Compliance Assurance Monitoring Rulemaking (40 CFR Parts 64, 70, and 71) 

 Responses to Public Comments (Part III) 

 (Comments Submitted in Response to 1996 Part 64 Draft) 

 October 2, 1997 
i 

October 2, 1997 

 Compliance Assurance Monitoring Rulemaking (40 CFR Parts 64, 70, and 71) 

 Responses to Public Comments (Part III) 

Table of Contents

Page

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 

Section 1: Definitions .................................................................................................... 4 

Section 1.1: Control Device Definition ................................................................. 4 

Section 1.2: Capture System Definition ............................................................ 18

Section 1.3: Continuous Compliance Determination Method Definition ............ 20 

Section 1.4: Other Definitions ........................................................................... 22 

Section 2: Applicability ................................................................................................ 34 

Section 2.1: Applicability of 1996 CAM Draft Subpart B ................................... 34 

Section 2.2: Subpart C Applicability ................................................................. 61 

Section 2.3: Exemptions ................................................................................... 66 

Section 2.4: Miscellaneous Applicability Issues ............................................... 96 

Section 3: Implementation ........................................................................................ 102 

Section 3.1: Timing of Implementation ........................................................... 102

Section 3.2: CAM Elements in Permits ......................................................... 123 

Section 3.3: Operation of Monitoring .............................................................. 148 

Section 3.4: Existing Monitoring ..................................................................... 152 

Section 3.5: Costs to Permitters/Programmatic Option .................................. 154 

Section 3.6: Information for Permitters ........................................................... 160 

Section 3.7: Approval Procedures .................................................................. 162 

Section 4: Recordkeeping and Reporting ................................................................. 165 

Section 4.1: Semiannual Reports ................................................................... 165 

Section 4.2: Reporting-QIP Notice ................................................................. 167 

Section 4.3: Records to be Kept ..................................................................... 171 

Section 4.4: Alternative Recordkeeping Formats ........................................... 172 

Section 4.5: Off-site Storage of Records ........................................................ 173

Section 4.6: Other Reporting and Recordkeeping Issues .............................. 174 
ii 

Section 5: Savings Provisions ................................................................................... 176 

Section 6: Monitoring Design Criteria ........................................................................ 178 

Section 6.1: Subpart B-General Criteria ......................................................... 178

Section 6.2 Subpart B Performance Criteria .................................................. 198 

Section 6.3: Use of CEMS, COMS, PEMS in Subpart B ................................ 211 

Section 6.4: Cost/Source Features as Factors in Monitoring Selection ......... 218 

Section 7: Subpart B CAM Plans .............................................................................. 222 

Section 7.1: General Comments .................................................................... 222 

Section 7.2: Permit Interface .......................................................................... 224 

Section 7.3: Ability to Add Elements .............................................................. 226 

Section 7.4: Corrective Action Provisions ....................................................... 226

Section 7.5: Miscellaneous Comments .......................................................... 229 

Section 8: Documentation Requirements .................................................................. 232 

Section 8.1: Rationale for Monitoring ............................................................. 232 

Section 8.2: Indicator Range Verification ....................................................... 234

Section 9: Subpart C Requirements .......................................................................... 246 

Section 9.1: General Comments ..................................................................... 246 

Section 9.2: No Monitoring Option .................................................................. 251 

Section 9.3: More Stringent State/Local Requirements .................................. 252 

Section 9.4: Miscellaneous Comments ........................................................... 252 

Section 10: Quality Improvement Plans (QIPs) ......................................................... 254 

Section 10.1: QIPs - Need for More Flexibility .............................................. 254 

Section 10.2: Threshold for Requiring a QIP (64.10) ..................................... 258 

Section 10.3: Elements of QIPs (64.11(a)) ..................................................... 267 

Section 10.4: Timing of QIPs (64.11(b)) ......................................................... 269

Section 10.5: Recordkeeping and Reporting for QIPs (64.11(c)) ................... 272 

Section 11: [Reserved] .............................................................................................. 273 

Section 12: Part 70/71 Revisions .............................................................................. 274 

Section 12.1: Monitoring Revisions ................................................................ 274 

Section 12.2: Compliance Certification .......................................................... 278

Section 12.3: Deviation Definition .................................................................. 290 
iii 

Section 13: General Statutory Issues ........................................................................ 294 

Section 14: Enforcement Concerns .......................................................................... 302 

Section 14.1: Effect on Existing Standards .................................................... 302 

Section 14.2 Relationship of CAM and Credible Evidence (CE) Rule .......... 308 

Section 14.3: Purpose of CAM and its Role in Enforcement .......................... 317 

Section 14.4: Effectiveness of CAM Information for Enforcement ................ 324 

Section 14.5: CAM Shield .............................................................................. 328 

Section 14.6: Miscellaneous ........................................................................... 331 

Section 15: Procedural Issues .................................................................................. 332 

Section 15.1: Administrative Procedures Act ................................................. 332 

Section 15.2: OMB Review/Regulatory Impact Analysis (prior to 

release of RIA sections) ......................................................................... 343

Section 15.3: Regulatory Impact Analysis (Reopened Comment Period) ...... 346 

Section 15.4: Paperwork Reduction Act ......................................................... 354 

Section 15.5: Unfunded Mandates Reform Act .............................................. 355 

Section 15.6: Regulatory Flexibility Act .......................................................... 355 

Section 16: Guidance ................................................................................................ 357 

Section 17: General Comments ................................................................................ 365 

Section 17.1: CAM Approach ......................................................................... 365 

Section 17.2: General Comments on the Current Proposal ........................... 367 

Section 17.3: Complexity and Clarity of CAM ................................................. 370 

Section 17.4: CAM Rulemaking Process........................................................ 372 

Section 17.5: Other General Concerns .......................................................... 373 

Section 17.6: Comments on Credible Evidence Rulemaking ......................... 374 

Section 17.7: Benefits and Burdens of CAM Rule .......................................... 377 

Section 17.8: Delegation of Authority to States .............................................. 381 

Section 17.9: Implementation Concerns and Recommendations .................. 383 

Appendix III-A: List of Comment Letters for Response (Part III): EPA Air Docket 

A-91-52 
October 2, 1997 

 Compliance Assurance Monitoring Rulemaking (40 CFR Parts 64, 70, and 71) 

 Responses to Public Comments (Part III) 

Table of Contents

Page

iv 
October 2, 1997 

 Compliance Assurance Monitoring Rulemaking (40 CFR Parts 64, 70, and 71) 

 Responses to Public Comments (Part III) 

Table of Contents

Page

v 
October 2, 1997 

 Compliance Assurance Monitoring Rulemaking (40 CFR Parts 64, 70, and 71) 

 Responses to Public Comments (Part III) 

Table of Contents

Page

vi 
October 2, 1997 

 INTRODUCTION

This Part III of the three part Compliance Assurance Monitoring Rulemaking 

Responses to Public Comment Document summarizes the written comments submitted 

during the comment period on the 1996 part 64 Draft and the comment period on the 

impact analyses for the rulemaking and the credible evidence relationship (see 61 FR 

41991, August 13, 1996 and 60 FR 20147, April 25, 1997). 

The Compliance Assurance Monitoring Rule contained in part 64 and the 

conforming amendments to parts 70 and 71 are being promulgated in response to the 

direct mandate in section 114(a)(3), as well as the supporting authority in sections 

504(b) and 113, of the Clean Air Act (the "Act"). Part 64 builds on existing regulatory 

monitoring approaches in order to provide a reasonable assurance that owners and 

operators are complying with emissions limitations or standards. The regulations 

require owners and operators to meet minimum monitoring requirements designed to 

ensure that control measures are operated and maintained in a manner consistent with 

good air pollution control practices. The amendments to parts 70 and 71 clarify the 

relationship between part 64 and the compliance certification process under the title V 

operating permits program. 

The EPA proposed these regulations on October 22, 1993, at 58 FR 54648. 

The proposal announced the opportunity for written public comment until December 20, 

1993, which date was subsequently extended until January 31, 1994. The proposal 

also provided notice of a public hearing, which was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 

November 19, 1993. The public comment period was reopened from December 28, 

1994 until February 3, 1995 to take additional comment on a limited number of specific 

issues. 

The Agency decided to redesign elements of the part 64 rulemaking in April 

1995. On May 31, 1995, the EPA held a public hearing to discuss the potential 

redesign of part 64. Follow-up meetings were held in June 1995 in Washington, D.C., 

Cincinnati, Dallas, and Portland, Oregon. An initial draft of the compliance assurance 

monitoring rule and preamble were made available for public discussion and comment 

at another public meeting held in September 1995. Based on the public comment 

received on that interim draft, EPA released a second draft in August 1996 and once 

again took comment on the draft part 64 rule. In addition, a public meeting was held to 

obtain oral input as well. 

A complete transcript of the initial public hearing, summaries of all subsequent 

public meetings, the full text of each comment letter, and the supporting information 

used in developing the regulations, are contained in Docket No. A-91-52. This docket 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 3 

is available for public inspection and copying between 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. Monday 

through Friday, excluding government holidays, at Room M-1500, Waterside Mall, 401 

M Street S.W., Washington, D.C. The public comments on the original enhanced 

monitoring proposal are found at Section IV-D of the docket and are numbered from 

IV-D-1 through IV-D-772. When the Agency determined to redesign the original 

proposal in April 1995 to reflect the CAM approach, new material relied on for the 

rulemaking was placed in Section VI of the docket. The public comments are included 

in section VI-D of the rulemaking docket. 

In March 1996, EPA decided to proceed with the credible evidence provisions 

proposed with the original enhanced monitoring requirements. The Agency took 

additional public comment on those provisions and those comments are included in the 

docket as items IV-D-774 through IV-D-843. The Agency has responded to those 

comments as well as comments submitted in response to the original proposal that 

related to the credible evidence provisions in finalizing the credible evidence provisions 

on February 24, 1996 (62 FR 8314). See Docket A-91-52-V-C-2 for a copy of that 

response to comments document, which is referred to as the "CE Response Document" 

throughout the remainder of this document. 

Because of the extended time period over which comments have been submitted 

on this rulemaking, this document is divided into three parts. First, Part I addresses 

the comments received during the initial public comment period (docket items IV-D-1 

through IV-D-542). Part II then addresses the comments submitted during the 

December 1994-February 1995 reopened comment period (docket items IV-D-547 

through IV-D-762). Finally, Part III addresses the comments submitted in response to 

the August 1996 Part 64 draft (docket items VI-D-114 through VI-D-243), as well as 

comments submitted during the reopened comment period in April-May 1997 (VI-D-244 

through VI-D-274). Comments submitted early in the development of the CAM 

approach were considered by the Agency in formulating both the 1995 Part 64 Draft 

and the 1996 Part 64 Draft. The details of those comments related to preliminary 

staff-level ideas about possible rule structures. Comments on major structural issues 

have remained generally consistent over time (i.e., use of Part 64 data for enforcement, 

implementation through Part 70 permits, scope of applicability, and the level of 

justification and testing needed to support proposed monitoring). Thus, the Agency 

believes that the release of follow-up drafts of the rule and accompanying discussion 

materials, and the responses to comments included in Parts I-III of this document 

adequately address these additional comments. 

The reader should note that many of the most significant comments from these 

comment periods are also responded to in the preamble to the final rule, and the 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 4 

responses in this document cross-reference the appropriate discussion in the preamble 

where appropriate. 

This document also includes appendices. Appendices I-A, II-A and III-A are lists 

of all comment letters received in the rulemaking docket during the initial comment 

period, the 1994-1995 reopened comment period, the comment period following 

release of the 1996 part 64 Draft, and the 1997 reopened comment period, as well as 

all oral testimony provided at the public hearing. (Comments submitted to the docket 

use a "IV-D-" or a "VI-D" prefix, while comments from the public hearing use a "IV-F" 

prefix.) 

This document includes many citations to other authorities outside of part 64 or 

the conforming amendments. These citations are generally not followed by their origin, 

such as "of the Clean Air Act." Rather, the reader can recognize the origins of the 

sections by their nature: sections of existing EPA regulations are preceded by 40 

CFR, except in the case of 40 CFR part 70, which is frequently cited only as "part 70," 

and sections therein cited as, e.g., "§ 70.2." Sections of the Act are referenced by a 

three digit number, such as "114" or "504." This document also often refers to "State" 

or "permitting authority." The reader should assume that where the document refers to 

a "State," the reference also includes local air pollution agencies, Indian tribes, and 

territories of the United States to the extent they are or will be the permitting authority 

for their area, or have been or will be delegated permitting responsibilities under the 

Act. In addition, the term "permitting authority" would also include EPA to the extent 

EPA is the permitting authority of record. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 5 

Section 1: Definitions 

Section 1.1: Control Device Definition 

1.1.1: Breadth of Control Device Definition

Comment a: Many commenters argued that the control device definition included in the 

1996 CAM Draft was too broad. The concerns described by these 

commenters and the recommendations made are described below. 

One of these commenters expressed concern that too many emissions 

units would be subject to subpart B of the 1996 CAM Draft, resulting in 

higher costs without any significant environmental benefit. 

Response: The Agency disagrees that the rule would require monitoring on too many 

emission units with no environmental benefit. The Agency believes that 

the CAM approach results in tangible benefits to the general public health 

and welfare. A primary benefit of implementing part 64 will be a 

reduction in overall emissions through increased compliance with the 

requirements of the Act. The key elements of part 64 that will result in 

these reductions are monitoring that alerts owners or operators to 

deteriorating control conditions and the associated requirement that the 

owner or operator take the steps necessary to correct those conditions. 

This approach emphasizes minimizing emissions by avoiding or quickly 

remedying situations that may involve emissions in excess of applicable 

requirements. In addition to the direct environmental benefit of 

decreased emissions, increased compliance rates also achieve a corollary 

economic benefit. As a general matter, increased compliance rates with 

existing rules will lower the long-term overall cost of air pollution control by 

decreasing the need for additional regulations to obtain necessary 

emission reductions, especially for nonattainment areas. 

 

The Agency believes that there is adequate evidence that monitoring 

control performance will improve continuing compliance with applicable 

requirements. Studies conducted by the Agency have shown that control 

device operation and maintenance problems are a significant factor in 

creating excess emissions (see docket items II-A-22 and VI-A-2). In 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 6 

addition, these studies have documented that assumptions about 

compliance status are often inaccurate when detailed inspections of 

control devices are conducted (see, for example, docket item VI-A-2). 

Letter(s): American Petroleum Institute (VI-D-146) 

Comment b: One commenter argued that the broad definition would cause confusion 

over the application of other air rules by introducing doubts about what is 

process equipment and what is a control device. This commenter 

pointed out that a broad control device definition would illegally change 

the applicability of underlying rules by imposing control device 

requirements on a device defined in an underlying rule as process 

equipment. 

Response: To address this concern, the final rule specifies that if an applicable 

requirement establishes that particular equipment which otherwise meets 

the definition of a control device does not constitute a control device as 

applied to a particular pollutant-specific emissions unit, then that definition 

shall be binding for purposes of part 64. 

Letter(s): Exxon Chemical Americas (VI-D-128) 

Comment c: Several commenters noted that it was difficult to distinguish between 

control devices and process equipment under the definition of control 

device in the 1996 CAM Draft. Chemical industry commenters stated 

that the incorporation of chemical unit operations and process units in the 

list of control devices opens the door to a potential claim that any 

chemical unit operation or process which involves VOCs is a control 

device and subject to CAM. Other commenters noted that the rule 

language in the 1996 CAM Draft did not reflect the criteria for making 

judgments on the classification of devices that can be either process or 

control equipment provided in that draft's discussion and recommended 

including those criteria listed in the rule definition itself. 

Chemical industry and other commenters proposed revisions to the 

definition of control device and accompanying revisions to the guidance 

document to consider the purpose of the device including such factors as 

the cost savings from recovered product compared to the cost of the 

equipment and whether the device would be installed in the absence of air 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 7 

regulations. A commenter discussed the use of cyclone separation on 

FCCUs used to recover catalyst and catalyst fines as an example of the 

need to distinguish control devices from process equipment that 

incidentally may remove pollutants but are used to make the process work 

not to comply with emission limits. One chemical industry commenter 

requested that EPA establish that chemical processes which handle 

materials that would be pollutants if released to the atmosphere are not 

control devices in order to fulfill the preamble's promise of a narrow 

definition. 

However, one commenter argued that the criterion based on cost 

comparisons is inappropriate because cost aspects can change over time 

and others pointed out that a control measure may be installed for a 

safety reason even though its cost is disproportionate to the value of 

product recovered. These commenters argued that the criteria in the 

preamble may be inappropriate and that the sole basis for considering 

equipment to be a control device is whether the only purpose of such 

equipment is to destroy or remove air pollutants. 

Another commenter stated that, at a minimum, the definition should 

include the requirement that the primary function of the equipment is to 

remove air pollutants. The commenter requested that equipment that has 

a secondary function of removing pollutants should be specifically 

exempted and gave examples including: mechanical collectors used to 

remove pneumatically conveyed material from the conveying air stream or 

used to capture product prior to final control by another piece of 

equipment; wet scrubbers used to capture product prior to final control by 

other equipment; sulfuric and nitric acid plants which use double contact 

and extended absorption processes as inherent process equipment to 

enhance product recovery; and process condensers used in chemical 

manufacturing and other industries to recover product. 

Other commenters noted that adding language that refers to the purpose 

for which a device is installed to the control device definition would serve 

the purpose of excluding recovery devices that are integral to a process 

from the CAM definition of "control device." Several commenters 

proposed specific language to be added to definition of the "control 

device" to exclude recovery devices and discussed the appropriate 

distinction between a recovery device as an integral part of a process and 

as an add-on control by using a distillation column example where the 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 8 

vent condenser may or may not fall within the equipment monitored by the 

source to maximize the economic benefit of product recovery. 

One commenter added a request that EPA establish a presumption that a 

source's determination that particular equipment is process equipment 

instead of a control device is correct and require the permitting authority to 

meet a significant burden to overcome that presumption. 

A number of commenters focused on how recovery devices would be 

treated under the control device definition in the 1996 CAM Draft. Two 

commenters argued that the CAM definition of "control device" should be 

consistent with recent rules such as the HON or the Refinery MACT and 

should not include devices such as adsorption devices and condensers 

which are defined as recovery devices in many current regulations. One of 

these commenters felt that although MACT standards are exempt from 

CAM, the definition in the 1996 CAM Draft could cause confusion leading 

to regulatory uncertainty or overlaps. The commenter pointed to units 

such as sulfur recovery plants as devices that are part of the refinery 

process and should not be treated as control devices for purposes of 

CAM. The other commenter pointed out that the HON rule demonstrates 

EPA's recognition that control devices are operations that destroy air 

pollutants or collect air pollutants for destruction, since the calculation of 

the TRE takes place after the last recovery device. The commenter 

recommended that CAM be made consistent with this current, progressive 

view which encourages pollution prevention by not subjecting product 

recovery operations to air pollution control requirements. One 

commenter added that an upstream recovery device should not be 

considered an active control since the operator has every incentive to 

maintain and operate it properly. 

Response: The Agency generally agrees with these concerns and, based on the 

comments received, the final rule defines "inherent process equipment" 

as "equipment that is necessary for the proper or safe functioning of the 

process, or material recovery equipment that the owner or operator 

documents is installed and operated primarily for purposes other than 

compliance with air pollution regulations." In addition, the control device 

definition has been revised to include a list of several control techniques 

that do not constitute "control devices" as defined in part 64. Part 64 

makes clear that the responsibility to identify process equipment is that of 

the source owner or operator in preparing the permit application. In most 

cases, this activity is already part of the permitting process (see, e.g., 40 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 9 

CFR 70.5). However, EPA does not believe it would be appropriate to 

create a presumption that a source owner’s determination of equipment 

as inherent process equipment is correct without permitting authority 

review. 

Letter(s): Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (VI-D-186); American Automobile 

Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); American Gas Association 

(VI-D-154); American Petroleum Institute (VI-D-146); Chemical 

Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); Clean Air Implementation Project 

(VI-D-153); Coalition for Clean Air Implementation (VI-D-164); Coastal 

Corporation (VI-D-123); Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry 

(VI-D-182); DuPont Engineering (VI-D-127); Eastman Chemical Company 

(VI-D-173); Eli Lilly Company (VI-D-124); Exxon Chemical Americas 

(VI-D-128); Exxon Company, USA (VI-D-135); General Electric Company 

(VI-D-156); Independent Liquid Terminals Association (VI-D-178); KBN 

Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc. (VI-D-229); Kennecott 

Corporation (VI-D-119); Mobil Corporation (VI-D-115); Ohio Chamber of 

Commerce, et al (VI-D-160); Pennzoil Company (VI-D-133); Texaco 

Environment Health & Safety (VI-D-199) 

Comment d: Some commenters recommended adding a definition of "active control 

device" to fulfill the Agency's stated intent to focus the rule on active 

controls and to provide clarity on a term often used by the Agency in 

connection with this rule. Certain commenters stated that the definition 

should turn on whether or not the device requires attention to maintain 

good operation. 

Response: The Agency agrees with these concerns and has provided in the final rule 

that the requirements of part 64 apply only to pollutant-specific emissions 

units that rely on a control device to achieve compliance. The final rule 

provides a definition of "control device" that reflects the focus of part 64 

on those types of control devices that are usually considered as "add-on 

controls." This definition does not encompass all conceivable control 

approaches but rather those types of control devices that may be prone 

to upset and malfunction, and that are most likely to benefit from 

monitoring of critical parameters to assure that they continue to function 

properly. In addition, a regulatory obligation to monitor control devices 

is appropriate because these devices generally are not an inherent part of 

the source's process and may not be watched as closely as devices that 

have a direct bearing on the efficiency or productivity of the source. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 10 

The control device definition is based on similar definitions in some State 

regulations (see, e.g., North Carolina Administrative Code, title 15A, 

chapter 2, subchapter 2D, section .0101 (definition of "control device"); 

Texas Administrative Code, title 30, section 101.1 (definition of "control 

device"). The definition is in contrast to broader definitions of "control 

device," "air cleaning equipment," "control measure," or similar terms 

included in other States' regulations (see, e.g., Codes, Rules, and 

Regulations of the State of New York, title 6, chapter III, section 200.1 

(definition of "air cleaning device" or "control equipment")). These 

broader definitions often include any method, process or equipment which 

removes, reduces or renders less noxious air contaminants released to 

the ambient air. Those types of controls could include material 

substitution, process modification, operating restrictions and similar types 

of controls. The definition in part 64 relies on the narrow interpretation of 

a control device that focuses on control equipment that removes or 

destroys air pollutants. 

Letter(s): Chemical Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); Coastal Corporation 

(VI-D-123); Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry (VI-D-182); 

Exxon Chemical Americas (VI-D-128) 

Comment e: A few commenters criticized the criteria included in the discussion 

accompanying the 1996 CAM Draft because they do not distinguish 

equipment which reduces the formation of pollutants from control devices. 

 They asked that EPA clarify in the rule that pollution prevention devices, 

such as low NOx burners, are not considered control devices and also 

argued that this clarification is consistent with the intent stated in the CAM 

preamble to adopt a narrow definition of control device. These 

commenters added that this clarification is necessary to prevent the 

imposition of CAM requirements on units not intended to be covered and 

to promote consistent national implementation of CAM. Finally, they 

noted that the clarification is consistent with EPA's Common Sense 

Initiative to reduce unnecessary regulation that can impede pollution 

prevention. One commenter proposed clearly excluding these devices by 

adding a definition of pollution prevention referring to any activity that 

reduces the release of air pollutants prior to recycling, treatment, or 

disposal and noted that the proposed definition is similar to the definition 

proposed for the PSD/NSR rule. 61 Fed. Reg. 38250, 38324 (July 23, 

1996.) 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 11 

Response: The Agency generally agrees with the commenters concerns as far as the 

use of low-NOx burner technology and certain other types of combustion 

control measures. These technologies were not included n the control 

device definition in the August 1996 Draft CAM rule and are not included 

in the definition of "control device" in the final rule. For most large 

emissions units that employ such measures, such as utility boilers, 

separate applicable requirements already require the use of CEMS or 

similar monitoring for such units. Under part 70, that monitoring will have 

to be included in the permit and considered in certifying compliance with 

applicable requirements. Some types of combustion units (e.g., 

package boilers and engines) that may use low-NOx burner technology do 

not use the same types of technology used by utility and large industrial 

boilers. The technology used for many units with automatic combustion 

control does not provide significant operational flexibility that could afford 

the owner or operator with an opportunity or incentive to manipulate NOx

control levels. For these types of units, the recordkeeping of regular 

inspection and maintenance of the low-NOx burners (e.g., annular flow 

ratio adjustment settings, burner replacement, etc.) in combination with 

periodic checks of emission levels with appropriate test methods, as 

necessary, are very likely sufficient to ensure that the unit is being 

operated in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practices 

and that the low-NOx technology continues to reduce emissions at least to 

the level of the standard. The general monitoring requirements in part 70 

are adequate to assure that this type of appropriate monitoring is 

employed. 

For these reasons, EPA believes that monitoring for this control 

technology is best addressed through part 70 periodic monitoring 

requirements and not through expansion of part 64 to units with these 

types of control measures. Of course, if there are particular units which 

raise a significant continuous compliance concern, such as units with an 

historically poor compliance history, the permitting authority can require 

more detailed monitoring under the general part 70 monitoring provisions 

given that the permit must include appropriate monitoring for assuring 

compliance with the permit. In those cases, permitting authorities may 

want to consider elements of part 64 as potentially appropriate, but they 

would not be bound to satisfy each element of part 64. 

Letter(s): American Gas Association (VI-D-154); Columbia Gas System Service 

Corporation (VI-D-175); Enron Operations Corp. (VI-D-235) 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 12 

1.1.2: General Supporting Comments

Comment a: One commenter stated general support for the definition of control device 

and/or guidance document as being accurate and consistent with other 

regulations. A commenter who found the control device definition in the 

1996 CAM Draft to be too broad indicated that it was an improvement 

over the previously proposed definition of "control technology" since the 

control device definition is limited to "equipment" rather than "methods," 

and eliminates specific references to "process elements" or "other forms 

of limiting emissions." Other commenters summarized and offered 

support for Agency positions reflected in the definition, such as a 

determination that various pollution prevention techniques, including NOx

control techniques such as modified furnace/burner design, staged 

combustion, reduced combustion-air preheat, and low excess air firing, 

are not active control devices, and recognition that permitting authorities 

should exercise discretion to exclude equipment that in a particular case 

is an inherent element of the process even though in other cases it may 

be considered a control device. 

Response: No response necessary. 

Letter(s): Chemical Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); Kennecott Corporation 

(VI-D-119); Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry (VI-D-114); 

The Fertilizer Institute (VI-D-145) 

1.1.3: Comments on the Control Device Guidance

Comment a: A number of commenters objected to identification of certain types of 

equipment as "control devices" in EPA's control device guidance 

document. General recommendations included clarifying that some of 

the equipment types in Table 1 can also be recovery devices that are 

integral to a process and expanding the guidance to include descriptions 

of each device that help to distinguish between process equipment and 

control equipment. 

Response: As noted in responses to several comments in section 1.1.1 (Part III) 

above, the Agency recognizes that some equipment identified as control 

equipment may, in some applications, be more correctly characterized as 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 13 

inherent process equipment. The final rule provides for the owner or 

operator to identify such situations in the permit application and indicate 

that monitoring under part 64 is not required. The permitting authority will 

evaluate whether a determination that such equipment qualifies as 

inherent processing equipment is correct upon permit application review. 

Letter(s): Eastman Chemical Company (VI-D-173); Exxon Chemical Americas 

(VI-D-128) 

Comment b: A group of comments were submitted on the issue of how certain NOx

controls should be treated for the purposes of CAM. One commenter 

stated that low NOx burners on gas-fired turbines and controllers for the 

adjustment of air to fuel ratio should be included on the list of equipment 

which is not considered a "control device" under CAM because this 

equipment neither destroys nor removes air pollutants. Another 

commenter argued that FGR and water injection for NOx control likewise 

should not be included in the definition as control device equipment 

adding that these procedures are integral to the combustion system 

design. 

Other commenters stated that treating clean burn combustion control 

utilized in internal combustion engines as outside the CAM control device 

definition would be consistent with EPA's inclusion of both increased air 

flow (air injection, AIRS Code 031) and precombustion chambers (staged 

combustion, AIRS code 025) on the list of technologies not considered 

control devices. Two commenters listed several basic engine combustion 

control techniques, such as timing retard, lean combustion modifications, 

turbo charging, after-cooling and fuel injection enhancements which EPA 

should exclude from the concept of "control device." They added that the 

use of low emitting raw materials should be explicitly excluded (such as 

fuel sulfur limits), as should retrofitting with certain equipment, such as a 

"lean-burn" kit installed on a "rich-burn" spark-ignited engine. 

An association of state and local agencies recommended adding 

Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) and components of low-NOx burners 

to the list of control devices. 

Response: See response to Comment e, section 1.1.1 (Part III), above, regarding the 

use of low-NOx burner technology. The Agency disagrees that some of 

the technology mentioned including FGR, SCR, and water or steam 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 14 

injection, should not be considered active control technology for the 

purposes of part 64. Even though the technologies mentioned are 

directed at modifying the process operation rather than an end-of-pipe 

pollutant removal, these technologies are active in nature and do require 

generally continuous operator attention in order to assure proper 

operation (e.g., monitoring of water or steam flow rates relative to fuel 

input rates, monitoring of catalytic temperatures to assure reduction 

activity, monitoring of gas flow rate to assure proper recirculation ratios). 

With respect to the comments concerning basic engine combustion 

control techniques, the Agency notes that the final rule specifically 

excludes combustion design characteristics from the definition of a control 

device. 

Letter(s): American Gas Association (VI-D-154); Engine Manufacturers Association 

(VI-D-117); Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. (VI-D-165); NESCAUM 

(VI-D-192); NorAm Gas Transmission Company (VI-D-142) 

Comment c: Comments on the classification of various types of devices included a 

state commenter's identification of a number of types of equipment (with 

Aerometric Information Retrieval System codes included) as being listed 

as control devices in the guidance document (Docket Item VI-I-3) and 

objection to their classification as such. These examples included control 

devices for particulate matter, such as gravity collectors (004, 005, 006), 

centrifugal collectors (007, 008, 009), mist eliminators (014, 015), spray 

towers (052), filters (058, 059, 063, 064), cyclones (075, 076, 077), wet 

cyclonic separators (085), and high efficiency particulate air filters (101); 

sulfur plants (045) which the commenter described as primarily a 

manufacturing process; sulfuric acid plants (043, 044) which the 

commenter stated typically satisfy emission limits through proper design. 

The commenter also stated that any system which utilizes vapor collection 

equipment to route VOC to a control device that reduces VOC emissions 

and equipment used to recover VOC for the purpose of recycling to the 

process (under Vapor recovery system (047)) should not be considered 

an active control device and that water curtains (086) and nitrogen 

blankets (087) are work practice techniques rather than control devices. 

Other commenters stated that "no equipment" and numerous processes, 

including catalytic reduction, chemical oxidation, chemical neutralization, 

"process change" and process gas recovery, were improperly included as 

control devices. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 15 

Response: See response to Comment c, section 1.1.1 (Part III), above, for general 

control device definition. The final rule includes a provision for the owner 

or operator to identify certain types of product collectors and process 

operations as inherent process equipment and, thus, may not be subject 

to the monitoring requirements in part 64. The devices mentioned by the 

commenter may fall into this category depending on application including 

gravity collectors, centrifugal collectors, mist eliminators, spray towers, 

filters, cyclones, wet cyclonic separators, and high efficiency particulate air 

filters, sulfur plants, sulfuric acid plants, organic vapor collectors, as well 

as, catalytic reduction, chemical oxidation, chemical neutralization, 

"process change" and process gas recovery. On the other hand, the 

Agency believes that such devices installed and operated in order to meet 

an applicable emission limit should be subject to appropriate monitoring to 

provide a reasonable assurance of compliance. 

Letter(s): Chemical Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); Exxon Chemical 

Americas (VI-D-128) 

Comment d: One commenter asserted that the requirements of 40 CFR 60.18 are 

sufficient to assure compliance for flares (023). 

Response: The Agency agrees that certain types of monitoring specified through 

rulemaking and other publicly available documents, but not designated as 

continuous compliance determination methods, may be presumptively 

acceptable monitoring under part 64. The preamble to the final rule 

provides that the monitoring for flares as defined in § 60.18 qualifies as 

presumptively acceptable monitoring under § 64.4(b)(5). 

Letter(s): Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (VI-D-189) 

Comment e: One commenter argued against considering multiclones or centrifugal 

collectors to be control devices pointing out that these devices are static 

and there are no performance parameters that apply to cyclones that can 

be manipulated by the operator once they are installed. 

Response: The Agency believes that cyclones and multiclones that are installed and 

operated to comply with applicable emission limits should be subject to 

monitoring under part 64. The argument that such devices are static is 

not persuasive given the need for the operator to maintain sufficient 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 16 

inertial conditions for adequate pollutant removal. On the other hand, the 

Agency agrees that the monitoring of the operation of cyclones and 

multiclones is generally a relatively simple matter of assuring that proper 

gas flow is maintained to ensure adequate pollutant removal velocity and 

that regular inspection and cleaning or other maintenance is conducted. 

For purposes of part 64, the Agency believes that monitoring to assure 

that proper flow rates are maintained (e.g., minimum pressure drop across 

the device) and recordkeeping of other maintenance practices would be 

sufficient and appropriate monitoring. The frequency of such monitoring 

may be reduced based on the level of control the owner or operator has 

over the operation of the devices. 

Letter(s): Niagara Mohawk (VI-D-168) 

Comment f: A few commenters requested that the control device guidance document 

include some POTW-unique control methods, such as certain 

process/equipment modification used to reduce air emissions, so that it is 

clear that these methods are not control devices. 

Response: The Agency believes that this concern is adequately addressed in the 

revised definition of control device, which states that “...a control device 

does not include passive control measures that act to prevent pollutants 

from forming, such as the use of seals, lids, or roofs to prevent the 

release of pollutants, use of low-polluting fuel or feed stocks, or the use of 

combustion or other process design features or characteristics.” 

Letter(s): California Association of Sanitation Agencies (VI-D-206); County 

Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California (VI-D-231); Tri-TAC 

(VI-D-225) 

Comment g: Some commenters recommended including the materials found in the 

guidance document in the rule or an Appendix to the rule. One 

commenter recommended adding a definition of "control method" to § 

64.1 referring to equipment, processes, work practices and other methods 

of controlling emissions that should not be considered control devices. 

This commenter preferred incorporating the list of technologies not to be 

considered control devices currently included in the guidance document in 

the body of the regulation itself because permitting authorities would not 

be bound by the guidance materials. The commenters asserted that 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 17 

these approaches would increase the consistency of CAM implementation 

and reduce burdens on both states and the regulated community. 

Response: The EPA has not included an exhaustive list of control devices that may 

be inherent process equipment in the rule to preserve the flexibility of 

permitting authorities to deal with individual situations. The Agency 

believes the specificity of the control device definition and EPA-developed 

guidance will assure consistent CAM implementation. The Agency also 

believes that the commenters’ suggestion to include a negative list of 

process operations that would not be considered control devices is 

addressed in the revised definition of control device - “...a control device 

does not include passive control measures that act to prevent pollutants 

from forming, such as the use of seals, lids, or roofs to prevent the 

release of pollutants, use of low-polluting fuel or feed stocks, or the use of 

combustion or other process design features or characteristics.” 

Letter(s): American Gas Association (VI-D-154); NorAm Gas Transmission 

Company (VI-D-142) 

1.1.4: Miscellaneous Requests for Clarification

Comment a: A commenter requested clarification as to whether passive control 

devices, such as lids, primary and secondary seals for storage tanks, etc., 

are included in the CAM definition of "control device" and whether EPA 

considered emission units employing such passive control devices to be 

subject to subpart B or subpart C of the 1996 CAM Draft. 

Response: The passive control devices as described by the commenter are not 

included in the definition of control device for part 64 purposes, as 

explained in response to Comment f under section 1.1.3 (Part III), above. 

Monitoring for such pollution control measures would be more 

appropriately addressed by the periodic monitoring requirements of part 

70. 

Letter(s): Ohio EPA, Division of Air Pollution Control (VI-D-180) 

Comment b: A commenter asked whether equipment must meet one or all three of the 

criteria mentioned in the discussion accompanying the 1996 CAM Draft to 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 18 

be considered a control device and suggested including an "and" or "or" in 

the criteria to clarify how many criteria must be met. 

Response: The Agency has revised and clarified the definition of control device in the 

rule. The determination of what constitutes a control device is provided 

in examples and additional discussion in the rule text. 

Letter(s): South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources 

(VI-D-223) 

Comment c: One commenter requested clarification on the terms "discharge" and 

"ambient air," and another stated generally that the definition should be 

clarified. A commenter pointed out that the definition should refer to 

discharge to the atmosphere not the ambient air because other EPA rules 

define the ambient air to be places to which the general public has 

access. 

Response: The definition of control device has been changed to “... equipment, other 

than inherent process equipment, that is used to destroy or remove air 

pollutant(s) prior to discharge to the atmosphere.” The definition has 

been expanded with examples and suggestions as to what pollution 

control measures are not generally control devices for the purposes of 

part 64. 

Letter(s): KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc. (VI-D-229); PPG Industries, 

Inc. (VI-D-136); Wisconsin Electric Power Company (VI-D-130) 

Comment d: A commenter stated that flue gas recirculation is not an active control for 

NOx since it prevents NOx formation, but that it may be an active control 

for VOCs and CO to the extent that it brings about more complete 

combustion. 

Response: See response to Comment b of section 1.1.3 (Part III). 

Letter(s): Kennecott Corporation (VI-D-119) 

Section 1.2: Capture System Definition 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 19 

1.2.1: Need for Capture System Monitoring

Comment a: One commenter argued that the definition of capture system should be 

deleted because the rule should not require monitoring of capture 

systems. The commenter stated that the definition is too broad and further 

broadens the scope of the rule as illustrated by an example based on a 

catalytic cracking unit. Since it would be difficult to define capture system 

for a regulation that has such wide applicability, the commenter 

recommended that the Agency focus CAM on monitoring "control devices" 

and, where appropriate, process variables directly related to emissions, 

and not on monitoring "capture systems." 

Response: The Agency disagrees for many situations for which fugitive emissions 

capture is required in order to route emissions to the control device. 

The monitoring requirements for control devices extend to capture 

systems as well because they are essential to assuring that the overall 

emission reduction goals associated with the control device are achieved. 

 

Letter(s): Texaco Environment Health & Safety (VI-D-199) 

1.2.2: Breadth of Capture System Definition

Comment a: A few commenters stated that the definition of capture system was too 

broad. One commenter pointed out that many capture systems do not 

transport pollutants to a control device. Other commenters argued that 

the definition of capture system was too inclusive in that it failed to take 

into account unique capture systems and operational practicality. One 

commenter recommended allowing the permitting authority discretion to 

recognize unique circumstances such as sewage treatment plant 

sedimentation tank covers that need frequent removal for inspection and 

maintenance. Utility industry commenters specified that boiler flue gas 

duct work should be expressly excluded from the definition of capture 

equipment. One of these commenters stated that including duct work in 

the definition may be appropriate for those processes that have a high 

probability of emitting fugitives, but it is not appropriate to monitor the 

effectiveness of boiler flue gas duct work in transporting pollutants to a 

control device. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 20 

Response: The final rule includes a definition of a "capture system" because the 

rule requires, where applicable, monitoring of a capture system 

associated with a control device. The Agency notes that duct work, 

ventilation fans and similar equipment are not considered to be a capture 

system if the equipment is used to vent emissions from a source to the 

atmosphere without being processed through a control device. For 

instance, roof vents that remove air pollutants from inside a building but 

do not transport the pollutants to a control device to reduce or destroy 

emissions would not be subject to the rule. Boiler flue gas duct work 

would not constitute a "capture system" because the duct work is not used 

to "capture" the pollutants prior to discharge. The boiler is self-contained 

from the point at which emissions are generated to the point at which 

emissions are discharged, and as such a boiler does not employ a 

"capture system" as commonly understood. The Agency notes that the 

definition of "capture system" used in part 64 is consistent with other 

regulations that use this definition. (see, e.g., 40 CFR Part 60, subparts Z, 

AA, AAa, DD, LL and OOO) 

Letter(s): Class of '85 Regulatory Response Group (VI-D-161); County Sanitation 

Districts of Los Angeles County (VI-D-232); Niagara Mohawk (VI-D-168) 

Rubber Manufacturers Association (VI-D-149) 

Section 1.3: Continuous Compliance Determination Method Definition 

1.3.1: Recommends Increasing the Scope of the Continuous Compliance 

Determination Method Definition

Comment a: Two commenters recommended that EPA delete the caveat for assumed 

control factors because almost any compliance method may be 

interpreted to include some assumptions. The commenters stated that, 

for example, an incinerator temperature may be approved as a 

compliance method for some mass limits or percent reduction 

requirements, but could be interpreted to include assumptions about flow 

rates or other operating parameters. These commenters recommended 

that the permitting authority be given the discretion to consider any 

compliance method to be a continuous compliance determination method. 

 

Response: The exemption allowed in the rule for the use of a continuous compliance 

determination method specifies that the exemption is not available" (if the 

applicable compliance method includes an assumed control device 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 21 

emission reduction factor that could be affected by the actual operation 

and maintenance of the control device” (emphasis added). The Agency 

believes this makes clear that other assumptions used in determining 

compliance (e.g., an assumed emission factor, F-factor, for a given fuel 

type) are not included in this definition. The rule discussion also includes 

more specific example language to help clarify this point. 

Letter(s): American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); General 

Electric Company (VI-D-156) 

1.3.2: Requests for Clarification

Comment a: Several commenters stated that EPA should clarify that a continuous 

compliance determination method is not limited to continuous monitoring 

and gave examples of particular methods they would like to see 

specifically included. These commenters asked that the definition make it 

clear that the following methods are continuous compliance determination 

methods: certifying sulfur content in coal to meet a percent sulfur in coal 

standard for a boiler supplier certifications of material content and 

properties such as fuel sulfur content or VOC content of coatings, and 

continuous metering of natural gas usage where the unit is subject to a 

natural gas usage restriction. Two of the commenters argued that it 

would be a waste of resources for sources to have to propose that the 

exemption applies for these situations on a case-by-case basis. 

Response: The example compliance determination situations described by the 

commenters can indeed be continuous compliance determination 

methods; however, the control technology applied in these situations are 

not subject to part 64 monitoring, but to other part 70 monitoring (periodic 

monitoring). As such, there is no need to justify such monitoring for part 

64 purposes on a case-by-case basis. 

Letter(s): American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); Chemical 

Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); General Electric Company 

(VI-D-156); Los Alamos National Laboratory (VI-D-210); PPG Industries, 

Inc. (VI-D-136) 

Comment b: Another commenter proposed the addition of language to the definition of 

"continuous compliance determination method" to clarify that the term 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 22 

includes all emission limitations or standards promulgated under section 

111 or 112 of the Act for which the standard provides a compliance 

determination method. The commenter described this change as 

necessary to reflect the list of example continuous compliance 

determination methods in the 8/2/96 CAM technical guidance document, 

most of which are NESHAP and NSPS standards. 

Response: The Agency does not believe that all 111 or 112 standards that include 

compliance determination methods, which is all of the standards, also 

provide continuous compliance determinations. The definition applies to 

a specific category of methods that provide data for all averaging times 

that may be used directly to determine compliance with the emission 

limitation. Most compliance methods provide data only from periods of 

the applicable performance testing, not at all times. 

Letter(s): Eli Lilly Company (VI-D-124) 

1.3.3: Proposed Limitations for Continuous Compliance Determination Method 

Definition

Comment a: State commenters recommended limiting the definition of continuous 

compliance determination method. One commenter requested that the 

definition be limited to reference methods and argued that this change 

was necessary to prevent attempted exemptions from CAM requirements 

based on permit terms such as those which establish that parameter 

monitoring excursions can be used for compliance determination. An 

association of states argued that continuous compliance determination 

method should be defined as a "direct measurement or a direct correlation 

between emissions and the parameters monitored" which would include 

monitoring methods such as CEMS and fuel sampling and analysis. The 

association stated that a more narrow definition was necessary to ensure 

that the "continuous compliance determination method" exemption is 

available only to those sources required by permit to use more rigorous 

monitoring methods than the minimum required under CAM. 

Response: The Agency agrees with this intent and believes that the definition in the 

final rule reflects this position. 

Letter(s): Georgia Department of Natural Resources (VI-D-193); NESCAUM 

(VI-D-192) 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 23 

Section 1.4: Other Definitions 

1.4.1: Favors Defining Cost-effective

Comment a: A few commenters argued that part 64 should include a definition for the 

term cost-effective that is consistent with EPA's statement in the CAM 

preamble that the goal of CAM is to provide a cost-effective means of 

filling gaps in existing regulations where they are not consistent with the 

statutory requirements of Titles V and VII of the CAAA. This definition 

should also reflect the Clinton Administration's stated goal in "Reinventing 

Environmental Regulation" of "minimizing costs, providing flexibility in 

implementing programs, and tailoring solutions to the problem." These 

commenters also proposed revisions to §§ 64.6, 64.7, and 64.9 to clarify 

that cost-effectiveness is a factor to be considered in determining what 

monitoring is required by CAM. 

Response: See response to Comment a of section 6.4 (Part III). 

Letter(s): American Gas Association (VI-D-154); Coastal Corporation (VI-D-123); 

Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry (VI-D-182) 

1.4.2: Breadth of Emission Limitation or Standard Definition

Comment a: A number of commenters stated that there is no reason why design, 

equipment, operational, or operation and maintenance requirements 

should be subject to CAM since they do not involve an ongoing activity 

that must be monitored to determine that it is operating correctly. 

Another commenter added that Title V certification is all that is necessary 

for assuring compliance in these cases. One commenter also noted that 

the part 64 definition appears to go beyond the definitions of "emission 

limitation" and "emission standard" in section 302(k) of the Act which 

focus on continuous reduction and therefore do not cover these types of 

operation requirements. Finally, a commenter emphasized the 

importance of narrowing the definition of "emission limitation or standard" 

for subpart C applicability because the number of record keeping, 

reporting, work practice, design, and similar requirements at a source is 

large relative to the small number of real emission limitations. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 24 

Some commenters offered specific revisions to the definition designed to 

limit applicability. The commenters noted that the definition suggests that 

all record keeping and reporting requirements, except those associated 

with monitoring, are subject to CAM although the preamble states 

otherwise. The commenters argued that there is no need to subject 

self-documenting requirements to CAM monitoring. One of the 

commenters also argued that by failing to specify otherwise, the definition 

makes monitoring requirements subject to CAM although the preamble 

states otherwise. 

In particular, one commenter stated that leak detection and repair (LDAR) 

programs should be excluded from the definition of "emission limitation or 

standard" because they are self-contained and self-enforcing. The 

commenter pointed out that there are thousands of LDAR applicable 

requirements which would cause a tremendous burden if considered on a 

case-by-case basis and argued that this illustrates the need for a 

programmatic approach to CAM. 

Another commenter argued that applicability and exemption provisions 

(such as a requirement that a particular NSPS applies to tanks storing 

liquids above a particular vapor pressure threshold) and minor NSR, 

registration and similar requirements should be specifically excluded from 

the definition. (See also summaries under section 2.3.4 (Part III).) 

One commenter recommended that the definition include an appropriate 

acknowledgment that an emission limitation or standard includes not only 

the numerical emission limit, but also a corresponding averaging period 

and test method for determining compliance. 

Response: The Agency has slightly modified the definition of emission limitation or 

standard to address some of these comments. The final rule states 

explicitly that requirements "to keep records, submit reports, or conduct 

monitoring” do no constitute emission limitations or standards for 

purposes of part 64. For the remaining comments, however, EPA 

disagrees. If a pollutant-specific emissions unit relies on a control device 

to achieve compliance, the form of the emission limitation or standard is 

generally immaterial to the need to assure that the control device 

continues to function properly, reduce emissions and achieve compliance. 

 The Agency notes that most pollutant-specific emissions units with 

control devices are not subject to the type of standards which the 

commenters suggested should be deleted (such as LDAR requirements). 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 25 

There are, however, some types of design requirements that require 

installation of a control device, and in those cases, EPA believes that 

monitoring the control device is appropriate (see, e.g., 40 CFR 

60.112(b)(a)(3) and (b)(2), design standards for vapor recovery and 

control systems, and corresponding monitoring requirements at 

60.113b(c)(1) and (2)). 

Letter(s): American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); Chemical 

Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); Electronic Industries Association 

(VI-D-137); Exxon Chemical Americas (VI-D-128); General Electric 

Company (VI-D-156); KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc. 

(VI-D-229); Ohio Chamber of Commerce, et al (VI-D-160); The Fertilizer 

Institute (VI-D-145); The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. (VI-D-148) 

1.4.3 Comments on Definition of Deviation, Excursion and Exceedance

Comment a: Several commenters argued that a definition of "deviation" should be 

added to part 64 that reflects EPA's statements in the preamble that 

deviations are not necessarily violations. 

Two of the commenters stated that interpretation of "deviation" for 

purposes of CAM and the federally-enforceable portions of the Title V 

permit should not be left to the State's discretion. Another commenter 

suggested that a definition of "deviation" similar to the definition in section 

71.6(a)(3)(iii)(C) should be added to § 64.1 to clearly establish that a 

deviation is not necessarily a violation under CAM. (See additional 

comments in section 12.3 Part (III).) 

One commenter requested that EPA clarify that excursions, exceedances 

or deviations are not violations of the permit. The commenter explained 

that it appears that the rule is set up to encourage sources to establish 

indicator values below the regulatory limit so that corrective action can 

occur prior to any permit violation. However, the commenter pointed out 

that the definitions of excursion and exceedance refer to levels "in excess 

of" standards and to failures to stay within an indicator range which 

creates confusion on this issue. 

Response: The Agency has deleted the definition of deviation from the final rule and 

references to excursions or exceedances as deviations. The final rule 

does not refer to "deviations" and thus does not include a definition of 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 26 

"deviation." The 1996 part 64 Draft did contain a revised definition of 

"deviation" to be included in the part 71 provisions covering the federal 

operating permits program. This definition would have clarified that a 

deviation is not always a violation and that types of events that were to be 

considered deviations included "exceedances" and "excursions" as 

defined under part 64. The state operating permit programs authorized 

by part 70 of this chapter allow permitting authorities to define the term 

"deviation" in the context of their individual programs. The 1996 part 64 

Draft did not include a definition of "deviation" to be included in part 70 

because the Agency did not want to restrict the permitting authorities’ 

ability to define this term. 

