[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