[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 104 (Friday, May 30, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29297-29299]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-14196]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[TX-73-1-7316a, FRL-5830-7]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Plans, Texas; Alternate 
Reasonably Available Control Technology Demonstration for Bell 
Helicopter Textron, Incorporated; Bell Plant 1 Facility

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving a site specific revision to the Texas 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Bell Helicopter Textron, 
Incorporated (Bell) of Fort Worth. This revision was submitted by the 
Governor on April 18, 1996, to establish an alternate reasonably 
available control technology (ARACT) demonstration to control volatile 
organic compounds (VOC) for the surface coating processes at the Bell 
Plant 1 facility. The EPA has determined that the control strategy, 
solvent and coating emission limits, submitted by Bell and the Texas 
Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC), demonstrate 
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for the Bell Plant 1 
facility. This ARACT demonstration is approvable because Bell has 
demonstrated that it is not cost effective to control their VOC 
emissions to the presumptive norm set forth in the EPA's Control 
Technique Guidelines (CTG) document (EPA 450/2-78-015), and the 
alternate emission rate at the facility is the lowest that is 
economically reasonable and technically feasible.

DATES: This action is effective on July 29, 1997, unless notice is 
received by June 30, 1997 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: Copies of the State's request 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, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Office of Air Quality, 
12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753.

    Anyone wishing to review this petition at the 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) 665-7219.

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 RACT. The EPA defined RACT in 
a September 17, 1979, Federal Register notice (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 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. The EPA 
will approve these RACT determinations as long as the State 
demonstrates they will satisfy the Act's RACT requirements based on 
adequate documentation of the technical and economical circumstances of 
the particular source being regulated. Texas adopted the CTG, entitled 
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products, as the presumptive norm for VOC 
limits on aerospace surface coating processes.
    These VOC limits were adopted as part of 30 TAC Sec. 115.421, 
Emission Specifications. The presumptive norm for the exterior of 
aircraft in Dallas and Tarrant Counties is 6.7 pounds per gallon of 
solids delivered to the application system.
    The 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 
Bell'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 Bell ARACT 
proposal based on this guidance.
    Bell manufactures helicopters and helicopter parts for private, 
commercial, and military use at its Fort Worth, Texas facility, also 
known as Bell Plant 1. As part of its manufacturing operations, Bell 
coats helicopters, rotors, and helicopter parts with extreme 
performance coatings.
    Bell was issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) by the TNRCC Region 4 
Office on September 25, 1992, for exceeding 6.7 pounds of VOC per 
gallon of solids limit on an individual line basis. Bell submitted an 
ARACT application on December 22, 1993, as allowed under 30 TAC Chapter 
115, section 115.423(a)(4) to resolve the NOV. An Agreed Order was 
signed on November 18, 1994, which requires Bell to obtain this ARACT. 
On April 18, 1996, the State of Texas submitted to the EPA its request 
for an ARACT approval for surface coating operations at the Bell Plant 
1 facility. This site-specific SIP revision was submitted to meet RACT 
for Bell's surface coating operations. The EPA believes that Bell and 
the State of Texas have provided adequate documentation that the 
emission limits developed under this site-specific SIP revision are 
RACT based on consideration of economical reasonableness and technical 
feasibility. Since case-by-case RACT determinations are allowable under 
EPA's definition of RACT, Bell and the State opted for this ARACT 
approach to fulfill compliance requirements.

II. Alternate RACT Analysis

    Bell 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.
    Bell has evaluated control options for the ARACT sources. Bell has 
already put VOC emissions control devices on two booths which are the 
most reasonable sources to be controlled. Bell installed a carbon 
incineration system (KPR), which achieves an overall VOC destruction 
efficiency of 90 percent, to control the VOC emissions from the Blade 
Paint Shop (see Provision 17). The emissions from the Blade Paint Shop, 
if released uncontrolled to the

[[Page 29298]]