Several commenters pointed out that there are permitting authorities 

which define a "deviation" as a violation of the underlying emission 

limitation or standard. The provisions in the 1996 part 64 Draft which 

stated that exceedances and excursions are to be considered deviations 

without necessarily being violations arguably conflict with those 

definitions of "deviation." In response to these concerns, the Agency has 

eliminated all references to "deviations" from part 64. The Agency has 

also made clear in the preamble to the rule and in the reporting status of 

excursions from CAM indicator ranges that excursions are not necessarily 

indications of excess emissions or violations of applicable emission limits 

but are reported as possible exceptions to compliance. 

Letter(s): American Furniture Manufacturers Association (VI-D-203); American Gas 

Association (VI-D-154); Cinergy Corp. (VI-D-141); Utility Air Regulatory 

Group (VI-D-140) 

Comment b: Many commenters also argued for changes to the proposed definitions of 

"exceedance" and "excursion." Several commenters stated that to be 

consistent with the definition of "continuous compliance determination" 

and to assure that exceedances/excursions are reported only when 

appropriate, these definitions should expressly refer to the appropriate 

averaging period established for a given emission limitation or standard. 

These commenters proposed additional definition language to address 

this concern. 

One commenter requested that exceedance only refer to instances in 

which a numerical emissions limit is actually exceeded, as indicated by a 

monitoring method providing numerical emissions data. The commenter 

argued that other information which suggests that a numerical emission 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 27 

limit has been exceeded (such as failure to follow a work practice 

standard) would be better included in the definition of "excursion." A 

corresponding change in the definition of "emission limitation or standard" 

was also recommended. Two commenters objected to language in the 

discussion accompanying the 1996 part 64 Draft which equated the term 

"exceedance" with the concept of "excess emissions" used in the NSPS. 

The commenters described the term "excess emissions" as a misnomer 

which should not be used out of context. 

Response: These two terms are closely related. Section 64.1 defines an 

"exceedance" as a condition detected by monitoring which provides data 

in terms of an emission limitation or standard and which indicates that 

emissions or opacity are greater than that limitation or standard, 

consistent with the applicable averaging period. An "excursion" is 

defined as a departure from an indicator range established as part of part 

64 monitoring, also as consistent with the applicable averaging period as 

determined for purposes of part 64. The Agency continues to believe 

that the term "exceedance" is comparable to the term "excess emissions" 

commonly used in the NSPS to define what types of CEMS or COMS data 

need be reported. 

Letter(s): Baltimore Gas & Electric Company (VI-D-177); Chemical Manufacturers 

Association (VI-D-152); Chemical Manufacturers Association (VI-D-258); 

Cinergy Corp. (VI-D-141); Houston Lighting & Power Company 

(VI-D-228); KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc. (VI-D-229); 

Occidental Chemical Corporation (VI-D-261); Southwestern Public Service 

Company (VI-D-224); Utility Air Regulatory Group (VI-D-140); Virginia 

Power (VI-D-226); Wisconsin Electric Power Company (VI-D-130) 

Comment c: A commenter also suggested that EPA clarify the definitions to reflect 

statements at the September 10, 1996 meeting indicating that EPA did 

not intend periods of startup and shutdown to be counted as exceedances 

or excursions, but would simply exclude these periods from the calculation 

of CAM "downtime." The commenter noted that this would mirror EPA 

policy in all of NSPS, and recognize the reality of operating any industrial 

source of emissions. 

Response: The Agency has noted in the past that certain exceedances or excursions 

may be excused because of startup or shutdown conditions, which is 

consistent with the NSPS. However, it is incorrect that periods of startup, 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 28 

shutdown or malfunction excuse the owner or operator from recording 

data and reporting the data as exceedances or excursions. See further 

discussion related to this topic in the Final Rule Preamble, section II.G.1. 

Letter(s): Houston Lighting & Power Company (VI-D-228) 

Comment d: Commenters particularly objected to "excursions" being defined as 

"deviations." Several commenters stated that there is no basis for defining 

excursions as deviations since there is no independent obligation to stay 

within the range unless the indicator range is itself an enforceable permit 

limit, and if the required further action is taken, there is no basis for 

suggesting that the permit may not have been complied with. The 

commenters suggested requiring reporting of excursions (which would 

eliminate the negative connotations associated with deviations) noting that 

the current definition of excursions defeats the purpose of CAM by 

discouraging sources from establishing conservative indicator ranges that 

might detect problems sooner. One of the commenters also added that 

the approach taken in the 1996 CAM Draft is inconsistent with the known 

and accepted imprecision between the monitored indicators and actual 

emissions. 

Specific changes recommended for the definition included deleting the 

sentence stating that an excursion shall be considered a deviation in 

annual compliance certifications, and including a reference to the 

sections under which an excursion may be established as an independent 

permit condition and language stating that only under those 

circumstances would an excursion be a deviation. Another commenter 

proposed the development of a non-exclusive list of excursions which 

should not be considered deviations including exceedances due to 

start-up or shutdown periods that are excused by the rule. 

One commenter stated that excursions should not trigger EPA action. This 

commenter believed that notice should be required if failure to respond to 

an excursion triggers an exceedance. 

Response: See the response to Comment a in this section. Further, the Agency 

believes that the preamble to the rule adequately emphasizes that a 

failure to stay within the indicator range does not automatically indicate a 

failure to satisfy applicable requirements. The failure to stay within an 

indicator range does indicate the need for the owner or operator to follow 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 29 

up and determine whether corrective action is necessary to return 

operations within design parameters, and to act upon that determination 

as appropriate. 

Letter(s): Air Control Techniques, P.C. (VI-D-202); American Gas Association 

(VI-D-154); Baltimore Gas & Electric Company (VI-D-177); Cinergy Corp. 

(VI-D-141); Eli Lilly Company (VI-D-124); KBN Engineering and Applied 

Sciences, Inc. (VI-D-229); Southern Company Services (VI-D-171); Utility 

Air Regulatory Group (VI-D-140); Wisconsin Electric Power Company 

(VI-D-130) 

Comment e: One commenter recommended that the definition of excursion explicitly 

acknowledge that an excursion does not by itself constitute 

noncompliance with an applicable emission limitation or standard. The 

commenter argued that such an addition is consistent with EPA's 

statements about the meaning of an excursion in the draft CAM preamble. 

 

Response: The Agency believes that the definition of excursion and the rule 

discussion of the appropriate response to excursions adequately establish 

the status of excursions related to compliance obligations. In addition, as 

noted in Section I.E. of the Final Rule Preamble, the Agency intends to 

draw no firm inferences as to whether excursions from CAM parameter 

levels warrant enforcement of underlying emission limits without further 

investigation into the particular circumstances at the source. 

Letter(s): The Fertilizer Institute (VI-D-145) 

Comment f: A state commenter expressed concern that the proposed definitions of 

"excursion" and "exceedance" could conflict with state definitions and that 

future changes in state definitions of those terms might be required which 

would have a negative effect on successful monitoring and enforcement 

programs already in effect. 

Response: See response to Comment a of this section. 

Letter(s): Ohio EPA, Division of Air Pollution Control (VI-D-180) 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 30 

1.4.4: Comments on Monitoring Definition

Comment a: Several commenters felt that the definition of "monitoring" should be more 

flexible. These commenters argued that the current definition of 

monitoring, combined with the Subpart C requirement that all units do 

some kind of monitoring unless they can make a special showing under § 

64.9(c)(2) that no monitoring is required to provide a reasonable 

assurance of compliance, essentially recreates the inflexible requirements 

for periodic monitoring that currently apply under Part 70. The 

commenters stated that this provision does not appear to provide 

permitting authorities discretion not to require additional monitoring (stack 

testing) based on criteria like the size of the source or frequency of 

operation. Based on the commenters' understanding that one of the 

purposes of integrating CAM and periodic monitoring was to allow 

permitting authorities the discretion not to impose periodic stack testing on 

small sources that do not currently perform ongoing monitoring and that 

do not use active control devices, they argued that EPA should either 

adopt a more flexible definition of monitoring or revise Subpart C to 

include consideration of criteria such as source size, actual emissions, 

and cost of available monitoring. However, one commenter offered 

support for the definition of "monitoring" as being appropriately flexible. 

Another commenter stated that the words "on a routine basis" should be 

deleted from the definition because this phrase disallows non-routine or 

one-time data collection from being considered "monitoring." 

Other commenters pointed out that the definition of "monitoring" in the 

1996 CAM Draft was an improvement over the previously proposed 

definition. One commenter based this evaluation on the fact that the 

definition clarifies that required conduct of performance tests is not 

considered monitoring. Another commenter suggested that changing the 

words "provided that" to "except that" would improve the clarity of this 

provision. 

Response: The Agency believes that the removal of subpart C from the final rule 

alleviates the concerns raised in these comments. Monitoring for units 

other than those addressed in part 64 will be addressed through 

implementation of periodic monitoring as defined for part 70. 

Letter(s): Chemical Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); Cinergy Corp. 

(VI-D-141); Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry (VI-D-182); 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 31 

Houston Lighting & Power Company (VI-D-228); KBN Engineering and 

Applied Sciences, Inc. (VI-D-229); Pennsylvania Chamber of Business 

and Industry (VI-D-114); Utility Air Regulatory Group (VI-D-140); 

Wisconsin Electric Power Company (VI-D-130) 

1.4.5: Comments on Other Definitions

Comment a: A commenter requested that EPA clarify the meaning of "pollutant-specific 

emissions unit" (PSEU). The commenter suggested that EPA may mean 

that a specific type of unit has a requirement for a specific pollutant. For 

instance, the commenter asked that EPA clarify whether a chromium 

hard-anodizing unit is a PSEU for chromium. 

Response: As noted above, the Agency has added clarification to the rule about 

defining PSEU. In answer to the specific question, the chrome anodizing 

tank would be the pollutant-specific emission unit for total chromium and 

would be subject to the part 63, subpart N, post-1990 rulemaking. 

Because the PSEU is subject to subpart N, of part 63, that PSEU is not 

subject to part 64 monitoring requirements, unless it is also subject to 

other, non-exempt emission limitations or standards that apply to 

chromium. 

Letter(s): Department of Energy (VI-D-196) 

Comment b: One commenter proposed a definition of "potential to emit" that includes 

any physical or operational limitation on the capacity of the source to emit 

a pollutant including control devices and operating restrictions. 

Response: The definition of potential to emit for part 64 purposes will be the same as 

that defined for part 70 purposes including the applicability of any 

operational restrictions or limitations. 

Letter(s): Texaco Environment Health & Safety (VI-D-199) 

Comment c: A commenter proposed revisions to the definition of "predictive emission 

monitoring system (PEMS)" to be considered along with the definition of 

"pollution prevention" proposed by the commenter (see related comments 

in section 1.1 (Part III)-Control Device Definition). The proposed definition 

of PEMS would refer to "data reduction system to measure the 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 32 

performance of pollution prevention or control devices in terms of the 

applicable emission limitation or standard." 

Response: The Agency uses the term predictive emissions monitoring system or 

PEMS specifically to refer to the use of parametric data to predict 

emissions in units of the applicable standard. The purpose of this 

distinction is to recognize the use of such monitoring as continuous 

compliance determination methods. The fact that such monitoring can 

also provide the operator with valuable process operation information is 

certainly important but is outside the scope of the definition for part 64 

purposes. 

Letter(s): American Gas Association (VI-D-154) 

Comment d: One commenter stated that EPA should define the term "range" as used 

in part 64 or substitute other terms where "range" is used. The commenter 

explained that the term "range" as used in § 64.6(a)(3)(i) through (iv) and 

elsewhere in the rule describes both single points and single parameters. 

This commenter suggested the use of the phrase "indicator performance 

status" in some cases and the use of the term "scope" instead of "range" 

in § 64.9(a)(3) to avoid confusion with the use of the term "range" under 

subpart B of the 1996 part 64 Draft. 

Response: The Agency agrees that the term “range” alone is insufficient and has 

added the term “designated condition” to recognize single point 

alternatives to operating ranges. 

Letter(s): Enron Operations Corp. (VI-D-235) 

Comment f: A commenter recommended that EPA clarify the use of the term "major 

source" for applicability purposes. The commenter stated that it should be 

clear that major source status is to be determined consistent with the 

definition as applicable to the location of the source, taking into account 

attainment status. 

Response: The Agency has revised part 64 in a number of ways to make a separate 

definition of the term “major source” unnecessary. Part 64 simply states 

that "major source" shall have the same meaning as provided in part 70. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 33 

The Part 70 definition does take into account the location of the source in 

terms of attainment status. 

Letter(s): Tennessee Valley Authority (VI-D-162) 

Comment g: One commenter requested clarification of the term "emissions unit." As an 

 example, the commenter expressed confusion over whether a distillation 

unit with two vents constitutes one emissions unit or two. 

Response: The term “pollutant-specific emissions unit” applies to the process for 

which the emission limitation applies. In the example provided by the 

commenter, the distillation unit with an emission limitation for pollutant X 

would be one PSEU. The fact that there are multiple vents to the 

atmosphere is relevant only if each vent represents a separate control 

device. 

Letter(s): Dow Chemical Company (VI-D-120) 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 34 

Section 2: Applicability

Section 2.1: Applicability of 1996 CAM Draft Subpart B

2.1.1: General Comments/Scope of Applicability

Comment a: A few commenters offered general support for the applicability provisions. 

One state agency and an association of state and local authorities stated 

that the universe of sources subject to CAM is reasonable and represents 

the size and type of emissions units that should regularly conduct 

monitoring. Other commenters specifically supported the distinction 

between control device units and other units. Another commenter 

favored the more streamlined two subparts of the 1996 part 64 Draft over 

the three tiered scheme in the 1995 part 64 Draft. 

Response: No additional response necessary. 

Letter(s): American Electric Power (VI-D-129); Colorado Association of Commerce 

and Industry (VI-D-182); Department of Energy (VI-D-196); Missouri 

Division of Natural Resources (VI-D-260); STAPPA/ALAPCO (VI-D-179) 

Comment b: On the other hand, many commenters argued that under the 1996 part 64 

Draft, subpart B would apply to too many pollutant-specific emission units. 

 A chemical industry commenter stated that the 1996 part 64 Draft would 

subject virtually every emission source in its industry to subpart B. The 

commenter added that this problem is compounded by EPA's proposed 

guidance on defining "control device" and by the CAM provision allowing 

subpart B standards to be applied to subpart C units. A pharmaceutical 

industry commenter stated that at just one plant it has 1,000 

pollutant-specific emissions units for which it would have to implement 

CAM, and that the costs and resources necessary to develop and 

implement a large number of CAM plans, including the emissions testing 

to justify the monitoring approaches, would far outweigh any 

environmental benefit of monitoring emissions from these units. 

The pharmaceutical commenter also claimed that the monitoring 

requirements of the 1996 part 64 Draft apply to all units at a major source 

which are subject to an emission limitation or standard whereas the EM 

proposal would have applied only to those units at a major source with 

emissions of a regulated pollutant for which the source is major at a level 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 35 

equal to or greater than 30 percent of the major source threshold for that 

pollutant. The commenter asserted that applicability of the 1996 part 64 

Draft was therefore broader than applicability under the EM proposal. 

A few commenters discussed the number of units subject to CAM 

specifically. Based on EPA estimates that there are 25,000 title V 

sources, 9,000 of which are "major" sources, some commenters 

estimated that several hundred thousand units would be covered by CAM. 

 Of these several hundred thousand units, the commenter stated that 

many will be subject to subpart B and estimated 250 thousand units each 

for subpart B and subpart C. This commenter also asserted that EPA 

should have released an RIA which would have enabled commenters to 

assess how EPA came to its conclusions about coverage and comment 

on the adequacy of EPA's analysis. Two commenters claimed that even 

considering subpart B units which will require CAM plans alone it appears 

that CAM will cover more units than under the proposed EM approach. 

One commenter concluded that EPA should amend the rule to greatly 

reduce the number of units covered by both subpart B and C of CAM. 

Another commenter argued that the need to limit subpart B applicability is 

especially a concern because of the burdens involved with preparing and 

negotiating CAM plans as opposed to the less rigorous requirements of 

subpart C. The commenter stated that this concern is further 

compounded because of the compliance testing presumption for 

establishing indicator ranges under subpart B. A commenter asserted 

that by including fewer categories of applicability in the 1996 part 64 Draft, 

EPA has made more emissions units subject to the most stringent CAM 

requirements than was the case in the 1995 draft rule. 

Response: The Agency disagrees with the commenters' characterization of the 

number of units subject to part 64 as greater than the number of units that 

would have been subject to the 1993 proposed enhanced monitoring rule. 

 The final part 64 retains the basic concept of an applicability threshold as 

contained in the 1993 EM proposal, but also narrows the focus so that 

part 64 applies only to those pollutant-specific emissions units that use a 

control device to achieve compliance with an applicable emission 

limitation or standard. In addition, units using control devices must have 

potential pre-control device emissions equal to or greater than 100 

percent of the applicable major source definition to be subject to part 64. 

Since part 64 applies its size threshold only to the proportionally small 

number of emissions units that use control devices, the number of units 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 36 

required to meet part 64 monitoring requirements is lower than would 

have been subject to the 1993 EM proposal. The RIA estimates that part 

64 will affect less than 27,000 units as compared to the over 35,000 units 

affected under the 1993 EM proposal. The Agency believes that these 

are the emissions units on which monitoring requirements should be 

focused. The Agency also notes that, in response to concerns related to 

the definition of control device and concerns that the definition would 

result in over broad applicability, EPA has revised that definition to clarify 

the intent of that definition. (See section 1.1 (Part III), above for further 

detail.) 

Letter(s): Chemical Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); CITGO Petroleum 

Corporation (VI-D-172); Class of '85 Regulatory Response Group 

(VI-D-161); Coalition for Clean Air Implementation (VI-D-164); Eastman 

Chemical Company (VI-D-173); Eli Lilly Company (VI-D-124); Marathon 

Oil Company (VI-D-185); Pennzoil Company (VI-D-133)

Comment c: One commenter proposed eliminating a grey area of units that might 

otherwise be subject to subpart B by adding a definition for "control 

methods" to § 64.1 which would incorporate the guidance document list of 

technologies not to be considered control devices, and by revising § 64.2 

to state that subpart B requirements do not apply to units using such 

control methods. 

Response: The Agency believes that the revised control device definition satisfactorily 

addresses the control device definition clarity. See responses to 

comments in section 1.1.1 (Part III) for more information. 

Letter(s): NorAm Gas Transmission Company (VI-D-142) 

Comment d: A commenter recommended that subpart B applicability be limited to only 

those units with active control devices that have pre-control device 

emissions greater than the major source threshold and actual post-control 

emissions greater than 40 percent of the major source threshold. This 

commenter suggested applying subpart C to units with active control 

devices that have precontrol device "actual" emissions greater than 40 

percent of the major source threshold and exempting those with 

pre-control "actual" emissions are less than that amount. The 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 37 

commenter also provided detailed examples from one of its facilities to 

demonstrate the reasonableness of this approach. 

Another recommended approach involved applying the rule to units with 

actual post-control emissions greater than 50 percent of the major source 

threshold. A commenter claimed that such an approach would be 

consistent with the current PTE guidance for title V applicability. A 

commenter who preferred that approach also mentioned that 85 percent 

post-control PTE could be used as a threshold if the Agency would rather 

not use actual emissions. This suggestion was described as being 

consistent with the revised part 70 modification procedures for 

determining what constitutes an environmentally significant change. 

Some commenters noted that other reasonable approaches could be 

considered, such as those outlined in the SBA comment letter. 

Response: The Agency disagrees with the concept of using actual emissions as the 

overall basis for part 64 applicability. First, actual emissions can vary 

with changes in production. More importantly, for units with control 

devices, calculations of actual emissions necessarily rely on assumptions 

about on-going performance that part 64 is intended to verify. The 

Agency has incorporated a number of streamlining features to the final 

rule to help relieve the documentation burden. The Agency has also 

delayed the implementation of part 64 monitoring for smaller emissions 

units until permit renewal. With these measures, the Agency believes 

that imposing monitoring requirements for emissions units with control 

devices above the applicability threshold as defined in the rule is 

reasonable. 

Letter(s): Cooperative Power Association (VI-D-208); Eastman Chemical Company 

(VI-D-173); Exxon Chemical Americas (VI-D-128); Mobil Corporation 

(VI-D-115); Total Petroleum, Inc. (VI-D-190)

Comment e: Two commenters argued that EPA has used CAM to conduct "gap filling" 

in ways that are unnecessary or inappropriate. These commenters 

stated that CAM should fill gaps where monitoring has been omitted in 

prior rulemakings, but should not be used to correct errors where existing 

monitoring is not regarded as inadequate. According to the commenters, 

promulgating the 1996 part 64 Draft would improperly rectify errors and 

problems with existing rules such as pre-1990 NSPSs, NESHAPs and 

existing NSR and PSD permits. These commenters recommended that 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 38 

EPA should use CAM to "gap fill" rules or permits without any monitoring 

or recordkeeping requirements instead of attempting to "fix" current 

monitoring and recordkeeping requirements. The commenters argued 

that their approach would fulfill the mandates of Section 114 of the Act 

without unnecessarily burdening sources and states with a complicated 

monitoring rulemaking. 

Response: Title VII of the 1990 Amendments added a new section 114(a)(3) that 

requires EPA to promulgate rules on enhanced monitoring and 

compliance certifications. This paragraph provides that the Administrator 

shall require enhanced monitoring and submission of compliance 

certifications. Compliance certifications shall include (A) identification of 

the applicable requirement that is the basis of the certification, (B) the 

method used for determining the compliance status of the source, (C) the 

compliance status, (D) whether compliance is continuous or intermittent, 

(E) such other facts as the Administrator may require. The Agency 

agrees that existing monitoring, in some cases, will suffice to meet the 

requirements that define enhanced monitoring. The final rule recognizes 

this and exempts some source owners from additional requirements if 

continuous compliance determination methods are applied. The final rule 

also includes reduced documentation requirements for monitoring 

approaches that provide a direct measure of emissions. On the other 

hand, the Agency believes that not all existing monitoring, even in 

federally developed regulations (e.g., NSPS), provides information 

sufficient to allow the owner to certify compliance status of emission units' 

control devices without the enhancements that part 64 provides. It is the 

Agency’s intention that existing monitoring satisfy the same requirements 

as new monitoring under part 64. 

Letter(s): Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (VI-D-217); 

Phillips Petroleum Company (VI-D-131) 

2.1.2: Use of Potential Pre-control Device Emissions Threshold

Comment a: An environmental organization supported the pre-control emissions 

threshold since such a provision reflects the fact that emissions will be at 

pre-control levels if the control device fails. However, the organization 

did not believe that units with pre-control emissions below the major 

source threshold should be excluded from coverage of part 64 either. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 39 

Response: No additional response necessary regarding the importance of 

considering precontrol emissions. As to the reasonableness of the 

emissions threshold for units, EPA believes Congress left the Agency with 

considerable discretion in designing how to implement enhanced 

monitoring requirements at major sources. Part 64 is designed to focus 

on those emission units which have the potential absent controls to emit 

significant amounts of pollution. The Agency believes the emissions 

threshold it has chosen for emissions units is reasonable because using 

that threshold over 97 percent of emissions from units with controls will fall 

under part 64. 

Letter(s): Natural Resources Defense Council (VI-D-151) 

Comment b: Many industry commenters expressed opposition to the applicability 

threshold. Objections to using potential pre-control device emissions 

rather than potential to emit were based on factors such as the resulting 

increase in emissions units subject to subpart B monitoring requirements 

without a significant increase in the total amount of emissions monitored. 

As an example, one commenter stated that this approach will cover 

extremely small sources of PM-10. The commenter also requested 

clarification of how the rule would apply to regulations that may be 

developed to address pending PM-2.5 issues. Another example given by 

two commenters was that a unit with a pre-control device potential to emit 

of 100 tons and an active control device that is 99.9 percent efficient 

would be subject to subpart B despite having actual emissions of less 

than one ton. The commenters noted that this result is contrary to EPA's 

goal of developing "cleaner, cheaper, and smarter regulations." A 

chemical industry commenter stated that all sources in this industry could 

be subject to subpart B under the "pre-control device emissions" 

threshold. According to the commenter this could occur because every 

emission source in its industry passes product or emissions through a unit 

operation covered under the broad definition of "control device" and 

because large emissions could occur under some contingency (e.g. 

cooling water failure), although in most cases there is little chance of such 

an occurrence during normal (non-malfunction) operations. 

Other commenters argued that the "pre-control device emissions" 

threshold would result in well-controlled emissions units with low actual 

emissions being subject to subpart B of the 1996 part 64 Draft which is in 

contrast to both the title V regional source definition which allows control 

effectiveness to be included, and both past and current definitions of 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 40 

"potential to emit." Several of the commenters noted that in response to 

recent court decisions, EPA has stated that it is considering rulemaking 

which would allow "effective" state and locally enforceable limitations 

(including control device requirements and limits on hours of operation 

and production capacity) to be considered in addition to federally 

enforceable limitations on "potential to emit." The commenters noted that 

under both EPA guidance and these recent court decisions, sources have 

calculated potential emissions after those control devices that are subject 

to enforceable limitations and by taking into account limits on hours of 

operation and production capacity. They argued that basing CAM 

applicability on an interpretation of "potential to emit" that is consistent 

with other programs under the Act is sensible and may be required legally. 

 These commenters recommended revising § 64.2(a)(iii) to be based on 

"potential to emit" instead of "pre-control device emissions." A 

commenter recommended that "potential pre-control device emissions" 

should have the same meaning as "potential to emit" as defined in § 64.1. 

A few commenters cited Alabama Power Co. v. Costle as holding that 

Congress would have had to exclusively intend that uncontrolled 

emissions be used in order to justify a change from EPA and the 

regulated community's long-standing practice of calculating controlled 

potential to emit. The commenters highlighted a statement made in this 

case that high school heating plants might become "major sources" under 

the uncontrolled emissions test as support for the argument that 

applicability based on uncontrolled potential to emit would be too 

inclusive. 

Two commenters argued that because the CAM rule and plans are 

designed to identify short-term changes in control efficiency, it is 

inconsistent to justify applicability decisions based on hypothetical 

long-term (annual) differences between units. The commenters also 

stated that no control device could be assumed to fail for an entire year, 

but this would be the only way that there would be a substantial real world 

difference between controlled and uncontrolled emissions. 

One commenter noted that the rule allows units to subtract emissions 

reductions achieved through enforceable operational constraints, such as 

permit limits regarding hours of operation, feed rates, type of fuel burned, 

etc. when calculating potential pre-control device emissions. The 

commenter asserted that it is inconsistent to allow units with this type of 

restriction to avoid subpart B applicability while subjecting units with 

control devices to subpart B and that any unit that limits potential 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 41 

emissions and takes a permit limit to that effect should be allowed to 

consider that limit in determining CAM applicability. 

One commenter indicated an understanding of EPA's concern that use of 

potential emissions may focus better on the potential air quality impact of 

diminishment or loss of control, but asserted that the affected 

pollutant-specific emissions units tend to be larger and better-controlled 

units and that these units are less likely to experience loss of control. 

Another commenter added that certification of control devices provides 

assurance that they are effective and only those found to be ineffective 

should be subject to CAM. 

Several commenters argued that EPA should not write a rule to address 

the worst-case scenario of complete control device failure or intentional 

disablement. The commenters stated that such outliers can be 

addressed specifically by permitting authorities and that the rule should be 

written to address the normal sources. Based on that, the commenters 

believed that use of pre-control device emissions is unreasonable. Two 

commenters stated that periodic monitoring is sufficient to prevent such 

egregious behavior. 

A commenter stated that the monitoring under subpart C would be 

adequate to reveal cases where owners or operators fail to operate their 

control equipment leading to large emission problems. The commenter 

stated that this type of problem seems to be the Agency's main concern 

and subpart C should therefore be the primary focus of the rule. 

According to this commenter, the result of the 1996 part 64 Draft is to 

burden all sources with detailed monitoring to catch the few that follow the 

"control device disablement scenario." 

One commenter noted that other regulations, such as CERCLA/SARA 

require immediate reporting when certain quantities of hazardous air 

pollutants are released. The commenter stated that agencies can 

respond appropriately since total failure of a control device would be likely 

to trigger such requirements. This commenter also pointed out that if 

EPA based subpart B applicability on potential to emit rather than the 

proposed definition of pre-control device emissions, units or emissions 

points not subject to subpart B will still be subject to subpart C 

requirements and other established monitoring requirements. A few 

commenters suggested that the risk of catastrophic failures of control 

devices could be addressed by simpler approaches, with two of the 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 42 

commenters recommending allowing sources to document proper O & M 

of control devices. 

A commenter, who noted its recognition of the concern with high efficiency 

control devices that decreased efficiency could result in emissions above 

the major source threshold, argued that the authority of permitting 

authorities to add units to subpart B under § 64.4(a)(2) would provide 

ample authority to focus resources on those units that are prone to this 

type of problem. The commenter stated that by basing applicability 

based on pre-control device emissions at all units, the rule includes too 

many minor units for which EPA's stated concern is not likely to exist and 

asserted that the rule should only apply to units above the major source 

threshold based on the normal definition of potential to emit. 

A commenter argued that applying part 64 to sources on this basis will 

duplicate most NSPS programs which already have adequate monitoring 

and related provisions to assure use of the control equipment. The 

commenter recommended basing more stringent monitoring on standard 

PTE to focus part 64 on units that may not have significant monitoring 

under existing programs. 

A state permitting authority described the proposed applicability threshold 

as arbitrary and argued that EPA should allow states to use a specifically 

targeted approach which better assures the protection of public health and 

welfare. The commenter recommended that subpart B applicability be 

based on factors other than emissions estimates such as: the type of 

pollutant, location of the source, number of sources, quantity of 

emissions, toxicity of emissions, variability of the process, margin of 

compliance, and the reliability of the control device. In connection with 

this comment, the commenter reiterated its request to adopt a state 

programmatic approach to CAM. 

Other suggested approaches included the use of actual pre-control 

emissions greater than 50 percent of the major source threshold to 

determine applicability. A commenter argued that this would allow 

sources to take into account realistic considerations about hours of 

operation and throughput levels, and would restrict applicability to 

significant emissions units. Another commenter recommended using 

actual emissions and the major source threshold to determine 

applicability. The commenter stated that if potential to emit is to be used, 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 43 

then the standard definition should be used, not the SBA concept of 

assuming that controls operate at 50 percent of design efficiency. 

Several commenters joined in a proposal that would give partial credit for 

emission control measure effectiveness when applicability determinations 

are made. The commenters recommended that if potential pre-control 

device emissions are to be used, EPA should establish a 50 percent 

control efficiency assumption based on normal operating efficiency and 

included a similar proposal stating that subpart B should address units 

which would become major sources if the device operated at one half its 

lowest normal operating efficiency with a default value of 40 percent if the 

preceding figure cannot be reasonably established. The commenters 

argued that this would cover only sources that may reasonably become 

"true" major sources. Other commenters expressed general support for 

such a proposal as directing more resources toward those facilities with 

the greatest emissions rather than focusing on relatively safe, smaller 

sources. Basing applicability on a hybrid of potential pre-control 

emissions and actual emissions was suggested as another alternative. 

One commenter urged EPA to allow units the option of determining 

subpart B applicability based on actual emissions. The commenter 

offered support for an option presented in the 1995 draft that allowed units 

whose actual emissions over a rolling 12 month period were less than 50 

percent of the major source threshold to avoid CAM applicability and 

noted that a similar test was allowed in the January 25, 1995 Potential to 

Emit Transition Policy which was extended in an August 27, 1996 

memorandum from John Seitz. The commenter argued that such an 

option would reduce the unnecessary burden associated with applying 

part 64 units that would not ever realistically meet the applicable major 

source threshold. 

Response: Determining whether an emissions unit actually emits at the major source 

threshold, or fraction thereof, is not a purpose of part 64, since part 64 

only applies to certain units at sources that have already been determined 

to be “major.” Rather, determining the compliance status with applicable 

emission limitations or standards is the primary goal of monitoring as 

defined by part 64. The applicability threshold in part 64 is intended only 

as a tool for identifying significant pollutant-specific emissions units that 

have control devices necessary to meet these applicable emission 

limitations or standards. The potential for a control device to fail for an 

entire year, as the commenters mentioned, is not relevant as the Agency 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 44 

expects control devices to be operated and maintained so as to provide 

ongoing compliance with emission limitations or standards. Part 64 is 

applicable for units with current applicable emission limitations or 

standards developed prior to the CAAA of 1990. 

For these reasons, the CAM approach is necessarily concerned with 

significant, controlled units with applicable emission limitations or 

standards even if the potential to emit of such units, considering the 

effectiveness of the control device, is low. Monitoring that satisfies part 

64 will be designed to detect under-performance of control devices that 

periodic evaluations such as stack tests may be unable to document. For 

example, a unit may have the potential to emit of 20 tons per year, 

considering the effectiveness of a control device which is required to 

operate with a 99 percent control efficiency. If the effectiveness of the 

control device were not considered, the maximum capacity to emit for that 

unit would be 2,000 tons per year. If the long-term actual control 

performance of that control device decreases to 95 percent, the actual 

emissions would increase by a factor of five, resulting in emissions of 100 

tons per year. Even over the short term, such a decrease in control 

efficiency could violate emission limits and cause air quality standards to 

be exceeded. Thus, the concern that this type of control device 

degradation could lead to a noncompliance situation is critical. Part 64 is 

aimed first at addressing both short-term and long-term, significant loss of 

control efficiency that can occur without complete failure of a control 

device. The second type of problem is short-term complete loss of 

control. As indicated in some of the comments, for many types of control 

devices this type of problem could be detected with monitoring less 

detailed than part 64. However, the goal of air pollution control is to 

prevent these types of problems before they occur, if possible, at a 

reasonable cost. The EPA believes that part 64 in many instances can 

be designed to provide early indications of control equipment problems 

that could be addressed prior to such catastrophic failures. For these 

reasons, EPA believes that the use of pre-control device potential to emit 

is a rational basis on which to evaluate whether specific units should be 

subject to part 64. 

Commenters references to Alabama Power and other cases interpreting 

the statutory phrase “potential to emit” in CAA section 169(1) and 

elsewhere are not relevant to this rule. EPA is not interpreting the phrase 

“potential to emit” in promulgating this rule nor is EPA attempting to define 

a major source in any way inconsistent with prior Agency actions. As 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 45 

noted, part 64 only applies to “major sources” as that term is defined by 

part 70. Part 70, in turn, relies on a definition of potential to emit which 

includes operational limitations and reductions due to control equipment. 

EPA examines maximum capacity to emit without considering the 

effectiveness of control devices only for the purpose of determining which 

units at major sources would benefit most from monitoring of their control 

devices. Further, the monitoring requirements in the rule apply only to 

units with control devices as defined in the rule. Commenters’ references 

to units without control devices (e.g., high school heating plants) being 

subject to part 64 appear unfounded. 

Letter(s): Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (VI-D-186); American Furniture 

Manufacturers Association (VI-D-203); American Petroleum Institute 

(VI-D-146); ASARCO Incorporated (VI-D-187); Can Manufacturers 

Institute (VI-D-181); Chemical Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); 

Chevron Companies (VI-D-132); Cinergy Corp. (VI-D-141); Class of '85 

Regulatory Response Group (VI-D-161); Coalition for Clean Air 

Implementation (VI-D-164); Colorado Association of Commerce and 

Industry (VI-D-182); Cooperative Power Association (VI-D-208); Dow 

Chemical Company (VI-D-120); Eastman Chemical Company (VI-D-173); 

Eli Lilly Company (VI-D-124); General Electric Company (VI-D-156); 

Kennecott Corporation (VI-D-119); LaClede Gas Company (VI-D-198); 

Mobil Corporation (VI-D-115); Ohio Chamber of Commerce, et al 

(VI-D-160); Pennsylvania Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VI-D-114); 

Pennzoil Company (VI-D-133); Pharmaceutical Research and 

Manufacturers of America (VI-D-217); R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company 

(VI-D-221); Rubber Manufacturers Association (VI-D-149); Specialty Steel 

Industry of North America (VI-D-143); State of Illinois (VI-D-183); Steel 

Manufacturers Association (SMA) (VI-D-144); Tennessee Valley Authority 

(VI-D-162); Texaco Environment Health & Safety (VI-D-199); Texas 

Chemical Council (VI-D-236); Texas Natural Resource Conservation 

Commission (VI-D-189); Texas Title V Planning Committee (VI-D-188); 

The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. (VI-D-148); Total Petroleum, Inc. 

(VI-D-190); US Small Business Administration (VI-D-239) 

Comment c: A few commenters stated that the "pre-control device emissions" 

threshold creates a system where sources have no incentive to maximize 

control device efficiency. One of the commenters proposed the addition 

of an exemption for units with low actual emissions to provide an incentive 

for maximizing control device efficiency. Two other commenters noted 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 46 

that this same pre-control device emissions concept was criticized when 

raised as a possible idea in the original EM proposal. These commenters 

also explained that, if one considers normal efficiency levels, the 

examples provided in the draft CAM rule document how the draft 

approach would reduce the incentive to employ high efficiency controls. 

Additional commenters stated that based on the original EM RIA, subpart 

B pre-control device PTE applicability would not be the most cost-effective 

approach to meeting the goals of CAM. The commenters added that 

EPA's failure to release a CAM RIA prevents commenters from 

undertaking a more conclusive analysis of the proposal's 

cost-effectiveness. 

One commenter argued that subpart B applicability provides a 

disincentive to install air pollution control devices because subpart B 

requirements are burdensome and currently uncontrolled sources will 

therefore want to avoid installing control devices. The commenter 

questioned EPA requiring more stringent monitoring for sources with 

control devices because uncontrolled sources are likely to emit more than 

similar controlled sources. Another commenter pointed out that sources 

may not have many opportunities to make process changes that lower 

pre-control emissions but they may have options for reducing post-control 

device emissions by replacing or improving control devices. The 

commenter recommended providing the opportunity to avoid subpart B 

applicability as an incentive for improving controls which would achieve 

emission reductions. 

Response: The Agency intends that part 64 have a limited purpose; that is, part 64 is 

intended to provide a reasonable means of supplementing existing 

regulatory provisions that are not consistent with the statutory 

requirements of title VII of the 1990 Amendments to the Act. The EPA 

believes that the CAM approach is a reasonable approach commensurate 

with this role. Part 64 is not intended as an incentive or a disincentive to 

install new emission control measures. The rule does not define new 

emission limitations or standards or any other new requirements beyond 

monitoring intended to measure compliance with already existing 

requirements. In the final format, the CAM rule provides flexibility for the 

owner or operator to develop monitoring that is both cost-effective and 

can help improve knowledge of control device operations. 

Letter(s): Chemical Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); Colorado Association of 

Commerce and Industry (VI-D-182); Institute of Clean Air Companies 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 47 

(VI-D-139); Rubber Manufacturers Association (VI-D-149); Specialty Steel 

Industry of North America (VI-D-143); Steel Manufacturers Association 

(SMA) (VI-D-144) 

Comment d: A state commenter asserted that much effort will be spent trying to 

quantify pre-control device emissions, a calculation that is of no use 

except to determine CAM applicability. Another commenter argued that it 

will take years just to sort out the technical issues raised by this new 

definition. The commenter gave examples of the anticipated difficulties 

such as determining what part of the emissions should count as controlled 

by the inherent process versus the control device and quantifying 

uncontrolled emissions when far fewer emission factors exist to project 

uncontrolled emissions as opposed to controlled emissions. Other 

commenters agreed that the use of a new potential to emit calculus, along 

with the complex control device definition in the current draft, adds yet 

another wrinkle to an already confused issue. These commenters 

argued that allowing sources to consider controls in determining potential 

to emit would be consistent with EPA's stated intent to apply the subpart B 

requirements only to significant units. One commenter stated that EPA 

should maintain consistency with other CAA programs such as title V, 

NSR and MACT. 

Response: The Agency disagrees that computing precontrol emissions is difficult or 

complex. The calculation of precontrol emissions is the same as for 

post-control emissions that the commenters suggest be used with the 

multiplication factor based on a control device efficiency value. This 

simple calculation step need not involve measurements of control device 

inlet values but may rely on vendor guarantees, historical information, or 

other published information. The CAM guidance document will provide 

examples of this calculation for a variety of situations. 

Letter(s): Air Products and Chemicals (VI-D-186); ASARCO Incorporated 

(VI-D-187); Clean Air Implementation Project (VI-D-153); Coalition for 

Clean Air Implementation (VI-D-164); Class of '85 Regulatory Response 

Group (VI-D-161); Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry 

(VI-D-182); Exxon Company, USA (VI-D-135); General Electric Company 

(VI-D-156); Ohio Chamber of Commerce, et al (VI-D-160); Texaco 

Environment Health and Safety (VI-D-199); Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission (VI-D-189); Texas Title V Planning Committee 

(VI-D-188) 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 48 

2.1.3: Applicability for Units with Active Controls

Comment a: A few environmental and state commenters supported subpart B 

applicability for some units without active controls. These commenters 

argued that it is not good policy to exclude all units without active control 

devices from subpart B since some units without active controls have 

emissions that vary significantly and should be closely monitored. One 

commenter gave an example of a utility boiler capable of emitting more 

than 100 tons per year of NOx which may be controlled by combustion 

controls only. In supplemental comments following the release of 

portions of the RIA, this environmental organization reiterated its objection 

to allowing many major sources to conduct little or no monitoring under 

subpart C simply because they do not have control devices. The 

commenter argued that emissions at units without add-on controls, such 

as those using low NOX burners, can be variable and require effective 

monitoring. They also stated that recordkeeping may be an accurate 

predictor of SO2 emissions, but cannot be assumed to be appropriate for 

NOX and CO where control of the combustion process is critical. 

Another commenter mentioned units using certain combinations of control 

methods cited in Table 2 of EPA's "control device" guidance or other 

process methods, such as low NOx burners, as examples of important 

units that should be subject to subpart B requirements. One state 

agency proposed that all major source units with significant potential 

emissions should be subject to subpart B requirements regardless of the 

presence of active controls. This commenter noted that a nitrate 

production facility using ammonia as a feed stock followed by caustic 

misters to convert NOx to nitrate would not be subject to subpart B 

because the misters would be considered process units and not add-on 

controls although there is major potential to emit. The commenter also 

agreed that units like large low NOx burners should be subject to subpart 

B requirements. 

Response: The Agency agrees that some process operations are necessary to 

proper emissions control and should be monitored. The deciding factor 

in determining whether monitoring can be effective is the degree to which 

the owner or operator can govern the process or control device operation 

to minimize emissions to the levels necessary to comply with the 

applicable standard. Some combustion control practices fall into this 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 49 

category including flue gas recirculation and ammonia injection for NOx

control. The final rule makes clear that monitoring of such operations 

(e.g., recirculation and injection rates) would be subject to part 64 

requirements. On the other hand, the Agency disagrees that emissions 

variability is necessarily a deciding factor in determining when additional 

monitoring can be effective in improving compliance operations. 

Variability of emissions resulting from raw material or fuel component 

variability when that is the means used to comply with the applicable limit 

is something over which the owner or operator has only limited short term 

control. Addition of continuous monitoring for such operations would 

constitute monitoring for monitoring’s sake with little or no added value 

over the required recordkeeping of raw material or fuel supply 

specifications. 

For similar reasons, low NOx burner technology and certain other types of 

combustion control measures are not included in the definition of "control 

device" in the final rule. Most types of combustion units that have low 

NOx burner technology use such technology as an inherent part of the 

process operation and the technology is subject to automatic combustion 

control that does not provide significant operational flexibility that could 

afford the owner or operator with an opportunity or incentive to manipulate 

NOx control levels. For these types of units, the recordkeeping of regular 

inspection and maintenance of the low NOx burners (e.g., annular flow 

ratio adjustment settings, burner replacement, etc.) in combination with 

periodic checks of emission levels with appropriate test methods, as 

necessary, are very likely sufficient to ensure that the unit is being 

operated in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practices 

and that the low NOx technology continues to reduce emissions at least to 

the level of the standard. The general monitoring requirements in part 70 

are adequate to assure that this type of appropriate monitoring is 

employed including the application of continuous emission monitoring 

systems where already required. 

Of course, if there are particular units that fall into the categories 

described above which raise a significant continuous compliance concern, 

such as units with an historically poor compliance history, the permitting 

authority can require more detailed monitoring under the general part 70 

monitoring provisions given that the permit must include appropriate 

monitoring for assessing compliance with the permit. In those cases, 

permitting authorities may want to consider elements of part 64 as 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 50 

potentially appropriate, but they may not be bound to satisfy each element 

of part 64. 

Letter(s): Natural Resources Defense Council (VI-D-151); Natural Resources 

Defense Council (VI-D-244); NESCAUM (VI-D-192); Sierra Club, Lone 

Star Chapter (VI-D-242); State of New Jersey Dept. of Environmental 

Protection (VI-D-215) 

Comment b: Two industry commenters requested that EPA clarify that subpart B 

applies only to units with "active control devices." Revisions to 

§ 64.2(a)(ii) and the addition of a definition for "active control device" were 

proposed to reflect statements in the preamble that subpart B only applies 

to units with active control devices. 

Response: The final rule includes a clarified definition of control device (see 

responses to comments in section 1.1 (Part III).) 

Letter(s): Chemical Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); Exxon Chemical 

Americas (VI-D-128) 

2.1.4: Applicability for Major Sources

Comment a: A number of commenters favored an absolute major source threshold for 

subpart B based on a standard potential to emit definition. One 

commenter argued that EPA should focus CAM on major emitting units 

which will cover 80-90 percent of emissions at title V sources while 

regulating only 25 percent of the emissions units. The commenter stated 

that EPA's extension of CAM applicability to non-major units adds 

tremendous costs to the program while providing nominal, if any, benefits 

and that enlarging the program to cover more units dilutes resources 

needed to carry out a monitoring program for the more significant units. 

According to the commenter, the rule should require CAM only for those 

units that emit at or above the major source threshold, which provides an 

adequate margin of safety since actual emissions are routinely and 

significantly less than potential emissions. Some commenters also noted 

that EPA can grant permitting authorities discretion to apply CAM to 

smaller units where necessary. These commenters argued that the 

breadth of applicability in the 1996 draft is not consistent with the goal of 

CAM to provide cost-effective means of filling monitoring gaps. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 51 

An industry coalition stated that EPA has authority to define "major 

stationary source" including defining this term differently for different 

purposes. According to this commenter, it is reasonable for EPA to read 

the statute as authorizing it to define major stationary source as each 

individual emissions unit that meets the major source emissions threshold 

since this definition increases the cost-effectiveness of the rule. 

Members of the coalition group analyzed their facilities and found that 

limiting applicability to units meeting the major source threshold results in 

a very high percentage of emissions being covered by the rule. 

A commenter stated generally that any enforceable restrictions should be 

taken into account in calculating PTE. Another commenter specified that 

CAM should be applied to sources that are major after consideration of 

federally and state enforceable emission controls. One commenter 

objected to the use of pre-control PTE because it is not clear whether 

operational restrictions can still be considered and because it will subject 

too many insignificant units to subpart B. 

A commenter estimated that the applicability threshold in the 1996 draft 

could result in 300,000 to 600,000 emission points requiring CAM plans 

and will involve huge investments of money (states that the cost 

associated with testing alone could easily exceed $1 billion) and time 

which will be likely to overwhelm the title V process. The commenter 

proposed that sources below the major source threshold only be subject 

to a much more limited set of CAM plan requirements and that the actual 

plans be developed by the source and kept on site with only the 

requirement to develop and operate the plan incorporated into the permit. 

Response: The Agency disagrees with the estimates of the number of units affected 

by the CAM rule and the overall costs resulting from its implementation 

suggested by the commenters. The Agency estimates that the rule will 

apply to about 27,000 pollutant-specific emissions units which represent 

about 60 percent of emissions units with control devices and between 90 

and 98 percent of actual emissions, depending on pollutant, from 

controlled units. The cost of monitoring for these units is estimated to be 

$54,000,000. 

Letter(s): Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (VI-D-186); American Automobile 

Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); Armstrong, Teasdale, Schlafly and 

Davis (IV-D-205); Association of Battery Recyclers (VI-D-155); CITGO 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 52 

Petroleum Corporation (VI-D-172); Clean Air Implementation Project 

(VI-D-153); Coalition for Clean Air Implementation (VI-D-164); Dupont 

Engineering (VI-D- 127); Exxon Company, USA (VI-D-135); Independent 

Liquid Terminals Association (VI-D-178); Kennecott Corporation 

(VI-D-119); Texaco Environment Health & Safety (VI-D-199) 

Comment b: One commenter recommended basing subpart B applicability on emission 

thresholds as defined by the local permitting authorities. The commenter 

noted that in some areas the major source thresholds have been adjusted 

below those in part 70 and that the current provisions are unclear for 

these circumstances. 

Response: The Agency agrees that the definition of major source threshold may be 

lower than that defined by part 70 if it is defined by the local permitting 

authority. The locally defined threshold may apply for determining CAM 

applicability to the extent the permitting authority exercises its 

independent authority to require part 64 monitoring beyond the minimum 

required by part 64. 

Letter(s): County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California (VI-D-231) 

Comment c: An environmental organization was opposed to using the major source 

threshold. The commenter argued that there is no statutory basis for 

limiting subpart B to units with emissions greater than the major source 

threshold, which exempts significant units simply because their emissions 

are less than a number designed to indicate if an entire source is major. 

This commenter noted that control device failure at units under the major 

source threshold could have enormous pollution control consequences. 

Response: The Agency agrees that it would not be wise to exempt all units below the 

major source threshold and no additional response is necessary. 

Letter(s): Natural Resources Defense Council (IV-D-151) 

2.1.5: Applicability for Minor Sources

Comment a: Some commenters argued that EPA should establish that subpart B of the 

1996 part 64 Draft does not apply to synthetic minor sources. A 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 53 

commenter explained that it wanted EPA to confirm that sources which 

have voluntarily assumed federally enforceable emissions limitations in 

order to be classified and regulated as minor sources would be exempt 

from subpart B since these sources limit emissions by means of limiting 

hours of operation and other measures rather than by the use of control 

devices. The commenter requested that EPA expressly exclude such 

sources from CAM and added that, to the extent that such sources use 

control devices to comply with minor NSR limits, they should be excluded 

as well. An alternative suggested by another commenter was that the 

rule could only include those limits taken to avoid major NSR when the 

potential to emit of the unit is above 85 percent of the level for triggering 

major NSR. This commenter described this approach as consistent with 

title V. A state agency stated that it does not agree with EPA that state 

minor NSR programs are applicable requirements for the federal CAA and 

part 70. 

