[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 26 (Monday, February 9, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6491-6493]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-3180]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[TX-85-1-7344a; FRL-5955-8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Plans, Texas; Revision
to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP); Alternate Reasonably
Available Control Technology (ARACT) Demonstration for Raytheon TI
Systems, Inc.
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving an
Alternate Reasonably Available Control Technology (ARACT) for Raytheon
TI Systems, Inc. (RTIS). This action results from a request, on January
9, 1997, by the Texas Governor asking for an exemption for RTIS from
Texas Regulation V, Section 115.421. This regulation requires that
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from the coating of
miscellaneous metal parts and products shall not exceed 6.7 pounds per
gallon of solids (or 3.5 pounds per gallon of coating) delivered to the
application system. The approval is granted based on the technical and
economic infeasibility of meeting 115.421 and additional control
requirements specified in the State submittal.
DATES: This action is effective on April 10, 1998, unless notice is
postmarked by March 11, 1998, that someone wishes to submit adverse or
critical comments. If the effective date is delayed, timely notice will
be published in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be mailed to Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Air
Planning Section (6PD-L), EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas
75202-2733. Copies of the State's petition and other information
relevant to this action are available for inspection during normal
hours at the following locations:
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), 1445 Ross Avenue, suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Office of Air Quality,
12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin, TX 78753. Anyone wishing to review this
petition at EPA office is asked to contact the person below to schedule
an appointment 24 hours in advance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lt. Mick Cote, Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-7214.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Part D of the Clean Air Act (the Act) requires ozone nonattainment
plans to include regulations providing for VOC emission reductions from
existing sources through the adoption of Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT). The EPA defined RACT in a September 17, 1979,
Federal Register (FR) document (44 FR 53762) as:
The lowest emission limitation that a particular source is
capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is
reasonably available considering technological and economic
feasibility.
Through the publication of Control Technique Guideline (CTG) documents,
EPA has identified pollution control levels that EPA presumes to
constitute RACT for various categories of sources. Where the State
finds the presumptive norm applicable to an individual source or group
of sources, the State typically adopts requirements consistent with the
presumptive norm. However, States may develop case-by-case RACT
determinations if a particular facility cannot meet the presumptive
norm of RACT set forth in the CTG. These case-by-case determinations
are called ARACT determinations and are approved with the understanding
that they demonstrate that no equivalent alternative technology is
available and that no emission control equipment is technically or
economically feasible.
[[Page 6492]]
RTIS is applying for an ARACT under this policy.
A. Raytheon TI Systems, Inc.
Located at Lemmon Avenue in Dallas, Texas, RTIS manufactures
computer-related electronics for private, commercial and military use.
As part of its manufacturing operations, RTIS uses solvents, inks,
thinners and urethanes to coat metal components. It has reported VOC
emissions exceeding the 6.7 pounds of VOC per gallon of solids limit on
an individual line basis. Since the present method of coating uses a
volatile solvent in amounts which exceed the limit under Texas
Regulation V, Section 115.421(4) VOC emission standard, RTIS has
requested an exemption under 115.427(a)(5)(B) which will allow them to
use an alternative method to meet the RACT specifications.
B. Alternate RACT Analysis
EPA developed a guidance document entitled Guidance for developing
an Alternate Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
Demonstration for the Tulsa Aerospace Industry, dated October 2, 1989.
This document applies to the Aerospace industry and was applicable to
RTIS's ARACT analysis as well. This document was issued for States and
industries to follow in developing documents to justify deviation from
the recommended CTG approach. The EPA has reviewed the RTIS ARACT
proposal based on this guidance. A copy of this guidance document is
included in the technical support document.
RTIS investigated the options available for reducing emissions from
its surface coating operations. Among those were coating reformulation,
enhanced application techniques that would improve transfer efficiency,
facility redesign and add-on control equipment to reduce VOC emissions.
RTIS investigated the use of low-solvent coating technologies.
Among those were high-solids coatings, water-borne coating and powder
coatings. The current suppliers of surface coatings to RTIS were
contacted to determine if such coatings were either currently available
or soon to be available. Where substitute coatings were discovered,
they have been incorporated into the provisions of this ARACT
determination. For those coatings not replaced with low-solvent
coatings, individual coating limits have been established.
In addition to researching alternate low solvent coatings and
developing alternate VOC limits for other coatings, RTIS has
investigated various high-transfer efficiency applications including
electrostatic deposition, powder coating technology and hot spray
units. RTIS reviewed five high volume low pressure (HVLP) application
systems, and found one system to be ten to 30 percent more efficient
than its competitors. RTIS selected this system and is currently
expanding its use throughout the paint shop, whenever feasible.
