\[Via U.S. Mail and E-mail\]

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center

Attention Docket Number OAR-2002-0038

Part 63 General Provisions (Subpart A) and Section 112(j) Regulations
(Subpart B)

Litigation Settlement Amendments II

Mailcode 6102T

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC, 20460

**Re: ChevronTexaco Comments on**

**National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source
Categories:**

**General Provisions; and Requirements for Control Technology
Determinations for Major Sources in Accordance with Clean Air Act
Sections, Sections 112(g) and 112(j)**

**67 Fed. Reg. 72875 (Dec. 9, 2002)**

Air and Radiation Docket:

ChevronTexaco Corporation appreciates this opportunity to provide
comments on EPA's proposed amendments to the regulations implementing
Section 112(j) of the Clean Air Act and to the General Provisions for
Section 112.

ChevronTexaco is an integrated energy company, involved in every aspect
of the energy industry. Our operations range from oil and gas
exploration and production to transportation, refining and retail
marketing, as well as chemicals manufacturing and sales and power
production. We operate facilities subject to both existing MACT
standards and several of the pending NESHAP rules and have a strong
interest that these regulations accomplish their legitimate regulatory
objectives without being wasteful of resources for either affected
industries or the regulatory agencies responsible for administering
them.

Chevron Texaco is a member of the American Petroleum Institute (API),
the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, the Clean Air
Implementation Project, and the Coalition for Clean Air Implementation.
We endorse the comments made by those organizations and incorporate them
here by reference. The following provides additional focus on some of
our major concerns.

[Section 112(j) Application Deadline Revision:]{.underline} No party's
interests are served if sources are required to submit, and agencies are
required to manage, case-by-case MACT applications that will never be
acted upon because they are ultimately rendered moot by a final MACT
rule. We support EPA's efforts avoid such an outcome. While we are
disappointed that EPA has chosen to amend the 24 month 112(j) Part 2
deadlines at all, we think the current proposal's phased deadlines,
linked to the timeline for MACT standard promulgation, can be made
workable with certain caveats. As described in more detail in the
referenced comments, EPA should: provide ample advance notice if a MACT
deadline will be missed, adjust 112(j) deadlines if the agreed MACT
promulgation deadlines are adjusted, and provide implementation guidance
to sources and permit agencies to minimize Part 2 application burden
(particularly where a MACT standard has been proposed). 60 days is an
unreasonably short time frame for sources to prepare and submit
case-by-case MACT applications, particularly when there is considerable
uncertainty over which MACT rules will not be promulgated by the
scheduled deadline. We also think it is critical for the regulated
community to be able to review and comment upon the actual rule language
proposed to implement these changes prior to their finalization.

[Section 112(g) General Provisions]{.underline}: We disagree with EPA's
characterization that the proposed changes to the General Provisions are
modest in character, in particular the proposed requirement to submit
new and revised Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction plans to the permit
agency. As detailed in the referenced comments EPA has not made a
compelling case to justify such a rule revision, and the proposed
changes would create burden for both sources and regulators without
providing any environmental benefit. We urge EPA not to adopt the
proposed changes to section 63.6(e)(3)(v).

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these proposals. If you have
any questions please contact Bob Walker at (925-842-3457).

Sincerely,

\[original signed by J. H. Dickey\]

Philip T. Cavanaugh

cc: Mr. Rick Colyer, USEPA (via email)