Response: The CAM rule applies to pollutant-specific emissions units at major 

sources that are required to obtain title V permits. To the extent that 

synthetic minor sources are exempt from title V permitting requirements or 

are not a major source, units at such sources are not subject to part 64 

requirements. In addition, part 64 will not apply to synthetic minor 

sources that do not meet the definition of a "major source" in part 70 but 

may be subject to part 70 because of NSPS or NESHAP units. Certain 

sources may be classified as synthetic minor sources for title 1, part C, 

New Source Review permit purposes (i.e., they are below the generally 

applicable 250 tons per year threshold for PSD permitting) but still be 

classified as a "major source" for part 70 purposes. Pollutant-specific 

emissions units at those sources which meet all of the part 64 applicability 

criteria will be subject to part 64. The criteria for triggering part 64 

requirements are discussed above. Whether minor NSR programs are 

applicable requirements under part 70 is not an issue relative to part 64. 

No additional response is necessary. 

Letter(s): Association of Battery Recyclers (VI-D- 155); Chemical Manufacturers 

Association (VI-D-152); Texas National Resource Conservation 

Commission (VI-D-189) 

Comment b: A commenter stated that CAM should not apply to minor sources that are 

required to obtain part 70 permits since, by definition, non-major sources 

are less significant. In addition, the commenter noted that many of the 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 54 

non-majors source that could be subject to CAM would be MACT sources 

that will be exempt anyway. Finally, this commenter suggested that, at a 

minimum, the rule should defer CAM applicability for these sources. 

Other commenters argued that applicability for these sources was 

unclear. Two commenters recommended that the rule state explicitly that 

minor sources required to obtain title V permits are not subject to CAM. 

Another commenter stated that language in the discussion document 

accompanying the 1996 part 64 Draft was not consistent with rule 

language which suggested that minor sources required to obtain part 70 

permits would be subject to subpart B rather than subpart C. 

Response: The final rule states explicitly that part 64 applies to major sources, as 

defined under part 70, that are required to obtain a title V permit. 

Letter(s): Electronic Industries Association (VI-D-137); General Electric Company 

(VI-D-156); Kennecott Corporation (VI-D-119); PPG Industries, Inc. 

(VI-D-136) 

2.1.6: Discretionary Applicability of Subpart B

Comment a: A number of commenters argued that the CAM rule's provisions which 

give permitting authorities the discretion to apply subpart B monitoring 

requirements to additional emissions units should be altered or eliminated. 

 Two commenters stated that by providing permitting authorities with the 

discretion to cover additional emissions units under § 64.2(a)(2), the CAM 

rule potentially subjects too many emissions units to subpart B monitoring 

requirements. Another commenter added that there is no need for this 

provision if subpart B units are clearly delineated as those with control 

devices. 

Several commenters described § 64.2(a)(2) as an overly-expansive 

delegation of authority to state and local permitting authorities. Other 

commenters argued that this provision is also unnecessary because state 

legislatures can give permitting authorities the power under state law to 

impose more stringent monitoring requirements than required under the 

federal program. Another commenter requested that since some states 

limit the ability of a state agency to impose more stringent requirements, 

this provision should be narrowly tailored for extreme cases. If this 

provision is not deleted, it should be modified such that permitting 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 55 

authorities can only impose subpart B monitoring on subpart C units when 

necessary or appropriate to assure compliance with a part 70 permit. 

Some commenters suggested limiting this discretion as an alternative to 

eliminating it. A commenter explained that there need to be some criteria 

to judge whether the permitting authority has acted properly as well as a 

mechanism to resolve disputes over a decision to apply this paragraph. 

One commenter stated that under the proposed revision, the authority 

must base this determination on the following: the size of the emissions 

unit, pollutant toxicity, attainment status, compliance history, likelihood of 

deviations, cost effectiveness, and other appropriate factors. A 

commenter added that permitting authorities should consider exposure to 

residential population as well as pollutant toxicity in reclassifying sources. 

Another commenter discussed an example of a recent attempt by one 

permitting authority to use discretionary authority under NSR permitting to 

require a CEMS where a CEMS was not required under any specific 

requirement and other less costly methods could assure compliance. 

This commenter was concerned that permitting authorities could similarly 

abuse this discretion and it should therefore be deleted. The commenter 

asserted that if this provision is not deleted, economic costs and 

operational constraints should be specified as required criteria for judging 

the reasonableness of using this authority. Another commenter argued 

that this provision only further increases the likelihood that similar sources 

will be treated differently and therefore increases the chance that sources 

could be put at an economic disadvantage. 

One commenter stated that even though this provision should be 

eliminated, it commended EPA for revising the prior draft rule so that EPA 

can only reclassify sources when it is the permitting authority, since EPA 

should not second guess states on relatively minor matters to which the 

states are closest. 

Two commenters argued that EPA cannot properly assess the impact of 

the rule when it cannot possibly know how many sources will be required 

by the states to comply with subpart B. 

Response: The Agency agrees that repetition of the inherent discretion available to 

permitting authorities is unnecessary. The final rule has only the savings 

provisions that, because part 64 requirements may overlap with many 

other applicable requirements, nothing in part 64 is intended to excuse the 

owner or operator from applicable requirements under the Act (including 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 56 

emission limitations or standards as well as other monitoring 

requirements) or to restrict the authority of the EPA or the permitting 

authority to impose additional monitoring under the Act or State law, as 

applicable. 

Letter(s): American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); American 

Gas Association (VI-D-154); American Petroleum Institute (VI-D-146); 

Chemical Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); Coastal Corporation 

(VI-D-123); Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry (VI-D-182); 

Gas Processors Association (VI-D-163); General Electric Company 

(VI-D-156); KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc. (VI-D-229); 

Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry (VI -D-114); Total 

Petroleum (VI-D-190); Texaco Environment Health and Safety 

(VI-D-199); UCAR Carbon Company, Inc. (VI-D-122); Utility Air Regulatory 

Group (VI-D-140); Virginia Power (VI-D-226) 

Comment b: Some commenters argued that permitting authorities should be able to 

exempt subpart B units or reclassify pollutant-specific emissions units 

from subpart B to subpart C. According to one commenter, if states 

retain the power to reclassify subpart C sources as subject to subpart B, 

fairness and logic dictate that this authority should run both ways. 

Another commenter added that the title V process will assure all such 

decisions are reviewed by both EPA and the public. A commenter 

asserted that there are some cases where a unit, such as a cement or 

limestone silo controlled by a small baghouse, may be subject to subpart 

B monitoring requirements where there is no need for such monitoring 

and recommended that permitting authorities be given the flexibility to 

classify some subpart B units as subpart C units when it can be 

demonstrated that subpart B monitoring does not yield any significant 

environmental benefit. One commenter also stated that providing 

permitting authorities significant discretion in exempting a unit that would 

otherwise be subject to subpart B would mitigate problems associated 

with the broad scope of subpart B and specified factors to be considered. 

Response: The final rule does not include the monitoring defined for subpart C units; 

therefore, the possibility of reclassifying a pollutant-specific emission unit 

from subpart B to subpart C is not relevant. With respect to smaller units 

that may be subject to part 64, EPA notes that the final rule also 

distinguishes between the frequency of monitoring required for small and 

large units (see section 6 (Part III), below). Granting permitting 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 57 

authorities broad authority to exempt sources from part 64 is inconsistent 

with EPA’s rationale for the sources covered. 

Letter(s): Chemical Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); Exxon Chemical 

Americas (VI-D-128); Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

Protection (VI-D-174); Texaco Environment Health and Safety (VI-D-199) 

Comment c: A commenter recommended allowing permitting authorities to determine 

subpart B applicability on a case-by-case basis. 

Response: The Agency believes that the monitoring and the applicability criteria as 

defined in part 64 represent the fundamental requirements for a 

monitoring program. The intention is that permitting authorities apply part 

64 as minimum requirements and build upon them in developing a 

monitoring program appropriate to a particular areas. Case-by-case 

reduction of part 64 monitoring requirements or decisions to discount 

applicability are not consistent with the design of part 64. The EPA 

encourages States to consider adding monitoring requirements to existing 

and new rules that are consistent with or exceed part 64 requirements. 

Letter(s): County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California (VI-D-231) 

2.1.7: Requests for Clarification 

Comment a: A few commenters argued that subpart B applicability should be based on 

emissions points rather than on emissions units. Two of the commenters 

stated that the term "emissions unit" is nebulous and can apply to a wide 

range of equipment and systems but an "emissions point" would always 

be defined as the point of air emissions discharge, even where multiple 

tanks or vents are directed to a single control device. These commenters 

provided examples of confusion that may result from use of the term 

"units" and stated that clarification on this matter will simplify the analysis 

by not requiring determinations about what constitutes a unit, and by 

eliminating confusion over determining "potential to emit" when multiple 

control devices are involved. Another commenter also recommended 

specific revisions to § 64.2(a)(1) to replace the term "emissions unit" with 

"emissions point." 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 58 

Response: The Agency disagrees that defining applicability based on emissions point 

rather than emissions unit would simplify applicability determinations. 

Section 70.5(c) requires owners or operators to identify all emissions 

units, as well as all applicable requirements and control equipment 

associated with each emissions unit. Because part 64 will be 

implemented through the title V permit process, consistency with part 70 

terminology is essential. Furthermore, most applicable emission 

limitations or standards apply to specific manufacturing processes or 

operations (i.e., emissions units), not to individual vents or points of 

discharge. As noted above, the goal of the rule is to provide for 

monitoring of pollutant-specific emission units to be used to certify 

compliance with applicable requirements. The final rule includes 

clarification of the definition of pollutant-specific emission unit and 

additional description on monitoring of multiple units venting to a common 

control device and single units venting to multiple control devices. 

Letter(s): ASARCO Incorporated (VI-D-187); Texas Chemical Council (VI-D-236); 

Texas Title V Planning Committee (VI-D-188) 

Comment b: One state agency requested clarification that any unit that is exempt from 

subpart B is subject to subpart C unless it is exempt pursuant to Section 

64.2(c). This commenter also requested clarification as to whether the 

phrase "under this paragraph (a)(2)" in § 64.2(a)(2) is intended to require 

some type of action on the part of EPA, such as granting delegation 

authority to the states to make pollutant-specific emissions unit 

applicability determinations per § 64.2(a)(2). 

Response: The final rule does not include subpart C as did the 1996 part 64 Draft 

rule; however, the final rule does make clear that pollutant-specific 

emission units not subject to part 64 are subject to periodic monitoring 

requirements in accordance with the title V operating permits programs. 

Letter(s): Ohio EPA, Division of Air Pollution Control (VI-D-180) 

Comment c: A commenter requested clarification as to whether a pollutant-specific 

emissions unit with an uncontrolled HAP emissions rate below the HAP 

threshold (10 tons per year) is subject to subpart B if the combined HAP 

emissions from two or more pollutant-specific emissions units result in 

potential emissions of total HAP greater than 25 TPY, or whether each 

emissions unit would fall under subpart C. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 59 

Response: The applicability of part 64 is aimed at pollutant-specific emissions units 

with applicable emission limitations or standards. The rule does not 

provide for combining emissions of multiple pollutants subject to separate 

emission limitations or standards to determine applicability. The 

permitting authority may determine to apply the part 64 monitoring 

requirements in such situations, as appropriate. 

Letter(s): Ohio EPA, Division of Air Pollution Control (VI-D-180) 

Comment d: One commenter requested clarification that sources are not required to 

calculate potential pre-control device emissions for like units, in the same 

manner that they are not required to develop multiple CAM plans for 

like-units. 

Response: The Agency agrees that documentation of applicability may include 

information from like units rather than case-by-case calculations. See 

section 8 (Part III), below for further discussion.

Letter(s): County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (VI-D-232) 

Comment e: A commenter specifically requested confirmation that if a unit with a fabric 

filter is not subject to any specific limitations covering the fabric filter then 

subpart B does not apply. Another commenter requested clarification 

that subpart B applies only to the pollutant for which the control device 

was installed. The commenter asserted that this has been stated as 

EPA's intent, but that the rule is not clear on this issue since the definition 

of "pollutant-specific emissions unit" only limits the universe of units, not 

control devices, brought into subpart B. 

Response: The applicability provisions in part 64 focus monitoring requirements on 

units that use control devices to achieve compliance. If, as in the first 

commenter's example, a fabric filter is installed but is not necessary to 

achieve compliance because there is no applicable emission limitation or 

standard, part 64 would not apply. For the second comment, § 64.2 

states explicitly that part 64 applies only to those pollutant-specific 

emissions units for which a control device is used to achieve compliance. 

Thus, consider as an example a boiler that uses only a fabric filter as a 

control device. Also, assume that the boiler has potential pre-control 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 60 

device emissions of particulate matter and carbon monoxide that exceed 

the part 64 threshold, and that the boiler is subject to applicable 

requirements for both pollutants. If the boiler relied on the fabric filter to 

control particulate matter emissions, but not to control CO emissions, part 

64 would apply to the boiler only with respect to particulate matter. 

Letter(s): American Furniture Manufacturers Association (VI-D-203); ASARCO 

Incorporated (VI-D-187) 

Comment f: A commenter provided specific examples to highlight applicability 

concerns. The commenter stated that CAM applicability determinations 

seem to be based on a "potential to emit" calculation which assumes 

operations for 8,760 hours per year. The commenter then argued that 

this assumption is unrealistic for many sources and went on to provide a 

table of engine-driven systems with averaging operating hours of from 

1,000 to 5,000 hours per year. 

Response: As noted above, the definition of potential to emit shall have the same 

meaning as provided under part 70 or 71, provided that it shall be applied 

with respect to an "emissions unit" as defined under this part in addition to 

a "stationary source" as provided under part 70 or 71. That defined term 

takes into account any federally-enforceable restrictions on operating 

hours. The use of potential pre-control device emissions in part 64 does 

not affect this aspect of the part 70 definition. 

Letter(s): LaClede Gas Company (VI-D-198) 

Section 2.2: Subpart C Applicability 

2.2.1: Scope of Applicability 

Comment a: A few commenters offered general support for the applicability provisions. 

An association of state and local authorities stated that the universe of 

sources subject to CAM is reasonable and represents the size and type of 

emissions units that should regularly conduct monitoring. A commenter 

specifically supported the provisions which require sources with passive 

emission controls to comply with the recordkeeping requirements of 

subpart C but do not require them to develop CAM plans. One 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 61 

commenter also supported the option for no monitoring for some units 

under subpart C. Another commenter favored the more streamlined two 

subparts of the 1996 CAM Draft over the three tiered scheme in the 1995 

CAM Draft. 

Response: No response necessary. 

Letter(s): American Electric Power (VI-D-129); Department of Energy (VI-D-196); 

Pacific Gas Transmission Company (VI-D-230); STAPPA/ALAPCO 

(VI-D-179) 

Comment b: A number of commenters supported limiting the applicability of subpart C. 

One commenter stated that the breadth of subpart C applicability is 

contrary to improvements suggested during the enhanced monitoring 

rulemaking to limit applicability and the principle of minimizing costs 

expressed in "Reinventing Environmental Regulation," and produces little 

if any environmental benefit. Two commenters argued that at the very 

least, EPA should not apply CAM to non-significant units that would not 

have been covered under the original EM proposal. According to these 

commenters, the breadth of subpart C (and subpart B) applicability will 

result in extreme administrative burdens with virtually all 25,000 title V 

sources being required to submit permit applications and proposed 

monitoring protocols or CAM plans. These commenters were also 

concerned that the exemptions are not self-implementing and hundreds of 

thousands of exemption requests will also have to be submitted and 

reviewed. Finally, a commenter noted generally that the approach taken 

in subpart C will result in thousands of exemption proposals and create 

unmanageable paperwork burdens, and stated that the rule should at 

least exempt a specific list of minor units that do not need to be 

addressed in the first round of subpart C requirements. 

A commenter argued that the applicability provisions of CAM (subparts B 

and C combined) apply to too many pollutant-specific emissions units 

noting that CAM monitoring requirements apply to all units at a major 

source which are subject to an emission limitation or standard whereas 

the EM proposal would have applied only to those units at a major source 

with emissions of a regulated pollutant for which the source is major at a 

level equal to or greater than 30 percent of the major source threshold for 

that pollutant. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 62 

Many commenters recommended specific ways to limit the applicability of 

subpart C. The current CAM draft applies subpart C to too many sources. 

Subpart C applicability should be determined on a unit basis. 

Recommends revising § 64.2(b) such that subpart C applies only to 

pollutant-specific emissions units located at a major source (i.e. major for 

the specific pollutant) which is required to obtain a part 70 permit, that are 

not subpart B units, and are not otherwise exempt under § 64.2(c)(2). A 

few commenters supported establishing a self-implementing size or unit 

capacity de minimis threshold under which subpart C does not apply. 

Other commenters agreed that this approach would free permitting 

authorities from the process of approving the use of limited monitoring or 

recordkeeping for less significant units. One of these commenters 

provided facility data to show that 70 percent of units at four facilities (755 

total units) likely fall into the "no monitoring" category. 

Some commenters specifically favored subpart C applicability only for 

major units based on a standard potential to emit definition. They also 

stated that EPA could grant permitting authorities discretion to apply CAM 

to smaller units where appropriate. These commenters argued that the 

current breadth of applicability is not consistent with CAM's stated goal of 

providing cost-effective means of filling monitoring gaps. Other 

commenters agreed that smaller units could be subject to subpart C at the 

permitting authority's discretion or could be subject to state monitoring and 

recordkeeping requirements through the title V permit, or suggested that 

these units could be addressed in later rounds of permitting. A 

commenter suggested that the rule explicitly state that minor sources 

required to obtain part 70 permits are not subject to CAM. 

One commenter suggested that actual emissions of greater than 50 

percent of the major source threshold would be an appropriate criterion 

and argued that periodic monitoring already addressed in a permit or 

other monitoring proposed in a permit application, or no monitoring at all 

would be appropriate for insignificant or trivial units. Another commenter 

recommended applying subpart C to units without active control devices if 

their actual emissions were at or above 40 percent of the applicable major 

source threshold and to units with active control devices that have 

precontrol device "actual" emissions below 40 percent of the major source 

threshold. This commenter provided a detailed analysis of one facility to 

demonstrate the reasonableness of this approach. Some commenters 

recommended revising the rule to provide that subpart C applies only to 

emissions units that are subject to an applicable requirement. A few 

commenters stated the intent reflected in the preamble and technical 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 63 

guidance document that limits subpart C to units subject to an applicable 

requirement should be incorporated into the rule itself. They were 

concerned that the current subpart C applicability provisions could include 

countless pieces of small, insignificant equipment that are not otherwise 

subject to EPA air regulation. Other commenters argued that, although 

they did not believe it was EPA's intent, the 1996 part 64 Draft suggests 

that, if a source has a non-exempt emission limit and includes at least one 

PSEU that is not subject to subpart B, then subpart C applies to all 

PSEUs at the source. Two commenters specified language changes to 

exempt units with no applicable requirement as defined in part 70, 

including adding the phrase "for applicable regulated air pollutants" to § 

64.2(b)(1) to clarify that subpart C does not apply to emissions that are 

not applicable regulated air pollutants. A commenter specifically 

recommended that for purposes of subpart C, internal combustion 

engines should not be aggregated with other sources at a facility to 

determine if they are a major source subject to CAM. The commenter 

argued that since subpart B applies on a unit by unit basis, subpart C 

should as well. 

Response: The Agency has decided not to pursue the Subpart C option included in 

the 1996 part 64 Draft based on the comments received and also 

because of concerns about disrupting the ongoing implementation of part 

70. The applicability of monitoring for units not subject to part 64 will be 

determined in accordance with part 70 requirements. No additional 

response is necessary. 

Letter(s): Air Products and Chemicals (VI-D-186); American Automobile 

Manufacturers Association (VI-D-266); American Gas Association 

(VI-D-154); Chevron Companies (VI-D-132); Clean Air Implementation 

Project (VI-D-153); Coalition for Clean Air Implementation (VI-D-164); 

Coastal Corporation (VI-D-123); Eastman Chemical Company 

(VI-D-173); Eli Lilly Company (VI-D-124); Engine Manufacturers 

Association (VI-D-117); Exxon Company, USA (VI-D-135); Georgia 

Department of Natural Resources (VI-D-193); Pennzoil Company 

(VI-D-133); PPG Industries, Inc. (VI-D-136); R.R. Donnelley & Sons 

Company (VI-D-221); Specialty Steel Industry of North America 

(VI-D-143); Steel Manufacturers Association (SMA) (VI-D-144); Texaco 

Environment Health and Safety (VI-D-199); Texas Chemical Council 

(VI-D-236); UCAR Carbon Company, Inc. (VI-D-122); Union Carbide 

Corporation (VI-D-170); Utility Air Regulatory Group (VI-D-140); Virginia 

Power (VI-D-226) 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 64 

Comment c: Two commenters argued that sources with existing monitoring should be 

exempt from subpart C. They stated that although § 64.9 of the 1996 

part 64 Draft allows the source to propose the use of existing monitoring, 

it makes little sense to require permitting authorities to make a 

determination for every requirement that existing monitoring is adequate. 

Response: As noted above, the final rule does not include requirements for units that 

would have been subject to subpart C requirements. These 

determinations will be made in accordance with part 70 requirements. No 

additional response is necessary. 

Letter(s): American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); Phillips 

Petroleum Company (VI-D-131) 

2.2.2: Recommends Deleting Subpart C

Comment a: A few commenters stated that since subpart C does not apply to control 

devices, subpart C is unnecessary to accomplish the CAM goal of 

ensuring that proper O&M is used on control devices and should be 

deleted. These commenters stated that permitting authorities could 

remain free to make subpart C-type judgments a part of their title V or 

other programs especially under a programmatic option. 

One commenter argued that units not equipped with active control devices 

are usually incapable of modulating their pollutant emissions and should 

not be regulated by part 64. The commenter stated that monitoring of 

uncontrollable emissions is wasteful of limited resources that could be 

more appropriately concentrated elsewhere. 

Response: As noted above, the final rule does not include monitoring requirements 

for units that would have been subject to subpart C requirements. These 

units will be subject to the monitoring requirements in § 70.6 (a)(3) (or the 

provisions of part 71, if applicable). No additional response is necessary. 

Letter(s): ASARCO Incorporated (VI-D-187); CITGO Petroleum Corporation 

(VI-D-172); Gas Processors Association (VI-D-163); Texas Title V 

Planning Committee (VI-D-188) 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 65 

2.2.3: Requests Clarifications 

Comment a: A commenter requested clarification on the following text from the 

discussion accompanying the 1996 part 64 Draft: "...whether it is 

necessary to exempt any major emission units from CAM monitoring if 

minimal recordkeeping of process hours of operation or ordinarily 

recorded operational activity will satisfy CAM data collection under subpart 

C." The commenter asked why an exempt unit would be required to 

monitor or record anything. 

Response: The context of the referenced text was in a request for comment on an 

exemption included in the 1996 part 64 Draft rule for municipally owned 

utilities. Specifically, the request for comment was to address whether 

the resources saved by exempting such units even from minimal 

recordkeeping of process operations were justifiable given that some of 

these units may be major emissions units. Under the final rule, exempt 

units such as small municipal backup utility units, must comply with the 

periodic monitoring requirements in part 70. The exemption provided is 

only for the requirements in part 64. 

Letter(s): Wisconsin Electric Power Company (VI-D-130) 

Section 2.3: Exemptions

Section 2.3.1: Exempt Limits

2.3.1.1: Supports Exemption of Various Emission Limits

Comment a: Several commenters supported the exemption of emission limitations or 

standards proposed by the Administrator after November 15, 1990, 

pursuant to section 111 or section 112 of the Clean Air Act. The 

commenters agreed that the monitoring in these standards will satisfy the 

requirements of the Act. A state agency expressed its support for EPA's 

statement in the preamble that it is committed to developing post-1990 

standards with continuous compliance determination methods. The 

commenter proposed reviewing standards promulgated prior to the 1990 

CAAA, when such review occurs pursuant to section 111(b) of the Act, to 

determine whether existing standards require additional monitoring 

requirements to satisfy part 64. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 66 

Response: No response necessary. 

Letter(s): Dow Chemical Company (VI-D-120); Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources (VI-D-193); Integrated Waste Services Association (VI-D-147); 

Kennecott Corporation (VI-D-119); Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas 

Association (VI-D-184); Texas Natural Resource Conservation Committee 

(VI-D-189); The Fertilizer Institute (VI-D-145) 

Comment b: One commenter asked for confirmation that the exemption still applies 

where a MACT standard requires only general O&M even though the 

definition of emission limitation or standard specifically excludes such 

general requirements from the definition of an emission limitation or 

standard. The commenter cited the gravure MACT as an example, and 

suggested changes to the definition of emission limitation or standard to 

address the issue. 

Response: The Agency intends that the exemption apply to emission limitations or 

standards proposed by the Administrator after November 15, 1990 

pursuant to section 111 or 112 of the Act without exception. If a specific 

subpart of part 63 establishes a specific source category standard related 

to O&M (as opposed to the general provisions in § 63.11), that O&M 

requirement would meet the definition of emission limitation or standard. 

Letter(s): R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company (VI-D-221)

Comment c: Another commenter requested clarification that where a part 70 permit 

takes advantage of the ability to streamline multiple requirements by 

subsuming the less stringent requirements, CAM will not apply to the 

subsumed requirements. As an example the commenter argued that an 

MWC unit exempt from CAM with respect to post-1990 MACT limits 

should not be subject to CAM for pre-1990 limits if the part 70 permit 

subsumes those limits under the more stringent MACT standard. The 

commenter also stated that EPA should provide some form of transition 

phase so that this subsumed limit concept could be incorporated into the 

title V permit, especially where exempt MACT limits have been 

promulgated but have future effective dates. The commenter illustrated 

this point by stating that the MWC MACT allows facilities until the year 

2000 to come into compliance and a source should not have to address 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 67 

CAM for existing limits where those existing limits will be subsumed when 

the MACT rule becomes effective in the year 2000. 

Response: The Agency agrees that, to the extent that monitoring specified through a 

permit addresses the control of more than one pollutant (e.g., a criteria 

pollutant and a HAP) subject to separate limitations, a separate set of 

monitoring requirements for each pollutant is unnecessary. That is not to 

say that the requirements do not apply; but, instead, the permit may 

specify that monitoring that assesses compliance with the more stringent 

standard may also satisfy part 64 for monitoring of compliance for other 

regulated pollutants. On the other hand, the Agency disagrees that 

implementation of part 64, if applicable, or other existing monitoring 

requirements (e.g., part 70) should be delayed until new regulations apply. 

 Owners of emission units with existing emission limitations or standards 

are subject to compliance certification requirements for those limitations or 

standards. Part 64 is intended to define minimum monitoring 

requirements to support valid certifications. 

Letter(s): Integrated Waste Services Association (VI-D-147) 

Comment d: One commenter offered specific support for the § 64.2(c)(1)(iii) exemption 

for Acid Rain Program requirements stating that under part 75 monitoring 

requirements already exist for power plant units subject to acid rain limits. 

Response: No response necessary. 

Letter(s): American Electric Power (VI-D-129) 

Comment e: Several commenters supported the § 64.2(c)(1)(iv) exemption for 

emission limitations or standards that apply solely under an approved 

emissions trading program. One commenter stated that the inclusion of 

the exemption in part 64 is responsive to previous comments urging EPA 

not to discourage source participation in emissions trading programs by 

subjecting such programs to part 64 monitoring requirements. 

Two commenters who supported the exemptions in the 1996 part 64 Draft 

generally expressed particular support for this exemption. One of the 

commenters stated that the expanded category of exemptions in this draft 

correctly recognized that certain applicable requirements should not be 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 68 

subject to CAM and that the monitoring associated with many standards 

should be deemed to satisfy CAM. The commenter noted that these 

exemptions serve the CAM goal of providing cost-effective gap-filling. 

One commenter requested EPA confirmation that SCAQMD's Regional 

Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) program qualifies as an approved 

emissions trading program under § 64.2(c)(i)(iv). 

A commenter recommended that this provision be revised to specify that 

averaging plans approved under a State SIP for compliance with NOx

RACT or other requirements are included under this exemption provided 

they are subject to part 75 or other continuous emission monitoring 

requirements. 

Response: The Agency agrees that monitoring for compliance with emission trading 

programs would incorporate direct measure of emissions and would 

satisfy CAM requirements. The Agency believes that a blanket 

exemption in the rule for state SIP monitoring is unnecessarily broad and, 

instead, provides that use of a continuous emission monitoring system or 

predictive emission monitoring system that is subject to any of several 

published performance specifications shall be presumed to satisfy the 

general design criteria in part 64. This reduces the documentation 

required for justifying monitoring and allows the permitting authority an 

opportunity to review the appropriateness of the operating criteria and 

applicable emission limitations. 

Letter(s): American Petroleum Institute (VI-D-146); Clean Air Implementation 

Project (VI-D-153); Niagara Mohawk (VI-D-168); South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (VI-D-233); Texaco Environment Health and Safety 

(VI-D-199) 

Comment f: Certain commenters expressed general support for the § 64.2(c)(1)(v) 

exemption for emission caps meeting the requirements of § 70.4(b)(12). 

Other commenters qualified their support with requests to extend this 

exemption. One commenter stated that a PAL should not have to meet § 

70.4(b)(12) to qualify for the exemption. The commenter argued that any 

federally-enforceable PAL with monitoring to determine compliance 

should be exempt. Two pharmaceutical industry commenters supported 

EPA's recognition of the past efforts of states and industry to use 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 69 

innovative emissions cap approaches to meet air pollution control 

requirements while allowing pharmaceutical facilities to retain the 

operating flexibility to respond to medical emergencies and market 

demands. However, these commenters argued that EPA should expand 

the § 64.2(c)(1)(v) emission cap exemption to include emissions caps 

created under NSR/PSD permits and existing applicable requirements. 

The commenters noted that to increase their operating flexibility or to 

avoid the NSR/PSD process pharmaceutical facilities have obtained 

emissions caps over all or some of their operations which will be 

incorporated into the sources' title V permits. They also stated that states 

have issued construction and operating permits with emission caps on an 

entire facility, on a portion of a facility (e.g., the pharmaceutical organic 

synthesis production operations) or on a building within a facility. 

Response: The Agency believes that the final rule adequately addresses exemptions 

for plant-wide emission limits with monitoring to show compliance with 

applicable limits under the provisions in the CAM rule for exempting units 

that apply continuous compliance determination methods. Further, the 

final rule includes an exemption for units with emissions caps as defined 

in part 70 that is sufficiently broad to include NSR/PSD provisions. No 

additional revisions are necessary. 

Letter(s): Chevron Companies (VI-D-132); Eli Lilly Company (VI-D-124); Electronic 

Industries Association (VI-D-137); Pharmaceutical Research and 

Manufacturers of America (VI-D-217); The Fertilizer Institute (VI-D-145) 

2.3.1.2: Recommends Broadening Exemption for Various Emissions Limits 

Comment a: One commenter requested that the exemptions be broadened to include 

situations where multiple requirements apply and the monitoring required 

to meet one requirement will assure compliance with the other 

requirement. The commenter stated that a mechanism is needed to 

exempt from CAM pre-November 15, 1990 applicable requirements where 

compliance is demonstrated by monitoring which is part of a 

post-November 15, 1990 rule. The commenter argued that this is 

necessary since title V provisions will address duplicative requirements for 

the same pollutant but not the case of common monitoring for different 

pollutants such as an emission unit with both a HAP and a VOC limit 

where parameter monitoring under MACT also shows compliance with the 

part 61 or VOC limit and vice-versa. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 70 

Response: The Agency has published guidance (White Paper 2, docket item 

A-91-52-VI-I-2) to address the streamlining of multiple emission limitations 

and associated monitoring. As noted above, such streamlining of 

monitoring requirements can be used to satisfy part 64. No additional 

response is necessary. 

Letter(s): Exxon Chemical Americas (VI-D-128) 

Comment b: Two commenters recommended broadening the exemption for title IV 

requirements. According to one commenter, all Acid Rain affected units 

should be exempt from CAM, rather than exempting only certain Acid 

Rain emission limits. The commenter argued that an additional burden 

on utilities is unnecessary since most of the larger utility plants are subject 

to monitoring requirements under NSPS and SIPs as well as part 75. 

The commenter stated that the additional burdens should not be expected 

to add to environmental quality. Another commenter added that the rule 

should exempt AELs established pursuant to section 407(d) of the CAA 

and emissions limitations established in a NOx emissions averaging plan 

pursuant to 407(e) since compliance with these limits are determined by 

part 75 just as the limits included in the draft rule's exemption are. 

Response: The Agency disagrees that monitoring for compliance with the title IV 

emissions limitations provides information sufficient to determine 

compliance with all other emission limitations or standards for the same 

emissions unit. For example, many of the utilities subject to SO2 annual 

limitations because of the Acid Rain regulations are also subject to short 

term (e.g., 3-hour) emission limitations resulting from other regulations 

(e.g., NSPS). The monitoring data reduction to show compliance with the 

acid rain limitations would not be sufficient for certifying compliance with 

the short term standards. The Agency agrees that the monitoring used 

for measuring compliance with the acid rain SO2 annual limitation may be 

modified to accommodate the short term averaging time and part 64 

allows that such application of existing monitoring is appropriate. On the 

other hand, the same facility may also be subject to particulate emission 

limitations not addressed at all by the acid rain monitoring. Monitoring 

for compliance with the particulate emission limitation or any other 

pollutant would be not be addressed without part 64. 

The Agency agrees that units subject to alternative emission limits or 

emission averaging under sections 407(d) and (e) are subject to 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 71 

monitoring adequate to demonstrate compliance with the applicable 

limitations under title IV should not be subject to additional monitoring to 

show compliance under the CAM rule. The Agency believes that sources 

subject to such regulations are exempted from CAM requirements as 

indicated above. 

Letter(s): Cinergy Corp (VI-D-141); Class of '85 Regulatory Response Group 

(VI-D-161) 

Section 2.3.2: Continuous Compliance Determination Methods Exemption

2.3.2.1: Supports Continuous Compliance Determination Method Exemptions 

Comment a: Two commenters specifically supported the § 64.2(c)(1)(vi) exemption for 

sources subject to continuous compliance determination methods that do 

not use an assumed control factor. These commenters stated that any 

source without active controls and which already has a continuous 

compliance determination method specified in its title V permit should be 

exempt from the CAM rule. 

Response: No response necessary. 

Letter(s): Enron Operations Corp. (VI-D-235); Pacific Gas Transmission Company 

(VI-D-230) 

2.3.2.2: Recommends Broadening Continuous Compliance Determination 

Method Exemption 

Comment a: Some commenters argued that the continuous compliance determination 

method exemption should be expanded to include any continuous 

compliance method specified in any air permit or federal standard. Two 

commenters stated that the exemption in the 1996 part 64 Draft was 

limited to emission limitations or standards "for which a part 70 permit 

specifies a continuous compliance determination method," and that 

owners and operators will have to submit CAM plans with their permit 

applications and therefore will not be able to determine if they are eligible 

for the exemption. The commenters proposed broadening the exemption 

to avoid this presumably unintended circular result. Another commenter 

proposed that the continuous compliance determination method 

exemption be based on emissions limitations or standards in existing 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 72 

applicable requirements rather than in part 70 permits. This commenter 

stated that such a revision would clarify the definition and reflect the 

example lists in the 8/2/96 CAM technical guidance document. Finally, a 

commenter suggested using either the underlying requirement or the part 

70 permit as a basis for qualifying for the exemption. 

Response: The Agency’s intention behind the exemption is to relieve the source 

owner and the permitting authority of the burden associated with 

establishing new monitoring to satisfy part 64 if direct measurement of 

compliance is already required. If an owner or operator proposes 

monitoring with the permit application intended to qualify as a continuous 

compliance determination method, the Agency believes that the language 

of the rule allows sufficient flexibility for the source owner and the 

permitting authority to determine if the monitoring would qualify and, then, 

if the exemption applies. No further revision to the rule is necessary. 

Letter(s): American Gas Association (VI-D-154); Coastal Corporation (VI-D-123); 

Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry (VI-D-182); Eli Lilly 

Company (VI-D-124) 

Comment b: An automotive industry commenter requested that the EPA/Automotive 

Protocol should be specifically exempted from CAM because it meets the 

definition of a continuous compliance determination method. According to 

the commenter, the protocol is used to determine compliance, it provides 

for compliance determination on a continuous basis, and it verifies 

through testing and other information the derivation and implementation of 

the algorithms used as part of the protocol. The commenter also stated 

that the protocol was developed over a number of years by EPA and the 

automotive industry to assure consistent compliance determination 

procedures, and it would be inappropriate to now allow the industry to be 

subjected to various interpretations of how the protocol should be used in 

the context of CAM. 

Response: The Agency disagrees that the subject protocol completely satisfies the 

requirements for exempting emission limits that rely on a continuous 

compliance determination method according to part 64. The exemption 

provided in part 64 does not apply if the applicable compliance method 

includes an assumed control device emission reduction factor that could 

be affected by the actual operation and maintenance of the control device. 

 The protocol is just such a method for which continuous compliance is 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 73 

determined by calculating emissions on the basis of coating records and 

an assumed control device efficiency factor based on an initial 

performance test. For the purposes of complying with part 64, 

monitoring would apply to the control device, transfer efficiency, if 

appropriate, and the capture system, but not to the remaining elements of 

the coating line. 

Letter(s): American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157, 266, 270, and 

273) 

Comment c: A coalition of industry groups argued that the exemption for sources with 

continuous compliance determination methods should be broadened to 

include sources with requirements based on emission factors. This 

commenter stated that the factors are integral to such standards, and 

applying CAM would have the effect of imposing new compliance 

obligations on these sources. 

Response: The Agency believes that part 64 applies to pollutant-specific emission 

units subject to this type of emission limitation and compliance method to 

the extent that control devices are necessary to achieve compliance with 

the limit. As noted above, the purpose of the CAM approach is to monitor 

to assure that the control devices, once installed or otherwise employed, 

are properly operated and maintained so that they do not deteriorate to 

the point where the owner or operator fails to remain in compliance with 

applicable requirements. Monitoring control device operations on units 

subject to an emission limitation or standard, regardless of the compliance 

calculation procedure, is consistent with this purpose. 

Letter(s): Clean Air Implementation Project (VI-D-153) 

Comment d: A commenter requested that CEMS required in State or NSR permits 

qualify for this exemption. The commenter stated that the 1996 part 64 

Draft only required CEMS to be used for part 64 purposes if required by 

the Act or State/local law and argued that this should be expanded to 

include permits so that the CEMS can be used to meet the exemption. 

Response: The commenter incorrectly interpreted the rule. Section 64.3(d) indicates 

that a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS), continuous 

opacity monitoring system (COMS) or predictive emission monitoring 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 74 

system (PEMS) that is required pursuant to other authority under the Act 

or state or local law must be used to satisfy the requirements of this part. 

This provision would include any permits issued under the Act or State 

and local law. Whether such monitoring qualifies for the exemption in § 

64.2 depends on whether the monitoring is specified as the compliance 

method for the applicable requirements. 

Letter(s): Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry (VI-D-182) 

Comment e: One commenter stated that this exemption should be written so as to 

exempt subpart C sources that have a continuous compliance 

determination method rather than just individual emission limits with such 

methods because subpart C applies on a source wide basis. 

Response: The final rule does not include subpart C monitoring requirements. No 

additional response is necessary. 

Letter(s): Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry (VI-D-182) 

2.3.2.3: Requests for Clarification

Comment a: A commenter requested clarification of several § 64.2(c) issues. First the 

commenter wanted to confirm that once it is issued, a part 70 permit 

which contains a requirement to use CEMS to determine compliance with 

applicable SIP limits (NOx RACT plan and sulfur-in-fuel limit), then a CAM 

plan or QIP would not be necessary for these limits. The commenter also 

wanted to confirm that a source with limits or standards proposed under 

sections 111 or 112 of the Act before 1990, but for which its part 70 permit 

specifies continuous compliance determination methods is exempted from 

part 64. Finally, this commenter wanted to confirm that it would not need 

a CAM plan or QIP for opacity if it currently has a SIP opacity limit for 

which it monitors opacity with a COMS. The commenter noted that it 

understands that it would still need a CAM plan for particulate matter and 

that the COMS would be a component in the plan. 

One commenter expressed concern that part 64 would require monitoring 

of the VOC content of solvents or coatings. The commenter stated that 

supplier certifications and production recordkeeping should be sufficient 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 75 

for that portion of a sources CAM plan along with a presumption that the 

monitoring of active controls required in the SIP would be sufficient. 

 

Response: The commenter is correct that emission limitations or standards that have 

an associated continuous compliance determination method are exempt 

from part 64, and that the types of limits involved may include applicable 

SIP limits and pre -1990 NSPS and NESHAP limits. The commenter is 

also correct that the use of a CEMS (even if not a continuous compliance 

determination method) that satisfies the performance specifications 

requirements referenced in the rule will satisfy part 64 without additional 

documentation (e.g., a CAM plan). The commenter is also correct that 

use of a COMS is a possible component of the monitoring to provide data 

for an indicator range appropriate for particulate control performance. 

The CAM rule would dictate that opacity values that indicate the proper 

operation of the control device would not necessarily be the same as 

other applicable opacity limitations. As noted in responses to comments 

in section 10, the Agency has deleted the requirements associated with a 

QIP; this possible enforcement response remains as an option for the 

permitting authority to use as needed. 

The commenter is also correct that an emission unit for which opacity is 

regulated as a surrogate for particulate matter and which is subject to 

continuous opacity monitoring would also satisfy monitoring requirements 

under the CAM rule under the provisions that require the use of CEMS 

where required by underlying rules. 

With respect to the VOC content issues, the exemption in § 64.2(b) states 

explicitly that monitoring of VOC content would not be required even if 

monitoring of the control device is required under part 64. In that case, 

any existing monitoring could be used in part to justify the use of the 

existing monitoring to satisfy part 64, but no presumptive acceptability 

would apply. 

Letter(s): Can Manufacturers Institute (VI-D-181); Niagara Mohawk (VI-D-168) 

 

Section 2.3.3: Municipal Utilities Exemption

2.3.3.1: General Comments/Scope of Exemption
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 76 

Comment a: A few commenters offered general support for the § 64.2(c)(2) exemption 

for small municipal units. A commenter explained that it supports EPA's 

acknowledgment that it is appropriate to exempt emissions units that have 

high potential to emit but small actual emissions. 

Response: No additional response is necessary. 

Letter(s): American Petroleum Institute (VI-D-146); NESCAUM (VI-D-192); 

Metropolitan Council (VI-D-214) 

Comment b: One commenter opposed providing an exemption that applies only to 

electrical utilities. The commenter asserted that by providing such an 

exemption EPA is supporting some of the worst polluters and restraining 

competition. The commenter explained that the exemption is provided to 

power plants used when electrical use peaks, which often occurs because 

of excessive use of air conditioners in hot weather, while the exemption is 

not available to other sources that are trying to efficiently manage 

electrical demand. The commenter concluded by stating that significant 

pollution and global warming are the result of coal-based electricity 

generation and transmission losses. 

Response: The subject municipally-owned units have historically low usage rates, 

but, because of their nature, owners or operators cannot accept 

enforceable restrictions on the operation of these units for any particular 

year without violating their contractual obligations. Thus, these units 

usually have extremely high potential to emit values in comparison to 

actual emissions. Further, the final rule includes a requirement for 

documentation showing that the unit is exempt from all of the monitoring 

requirements in 40 CFR part 75, and showing that the emissions unit is 

operated only to provide electricity during peaking hours or emergencies. 

This documentation requirement will ensure that the exemption is properly 

applied. Based on these considerations, the Agency therefore believes 

that a limited exemption from the monitoring requirements in part 64 for 

these units is appropriate. The commenter does not address the need for 

monitoring at these units and instead questions the exemption from CAM 

monitoring based on considerations (e.g., purported energy inefficiency of 

these units) not pertinent to enhanced monitoring or compliance 

certification. 

Letter(s): LaClede Gas Company (VI-D-198) 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 77 

2.3.3.2: Request Exemption for Similar Units 

Comment a: Many commenters argued that other emissions units with large potential 

to emit and small actual emissions should be exempted from CAM 

requirements. The U.S. Small Business Administration submitted for 

discussion at the September 10, 1996 meeting a proposal (SBA proposal) 

to exclude entirely from CAM sources whose actual emissions are less 

than 50 percent of the major source threshold, where the owner/operator 

can establish that this represents true emissions averaged over an 

appropriate operational period such as one year. The SBA proposal 

stated that this would eliminate possibly thousands of sources that do not 

need to be covered by CAM since the reasonable assurance can be 

obtained through the facilities' own records. A number of commenters 

specifically expressed their support for the SBA proposal and others 

stated generally that they were in favor of such an exemption. One 

commenter stated that any unit that can demonstrate a history of limited 

usage and an expectation of continued limited usage should also be 

exempted. A local agency commenter noted that many sources will 

accept operational restrictions to avoid the CAM requirements. One 

commenter supported the addition of an exemption threshold below which 

a pollutant-specific emissions unit should not be subject to CAM because 

the costs of complying with CAM would outweigh the environmental 

benefits of monitoring those units. This commenter specifically supported 

the SBA approach, and noted that this approach was supported by 

statements in the 1993 RIA for the EM proposal, 58 FR 54662-54663, and 

EPA's analysis of part 70 periodic monitoring requirements in Section 

II.C.2.(d) of White Paper Number 2, 3/5/96. Another commenter 

proposed adding a new section the rule to exempt from CAM 

pollutant-specific emissions units that operate with actual emissions of 

less than 20 percent of the major source definition. 

Several commenters stated that the municipal utility exemption should be 

extended to similar units, such as peak shaving units, emergency fire 

systems, emergency electrical generators and other emergency utility 

systems (e.g., air, water). Some commenters argued that these units 

meet the same criteria as back-up municipal utility units. A few 

commenters supported extension of the municipal utility exemption to 

back-up units not owned by utilities. Natural gas industry commenters 

supported the extension of the exemption to include all emergency and 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 78 

back-up units, including emergency back-up and seasonal turbines or 

reciprocating engines. Other commenters recommended exempting 

units that are subject to permit conditions that limit potential to emit or 

amount of operation (such as emergency standby equipment). One 

commenter stated that these types of units should at least be subject only 

to minimal recordkeeping of operating hours or similar customary records 

under subpart C. 

Two commenters discussed particular types of units for which they felt 

exemption was appropriate. A commenter stated that non-road engines 

with high potential to emit utilized at oil and gas production facilities 

should be exempted if their owners and operators can show that actual 

emissions from these units are less than 50 percent of the amount 

required to classify the units as major sources. Another commenter 

added that internal combustion engines operating at such levels should at 

least be exempt from subpart B. One commenter argued that oil and 

natural gas batteries which potentially could be classified as major 

sources should be exempt if they have low actual emissions and do not 

operate at capacity as a practical matter (i.e. because the amount of 

product that can be produced is limited by the tanks' underground 

reservoirs). 

Utility industry commenters were concerned that the exemption is too 

narrow to be of use to the small utility units to which it is intended to or 

should apply. They argued that many small utility units specifically 

exempted from title IV have very small actual emissions, but are not 

limited to operating during peak power or emergency situations. Moreover, 

the commenters stated that some of these units may not meet the criteria 

of average annual emissions of less than 50 percent of the major source 

threshold. They explained that units in serious nonattainment areas 

would need average annual emissions of less than 25 tons to qualify. 

According to the commenters the cost of additional monitoring cannot be 

justified for these sources. Commenters also noted that these units 

generally do not have control devices, and therefore they were also 

concerned that these sources would have to find ways to monitor 

emissions directly instead of monitoring control parameters. 

One of the commenters argued that application of the 50 percent of major 

source threshold cap will add nothing to existing title V monitoring and 

recordkeeping requirements, but will ensnarl additional municipal units if 

emissions limits and major source thresholds are changed in the future 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 79 

pursuant to new regulations (like those applicable to NOx). This 

commenter also stated that the 50 percent threshold is inconsistent with 

paragraph (c) of subpart C which most municipal peaking units would be 

able to meet. According to the commenter, where a municipal unit 

exceeds the CAM 50 percent threshold but not its major source threshold, 

the unit will essentially be required to complete CAM plan paperwork that 

is redundant with its title V permit. 

A commenter objected to forcing small utility units to demonstrate that the 

level of a unit's operation is tied to contractual obligations to power supply 

customers arguing that for many municipal systems, such contracts have 

been precluded by the anti-competitive actions of larger, investor-owned 

utility competitors. The commenter stated that in some cases in Ohio, 

large investor-owned utilities have attempted to thwart the formation of 

contracts for the use of municipal peak-shaving units because ensuing 

power outages and higher utility bills work to the competitive advantage of 

these larger utilities. 

Two commenters recommended broadening the exemption to units of 25 

MWe or less. A commenter who argued in favor of exempting all such 

publicly owned generating units explained that there is no benefit 

associated with applying CAM to these units which emit de minimis levels 

of pollutants, and that a broader exemption would reduce the burden to 

permitting authorities as well as to these sources. The commenter 

emphasized the competitive effect of these units on the utility industry 

which benefits all consumers irrespective of their electric power provider 

and argued that, therefore, their continued ability to operate is important 

and has historically been recognized by Congress. The commenter also 

stated that additional analysis and recordkeeping and the potential for 

permit renegotiation imposes burdens on the communities that own these 

units and may constitute an unfunded mandate. 

This commenter also argued that if EPA does not exempt units of 25 

MWe or less, the actual emissions limits for exempted units should be 

increased from 50 percent to 100 percent of the major source threshold, 

and the restrictions on type of operation should be relaxed so that other 

than emergency and peaking operation is included. According to this 

commenter these small units are generally operated for peak or 

emergency situations, but cannot be restricted to operation only during 

these times since these units must be available to operate for other 

reasons including testing, and backstanding non-firm power purchase 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 80 

transactions. The commenter stated that sources would be responsible 

for satisfying the state regulatory authority that actual emissions are below 

this level and added that EPA's concern that calculations used to estimate 

actual emissions are not reliable or accurate could be satisfied by using a 

threshold only slightly lower than the major source threshold such as 90 

percent. 