atmosphere, would represent nearly half of the total ARACT source VOC 
emissions. The controlled VOC emissions from this shop now represent 
only 7.7 percent of the total ARACT source VOC emissions. In addition 
to the KPR system, Bell installed four carbon canisters in the Rotor 
Touch-Up Booth, which has a manufacturer guaranteed minimum VOC removal 
efficiency of 85 percent. The emissions from Rotor Touch-Up Booth are 
small compared to the emissions from the Blade Paint Shop, but in case 
of KPR failure, the work load from the Blade Paint Shop will be routed 
through the Rotor Touch-Up Booth and the emissions will be controlled 
by the carbon canisters.
    Bell has submitted a cost summary for a number of add-on control 
options for further add-on controls. The least expensive option for an 
individual painting booth is estimated to have an annualized cost of 
$22,424 per ton of VOC emissions reduced, and therefore, considered 
cost prohibitive. Besides the add-on control options, Bell also 
evaluated several facility redesign options such as, the recirculation 
of exhausts, the reduction of air flows and the consolidation of ARACT 
sources, which all turned out to be technically or economically 
infeasible at this time.
    Bell has, and will continue to, investigate and test compliant 
coatings to replace currently utilized non-compliant coatings and 
implement them when feasible. To date, Bell has found some possible 
substitutes in lacquers, epoxy primers and urethane enamels coating 
categories and has been successful in its efforts to replace epoxy 
primers, which represents 20 percent of the total coatings used at 
Bell, with water-based primers.
    Bell has demonstrated in their application that the coatings being 
used at the facility have the lowest feasible VOC contents. Safety, 
performance and specifications prevent Bell using all compliant 
coatings at their facility. The coating operation which has the largest 
VOC emission rate is the Adhesive Prime Booth, in which coating 
materials are used to hold the helicopter's metal rotor blades 
together. These coatings must have special physical properties in order 
to ensure the safety of helicopters. Bell's helicopters are required to 
have a specific operating temperature range from -67 deg.F to 180 deg.F 
which very few commercially-available coatings meet. Finally, most of 
the coating activities at Bell are conducted in support of the military 
production line and coating parameters are strictly regulated by 
military specifications.
    The VOC limitations on each coating are governed by Provision 11 
and Table II of the State submittal. As this ARACT must be reviewed 
every two years, EPA or TNRCC may, at that time, request information on 
any new, lower VOC coatings that may have been developed during the 
interim.

III. Other Measures To Reduce Emissions

    Bell will be implementing several equipment, coatings and solvent 
changes to reduce VOC emissions as far as possible without more add-on 
controls. Bell will purchase and install 10 enclosed gun cleaners for 
the washing of ARACT source spray equipment within three months of the 
final ratification of this ARACT. Bell will also purchase and install 
plural component mixing systems at the Conveyor Prime and Blade Paint 
Shop within six months of the final ratification of this ARACT. These 
mixing systems will replace both the existing pressure pot system at 
the Conveyor Prime Booth and the prime and topcoat pressure pot systems 
at the Blade Paint Shop. The new mixing systems will provide 
substantial savings in both paint and thinner use. Bell indicated in 
their application that high transfer efficiency application equipment 
is used to apply the coatings at their facility when feasible. Bell 
currently uses high volume/low pressure, electrostatic and air brush 
application equipment all with a transfer efficiency of at least 60 
percent which reduces the amount of coatings used, and subsequently 
reduced the VOC emissions.
    Bell will substitute low vapor pressure solvents for the higher 
vapor pressure solvents currently used for the wipedown of parts and 
assemblies in some of the booths, where feasible. Bell will begin 
production testing of low vapor pressure (<5 mmHg) solvents as soon as 
Permit R-1996 is approved. The EPA Aerospace National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Aerospace 
Manufacturing and Rework Facilities allows wipe solvents up to 45 mmHg 
vapor pressure to be used. Bell will be expected to comply with the 
primer, topcoat, and operating practices included in this NESHAP (60 FR 
45948).

IV. Final Rulemaking Action

    The EPA has reviewed the information developed by Bell 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. The EPA's review of the 
information submitted by both the State of Texas and Bell indicates 
that, at this time, low VOC coatings for certain applications and 
processes are not commercially available. Furthermore, the cost 
effectiveness of controls on emissions from certain processes at this 
facility are not economically feasible. The EPA finds that the 
requirements in the recommended CTG are not reasonable for certain 
processes and that the proposed source specific alternate RACT 
determinations in the SIP submittal should be considered RACT in this 
case.
    In this final action, EPA is approving the revision to the Texas 
SIP and adopting the Bell site-specific SIP revision as RACT for the 
Bell Plant 1 facility. This revision was submitted by the Governor to 
EPA by letter dated April 18, 1996.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be 
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and 
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and 
regulatory requirements.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

    This action has been classified for signature by the Regional 
Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on 
January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a July 10, 1995, 
memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and 
Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this 
regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.

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

[[Page 29299]]

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, 255-66 
(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 the 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. Sec. 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. Sec. 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 July 29, 1997. 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, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping, and Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: February 12, 1997.
Jerry Clifford,
Acting Regional Administrator.

    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. 7401-7671q.

Subpart SS--Texas

    2. Section 52.2270 is amended by adding paragraph (c) (100) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.2270  Identification of Plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (100) A revision to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) to 
adopt an alternate control strategy for the surface coating processes 
at the Bell Helicopter Textron, Incorporated (Bell) Plant 1 Facility.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (a) Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Agreed Order for 
Docket No. 95-1642-SIP, issued and effective April 2, 1996, for Bell's 
Plant 1 facility.
    (b) A letter from the Governor of Texas dated April 18, 1996, 
submitting to the EPA the Agreed Order and the site-specific SIP 
revision for Bell.
    (ii) Additional material.
    (a) The site-specific revision to the Texas State Implementation 
Plan for Bell, dated January 16, 1996.
    (b) The alternate reasonably available control technology 
demonstration prepared by Bell, dated December 1995.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 97-14196 Filed 5-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P