need to use a more costly method to 
comply with the rule. The HSIA asserts that, even assuming that 
emission control technology and/or low-emitting cleaning machines such 
as vacuum-to-vacuum machines can be adapted to the very specific 
degreasing requirements for the aerospace and the narrow tubing 
industries, the cost of installing vacuum-to-vacuum machines at 
facilities with very large degreasing operations would be cost 
prohibitive. HSIA provides data supporting this assertion.
     Comments and data provided by Plymouth Tubing indicate 
that most companies using larger machines are able to purchase solvent 
at significant savings, per unit cost. The commenter contends that EPA 
solvent cost was estimated at $1.05 per pound. That cost is 
significantly higher that the $0.71 per pound of fresh unused TCE the 
commenter purchases. The commenter indicates that the cost savings EPA 
anticipated with reduced solvent use is significantly overstated.

C. What Additional Supporting Data or Documentation Do I Need To 
Provide With My Comments?

    EPA is soliciting comment on the new data provided. EPA also seeks 
additional data and information concerning the specific comments 
described above that relate to the three issues identified at the 
outset of this NODA. In addition, as for the narrow tubing 
manufacturing facilities, aerospace manufacturing and maintenance 
facilities, large military vehicle maintenance operations, facilities 
that use multiple degreaser machines, and facilities that use 
continuous web cleaners, EPA specifically seeks data and information 
from these facilities including, but not limited to, information on the 
costs (capital and operating) to achieve the proposed facility-wide 
emission limits.
    EPA also requests that commenters provide specific cost data on the 
cleaning machines used by the above-named specific industries that may 
include, but is not limited to, the costs of machine replacement with 
low emitting machine technology, the costs associated with applying 
emission capture and control technology, the costs of operating and 
maintaining such systems, the costs of installing emission control 
systems or low-emitting machines, the costs of clean unused solvent, 
and the cost of switching solvent to a non-HAP solvent or to a solvent 
with less health effects.
    EPA is also requesting commenters that identify new technology, 
methods or processes for compliance other than those EPA analyzed in 
the proposed rule to provide the associated costs of such new 
technology, methods or processes. Commenters may provide comments on 
barriers to implementing new technology, methods or processes.
    Commenters may also provide comments with supporting data on any 
production rate increases or losses that may occur at the types of 
facilities discussed in this notice when complying with the proposed 
emission limits.

V. EPA's Proposed Compliance Schedule

A. What Is the Proposed Compliance Schedule?

    In our proposed rule, we proposed a compliance deadline of 2 years 
for existing sources of halogenated cleaning machines to comply with 
the proposed emissions limits. We also indicated that the CAA section 
112(f)(4)(B) states that EPA may grant a waiver of up to an additional 
2 years after the effective date of a standard if more time is needed 
to install controls or implement steps to assure that the health of 
persons will be protected from imminent endangerment. We said we 
believed the proposed compliance deadline was both reasonable and 
realistic for any affected facility that has to plan their control 
strategy, purchase and install the control device(s), and bring the 
control device online. See 71 FR 47684 for a

[[Page 75186]]

complete discussion of the proposed compliance deadline.

B. What Is the New Information EPA Is Making Available for Review and 
Comment?

     Comments provided by Aerospace Industry Association and an 
airline, indicating that changing solvents involves a rigorous approval 
process to meet requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration 
(FAA) and of the original equipment manufacturer (OEM). The commenter 
indicates that such an approval process takes considerable time and 
requires many steps.
     Comments provided by HSIA indicated that a compliance 
period of as much as 10 years would be required for industry to 
complete the multi-step process of upgrading degreasing operations. The 
commenter cites installations of new equipment at an existing facility 
may require the following: (1) Extended time to test performance of 
untried degreasing technologies for their particular application, (2) 
additional or redesigned floor space, (3) customer approval of new 
degreasing techniques and machines, (4) amending air permits; (5) 
amending government agency directives on cleaning protocols. HSIA did 
not submit data to support this comment.
     Comments and data provided by the American Safety Razor 
Company indicated that EPA should remain consistent with the proposed 
HON rule and provide affected facilities three (3) years after the 
effective date of the promulgated standard.
     Comments and data provided by Salem Tubing Company on the 
compliance period for sources of existing HSC machines and constructed 
or reconstructed HSC machines after August 17, 2006. The facility 
indicated that vacuum-to-vacuum cleaning is not a feasible option for 
the narrow tube manufacturing industry because of the large size of 
their degreasing machines and the fact that the vacuum-to-vacuum 
technology is not currently available in the machines sizes required. 
The commenter contends that in order to design, test and implement such 
a system would take much longer than the proposed compliance period.
     Comments provided by the HSIA indicated that the 
compliance schedule should be amended to (1) require new facilities 
constructed after the date of promulgation to be in compliance upon 
startup; (2) consider new facilities constructed prior to the date of 
promulgation to be existing facilities; (3) allow existing HSC 
facilities that installed new equipment after the date of proposal, but 
prior to the date of promulgation, 10 years to come into compliance 
with any new requirements consistent with CAA section 112(i)(7), and 
(4) allow the maximum amount of time possible for existing HSC 
facilities to come into compliance.

C. What Additional Supporting Data or Documentation Do I Need To 
Provide With My Comments?

    EPA is soliciting comment on the new information provided described 
above that relates to the issues identified at the outset of this NODA. 
In addition, as for the narrow tubing manufacturing facilities, 
aerospace manufacturing and maintenance facilities, large military 
vehicle maintenance operations, facilities that use multiple degreaser 
machines, and facilities that use continuous web cleaners, EPA 
specifically seeks data and information from these facilities 
including, but not limited to, information on the time to design and 
install new HSC machines, the lifespan of the typical HSC machine used 
in the facilities of interest (listed above), the time required to seek 
additional permits from State and local air permitting agencies, the 
time required for FAA and OEM approvals to vary or change degreasing 
cleaning procedures, whether a 2-year or a 3-year compliance period is 
appropriate, or data on how much time it would take to comply with the 
proposed requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: December 8, 2006.
Stephen D. Page,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
 [FR Doc. E6-21296 Filed 12-13-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P