A second commenter argued that an exemption for all simple combustion 

turbines and units with generators in this capacity range is consistent with 

the Acid Rain Program, and stated that a requirement that emissions, 

based on a rolling 36-month period, must be less than 50 percent of the 

applicable major source threshold will ensure that these units' emissions 

are not significant. The commenter also stated that such an exemption 

was included in the 1995 draft and should be reestablished in the final 

CAM rule because the narrow exemption in the 1996 draft is too complex 

and would be difficult to administer. The commenter argued that there 

will be questions under the current version about varying levels of 

municipal ownership and what situations qualify as periods of peak 

electrical demand or emergencies. Finally, according to this commenter, 

EPA's statement that its current exemption is appropriate because such 

units usually have low emissions applies equally to the other small units 

exempted in the 1995 draft. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the concept of using actual emissions as the overall 

basis for part 64 applicability or as the basis for expanding significantly the 

municipal utility exemption. First, actual emissions can vary with changes 

in production. More importantly, for units with control devices, 

calculations of actual emissions necessarily rely on assumptions about 

on-going performance that part 64 is intended to verify. Finally, because 

the types of sources to which commenters referred are unlikely to meet 

the control device applicability criterion of the final rule, the Agency feels 

even more strongly that the final rule will not subject small units to 

inappropriate monitoring. The Agency notes, however, that such units 

will remain subject to the monitoring requirements in part 70, and may 

have to adopt new or modified monitoring to comply with those 

requirements, even though part 64 does not apply. The exemption for 

small backup municipal utility units is not an exemption based generally 

on the theory that monitoring is unnecessary for those units with actual 

emissions that fall below the major source threshold. Rather, there are 

additional factors at play. First, contractual obligations put small 

municipal backup units in a position where they cannot agree to the type 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 81 

of binding restrictions that would eliminate them from status as a “major 

source” even though such restrictions would otherwise be acceptable. 

Further, municipal units are generally operated by small local 

governments and thus imposing monitoring requirements raises the same 

types of concerns reflected in the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Finally, EPA believes there are 

relatively few units that will qualify for this exemption. This conclusion 

was confirmed by the comments of a utility group that stated that “these 

small utility units generally do not have active control devices.” UARG, p. 

5. As such these units would not be subject to CAM in the first instance. 

 When these factors are considered in the context of historical data 

showing low actual emissions, EPA believes an exemption is justified. 

Thus, EPA would emphasize that this exemption is based on the unique 

circumstances surrounding the units involved and the relatively small 

number of such units. 

 

Letter(s): American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); American 

Gas Association (VI-D-154); American Municipal Power-Ohio (VI-D-159); 

American Petroleum Institute (VI-D-146); American Public Power 

Association (VI-D-158 and 264); California Association of Sanitation 

Agencies (VI-D-206); Chemical Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); 

Cinergy Corp. (VI-D-141); Class of '85 Regulatory Response Group 

(VI-D-161); Coastal Corporation (VI-D-123); Colorado Association of 

Commerce and Industry (VI-D-182); Columbia Gas System Service 

Corporation (VI-D-175); County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, 

California (VI-D-231); Electronic Industries Association (VI-D-137); Eli Lilly 

Company (VI-D-124); Engine Manufacturers Association (VI-D-117); 

Enron Operations Corp. (VI-D-235); Exxon Chemical Americas 

(VI-D-128); General Electric Company (VI-D-156); Houston Lighting & 

Power Company (VI-D-228); LaClede Gas Company (VI-D-198); Niagara 

Mohawk (VI-D-168); Ohio Chamber of Commerce, et al (VI-D-160); 

Pennzoil Company (VI-D-133); Rubber Manufacturers Association 

(VI-D-149); South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources (VI-D-223); Southwestern Public Service Company (VI-D-224); 

State of Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation 

(VI-D-234); Tennessee Valley Authority (VI-D-162); Texas Natural 

Resource Conservation Commission (VI-D-189); Total Petroleum, Inc. 

(VI-D-190); Tri-TAC (VI-D-225); U.S. Small Business Administration 

(VI-D-239); Utility Air Regulatory Group (VI-D-140)
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 82 

2.3.3.3: Objects to Documentation Requirements 

Comment a: One state agency commenter argued that the documentation 

requirements of the small municipal utility exemption may cause 

competitive market problems. The commenter stated that many state 

agencies may be unable to maintain confidentiality for information 

submitted to comply with the requirement of documenting historical and 

contractual information which shows that a unit is eligible for the small 

municipal utility exemption. 

Response: The Agency disagrees. Under § 70.4(b)(3)(viii) each permitting authority 

is required to demonstrate the legal authority to maintain information as 

confidential if entitled to such protection under section 114(c) of the Act. 

Although historical emissions data is not entitled to such protection, 

certain contractual provisions may be. 

Letter(s): Texas Natural Resource Conservation Committee (VI-D-189) 

2.3.3.4: Requests for Clarification

Comment a: A commenter asked that the language of the exemption be changed to 

refer to "annual" instead of "annualized" emissions. The commenter 

assumed that EPA intended to refer to actual "annual" emissions and not 

the amount that would have been emitted if emissions at the actual rate 

were "annualized" over a full year of operation. 

Response: This edit has been included. 

Letter(s): Utility Air Regulatory Group (VI-D-140) 

Comment b: One commenter requested that the Agency clarify whether sources can 

toggle between major source and non-major source from year to year 

based on the 3 year emissions average. This commenter argued that 

forcing these small, seldom used sources to develop a CAM plan for a 

short time frame would not seem to be in keeping with the intent of the 

proposal. 

Response: The Agency intends that an exemption such as the one for municipal 

utilities apply for the duration of the permit term. The exemption would 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 83 

be reviewed only upon the pollutant-specific emission unit undergoing a 

significant process modification or upon another significant permit revision 

as required under part 70. 

Letter(s): Cinergy Corp. (VI-D-141) 

Section 2.3.4: Other Exemptions

2.3.4.1: General Site/Significance Based Exemptions 

Comment a: Some commenters stated that CAM should explicitly exempt sources/units 

that are exempt from title V regulation. One commenter explained that 

sources below the title V applicability threshold should not be burdened 

with CAM monitoring since their emissions are relatively insignificant, and 

recommended that EPA specifically state that the CAM rule does not 

apply to non-major sources which may be required to obtain a title V 

permit solely because they are subject to a NSPS or NESHAP regulation. 

As examples of non-major sources subject to pre-1990 NSPS or NESHAP 

requirements, the commenter discussed a source with a small boiler 

burning natural gas (triggering 40 CFR 60, subpart Dc) or a laboratory 

licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and using radio nuclides 

for tracing studies (triggering 40 CFR 61, subpart I). The commenter 

stated that these regulations contain existing monitoring requirements 

which are sufficient to assess compliance with the applicable emissions 

limitations or standards and requested that EPA establish that all 

non-major sources are exempt from CAM requirements.

Response: The final rule clearly states that the requirements of part 64 apply to a 

pollutant-specific emissions unit at a major source that is required to 

obtain a part 70 or 71 permit. No additional rule language is required. 

Letter(s): Association of Battery Recyclers (VI-D-155); Ohio Chamber of 

Commerce, et al (VI-D-160); Pharmaceutical Research and 

Manufacturers of America (VI-D-217) 

Comment b: Several commenters argued that the final rule should have a simple, 

bright-line exemption based on potential to emit or actual emissions. 

Two commenters stated that EPA could build on the current January 1995 

PTE guidance and exempt units with actual emissions less than 50 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 84 

percent of the major source threshold. Other commenters noted that 

such an approach could be used or, alternatively, EPA could exempt units 

with PTE (considering controls) less than the major source threshold (or 

some percentage of the major source threshold) which would simplify the 

rule and assure that environmentally insignificant units are not subject to 

CAM. 

Response: As noted above, the Agency disagrees that the proposed revisions would 

either significantly simplify the applicability determination or appropriately 

target significant emissions units with control devices. (See also 

responses to comments in section 2.1.2 (Part III).)

Letter(s): American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); Electronic 

Industries Association (VI-D-137); General Electric Company (VI-D-156); 

National Environmental Development Association (VI-D-169); The Society 

of the Plastics Industry, Inc. (VI-D-148) 

Comment c: A commenter argued that CAM should not apply to pollutants for which 

the source is not major. For instance, the commenter pointed out that a 

source may be required to obtain a title V permit because it is major for 

HAPs. The commenter stated that although CAM would not apply to the 

HAPs if they were not subject to an emission limit, the source may have 

VOC emissions with emission limits. The commenter concluded that 

CAM should not apply if the VOC emissions are below the major source 

threshold. 

Response: The 1993 proposed rule contained this type of limitation. However, as 

explained above, EPA believes that the focus of the rule on the maximum 

capacity to emit of units without considering the effectiveness of a control 

device is an appropriate screening tool to determine which units should be 

monitored under part 64. This reasoning applies whether or not the 

source is “major” considering such controls for each pollutant it emits. In 

addition, as some commenters pointed out in response to the proposed 

rule, the Agency typically does not focus on only the major pollutants even 

where applicability of a program is focused solely on whether a source is a 

major source. For example, under the PSD program, if a new source is 

“major” for one pollutant, it must obtain a PSD permit requiring use of 

control equipment not only for that pollutant but all other pollutants that it 

would emit in amounts that are greater than de minimis levels. Finally, 

EPA believes it would be irrational to continue to focus solely on the 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 85 

pollutants for which a source is major when the Agency is focusing on 

units that have installed control devices. For instance, a source could be 

"major" for NOx with no NOx control devices (and even no NOx

requirements in an attainment area) but have a unit with the potential to 

emit 20 tons of particulate matter after considering the effectiveness of a 

control device that has a rated removal efficiency of 99.9 percent. The 

potential to emit from this particular emission unit for particulate matter 

would be less than the major source threshold of 100 tons/year; however, 

the maximum capacity to emit particulate matter without considering the 

control device would be 20,000 tons/year, which is far greater than the 

100 tons/year major source threshold. Small decreases in efficiency of 

that control device could lead to actual emission increases significantly 

above the applicable emission limitations or standard and the major 

source threshold. Thus, while the source in this example may not have 

the potential to emit particulate matter (taking into account the control 

device) in amounts sufficient for the source to be classified as a major 

source for particulate matter, the pollutant-specific emissions unit for 

particulate matter, not for NOx, in this example is clearly one which the 

Agency believes should be subject to part 64. 

Letter(s): American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157) 

 

2.3.4.2: Exemption for SIP Rules

Comment a: A number of commenters argued that EPA should exempt various SIP 

rules from part 64. One commenter stated generally that EPA should 

exempt from part 64 all pollutant-specific emissions units currently subject 

to monitoring required by a federal rule or a state rule approved as part of 

a SIP since existing monitoring required for these units should satisfy 

CAM. Several commenters argued specifically that SIP rules approved 

after 1990 should be exempted since EPA has oversight for the SIP 

process and these requirements should reflect EPA's monitoring 

philosophy. The commenters stated that the reasons for exempting 

federal limitations or standards proposed after November 15, 1990 apply 

to these rules as well. The commenters added that if EPA identifies 

negative impacts on SIP emission reduction credits because a post 1990 

SIP rule has been exempted, then the permitting authority should be 

allowed to conduct a CAM review of that particular rule in support of 

reduction credits. Another commenter specified that SIP provisions 

applicable to sources in attainment areas should be exempt from CAM 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 86 

because in attainment areas, State regulatory programs are already 

meeting air quality goals. 

Response: The Agency agrees that monitoring in many SIP rules, including some 

post-1990 SIP rules, can be used to satisfy part 64 requirements and 

acknowledges that such requirements may be used to satisfy the 

documentation requirements of the rule. On the other hand, the Agency 

does not agree that all existing monitoring requirements, whether 

prepared before or after 1990, completely satisfy the part 64 criteria and 

believes that a review of such requirements on a case-by-case basis is 

appropriate. While certainly subject to some EPA oversight, State 

implementation plans and other rules developed outside the MACT and 

NSPS programs have not been governed by monitoring criteria of the type 

described in the CAM rule. 

Letter(s): Coastal Corporation (VI-D-123); Eli Lilly Company (VI-D-124); General 

Electric Company (VI-D-156); Kennecott Corporation (VI-D-119); Ohio 

Chamber of Commerce, et al (VI-D-160); Pharmaceutical Research and 

Manufacturers of America (VI-D-217); Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Committee (VI-D-189); Texas Title V Planning Committee 

(VI-D-188); Utility Air Regulatory Group (VI-D-140); Virginia Power 

(VI-D-226) 

2.3.4.3: Exemption for NSR Sources

Comment a: Two commenters requested that EPA exempt state minor NSR sources 

from CAM or provide flexible options to assure NSR monitoring provides 

for a reasonable assurance of compliance. They argued that state minor 

NSR programs already include appropriate requirements for monitoring to 

assure compliance and that if necessary, flexible options like a 

programmatic approach or guidance documents could provide a 

reasonable assurance of compliance. Another commenter added that 

the proposed revisions to part 70 recognize that state minor NSR permit 

terms are less environmentally significant and therefore CAM should not 

apply. One commenter suggested revising the definition of emission 

limitation or standard to specifically exclude minor NSR requirements and 

stated that EPA may not have the legal authority to include CAM for minor 

NSR requirements. A commenter explained that the statutory 

authorization for compliance monitoring covers title V major source 

operating permits and not NSR or minor sources and proposed adding an 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 87 

exemption for emission limitations developed under state minor NSR 

programs. A commenter who also supported exemption of minor NSR 

requested clarification on applicability for synthetic minors. Several 

commenters stated that at a minimum, EPA should exempt post 

November 15, 1990 minor NSR requirements. 

A number of commenters asked that EPA clarify that the major NSR 

program (Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Non-attainment 

permits) satisfies CAM. One commenter reasoned that since EPA has 

oversight authority for the major NSR program and has already reviewed 

all permits under this program, these permits should reflect EPA's 

monitoring philosophy. Other commenters argued that an exemption 

should at least apply to major NSR permits approved after November 15, 

1990. 

One commenter stated that any source that has been through new source 

review in the last ten years should be exempt. 

Response: As noted above, the Agency does not believe that all existing monitoring 

requirements meet part 64 criteria including those developed under major 

NSR, minor NSR, or other programs. That any such permit provision was 

completed after November 1990 does not insure that monitoring sufficient 

to conform with part 64 was applied. The guidelines for determining 

appropriate monitoring to be applied in reviewing such rules has not 

included the level of detail specified in the CAM rule nor, until recently, for 

periodic monitoring as outlined for part 70. To the extent that emissions 

units at major sources are subject to title V permitting requirements, the 

Agency believes it is appropriate to require a review and, if necessary, 

improvement of existing monitoring to comply with part 64 requirements 

rather than a broad, poorly supported exemption. 

Letter(s): American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); Coalition for 

Clean Air Implementation (VI-D-164); Coastal Corporation (VI-D-123); 

Electronic Industries Association (VI-D-137); General Electric Company 

(VI-D-156); Kennecott Corporation (VI-D-119); National Environmental 

Development Association (VI-D-169); NorAm Gas Transmission Company 

(VI-D-142); Ohio Chamber of Commerce, et al (VI-D-160); Pennzoil 

Company (VI-D-133); PPG Industries, Inc. (VI-D-136); Texas Natural 

Resource Conservation Committee (VI-D-189); The Society of the Plastics 

Industry, Inc. (VI-D-148); Utility Air Regulatory Group (VI-D-140); Virginia 

Power (VI-D-226) 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 88 

2.3.4.4 Exemptions for Insignificant Activities

Comment a: Commenters argued that at a minimum, EPA should exclude from CAM 

insignificant or trivial sources. One commenter stated generally that units 

on a state's insignificant activities list should be exempt. Another 

commenter suggested that a 10 ton per year cutoff would be consistent 

with the "small source" exclusion concept of White Paper I. A few 

commenters noted that the costs associated with monitoring insignificant 

or trivial sources far outweigh any benefits. Two of the commenters also 

stated that the need for this exemption appears especially necessary 

because § 64.9(c)(2)(iii) of the 1996 part 64 Draft appeared to require a 

second determination that monitoring of insignificant activities is not 

necessary even after the permitting authority has already identified certain 

classes of activities to be insignificant. A commenter specified that the 

language stating that "for less significant emission units, no monitoring 

may be necessary" is not sufficient. In particular, the commenter 

recommended exempting non-major equipment and non-major portable 

equipment, including small ICEs. Other commenters noted that EPA 

should clarify what is intended and specifically exempt insignificant 

sources that are exempt under applicable title V programs so they are not 

brought back into title V. 

A few commenters requested that insignificant activities (as defined in 

state part 70 permit programs) should be expressly exempted from the 

CAM rule rather than providing states with the authority to impose CAM 

requirements on these activities. They argued that EPA's July 10, 1995 

White Paper on Streamlined Development of part 70 Permit Applications 

indicated that EPA did not intend insignificant activities to be subject to the 

full range of part 70 permit requirements, including the associated CAM 

requirements. Another commenter cited a similar statement in Section 

II.C.2.(d) of the March 5, 1996 White Paper Number 2. 

Response: As noted above, EPA disagrees with the concept of using actual 

emissions as the overall basis for part 64 applicability. To the extent that 

major sources are required to obtain title V permits, the Agency believes 

that pollutant-specific emission units with control devices at such major 

sources and which fall above the size cut-off specified in the rule should 

be subject to monitoring in order to verify compliance with applicable 

emission limitations or standards. Because the types of emissions units 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 89 

to which commenters refer are unlikely to meet the control device 

applicability criterion of the final rule, the Agency feels even more strongly 

that the final rule will not subject small units to inappropriate monitoring. 

Letter(s): American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); Association 

of Battery Recyclers (VI-D-155); California Association of Sanitation 

Agencies (VI-D-206); Chemical Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); 

County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (VI-D-232); Electronic 

Industries Association (VI-D37); Eli Lilly Company (VI-D-124); General 

Electric Company (VI-D-156); Ohio Chamber of Commerce, et al 

(VI-D-160); Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America 

(VI-D-217); Southern Company Services (VI-D-171); The Society of the 

Plastics Industry, Inc. (VI-D-148); Tri-TAC (VI-D-225) 

2.3.4.5: SBA Proposal

Comment a: One commenter proposed that states be permitted to approve the 

emissions estimate methodology and recordkeeping of sources with 

actual emissions of 50-90 percent of the major source threshold so that 

such sources could be permanently exempted from CAM. The 

commenter noted that this would allow states to conserve resources. 

Another commenter expressed its support for such an exemption. 

Response: See responses to comments in section 2.1.2 and 2.3.4.4 (Part III). 

Letter(s): The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. (VI-D-148); US Small Business 

Administration (VI-D-239) 

2.3.4.6 Miscellaneous Requests for Exemption

Comment a: Many commenters argued that EPA should exempt other specific 

categories of applicable requirements that do not need CAM. One 

commenter recommended exempting applicable requirements derived 

from the accidental release provisions of section 112(r) of the Clean Air 

Act, requirements applicable to equipment that is permitted for operations 

less than 500 hours per year, and State exemption and registration 

requirements. Other commenters also supported exempting state 

exemption and registration requirements and two commenters suggested 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 90 

that the definition of emission limitation or standard specifically exclude 

these types of requirements. 

A few commenters argued that EPA should establish that emissions units 

covered by post-November 15, 1990 MACT, RACT, and CTG regulations 

are exempt from CAM because these regulations clearly contain 

continuous compliance requirements. They stated that the CAM 

rulemaking should not be used to "fix" monitoring shortcomings in existing 

regulations such as MACT, RACT, and CTG regulations or to impose 

duplicative and unnecessary additional monitoring requirements on 

sources subject to these rules. 

Two commenters argued that all NESHAP and NSPS requirements 

should be exempt unless EPA specifically determines that the existing 

monitoring in such standards is deficient. They recommended that where 

deficiencies are found, EPA should amend the underlying standard. 

Other commenters specified exempting specific subparts such as part 60 

subpart MM, and the requirements for phosphogypsum stacks under part 

61, subpart R (incorporated comments on this issue made in response to 

the EM proposal. 

One commenter argued that EPA should treat post-1990 compliance 

monitoring and certification SIP guidance and reasonably related 

parameter monitoring as equivalent to federal rules proposed after 1990. 

The commenter as particularly concerned with recent Capture Efficiency 

resolutions. 

Response: The Agency disagrees that post-November 15, 1990 RACT and CTG 

regulations should be exempt from CAM because these regulations do not 

necessarily contain continuous compliance monitoring requirements. 

The same applies to pre-November 1990 NSPS and NESHAP rules. 

Letter(s): American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); Can 

Manufacturers Institute (VI-D-181); Chemical Manufacturers Association 

(VI-D-152); Electronic Industries Association (VI-D-137); General Electric 

Company (VI-D-156); Ohio Chamber of Commerce, et al (VI-D-160); 

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (VI-D-217); The 

Fertilizer Institute (VI-D-145) 

Comment b: A state agency suggested that major units that can meet CAM data 

collection requirements with ordinary records of process hours of 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 91 

operation or other operational data should be exempt from CAM 

monitoring requirements. 

One commenter argued that generic state requirements, such as generic 

process weight or opacity standards should be exempt. The commenter 

was particularly concerned about generic opacity standards because 

EPA's draft rule and preamble suggest that opacity should be considered 

a surrogate for PM-10 in all cases and because it is unclear how a source 

could be a major source for opacity when there is no major source 

threshold for opacity. Thus, according to this commenter, the rule should 

at least provide that a generic opacity SIP limit should not be subject to 

CAM. The commenter added that this exemption is warranted in 

particular because such limits are focused on avoiding nuisances, not 

assuring attainment of the NAAQS. 

One commenter recommended exempting requirements in title V general 

permits which EPA already should have reviewed to determine CAM 

acceptability. 

A commenter argued that State-only requirements that are not rule driven 

(such as requirements to conduct testing for emission inventory purposes) 

should be explicitly exempt. 

Commenters urged EPA to exempt certain types of emission limitations or 

standards. A commenter stated that standards that consist solely of 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements should be exempt from CAM. 

Another commenter argued that non-numeric applicable requirements, 

such as work practice standards, should be exempt. Another commenter 

agreed on the grounds that no form of monitoring is practical for 

standards such as rules covering asbestos management and removal, 

petroleum sources, fugitive dust, and degreasing operations. Finally, a 

commenter argued that nothing is gained by applying CAM to design 

requirements or inspection schedules that are already enforceable as part 

of the standard and that case-by-case determination that CAM is not 

necessary should not be required. 

A commenter supported exemptions for fugitive VOC LDAR programs, 

cases where regulations specifically exempt certain control devices from 

monitoring (such as boilers and process heaters of greater than 44 MW or 

situations where a vent stream is introduced as primary fuel), and units 

permitted for emission of 1 ton per year or less. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 92 

One commenter recommended that EPA clarify that the risk management 

plan is not subject to CAM requirements because it is not an emission 

standard. 

Response: The final CAM rule specifically applies to pollutant-specific emission units 

that use control devices to achieve the applicable emission limitation or 

standard. The types of emission limits described by the commenters are 

unlikely to be associated with emissions units affected by the rule. If 

units with control devices are subject to such limits, then the form of the 

emission limit is immaterial to the purpose of part 64 which is to provide a 

reasonable assurance of compliance by documenting that the control 

device is operated and maintained properly. 

Letter(s): ASARCO Incorporated (VI-D-187); Eli Lilly Company (VI-D-124); Exxon 

Chemical Americas (VI-D-128); General Electric Company (VI-D-156); 

Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association (VI-D-184); National 

Environmental Development Association (VI-D-169); State of Tennessee 

Department of Environment and Conservation (VI-D-234); Texas 

Chemical Council (VI-D-236) 

Comment c: A local permitting authority argued that established emission factors 

should be exempt from CAM. The commenter specified emission factors 

used for emissions determinations, such as those from AP-42 and added 

that the exemption should include coating materials containing VOC 

compounds whose content is specified by the manufacturer. According 

to the commenter, this exemption is appropriate because the applicable 

rule will establish appropriate initial compliance testing methods, and 

MSDS or equivalent manufacturer information should ensure continued 

compliance with emission standards. 

Response: See response to Comment c in section 2.3.2.2 (Part III). 

Letter(s): South Coast Air Quality Management District (VI-D-233) 

Comment d: One commenter stated that CAM should not apply to emissions units in 

remote locations with little or no residential population. The commenter 

was particularly concerned with emissions units at oil and gas production 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 93 

facilities which are remote according to documentation submitted to the 

permitting authority. 

Response: The Agency believes monitoring decisions should be made on the same 

basis and should be focused on determining compliance with applicable 

emission limitations or standards. If the commenter is concerned with the 

stringency of a particular emission standard, that concern should be 

raised in regard to the standard and not as grounds for making exceptions 

to general monitoring requirements. 

Letter(s): Texaco Environment Health and Safety (VI-D-199) 

Comment e: A commenter recommended exempting capture equipment used to vent 

emissions from a source to a control device used to control nuisance air 

pollutants, such as hydrogen sulfide, that are not regulated under part 64. 

 The commenter explained that odor control devices do not remove 

federally regulated criteria or hazardous air pollutants. 

Response: The Agency disagrees that capture systems be exempt from monitoring 

under the CAM rule if there is an applicable emission limitation or 

standard to control a regulated air pollutant. If a pollutant is subject to a 

state-only requirement related to odor or nuisance concerns, that 

state-only requirement is not an "emission limitation or standard" as 

defined in part 64. 

Letter(s): County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California (VI-D-231) 

Comment f: A few commenters argued that research and development (R&D) facilities 

and operations should be included in the list of exemptions in the rule. 

One commenter stated that applying CAM to these facilities would be very 

difficult because of frequent operational changes and would provide little 

benefit due to the generally low, variable level of emissions at these units. 

Pharmaceutical industry commenters explained that they depend on 

research and development to support existing products and to produce 

new and better pharmaceuticals. They argued that R&D facilities are 

inherently low-emitters and account for only a small fraction of the 

regulated air pollutants emitted by the pharmaceutical industry and that, 

therefore, the resulting costs, administrative burdens, and delays for R&D 

facilities to comply with CAM would not be justified. One of the 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 94 

commenters concluded that subjecting R&D facilities to CAM would result 

in adverse economic impact on the pharmaceutical industry and the U.S. 

economy. 

Response: The Agency believes that the commenters concerns about research and 

development facilities being adversely affected by the CAM rule are 

generally unjustified. For such a facility to be subject to the CAM rule, 

the facility must be a major source and subject to an applicable emission 

limit, the precontrol potential to emit for the unit in question at the facility 

must be greater than the major source threshold, and the emissions must 

be routed to a control device required to reduce emissions to comply with 

an applicable emission limitation or standard. The Agency believes that 

few, if any, such situations will exist for research and development 

facilities. If such situations do exist, the Agency believes that monitoring 

of the control device as defined by the CAM rule would be appropriate. 

Letter(s): Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (VI-D-204); General Electric Company 

(VI-D-156); Merck & Co., Inc. (VI-D-212); National Environmental 

Development Association (VI-D-169); NYCOMED, Inc. (VI-D-216); Ohio 

Chamber of Commerce, et al (VI-D-160); Pfizer, Inc. (VI-D-218); 

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (VI-D-217); 

Wyeth Ayerst (VI-D-213) 

Comment g: One commenter stated that EPA should exempt boilers from CAM so that 

it does not duplicate the effort currently being undertaken to develop the 

boiler MACT rule by the year 2000. This commenter suggested that if 

CAM is to cover boilers good and consistent maintenance practices 

should be used to document and certify compliance for wood-fired boilers 

instead of "indicator ranges" and argued that this approach would be 

consistent with the subpart C approach for units without existing 

monitoring. According to the commenter, the available parameters for 

wood-fired boilers vary so much that any indicator range will be so broad 

as to be meaningless. 

Response: The Agency believes that the commenters concerns about the 

applicability of the CAM rule are unfounded on two points. First, as noted 

above, the Agency disagrees that implementation of part 64, if applicable, 

or other existing monitoring requirements (e.g., part 70) should be delayed 

until new regulations apply. Owners of emissions units with existing 

emissions limitations or standards are subject to compliance certification 

requirements for those limitations or standards. Second, the CAM rule 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 95 

applies to pollutant-specific emission units that use control devices to 

comply with applicable limitations. Part 64 is intended to define minimum 

monitoring requirements for evaluating the operation of the control device. 

 The variability of the operational parameters of a wood-fired boiler would 

be secondary to monitoring of the control device. 

Letter(s): American Furniture Manufacturers Association (VI-D-203) 

Comment h: A commenter argued that EPA should exempt natural gas-fueled engines 

below a certain size or allow such engines to meet less strenuous 

requirements to satisfy CAM. The commenter proposed that an 

exemption for engines under 50 hp, if subpart B applicability provisions 

are not modified to reflect a source's actual yearly operating hours, would 

be appropriate because there are many such engines which operate only 

seasonally, such engines are not a significant source of air pollutants, and 

CAM already provides a similar exemption for municipal electrical utilities. 

 In the alternative, the commenter provided a list of reduced requirements 

which such engines would have to meet to satisfy CAM. 

Response: As noted earlier, part 64 applicability requires the use of a control device 

which the particular units described by the commenter are unlikely to 

have. It is unlikely that part 64 would apply to such units; however, part 

70 monitoring requirements apply, as necessary. 

Letter(s): LaClede Gas Company (VI-D-198) 

Section 2.4: Miscellaneous Applicability Issues

Comment a: A commenter requested that EPA confirm that the applicability provisions 

of the rule, including exemptions, are self-implementing. This commenter 

noted that sources should not have to identify, in a CAM plan or permit 

application, pollutant-specific emissions units to which CAM does not 

apply since the discussion accompanying the 1996 part 64 Draft 

recognized that unit by unit negative declarations could be highly 

burdensome. 

Response: The Agency agrees and part 64 does not require that owners or operators 

justify in a permit application why part 64 is not applicable or that owners 

or operators apply for exemptions. However, the Agency notes that the 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 96 

permitting authority can request further explanation as to how a source 

owner or operator determined that part 64 did or did not apply for any 

pollutant-specific emissions unit for which there may be an issue about 

applicability. In addition, an owner or operator that wishes to take 

advantage of the exemption for certain municipally-owned utility units will 

have to provide the documentation required to satisfy that exemption. 

Letter(s): Chemical Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); National Environmental 

Development Association (VI-D-169) 

Comment b: One commenter recommended that the rule list which requirements are 

specifically included, rather than requirements that are specifically 

excluded, in order to narrow applicability to truly significant concerns. 

The commenter stated that as drafted the rule will require millions of case 

by case determinations of appropriate monitoring for title V facilities. 

Although the commenter argued that a programmatic approach would be 

the most appropriate approach, the commenter suggested narrowing the 

rule in this way as an alternative. Other commenters stated that this 

approach would clarify certain concerns such as whether hydrogen sulfide 

is exempt. These commenters stated that this pollutant should not be 

covered, because it is not a federal regulated pollutant under title III or 

section 112(r). 

Response: The Agency believes that the applicability requirements in part 64 

adequately narrow the domain of pollutant-specific emission units so as to 

avoid over burdening source owners and permitting authorities with 

applicability determinations. The Agency also disagrees with the 

commenters on the universe of units potentially subject to part 64. As 

noted earlier, the Agency estimates that about 27,000 pollutant-specific 

emission units will be incrementally affected by part 64, not the millions 

that the commenter suggests. With respect to pollutants that are not 

federally regulated air pollutants, the rule does not apply to State-only 

requirements, but rather only to emission limitations or standards that 

qualify as applicable requirements, as defined by part 70. 

Letter(s): California Association of Sanitation Agencies (VI-D-206); County 

Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California (VI-D-231); General 

Electric Company (VI-D-156); Tri-TAC (VI-D-225) 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 97 

Comment c: Two commenters argued that the rule should allow for States to 

implement the exemption provisions by rule. One commenter stated 

generally that permitting authorities should be able to use the SIP process 

to classify other applicable requirements or units as exempt. Another 

commenter expressed concern that, as drafted, the rule only allowed 

states to exempt certain rules from CAM through case by case decision 

making, which would waste resources relative to achieving the same 

result through a general rule. The commenter added that states should 

have the ability to revise existing SIP rules to achieve the same result. 

Response: The Agency does not agree that states that choose to use a programmatic 

approach to determining monitoring requirements should be allowed to 

apply exemption criteria different than apply generally in part 64. As 

noted above, the monitoring criteria defined in part 64 are intended as 

basic to a program of monitoring to ascertain and certify compliance with 

applicable emission limitations and standards. Allowing states to apply 

additional exemptions beyond those in part 64 would result in unequal and 

insufficient application of monitoring. 

Letter(s): Electronic Industries Association (VI-D-137); General Electric Company 

(VI-D-156) 

Comment d: One commenter agreed with distinguishing between control device units 

and uncontrolled units but believed that the subpart C requirements must 

be narrowed to make the distinction work as intended. The commenter 

suggested that the subpart C requirements should be focused on existing 

monitoring or recordkeeping if no existing monitoring exists. 

Response: Subpart C has been deleted from the final rule and no further response is 

necessary. 

Letter(s): Rubber Manufacturers Association (VI-D-149) 

Comment e: A commenter recommended that CAM not apply to fugitive emission 

points unless the state determines that emissions are significant. For 

instance, the commenter pointed out that many sources in the plastics 

industry may be subject to VOC RACT requirements that require an 

overall percent reduction for the entire facility and that monitoring each 

individual fugitive emission point to assure compliance with this 

requirement would be extraordinarily difficult and burdensome. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 98 

Response: The CAM rule applies to pollutant-specific emissions units with control 

devices. To the extent that fugitive emissions are routed to a control 

device in order to comply with an applicable emission limitation or 

standard, part 64 may or may not apply. 

Letter(s): The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. (VI-D-148) 

Comment f: One commenter argued that given the wide use of flares as a control 

device, EPA should specifically address CAM for flares. The commenter 

stated that flares cannot truly be monitored but seem to fit into the 

definition of a control device and suggested that EPA exclude flares from 

subpart B applicability. 

Response: The Agency agrees that for certain types of existing monitoring, the 

justification required by part 64 can presumptively rely on that monitoring 

because the Agency has already determined that type of monitoring to be 

"enhanced." This includes monitoring requirements for flares established 

in 40 CFR 60.18 (see § 64.4(b)(5) and Section II.D. of the preamble to the 

final rule). 

Letter(s): The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. (VI-D-148) 

Comment g: A commenter stated generally that the rule should concentrate on 

technical feasibility and reasonable cost to generate standards used to 

make applicability determinations. 

Response: The Agency disagrees that monitoring feasibility or cost should be 

considered in determining whether a specific pollutant-specific emissions 

unit should be subject to the rule. 

Letter(s): Wisconsin Electric Power Company (VI-D-130) 

Comment h: One commenter stated that the types of data that satisfy part 70 for permit 

applications should be sufficient for CAM. For example, the commenter 

reasoned that unnecessary regulatory burdens would be minimized by 

providing that detailed emissions information is not needed except where 

emissions are near a critical threshold level. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 99 

Response: The Agency agrees that the level of information about emissions from an 

emissions unit provided pursuant to § 70.5(c) should be sufficient to 

assess whether an owner or operator has properly proposed part 64 

monitoring for all pollutant-specific emissions unit subject to part 64. In 

accordance with part 70, owners or operators must submit information on 

both emissions and control equipment on an emissions unit basis. If 

there is a concern about a particular pollutant-specific emissions unit for 

which an owner or operator indicates in an application that part 64 is not 

applicable, the permitting authority retains the authority under part 70 to 

request additional information. 

Letter(s): Dow Chemical Company (VI-D-120) 

Comment i: A commenter argued that the process of determining CAM plan 

applicability will burden the title V permit application and approval process. 

 The commenter noted that applicants must: (1) divide a facility into 

"emissions units" based on the vague § 70.2 definition which could be as 

problematic as the proper definition of "source" has been in the past; (2) 

consider each applicable requirement for each emissions unit on a 

pollutant-by-pollutant basis (the commenter noted that Dow Chemical Co. 

has stated that one site contains 14,000 unit/requirement/pollutant 

combinations to consider); (3) consider whether each combination is 

subject to subpart B or C, based on the potentially difficult calculation of 

"uncontrolled emissions." The commenter added that permitting 

authorities will then have to review the applicability determinations in each 

permit application and stated that applicability determinations will 

therefore consume the resources of all parties involved in the permitting 

process. 

Response: The Agency disagrees that the CAM rule requires significantly more 

applicability determinations than already required under part 70. For 

example, the monitoring requirements under part 70 require identification 

of emissions units and associated applicable requirements. 

Letter(s): Texas Title V Planning Committee (VI-D-188) 

Comment j: Some commenters requested clarification of how the rule would apply to 

certain devices or equipment. One commenter was concerned with 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 100 

applicability for internal combustion engines. The commenter stated that 

the applicability section is vague and ambiguous but that it appears that 

sources must be subject to an emission limitation or standard that is an 

applicable requirement as defined in part 70. Therefore, the commenter 

concluded that for IC engines, there must be an applicable SIP limit that 

applies since IC engines are not covered by federal rules. Another 

commenter questioned how low NOx heaters would be treated by the rule 

and whether they would be subject to subpart B or C. 

Response: The final rule explicitly limits applicability to emission limitations or 

standards that are applicable requirements under part 70. The 

commenter is correct that a SIP limitation is an applicable requirement as 

defined by part 70. As to whether part 64 would then apply depends on 

whether the subject emissions unit (e.g., an IC engine) uses a control 

device to achieve that emission limit. Low NOx burner technology and 

certain other types of combustion control measures are not included in the 

definition of "control device" in the final rule. 

Letter(s): Engine Manufacturers Association (VI-D-117); National Environmental 

Development Association (VI-D-169) 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 101 

Section 3: Implementation

Section 3.1: Timing of Implementation

3.1.1: Requiring Permit Reopenings or Revisions

Comment a: Many state and industry commenters argued that CAM plans should be 

incorporated into Title V operating permits only at the time of permit 

issuance or permit renewal (i.e., EPA should not require permit 

reopenings or revisions to add CAM). State commenters asked that 

states be given discretion on the issue of reopening permits, and noted 

that states are permitted to use such discretion when sources add new 

units. One state requested permits only be reopened for those units 

whose actual emissions exceed the major source thresholds. An 

association of state and local authorities agreed that CAM plans will be 

applicable requirements and are therefore subject to inclusion in Title V 

permits, but asked that EPA clarify that the effectiveness of CAM plans is 

not dependent on those plans being incorporated into permits 

immediately. 

Several state commenters stated that CAM plans should not be 

incorporated into complete permit applications or permits issued prior to 

CAM's effective date until permit renewal (or if a modification is requested) 

after the CAM effective date. One of the commenters specified that CAM 

and/or monitoring plans should be submitted within one year prior to 

permit renewal, or if a permit modification is requested. Another added 

that the implementation of CAM will require the use of substantial 

resources, and the rule should therefore provide state and local agencies 

with maximum flexibility to adjust their workloads and implementation 

schedule to best make use of available resources. One agency argued 

that because applicable EPA guidance may not be developed in a timely 

fashion, EPA should not press for the reopening of permits for the sole 

purpose of adding CAM requirements or revising those that do not 

conform to the developing guidance during the three year initial 

implementation of Title V. The commenter suggested that CAM 

requirements that conform to the guidance should be included in the first 

renewal of the Title V permit. 

Industry commenters also asserted that if the CAM rule has not been 

promulgated prior to a source's permit application due date, CAM should 

not be incorporated into the permit until the time of permit renewal. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 102 

Commenters supported their argument by pointing to the expense that 

would be associated the reopening permits, delays in the permit revision 

process resulting from incorporation of CAM at the time of permit revision 

and harm to sources that need to make changes quickly to respond to 

marketplace conditions. 

Another commenter cited the desire to avoid permit opening and public 

hearing during the first five year permit cycle as the basis for exempting 

sources whose permit application has already been submitted when the 

final rule is promulgated. Another commenter agreed that CAM 

implementation should be delayed until permit renewal so that pending 

permit applications do not have to be revised, and recommended further 

that § 64.3(a)(1)(i)(C) should be deleted. 

A commenter supported the timing options for Subpart C implementation 

presented in the 8/2/96 CAM preamble as minimizing the need to reopen 

permits, especially during the initial issuance. 

Response: In the majority of instances, the Agency agrees that part 64 should not 

apply before the permit renewal process is initiated and has provided rule 

language to that effect. However, in cases where permit applications 

which include large pollutant-specific emissions units -- defined as 

pollutant-specific emissions units with the potential to emit a regulated air 

pollutant in an amount equal to or greater than 100 percent of the amount 

required for a source to be classified as a major source -- have not yet 

been submitted to or been determined complete by permitting authorities, 

owners or operators will be required to address part 64. In addition, 

where a significant permit revision affects a large pollutant-specific 

emissions unit, the owner or operator will be required to address part 64 

requirements for that specific large pollutant-specific emissions unit. 

Some commenters suggested that the rule establish a date, i.e., one year 

before permit renewal, for submission of CAM plans. The Agency does 

not believe such a schedule is necessary because the part 70 process 

requires permit renewal applications -- which will address part 64 

requirements -- to be submitted between six and eighteen months prior to 

permit term’s expiration date. 

Letter(s): American Petroleum Institute (VI-D-146); Arizona Electric Power 

Cooperative, Inc. (VI-D-176); Missouri Department of Natural Resources 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 103 

(VI-D-260); National Environmental Development Association (VI-D-169); 

Occidental Chemical Corporation (VI-D-166); Ohio EPA, Division of Air 

Pollution Control (VI-D-180); Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

Protection (VI-D-174); Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of 

America (VI-D-217); STAPPA/ALAPCO (VI-D-179); State of Illinois EPA 

(VI-D-183); State of Tennessee Department of Environment and 

Conservation (VI-D-234); South Carolina Electric and Gas Company 

(VI-D-116); Wellman, Inc. (VI-D-237) 

Comment b: Some commenters stated that if implementation is to occur prior to permit 

renewal, EPA must avoid implementing CAM through permit revisions that 

would frustrate the effort to streamline permit revisions for less significant 

changes at a facility. Commenters noted that EPA has expended 

considerable effort under part 70 to develop streamlined permit revision 

procedures (i.e. the "notice and go" procedures) which would be frustrated 

if a source had to propose CAM for any permit revision. A commenter 

recommended that the rule only require submittal of a CAM plan with a 

source-initiated significant permit modification. Another commenter 

recommended requiring sources to submit CAM information upon "any 

physical modification," instead of "any modification." The commenter 

stated that this would limit the extent of CAM submittal to those processes 

being physically altered, and would not require new CAM for such 

changes as an increase in flow at a POTW. 

Response: As mentioned above, the Agency agrees that CAM implementation need 

only occur before permit renewal for those large pollutant-specific 

emissions units involved with significant permit revision applications. This 

approach will not interfere with streamlined permit revision procedures 

(such as "notice and go" procedures) that may exist following revisions to 

part 70 being considered by EPA. 

Letter(s): County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (VI-D-232); Electronic 

Industries Association (VI-D-137); General Electric Company (VI-D-156); 

R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company (VI-D-221) 

3.1.2: Time Needed for Implementation 

Comment a: Many commenters argued that CAM should only be implemented (or at 

least incorporated into permits) at permit renewal because this approach 

is the only way to achieve accurate CAM plans and avoid overwhelming 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 104 

the Title V process. Two of the commenters stated that substantial 

delays in the Title V permitting program would result from the 

implementation schedule in the 1996 draft part 64, which would conflict 

with section 502(b)(6) which calls for a streamlined and expeditious permit 

application and review process. Other commenters added that it is 

necessary to allow time for permitting authorities to make the necessary 

changes to their part 70 programs and to adopt CAM. The commenters 

stated that the need for changes to the Part 70 programs is even greater 

because EPA has not provided guidance on how CAM plans within an 

operating permit should be modified, and current procedures are 

inadequate. 

Commenters who supported a longer implementation schedule stated that 

most significant sources already have some existing monitoring that will 

apply in the interim and that § 64.3(a)(1)(ii)(C) should be deleted. Other 

commenters added that the current compliance-related provisions of Title 

V will still apply in the interim. A state permitting authority supported 

initial implementation of CAM requirements, including the development of 

CAM plans, through EPA authority and authority delegated to permitting 

authorities to be followed by later incorporation of CAM requirements into 

operating permits at permit renewal. The commenter explained that such 

an approach would prevent pressure to issue permits prior to CAM 

promulgation and the need to reopen permits to incorporate CAM. 

Other commenters stated that delayed implementation until permit 

renewal would ensure that all sources get treated equally by implementing 

CAM on the same general schedule. One of these commenters argued 

that the problems of implementation 180 days after rule promulgation for 

those sources without permits or completed permit applications are 

compounded by varying state schedules and requirements relating to Title 

V permit applications. For example, the commenter pointed out that in 

Texas Title V permits are unlikely to be issued prior to the CAM 

promulgation date which disadvantages sources located there by forcing 

them to develop CAM plans in the 180 days after rule promulgation. 

Another commenter with similar concerns added that in some states, 

under the current implementation schedule, sources would have to submit 

CAM plans at the end of the application review process after permitting 

authorities have already developed draft permits. 

A commenter supported the changes the implementation provisions in the 

1996 draft part 64 under which submittal of the CAM plan can occur as 

late as the first permit renewal, but asked that EPA further lessen the 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 105 

burden by implementing a longer phase-in schedule giving the source 

more time to prepare by installing equipment, establishing ranges, 

improving recordkeeping, etc. Other commenters also supported phasing 

in the CAM program asserting that development of CAM plans during the 

initial Title V permit applications and reopening freshly cemented permits 

is an unwise use of limited resources given the struggles of the agency 

and the regulated community to implement Title V. These commenters 

stated that the process of analyzing proposed CAM plans on a 

case-by-case basis and thousands of exemption petitions would most 

likely require state agencies to hire and train new staff at a time when the 

implementation of Part 70 is already consuming substantial time and 

resources. 

Several commenters argued that CAM establishes a new regulatory 

regime that not only increases stringency of underlying standards, but also 

requires significant preparation by owners and operators in addressing 

parameter ranges and potential corrective measures, and that therefore, 

implementation should not be rushed. The commenters request that CAM 

be made effective at permit renewal to allow a period of time for sources 

to adapt. Another commenter suggested that at a minimum, the effective 

date should be extended from 180 days to a year arguing that the 

additional time will be especially necessary for sources with multiple units. 

 One local agency expressed concern about the burdens of implementing 

CAM through the initial Title V permitting when the details of CAM plans 

have yet to be determined for affected sources. 

A few commenters argued for implementing CAM at only permit renewal 

based on ongoing activity with related regulations. Two commenters 

stated that waiting until renewal would allow additional MACT rules, with 

associated monitoring, to be promulgated which may serve as appropriate 

CAM for other criteria pollutants. Another commenter asserted that EPA 

should wait until permit renewal to allow for conclusion of legal challenges 

to CAM and/or CE prior to expending resources on implementation. 

One commenter particularly opposed requiring CAM plans for small 

municipal utility units which exceed the CAM 50 percent cap but not their 

major source threshold. As an alternative the commenter supported 

allowing the permitting authority to require CAM plans for these units at 

permit renewal. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 106 

Response: While the Agency does not agree that an implementation time longer than 

six months is the sole criterion for developing accurate part 64 monitoring, 

the Agency agrees that a phased-in implementation schedule will provide 

owners and operators with time to ascertain and verify appropriate 

parameters and indicator ranges for most affected pollutant-specific 

emissions units. For large pollutant-specific emissions units, the Agency 

believes an automatic delay until permit renewal is not justified. Such 

units often already have some existing monitoring, and part 64 may only 

require use of that monitoring or upgraded monitoring. In addition, these 

units are the most environmentally significant units and the Agency 

believes that applicability of part 64 to such units should not be delayed 

unless the permitting process for the unit in question has already 

substantially proceeded. Finally, the Agency emphasizes that the part 70 

monitoring requirements apply at all times. Thus, prior to implementing 

part 64 monitoring, an owner or operator will have to satisfy these 

requirements. After approval and operation of part 64 monitoring, the 

part 70 requirements continue to apply, but the part 64 monitoring will 

satisfy these requirements. 

Even though the Agency plans to use a phased-in implementation 

schedule, the Agency disagrees with the comment that delay until permit 

renewal is necessary in order not to penalize those sources located in 

jurisdictions whose permitting authorities may be unlikely to issue permits 

prior to the implementation date. The Agency disagrees with the 

comment that the CAM approval process will become bogged down due 

to case-by-case review of proposed monitoring. Irrespective of the 

implementation date, source owners and operators are in the best position 

to know how their equipment works and what factors have the most 

bearing on proper operation of emissions control devices. Moreover, the 

Agency has established a list of CAM examples in a companion technical 

guidance document. The use of such a list could remove any potential 

case-by-case bottlenecks. The Agency has requested and continues to 

solicit examples to be included in the technical guidance document. The 

Agency also disagrees with the assertion that CAM be delayed until 

conclusion of legal challenges to the credible evidence (CE) rulemaking. 

That rule applies independently of the CAM rulemaking. 

Letter(s): Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (VI-D-186); American Automobile 

Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); American Municipal Power-Ohio 

(VI-D-159); American Electric Power (VI-D-129); Arizona Electric Power 

Cooperative, Inc. (VI-D-176); Armstrong, Teasdale, Schlafly & Davis 

(VI-D-205); Centerior Energy (VI-D-134); Cinergy Corp. (VI-D-141); Clean 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 107 

Air Implementation Project (VI-D-153); Colorado Association of 

Commerce and Industry (VI-D-182); Department of Energy (VI-D-196); 

Electronic Industries Association (VI-D-137); Eli Lilly Company (VI-D-124); 

Exxon Company, USA (VI-D-135); General Electric Company (VI-D-156); 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (VI-D-193); Hawaiian Electric 

Company, Inc. (VI-D-165); Houston Lighting & Power Company 

(VI-D-228); Mobil Corporation (VI-D-115); NorAm Gas Transmission 

Company (VI-D-142); Ohio Chamber of Commerce et al (VI-D-160); 

Phillips Petroleum Company (VI-D-131); PPG Industries, Inc. (VI-D-136); 

Rubber Manufacturers Association (VI-D-149); San Diego County Air 

Pollution Control District (VI-D-191); Specialty Steel Industry of North 

America (VI-D-143); Steel Manufacturers Association (SMA) (VI-D-144); 

Texaco Environment Health & Safety (VI-D-199); UCAR Carbon 

Company, Inc. (VI-D-122); Union Carbide Corporation (VI-D-170) 

Comment b: A state agency organization recommended that CAM should be 

implemented only at permit renewal for Subpart C sources in particular. 

The commenter proposed revisions to § 64.3(a)(2) such that Subpart C 

sources would not be required to comply with CAM requirements until the 

first renewal of their Part 70 permits. The commenter based the need for 

these revisions on the burdens that implementing CAM will place on 

states and the regulated industry. The commenter stated that by 

delaying implementation of CAM for those sources which EPA has 

acknowledged are less "likely to raise compliance concerns", EPA will 

have time to focus on developing sample CAM plans and permitting 

authorities will be able to concentrate their limited resources on proper 

implementation of CAM for Subpart B sources. Other commenters 

agreed that Subpart C should not be implemented until renewal. Another 

commenter suggested that § 64.3(a)(2) clarify that Subpart C 

requirements can be submitted on a source-wide basis and are not as 

onerous as Subpart B requirements. 

Response: As mentioned above, the Agency decided to remove subpart C from the 

CAM rulemaking and thus these comments are no longer applicable. 