Electrostatic applicators were installed on one program, but the system
did not perform as well as anticipated, and RTIS plans to discontinue
use of this system and pursue expanded use of HVLP systems and powder
coatings. RTIS evaluated powder coatings and identified four which met
the customer's coating performance criteria. These coatings are being
introduced into production.
As mentioned above, RTIS investigated the use of add-on control
equipment in its operations. Control technology vendors were contacted
to determine if such equipment could be suitable for RTIS's specific
operations. Four primary types of abatement systems were considered:
Regenerative thermal oxidation, carbon/zeolyte concentration with
oxidation, ozonation and biological destruction. The total cost
effectiveness estimates for the various types of add-on controls were
prepared and analyzed for feasibility. Cost estimated were developed
based on 4.8 tons per year of VOC removed at a minimum destruction
efficiency of 95 percent for any system. The actual concentration of
VOC in the exhaust stream and the total volume of air to be treated are
the primary factors considered when determining cost effectiveness.
While there are several add-on technically feasible systems available,
RTIS Lemmon Avenue facility concluded that none are economically cost
effective.
The EPA reviewed the information developed by RTIS and agrees that
the majority of the costs should not be considered cost effective in
this situation relative to the cost effectiveness assumed in the CTG
for miscellaneous metal parts and products. Again, please refer to the
EPA's technical support document for a complete listing of the vendors
contacted, emission reduction calculations for various control systems,
as well as the cost determinations for add-on controls.
RTIS's request for exemption under Texas Regulation V, Section
115.427(6)(B) is approved based on the information provided by RTIS and
special stipulations specified in the state submittal. The EPA's review
of the information provided by the State of Texas and RTIS has shown
that presently no low VOC applicable coatings are commercially
available and that no add-on emission controls are economically
feasible. They believe that the RACT requirements in Section 115.421
are not reasonable for RTIS and are granting RTIS an ARACT as the
exemption from the regulation. The EPA has determined that the VOC
emission limit and special stipulations discussed in the State
submittal constitute RACT for RTIS. Please see the State's submittal
and Commission Order for details on the VOC emission limit and the
specific stipulations which constitute RACT for RTIS.
II. Final Action
The EPA is approving Texas' site-specific RACT determination issued
by the State of Texas under Commission Order Number 961180-SIP, dated
December 4, 1996, as a revision to the Texas SIP. The EPA has reviewed
this request for revision of the federally approved SIP for conformance
with the provisions of the Act. The EPA is publishing this action
without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial
amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in a separate
document in this Federal Register publication, EPA is proposing to
approve the SIP revision should adverse or critical comments be filed.
This action is effective April 10, 1998, unless adverse or critical
comments are postmarked by March 11, 1998. If EPA receives such
comments, this action will be withdrawn before the effective date by
publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action.
All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent
final rule based on this action serving as a proposed rule. The EPA
will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. If
no such comments are received on this action, the public is advised
that this action is effective April 10, 1998.
The EPA has reviewed this request for conformance with the
provisions of the Act and has determined that this action conforms to
those requirements.
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory
action from E.O. 12866 review.
[[Page 6493]]
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. See 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
The SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the
Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements
that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP
approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does
not have a significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover,
due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Act,
preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry
into the economic reasonableness of State action. The Act forbids EPA
to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. See Union Electric
Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 25566 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
C. Unfunded Mandates
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995,
signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact
statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or
tribal governments in the aggregate; or to private sector, of $100
million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-
effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203
requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small
governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
The EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does
not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves
preexisting requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local,
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this
action.
D. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the
General Accounting Office prior to publication of this rule in today's
Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
E. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by April 10, 1998. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. See section 307(b)(2) of the Act.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental regulations, Reporting
and recordkeeping, Ozone, and Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: January 9, 1998.
Lynda F. Carroll,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region VI.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart SS--Texas
2. Section 52.2270 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(108) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.2270 Identification of Plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(108) A revision to the Texas State Implementation Plan to adopt an
alternate control strategy for the surface coating processes at
Raytheon TI Systems, Inc., Lemmon Avenue Facility.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Commission Order Number 96-1180-SIP issued and effective
December 4, 1996, for Texas Instruments, Inc., prior owner of the
Lemmon Avenue facility, approving an Alternate Reasonably Available
Control Technology (ARACT) demonstration for its Lemmon Avenue
facility. Raytheon TI Systems assumed operating responsibility for this
facility on July 3, 1997.
(B) A letter from the Governor of Texas dated January 9, 1997,
submitting the TI ARACT to the Regional Administrator.
(ii) Additional material. The document prepared by the Texas
Natural Resource Conservation Commission titled ``A Site-Specific
Revision to the SIP Concerning the Texas Instruments Lemmon Avenue
Facility.''
[FR Doc. 98-3180 Filed 2-6-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