Letter (s): Coastal Corporation (VI-D-123); Colorado Association of Commerce and 

Industry (VI-D-182); Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. (VI-D-165); 

NESCAUM (VI-D-192) 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 108 

Comment c: A number of commenters focused specifically on the amount of time that 

should be allocated for sources to implement part 64. Many industry 

commenters stated that EPA should adopt a less ambitious 

implementation schedule than the one outlined in the 1996 draft part 64. 

However, other commenters supported the implementation schedule as 

manageable. One of these commenters stated that the approach in the 

1996 draft part 64 was better than the other options included in the draft 

preamble. Environmental organizations and vendors expressed concern 

that the CAM implementation schedule would delay upgraded monitoring. 

One of these commenters pointed out that many sources would not need 

to file CAM plans until they file permit renewal applications in 2001 or 

later, delaying an accurate determination of emissions at sources to 11 or 

more years after the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments. 

Similarly, another commenter noted that most units will not have to begin 

enhanced monitoring until a date after July, 2002 although EPA was 

originally required to promulgate rules to implement the enhanced 

monitoring requirements by 1993. This commenter argued that sources 

have had plenty of time to prepare, and any further delay of the protection 

the rule was intended to provide is clearly at odds with Congress' intent. 

These commenters stated that EPA should require all sources to submit 

monitoring proposals within 180 days of publication of the final rule. 

Comments received from industry argued that while the implementation 

provisions in the draft rule are superior to the option of relying on existing 

Part 70 procedures for incorporating new applicable requirements, the 

schedule is still too ambitious. A few commenters stated that Subparts B 

and C should be phased in over a number of years. Two other 

commenters recommended that CAM be implemented only: (1) in the 

initial permit where an application has not been filed prior to 180 days 

after CAM promulgation; (2) with a source-initiated significant permit 

modification; or (3) at permit renewal in all other situations. One of these 

commenter explained that the concept of submitting a CAM plan for 

applications that have not yet been determined to be complete effectively 

shortens the time frame for preparing a CAM plan in those situations and 

may not be properly implemented by permitting authorities. The 

commenter also argued that some sources would have a long lead time 

prior to permit issuance under a transition plan which would create unfair 

competitive advantages based on a prioritization scheme that did not 

consider CAM implementation issues. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 109 

One commenter argued that the 180 day period provided for developing 

CAM plans is far too limited to evaluate CAM applicability, evaluate 

monitoring options, develop performance specifications, and develop 

CAM plans. Certain commenters made specific suggestions such as a 

period of at least 18 months. Another recommendation would have 

required notice of CAM applicability within 6 months after promulgation 

after which the source and permitting authority would work out an 

implementation schedule. Similarly, a commenter suggested that the 

permitting authority be allowed to lengthen the 180 day deadline for 

complex sources that may have numerous emissions units subject to the 

rule. Other commenters noted that developing monitoring may take 

longer than 6 months for sources that need to conduct testing, obtain 

funds for public agencies, or procure and install monitoring. One 

commenter stated that it could not meet the proposed implementation 

schedule and maintain "reasonable costs." 

Two commenters objected to the 180 day period within which some 

sources would be required to submit CAM plans arguing 180 days would 

not be enough time to establish indicator ranges because there would be 

extensive costs and time commitments involved in conducting reference 

tests and demonstrating correlations between the parameters to be 

monitored and actual emissions. The commenters added that this 

problem is compounded by EPA's failure to provide guidance on the 

proper development of indicator ranges. 

A utility association was particularly concerned with § 64.3(a)(1)(i) and 

suggested significant revisions to that section if the implementation 

schedule in the draft rule is adopted. The commenter first stated that EPA 

should provide some additional fixed time period after the 180th day (e.g., 

an additional 180 days) for sources to develop and submit CAM plans, 

even if the permit application had not been submitted by the 180th day. 

The commenter argued that in some cases (i.e., where the State's 

preexisting schedule calls for submission of the application just after the 

180th day), 180 days will not be enough time for development of CAM 

plans, QIPs, and supporting data. 

The commenter also argued that in cases where the permit application 

has been filed, but has not been determined to be complete by the 180th 

day, EPA should establish a reasonable deadline (e.g., 180 days after the 

180th day) for supplementing complete applications. The commenter 

noted that the 1996 draft rule did not appear to provide any deadline for 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 110 

submission, but merely stated that it must be done as a supplement to the 

current permit application and submitted with the permit application. 

The commenter was also concerned that, where the deadline for submittal 

of a permit application was more than one year before promulgation of 

CAM (which is likely in many States), § 64(a)(1)(i)(C) could result in a 

requirement for submittal of CAM plans in cases where issuance of a 

permit may be imminent. The commenter stated that it believed EPA 

intended to say that the CAM plan would be due with the permit 

application, if the permit was not scheduled to be issued "for more than 18 

months after the date 180 days after promulgation of CAM." This 

commenter also requested that EPA clarify that this provision only applies 

in those cases where a transition plan that will result in delayed action on 

the application has been adopted as part of a State rule. The commenter 

stated that otherwise a source might be frozen, as of the 180th day, into a 

schedule for submission of its CAM plan even though the State would be 

free to accelerate its transition plan and issue the permit early (thus 

defeating the intent of the provision). Again the commenter stated that in 

this situation EPA should provide a reasonable deadline (e.g., 180 days 

after the 180th day) for submission of the CAM plan as a supplement to 

the previously "complete" application. 

Response: The Agency concurs with the commenters who suggest using a phased-in 

approach for CAM implementation. The Agency does not view a 

phased-in approach as a vehicle for delaying monitoring upgrades or 

accurate determination of emissions. Part 70 already requires permits to 

contain monitoring which provides data that are used to develop the 

compliance certifications. Should existing monitoring be found 

insufficient for that purpose, under part 70, source owners or operators 

are required to provide monitoring - including upgrades as required - 

sufficient for that task. 

The Agency disagrees, however, that more than 180 days should be 

provided for emissions units that may be subject to implementation of part 

64 in initial part 70 permits. A six-month lead time should be adequate to 

make a determination related to what monitoring approach to propose and 

to determine whether a basis exists for establishing indicator ranges on 

existing data or there will be a need to conduct subsequent testing. The 

Agency believes that this lead time is adequate especially because the 

final rule will apply only to large units initially. For these units, existing 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 111 

test data and monitoring approaches often will exist under current 

applicable requirements. 

With respect to the need to supplement a permit application in situations 

where an application has not yet been found complete, the Agency 

believes that the timing of that supplement is best worked out between the 

source and the permitting authority. Finally, the final rule does not 

include the draft provision concerning applications for sources covered by 

a transition plan. Thus, comments on that provision are no longer 

applicable. 

Letter(s): American Gas Association (VI-D-154); Baltimore Gas & Electric Company 

(VI-D-177); California Association of Sanitation Agencies (VI-D-206); 

Clean Steel Coalition (VI-D-195); Colorado Association of Commerce and 

Industry (VI-D-182); County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, 

California (VI-D-231); Institute of Clean Air Companies (VI-D-139); Natural 

Resources Defense Council (VI-D-151); Pennsylvania Chamber of 

Business and Industry (VI-D-114); Public Service Company of Colorado 

(VI-D-219); R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company (VI-D-221); Sierra Club, 

Lone Star Chapter (VI-D-242); Specialty Steel Industry of North America 

(VI-D-143); Steel Manufacturers Association (SMA) (VI-D-144); Texas 

Chemical Council (VI-D-236); The Fertilizer Institute (VI-D-145); Total 

Petroleum, Inc. (VI-D-190); Tri-TAC (VI-D-225); Utility Air Regulatory 

Group (VI-D-140); Virginia Power (VI-D-226); Wisconsin Electric Power 

Company (VI-D-130) 

Comment d: One commenter also argued that § 64.3(a)(1)(ii) could be interpreted to 

actually require sources that have not already submitted CAM plans as of 

the 180th day to request a permit modification in order to incorporate a 

CAM plan. The commenter then stated that EPA should clarify that the 

provision is only intended to address cases where a source voluntarily 

seeks modification. The commenter also expressed concern that the 

impact of this provision might not be fully understood until EPA has 

promulgated the revisions to the Part 70 procedures for permit 

modifications, and stated that EPA should not promulgate a CAM rule 

which would frustrate those streamlined procedures by tying a 

requirement for development of a CAM plan to every permit modification, 

regardless of significance. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 112 

Response: The Agency agrees with this comment concerning potential conflict with 

streamlined permit modification procedures currently under consideration, 

and the final rule includes appropriate language to clarify that this 

provision only applies to significant permit revisions. The Agency 

disagrees, however, with the concept that the provision should only apply 

where a revision is sought by the permittee voluntarily. Regardless of the 

reason for a significant permit revision, the process for such a revision 

provides an appropriate opportunity for addressing part 64 requirements 

for any pollutant-specific emissions units subject to the revision. The final 

rule thus does not limit this provision in the manner suggested by the 

commenter. 

Letter(s): Utility Air Regulatory Group (VI-D-140) 

Comment e: One commenter argued that EPA should revise § 64.3(a)(1)(iii) to clarify 

that States are not only not required, but are also not allowed, to require 

submission of a CAM plan before permit renewal in those cases where 

the permit application has been deemed complete as of the 180th day 

and final action is not scheduled to occur more than 18 months after, 

pursuant to a legally promulgated transition plan (unless the source 

triggers the CAM plan requirement by voluntarily seeking a significant 

permit modification for that PSEU). 

Response: The Agency does not agree that permitting authorities are prevented from 

implementing part 64 prior to permit renewal. When acting under their 

own authority, permitting authorities are able to initiate implementation 

earlier than required by part 64 just as for any other rulemaking. 

Letter(s): Utility Air Regulatory Group (VI-D-140) 

3.1.3: Specific Implementation Alternatives Recommended 

Comment a: Several commenters recommended various alternative implementation 

schedules. Two comments received from a state agency and a state 

agency organization suggested making the rule effective 12 months after 

promulgation. One of these commenters noted that as proposed, only 

sources not scheduled to receive their Title V permit within 180 days of 

promulgation would be required to implement CAM and that permitting 

authorities would be forced to choose sources to which CAM would be 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 113 

applied. The second commenter argued that the current schedule 

encourages sources to press to get their Title V permits issued prior to 

promulgation of CAM, and may force agencies to issue permits without 

proper permit application review and permit preparation. 

Another state agency argued that CAM should be incorporated into 

operating permits as national technical guidance becomes available for 

each source category. The commenter supported a phased-in 

implementation schedule, but noted that under the schedule in the 1996 

draft part 64 rule, most sources would not have to take any steps to 

satisfy CAM until permit renewal after the year 2000. By allowing states 

to oversee source development of CAM plans as technical guidance for 

source categories is developed, EPA could ensure that CAM is 

implemented more uniformly nationwide while avoiding the overburdening 

of state resources which would accompany the case-by-case evaluation 

of CAM plans in the absence of technical guidance. 

If CAM is implemented before permit renewal, one commenter 

recommended that 18 months be allowed for development of CAM plans 

and that an additional year be allowed for States, local authorities, and the 

regulated facilities to determined the efficacy of CAM plans and evaluate 

the CAM approach before subjecting sources to CAM related violations. 

Another commenter recommended revisions to § 64.3(a)(1) which would 

make CAM effective for Subpart B units without permits or completed 

permit applications on or after 180 days after publication of the final rule 

"or such other date as the permitting authority determines necessary due 

to the complexity of the unit or facility." Finally, another commenter 

recommended generally that, if the current level of applicability is retained, 

EPA should implement the rule in several phases, and establish a pilot 

program to demonstrate how the rule will actually work and to identify 

changes and clarifications that are needed to make the rule workable. 

Response: The Agency does not agree that permitting authorities will be forced to 

rearrange their permit issuance schedule. Under the flexibility afforded 

permitting authorities under part 70, one third of the initial permits were to 

be issued in each of the first three years following program approval. 

This part 70 phased-in approach was designed to allow permitting 

authorities additional time beyond the ordinary eighteen month period for 

permit issuance to become familiar with the permitting process. Many 

permitting authorities decided to initiate permitting with less complex 

sources, progressing into more complex source permitting and building 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 114 

knowledge and expertise along the way. Moreover, some permitting 

authorities took advantage of additional time to build expertise afforded 

though the source category limited approval process. Since permitting 

authorities chose their permitting schedules without respect to the part 64 

implementation process, the Agency does not anticipate that previous 

choices on permitting schedules should have any impact. Because part 

70 holds permitting authorities responsible for developing and issuing 

complete permits or for facing sanctions ranging from individual permit 

reopenings or revisions to program withdrawals, the Agency does not 

believe that permitting authorities may choose to issue permits without 

proper permit application review and permit preparation. 

The Agency believes that the phased-in approach for part 64 

implementation will allow permitting authorities and sources to have time 

to propose, develop, test, and refine part 64 monitoring. The Agency will 

consider incorporation of such methods in the Technical Guideline 

Document, provided that permitting authorities and owners or operators 

present that information to the Agency. 

Letter(s): Coastal Corporation (VI-D-123); DuPont Engineering (VI-D-127); 

Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (VI-D-211); State of New 

Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection (VI-D-215); STAPPA/ALAPCO 

(VI-D-179); Texaco Environment Health & Safety (VI-D-199) 

Comment b: One state agency recommended a programmatic approach to 

implementation. The commenter stated that although the option of 

reopening permits would provide for quick implementation of CAM, it 

would impose an unworkable administrative burden on state agencies, 

adding that a programmatic approach will require many sources to comply 

with state rules even before issuance of permits. 

The commenter further explained that states with source category 

approved operating permit programs will have to include a comprehensive 

CAM program in all initial permits while many other states will have until 

permit modification or permit renewal to comply with CAM. The 

commenter stated that due to the large number of sources in certain 

states and other factors, EPA has recognized the need for the source 

category interim program to allow phased permitting, and argued that the 

benefits of source category approval followed by full program approval are 

significantly negated if these states must implement CAM for the full 

program. The commenter therefore recommended that EPA should 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 115 

provide at least 18 months after the promulgation of CAM to perform state 

rulemaking and develop an implementation schedule under a state 

programmatic approach. An industry commenter supported this same 

approach. (See further discussion of the programmatic option in 3.5, 

below.) 

Response: As mentioned above, the CAM implementation process is to be phased-in, 

with the majority of pollutant-specific emissions units becoming affected 

upon renewal of an existing permit, not upon wholesale permit 

reopenings. Also as mentioned above, the Agency expects that 

individual permitting authorities who were afforded flexibility in determining 

their permitting scheduling used that extra time to hone their expertise. 

Therefore, inclusion of the additional applicable requirements due to part 

64 should be easily handled. The Agency also notes that permitting 

authorities are not required to implement part 64 initially for their complete 

programs; rather, implementation will be only for large emissions units 

initially in accordance with the phased-in schedule. 

Letter(s): Houston Lighting & Power Company (VI-D-228); Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission (VI-D-189) 

3.1.4: Need for Changes to State Regulations or Programs

Comment a: Several commenters were concerned with the issue of changes to 

permitting authority programs. One commenter argued that the timing of 

CAM implementation should address such changes since most, if not all, 

state and local Part 70 programs will have to be revised to incorporate the 

monitoring changes required by the CAM rule. The commenter 

recommended that EPA should require that the Part 70 program changes 

themselves allow for a reasonable time, preferably at least a year, to 

implement the changes required by CAM, which would mean that permits 

under those programs would not have to be reopened for at least a year. 

Another commenter agreed that the 180 day period provided in the rule is 

insufficient time for States to revise their current Part 70 rules to be 

consistent with the new program and to obtain any necessary legislative 

or regulatory authority to implement CAM. 

A coalition group objected to the draft rule requiring the states to 

implement CAM as soon as it is effective without any consideration of 

regulatory authority or resources to do so. The commenter explained 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 116 

that, because CAM involves major issues of discretion, States will have to 

decide upon their position and then implement that decision through 

appropriate rulemaking or legislation. The requirement in many states to 

assure that State requirements are no more stringent than the federal 

minimum also will complicate CAM implementation, according to the 

commenter. The commenter added that CAM is likely to result in the 

need for new staff, with changes in permit fees and that standard permit 

application forms will have to be changed. This commenter stated that all 

of these issues must be addressed in accordance with the procedures for 

modifying and approving title V programs, which at a minimum provide a 

state up to two years to make a necessary change. The commenter 

claimed that EPA had simply put CAM into effect without observing the 

legal requirements for revisions in CAA section 502. The commenter 

also argued that, as an example, the Texas programmatic option is one 

that the state is legally entitled to present to EPA as an approach to 

consider for implementing the federal CAM requirements, and that EPA 

should allow for this proposal in developing its implementation provisions, 

as a matter of sound policy. 

Another commenter also stated that state implementation of CAM will 

require the amendment of Title V permit programs, and that such changes 

will have to be approved by EPA. In order for the CAM program to be 

successful, the commenter argued that EPA will have to obtain 

assurances from the states that changes to Title V programs allow for 

adequate allocation of resources for the states to develop, administer, and 

enforce the CAM program, adding that changes to state permitting 

programs should include a streamlined procedure for amending CAM 

plans. This commenter also stated that, in addressing these issues, EPA 

must follow the procedures specified in the Act and EPA's own 

implementing regulations for making such changes to state programs. 

Another commenter argued that states will need delegation of authority 

from EPA to implement part 64 through their permit programs, but that 

EPA cannot delegate its authority unless a state has developed its 

procedures for implementing the CAM rule, and the Administrator has 

found those procedures to be adequate (see section 114(b)(1)). Many 

states will have to go through rulemaking in order to have adequate 

authority for receiving delegation of CAM, according to the commenter 

who stated that until that occurs, only EPA would have the ability to 

implement CAM, which would be unworkable since EPA is not 

administering title V generally. The commenter concluded that all of 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 117 

these actions will take time to implement and CAM should not apply until 

the state authority issues have been addressed. 

Response: The Agency disagrees that CAM implementation will be necessarily 

impeded due to revisions of state and local permitting programs to 

incorporate part 70 program changes related to monitoring and 

compliance certification requirements. Permitting authorities have 

already had to show their ability to handle regulatory changes without 

putting their programs on hold. In order to have received program 

approval, permitting authorities had to submit legal opinions that 

demonstrated adequate legal authority to incorporate these kind of 

requirements and to have the ability to incorporate into permits all 

applicable requirements - including incorporating monitoring into permits 

as specified in § 70.6. (40 CFR § 70.4(b)(3)(ii)) Section 70.6 specifically 

mentions that monitoring required under section 114(a)(3) must be 

included in permits. 

In any event, the Agency does not believe that the promulgation of part 64 

will require any significant changes in State permit programs. As 

mentioned above, currently, part 70 specifies that monitoring required 

under section 114(a)(3) is an applicable requirement which must be 

addressed in the operating permit. 40 CFR §§ 70.6(a)(3) and 70.2. To 

the extent any changes in a State permit program are needed, the 

revision procedure in section 70.4(i) will apply. This rulemaking has 

resulted in changes to the compliance certification language in part 70 

and the revision procedures in section 70.4(i) do apply to the extent 

States compliance certification requirements need to be revised. 

However, section 70.4(i) procedures do not require revisions to a State 

operating permit program when an applicable requirement such as part 64 

is promulgated. The EPA disagrees with the coalition group’s 

description of the statutory requirements regarding changes in a State’s 

permitting program. 

Finally, the Agency does not believe, consistent with sections 70.4 and 

70.10 of the part 70 regulations and the Act, that CAM implementation will 

result in an inability by permitting authorities to administer, enforce, or 

otherwise conduct their approved programs in accordance with the 

requirements of part 70 or the Act. If an approved State comes to believe 

that it no longer has legal authority to implement part 70 adequately, or if 

the State believes that it has inadequate resources or funding or other 

means to implement its program, then the State may initiate a program 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 118 

revision. Similarly, if EPA becomes convinced that such situations exist, 

then EPA may initiate a program revision to an approved State program at 

a later time. 

As previously mentioned, the Agency does not prohibit permitting 

authorities from using programmatic approaches for part 64 

implementation. EPA disagrees with the coalition group’s description of 

the statutory requirements. Moreover, the Agency does not believe that 

the promulgation of part 64 will require any significant changes in State 

permit programs. Currently, part 70 specifies that monitoring required 

under section 114(a)(3) is an applicable requirement which must be 

addressed in the operating permit. 40 CFR §§ 70.6(a)(3) and 70.2. To 

the extent any changes in a State permit program is needed, the revision 

procedure in section 70.4(i) will apply. This rulemaking has resulted in 

changes to the compliance certification language in part 70 and the 

revision procedures in section 70.4(i) do apply to the extent States 

compliance certification requirements need to be modified. Finally, the 

Agency does not believe, consistent with sections 70.4 and 70.10 of the 

part 70 regulations and the Act, that CAM implementation will result in an 

inability by permitting authorities to administer, enforce, or otherwise 

conduct their approved programs in accordance with the requirements of 

part 70 or the Act. If an approved State comes to believe that it no longer 

has legal authority to implement part 70 adequately, or if the State 

believes that it has inadequate resources or funding or other means to 

implement its program, then the State may initiate a program revision. 

Similarly, if EPA becomes convinced that such situations exist, then EPA 

may initiate a program revision to an approved State program at a later 

time. 

Letter(s): Coalition for Clean Air Implementation (VI-D-164); Coalition for Clean Air 

Implementation (VI-D-249); Department of Defense (VI-D-209); Eastman 

Chemical Company (VI-D-173); Marathon Oil Company (VI-D-185); Utility 

Air Regulatory Group (VI-D-140) 

3.1.5: Requests for Clarification

Comment a: One commenter recommended generally that EPA more specifically 

define the information to be submitted and the deadlines for submittal. 

Another commenter stated that is was unclear what deadline applies if an 

application is deemed complete by the permitting authority and issuance 

or denial of the application is expected within 18 months of the application 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 119 

deadline. The commenter also requested clarification as to whether the 

completeness determination referred to in § 64.3 is the determination that 

invokes the application shield. 

Response: The Agency believes the final rule sets forth explicit submittal 

requirements and deadlines. The Agency interprets the example to be a 

question concerning whether part 64 needs to be added if a permit, based 

on an application determined complete before the effective date of part 

64, is denied. The rule is clear on this point: if a permit application which 

covers at least one large pollutant-specific emissions unit is required on or 

after the date 180 days after publication of this rule in the Federal 

Register, then part 64 needs to be addressed as an applicable 

requirement. The permit application completeness determination 

mentioned in part 64 is the determination that allows a part 70 source to 

operate without a permit during the period between submission of a 

complete application and issuance of a final permit. That determination 

is discussed in §§ 70.5(a)(2) and 70.7(b). 

Letter(s): Ohio EPA, Division of Air Pollution Control (VI-D-180); PPG Industries, 

Inc. (VI-D-136) 

Comment b: A commenter requested clarification as to whether a CAM plan would be 

part of a permitting authority's completeness determination for 

applications submitted after the 180 day period following CAM 

promulgation, and requested EPA to clarify the outcome of a situation in 

which the application is determined to be complete but the CAM plan is 

subsequently disapproved. 

Response: Part 64 monitoring will be included as part of permitting authorities’ permit 

application completeness determinations, because, as required by §§ 

70.5(c)(3)(v) and 70.5(c)(4), the monitoring involves air pollution control 

equipment and compliance monitoring devices and applicable 

requirements. The Agency has added rule language at § 64.6(e) to 

clarify the consequences of disapproval of monitoring submitted under 

part 64. 

Letter(s): Department of Energy (VI-D-196) 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 120 

Comment c: One of the commenters stated that its understanding of the 

implementation schedule was that some facilities may not require CAM 

until permit renewal, but that the effective date will be January 1999 for 

sources with complete permit applications that are not scheduled to 

receive permits for more than 18 months. 

Response: As mentioned above, the provision in the 1996 part 64 Draft concerning 

permit schedules under a transition plan is not included in the final rule. 

The Agency believes the draft provision was confusing and would have 

created implementation uncertainties. 

Letter(s): American Furniture Manufacturers Association (VI-D-203) 

Comment d: A commenter requested clarification of § 64.3(a)(1)(i). The commenter 

noted that, as currently written, this section appears to require submission 

of a CAM plan or Subpart C monitoring description with a Part 70 permit 

application within 180 days after rule publication even if such applications 

are not yet due under the operating permit program or if the State is 

subject to Part 71 instead of Part 70. 

Response: Part 64 does not compel submission of permit applications in advance of 

the schedule established by permitting authorities. However, permitting 

authorities have the ability to set, and adjust, their application submission 

schedules, so some permitting authorities may seek to advance their 

application submission schedules. In the event that sources are subject 

to a federal operating permits program, the Agency will establish 

appropriate application submission schedules. 

Letter(s): Texas Chemical Council (VI-D-236) 

Comment e: Two commenters recommended that EPA clarify when CAM submissions 

are due from sources whose permit applications will be acted upon under 

a transition plan. The commenters noted that § 64.3(a)(1)(i)(C) requires 

CAM plans or Subpart C monitoring plans to be filed as part of the permit 

by " . . . those whose applications have been deemed complete, but which 

are not scheduled to receive final action for at least 18 months from a 

specified date." They then stated that the rule and the preamble 

disagree about that specified date since the rule refers to 18 months after 

the deadline for submittal of such application while the preamble refers to 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 121 

18 months after the date 180 days after the promulgation of CAM. The 

commenters proposed various revisions to § 64.3(a)(1)(i)(C) to make the 

rule consistent with the preamble, and suggests that EPA not allow CAM 

implementation to interfere with initial Title V implementation. 

Response: These comments are no longer applicable because, as discussed above, 

the draft provision related to implementing CAM for certain units covered 

by a transition plan is not included in the final rule. 

Letter(s): Chemical Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); Union Carbide 

Corporation (VI-D-170) 

Comment f: A commenter suggested that § 64.3(a)(1)(ii) use the word "any" instead of 

"a" before "request" so that it is clear that the information must be 

submitted only with a request initiated by the owner and not as a required 

separate request. 

Response: The Agency is unable to discern the difference in terms suggested by the 

commenter. However, the specific language cited has been omitted in 

the final rule. As previously mentioned, information from § 64.3 from the 

1996 part 64 Draft has been moved to § 64.5 of the final rule. In the final 

rule, the requirement to address part 64 in a permit modification applies to 

any significant permit modification action, whether initiated by the owner 

or operator, or required by the permitting authority or a regulatory 

requirement. See response to Comment d in section 3.1.2 (Part III). 

Letter(s): KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc. (VI-D-229) 

Comment g: One commenter recommended that EPA include in part 64 a statement 

that the part 70 permit application shield is not breeched if the permitting 

authority requests further information on a CAM plan or accepts 

compliance plan for establishing indicator ranges after permit issuance. 

Response: Neither of the two situations would breech the permit application shield. 

A request for additional information related to proposed monitoring is 

allowed under § 70.5. Such a request for part 64 issues does not affect 

the application shield any more than it would for any other applicable 

requirement. Thus, EPA does not believe that explicit language on this 

issue is necessary or appropriate for part 64. Since the compliance plan 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 122 

would be issued as part of the permit, the Agency does not believe that 

the application shield will come into play in this circumstance. Moreover, 

even if it did, the part 64-related compliance plan would be treated in the 

same respect as any other compliance plan and thus no explicit part 64 

language on this issue is necessary or appropriate.

Letter(s): National Environmental Development Association (VI-D-169) 

Section 3.2: CAM Elements in Permits 

Section 3.2.1: Number of Terms in Permit/Flexibility Concerns

3.2.1.1: Inclusion of CAM Elements in Title V Permits

Comment a: Many commenters discussed the link between CAM plans and Title V 

operating permits. One commenter supported the inclusion of CAM 

requirements in operating permits as being consistent with the 

Congressional intent to include all the requirements that a source must 

meet in a single document. Another commenter suggested that a rule 

requiring direct emissions measurement would avoid the problems 

associated with codification of detailed operations and maintenance 

requirements for sources. This commenter argued that with direct 

monitoring operational flexibility is maximized since process parameters 

and work practices can be varied freely so long as emissions limits are 

met. 

Most commenters, however, stated that incorporating numerous CAM 

plan and Subpart C monitoring elements into operating permits is contrary 

to statements made by EPA and will interfere with the ability to revise 

CAM plans and Subpart C monitoring, because changes to the plans 

could only be accomplished through the detailed and time-consuming 

permit modification procedures. A few commenters also emphasized that 

the delays associated with modifying these terms will be most severe in 

the early years of the CAM program, when sources should be encouraged 

to refine their CAM plans and monitoring. The commenters argued that 

requiring monitoring details such as frequency, averaging time, parameter 

monitoring ranges, etc. to be specified in the permit before the adjustment 

period will require significant effort in modifying the permits. 

Pharmaceutical industry commenters noted that their concerns are based 

on the flexible nature of batch pharmaceutical operations where changes 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 123 

that are considered (e.g., manufacture of a product in different areas of a

facility) would necessitate changes to a source's CAM plan which would 

then need to be incorporated into the source's Title V permit through 

permit modification. Another commenter expressed concern about the 

burdens of reviewing permit applications and concomitant delays in 

receiving permits. 

A commenter stated that the process of developing and approving CAM 

plans will impose a substantial burden on the Title V permitting process 

since multiple CAM plans may be required for each site, and site-specific 

test data is necessary to justify each CAM plan element, which may make 

each CAM plan a document as big as a graduate thesis. The commenter 

pointed out that permitting authorities will then need to make timely 

case-by-case technical evaluations of the proposed CAM plans. The 

commenter noted that this will result in a heavy workload for permitting 

authorities such that sufficient time may not be spent on each permit, 

adding that just one discretionary criterion, such as BACT in the NSR 

context, can double the time for permit issuance. 

Commenters argued that the CAM rule would overwhelm the Title V 

permit process by creating a vast number of new requirements to be 

included in operating permits. One commenter stated that for each 

emissions limit or standard, the proposed rule could require that ten CAM 

plan elements be incorporated into a permit which would result in the 

creation of numerous new work-practice type requirements. The 

commenter noted that the development of similar work practices, such as 

LDAR requirements for VOC sources, took millions of dollars and many 

years and that EPA's use of Title V to create such new requirements is 

contrary to EPA's statements in the July 1, 1995 Title V White Paper that 

operating permits should be used to define existing requirements and not 

to impose new requirements. One commenter objected to § 64.3(b)(2) 

allowing the permitting authority unlimited discretion to make any element 

of a CAM plan part of the permit. The commenter argued that not only is 

this an unwarranted delegation of authority, it is inconsistent with the 

intent of CAM to limit the terms in the permit, and stated that the rule must 

specify exactly what elements are to be included in the permit. 

Some commenters cautioned that changes in new CAM plans must be 

anticipated during initial implementation, particularly during the first year. 

Commenters were concerned that the current CAM rule would seem to 

require permit modification for almost any CAM plan change and would 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 124 

overwhelm the Title V permit system. For example, commenters pointed 

out that indicator ranges will likely be continually refined as better data are 

obtained, and control measure parameters may need to be altered 

because of process changes or improved information. Requiring permit 

modification under such circumstances will lead to long and expensive 

permit modification proceedings with varying results from state to state. 

Another commenter concerned about the ability to make changes to CAM 

plans and indicator ranges during the early implementation of the program 

noted that adjustments are still being made to the use of CEMS under the 

South Coast Air Quality Management District's RECLAIM rule three years 

after adoption of that rule. The commenter stated that these adjustments 

could be far more easily accomplished if CAM plans are independent of 

operating permits. Another commenter recommended that the rule 

provide flexibility which will be needed by new facilities which often have 

to adjust operating conditions to meet emission limits in a manner 

different than the original design parameters. 

Other commenters stated that at a minimum, EPA should explicitly 

provide for CAM permit modifications to be processed under "notice and 

go" provisions or as administrative changes. A commenter suggested 

that changes to indicator ranges be processed using the most minimum 

modification procedure that is allowed once the part 70 revisions 

concerning permit modifications are finalized and another stated more 

generally that permit modification procedures for CAM requirements 

should be as limited and streamlined as possible. A coalition group 

noted that the approach in the CAM draft would seem to frustrate the work 

EPA has put into providing streamlined permit modification procedures 

and that the rule must provide for streamlined permit modification 

procedures, especially for the early years of CAM implementation which 

will require substantial debugging. 

Certain commenters argued that imposing unnecessary detail such as 

specific parameter ranges in the permit could actually create a 

disincentive to development of monitoring designed to identify problems 

with control equipment, and to process or monitoring improvements that 

may reduce pollution or conserve resources because of the burdensome 

permit modification process. Commenters requested that such changes 

to parameter ranges be done "off-permit." 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 125 

One commenter who recommended the deletion of § 64.11(d) because 

the details of a CAM plan should not be established as permit elements 

noted that any changes to monitoring as a result of a QIP will be reported 

under the requirements of § 64.11(c). 

One commenter objected to compliance monitoring requirements 

becoming title V applicable requirements, and stated in particular that 

indicator ranges should not become equivalent to an emission limitation or 

standard. The commenter argued that the purpose of CAM should be to 

assure compliance with underlying applicable requirements, not establish 

new requirements. 

Another commenter discussed the procedures for modifying permits in the 

1996 part 64 draft and earlier drafts. The commenter asserted that the 

1996 draft would generally require a significant permit modification for any 

CAM plan change. According to the commenter the 1995 part 70 permit 

modification proposal could allow some, but unspecified, streamlining 

based on unspecified procedures to be developed by a state and 

approved by EPA and the 1994 part 70 permit modification proposal does 

not provide any greater assistance than the 1995 proposal; given the 

changes to the permit modification revisions proposed since that 1994 

proposal as well as the changes to the original EM proposal in CAM, the 

1994 part 70 proposal cannot be a valid basis for promulgating final permit 

modification procedures. 

Response: The Agency disagrees with the commenters’ suggestions that including 

part 64 monitoring elements in part 70 permits will necessarily interfere 

with the ability to revise part 64 monitoring. The required monitoring 

elements to include in a permit are not significantly different from the 

elements of monitoring that would have to be included in a permit where 

the underlying requirement specifies the monitoring approach or where an 

owner or operator has received approval of an alternative monitoring 

methodology. In addition, the Agency has addressed concerns about the 

potential need to revise indicator ranges without having to obtain a permit 

revision. The final rule allows owners or operators the choice in 

establishing a permit condition that sets out the process for setting 

parameter indicator ranges or that establishes the actual indicator ranges. 

As mentioned before, the Agency notes that subpart C is no longer 

included in the rule and that revisions to part 64 monitoring are to take 

place in accordance with the permit revision procedures given in part 70. 

As mentioned in the preamble, the Agency believes the phased-in CAM 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 126 

implementation schedule will help minimize any burden on the operating 

permit process. 

Letter(s): Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (VI-D-186); American Automobile 

Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); American Petroleum Institute 

(VI-D-146); ASARCO Incorporated (VI-D-187); BP Oil Company 

(VI-D-113); Can Manufacturers Institute (VI-D-181); Chemical 

Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); Chevron Companies (VI-D-132); 

CITGO Petroleum Corporation (VI-D-172); Clean Air Implementation 

Project (VI-D-153); Coalition for Clean Air Implementation (VI-D-164); 

Cooperative Power Corporation (VI-D-208); Department of Defense 

(VI-D-209); DuPont Engineering (VI-D-127); Duquesne Light (VI-D-138); 

Eastman Chemical Company (VI-D-173);Eli Lilly Company VI-D-124); 

Exxon Chemical Americas (VI-D-128); Exxon Company, USA (VI-D-135); 

General Electric Company (VI-D-156); Independent Liquid Terminals 

Association (VI-D-178); Institute of Clean Air Companies (VI-D-139); 

Metropolitan Council (VI-D-214); Mobil Corporation (VI-D-115); Ohio 

Chamber of Commerce et al (VI-D-160); Pennsylvania Chamber of 

Business and Industry (VI-D-114); Pennzoil Company (VI-D-133); 

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (VI-D-217); 

Public Service Company of Colorado (VI-D-219); Rubber Manufacturers 

Association (VI-D-149); South Carolina Electric and Gas Company 

(VI-D-116); Southern California Gas Company (VI-D-222); Texas Title V 

Planning Committee (VI-D-188); The Society of the Plastics Industry 

(VI-D-148); The Fertilizer Institute (VI-D-145); UCAR Carbon Company, 

Inc. (VI-D-122); Utility Air Regulatory Group (VI-D-140); Virginia Power 

(VI-D-226) 

Comment b: Several commenters who acknowledged that Title V operating permits may ha

whether or not they are in compliance with CAM. Under the commenters’ 

proposal, if not in compliance, CAM would be included in the source's 

compliance schedule, like any applicable requirement. The commenters 

suggested that sources would then have to certify compliance with CAM 

at least annually and argued that this approach would allow for CAM plan 

revisions without the delays of permit modification. A commenter 

suggested using the approach contained in the EM proposal whereby a 

facility monitoring protocol would be incorporated by reference into the 

Title V permit, but would remain separate from the permit and outside of 

the permit modification process. The commenter asked that the Title V 

permit only include the requirement to develop, maintain, and implement 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 127 

the CAM plans. They recommended revisions to §§ 64.3(b)(2), (3), (5), 

and (6) to bring about such changes. 

Many commenters cited the recently-promulgated Risk Management Plan 

(RMP) rule as support for these approaches. 61 Fed. Reg. 31668 (June 

20, 1996). Some commenters also noted that the preamble to the RMP 

rule specifically states that "EPA does not believe that the RMP or all or 

any portion of the remainder of part 68 should become permit conditions 

because the RMP and part 68 elements will be highly source-specific and 

subject to frequent change introducing unnecessary complexity and 

delaying permit implementation." Other commenters compared the 

approach of putting all the detail in the CAM plan rather than the permit 

with EPA's practices in other rules, including the Part 63 

startup/shutdown/malfunction plan rules, as well as the RMP rule. 

Another commenter who recommended the RMP approach also asserted 

that there is actually nothing in the Act that compels EPA to review all 

details of all CAM plans as suggested by the draft CAM approach. 

One commenter was particularly concerned with the requirement that the 

elements for judging data validity be included in the permit. Since quality 

assurance procedures can be quite complex, the commenter favored 

establishing a general permit condition encompassing the requirement for 

implementation of the performance criteria. 

Response: The Agency disagrees with the commenters’ suggestions that part 64 

monitoring development is analogous to RMP development. The RMPs 

required under section 112 are detailed procedural manuals, often based 

on standard operating procedure manuals or similar items. The level of 

detail required to be included in a permit to address part 64 is not 

comparable to an RMP. 

Letter(s): American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); American 

Petroleum Institute (VI-D-146); Chemical Manufacturers Association 

(VI-D-152); Chevron Companies (VI-D-132); Class of '85 Regulatory 

Response Group (VI-D-161); Clean Air Implementation Project 

(VI-D-153); Cooperative Power Corporation (VI-D-208); Eli Lilly Company 

VI-D-124); Exxon Chemical Americas (VI-D-128); Mobil Corporation 

(VI-D-115); Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America 

(VI-D-217); Phillips Petroleum Company (VI-D-131); Rubber 

Manufacturers Association (VI-D-149); UCAR Carbon Company, Inc. 

(VI-D-122); Virginia Power (VI-D-226) 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 128 

Comment c: A number of commenters who objected to the number of new applicable 

requirements provided for under the 1996 draft part 64 suggested key 

elements for inclusion in the permit which they described as maintaining 

the focus of the rule and streamlining the process of changing and 

amending CAM plans. These commenters recommended that only the 

most major elements of the monitoring plan should be referenced as 

permit conditions. 

Some commenters believed that the CAM rule should only establish two 

new applicable requirements: the requirement to have a CAM plan and 

the requirement to report deviations (or excursions and exceedances). 

Other commenters agreed that the only CAM requirements that should be 

included in a permit are the obligation to have a CAM plan and the 

obligation to report deviations; they expressed concern that CAM 

requirements could become a critical path roadblock to processing 

modifications expeditiously so as to allow necessary operating changes to 

respond to business needs. Therefore, the commenters concluded that 

approval of CAM changes should be allowed to occur off-permit. 

A state agency commenter recommended including only the parameter to 

be monitored and the requirement to establish an indicator range in the 

operating permit. The commenter suggested that indicator ranges be 

submitted in the semiannual report which would eliminate the need to 

modify permits to establish indicator ranges. Under the commenter’s 

approach, permitting authorities would approve changes in indicator 

ranges. Another commenter recommended that only the list of sources 

required to have a CAM plan be incorporated into the Title V permit. This 

commenter stated that CAM plans would then be developed as separate 

documents with non-permit related revision requirements. 

A few commenters stated that the CAM rule should only require that an 

operating permit include the condition that a source must have a CAM 

plan and that actual CAM plan elements should not be a part of the 

permit. Another commenter who argued that the CAM plan should only 

be referenced in the permit, rather than being incorporated into the permit 

conditions stated that this would prevent reopening of the permit for 

incorporation of the CAM plan and any subsequent amendments, and 

would limit excursions from CAM plan indicator ranges to the status of 

CAM violations, instead of allowing them to become permit violations. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 129 

Other commenters suggested that the permit include the requirement to 

have a CAM plan plus a general requirement reflecting the corrective 

action/QIP obligations of CAM. 

Some commenters suggested that the only two requirements be an 

assertion that the source has developed and filed with the permitting 

authority a plan and a statement as to which elements of the plan are 

federally-enforceable. A commenter stated that the list in § 64.7(a) 

presents a good start at such a statement, except for § 64.7(a)(5) which is 

open-ended and should be deleted. The commenter added that the 

provisions in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) could be simplified and 

streamlined which will be important to assure the flexibility to modify 

monitoring without permit modifications and to limit the number of 

elements that are considered federally-enforceable requirements. 

Finally, two commenters simply suggested including within the permit a 

separate section, where the source could include each CAM plan in its 

entirety and distinguish CAM requirements from non-CAM requirements. 

Response: As mentioned above, the Agency believes the primary flexibility concern 

has been addressed by allowing permits to contain the process for 

adjusting parameter indicator ranges, or the indicator ranges themselves. 

The Agency disagrees with the concept of a general condition that an 

owner or operator maintain and operate in accordance with a CAM plan. 

Monitoring under part 64 is treated in the same manner as monitoring 

under any other applicable requirement: the permit needs to specify 

what the source will monitor, how the monitor will be operated and 

maintained, and how the owner or operator will report 

exceedance/excursion data. 

Letter(s): Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (VI-D-186); American Automobile 

Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); Association of Battery Recyclers 

(VI-D-155); California Association of Sanitation Agencies (VI-D-206); 

Chemical Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); CITGO Petroleum 

Corporation (VI-D-172); Coalition for Clean Air Implementation (VI-D-164); 

County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (VI-D-232); County 

Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California (VI-D-231); Duquesne 

Light (VI-D-138); Eastman Chemical Company (VI-D-173); Exxon 

Company, USA (VI-D-135); General Electric Company (VI-D-156); Mobil 

Corporation (VI-D-115); Ohio Chamber of Commerce et al (VI-D-160); 

Pennzoil Company (VI-D-133); Public Service Company of Colorado 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 130 

(VI-D-219); Southern California Gas Company (VI-D-222); Texas Natural 

Resource Conservation Commission (VI-D-189); Texas Chemical Council 

(VI-D-236) 

3.2.1.2: Permit Shield 

Comment a: Some commenters supported extending the permit shield to monitoring 

requirements and noted that EPA had correctly recognized that extension 

of the permit shield to monitoring would allay source concerns about the 

adequacy of monitoring under Part 64. A few commenters stated that a 

source that is in compliance with an approved CAM plan is entitled to the 

protection of the statutory permit shield provisions. Recognizing that EPA 

can require correction of inadequate plans, the commenters argued that a 

source should not be penalized for complying with an approved plan. 

These commenters concluded that compliance with the CAM plan, since it 

constitutes a title V permit requirement, should constitute compliance with 

the source's obligations to reasonably assure compliance with the 

underlying applicable requirements. Another commenter added that the 

shield must be provided so that if a source complies with its CAM 

obligations it may certify compliance. 

One commenter stated that the shield should attach to monitoring 

changes made pursuant to § 64.3(b)(5). A coalition group objected to 

limiting protection for sources that need to improve their monitoring to the 

Part 70 permit shield. According to the commenter it is necessary to 

provide protection to sources that correct deficiencies in monitoring that 

was originally approved and the rule must provide such protection even 

where the permitting authority does not make the Part 70 permit shield 

available. Another commenter agreed that the rule should explicitly 

provide that an owner or operator conducting monitoring established in a 

permit is not subject to enforcement action based on a claim that the 

monitoring fails to satisfy Part 64 because permitting authorities should 

not be able to choose whether or not to include CAM monitoring 

requirements under the Part 70 permit shield. One commenter explained 

that the rule criteria are too general to be an adequate basis for an 

enforcement action based on an assertion that the monitoring included in 

the permit fails to satisfy part 64. The commenter added that any 

correction to a CAM plan should take place through the administrative 

process. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 131 

Response: As mentioned in the preamble to the final rule, the Agency believes that 

the permit shield can be extended to cover part 64 requirements included 

in a permit, just the same as any other applicable requirement, to the 

extent that permitting authorities grant permit shields. The Agency also 

notes that the permit shield is not an enforcement shield to the use of data 

generated by part 64 monitoring as credible evidence of compliance with 

or violations of other applicable requirements. The Agency believes that 

even if a permit shield is not granted, an enforcement action for 

inadequate monitoring would be difficult to maintain (absent some 

evidence of fraud or willful misconduct) given that the monitoring would 

have been approved by the permitting authority, not vetoed by the 

Agency, and not challenged in appropriate form after permit issuance. 

Thus, the final rule does not contain any explicit provision on this subject. 

Letter(s): American Gas Association (VI-D-154); Chemical Manufacturers 

Association (VI-D-152); Cinergy Corp. (VI-D-141); Clean Air 

Implementation Project (VI-D-153); Colorado Association of Commerce 

and Industry (VI-D-182); Coalition for Clean Air Implementation 

(VI-D-164); Ohio Chamber of Commerce et al (VI-D-160); Pennzoil 

Company (VI-D-133); Total Petroleum, Inc. (VI-D-190) 

3.2.2: Enforceable Indicator Ranges

Comment a: A state agency and an association of state and local authorities argued 

that critical parameters should be enforceable. One of the commenters 

stated that having certain enforceable indicator ranges would enable state 

and local agencies to proceed as they deem appropriate when monitoring 

data reveal excursions. The second commenter asserted that once the 

relationship between monitored parameters and actual emissions is 

established, indicator ranges should be incorporated into the permits as 

enforceable terms. 

Two industry commenters agreed to a limited extent stating that the rule 

should provide that indicator ranges can be included as independent, 

enforceable permit terms if the source voluntarily agrees to that approach, 

which a source might do under suggested provisions designed to avoid 

corrective action/QIP requirements. However, most industry commenters 

argued that EPA should limit or delete provisions enabling states to make 

excursions enforceable. (See related comments in Section 

14-Enforcement Concerns.) 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 132 

Noting that § 64.3(b)(2)(ii)(B) provides that states may declare that 

deviations constitute enforceable violations "in accordance with the 

existing authority of the permitting authority" under Part 70, a commenter 

stated that only in limited circumstances will Title V permits contain 

enforceable requirements that are not grounded in other substantive 

programs. 

Other commenters argued that EPA does not have the power to make an 

excursion an enforceable requirement, except insofar as it is an 

unexcused violation of an applicable requirement. These commenters 

asserted that in doing otherwise EPA would be illegally increasing the 

stringency of the underlying standard or creating new applicable 

requirements. Another commenter stated that indicator ranges that are 

not directly used to indicate compliance or noncompliance should not be 

enforceable. 

Several commenters asked that EPA make clear that the authority to 

establish parametric monitoring levels as independently enforceable 

applicable requirements must be found in an existing state or federal 

program and that the parametric monitoring level does not become 

federally enforceable if the authority is grounded in a state-only 

requirement. These commenters recommended that EPA establish that 

permitting authorities cannot rely on Part 70 or state and local periodic 

monitoring provisions to make indicator ranges enforceable since those 

Part 70 provisions will be replaced by CAM. 

Some industry commenters explicitly recognized that states have the 

power to be more stringent than EPA and that states asked for the ability 

to penalize deviations whether or not they are violations. However, these 

commenters urged EPA to discourage states from taking this approach 

because penalizing deviations will only result in sources proposing as little 

monitoring as possible and setting indicator ranges at emission standards. 

 A number of commenters agreed that this approach is inconsistent with 

the goal of CAM to establish indicator ranges below emission limits to 

provide an early warning indicator. One commenter recommended 

eliminating violations associated with excursions and multiple QIPs and 

specifying that this section does not authorize the use of Title V to change 

underlying standards or their applicability. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 133 

A coalition group argued that including indicator ranges as enforceable 

terms attempts to directly correlate the indicator monitoring to the 

applicable requirement which is too similar to the enhanced monitoring 

rule. Another commenter added that the ability to establish indicator 

ranges as enforceable requirements based on the design criteria for 

indicator ranges clearly increases the stringency of underlying 

requirements. The coalition asserted that if these enforceable conditions 

are intended to be state-only, the rule should not encourage them 

because EPA should confine itself to prescribing the necessary federal 

standards to carry out the law. One commenter added that this concept 

is inconsistent with the nature of the monitoring being conducted since the 

monitoring is useful to identify emerging control problems, not to quantify 

emissions. Another commenter who argued that the ranges should 

trigger only corrective action and increased agency surveillance stated 

that if the indicator range is enforceable, the source is faced with two 

untenable options: first, it can set the extreme of the indicator range very 

high so that it will always document emissions above the emission limit, 

but that range would be too high to satisfy part 64 criteria; alternatively, 

the source can set the range at the other extreme, but that would lead to 

an increased stringency problem. This commenter also stated that the 

concept of setting the range to exactly equate to the emission limit fails to 

recognize the imprecision in the relationship between the indicators and 

the emissions. 

Response: The Agency believes the commenters’ suggestions are included in the 

final rule. As mentioned in the preamble, parameter indicator ranges can 

become enforceable limits if proposed by an owner or operator and 

accepted by a permitting authority. In addition, even though not stated in 

the rule, permitting authorities always retain any independent authority to 

establish indicator ranges as enforceable requirements. As mentioned in 

the preamble and the final rule, the Agency notes that multiple QIPs no 

longer necessarily constitute a violation. 

Letter(s): Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (VI-D-186); Air Control Techniques, P.C. 

(VI-D-202); American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); 

American Gas Association (VI-D-154); Association of Battery Recyclers 

(VI-D-155); Chemical Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); Chevron 

Companies (VI-D-132); Cinergy Corp. (VI-D-141); Clean Air 

Implementation Project (VI-D-153); Coalition for Clean Air Implementation 

(VI-D-164); DuPont Engineering (VI-D-127); Exxon Chemical Americas 

(VI-D-128); General Electric Company (VI-D-156); State of New Jersey 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 134 

Dept. of Environmental Protection (VI-D-204); Ohio Chamber of 

Commerce et al (VI-D-160); Public Service Company of Colorado 

(VI-D-219); Southwestern Public Service Company (VI-D-224); Specialty 

Steel Industry of North America (VI-D-143); STAPPA/ALAPCO 

(VI-D-179); Steel Manufacturers Association (SMA) (VI-D-144); The 

Fertilizer Institute (VI-D-145); UCAR Carbon Company, Inc. (VI-D-122); 

Utility Air Regulatory Group (VI-D-140); Wellman, Inc. (VI-D-237) 

Wisconsin Electric Power Company (VI-D-130) 

Comment b: One commenter stated that it did not understand how, under §64.3(b)(3)), 

"indicator ranges," or "corrective action," apply to units covered by 

Subpart C which do not have active control devices.

Response: As mentioned above, subpart C is no longer included in the rule, so this 

comment is moot. 

Letter(s): Utility Air Regulatory Group (VI-D-140) 

Section 3.2.3: QIP Period as Deviation/Second QIP as Violation

3.2.3.1: Second QIP as Title V Permit Violation

Comment a: As set out below, many commenters argued that a second QIP in a permit 

term should not be treated as a Title V permit violation. (See related 

comments in Section 14 - Enforcement Concerns.) 

A commenter stated that the draft rule's approach of turning a second QIP 

into a violation thwarts the QIP provisions' goal of providing sources with 

an opportunity to evaluate and resolve problems. Another commenter 

pointed to EPA’s recognition in § 64.10(c) that compliance with a QIP is 

not a substitute for compliance with underlying applicable requirements 

and stated that by triggering a QIP, a source may not necessarily be in 

violation of an underlying applicable substantive requirement, particularly 

if a source has set its parametric ranges far below the emissions limitation 

or standard. One commenter specified that exclusions from trigger levels 

which are 20 percent below the applicable standard should not be 

penalized. Many commenters agreed that the current scheme 

encourages sources to establish plans with broad or high indicator ranges 

to ensure that the ranges will not be exceeded. Others added that QIPs 

should have a positive effect, not create negative liabilities. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 135 

Several commenters emphasized that they view the provision establishing 

a second QIP as a violation as illegal because it effectively increases the 

stringency of underlying requirements by imposing a new compliance 

obligation on a source that could be violated even though the underlying 

emission limits are not violated. A commenter recommended that 

implementation of a QIP should only be considered a violation of the 

permit if the emission limitation or standard has also been exceeded. 

Others asked that permitting authorities be given broad discretion to 

determine what if any follow up is appropriate based on the existence of a 

QIP. 

One commenter argued that the approach to counting a second QIP as a 

violation, in conjunction with the CE rule, places a source in an untenable 

situation. According to this commenter, if the source sets the indicator 

levels low it runs the risk of this QIP violation, but if the levels are set 

closer to the emission limit, the credibility of the data increases and the 

source's potential liability increases. The commenter added that the 

combination of the CE rule and the second QIP approach may force an 

owner to choose an indicator level that is not maintainable or choose 

between triggering a second QIP or operating at a safe level. The 

commenter suggest that EPA either abandon the CE rule, or increase the 

flexibility of triggering a QIP. Another option recommended by the 

commenter was to require a performance test as a prerequisite for 

determining a violation or imposing a penalty. 

Several commenters argued that it is not necessary to make a second 

QIP a violation. Commenters who noted that EPA expressed concern at 

the September 10, 1996 stakeholder meeting that some sources may 

trigger the QIP requirement and then continuously implement numerous 

ineffective QIPs argued that EPA's existing large arsenal of enforcement 

weapons under the Act is sufficient to address this concern and that a 

source that repeatedly triggers the QIP requirement makes itself an 

enforcement priority. The commenters added that sources will want to 

avoid the lengthy QIP process, which requires them to comply with 

milestones and procedural requirements. One commenter asserted that 

an agency should require a performance test if it believes a source is 

exceeding an underlying standard. Another commenter proposed that a 

source be allowed to "wipe the CAM slate clear" by voluntarily conducting 

a test. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 136 

One commenter stated that there is no need for CAM to attempt to be an 

all-encompassing enforcement mechanism for defining exactly how 

sources and permitting authorities will relate to each other and that the 

second QIP as a deviation approach is inconsistent with the hazardous 

organic NESHAP which allows multiple "QIPs" to occur. Finally, a 

commenter argued that the requirement to continue implementing the 

CAM plan and to take corrective action during the QIP, and the permitting 

authorities' ability to disapprove a CAM plan as inadequate if the source 

cannot show through the QIP that it is adequate, are sufficient to ensure 

that controls are properly operated and maintained and that the QIP 

procedure is not overused. 

Commenters described the decision to count a second QIP as a violation 

as unrealistic, counterproductive and possibly illegal. One commenter 

stated that pollution control equipment can be affected by different factors 

at different times and that a single QIP should not and cannot be 

expected to address all of these factors. Therefore, the commenter 

argued that a second QIP does not necessarily indicate that the first QIP 

was inappropriate or unsuccessful. 

 

A number of commenters made recommendations to change this 

provision to increase the number of QIPs allowed. Specific limits on the 

number of QIPs that should be allowed in a permit term before it is 

considered a failure to comply with permit terms and conditions ranged 

from two to ten (with permitting authority to adjust the specified level up or 

down). 

Other commenters focused on differentiating between situations where a 

QIP should count toward the number allowed and situations where it 

should not. Commenters stated that the implementation of a QIP during a 

permit term should not be considered a violation if an applicable emission 

limit has not been exceeded. One commenter asked that EPA allow at 

least one "free" QIP in the first year to fix CAM development problems and 

then allow two or three QIPs for legitimate process or operating changes 

that may require redefinition of the CAM plan. Another commenter stated 

that if EPA insists on keeping the second QIP as a trigger of an 

enforceable violation, excursions that occur while the first QIP is being 

implemented should not count in determining whether a second QIP is 

triggered. A commenter recommended that, as an alternative, EPA could 

allow any operator-initiated QIP to be "free" if the operator notifies EPA 

prior to exceeding 75 percent of the QIP threshold in order to provide an 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 137 

incentive for early correction. Another commenter stated that EPA 

should consider allowing a third or fourth QIP before imposing any 

sanction if: 1) the cause of the second QIP is different from the first one; 

2) the permitting authority, at its discretion, determines that the source 

exhibited a good faith effort but was unable to comply, especially due to 

initial operational learning curve difficulties; and 3) the second trigger 

occurred within a transition period specified in the permit. Similarly, a 

commenter noted that monitoring system failures could be the result of 

very different causes, such as sampling equipment plugging, sensor 

aging, and even seasonal extreme temperatures and recommended using 

criteria such as "repetitive QIPs for the same or similar failures" and 

"potential environmental impact" to determine when the triggering of a QIP 

should be a permit violation. 

A commenter argued that since the CAM rule is a new program, there will 

be insufficient data to establish appropriate indicator ranges in the initial 

permit for many sources. Similarly, a commenter stated that 

exceedances of the QIP threshold will be the likely result of the trial and 

error process of establishing the proper ranges. A state agency 

commenter argued that the rule should allow for some flexibility to 

address extenuating and/or unforeseen circumstances and that the 

second QIP should place a source on notice that further deviations will 

most likely result in formal action. 

A few commenters supported reducing the time period for limiting an 

owner or operator to one QIP. One commenter suggested changing the 

time period from the 5 year permit term to three years or less. Two other 

commenters agreed that a three year time period would be appropriate if 

EPA does not adopt the option of having the second QIP in a permit term 

be approved by a permitting authority but not considered an automatic 

permit violation. 

One commenter noted that the monitoring under part 64 for many 

emissions units may involve complex interrelationships that will have to be 

fine-tuned, especially in the initial years after startup of the monitoring. 

The commenter recommended deleting this provision, but stated that, if a 

set number of QIPs has to be established, the rule should allow the 

source to propose a reasonable number of QIPs subject to review and 

approval by the permitting authority. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 138 

Another commenter proposed two alternative approaches to dealing with 

the problems associated with designating the second QIP in a permit term 

as a permit violation: either eliminating the provisions in § 64.3(b)(4) which 

make the second QIP a violation or basing the QIP trigger on only true 

exceedances of an emission limitation or standard. The commenter also 

suggested a phased in allowance of QIPs per permit term which would 

allow more QIPs which do not trigger a permit violation in the early years 

of the first operating permit. According to the commenter this approach 

would allow sources to experiment with CAM plans and develop the most 

appropriate indicator ranges during initial CAM implementation. The 

commenter added that a similar approach could be employed when 

changes in source operations require modifications to a source's CAM 

plan. 

One state agency argued that states should have the flexibility to decide 

when the triggering of a QIP constitutes a violation since they might want 

to consider a single QIP a violation in some cases while not considering 

the second QIP a violation in others. Another commenter asked that 

EPA leave it to permitting authority discretion to determine if any situation 

resulting in the triggering of a QIP should constitute a violation of the 

"general duty" or if that duty should not be specifically tied to the QIP 

process. A few commenters recommended allowing local agencies to 

determine how many QIPs constitute a violation, based on their existing 

programs, which may result in the threshold being much higher than two 

events. They also asked that the provision require for an increased 

monitoring regime rather than enforcement, and that the increased 

monitoring regime only be required where the excursions involve 

significant magnitude (40-60 percent of the indicator range). 

Response: The Agency decided to delete the draft requirement that a second QIP 

during a permit term constitutes a violation. The final rule, consistent with 

the precedent of 40 CFR 60.11(d), provides for the general use of part 64 

data and other information to document that the owner or operator has 

failed to operate and maintain an emission unit properly and provides for 

the QIP mechanism as one option for addressing situations in which such 

a failure has occurred. In that respect, any time a QIP is required there 

will be an underlying finding that the owner or operator has failed to take 

appropriate action and may be subject to enforcement for that violation. 

Thus, there is no need for the final rule to include separate enforcement 

consequences related to multiple QIPs. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 139 

Letter(s): Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (VI-D-186); Air Control Techniques, P.C. 

(VI-D-202); American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); 

Association of Battery Recyclers (VI-D-155); California Association of 

Sanitation Agencies (VI-D-206); Can Manufacturers Institute (VI-D-181); 

Can Manufacturers Institute (VI-D-262); Chemical Manufacturers 

Association (VI-D-152); Chevron Companies (VI-D-132); Class of '85 

Regulatory Response Group (VI-D-161); Clean Air Implementation Project 

(VI-D-153); Coalition for Clean Air Implementation (VI-D-164); Colorado 

Association of Commerce and Industry (VI-D-182); Cooperative Power 

Corporation (VI-D-208); County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, 

California (VI-D-231); County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County 

(VI-D-232); Department of Energy (VI-D-196); DuPont Engineering 

(VI-D-127); Duquesne Light (VI-D-138); Eastman Chemical Company 

(VI-D-173); Eli Lilly Company VI-D-124); Exxon Company, USA 

(VI-D-135); General Electric Company (VI-D-156); Hawaiian Electric 

Company, Inc. (VI-D- 165); Houston Lighting & Power Company 

(VI-D-228); Independent Liquid Terminals Association (VI-D-178); KBN 

Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc. (VI-D-229); Minnesota Pollution 

Control Agency (VI-D-197); Mobil Corporation (VI-D-115); National 

Environmental Development Association (VI-D-169); Natural Gas Pipeline 

Company of America (VI-D-118); Ohio Chamber of Commerce et al 

(VI-D-160); Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America 

(VI-D-217); R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company (VI-D-221); Rubber 

Manufacturers Association (VI-D-149); Southern Company Services 

(VI-D-171); Southern California Gas Company (VI-D-222); Southwestern 

Public Service Company (VI-D-224); Specialty Steel Industry of North 

America (VI-D-143); State of Illinois EPA (VI-D-183); Steel Manufacturers 

Association (SMA) (VI-D-144); Tennessee Valley Authority (VI-D-162); 

Texaco Environment Health & Safety (VI-D-199); Texas Chemical 

Council (VI-D-236); Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission 

(VI-D-189); Texas Title V Planning Committee (VI-D-188); Texas Utilities 

Services, Inc. (VI-D-121); The Society of the Plastics Industry (VI-D-148); 

The Fertilizer Institute (VI-D-145); Total Petroleum, Inc. (VI-D-190); 

Tri-TAC (VI-D-225); Utility Air Regulatory Group (VI-D-140); Wellman, Inc. 

(VI-D-237); Wisconsin Electric Power Company (VI-D-130) 

Comment b: A number of commenters stated that in lieu of considering the second QIP 

as a violation, the permitting authority should be able to require that it be 

implemented only through an approval process and include an 

enforceable schedule with specific milestones and completion dates. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 140 

One commenter argued that although it is not really necessary for the 

reasons discussed in other points, an approval process for subsequent 

QIPs would be preferable to considering the second QIP to be a violation. 

 A state agency and other commenters also supported this alternative 

noting that other proposed options may hinder permitting authorities from 

taking appropriate enforcement actions other than the implementation of a 

QIP to respond to deviations. 

One state agency expressed opposition to option of implementing a 

facility's second QIP in a permit term through a permitting authority 

approval process. This commenter felt that requiring state review of QIPS 

would delay needed corrective action and strain limited state resources 

since the procedure which a facility would have to follow to develop a 

plan, obtain state approval after reviewal and negotiation, and implement 

the plan could take as much as 18 months. The commenter argued that 

facility efforts would be better spent by actually taking corrective action, 

following the procedures laid out in the QIP requirements, instead of 

complying with bureaucratic requirements. According to the commenter 

state resources would also be poorly utilized in a step-by-step review of 

corrective action which should be quickly resolved through a site-specific 

technical process. This commenter suggested that states should retain 

the ability to enforce permit terms as necessary to ensure that QIP 

requirements are followed and should become directly involved in the QIP 

process only where serious violations are connected to problems which 

will require long-term and complex corrective action. 

Response: The Agency agrees that the permitting authority should have more 

flexibility in determining appropriate response to persistent or acute 

compliance problems. Because of this, EPA has decided not to include 

the provisions regarding the QIP as a required response or the violation 

associated with the second QIP in the final rule. No further response to 

these comments is necessary. 

Letter(s): Department of Energy (VI-D-196); Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources (VI-D-193); State of New Jersey Dept. of Environmental 

Protection (VI-D-215); Niagara Mohawk (VI-D-168); Specialty Steel 

Industry of North America (VI-D-143); Steel Manufacturers Association 

(SMA) (VI-D-144); Tennessee Valley Authority (VI-D-162) 

3.2.3.2: QIP Period as Deviation
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 141 

Comment a: A number of commenters stated that the period of time necessary to 

implement a QIP should not be considered an ongoing deviation. A few 

commenters argued that since both the permitting authority and the 

owner/operator believed that the initial CAM plan was based on valid 

assumptions, the QIP process of evaluation and corrective action can be 

expected to take some time. These commenters believed that period of 

time should not be considered a deviation where the owner/operator acts 

quickly and in good faith to implement a revised CAM program. Other 

commenters added that these requirements will discourage sources from 

creating aggressive CAM plans that might result in QIPs. A commenter 

concluded that by implementing a QIP, the source is doing exactly what is 

intended, i.e., detecting potential problems and then fixing them. The 

commenter stated that reporting the period of time during a QIP as a 

deviation applies a negative and potentially misconstrued label to 

appropriate behavior. 

Two commenters argued that the triggering of a QIP does not necessarily 

mean that the source is experiencing compliance problems. In addition, 

they stated that triggering the QIP already exposes a source to greater 

scrutiny, and therefore there is no need to repeat that concern as an 

exception to compliance in a certification. Commenters noted that the 

duration of excursions which triggered a QIP may already be identified as 

part of a QIP. A few commenters argued that only those periods of time 

during a QIP in which true exceedances occur should be identified as 

exceptions to the compliance certification. Similarly, others stated that a 

source should only report as a deviation any period during implementation 

of a QIP that the source is outside established indicator ranges. One 

commenter argued that once the deviation is corrected, there is no basis 

for requiring the owner or operator to report the remaining period of time 

during QIP implementation as a deviation. 

Response: The final rule better describes the QIP two-part process that includes both 

an evaluation step and the corrective action necessary. The final rule 

provides that a QIP trigger may be set in the permit but does not require it. 

 Where such a trigger is used, a level of 5 percent is suggested as a 

potentially appropriate threshold. The status of compliance during a 

period of a QIP is left to the permitting authority’s discretion. 

Letter(s): Air Control Techniques, P.C. (VI-D-202); American Automobile 

Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); American Gas Association 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 142 

(VI-D-154); Can Manufacturers Institute (VI-D-181); Cinergy Corp. 

(VI-D-141); Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry (VI-D-182); 

Coastal Corporation (VI-D-123); Eli Lilly Company VI-D-124); General 

Electric Company (VI-D-156); Houston Lighting & Power Company 

(VI-D-228); National Environmental Development Association (VI-D-169); 

Southern Company Services (VI-D-171); Specialty Steel Industry of 

North America (VI-D-143); State of Illinois EPA (VI-D-183); Steel 

Manufacturers Association (SMA) (VI-D-144); Utility Air Regulatory Group 

(VI-D-140); Virginia Power (VI-D-226) 

3.2.3.3: Requests for Clarification

Comment a: An environmental organization asked that EPA specify how the provision 

regarding multiple QIPs in a reporting period may be used in certain 

circumstances. The commenter questioned whether a source that has a 

continuous excursion for 10 percent of its operating time will be treated as 

only having gone beyond the QIP threshold once. This commenter also 

stated that the result of this is that the source has no incentive to bring 

their parameters back into the appropriate range quickly once they have 

entered a QIP. The commenter concluded that without clear criteria and 

state resources for review, the provision for finding a source that requires 

a second QIP within the reporting period to be in violation is only another 

reason for sources to design lenient CAM plans that will detect no 

excursions. 

Response: The Agency believes that the final rule adequately describes the criteria 

for establishing indicator ranges. The final rule provides for no specific 

duration trigger and provides that a QIP is an enforcement tool, rather 

than a specific permit requirement, that may be required after a 

determination by the permitting authority or the Administrator that a 

source owner or operator has failed to conduct proper operation and 

maintenance as documented through part 64 monitoring and other 

available information. In this respect, the QIP provisions are analogous 

to existing corrective action remedies available to address compliance 

problems. 

Letter(s): Natural Resources Defense Council (VI-D-151) 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 143 

Comment b: One commenter stated that it should be clarified that excursions 

 occurring during the implementation of the first QIP should not be 

considered to trigger the need for a second QIP. 

Response: The QIP process has been provided in the final rule only as an option and 

thus no further response to this comment is necessary. 

Letter(s): Virginia Power (VI-D-226) 

Comment c: A commenter asked how, under § 64.3(b)(4), QIPs apply to units covered 

by Subpart C. The commenter stated that it did not understand how an 

owner or operator would establish a QIP threshold, or implement a QIP, 

for a recordkeeping requirement or for a PSEU for which no monitoring 

has been required under Subpart C. 

Response: The Agency agrees that the QIP process as described in the final rule is 

not readily applicable if no part 64 monitoring or other monitoring 

information is available. As the final rule no longer includes specific 

monitoring requirements for subpart C units, further response on this point 

is unnecessary. 

Letter(s): Utility Air Regulatory Group (VI-D-140) 

3.2.4: Permit Modification - Deficient Monitoring (64.3(b)(5))

Comment a: Some commenters stated that sources should not be required to notify the 

permitting authority and modify CAM if deviations occur that are not 

detected by CAM. These commenters interpreted this requirement as 

imposing an unending, standardless duty on sources to monitor the 

adequacy of their approved monitoring, and to propose changes based on 

any deviation, no matter how small, inconsequential or uncorrelated to 

actual compliance the deviation may be. Others stated that the 

requirement to notify the permitting authority of deviations under CAM is 

duplicative of part 70 notice requirements. A commenter argued that this 

requirement allows for no analysis of the cause of deviations, which may 

not even be violations of applicable requirements, and requiring 

immediate modification of the monitoring plan eliminates source and 

permitting authority flexibility to determine the proper approach to the 

deviation or indicator range discrepancy. Addressing such problems 

during permit renewal would allow for a more calculated response which 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 144 

may make use of new or innovative technology developed in the interim 

according to the commenter. 

One local permitting authority argued that permit revisions required under 

§ 64.3(b)(5) should be treated as administrative permit revisions which 

would prevent delays in the use of correct monitoring methods. 

A commenter opposed having to process indicator range changes as 

permit revisions arguing that the concept of CAM should be to assure 

compliance with Title V applicable requirements, not create new ones. 

(See related comments under section 3.2.1.) 

Two commenters were concerned that the obligation to tighten CAM plans 

appears to make it harder to loosen CAM requirements than tighten them, 

even where there is no technical justification to do so. The commenters 

argued that the rule must allow a source to modify its approved monitoring 

if the initially established indicator ranges are too stringent (e.g., if testing 

shows that no violation occurs at less stringent indicator ranges). 

Response: As mentioned in Section II.F. of the preamble to the final rule, the Agency 

disagrees with the commenters’ suggestions to not require notification of 

the permitting authority and modification of CAM if deviations occur that 

are not detected by part 64 monitoring. The final rule clarifies this 

requirement, however. First, the rule requires notice and proposed 

monitoring modifications if an owner or operator discovers a failure to 

meet an emission limitation or standard if that failure was not detected by 

part 64 monitoring during a period in which the monitoring was providing 

valid data. Similarly, where compliance method testing indicates the 

need to revise indicator ranges, notice will be required. A permit 

modification will be required unless the permit specifies the process by 

which indicator ranges will be adjusted based on compliance testing. 

Both of these situations represent clear deficiencies in approved 

monitoring that must be corrected to achieve the reasonable assurance of 

compliance intended by part 64. 

Letter(s): American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); Coalition for 

Clean Air Implementation (VI-D-164); DuPont Engineering (VI-D-127); 

General Electric Company (VI-D-156); Ohio Chamber of Commerce et al 

(VI-D-160); South Coast Air Quality Management District (VI-D-233); 

Texas Chemical Council (VI-D-236); UCAR Carbon Company, Inc. 

(VI-D-122) 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 145 

3.2.5: Compliance Schedule

Comment a: Some commenters supported EPA's decision not to require monitoring to 

be operational at the time it is approved. One commenter commended 

EPA for recognizing both that sources do not wish to invest substantial 

resources into complex, expensive monitoring until they know it has been 

approved by the permitting authority, and that monitoring protocols may 

require time to install and shake down. Other commenters 

recommended that the rule provide explicitly for a shakedown period. 

They stated that monitoring equipment, just like all other equipment, may 

need a shakedown period (such as 30 days) to assure that the equipment 

is working properly, and that § 64.8(e) should specifically allow for this 

type of shakedown period. 

A commenter suggested that EPA delete the reference to enforceable 

milestones, which EPA did not include in the Part 63 General Provisions. 

A commenter stated that the § 64.8(e) requirement to submit an 

implementation plan and schedule for the installation and testing of 

monitoring is unnecessary because notification to permitting authorities 

prior to the installation or testing of monitoring is generally required, and 

there is no justification for making this requirement more stringent than 

other post-1990 CAA regulations. The commenter asked that EPA clarify 

that this provision does not require documentation of implementation and 

testing activities for existing monitoring, and recommended deleting the 

phrase "or other appropriate activities" because it is overly vague. 

Another commenter who objected to the use of enforceable compliance 

plans suggested that sources who lack adequate data should be allowed 

to collect data for one year, or some other reasonable period, before 

indicator ranges are set. 

A commenter recommended that sources be required to implement CAM 

at the next scheduled shutdown where implementation involves the need 

for shutdown. The commenter stated that requiring a plant shutdown just 

to install and startup CAM is not economically justified and could cause 

environmental impact associated with an additional startup and shutdown. 

One commenter stated that EPA should provide a mechanism for altering 

the schedule without a permit modification since unexpected problems 

can arise such as where "final verification" shows that changes are 

necessary or installation is delayed because parts are unavailable. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 146 

Because the normal permit modification process will be far too slow and 

cumbersome to provide relief, this commenters believed that a simple and 

quick process such as sending a letter to the permitting authority is 

needed. 

Response: The Agency believes that the period, allowed by the final rule, of up to 180 

days beyond the date of permit issuance, should fulfill the commenters’ 

suggestion for a monitoring installation and shakedown period. The 

Agency disagrees with the commenter’s suggestion that the reference to 

enforceable milestones should be deleted, since they are a necessary 

part of the part 70 operating permits program. Finally, the Agency 

believes that the phased-in implementation of part 64 should meet the 

commenters’ suggestions for an orderly implementation process. 

Letter(s): Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (VI-D-186); American Automobile 

Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); Chemical Manufacturers 

Association (VI-D-152); Dow Chemical Company (VI-D-120); General 

Electric Company (VI-D-156); National Environmental Development 

Association (VI-D-169); Texas Chemical Council (VI-D-236); Union 

Carbide Corporation VI-D-170) 

Section 3.3: Operation of Monitoring

Comment a: An industry coalition and another commenter recommended deleting the 

requirement of § 64.3(c)(3) that all data gathered must be used for CAM 

purposes except data recorded during periods of monitor malfunction, 

maintenance, etc. These commenters stated that rule writers and 

permitting authorities routinely make special allowances for infrequent 

fluctuations in operations, and that EPA should not use CAM to override a 

unit's alternative compliance plans or excused emissions excursions. 

Response: The Agency disagrees with the commenters’ suggestion that some valid 

data not be used in assessing the operation of the control devices and 

associated control systems. This suggestion has not been incorporated 

in the rule, although, as mentioned before, the language in § 64.3(c)(3) of 

the 1996 part 64 Draft has been moved to § 64.7(c) of the final rule. The 

issue of how to evaluate the data based on the reason for any reported 

excursion or exceedance is separate from the issue of what data to 

include in data averages. 

Letter(s): Clean Air Implementation Project (VI-D-153); Eastman Chemical 

Company (VI-D-173) 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 147 

Comment b: Other commenters recommended various revisions to § 64.3(c)(3). A comme

during calibrations). The commenter suggested using a different criterion, 

such as activities that "temporarily prevent the monitoring of source 

emissions or parameters." Another commenter added that the provision 

in § 64.3(c)(3) which requires the source to operate the monitoring in 

accordance with its design is open-ended and undefined, and should be 

deleted. 

Response: The final rule refers specifically to calibration checks and, if applicable, 

zero and span adjustments. This provision is consistent with existing 

provisions such as § 60.13(e). 

Letter(s): Coalition for Clean Air Implementation (VI-D-164); Utility Air Regulatory 

Group (VI-D-140) 

Comment c: One commenter argued that the rule should also not require monitoring 

during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, explaining that such a revision 

would reflect many regulations, such as recent NSPS and MACT 

standards, which specifically exempt compliance with the standards 

during such periods. A commenter requested that data collected during 

malfunctions and especially those collected during startup and shutdown 

not be used for part 64 because these emissions are not representative of 

the actual operation conditions. A commenter added that data for these 

conditions should not be used for calculating data averages unless the 

underlying requirement requires compliance during such periods. 

Response: As discussed in Section III.G.1 of the preamble to the final rule, the 

Agency disagrees with comments that the rule exempt the source owner 

or operator from having to conduct monitoring during periods when the 

source is not required to comply with the underlying standard. Owners 

and operators remain responsible for operating and maintaining their 

sources in accordance with good air pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions during all periods of operation - including conditions 

such as startup and shutdown. Data from part 64 monitoring is essential 

to evaluate adherence to that responsibility. 

Letter(s): Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (VI-D-186); County Sanitation Districts of 

Orange County, California (VI-D-231); Texas Chemical Council (VI-D-236) 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 148 

Comment d: One commenter was concerned with the use of data collected during monito

64.3(c)(2) and (3), data collected during such periods cannot be used for 

part 64 purposes, including data averages or for satisfying a data 

availability requirement. The commenter concluded that part 64 should 

be amended to explicitly state that data collected during such times or 

under such conditions cannot be used for enforcement purposes. 

Response: The Agency disagrees with the commenter’s suggestion. While use of 

data collected during the identified periods may not be useful for purposes 

of part 64, neither the owner or operator nor the Agency, as noted in the 

credible evidence discussion of the preamble, is precluded from using any 

data collected for other purposes. However, as a practical matter, the 

ability to use invalid data to document compliance or a violation will be 

severely limited because of the poor reliability of any such data. 

 

Letter(s): Wellman, Inc. (VI-D-237) 

Comment e: A commenter recommended the creation of provisions allowing extra time 

for the repair of monitoring systems. The commenter stated that at an 

operating plant repairs of certain monitoring systems may require 

shutdown of major equipment, and suggested that like the Ozone 

Depleting Substance (ODS) rule, the CAM rule should allow extra time to 

get monitoring systems repaired. 

Response: The Agency believes the final rule allows owners or operators flexibility 

where needed to repair monitoring systems, and therefore disagrees with 

the commenter’s suggestion. While the rule requires owners or operators 

to maintain necessary parts for routine repairs of monitoring equipment, 

the rule also allows restoration of pollutant-specific emissions unit 

operation to normal or usual manner of operation as expeditiously as 

practicable and establishment of compliance schedules with enforceable 

milestones for installation, testing, and verification of new monitoring 

systems which may be needed if existing monitoring systems cannot be 

repaired. 

Letter(s): Occidental Chemical Corporation (VI-D-166) 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 149 

Comment f: One commenter described this requirement as more objective than the 

previous draft which it argued gave undue weight to manufacturer's 

requirements. However, several other commenters recommended 

deleting or modifying the general duty to properly operate and maintain 

monitoring in § 64.3(c)(2). Some commenters argued that this is yet 

another enforceable requirement for which the owner or operator could be 

in violation even though the owner has not violated any underlying 

substantive requirement. The commenters added that this requirement is 

arbitrary because there is no standard against which compliance can be 

judged. A commenter specified that the requirement to maintain spare 

parts on site is especially troubling because it runs counter to just-in-time 

inventory approaches and sources may not have adequate storage for 

such parts. Another commenter agreed that the requirement to maintain 

spare parts should be deleted because it is the source's obligation to 

assure compliance and how a source operates and maintains its 

equipment to achieve compliance is best left to the source. One 

commenter stated that the requirement to maintain and operate 

"monitoring" in a manner consistent with "good air pollution control 

practices" does not make sense, because monitoring is not an air 

pollution control device. The commenter suggested that different 

language should be used in this context. 

Response: The Agency disagrees that proper operation or maintenance of monitoring 

is not a substantive activity, particularly with respect to assuring 

compliance. The requirement for proper operation (as opposed to 

maintenance) of monitoring has been removed from § 64.7(b) of the final 

rule (the provision analogous to § 64.3(c)(2) of the 1996 part 64 Draft), not 

because such a requirement is irrelevant, but because continued 

operation of monitoring is addressed in § 64.7(c). The Agency agrees 

that on-site storage of spare monitoring parts could be viewed as overly 

restrictive, so that requirement has been removed from the rule. Instead 

the rule contains a duty to maintain parts - without a required location for 

those parts - for routine repairs to monitoring systems. Parts for routine 

repairs could be maintained on-site, off-site, or even through contracts 

with third-party vendors. 

Letter(s): American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); American 

Gas Association (VI-D-154); General Electric Company (VI-D-156); Ohio 

Chamber of Commerce et al (VI-D-160); UCAR Carbon Company, Inc. 

(VI-D-122); Utility Air Regulatory Group (VI-D-140)
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 150 

Comment g: One commenter supported including statements that monitoring is not 

required during certain specified periods. The commenter argued that 

although it may seem self-evident, it has not been universally recognized 

under other regulations that monitoring is not required during periods of 

non-operation, and this should be clearly stated rather than implied. The 

commenter also stated that EPA should provide that CAM monitoring is 

not required when monitoring is not required by the underlying emission 

standard. The commenter argued that HON and recent MACT standards 

provide that emission control requirements including monitoring do not 

apply during start-up, shutdown and malfunction, and that 

owner/operators are required to follow start-up, shutdown, malfunction 

plans instead. The commenter stated that the CAM rule should not 

increase stringency by taking away this kind of flexibility noting that new 

MACT standards will not be required to comply with CAM, but that this 

concept is probably not unique to Part 63. The commenter added that 

EPA should go one step further and provide that CAM-type monitoring is 

not required during start-up, shutdown, and malfunction generally. The 

commenter objected that situations for which the draft rule does not 

require monitoring as described in § 64.3(c)(3) deal only with problems 

with the monitoring system. 

Response: Section 64.7(c) explicitly states that monitoring need only be conducted 

when the emissions unit is operating. However, as discussed in 

response to Comment c, above, the Agency disagrees with not requiring 

monitoring during start-up, shutdown or malfunction periods. 

Letter(s): Dow Chemical Company (VI-D-120) 

Section 3.4: Existing Monitoring

Comment a: A commenter supported EPA for establishing a process by which CAM 

monitoring can replace existing monitoring. The commenter explained that 

sources have widely recognized that instances exist where the information 

produced by required monitoring could be generated equally well or better 

by alternative approaches and that this provision of the CAM proposal 

allows sources to make that demonstration. Another commenter, 

however, argued that the process for reviewing existing monitoring to 

determine if it meets CAM requirements is burdensome. The commenter 

noted that sources are required to review existing monitoring on a 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 151 

pollutant-specific and on an emission unit-specific basis, and that since 

CAM plan elements are included in Title V permits, states will then have to 

review each determination during the permitting process. This 

commenter stated that even with suitable guidance materials, this will put 

a great burden on states given their limited resources. 

Response: The Agency believes the ability to streamline multiple monitoring 

requirements, as expressed in the revision to § 70.6(a)(3)(i)(A), will tend to 

reduce, rather than increase, the monitoring development and operation 

burden for permitting authorities and owners or operators. Should 

permitting authorities find that their review burden exceeds the resources 

derived from emission fees, permitting authorities are able to increase 

their fees to cover any extra expenses. 

Letter(s): Chemical Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); Pharmaceutical 

Research and Manufacturers of America (VI-D-217) 

Comment b: Some utility commenters stated that units using existing monitoring to 

satisfy CAM rule requirements should be able to refer to existing 

documents and protocols in their operating permits instead of creating 

duplicative documentation to satisfy CAM requirements. In particular, 

they argued that units which are subject to Part 75 emissions monitoring 

requirements must develop specific QA/QC plans and maintain monitoring 

data in certain formats, and that if such units use Part 75 monitoring 

requirements to demonstrate compliance with non-Acid Rain standards, 

information and procedures developed to satisfy Part 75 should not have 

to be recreated in a different format to satisfy Part 64. These 

commenters stated that requiring the reformatting or recreation of this 

information would violate Executive Order 12866, directing federal 

agencies to "avoid regulations that are . . . duplicative with [their] other 

regulations or those of other Federal agencies." E.O. 12866, 58 Fed. Reg. 

51,735 (Sept. 20, 1993). One commenter added that the rule should not 

be permissive in regard to the sufficiency of Title IV CEMS for CAM 

purposes, but should explicitly state that this monitoring fulfills CAM 

requirements. 

A commenter raised the question of whether CAM plans should be 

developed based on the more rigorous requirements. The commenter 

requested that CAM give the permitting authority the flexibility to decide 

which level of monitoring is required that is consistent with the federal and 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 152 

State rules. For example, where CEMS are not required but have been 

installed anyway, the facilities should be able to evaluate and implement 

alternative monitoring systems such as PEMS according to this 

commenter. 

Response: The Agency agrees that existing monitoring requirements are an 

appropriate starting point for CAM development. The Agency notes that 

part 64 does not preclude use of references to existing monitoring 

documentation and that the part 64 requirements do not apply to Acid 

Rain Program requirements. The Agency disagrees with the 

commenter’s suggestion that an owner or operator has the ability to 

propose monitoring different than required CEMS, COMS, or PEMS. As 

mentioned in the preamble to the final rule, use of monitoring systems 

such as CEMS, COMS, or PEMS is preferable for CAM because they 

provide data directly in terms of the applicable emission limitation or 

standard. A request to use an alternative monitoring system in these 

circumstances must be made through the procedures contained in the 

underlying applicable requirement, not part 64. 

Letter(s): Cooperative Power Corporation (VI-D-208); County Sanitation Districts of 

Orange County, California (VI-D-231); Duquesne Light (VI-D-138); 

Southwestern Public Service Company (VI-D-224) 

Section 3.5: Costs to Permitters/Programmatic Option

3.5.1: Problems with Case-by-case Review

Comment a: A number of commenters stated that EPA should minimize the need for 

case-by-case review. Commenters cited the great resource burden on 

state and local air agencies that will be associated with case-by-case 

review of CAM plans. Two commenters pointed to EPA’s decision to 

exempt post-1990 rules as already satisfying CAM requirements, stating 

that EPA has recognized that a one-time regulatory program review is 

preferable to the more time-consuming case-by-case review. 

One commenter argued that industry continues to believe that the best 

solution is for EPA to implement the CAM rule through individual rules as 

EPA has implemented monitoring in the past. The commenter stated that 

EPA has not shown that the case-by-case approach is less burdensome, 

permitting authorities do not have the resources to do it, and the 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 153 

case-by-case approach fails to provide similar treatment for similar 

sources or allow for consideration of stringency issues. Another 

commenter stated generally that if EPA believes that current rules are 

inadequate, EPA should revise the underlying rules. This commenter 

asserted that at a minimum, if EPA proceeds with CAM, it should repeal 

existing monitoring. 

Commenters were concerned that CAM plan review cannot be done 

properly considering limited resources. A commenter argued that state 

and local agencies do not have the resources to become expert in and 

evaluate operations at the large number of sources subject to the rule. 

The commenter questioned where permitting authorities will find 

personnel who are technically competent for this task and whether Title V 

permit fees will be sufficient to cover the costs associated with this job. An 

environmental organization added that even assuming that uncorrelated 

parameter measurements could be adequate, permitting authorities do 

not have the time and resources needed to review sources' proposals. A 

California commenter expressed concern that local air pollution control 

districts will lack the resources necessary to implement CAM. This 

commenter referred to the comments of Texas representatives at the 

September 1996 stakeholder meeting who estimated that Texas, for 

example, has approximately 3,000 major sources and will have to 

negotiate the approval of approximately 300,000 CAM plans. The 

commenter stated that with the resources of local agencies will be 

committed to CAM implementation, important and innovative local air 

quality improvement efforts may be abandoned. An association of state 

and local agencies and a local agency added that dividing sources into 

several "enforcement categories" according to the current level of 

monitoring would simplify review and reduce the resource burden. 

Response: The final rule allows permitting authorities the flexibility to develop 

programmatic rule changes for CAM implementation. The Agency 

believes the use of such programmatic approaches could minimize 

permitting authorities’ resource burden associated with case-by-case 

review. In addition, the Agency believes that the amount of time spent on 

case-by-case review will decrease as permitting authorities develop 

expertise with CAM rule requirements and commonly used control 

devices. See Section I.C.2.d. of the preamble to the final rule for further 

discussion. 

 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 154 

Letter(s): American Public Power Association (VI-D-158); Cinergy Corp. (VI-D-141); 

City of Jacksonville AWQD (VI-D-272); County Sanitation Districts of Los 

Angeles County (VI-D-232); Institute of Clean Air Companies (VI-D-139); 

National Environmental Development Association (VI-D-169); Natural 

Resources Defense Council (VI-D-151); Southern California Gas 

Company (VI-D-222); STAPPA/ALAPCO (VI-D-179); STAPPA/ALAPCO 

(VI-D-274); Texas Title V Planning Committee (VI-D-188); Texas 

Chemical Council (VI-D-236) 

Comment b: Several commenters supported the use of programmatic rulemaking to 

establish CAM requirements in order to avoid problems of consistency 

and the potential overwhelming of the Title V program associated with 

case-by-case review of CAM plans. Commenters stated that permitting 

authorities should have the option to implement CAM on a rule-by-rule 

programmatic basis. One commenter noted that EPA has taken a 

programmatic approach for other programs through SIPs. According to 

one state commenter, in addition to reducing the resource burden, the 

programmatic approach provides the following benefits: a minimized 

burden on the Title V permitting process, more efficient EPA and public 

review, a greater consistency in determining what constitutes compliance 

with CAM, improved air quality planning, improved clarity and certainty of 

enforcement, and a more timely compliance with CAM requirements. In 

supplemental comments, this state agency renewed its support for a 

programmatic approach citing the increased pressure that the CE rule 

would place upon case-by-case negotiations. Other commenters argued 

that no compliance assurance program is necessary, but that if one is to 

be promulgated, a one-time programmatic approach would be far more 

administratively efficient than thousands of case-by-case reviews of 

individual CAM plans. 

Response: See response to Comment a, above. 

Letter(s): American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); ASARCO 

Incorporated (VI-D-187); Chemical Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); 

County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (VI-D-232); Gas 

Processors Association (VI-D-163); General Electric Company (VI-D-156); 

Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association (VI-D-184); Phillips 

Petroleum Company (VI-D-131); Texas Title V Planning Committee 

(VI-D-188); Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission 

(VI-D-189); Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (VI-D-256) 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 155 

3.5.2: Programmatic Option

Comment a: Commenters supporting a programmatic option argued that this means of 

implementation would be superior to case-by-case review. They stated 

that such an approach would be substantially less costly, to both 

permitting authorities and the regulated industry, than a case-by-case 

approach. In addition, administrative resources will be further conserved 

because a programmatic approach allows states to build on existing 

programs rather than creating needlessly duplicative programs to satisfy 

CAM. Other commenters agreed that the programmatic approach would 

decrease the likelihood of redundant programs. The commenters noted 

that some permitting authorities have developed source-specific 

regulations that address all aspects of compliance monitoring and they 

recommended allowing permitting authorities to implement CAM by 

modifying their existing rules. One commenter stated that, for example, 

the source-specific rules that are already adopted in the SIP should meet 

CAM requirements without having to develop separate source-specific 

CAM plans. Another commenter cited the comprehensive program in 

Texas that requires sources to conduct proper O&M of control devices to 

assure compliance as an example of an existing program where adding 

further case-by-case requirements would not be cost-effective. The 

commenter added that where state programs are determined not to be 

fully effective for meeting CAM requirements, states should be given time 

to fill gaps in their programs. 

A few commenters argued that the programmatic approach allows states 

more flexibility, both to incorporate existing SIP provisions and to choose 

which approach of implementing CAM best suits the individual state and 

will be most likely to satisfy CAM objectives. They noted that this 

flexibility is consistent with the CAA's granting of primary responsibility for 

air quality control to the states. One of the commenters asserted that by 

allowing necessary improvements to occur by rule, EPA would be 

improving the SIP process itself: the SIP credit achieved by additional 

compliance assurance measures is far more easily quantified if 

accomplished by rule than by each individual permit, thus greatly 

enhancing overall air quality planning. 

The commenters estimated that it will take states at least three years to 

fully revise Part 70 programs to reflect CAM when finalized, and another 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 156 

five years before CAM plans can be incorporated into all necessary 

individual permits. They argued that a state CAM plan, which would be 

based on existing programs, could be developed more quickly and would 

apply to all sources once effective. The commenters added that it will be 

easier for the public to participate in the development of a single 

programmatic "State CAM plan" than to attempt to oversee the 

development of individual CAM plans in multiple permits. 

A commenter stated that the programmatic approach eliminates the need 

to establish the relationship between monitored parameters and emission 

limits at every source which is one of the most problematic aspects of the 

CAM proposal. By eliminating this requirement while still providing a 

reasonable assurance of compliance, the commenter argued that the 

programmatic option will be more successful at achieving the goals of the 

CAM program. 

Response: The Agency agrees with many of the commenter’s suggestions. As 

mentioned in Section I.C.2.d. of the preamble to the final rule, permitting 

authorities are not precluded from utilizing programmatic approaches for 

part 64 implementation. The preamble also states that current monitoring 

can be used for CAM purposes, to the extent that the current monitoring 

meets the part 64 criteria. However, as discussed in the preamble, the 

Agency does not agree that additional time, beyond that included in the 

final rule’s implementation schedule, is warranted, including additional 

time for filling gaps in permitting authorities’ programs. 

Letter(s): ASARCO Incorporated (VI-D-187); California Association of Sanitation 

Agencies (VI-D-206); County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County 

(VI-D-232); County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California 

(VI-D-231); DuPont Engineering (VI-D-127); Texas Title V Planning 

Committee (VI-D-188); Texas Chemical Council (VI-D-236); Tri-TAC 

(VI-D-225) 

 

Comment c: Several commenters proposed or supported a specific programmatic 

approach to implementing CAM. One commenter recommended revision 

of the CAM rule to allow each state to submit a "State CAM plan" under 

which the state would have to demonstrate that its overall programs 

achieve Part 64's general objectives. One commenter stated that if CAM 

is to go forward, it specifically supported the above commenter’s 

approach. Other commenters agreed that such an approach would attain 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 157 

equivalency of environmental results, without the added bureaucracy 

associated with the draft rule. 

Some commenters provided detailed discussion of what a "State CAM 

plan" might contain. These commenters noted that TNRCC rules already 

have a compliance assurance monitoring process which includes the 

following: a requirement to properly operate and maintain control 

devices; a requirement to report any control device failures or 

discrepancies which might result in exceedances; the potential for 

excessive discrepancies to lead to enforcement or the requirement to 

undertake specific corrective action plans; and an incentive to report all 

possible discrepancies. The commenters added that TNRCC's on-site 

compliance investigation program allows TNRCC to identify rules which 

need to be revised to remain consistent with the goals of CAM. One of 

the commenters pointed out that many other states have similar 

programs, as recognized by EPA’s statement that many states have 

malfunction abatement plans similar to the CAM requirements. 

A commenter expressed its belief that applicable requirements already 

include the monitoring necessary to identify discrepancies under a state 

CAM plan, especially since EPA has the authority to call for SIP rule 

revisions if existing rules do not include sufficient monitoring 

requirements. However, the commenter did support a review of 

monitoring-related provisions as part of a State CAM plan demonstration 

as long as such review would not include rules applicable to sources in 

attainment areas, post-1990 rules, NSPS and NESHAPs, and minor 

NSR-based permit terms. 

One state agency provided a detailed proposal outlining a programmatic 

approach wherein a permitting authority would conduct an analysis of SIP 

rules and federal rules, would demonstrate to EPA that the monitoring 

requirements for certain emission limitations already satisfy CAM, and 

would either conduct state rulemaking or case-by-case reviews for those 

SIP and federal rules which do not themselves meet the goals of CAM. 

The commenter recommended that a permitting authority's programmatic 

submittal include three major elements: an evaluation of the general 

regulatory framework relative to an emission limitation, and an evaluation 

of applicable requirement monitoring and a prioritized schedule of less 

than 5 years. The commenter suggested that the schedule and 

evaluation of monitoring include consideration of relative environmental 

significance. This commenter provided an outline of such a submittal 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 158 

from its state and an implementation schedule along with proposed 

criteria for EPA review of state proposals, and a hammer provision 

requiring states that do not complete development of their programmatic 

approach as specified to revert to case-by-case determinations. The 

commenter also recommended that EPA continue to review all federal 

regulations proposed before November 15, 1990 to narrow the list of rules 

for which CAM plans must be developed enabling states employing the 

programmatic approach to conduct state rulemaking for those federal 

rules which do require CAM plans. Other commenters supported the 

approach described. One commenter added that the CAM program 

should not be part of the title V program at all because it will place too 

large a burden on that program. 

Response: As mentioned above, the final rule allows permitting authorities the 

flexibility to utilize programmatic approaches for CAM implementation. 

The preamble also mentions that current monitoring requirements can - 

and should - be used for CAM purposes, to the extent that the current 

monitoring meets the part 64 criteria. The Agency agrees that many of 

one commenter’s suggested approaches, including use of an on-site 

compliance investigation program, could have value in assuring 

compliance. However, the Agency does not believe that permitting 

authority initiated activities, such as the on-site compliance investigation 

program, either satisfy the monitoring requirements of the Act or are as 

effective in assuring compliance as owner or operator initiated activities, 

such as developing, operating, and maintaining monitoring for 

pollutant-specific emission units. 

Letter(s): Arizona Mining Association (VI-D-150); ASARCO Incorporated (VI-D-187); 

Gas Processors Association (VI-D-163); Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and 

Gas Association (VI-D-184); Texas Chemical Council (VI-D-236); Texas 

Natural Resource Conservation Commission (VI-D-189 and 265); Texas 

Title V Planning Committee (VI-D-188); Texas Utility Services, Inc. 

(VI-D-121) 

Section 3.6: Information for Permitters

Comment a: An association of state and local authorities recommended that the rule 

require sources to provide specific minimum information to permitting 

authorities. The commenter stated that the review, approval, and 

implementation of CAM plans will involve significant resources and that 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 159 

permitting authorities will need baseline unit-specific information to make 

the case-by-case review process possible. Therefore, the commenter 

recommended that the rule require this critical minimum amount of 

information, such as operating ranges for the source and its control 

equipment, and choice and frequency of monitoring, to be inserted into 

Title V permits. An environmental organization argued that the burdens 

imposed on permitting authorities by the rule are exacerbated by the lack 

of restrictions on the quality of sources' proposals or their supporting data. 

 The commenter argued that without needed restrictions on the type of 

information submitted, each proposal will be unique and permitting 

authorities will have to evaluate them as such. As a result, many 

proposals are likely to be approved simply because permitting authorities 

do not have the resources to question them according to this commenter. 

Response: The Agency believes that the final rule’s monitoring design criteria and 

submittal requirements meet the commenters’ suggestions by providing 

with specificity the minimum information concerning permit contents and 

the necessary restrictions on monitoring system proposals. 

Letter(s): Missouri Department of Natural Resources (VI-D-260); Natural Resources 

Defense Council (VI-D-151); STAPPA/ALAPCO (VI-D-179) 

Comment b: Commenters argued that EPA must provide clear guidance on what 

constitutes Subpart B monitoring and what constitutes Subpart C 

monitoring. One of the commenters stated that companies will not know 

if existing monitoring satisfies CAM or whether they have submitted 

sufficient proposals where new monitoring is required. The commenter 

added that even with the inclusion of choice of monitoring in the permit 

shield, permit negotiation is a daunting task for states and sources and a 

clear standard is needed for companies to appeal monitoring 

determinations or to discuss with permitting authorities the factors that 

should be considered in making a reasoned decision. The commenter 

further stated that EPA is obligated to provide sources and states with fair 

notice as to what constitutes approvable monitoring under Title V and 

section 114(a)(3) since without such clarification states will be able to 

create any requirement and impose it as a matter of federal law which 

was not intended by section 114(a)(3). Cites General Electric Co. v. 

EPA, 53 F.3d 1324, 1328-29 (D.C. Cir. 1995). This commenter also noted 

that companies and states will not know what constitutes federally 

required monitoring and what should be designated a state-only 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 160 

requirement in the permit. Finally, the commenter recommended rule 

language changes intended to clarify that the "reasonable assurance of 

compliance" standard involves considering a variety of factors as opposed 

to focusing solely on the level of emissions information obtained by a 

particular methodology. 

Another commenter was concerned that without clearer guidelines from 

EPA, state permitting authorities will be likely to take a conservative 

approach in implementing the CAM program, and such an approach likely 

will not be the least cost alternative for the source owner. The 

commenter argued that states can not be expected to devote significant 

resources to small units, and will also be reluctant to jeopardize federal 

approval of the SIPs by giving special treatment to small units which may 

subject small sources to a disproportionately large burden. 

Response: As mentioned above, the Agency believes the final rule language 

specifies minimum acceptable requirements for pollutant-specific 

emissions units covered by what the August 1996 draft referred to as 

subpart B. As previously mentioned, requirements for pollutant-specific 

emissions units covered by what the August 1996 draft referred to as 

subpart C have been removed from the rule. See section 6.4 (Part III) for 

further discussion of the site-specific factors to be considered in 

evaluating whether monitoring satisfies part 64. 

Letter(s): American Public Power Association (VI-D-158); Chemical Manufacturers 

Association (VI-D-152); National Environmental Development Association 

(VI-D-169) 

Section 3.7: Approval Procedures

Comment a: Some commenters stated generally that the rule should include specific 

approval guidelines or requested clarification of how the permitting 

authority will actually act to approve or disapprove a CAM plan. One 

commenter recommended changes to § 64.3(d) to streamline approval. 

The commenter argued that this paragraph requires two reviews for each 

CAM plan, one under Title V and one under the alternative provisions of 

the underlying rule which is wasteful activity and should be eliminated by 

providing that the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting established 

under CAM are approved alternatives for applicable monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting under Parts 51, 52, 60, and 61. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 161 

A permitting authority requested that the rule state the options available to 

them if sources fail to submit the required monitoring plan or description, 

or submit monitoring plans and/or descriptions that are inadequate. This 

commenter argued that the CAM rule should be revised to establish that 

permitting authorities may impose any monitoring requirements that they 

deem necessary in such cases. An industry commenter argued that part 

64 should provide a mechanism for appeal of permitting authority 

decisions. 

Response: The Agency believes the final rule generally addresses the commenters' 

suggestions. The approval process occurs as part of - not on a separate 

schedule from - the part 70 operating permit approval process. Owners 

or operators will typically learn of permitting authorities’ disapproval of part 

64 monitoring as the owners and operators’ permit applications are found 

incomplete. That knowledge could also come during the public’s review 

of draft permits or through the Agency’s review of a proposed permit. 

Section 64.6 specifically address approval of monitoring and § 64.6(e) 

describes permitting authorities’ abilities with respect to disapproval. If an 

owner or operator believes that the disapproval of proposed part 64 

monitoring in a final permit action is inappropriate, the owner or operator 

has the right to appeal that final permit decision in the same manner as 

any other final agency action. With respect to relying on the part 64 

approval/part 70 permit processes as a substitute for alternative 

monitoring approval procedures under other programs (SIPs, NSPS, 

NESHAP), the Agency has determined not to establish this direct linkage 

in part 64. Given the processing time for title V permitting, the Agency 

believes this issue can be addressed within the current alternative 

monitoring approval structure.

Letter(s): Department of Energy (VI-D-196); Exxon Chemical Americas (VI-D-128); 

Mobil Corporation (VI-D-248); South Coast Air Quality Management 

District (VI-D-233); Wisconsin Electric Power Company (VI-D-130) 

Comment b: One commenter stated that it is inappropriate to require that the permit 

reflect the required elements of a CAM plan as stated in § 64.3(b) 

because that improperly subjects Subpart C monitoring to CAM plan 

requirements. The commenter suggested addressing this issue in Subpart 

B and Subpart C separately. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 162 

Response: As mentioned above, the Agency believes the final rule language 

specifies minimum acceptable requirements for pollutant-specific 

emissions units covered by what the August 1996 draft referred to as 

subpart B. As previously mentioned, requirements for pollutant-specific 

emissions units covered by what the August 1996 draft referred to as 

subpart C have been removed from the rule. 

Letter(s): Los Alamos National Laboratory (VI-D-210) 

Comment c: To alleviate concerns related to the CE rule, a commenter requested that 

the Agency specifically provide that permitting authorities may not reject a 

source's proposal simply because the owner or operator does not provide 

a demonstration as to the relevance of parameter levels outside the 

proposed indicator ranges. 

Response: Nothing in part 64 requires the owner or operator to establish parameter 

levels which represent non-compliance conditions. The disapproval of 

part 64 monitoring on that basis would therefore not be a reasonable 

action under part 64 authority, although a permitting authority may have 

independent authority for requiring that type of determination. However, 

the owner or operator is responsible for documenting why the proposed 

parameters provide a reasonable assurance of compliance. As part of 

that demonstration, the owner or operator must show why the indicator 

ranges are relevant to assuring compliance, including why excursions 

from indicator ranges may be indicative of a loss of control performance. 

Letter(s): Utility Air Regulatory Group (VI-D-252) 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 163 

Section 4: Recordkeeping and Reporting

Section 4.1: Semiannual Reports

Comment a: A state agency commenter supported the proposed semi-annual reporting 

schedule stating that given current state agency resources this reporting 

schedule is preferable to one with any greater frequency. The 

commenter also suggested that quarterly reports be required under 

special circumstances such as implementation of a QIP. An association 

of state and local agencies recommended requiring quarterly reporting for 

Subpart B sources (while retaining the proposed semi-annual reporting 

requirements for Subpart C sources) since this reporting frequency would 

allow permitting authorities to respond more quickly to potential emission 

excursions. 

Response: As discussed in section II.I.2. of the final rule preamble, the 1993 EM 

proposal required quarterly reporting and many commenters indicated that 

this was overly burdensome. The Agency believes that semiannual 

reporting as required by part 70 is consistent with the goals of part 64, and 

with 1994 revisions to 40 CFR 60.7(e) that changed the reporting 

frequency for NSPS direct compliance monitoring from quarterly to 

semiannual. The Agency also notes that part 70 authorizes permitting 

authorities to require more frequent reporting, when appropriate and to 

report promptly all deviations from permit requirements. 

Letter(s): NESCAUM (VI-D-192); State of Illinois EPA (VI-D-183) 

Comment b: An environmental organization argued that the rule does not meet the 

requirement in section 503 of the Act that sources must promptly report all 

deviations from permit requirements to the permitting authority. 

According to this commenter, the CAM rule's requirement that sources 

provide a report every six months of summary information on the number, 

duration, and cause, if known, of excursions or exceedances and the 

corrective actions taken is faulty for this reason. In supplemental 

comments the commenter added that the final rule should not eliminate 

the obligation under part 70 to identify and report all deviations. Another 

commenter stated that a community should be able to obtain information 

about excessive air releases as soon as possible after the occurrence. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 164 

Response: The Agency notes that part 64 relies on the reporting requirements of part 

70, which specify that reports be submitted at least semiannually, and that 

all deviations be reported promptly. That independent part 70 

requirement will still apply. 

Letter(s): Clean Steel Coalition (VI-D-195); Natural Resources Defense Council 

(VI-D-151); Natural Resources Defense Council (VI-D-244) 

Comment c: One state agency recommended that subpart B units which have 

experienced deviations in a reporting period be subject to automatic 

submission of reports while subpart C units which have experienced 

deviations in a reporting period be required to submit a report on request 

only. The commenter argued that this would reduce the burdens 

associated with the enormous number of reports that will have to be 

submitted to satisfy the draft CAM rule. The commenter added that the 

annual compliance certification will serve as a safeguard to assure proper 

reporting for subpart C units. 

Response: No response to concerns over reporting for subpart C is necessary since 

subpart C is not included in the final rule. 

Letter(s): Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (VI-D-189) 

Comment d: A commenter stated generally that the proposed reports require too much 

detail. Another commenter similarly objected to the requirements in 

§§ 64.4(a)(2)(i) and (ii) to include detailed information on the causes of 

excursions, exceedances, and downtime incidents in semi-annual reports. 

 Because the commenter agreed with a requirement to submit summary 

information on these incidents but believed that submitting detailed 

information on the causes of such incidents will make the reports lengthy 

and burdensome to prepare, it proposed as an alternative that records on 

the cause of such incidents could be maintained on site consistent with 

the requirements of § 64.4(b)(2). 

To alleviate reporting burdens, a state agency commenter recommended 

that Part 64 and Part 70 allow owners and operators of units which have 

experienced no deviations during a reporting period to submit a single 

summary report stating that no deviations have occurred. The 

commenter asserted that an enormous number of reports will have to be 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 165 

submitted to satisfy the CAM rule and estimated that in their state, 

195,000 to 400,000 reports will have to be submitted annually to the 

permitting authority to satisfy CAM requirements. 

Response: The reporting requirements in § 64.9(a)(2)(ii) of the final rule do not 

require detailed information, but rather summary information on 

excursions and exceedances. These provisions are patterned after 

existing summary excess emission reports under 40 CFR 60.7(d). To the 

extent that part 70 allows for submittal of a single "negative declaration" 

type of summary report, part 64 has been drafted to allow for the same 

type of reporting. 

Letter(s): Eli Lilly Company (VI-D-124); Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and 

Industry (VI-D-114); Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission 

(VI-D-189) 

Comment e: One commenter recommended modifications to § 64.4(a)(2)(ii) for 

reporting of monitor downtime. The commenter argued that 

owner/operators should be able to exclude outages associated with other 

daily, weekly, etc. quality assurance activities rather than only daily 

monitor maintenance and asked that the word "daily" be deleted. 

Response: The Agency disagrees. The requirements for reporting of monitor 

downtime in § 64.9(a)(2)(ii) of the final rule are consistent with other EPA 

reporting requirements (see 40 CFR 60.7(d)). 

Letter(s): Exxon Chemical Americas (VI-D-128) 

Section 4.2: Reporting-QIP Notice

Comment a: Several commenters recommended that EPA extend the QIP notification 

period. A few commenters suggested specific revisions to § 64.4(a)(3) 

consistent with this position. Two commenters stated generally that the 

QIP notification time periods are arbitrary. One commenter noted that 

notification within two working days of when a QIP is required may not be 

possible, especially in circumstances such as those where an 

out-of-range parameter is initially thought to be caused by a malfunction of 

the monitoring equipment and the need for a QIP is not discovered until 

after replacement of a monitoring component. This commenter and 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 166 

others stated that notice should be triggered after the owner "identifies the 

need for" a QIP. Other commenters stated that their understanding of 

the rule as drafted is that the obligation to notify begins at the time at 

which the source determines that a QIP is needed, which may be later 

than the time at which the QIP threshold is actually reached. A state 

agency and another commenter argued that because the data collected to 

satisfy the CAM rule may require significant time to evaluate before an 

informed to decision to implement a QIP can be made, the two day 

notification requirement is unreasonable. Similarly, a commenter noted 

that, at a small site, one person may be responsible for reviewing data 

and determining when a QIP has been triggered and that it may also take 

some time to determine when the 5 percent threshold has been reached, 

especially at a facility subject to a large number of CAM plans. As much 

as two days is ordinarily needed to repair the damage to the unit and 

determine the cause of a failure. In addition, other regulations may 

require a more immediate notification (e.g., malfunctions) and subsequent 

follow-up reports. 

Many commenters recommended various alternative notification periods. 

One of the commenters argued that since an excursion from an indicator 

range does not automatically mean that a source has violated an emission 

limit or standard, triggering of a QIP is not an emergency situation and 

should not require such a short notification period. The commenter 

recommended requiring notification "as soon as possible." Other 

recommendations included notice periods from 5 to 30 days. One 

commenter recommended that the QIP reporting requirement be 

consistent with language in the requirement to provide notice of deviations 

from a permit in 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(C) which includes telephone or 

facsimile notice with a written notice submitted within 10 working days. 

One commenter argued that since sources are required to take corrective 

action immediately, immediate notification is not that crucial. The 

commenter added that it may be impossible to make notification within 

two days, for example if the time involves a weekend or holiday. 

Another commenter stated generally that the period is too short to review 

the necessary information and that such a short time frame seems 

unnecessary. 

A commenter recommended that the 2-day notification period apply only 

to situations in which the source determines that an exceedance of an 

applicable emission limitation or standard has occurred, not to excursions 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 167 

or QIPs. The commenter stated that this would reduce report review 

burdens on permitting authorities and focus review on only real problems. 

Response: The Agency has deleted from the final rule the requirement that source 

owners notify the permitting authority within two days of the need to 

implement a QIP. No additional response to this comment is necessary. 

Letter(s): Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (VI-D-186); American Automobile 

Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); American Electric Power 

(VI-D-129); American Gas Association (VI-D-154); Association of Battery 

Recyclers (VI-D-155); Chevron Companies (VI-D-132); Clean Air 

Implementation Project (VI-D-153); Colorado Association of Commerce 

and Industry (VI-D-182); Coastal Corporation (VI-D-123); County 

Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (VI-D-232); Eastman Chemical 

Company (VI-D-173); Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

(VI-D-193); Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. (VI-D-165); KBN Engineering 

and Applied Sciences, Inc. (VI-D-229); Pharmaceutical Research and 

Manufacturers of America (VI-D-217); PPG Industries, Inc. (VI-D-136); 

R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company (VI-D-221); Southern Company 

Services (VI-D-171); Specialty Steel Industry of North America (VI-D-143); 

Steel Manufacturers Association (SMA) (VI-D-144); Texas Chemical 

Council (VI-D-236); Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission 

(VI-D-189); The Fertilizer Institute (VI-D-145); The Society of the Plastics 

Industry (VI-D-148); UCAR Carbon Company, Inc. (VI-D-122); Wellman, 

Inc. (VI-D-237) 

Comment b: A commenter argued that notification that a QIP has been triggered may 

not be possible until the completion of the semiannual reporting period 

since a facility may not know it has triggered a QIP particularly if a 

percentage threshold has been exceeded. This commenter requested 

that EPA establish that, under such circumstances, a source does not 

need to report triggering of a QIP until two working days after the end of 

the reporting period. Another commenter agreed and added that the 

requirement just adds yet another paperwork burden for a notice that may 

never be looked at. The second commenter proposed that the notice be 

included in the next semiannual report. 

Response: The Agency has deleted from the final rule the requirement that source 

owners notify the permitting authority within two days of the need to 

implement a QIP. No additional response to this comment is necessary. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 168 

Letter(s): Chemical Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); General Electric 

Company (VI-D-156) 

Comment c: One state commenter noted that the QIP notification period conflicts with 

some state and local reporting requirements and may cause confusion 

among permitted sources. The commenter referred to their state's own 

semiannual requirement to report deviations from monitored control 

equipment parameters (Minn. R. 7007.0800). 

Response: The Agency has deleted from the final rule the requirement that source 

owners notify the permitting authority within two days of the need to 

implement a QIP. No additional response to this comment is necessary. 

Letter(s): Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (VI-D-197) 

Comment d: Some commenters were concerned with the grant of discretion for 

permitting authorities to add further QIP notification requirements. The 

commenters stated that this is a standardless delegation of authority to 

permitting authorities, and that the QIP reporting provisions are sufficient. 

Another commenter suggested revising § 64.4(a)(3) to replace "shall" with 

"may" in order to clarify that permitting authorities are not required to add 

further QIP reporting requirements. 

Response: The final rule does not include the referenced provision that was included 

in the 1996 part 64 Draft. The final rule provides that a QIP can be 

required after a determination by the permitting authority or the 

Administrator that a source owner or operator has failed to conduct proper 

operation and maintenance as documented through part 64 monitoring 

and other available information. In this respect, the QIP provisions are 

analogous to existing corrective action remedies available to address 

compliance problems already available to permitting authorities. No 

additional response is necessary. 

Letter(s): American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); General 

Electric Company (VI-D-156); Total Petroleum, Inc. (VI-D-190) 

Comment e: A commenter requested that EPA clarify whether this notice must be 

written, verbal or both. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 169 

Response: The Agency has deleted from the final rule the requirement that source 

owners notify the permitting authority within two days of the need to 

implement a QIP. No additional response to this comment is necessary. 

Letter(s): PPG Industries, Inc. (VI-D-136) 

Section 4.3: Records to be Kept

Comment a: Several commenters were opposed to the inclusion of additional 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements on the grounds that such 

requirements are burdensome and costly. One commenter stated that 

operators should be allowed to record O&M data in the course of their 

normal work requirements and without significant additional effort. This 

commenter argued that operators would not normally need to keep 

records relating to corrective actions, QIPs and QIP implementation 

activities, QA activities, monitoring downtime incidents, data used to 

demonstrate the adequacy of monitoring, and other required monitoring 

information. The commenter added that these requirements will be 

additionally burdensome because many regulated sources are remotely 

located and unmanned. 

Other commenters were concerned about potential redundant 

recordkeeping and reporting. They asked that EPA clarify that Part 64 

does not require the keeping of separate records or development of new 

reports where the required information is already kept or reported as a 

result of a pre-existing requirement (e.g., recordkeeping requirements 

under Part 75 or excess emission reporting under Part 60). 

Response: As discussed in section II.I.5. of the final rule preamble, the Agency 

believes that the records required to be kept under part 64 are all required 

by part 70. Therefore the intent of § 64.9(b) is to clarify the requirements 

rather than to impose additional burdens. 

Letter(s): Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America (VI-D-118); Utility Air 

Regulatory Group (VI-D-140); Virginia Power (VI-D-226); Wisconsin 

Electric Power Company (VI-D-130) 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 170 

Comment b: Two commenters requested clarification of the time period for keeping records

consistent with existing regulations and standards, facilities should be 

allowed to maintain records for a period of less than five years. 

One commenter asked that the rule clarify that QIP records are required 

to be maintained only if a QIP is actually required. 

Response: The final rule refers to the recordkeeping requirements set forth in § 

70.6(a)(3)(ii) which require that records of the required monitoring be kept 

for at least five years. The Agency believes that the reference to "any" 

quality improvement plan required pursuant to § 64.8 is adequate to 

specify that only records related to required QIPs are necessary. 

Letter(s): Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America (VI-D-118); Occidental 

Chemical Corporation (VI-D-166); Total Petroleum, Inc. (VI-D-190) 

Section 4.4: Alternative Recordkeeping Formats

Comment a: Several commenters asked that data compression be explicitly 

authorized. One commenter stated that this would prevent an 

unreasonable number of data points being stored. Another commenter 

argued that since most continuous data recording functions are performed 

by computer, EPA should authorize two types of compression: 1) systems 

that "zip" a file for storage by only retaining data points that differ from 

prior data points (see 40 CFR 63.506(g)(3)); and 2) systems that average 

many numbers down to one number, so long as none of the numbers 

exceed a regulatory limit. The commenter explained that these methods 

do not discard relevant data, and added that the compression algorithm 

could be available for on-site inspection and all data could be retained for 

3 hours. A commenter cited the HON preamble, 40 CFR 63.152(f), which 

provides for the use of alternative recordkeeping systems, such as data 

compression systems. Another commenter cited to the HON and certain 

MACT standards as examples of regulations that authorize keeping 

various averages of data points that show compliance and recording every 

data point only when indicators are outside of approved ranges. 

One commenter stated generally that it supported the flexibility provided in 

the 1996 part 64 draft for use of alternative media. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 171 

Response: As discussed in Section II.I.5. of the preamble to the final rule, part 64 

records may be kept in media other than paper so long as the records are 

available for inspection. The use of data compression is subject to the 

underlying requirements in other standards, if applicable. For records 

required solely because of part 64, the Agency believes that the general 

recordkeeping provisions in Part 70 are sufficiently flexible to allow for 

approval of data compression on a case-by-case basis. 

Letter(s): Chemical Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); Dow Chemical Company 

(VI-D-120); Phillips Petroleum Company (VI-D-131); Texas Chemical 

Council (VI-D-236); Virginia Power (VI-D-226) 

Section 4.5: Off-site Storage of Records

Comment a: Several commenters stated that off-site storage of records should not 

require permitting authority approval. Two commenters argued that part 

70 already allows for this and part 64 should not restrict this authority. 

Neither permitting authority staff nor owners/operators should have to 

expend time and effort on such a technicality according to one 

commenter. Another commenter concluded that CAM should not alter 

underlying rules in this manner. 

Response: Because the final rule relies directly on the reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements of part 70, the requirement for permitting authority approval 

of off-site storage of records has been deleted. The Agency notes that 

the records must be made readily available for inspection. 

Letter(s): American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); Coastal 

Corporation (VI-D-123); Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry 

(VI-D-182); Exxon Chemical Americas (VI-D-128); General Electric 

Company (VI-D-156); Texas Chemical Council (VI-D-236) 

Section 4.6: Other Reporting and Recordkeeping Issues

Comment a: One state agency suggested a quarterly "look-back" requirement, under 

which sources would have to determine if they had exceeded their QIP 

implementation threshold in the previous three months. The commenter 

explained that if the threshold had been exceeded, the source could be 

required to submit an informational report to the permitting authority. 

This requirement would provide permitting authorities with early warnings 

of possible deviations from a CAM plan and sensitize owners/operators of 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 172 

the need to take steps to avoid actual QIP implementation at the end of 

the semi-annual reporting period according to this commenter. 

Response: Because of the revisions to the QIP provisions, this comment is no longer 

generally applicable. A permitting authority would be able to add this 

type of requirement in those situations where a specific QIP trigger 

threshold is included in a permit. 

Letter(s): State of Illinois EPA (VI-D-183) 

Comment b: One commenter stated that the rule should, at a minimum, require an automa

automated means (e.g., manual logging can lead to failures to actually 

take the appropriate reading and to fill out the log at the end of a shift). 

The commenter added that exceptions to automated readings could be 

allowed if substantial economic or technical barriers exist. 

Response: The Agency disagrees that only automated means of data collection, 

storage and reporting should be allowed. The EPA believes that part 64 

should be flexible regarding the type of data collection and storage 

permitted so that the permitting authority can approve the most efficient 

scheme on a site-specific basis. However, the presumption of at least 

some form of continuous monitoring for large emissions units (see Section 

II.C.2.d. of the preamble to the final rule) likely will result in automated 

monitoring approaches for most large units subject to part 64. 

Letter(s): Environmental Systems Corporation (VI-D-125) 

Comment c: A commenter argued that part 64 should not require that "substitute data" 

calculated under part 75 when CEMS data are unavailable be used in 

reporting deviations or excursions. Because such data are hypothetical 

and intentionally punitive, according to the commenter, the commenter 

stated that their use would equate to "double counting" against a source 

of hyperbolic "emissions"--when in fact actual emissions during a 

"data-less" period may have been well within limitations or standards. 

According to this commenter the use of substitute data for part 64 would 

misrepresent to regulators and the public the potential environmental 

impacts of actual emissions. 

Response: Part 64 does not require or assume that an owner or operator will use part 

75 substitute data procedures in calculating applicable emission averages 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 173 

for other applicable requirements (NSPS, SIP, etc.). These averages 

should be calculated using CEMS data that are considered valid data 

under the applicable requirement in question. 

Letter(s): Southwestern Public Service Company (VI-D-224) 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 174 

Section 5: Savings Provisions

Comment a: One commenter stated that EPA should delete § 64.5(a)(2)'s reference to 

the Administrator and to Clean Air Act section 504(b) because it is 

unnecessary to save the requirements of section 504(b) because there 

are no prior regulations issued under this section other than the current 

proposed rule. The commenter added that even if the current part 70 is 

considered a rule under section 504(b), EPA should eliminate the savings 

provision so that only one set of requirements will apply under that 

provision, which would be consistent with EPA's stated intent to rescind 

the periodic monitoring provisions of part 70. Alternatively, the commenter 

recommended EPA deferring CAM implementation until the second round 

of title V permits. 

Response: The Agency disagrees. As discussed in Section I.C.4 of the preamble to 

the final rule, the Agency has decided to continue to rely on part 70 to 

define the periodic monitoring requirements for units not subject to part 

64. In addition to these requirements, this language clarifies that the 

savings provisions apply to any future requirements promulgated under 

section 504(b). 

Letter(s): Chemical Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152) 

Comment b: A commenter requested that § 64.5(a)(1) be more specific what 

 constitutes "improved or new monitoring requirements" for those 

facilities that do not have existing monitors. This commenter also stated 

that the "more restrictive monitoring" requirement in § 64.5(a)(2) is an 

open ended requirement. 

Response: The Agency disagrees that further explanation is needed. The phrase 

"improved or new monitoring" in § 64.10 of the final rule is used in 

describing the purpose of part 64, as defined more fully in the other 

sections of the rule, and distinguishing it from other regulations which 

establish minimum requirements for particular programs. See further 

discussion in Section II.J. of the preamble to the final rule. 

Letter(s): Occidental Chemical Corporation (VI-D-166) 

 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 175 

Comment c: One commenter argued that § 64.5(a)(3) should be deleted because it 

would have the effect of abrogating the permit shield. 

Response: As described in Section I.E. of the preamble to the final rule, the Agency 

does not agree with those commenters who suggested that sources that 

comply with part 64 should be shielded from enforcement of their 

emission limits. The Agency does not believe that the savings provisions 

of the final rule interfere with the permitting authority's ability to extend the 

permit shield to part 64 monitoring requirements included in an operating 

permit. The extension of such a shield will be available to protect 

sources from claims that the monitoring approved in the permit fails to 

satisfy part 64. 

Letter(s): General Electric Company (VI-D-156) 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 176 

Section 6: Monitoring Design Criteria

Section 6.1: Subpart B-General Criteria

6.1.1: General Comments

Comment a: Commenters supported generally the approach to using monitoring that 

documents proper operation and maintenance of control devices, or noted 

that the draft § 64.6 was an improvement over past versions because 

the current version properly establishes a standard of "reasonable 

assurance of compliance" and abandons prior drafts use of problematic 

concepts such as ranges designed "to ensure . . . that the [unit] will 

remain in compliance." 

Response: No response necessary. 

Letter(s): Air Control Techniques, P.C. (VI-D-202); Chemical Manufacturers 

Association (VI-D-152); Department of Energy (VI-D-196) 

Comment b: Other commenters complained that the monitoring required under CAM 

would produce data with no relevance to environmental protection. 

Commenters argued that the CAM approach of monitoring "indicators" of 

control device performance which are not correlated with emissions will 

neither provide data that ensure that sources are operating within 

emission limits nor give regulators the data needed to implement rational 

attainment strategies. Commenters stated that direct measurement of 

emissions is necessary to fulfill these aims. Another added that the rule 

should require industry to monitor actual emissions so that the rule in fact 

assures compliance and makes the data easy to compare to emission 

limits for enforcement and certification purposes. In addition, the 

commenter argued that the rule should assure that excess emissions are 

adequately addressed, monitoring is done at an acceptable frequency, all 

valid data are reported, and all major sources are subject to the 

requirements. A commenter asserted that the monitoring provisions 

should require monitoring that is capable of being correlated with emission 

limits. This commenter stated that the rule improperly results in a 

comparison of owner selected parameter measurements with owner 

selected ranges rather than comparison of actual emissions with emission 

limits. Other commenters also argued that indicator ranges are not 

reliable enough to show compliance or noncompliance with applicable 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 177 

emission limits and standards, except that some commenters assert they 

could be if the rule requires additional criteria to provide a credible 

demonstration of the relationship. A state agency recommended that 

one of the goals of the CAM rule should be establishing the relationship 

between monitored parameters and actual emissions. The commenter 

suggested achieving this goal by requiring that sources demonstrate this 

relationship in order to get the benefit of a shield for the adequacy of CAM 

plans. The commenter added that, at a minimum, a source or industry 

group should be required to develop a sensitivity analysis to identify the 

most critical parameters for process/control performance. Similarly state 

agency commenters supported a requirement that sources must make a 

"credible demonstration" of the relationship between monitored 

parameters and actual emissions. The agencies argued that such a 

demonstration would be necessary before any parametric or O&M data 

could be used to support a presumption of compliance. The commenters 

recommended that the "credible demonstration" require that the following 

elements be shown for each pollutant-specific emissions unit while the 

unit is operating in a manner consistent with the CAM plan: 1) a 

demonstrated relationship between the monitored parameter and the 

unit's actual emissions; 2) a demonstrated margin of compliance; and 3) 

an assessment of the potential variability of the unit's emissions. The 

commenter further specified that the number of indicators monitored and 

the extent of the required demonstration would be a function of the 

documented emissions history of the unit, the unit's established margin of 

compliance, the complexity of the process, and other factors. The 

commenters added that the phrase "credible" in the "credible 

demonstration" standard would be defined by either EPA, permitting 

authorities, or the courts (in the event of a legal challenge). 

Response: The Agency believes that monitoring to assure the ongoing proper 

operation and maintenance of control technology has direct relevance to 

environmental protection. Further, the Agency believes that such 

monitoring can provide a technically sound and reasonable assurance of 

continuing compliance with applicable requirements, including emission 

limitations. The commenters are correct that part 64 does not require a 

statistical correlation analysis between the levels of measured parameters 

and emission rates; however, the suggestion that part 64 does not require 

any site-specific developed relationship between parameter indicator 

ranges and compliance performance is inaccurate. The Agency agrees 

that the use of operational data collected during performance testing is a 

key element in establishing indicator ranges; however, other relevant 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 178 

information in establishing indicator ranges would be engineering 

assessments, historical data, and vendor data. Further, the Agency 

believes that operation within indicator ranges established in this manner 

will provide reasonable confidence that so long as the indicator values are 

not exceeded the facility will remain in compliance with emission 

standards. The rule requires precisely this type of justification for the 

establishment of indicator levels. Thus, the commenters' broad claims 

about “no correlation” are simply incorrect. The evaluation criteria cited 

by state agency commenters are consistent with the criteria identified in 

part 64 for evaluating selected parameters and the appropriateness of the 

indicator range. These factors should be considered by both the source 

owner and the permitting authorities in evaluating whether the indicator 

levels provide a reasonable assurance of compliance as part 64 indicates. 

 Further, the fact that the operating indicator ranges are owner-derived 

does not obviate the requirement in the rule for adequate justification for 

the parameters being monitored and the levels at which the parameters 

are maintained. 

Letter(s): Clean Steel Coalition (VI-D-195); Institute of Clean Air Companies 

(VI-D-139); Maine DEP (VI-D-240); Natural Resources Defense Council 

(VI-D-151); NESCAUM (VI-D-192); S. Fitzsimmons (VI-D-201); Sierra 

Club, Lone Star Chapter (VI-D-242); State of New Jersey Dept. of 

Environmental Protection (VI-D-215) 

Comment c: A commenter also argued that the CAM rule fails to address important 

issues relating to the establishment of indicator ranges and parameter 

monitoring. The commenter described the provision in the rule requiring 

sources to monitor one or more indicators of control device performance 

as inadequate and stated that if CAM is to rely on the theory that control 

device monitoring can assure compliance, it should recognize that typical 

control devices have several parameters that must stay within certain 

ranges. The commenter noted that if monitoring is inadequate, a source 

could operate consistently out of compliance with emission standards 

without detection. The commenter asserted that sources will tend to push 

the limits of leniency in the CAM plans they submit in an effort to minimize 

the detection of excursions and exceedances. 

Response: The Agency agrees that many control device operations are sensitive to 

the management of more than one operating parameter. The language 

in the rule and preamble emphasizes this point. An indicator range which 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 179 

fails to take into account significant control device parameters is unlikely 

to provide the reasonable assurance of compliance with emissions 

limitations or standards. Further, the guidance material the Agency has 

distributed includes examples with multi-parameter monitoring as 

generally accepted approaches. These guidelines also provide example 

technical justifications on which to base operating indicator ranges for 

permitting authorities and the public to use in judging the adequacy of 

monitoring. The subsequent responsibility to record, respond to, and 

report excursions as possible exceptions to compliance will have the 

desired affect of requiring the source owner to pay more attention to the 

operations of the control technology and, in turn, improve and assure 

compliance. 

Letter(s): Natural Resources Defense Council (VI-D-151) 

Comment d: A commenter stated that state permitting authority review of CAM plans 

will not guarantee effective monitoring and pointed out that rejection of a 

source's proposed CAM plan will result in the delay of any monitoring 

requirements whatsoever. 

Response: The Agency has prepared and will continue to develop guidance materials 

to help permitting authorities to review and evaluate proposed monitoring 

approaches. Part 64 also makes clear that disapproval of monitoring 

during the permit application process does not relieve the source owner 

form basic periodic monitoring requirements as defined in part 70. 

Finally, if a monitoring plan is disapproved, the owner or operator must 

prepare revised monitoring within the schedule defined by the rule and is 

in jeopardy of enforcement action if subsequent proposals are found 

inadequate. 

Letter(s): Natural Resources Defense Council (VI-D-151) 

Comment e. An industry coalition group and others raised concerns that the design 

standard for indicator ranges could be interpreted to mean that a 

statistical correlation is required. The commenters argued that the 

design standard for indicator ranges is fundamentally flawed and results in 

increased stringency. They noted that the standards in the draft rule offer 

no concrete guidance on how to set indicator ranges but appear to require 

assurance that emissions never exceed a given numerical limit. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 180 

Commenters argued that because many standards were developed 

without requiring emissions to continuously meet that number (see related 

comments under section 14), this design standard changes the underlying 

stringency of the standard. The commenters added that EPA then 

appears to require a statistical correlation between the emission standard 

and the indicators monitored through requiring the range to be set on the 

basis of performance tests. However, any such statistical correlation 

would require a massive complex testing program involving multiple 

parameters and operating conditions according to the commenters. 

If such a statistical correlation is not required, then the commenters 

argued that the rule provides no guidance on how to address uncertainties 

or issues of margin of compliance in using performance test results in 

setting indicator ranges. Instead, they stated that it appears that a 

source will be locked into the potentially arbitrary conditions that existed 

during the test and that those conditions could dictate an enforceable 

indicator range or the triggering of a violation for a second QIP. The only 

way out of that result is to conduct further tests to document why the 

indicator range should be adjusted, which the commenters stated would 

impose unnecessary costs on the source. The commenters stated that 

the opacity example (which assumes that an indicator range below an 

opacity standard may be appropriate) points out the inherent increased 

stringency with the design process for indicator ranges. 

In addition, one commenter argued that the one example of how to set a 

range that is included in EPA's draft guidance, although not premised on 

real data, raises unanswered questions and illustrates the problems with 

EPA's approach. It also contains a significant technical error that makes 

it unworkable according to this commenter. 

These commenters suggested as an alternative design standard that 

indicator ranges be established to assure in a cost-effective manner that 

control measures, which have been shown capable of achieving emission 

limits, are properly operated and maintained in accordance with good air 

pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. In addition, the 

monitoring design criteria should specifically state that the monitoring will 

not be used to make underlying standards more stringent, and that 

monitoring should only be required where it is cost-effective. In addition, 

the primary basis for establishing indicator ranges should be all available 

information, including historical operating data (including data obtained 

during tests), engineering data, and vendor data or guidance. That data 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 181 

would be used to establish the full range of expected variability based on 

normal operations and consistent with good O&M. The use of 

performance test data should not be used to limit the full normal range of 

indicator values that reflect good O&M, even if the performance test was 

near an applicable limit. The commenters stated that this approach 

recognizes the relationship of emissions and parameters, and the 

variability of both test and parameter results. One commenter discussed 

this point in the context of Portland Cement test results. 

Response: As noted above, part 64 does not require a statistical correlation analysis 

of the relationship between operating parameter levels and emissions. 

The rule is clear on this point and the guidance material is similarly 

structured. However, this rule is designed to do more than “assure . . . 

that control measures . . . are properly operated and maintained in 

accordance with good air pollution control practices for minimizing 

emissions.” This is not simply an emission minimization rule; it is a rule 

that requires enhanced monitoring for the purpose of collecting data 

relevant to the compliance of the source with emission standards. 

Because of the high cost involved in calculating a statistical correlation 

between emissions and parameter levels across operating levels, the rule 

is based on an approach for determining parameter levels that takes into 

account both site-specific performance test data and all other available 

data including engineering evaluations, historical information, and vendor 

or manufacturer data. The Agency believes that parameter levels 

derived from such data can have a sufficiently close relationship to 

emission levels that maintaining the source within those parameter or 

indicator levels can provide a reasonable assurance of compliance. 

The issue of stringency and continuous compliance obligations is 

discussed in section 14 (Part III). Part 64 is simply a rule defining 

monitoring requirements and which is based and builds upon existing 

monitoring approaches. The suggestion that the rule include a factor for 

evaluating monitoring selection based on cost-effectiveness is 

unnecessary given that the expense of a statistical correlation analysis is 

not required. Indeed, the rule makes a point of allowing just the type of 

data support the commenters suggest (e.g., historical operating data 

(including data obtained during tests), engineering data, and vendor data 

or guidance) in conjunction with performance test data (or alone if the 

owner or operator can justify that a test is not necessary) to support 

site-specific indicator ranges. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 182 

Letter(s): Chemical Manufactures Association (VI-D-258); Coalition for Clean Air 

Implementation (VI-D-164); DuPont Engineering (VI-D-127); National 

Environmental Development Association (VI-D-169); Specialty Steel 

Industry of North America (VI-D-143); Steel Manufacturers Association 

(SMA) (VI-D-144) 

Comment f: One commenter was concerned that the criteria in draft § 64.6(a)(2) 

appear to require monitoring to measure the effectiveness of operation 

and maintenance activities in addition to the measurement of control 

device performance required by § 64.6(a)(1). This approach turns a 

general duty into a standard and is unheard of in existing air pollution 

programs, the commenter argued. The commenter stated that indicators 

are used to determine if the emission limit is being attained and it is 

unlikely that an indicator of O&M effectiveness could be found. In 

addition, given the broad definition of control device, the commenter 

argued that this requirement would extend to processes and operations 

not subject to the underlying rule. Thus, the commenters recommended 

that § 64.6(a)(2) be revised by deleting the third sentence. 

Response: Part 64 is intended to define not only monitoring that can be used to 

establish compliance status, but also to clarify with distinct requirements 

what is expected for compliance with general duty requirements common 

to EPA and many other regulations. The Agency agrees maintaining 

operations within established indicator ranges represents good operation 

and maintenance of control technology and will provide a reasonable 

assurance of compliance with emission limitations; that is a basic function 

of part 64. The additional clarification that compliance with the owner's 

responsibility to respond promptly to excursions from the established 

indicator ranges is also part of the measure of good operation and 

maintenance practices. 

Letter(s): Exxon Chemical Americas (VI-D-128) 

Comment g: Some utility commenters stated that the rule should not require monitoring 

of indicators to demonstrate that controls are operated in a way that will 

minimize emissions "at least to the levels required by all applicable 

requirements." They argued that this phrase should be deleted because 

there can be disagreement about the absolute level of emission control 

required by certain applicable requirements. One commenter added that 

it was concerned about the cost of validating data necessary to establish 

appropriate ranges. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 183 

Response: Part 64 is not intended to define the applicable requirements including the 

applicable emission limits. Part 64 is intended to define the minimum 

level of monitoring sufficient to demonstrate that pollutant specific 

emission units with control devices continue to operate in a manner 

consistent with compliance performance. The phrase "at least to the 

levels required by all applicable requirements" is consistent with this goal 

and is not intended to add or define any new requirement. This language 

is based on similar language used in part 63 to define an owner or 

operator's general duty to properly operate and maintain a source (see 

§ 63.6(e)(1)). The cost of validating performance indicator ranges is, by 

the design of part 64, to be moderate given the reliance on process and 

control device operation and maintenance design factors rather than an 

extensive degree of correlation testing. 

Letter(s): South Carolina Electric and Gas Company (VI-D-116); Utility Air 

Regulatory Group (VI-D-140); Wisconsin Electric Power Company 

(VI-D-130) 

6.1.2: Adequacy of the General Criteria

Comment a: Some commenters argued that the criteria need to be simplified and 

clarified so that there is a standard against which to judge compliance. 

They noted that the draft includes four separate standards for judging the 

adequacy of a CAM plan: reasonable assurance of compliance, good air 

pollution control practices, necessary to assure compliance, and designed 

to provide reliable data for detecting an exceedance or excursion. They 

recommended that the rule should require that CAM provide a reasonable 

assurance of compliance, in a cost-effective manner, without increasing 

the stringency of existing substantive requirements. (See related 

comments in Section 6.4) Another commenter added that the general 

criteria and other requirements of CAM fail to provide standards against 

which compliance with CAM can be judged. For instance, the 

commenters stated that the rule fails to adequately: define control device; 

explain how to set indicator ranges; explain how to set the QIP threshold 

or determine if an excursion or exceedance occurs; or explain how the 

exemptions apply. This commenter argued that specific standards 

should apply and include consideration of cost-effectiveness. (See 

detailed comments in Section 6.4) Another commenter stated generally 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 184 

that more concrete guidance in the rule is necessary on how indicator 

ranges will be set in practice. 

An environmental group argued that criteria and the supporting 

documentation requirements in the rule are vague and therefore, 

permitting authorities would not be able to give meaningful review to 

monitoring proposed to meet part 64. This commenter also noted that 

states have limited resources and claimed, based on comments by the 

State of Texas at a public meeting, that the states would be overwhelmed 

by the number of applications with monitoring. 

On the other hand, others argued that the general criteria (and the 

performance criteria and the CAM requirements) provide too much detail. 

 One commenter added that, although the rule is an improvement over 

the 1993 EM proposal, the level of detail in Subpart B is still too 

burdensome to properly fulfill the "gap-filling" role for CAM described in 

the draft preamble, and that the requirements should be more like those in 

Subpart C. Another commenter stated that the rule should leave much 

more discretion to the states as to what and how much information related 

to CAM must be submitted, and that the requirements in §§ 64.6-.8 of 

the 1996 part 64 Draft are too detailed to allow this discretion. The 

commenter cited the QA/QC and operational status verification 

requirements as examples of this problem which would delay permitting 

and bog down the title V process. 

Response: In the final rule, EPA has attempted to simplify the basic general criteria to 

avoid the type of potential ambiguity noted in the comments. The final 

rule clearly establishes that indicator ranges under part 64 must be set to 

provide a reasonable assurance of compliance with applicable emission 

limitations for the anticipated range of operating conditions. Such 

indicator ranges are required to reflect the proper operation and 

maintenance of the control device (and associated capture system), in 

accordance with applicable design properties, for minimizing emissions 

over the anticipated range of operating conditions at least to the level 

required to achieve compliance with the applicable requirements. Part 64 

 addresses, by necessity, broadly applicable monitoring of pollution 

control technology intended not as “gap-filling” but to address the Clean 

Air Act requirements for enhanced monitoring that will provide an 

assessment of compliance with applicable requirements. That some 

discretion must be applied for site-specific applications of such 

requirements is unavoidable. For this reason, the Agency has 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 185 

undertaken to develop control technology and source category specific 

guidance to assist in defining what the Agency believes is necessary to 

meet the requirements of the rule. 

The Agency believes that changes made to the monitoring criteria and to 

the documentation requirements (see Section 8.1) cure vagueness 

concerns. The commenter’s claims regarding the overwhelming number 

of CAM plans that would have to be reviewed is based on an estimate 

which was grossly overstated. Instead of “hundreds of thousands” of 

units for Texas alone, EPA estimates 26,500 units nationwide will be 

subject to part 64 requirements. The resources required at the permitting 

authority will increase to provide review of initial permit application review, 

potential permit revisions, and permit renewal activities. The Agency 

expects that these resource needs will be on the average of 5000 hours 

and $160,000 per agency over a five year period. This level of effort is 

over and above that required to implement the periodic monitoring 

requirements in part 70 and may be offset with permit fee increases, as 

appropriate. 

The relatively low resource increase on the part of the permitting 

authorities is due to several factors. First, as noted above, the costs 

associated with monitoring required by part 64 are incremental to the 

costs associated with existing regulations. Given that CAM is predicated 

on building on existing monitoring, the costs to the permitting authority 

would, in many cases, focus on ensuring that the permit applications 

address the enhancements required by part 64 to existing monitoring. 

Second, the phase-in schedule initially will require the permitting authority 

to address part 64 only for the largest units which account for a small 

percentage of the total number of units affected by the rule. The CAM 

phase-in will be significantly longer than the five-year time period on which 

the CAM costs were based. 

Letter(s): American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); Coalition for 

Clean Air Implementation (VI-D-164); Colorado Association of Business 

and Industry (VI-D-182); Electronic Industries Association (VI-D-137); 

National Environmental Development Association (VI-D-169); Ohio 

Chamber of Commerce et al (VI-D-160); Pennsylvania Chamber of 

Business and Industry (VI-D-114); Total Petroleum, Inc. (VI-D-190) 

6.1.3: Monitoring of Processes, Capture Systems and Bypass
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 186 

Comment a: Certain commenters objected to the requirement to monitor indicators of 

the performance of capture systems and/or processes in addition to actual 

control devices. They argued that the expansion of monitoring beyond 

control devices is unnecessary and creates confusion. They added that it 

will be difficult to identify and accomplish appropriate capture system and 

process equipment indicator monitoring. The additional resources used for 

this expanded monitoring will not significantly enhance the ability of the 

CAM plan to detect problems with the control technology since the 

indicator ranges established for the control devices are likely to detect 

problems with the capture system or process as well. Two commenters 

proposed adding the words "and/or" between "applicable control device" 

and "any associated capture system" in § 64.6(a)(1) in order to clarify 

that monitoring of indicators for both control devices and capture systems 

is not required by CAM unless necessary to indicate emission levels. 

Another commenter proposed eliminating all references to the required 

monitoring of capture systems in the draft CAM rule because monitoring 

of capture systems will often provide little useful information. The 

commenter noted, for example, that where an applicable requirement is 

defined in terms of a control device performance standard rather than an 

emission limit, monitoring of the capture system will provide no data 

relevant to the control device's compliance with the standard. The 

commenter also noted that some capture systems operate under negative 

pressure, such that failures of the system will result in leaks into the 

system but no external excess emissions. The commenter 

recommended that the inclusion of capture system monitoring in CAM 

plans should be based on site-specific determinations by 

owners/operators subject to review by permitting authorities. One 

industry commenter agreed with the § 64.6(a)(1) language which 

requires monitoring of control device, capture systems, and processes 

"necessary to assure compliance." The commenter stated, however, that 

the requirements of §§ 64.6(a)(2) and (a)(3) are inconsistent with the 

previous paragraph in that they describe monitoring of processes 

"significant to" achieving compliance, which unreasonably expands CAM. 

The commenter argued that virtually every process is significant to 

achieving compliance but if the control device is able to handle changes in 

processes (and generally a demonstration of such ability has been made 

since performance testing usually includes worst-case conditions) then it 

is not necessary to monitor the process to achieve compliance. Similarly, 

another commenter noted that draft § 64.6(a)(1) requires Subpart B 

monitoring to monitor processes "where necessary to assure compliance", 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 187 

whereas §§ 64.6(a)(2) and (3) speak of process monitoring where 

"significant to achieving compliance." The commenter requested EPA to 

clarify whether this distinction was intended, and if so, what it means. 

Another commenter also recommended adding the phrase "where 

necessary" to the phrase " . . . and processes significant to achieving 

compliance, . . ." in § 64.6(a)(3). This revision is necessary to clarify 

that processes do not need to be monitored where other methods are 

used to reasonably assure compliance according to the commenter. 

Response: For many situations, the capture of pollutants for transport to a control 

device is critical to compliance with applicable standards. Monitoring of 

only the control device performance in such situations would not provide 

sufficient information on control performance nor on compliance status. 

Examples include capture of fugitive dust emissions from material transfer 

operations that are routed to a fabric filter, hood capture of VOC 

emissions from coating operations that are routed to an incinerator, and 

capture of metal particulate fumes from smelting operations routed to 

scrubbers. Failure to maintain proper capture system pressure or flow 

rates could significantly affect the overall emission reductions and would 

not be adequately represented by the control device monitoring alone. 

Similarly, the operation of a process or manufacturing operation can be 

critical to assuring that the control device will operate properly. For 

example, excess heat at the inlet of a wet scrubbing device resulting from 

increased process or combustion loading can significantly affect the 

control capabilities. Similarly, a change in process operations that 

changes VOC concentration at the inlet of a carbon absorber can result in 

excess emissions and a potential compliance problem. The Agency does 

not intend that monitoring of every process operation be included in the 

monitoring to satisfy part 64. The rule does expect monitoring of process 

conditions that significantly affect the operational capabilities of the control 

device. The Agency agrees with the commenters that such situations are 

site-specific in nature. The EPA believes that the final rule clarifies that 

process operations monitoring is only required "as necessary" to provide a 

reasonable assurance of compliance with applicable requirements over 

the anticipated range of operating conditions at a source. 

Letters: Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (VI-D-186); Chemical Manufacturers 

Association (VI-D-152); Clean Air Implementation Project (VI-D-153); Dow 

Chemical Company (VI-D-120); Eli Lilly Company VI-D-124); Enron 

Operations Corp. (VI-D-235); Exxon Company, USA (VI-D-135); Texas 

Chemical Council (VI-D-236); Total Petroleum, Inc. (VI-D-190) 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 188 

Comment b. Commenters also objected to the requirement to conduct monitoring to 

detect any bypass of a control device or capture system. One 

commenter agreed generally that sources should ensure that capture 

systems and control devices are not being bypassed, but stated that the 

requirement in § 64.6(a)(4) is inconsistent with the basic goals of CAM 

and should be eliminated. The goal of Subpart B monitoring is to ensure 

proper performance of the control device and not to ensure that the 

device is being used by a source when required by an emission limitation 

or standard, according to the commenter, and including the level of detail 

in a CAM plan suggested by this requirement will make the program 

unmanageable. If EPA does not eliminate this requirement, the 

commenter encouraged EPA to develop more specific guidance on the 

types of monitoring necessary to satisfy this requirement. Another 

commenter recommended deleting § 64.6(a)(4), or at least replacing the 

word "monitoring" with "a means or method" because a system designed 

to detect bypass may not actively collect data. 

Response: As stated before, the purpose of part 64 is to provide a monitoring 

foundation for determining compliance with applicable requirements. 

Compliance with emission limitations are among those requirements. For 

this reason, monitoring is necessary to verify that pollutants are not routed 

around instead of through a control device necessary to meet the 

applicable emission limit. The monitoring in many cases need not be 

more than a periodic verification check that a bypass is not in use. 

Letter(s): Eli Lilly Company (VI-D-124); Texas Chemical Council (VI-D-236) 

Comment c: Another commenter stated that EPA should establish that § 64.6(a)(4) 

does not override existing bypass monitoring exemptions. The commenter 

noted that rulemakings on underlying standards have addressed the need 

for bypass monitoring as well as its technical and economic feasibility, and 

that in some cases EPA has established alternatives (e.g., use of car 

seals) or created exemptions (e.g., emergency safety vent openings). 

Imposing monitoring in these cases would result in the underlying rule 

being made illegally more stringent, according to the commenter. Other 

commenters recommended deleting this requirement altogether for these 

and other reasons. The commenters cited to applicable standards where 

the extent to which bypass monitoring needs to be conducted was 

extensively negotiated. In addition, a commenter noted that since most 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 189 

standards prohibit bypassing of equipment, this monitoring appears aimed 

at catching only those few sources intent on illegal activity; such sources 

would be just as likely to disable the monitoring as bypass the control 

equipment. Finally, a commenter noted that the provision could be read 

to cover normal return of a gas stream to a process where the control 

device is used only as a backup. Another commenter noted that many 

processes could have numerous vents that could conceivably allow a 

bypass but that the operator would be able to detect and record such 

bypasses without emission detection equipment at each vent. If this 

requirement is retained, the commenter stated that EPA must provide 

greater detail on what is required. 

Response: Part 64 is not intended to override applicable regulatory requirements; if 

rules include exemptions or alternatives related to bypass monitoring, the 

final rule clarifies that part 64 would not change those. The intent of the 

requirement to monitor the use of a bypass is as stated above and is 

included primarily for those situations for which a bypass is installed for 

emergency situations (e.g., to protect the control equipment in case of a 

process failure). The compliance certification requirements of part 70 

require that source owners identify possible exceptions to compliance 

including periods in bypass operation. Monitoring to allow documentation 

of such situations (e.g., periodic checks of bypass damper settings) is 

appropriate; emissions monitoring of every potential bypass vent is not 

necessary if bypass can be detected by other means. While identifying 

scofflaws or reducing the opportunities for unlawful activities to go 

undetected may result by implementing part 64, part 64 monitoring is 

primarily intended to produce data that owners and operators can use in 

determining compliance with applicable requirements. 

Letter(s): Chemical Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); Eastman Chemical 

Company (VI-D-173); Exxon Chemical Americas (VI-D-128); PPG 

Industries, Inc. (VI-D-136) 

6.1.4: Use of Maintenance Records as Part of Monitoring

Comment a: One commenter argued that CAM should not require the keeping of 

maintenance records for compliance purposes. To the extent that 

proposed § 64.6(a) and (b) compel the maintaining of maintenance 

records for determination of compliance, the commenter stated that they 

are beyond the logical reach of section 114 of the Clean Air Act. The 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 190 

commenter argued that maintenance records are kept for repair purposes, 

not monitoring purposes. 

Response: The provisions in § 64.6(a)(1) of the final rule allow an owner or operator 

to propose monitoring that includes as at least one component of the 

monitoring approach the "recorded findings of inspection and 

maintenance activities." The rule does not compel this approach as 

suggested in the comment. 

Letter(s): American Electric Power (VI-D-129) 

6.1.5: Specific Comments on Indicator Range Provisions 

Comment a: One commenter stated that EPA should revise § 64.6(a)(3) because 

indicator ranges will have to be measured at varying operating conditions 

to ensure a valid range of data is obtained. The commenter noted that this 

issue was addressed in detail in UARG's October 10, 1995 comments. 

Response: As noted in section 6.1.1 (Part III) above, justification for indicator ranges 

are supported by the results from performance testing supplemented with 

engineering evaluations, historical information, and vendor or 

manufacturer data. Because the performance testing data will generally 

reflect conditions representative of maximum emissions potential under 

the range of operating conditions anticipated, the Agency believes that the 

aforementioned data will be sufficient to establish indicator levels for 

varying operating ranges without extensive performance testing. 

Letter(s): American Electric Power (VI-D-129) 

Comment b: Two commenters stated that the rule should address the procedure for 

selecting indicator ranges for situations in which applicable requirements 

are intended to cause installation and operation of particular equipment or 

the use of process parameters. The rule should make clear that where 

an emission limit is in effect a secondary or derived standard reflecting a 

typical or average emission rate expected to result from certain 

procedures, (1) the emission limit should not be used for developing 

indicator ranges, and (2) the rule does not require emission testing that is 

not otherwise required by applicable requirements. The commenters 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 191 

noted that such a provision is of potential importance to many small 

sources. 

Response: Part 64 recognizes several situations for which additional justification or 

testing for establishing monitoring or indicator ranges is not necessary. 

The preamble to the final rule clarifies that, in accordance with 

§ 64.4(b)(5), no additional justification is necessary for the operation and 

monitoring of flares covered by design criteria in 40 CFR 60.18. The 

Agency is reviewing similar relief for other requirements with specific 

design or similar stipulations. 

Letter(s): Coalition for Clean Air Implementation (VI-D-164); DuPont Engineering 

(VI-D-127) 

Comment c: One commenter requested clarification of who will be responsible for 

developing CAM indicators. In some places EPA states that 

development of indicators rests with the source, but in other sections 

indicates that regulators will develop the appropriate CAM indicators for 

specific control equipment according to the commenter. The commenter 

objected to state development of indicators due to lack of experience, 

knowledge and skills. 

Response: The responsibility to develop and justify monitoring to satisfy part 64 is 

clearly the source owner or operator’s responsibility; this responsibility 

includes establishing indicator ranges. 

Letter(s): Public Service Company of Colorado (VI-D-219) 

Comment d: One commenter recommended the addition of "or designated conditions" 

after "ranges" in § 64.6(a)(3). This revision is necessary because many 

indicators, such as "any visible emissions" or "the presence of a flame" 

are based on conditions but not numerical ranges. 

Response: The Agency agrees with this suggestion, and the final rule reflects this 

suggestion. 

Letter(s): Texas Chemical Council (VI-D-236) 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 192 

Comment e: Two commenters requested that EPA clarify that the "indicators of 

performance" listed in § 64.6(a)(1) are not an exclusive list and one 

provided example text for the rule. 

Response: The referenced list is not intended to be exclusive and the Agency 

believes the final rule is clear on this point. 

Letter(s): Eastman Chemical Company (VI-D-173); Texas Chemical Council 

(VI-D-236) 

Comment f. One commenter suggested that the words "recorded findings" should be 

eliminated from the reference to inspection and maintenance activities in 

§ 64.6(a)(1) because inspection and maintenance procedures and policies 

should not require additional documentation for documentation's sake. 

Response: As noted above, part 64 requires documentation sufficient for determining 

compliance status only. The term recorded findings should be 

interpreted to mean that level of documentation, not more. 

Letter(s): Texas Chemical Council (VI-D-236) 

Comment g: A commenter recommended revising § 64.6(a)(3) to read, in part, that 

"the reasonable assurance of compliance will be assessed by specified 

monitoring . . . ." The commenter stated that this addition of the term 

"specified" is necessary to clarify that the reasonable assurance of 

compliance is to be based on the monitoring prescribed by CAM and not 

any additional or unrelated monitoring. 

Response: The referenced language in the 1996 part 64 Draft has been revised in 

the final rule and this comment is no longer applicable. 

Letter(s): Texas Chemical Council (VI-D-236) 

6.1.6: Backup Monitoring

Comment a: One state agency suggested that the CAM rule allow owners or operators 

to propose alternative "back-up" methods of monitoring which can be 

used for limited periods when the primary method of monitoring becomes 

unavailable. The commenter further suggested that the rule encourage 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 193 

owners or operators to include back-up methods of monitoring in their 

proposals since these back-up monitoring methods might only be 

available for a short time, but could help many sources to meet Subpart B 

performance criteria, such as data availability requirements. 

Response: Part 64 certainly does not preclude the use of redundant monitoring to 

supplement the monitoring specified in the permit. 

Letter(s): State of Illinois EPA (VI-D-183) 

6.1.7: Techniques for Supplementing/Refining Basic Monitoring 

Comment a: One state agency suggested that the rule should allow for the use of 

non-reference method continuous or periodic monitoring to supplement, 

or as an alternative to, parameter monitoring. Under the current rule, 

CAM plans would often include only parameter monitoring and no direct 

monitoring of emissions at all, according to the commenter, and thus this 

proposal would encourage the use of relatively low cost alternative 

continuous or periodic monitoring methodologies to ensure at least some 

direct monitoring of emissions. The commenters recommended that 

these monitoring methods be subject to less rigorous quality 

assurance/quality control requirements than comparable reference 

methods for the same pollutants. 

Response: Part 64 does not preclude the use of alternative emission monitoring 

approaches to supplement or in lieu of operational parameter monitoring. 

Periodic reverification of indicator ranges using such techniques is 

consistent with the quality assurance and quality control requirements in 

part 64. Such testing for reverification purposes or for other reasons may 

be accomplished using techniques acceptable to the permitting authority. 

Further, as noted earlier, the preamble to the credible evidence rule 

revisions make clear that compliance certifications may be based on 

information other than specified performance test results. One 

consideration in evaluating periodic testing to use in lieu of continuous 

parameter monitoring is the frequency of such testing and whether such 

testing is representative of the ongoing control device operations. In 

most cases, infrequent measurements with a test method (e.g., weekly, 

monthly, quarterly) is not sufficient to document ongoing compliance 

operations. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 194 

Letter(s): State of New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection (VI-D-215) 

Comment b. A vendor recommended that the CAM rule include an incentive to adopt 

Sequential Parametric Refinement (SPR) which will strengthen CAM's 

effectiveness. According to the commenter, SPR is a process of 

continuous improvement that uses incrementally accumulated data, 

including periodic checks of direct emissions to test the model used to 

identify indicator ranges, and to refine the CAM approach and the 

indicator ranges adopted by the source. The commenter described SPR 

as similar to a pro-active presumptive QIP, and added that the incentives 

that could be offered to promote SPR could include limiting exposure to 

permit violations or positive recognition that the source uses data of 

increased reliability. The commenter argued that SPR addresses many 

of the concerns about CAM implementation, including the degree of 

parametric representativeness and reliability, effects of source emissions 

variability, effects of time and changes on emissions, ability to evaluate 

CAM plans on a common basis, and a scientifically sound basis for 

demonstrating compliance. As an example, the commenter included a 

monitoring protocol that was submitted in connection with the OTC NOx

budget program that relies on SPR (including continuous parametric data 

and periodic low-cost, high-quality direct emissions data). 

Response: As noted above, periodic reverification of monitoring indicator ranges is 

consistent with the QA/QC requirements in part 64. The Agency believes 

such regular activities are appropriate for the reasons mentioned by the 

commenter. 

Letter(s): Enerac (VI-D- 227) 

6.1.8: Miscellaneous Comments

Comment a: One commenter argued that Subpart B must provide for the same type of 

consideration of the acceptability of existing monitoring that is provided in 

Subpart C. 

Response: The Agency agrees that the monitoring specified in many regulations is 

adequate as stipulated or with few adjustments to meet part 64 

requirements. This is particularly true for regulations requiring the use of 

continuous emission monitoring systems. As such, the rule presumes 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 195 

the general adequacy of existing CEMS, COMS or PEMS applications and 

allows the owner or operator to justify its proposed monitoring at least in 

part on existing requirements that establish the monitoring for the 

applicable pollutant-specific emissions unit. On the other hand, many 

current regulations, including those developed by EPA, do not address 

monitoring sufficiently for compliance determination purposes. In many 

cases, the current rules specify monitoring of only a single operating 

parameter, omit any development of indicator ranges, fail to define 

averaging times, and fail to prescribe an appropriate response. In 

addition, the monitoring in current rules frequently are inappropriate for 

the control technology used in facilities constructed after the rule was 

published. Part 64 is intended to enhance current monitoring practices 

including revising or replacing that specified in existing rules if that 

monitoring is found inadequate. 

Letter(s): Los Alamos National Laboratory (VI-D-210) 

Comment b: Another commenter proposed adding the word "reasonably" to the phrase 

"where necessary to assure compliance" in § 64.6(a)(1) so that the rule's 

language reflects EPA's intent as stated in the preamble and elsewhere. 

Response: The subject phrase is used in conjunction with defining pollutant capture 

equipment that is part of the pollutant control system necessary to achieve 

compliance with the applicable standard. In this context, the term 

“reasonable assurance of compliance” is inappropriate. 

Letter(s): Texas Chemical Council (VI-D-236) 

Comment c: A commenter suggested that the use of monitoring already determined to 

be adequate should be deemed acceptable. It will be common for 

sources to use monitoring under post-November 15, 1990 rules to satisfy 

CAM, according to the commenter, and owners or operators should not be 

forced to prove such monitoring is adequate. 

Response: Part 64 includes an exemption from part 64 monitoring requirements for 

pollutant-specific emissions units subject to post-1990 EPA rules given 

that these rules will include monitoring requirements adequate to 

determine compliance with applicable standards. The owners of such 

units will not be required to justify that such monitoring satisfies part 64. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 196 

In addition, § 64.4(b)(4) allows an owner or operator to rely on monitoring 

established in these exempt post-1990 standards as adequate for part 64 

as applied to the same emissions unit for a different pollutant, if the same 

control equipment is used to control both pollutants. For instance, a 

post-1990 MACT rule may establish control device parameter monitoring 

to assure compliance with the MACT limits. If the same unit also uses 

the same control device to comply with an applicable VOC limit, this 

provision would allow the owner or operator to rely presumptively on the 

MACT precedent to satisfy part 64 for the VOC requirements. 

Letter(s): Exxon Chemical Americas (VI-D-128) 

Comment d: One commenter noted that the criteria of §§ 64.6(a)(1) and 64.6(a)(2) 

seem to be redundant. 

Response: The final part 64 has been revised to remove repetitions, as necessary. 

Letter(s): Class of '85 Regulatory Response Group (VI-D-161) 

Section 6.2 Subpart B Performance Criteria

6.2.1: [Reserved]

6.2.2: Verification Requirements

Comment a: Several commenters stated that manufacturer and vendor 

recommendations should not be given presumptive weight in establishing 

performance requirements, and noted that there is no guarantee that such 

recommendations reflect good engineering standards. In addition, they 

stated that vendors may tailor recommendations to improve product 

marketing. One commenter argued that this requirement (and the similar 

requirement for QA/QC) could be read to require submission of 

construction drawings, detailed project schedules, and similar supporting 

documentation and involve hundreds of steps. The commenters 

recommended that the rule only provide that such recommendations may 

be considered. Another commenter stated generally that it supported the 

flexibility allowed to use procedures other than manufacturer 

recommendations. However, another commenter argued that the § 

64.6(b)(2) documentation requirements are too burdensome. The 

commenter objected to the requirement to document modifications to 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 197 

installation requirements, calibration and start-up, especially where the 

monitoring system is already in place. This requirement would only make 

the CAM plan more complicated and is unnecessary due to general 

requirements to properly operate and maintain monitors according to the 

commenter. Another commenter noted generally that although this 

section is labeled "performance criteria" it is really a mix of criteria and 

submission requirements. The commenter recommended revising § 

64.6(b) to be a short list of performance criteria and moving all 

documentation requirements to § 64.7. 

Response: The final part 64 has been revised to clarify that documentation of 

monitoring adequacy may be based on a number of information sources 

with presumption applied only to performance test data. Further, the rule 

has been reformatted to clarify and differentiate between minimum permit 

requirements and other documentation elements. 

Letter(s): American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); Eastman 

Chemical Company (VI-D-173); Exxon Chemical Americas (VI-D-128); 

General Electric Company (VI-D-156); Southern Company Services 

(VI-D-171); Texas Chemical Council (VI-D-236) 

Comment b: One commenter recommended that § 64.6(b)(2) be applicable only 

where the monitoring involves new or modified monitoring. 

Response: Part 64 has been revised to clarify this and other documentation 

requirements. 

Letter(s): Exxon Chemical Americas (VI-D-128) 

6.2.3: QA/QC Criteria

Comment a: Some commenters stated that manufacturer and vendor 

recommendations should not be given presumptive weight in establishing 

QA/QC requirements. See detailed summary under section 6.2.2. 

Response: See the response to the same comments in section 6.2.2 (Part III), above. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 198 

Letter(s): American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); Exxon 

Chemical Americas (VI-D-128); General Electric Company (VI-D-156); 

Southern Company Services (VI-D-171) 

Comment b: One commenter argued that part 64 should not require the inclusion of 

QA/QC practices in operating permit applications. Including such 

practices in the permit application will make it more difficult to improve or 

alter QA/QC practices because such changes could only be made through 

a burdensome permit revision process. 

Response: The Agency disagrees. There are several examples of federal rules that 

specify minimum QA/QC practices. See 40 CFR 60.13 (general QA/QC 

for CEMS and COMS); subpart O, 40 CFR 60.153 (periodic calibration of 

parameter monitors). The part 64 requirements are designed to build on 

these types of existing requirements. The part 64 requirements do not 

require complete QA/QC plans or SOPs to be incorporated into a permit. 

Sources are always free to improve and alter QA/QC practices so long as 

the minimum required QA/QC is still performed. 

Letter(s): Texas Chemical Council (VI-D-236) 

6.2.4: Monitoring Frequency Requirements

Comment a: One commenter argued that the requirements should be more specific. 

The commenter noted that the provisions for sources to propose 

frequency of monitoring, data collection procedures, and averaging 

periods are too vague and invite owners to devise monitoring that is too 

lenient to detect excursions and exceedances. Another commenter 

suggested that EPA should clarify that the monitoring frequency criteria do 

not require continuous monitoring. Since certain language in § 64.6(b) 

and EPA's statement in the preamble that "this requirement could result in 

frequent, near continuous collection of parametric data . . ." could be 

interpreted to require continuous monitoring for Subpart B units, the 

commenter stated that EPA should make it clear in the rule that 

continuous monitoring is not required and develop guidance materials 

describing appropriate approaches to satisfying the monitoring frequency 

criteria assuming this is not EPA's intent. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 199 

Response: The Agency agrees that the frequency of data collection for monitoring is 

one the rule should specify in more detail. The Agency has revised the 

rule to include a presumptive monitoring data collection frequency (i.e., at 

least one value every 15 minutes) for units with post-control emissions 

greater than the major source threshold. The owner or operator may 

submit site-specific justification for less frequent monitoring at such units. 

Data collection frequency for smaller units may be less but at a minimum 

should provide for at least some form of daily check. For instance, an 

owner or operator could visually check a small carbon adsorber for 

continued operation on a daily basis and then conduct a less frequent 

periodic check for breakthrough (such as testing the device with a 

portable analyzer every two weeks, or other time frames appropriate for 

the device's adsorption cycle). 

Letter(s): Natural Resources Defense Council (VI-D-151); Specialty Steel Industry 

of North America (VI-D-143); Steel Manufacturers Association (SMA) 

(VI-D-144) 

Comment b: One commenter suggested that the rule allow for a graduated frequency 

based on performance. For instance, the commenter stated that sources 

with few excursions/exceedances should be able to monitor less 

frequently. Another commenter added that this concept of rewarding 

good performance should be extended to reducing other part 64 

requirements, such as reduced reporting. 

Response: The Agency agrees that incentives for reduced monitoring or reporting 

requirements can be effective for some situations and part 64 does not 

preclude the application of such incentives through the permitting process. 

 On the other hand, part 64 is a broadly applicable rule for which such 

incentives or other site-specific elements can not be adequately described 

or controlled. 

Letter(s): Air Control Techniques, P.C. (VI-D-202); Eli Lilly Company (VI-D-124) 

Comment c: One commenter argued that the rule should presume the appropriateness 

of longer versus shorter averaging periods. The commenter noted that, if 

the data are averaged over too short a time, sources could initiate 

misguided corrective action that actually increases emissions and 

damages equipment. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 200 

Response: The Agency believes that part 64 should make no presumption about 

averaging times except to confirm that the averaging time be 

representative of the characteristics of the control technology and provide 

data at a frequency sufficient to allow effective and timely correction, as 

necessary. The source owners have the opportunity and responsibility to 

identify appropriate averaging times to accomplish this purpose. 

Letter(s): Air Control Techniques, P.C. (VI-D-202) 

6.2.5: Data Availability Provisions

Comment a: Certain commenters supported the 90 percent data availability 

requirement or requested a higher data availability. A state agency 

association recommended that EPA retain the proposed data availability 

requirement with only a narrow exemption for sources that demonstrate 

extreme economic hardship. A state agency urged EPA to investigate 

and require greater data availability for those monitoring systems that 

have demonstrated through existing installations that they can achieve 

data availability greater than 90 percent, such as CEMS, PEMS, and 

parameter monitoring systems. For example, CEMS installed and certified 

in the commenter's state routinely meet or exceed data availability of 95 

percent. An environmental group suggested that the rule should not 

allow a percentage of data availability lower than 90 percent under any 

circumstances, even if an underlying rule requires less data availability. A 

data gap of 10 percent, for example, could represent the need to 

implement a QIP twice over, according to the commenter, and thus lower 

data availability could allow significant violations of emission standards to 

go unnoticed. 

Several industry commenters, however, argued that the default 90 percent 

data availability requirement is too stringent. They stated that the 90 

percent level in the rule is substantially more stringent than several recent 

MACT standards despite EPA's statement at the July 1996 stakeholders 

meeting that one of the principles of CAM was to build on current 

monitoring requirements. For example, the recently-issued Polymers & 

Resins Group 1 MACT requires 75 percent data availability. 40 CFR 

63.505(g)(1)(ii). The SOCMI HON data availability requirement is also 75 

percent. 40 CFR 63.152(c)(2)(ii)(A)(2) and (A)(3). Thus, they argued, 

under the current CAM draft, there would be a lower data availability 

requirement for air toxics than for criteria pollutants. One of the 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 201 

commenters recommended setting the CAM minimum data availability 

standard at 75 percent, and retaining the option to seek adjustment of the 

data availability level on a unit specific basis, which would be triggered too 

often with a 90 percent requirement. The commenter also stated that it is 

not aware of any EPA regulations other that the one cited in the preamble 

that have a data availability requirement of 90 percent. One commenter 

argued that the requirement should be eliminated or set at what is 

necessary to provide a reasonable assurance of compliance. One 

commenter argued for a lower data availability because the amount of 

instrumentation involved in a CAM plan could be significantly higher than 

with a gas monitoring system. Another argued that the costs of trying to 

meet the 90 percent requirement are prohibitive, and suggested that 80 

percent would be a reasonable alternative. 

Certain commenters stated that, based on CEMS experience, the amount 

of downtime under ideal circumstances is at least 6-7.5 percent of the 

time. Since most sources operate under less than ideal circumstances, 

the commenters stated that the rule must have adequate flexibility to 

provide for downtime associated with routine maintenance as well as 

downtime associated with unscheduled maintenance and malfunctions; 

otherwise, costly redundant systems may be necessary. They 

recommended that the rule include no presumptions. Another 

commenter argued that since under NSPS one invalid 15-minute data 

point invalidates an entire hour of data, a 30-minute QA check that 

straddles two hours and 3 more invalid 15 minute periods would invalidate 

a day's data. Finally, another commenter argued similarly that the 90 

percent value is arbitrary and likely to be unachievable unless the rule 

makes appropriate provision for calibration, maintenance and repair. 

Another commenter stated that the CAM rule should not set a data 

availability requirement of "at least" a certain percentage where it is clear 

the percentage is supposed to be a presumptive guideline that may be 

adjusted upward or downward by permitting authorities. In addition, there 

is no justification for requiring any higher degree of data availability than 

whatever is necessary to reasonably assure compliance. 

Industry commenters also argued against any presumptive amount based 

on the diverse set of sources and monitoring requirements to which the 

rule will apply. One commenter stated that EPA should not attempt to 

define a generic data availability requirement, but should allow for 

different levels depending on the significance of the source and the 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 202 

monitoring method. Others also noted that EPA should give the source 

and the permitting authority the opportunity to work it out in the CAM plan. 

 If the rule requires monitor availability to be included as a permit term, 

they stated that the rule must at least provide the flexibility for ensuring 

that the specification is clear and can be met. Another industry 

commenter argued that the mandatory 90 percent data availability 

requirement is an example of how the rule does not provide adequate 

latitude for permitting authorities. 

Similarly, commenters noted that it is inappropriate to establish a 

presumptive data availability requirement under a program like CAM 

where monitoring may be new or experimental. They argued that EPA 

has no technical basis for the presumption and must allow for many 

complex issues to be resolved in establishing a data availability 

requirement. The relative stringency of an availability requirement 

depends on numerous factors, such as monitor accuracy specifications, 

number of data points for a valid average, number of averaging periods in 

a reporting period and the length of the reporting period. One commenter 

argued that EPA must explain the technical basis for requiring at least 90 

percent data availability. A state agency suggested that the 90 percent 

data availability requirement should be issued as guidance similar to the 

NSPS excess emission report program. This would allow permitting 

authorities to address the data availability requirement on a case by case 

basis since in some cases, less availability may be warranted and in 

others more may be warranted the commenter argued that a single 

presumption could lead to inappropriate requirements. 

Response: The Agency agrees that monitoring should be conducted to the extent 

feasible all the time the affected pollutant-specific emissions unit is 

operating and that a separate permit condition specifying an enforceable 

minimum data availability limit is essentially a case-by-case determination. 

 Part 64 has been revised to delete the specific minimum data availability 

requirement and to clarify the general duty requirement to operate and 

maintain monitoring continuously (except for malfunction, associated 

repair, or required QA/QC periods). Monitor malfunctions are limited to 

situations that are not reasonably preventable by the owner or operator. 

Specific minimum data availability requirements may be addressed on a 

permit-specific basis. 

Letter(s): American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); Association 

of Battery Recyclers (VI-D-155); Baltimore Gas and Electric Company 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 203 

(VI-D-177); Chemical Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); Chevron 

Companies (VI-D-132); Clean Air Implementation Project (VI-D-153); 

Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry (VI-D-182); DuPont 

Engineering (VI-D-127); Eastman Chemical Company (VI-D-173); Exxon 

Chemical Americas (VI-D-128); General Electric Company (VI-D-156); 

Natural Resources Defense Council (VI-D-151); Nebraska Department of 

Environmental Quality (VI-D-211); NESCAUM (VI-D-192); Ohio EPA, 

Division of Air Pollution Control (VI-D-180); Pharmaceutical Research and 

Manufacturers of America (VI-D-217); Phillips Petroleum Company 

(VI-D-131); Rubber Manufacturers Association (VI-D-149); South Carolina 

Electric & Gas Company (VI-D-116); Southern Company Services 

(VI-D-171); Southwestern Public Service Company (VI-D-224); Texas 

Chemical Council (VI-D-236); UCAR Carbon Company, Inc. (VI-D-122); 

Utility Air Regulatory Group (VI-D-140); Wisconsin Electric Power 

Company (VI-D-130) 

Comment b: Another state agency supported a 90 percent data availability requirement 

to the extent that the requirement applies under normal circumstances. 

The agency recommended that the rule explicitly grant discretion to the 

permitting authority to address the impact of unusual circumstances such 

as catastrophic failures of instrumentation and malfunctions of relatively 

short duration on data availability. The agency noted that such failures or 

malfunctions can be magnified in percentage terms due to reduced 

source operating time. As an example, this commenter discussed the 

fact that a 24 hour failure of a monitoring system at a backup unit with 200 

operating hours during a period may not be a source of concern even 

though the malfunction results in a 12 percent monitoring downtime. 

Response: See response to Comment a, above. 

Letter(s): State of Illinois EPA (VI-D-183) 

Comment c: One agency stated that the data availability requirements should include 

an option for monitoring equipment required to have an alarm or an 

interlock which reacts when monitored parameters exceed or fall below a 

certain level. The commenter stated that there should be no requirement 

that units using such equipment must continually record the monitored 

parameter during normal operation, and discussed an example of an 

afterburner required to maintain a minimum temperature and required to 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 204 

install an alarm which goes off if the minimum temperature is not 

maintained. 

Response: Part 64 has been revised to clarify minimum data collection frequency; 

that is, the frequency at which measurements are made and used. Data 

recording frequency, whether for individual data points, averages, or alarm 

indications can be specified on a site-specific basis, as necessary. 

Letter(s): South Coast Air Quality Management District (VI-D-233) 

Comment d: One trade association requested EPA to confirm that the minimum data 

availability requirement would be calculated based on the percentage of 

time that the monitoring equipment was in service, excluding from the 

denominator time that the equipment was down for routine or scheduled 

calibration and maintenance. Another commenter stated that the rule 

should clearly exempt start-up, shut-down and malfunction periods in 

determining data availability, particularly when not addressed by 

underlying standards. One commenter recommended that the data 

availability requirement account for seasonal operations by adding "while 

the plant is in operation" to § 64.6(b)(5). Certain commenters requested 

that EPA explain how the data availability percentage is determined. A 

state agency requested specific examples. Another commenter stated 

that it believes that the provision is intended to apply to the monitoring 

frequency and associated number of samples or measurements indicated 

by the CAM plan, but that the language could be interpreted to apply to 

the number of averaging periods during which the source is in operation. 

Another commenter elaborated on this ambiguity and stated that the first 

alternative is overly stringent in comparison to the 75 percent data 

availability requirement in other recent regulations. This commenter felt 

that the second interpretation could be acceptable if EPA sets a level of 

data required within each averaging period at a reasonable level such as 

75 percent. 

Response: The Agency believes that data availability, if required as a separate permit 

requirement (see response to Comment a, above), is correctly calculated 

based on the operating time of the pollutant-specific emission unit and 

may include allowances for specific monitoring downtime periods, as 

appropriate. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 205 

Letter(s): Chemical Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); Dow Chemical Company 

(VI-D-120); DuPont Engineering (VI-D-127); South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (VI-D-233); The Fertilizer Institute (VI-D-145) 

Comment e: Two commenters stated that the provisions giving permitting authorities 

the discretion to require a data availability percentage of greater than 90 

percent should be eliminated. One of the commenters recommended 

revisions to § 64.6(b)(5)(ii) to eliminate permitting authority discretion to 

require greater than 90 percent data availability. This commenter also 

stated that 90 percent is the highest achievable data availability based on 

prior EPA studies showing that CEMS experience outages for at least 10 

percent of their operating times due to equipment failure and malfunction. 

Response: See response to Comment a, above. 

Letter(s): NorAm Gas Transmission Company (VI-D-1452); Southern Company 

Services (VI-D-171) 

Comment f: An environmental organization requested that the rule ensure that all valid 

data is required to be reported even if a minimum data availability is 

exceeded. The organization noted that it is necessary to avoid the rule 

being construed to allow owners to drop their worst data. 

Response: The Agency agrees and part 64 includes a requirement that “The owner or 

operator shall use all the data collected... in assessing the operation of 

the control device and associated control system.” 

Letter(s): Natural Resources Defense Council (VI-D-151) 

Comment g: One commenter requested an exemption from § 64.6(b)(5)(ii) for units 

whose monitoring includes missing data substitution procedures. The 

commenter noted that requirements such as those in part 75 that use 

punitive data substitution for periods of missing data encourage units to 

correct monitoring problems expeditiously. Units that use such monitoring 

protocols should not be subject to the 90 percent data availability 

requirement according to the commenter. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 206 

Response: Missing data substitution is appropriate for mass emission trading 

programs to ensure equitable trading. Such missing data substitution 

procedures are not appropriate for ongoing determinations of compliance 

with applicable requirements on a pollutant-specific emission unit basis. 

Letter(s): Class of '85 Regulatory Response Group (VI-D-161) 

6.2.6: Miscellaneous Subpart B Performance Criteria Issues

Comment a: Certain commenters argued that the performance criteria are at odds with 

the intent stated in the preamble and general criteria provisions. They 

argued that the requirement in the introductory text of § 64.6(b) that 

CAM plans be designed to provide reliable data for detecting an 

exceedance or excursion contradicts the stated goal of documenting 

operation of controls to provide a reasonable assurance of compliance. 

Moreover, one of the commenters asserted that even the preamble does 

not completely reflect the original intent of CAM to generate an 

understanding of whether controls are performing as envisioned. Other 

commenters stated that EPA apparently expects to have a parameter that 

reflects reference test method compliance with an underlying standard. 

However, correlating parameter data with emissions is expensive and 

difficult and in some cases not even possible, according to the 

commenter. 

Response: The language concerning reliable data has been revised to reflect more 

clearly the Agency's intent. As discussed in detail in Section 6.1.1 (Part 

III), above, the goal of part 64 is to provide a reasonable assurance of 

compliance by monitoring the operation of control devices and, as 

necessary, capture systems and processes. It is not a requirement of 

part 64 to have a parameter that reflects with absolute precision reference 

test methods results. However, the monitoring must indicate that control 

devices and other critical operations have not changed adversely in a 

manner that result in violations of applicable requirements. 

Letter(s): Clean Air Implementation Project (VI-D-153); Exxon Company, USA 

(VI-D-135); National Environmental Development Association (VI-D-169) 

Comment b: One commenter noted that the performance criteria do not seem 

appropriate for non-hardware monitoring approaches. The commenter 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 207 

suggested that the requirements that apply solely to hardware systems 

(such as (b)(2) and (3)) should be clearly distinguished from more 

generally applicable requirements. 

Response: The Agency believes that the performance criteria are sufficiently general 

to apply to noninstrumental monitoring techniques, but also notes that the 

phrase "monitoring equipment" is used where appropriate to indicate 

performance criteria that are aimed at hardware monitoring approaches. 

Letter(s): Exxon Chemical Americas (VI-D-128) 

Comment c: One commenter stated that EPA has not demonstrated that a monitoring 

program can be developed for most control devices under which indicator 

ranges will show that unit emissions satisfy all emission limits or 

standards. The commenter argued that in order for indicator ranges to be 

a reasonably reliable means of assuring compliance, the monitored 

parameter or parameters must fall outside the indicator range during 

every set of control device and process conditions which result in the 

violation of applicable standards which would require monitoring which 

directly expresses the emission rate as a function of monitored 

parameters. The commenter quoted a paper entitled "An Independent 

Review of CAM" to support the concept that it is impossible to directly 

correlate monitored parameters and emission rates and concluded that 

the use of indicator ranges has not been proven to be sufficiently reliable 

to assure compliance with applicable limits. Another commenter used 

sewage sludge incinerators as an example, providing detailed review of 

EPA studies on the lack of a meaningful correlation between operating 

parameters and particulate matter emissions for these incinerators, as 

well as the results of a long-term study involving the commenter's 

incinerators. The commenter noted that this same issue applies to the 

possible use of opacity to assure compliance with particulate matter limits. 

 For sewage sludge incinerators with venturi scrubbers, commenter 

described how past studies have documented no strong correlation 

between PM emissions and opacity. Thus, the commenter disagreed 

with EPA's contention that opacity levels are generally set high enough to 

represent likely PM exceedances. 

Response: The Agency agrees direct correlation between monitored parameters and 

emission rates can be difficult, expensive, and sometimes impossible with 

any specific degree of certainty. This is a primary reason the CAM rule 

requirements include the use of design, historical, and other information in 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 208 

conjunction with performance test results for establishing indicator ranges 

that provide a reasonable assurance of compliance, not an absolute 

statistical correlation. On the other hand, the Agency believes the 

commenter has misinterpreted the conclusion in Mr. Richards’ paper 

(docket item A-91-52-VI-I-6) and other similar evaluations that parameter 

monitoring is incapable of providing a reasonable assurance of ongoing 

compliance performance. As noted in response to Comment b of 6.1.1 

(Part III), direct measurement or a statistical correlation analysis of 

operating parameters with emission values is not necessary in order to 

establish compliance status; however, there are many examples of 

parameter measurements that provide a very good indication of control 

device performance sufficient to meet part 64 requirements. Mr. 

Richards’ paper provides several examples of such situations. Mr. 

Richards’ paper does note that CAM will not be based on a precise 

correlation between parameters and emissions and will not provide data 

on actual emissions; however, Mr. Richards concludes that monitoring 

under the CAM approach should be able to identify “significant emission 

increases.” Any comments by Mr. Richards that appear critical of the 

CAM approach’s ability to provide a reasonable assurance of compliance 

may be due in part to Mr. Richards’ admitted misapprehension regarding 

the breadth of the technical justification required for CAM plans. 

The Agency also recognizes that the relationship between a particular 

parameter measurement and compliance may not be adequate. This 

may very well be the case with the relationship between opacity and 

particulate matter emissions especially when applied to a scrubber for an 

incinerator or any other combustion device because of condensing 

moisture acting as interferences in opacity measurements and other 

condensible materials producing highly variable opacity results. For such 

situations, part 64 requires that the monitoring should not include that 

parameter or supplement it with measurements of additional control 

device operational parameters. Part 64 provides the framework for 

establishing adequate monitoring; the rule does not specify which 

parameters are more appropriately monitored for specific situations. 

Letter(s): S. Fitzsimmons (VI-D-201); Metropolitan Council (VI-D-214) 

Section 6.3: Use of CEMS, COMS, PEMS in Subpart B
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 209 

Comment a: One commenter believed that sources using CEMS, COMS and PEMS 

should not be required to develop CAM plans. The commenter 

recommended revising § 64.6(c)(2) to replace the phrase "to satisfy the 

general design criteria . . ." with "exempt from this part 64". The 

commenter argued that sources using CEMS, COMS or PEMS and 

satisfying the requirements of this provision should already provide 

reasonable assurance of compliance; requiring further documentation 

would be overly burdensome and duplicative. 

Response: For pollutant-specific emission units with CEMS requirements, part 64 

requires only that the permit reflect that CEMS will be used in lieu of other 

parameter monitoring as described in part 64. Provided that the CEMS is 

operated in accordance with other applicable requirements, no other 

documentation is necessary. 

Letter(s): Texas Chemical Council (VI-D-236) 

Comment b: Some commenters argued that sources should not be required to use 

existing CEMS, COMS or PEMS for part 64 purposes. The commenters 

argued that this requirement could have the effect of establishing indicator 

monitoring as reference method data for standards. Another commenter 

stated that sources should have the choice of whether or not to use 

COMS for establishing indicator ranges in CAM plans, particularly if the 

source has a particulate matter limitation (where there may be a 

relationship at the particular source between opacity and PM). 

Response: The requirement that CEMS, including COMS used to measure an opacity 

limit that applies as a surrogate limit for particulate matter control and 

PEMS as an approved alternative to CEMS, required by rule be applied to 

satisfy part 64 is consistent with 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3). 

Letter(s): American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); Baltimore 

Gas and Electric Company (VI-D-177); General Electric Company 

(VI-D-156) 

Comment c: An industry coalition stated that sources using CEMS, COMS, and PEMS 

should not be required to redesign their systems to allow for reporting of 

exceedances. The commenter noted that incorporating a data averaging 

period so that the monitoring results can demonstrate exceedances may 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 210 

be complicated, costly or even impossible, and thus this sort of design 

change should be optional. Another commenter stated that the 

monitoring instrumentation should not need to produce data in the same 

terms as an applicable emission limit or standard. The commenter 

suggested that EPA should clarify § 64.6(c)(3)(ii) so that the monitoring 

instrument does not have to produce data in the "exact units" of an 

emission limit or standard so long as a CAM plan includes a calculation or 

calculations which convert monitored measurements to values 

comparable with applicable standards. Another commenter also 

requested that EPA clarify § 64.6(c)(3) so that it is clear that the 

instrument does not have to produce data in terms of the emission limit if 

the source can convert the instrument data using standard engineering 

conversions. 

Response: The requirement in part 64 for the owner to use data from CEMS, COMS, 

or PEMS in satisfying part 64 applies to such monitoring as required by an 

underlying regulation. The rule clarifies that data from such monitoring 

shall be consistent with the applicable standard rather than insist that the 

data be reported in the actual units of the emission limitation if such 

conversions can be provided elsewhere. The additional description of 

such monitoring is intended to reduce the burden of preparing justification 

beyond the customary applicable QA/QC requirements in addition to 

ensuring the quality of data produced. The requirements in this section 

are not intended to apply to the use of similar technology used for 

monitoring internal operations (i.e., process monitoring) unless the source 

owner determines to use such monitoring to satisfy CAM requirements. 

Letter(s): Clean Air Implementation Project (VI-D-153); Phillips Petroleum 

Company (VI-D-131); Texas Chemical Council (VI-D-236) 

Comment d: Some commenters argued that COMS should not be subject to indicator 

ranges. One commenter stated its belief that EPA did not intend to 

require that all COMS be subject to the criteria for establishing indicator 

ranges. If the source has an opacity standard for which a CAM plan is 

required, the commenter understood the draft rule to require that the 

opacity standard be used in lieu of an indicator range for that plan. 

Further, if the source has a particulate matter limitation for which a CAM 

plan is required, the commenter understood that it would be the source's 

choice whether to use the COMS in a particulate matter CAM plan (based 

on the relationship at the particular source between opacity and PM). 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 211 

Thus, the following change is suggested: "...provided that if a COMS is 

used in a particulate matter CAM plan, that COMS shall be also subject to 

the criteria for establishing indicator ranges under paragraph (a)(3) of this 

chapter as it applies to the particulate matter CAM plan." Steel industry 

commenters argued that indicator ranges are unnecessary and 

inappropriate for many sources required to use COMS. For example, for 

electric arc furnaces, the NSPS require some sources to use a COMS to 

monitor the applicable 3 percent opacity standard. These commenters 

argued that this opacity standard is directly correlated to the applicable 

particulate matter standard. Requiring an indicator range below the 

opacity standard would increase the stringency of the underlying 

particulate matter standard, according to the commenters. The 

commenters also noted that it would be difficult to establish a range below 

what is essentially a no visible emissions standard. An electric utility 

provided a detailed summary of correlation testing done at several units 

operated by the commenter which show that the particulate matter 

standard is met even with opacity levels at or above the applicable opacity 

standard. Therefore, the commenter disagreed with assertion in the 

discussion document that opacity levels near the opacity standard likely 

represent particulate matter exceedances and EPA's conclusion that 

lower opacity "indicator ranges" are therefore appropriate. 

Response: The commenter is correct that a COMS required for monitoring opacity by 

an applicable standard may be applied at the source owner’s option for 

monitoring of particulate matter control measures. If the COMS is used 

in monitoring for particulate matter control, the requirement to establish 

appropriate indicator ranges is appropriate given that the regulatory limits 

for opacity do not necessarily represent conditions for minimizing 

particulate emissions. See Section II.C. of the preamble to the final rule 

for further discussion. On the other hand, the rule is not intended to 

invalidate any separate regulatory requirement to correlate opacity values 

with specific emission values as described for the steel industry 

regulations. A monitoring system that provides, by rule, exceedance of a 

specific opacity limit coincides with an exceedance of the applicable 

particulate emission limit is consistent with the definition of a CEMS or 

PEMS in part 64 and, as such, must be used as the underlying rule 

requires. 

Letter(s): Specialty Steel Industry of North America (VI-D-143); Steel Manufacturers 

Association (SMA) (VI-D-144); Tennessee Valley Authority (VI-D-162); 

Utility Air Regulatory Group (VI-D-140) 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 212 

Comment e: One commenter stated that any surrogate opacity CAM plan should have 

the same averaging period as the applicable standard. The commenter 

asserted that opacity has always been used as a surrogate for 

demonstrating PM control equipment operation, and for CAM, the opacity 

should have the same averaging period as in the underlying standard 

(such as a 3-hour average of 20 percent as in the power plant NSPS). 

Another commenter suggested that if a COMS is used as a surrogate for 

particulate matter, then the averaging period should be consistent with the 

underlying particulate matter standard, i.e., longer than 6 minutes, 

especially given EPA's statement that the opacity indicator range should 

generally be set below the applicable opacity standard and the fact that 

EPA can use the data for enforcement. 

Response: The Agency agrees with the commenter that the averaging time for an 

indicator range using COMS as part of the monitoring need not be the 

6-minute average required for opacity monitoring. Part 64 makes clear 

that the averaging time for indicator range monitoring be commensurate 

with the time period over which a change in the control device 

performance that could require actions by the source owner to return 

operations to normal conditions is likely to be observed. The rule does 

not intend that this time be the same, or either shorter or longer, than the 

averaging time of the applicable emission limitation. 

Letter(s): Kennecott Corporation (VI-D-119); Texas Utility Services, Inc. (VI-D-121) 

Comment f: One commenter stated that § 64.6(c)(3)(iii) should be revised to allow for 

reporting of excursions as well as exceedances. A commenter 

suggested that exceedances that occur during excused periods be 

reported as excursions. 

Response: The final rule adds the phrase "or excursions if applicable to a COMS 

used to assure compliance with a particulate matter standard." This 

revision accounts for the only situation in which a CEMS, COMS or PEMS 

can provide "excursion" data as opposed to "exceedance" data. The 

Agency disagrees with the concept that exceedances during potentially 

excused periods should be classified as "excursions" because that 

approach is inconsistent with the definitions of these two terms. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 213 

Letter(s): Chemical Manufacturers Association (VI-D-258); General Electric 

Company (VI-D-156) 

Comment g: Utility commenters argued that the test for determining averaging times for 

exceedances should be similar to the one provided by EPA for 

determining the appropriate averaging period for determining when an 

"excursion" has occurred. The test should be the time period over which 

an exceedance is likely to be observed based on the characteristics and 

typical variability of the PSEU. 

Response: Part of the definition of exceedance is that it be consistent with any 

averaging period specified by the applicable rule. The Agency does not 

intend to revise any existing requirements with publication of part 64 

including averaging times specified in applicable rules for determining 

excess emissions. However, if an underlying rule is silent on this issue, 

the final rule does cross-reference the criteria in § 64.3(b)(4) for 

establishing an appropriate averaging period. 

Letter(s): South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (VI-D-116); Utility Air Regulatory 

Group (VI-D-140); Virginia Power (VI-D-226) 

Comment h: One local agency recommended that the § 64.6(b)(3) quality assurance 

and control provisions should require that sources using CEMS follow 40 

CFR 60, Appendix F. The commenter noted that in the discussion of § 

64.6(b)(3), EPA states that the QA/QC program in 40 CFR 60, Appendix 

F, is not required for CEMS because they are not being used for "direct 

continuous monitoring compliance," and the discussion states that only 

the 40 CFR 60, Appendix B requirements of an initial CEMS calibration 

drift test and RATA test followed by daily zero and span calculations need 

be met. The agency stated that the more rigorous Appendix F program, 

including quarterly calibration gas audits and annual RATA tests, is 

needed to verify ongoing accuracy. 

Response: Appendix F was developed specifically for the verification of data where a 

CEMS is established as the test method for making continuous 

compliance determinations. The Agency believes that less rigorous 

QA/QC is sufficient for CEMS used to demonstrate a reasonable 

assurance of compliance with emission standards. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 214 

Letter(s): San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (VI-D-191) 

Comment i: One commenter argued that § 64.6(c) should be revised to allow 

sources to demonstrate that any and all existing monitoring, and not just 

CEMS, COMS, and PEMS, meets Subpart B requirements. The 

commenter noted that if EPA continues to base Subpart B applicability on 

pre-control device emissions, EPA should revise § 64.6(c) to allow 

sources to demonstrate through petitions to their permitting authority that 

monitoring requirements in existing permits or under existing regulations 

are sufficient to meet Subpart B CAM requirements. For example, if an 

existing construction permit requires the installation, operation, and 

monitoring of a specified monitoring approach which does not meet the 

definition of a CEMS, COMS, or PEMS, the rule should explicitly state that 

the source can demonstrate that such required monitoring satisfies 

Subpart B according to the commenter. The commenter concluded that 

imposing duplicative monitoring requirements on these types of sources 

will result in little or no environmental benefit. 

Response The provisions in § 64.4 explicitly allow for this approach. The Agency 

has not presumed the appropriateness of such other approaches but does 

allow a source to propose that its existing monitoring is adequate to satisfy 

part 64. 

 

Letter(s): Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (VI-D-217) 

Comment j: A vendor organization argued that the draft rule creates a disincentive to 

use CEMS. The commenter expressed concern that the requirement in 

§ 64.6(c)(3) that all CEMS installed to meet CAM must allow for reporting 

of exceedances would discourage sources from choosing CEMS because 

the credible evidence rule would allow for the use of such data in 

enforcement actions and stated that few sources would therefore choose 

a monitoring approach with a direct bearing on compliance status. 

Response: The Agency disagrees that part 64 provides disincentive to install CEMS 

on two counts. First, part 64 provides relief from the additional 

documentation that part 64 requires if the CEMS is required by an 

applicable requirement and reports data in units of the applicable 

emission limitation or standard. This stipulation that data must be 

reported in units of the applicable standard would not apply for CEMS 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 215 

proposed by the owner or operator to satisfy CAM if no CEMS were 

required under the applicable requirement. Second, part 64 does not 

require that data from CEMS not required by the applicable rule be used 

as part of determining control device indicator ranges. This is not to say 

that such data may not be subject to use as credible evidence of 

emissions violations; that is not an issue with part 64 but with evidentiary 

decisions made in the courts. 

Letter(s): Institute of Clean Air Companies (VI-D-139) 

Comment k. One industry commenter opposed imposing § 60.13 and Appendix B 

requirements on CEMS or COMS used for CAM unless they are 

necessary to meet CAM performance design requirements. 

Response: The final rule states that a CEMS or COMS that meets these 

requirements (or other comparable requirements such as those in 40 CFR 

51.214 or Appendix P of part 51) is deemed to satisfy the part 64 design 

criteria. The rule does not exclude the possibility that an owner or 

operator could propose a CEMS or COMS that does not meet these 

requirements. However, any such proposal would not be entitled to the 

presumptive acceptability provisions in § 64.4(b). 

Letter(s): Exxon Chemical Americas (VI-D-128) 

Section 6.4: Cost/Source Features as Factors in Monitoring Selection

Comment a: Several industry commenters recommended specifically requiring a 

cost-effectiveness consideration as part of the criteria for selecting 

monitoring under part 64. A number of commenters proposed criteria to 

determine what constitutes a "reasonable assurance of compliance." 

According to the commenters, to determine what monitoring methodology 

provides a level of assurance that is reasonable, the cost of the 

methodology should be considered in light of the following factors: 1) 

Reliability of the control methodology, where applicable; 2) Actual and 

potential emissions of the unit; 3) Emissions variability and pollutant 

characteristics; and 4) Reliability of the monitoring methodology. The 

commenters stated that a facility would consider whether current 

monitoring is appropriate considering these factors. The commenters 

pointed out that if the source determines additional monitoring is needed, 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 216 

it would explain qualitatively how it reached its conclusions, and a 

permitting authority would either accept the proposal or suggest another 

alternative, having evaluated the same factors and compared the 

incremental cost of the source's proposal vs. the permitting authority's 

proposal. The commenters also suggested that the rule include a 

mechanism for the source to appeal the permitting authority's decision, 

and that EPA explain in the preamble how these factors are to be 

applied in practice. For example, where a source uses a highly reliable 

control method or has historically had emissions well below the emissions 

limit, the commenters argued that a more expensive monitoring method 

would not be justifiable. Very reliable, but more expensive, monitoring 

would be reasonable where sources have historically operated at the 

emission limit or have highly variable emissions, according to the 

commenters. 

The commenters noted that leaving cost-effectiveness out of unit-specific 

CAM decisions could lead to imposition of costly monitoring on 

insignificant units. A number of commenters also noted generally that 

sources should be allowed to select the least costly CAM plan which can 

reasonably assure compliance and satisfies the rule's technical criteria. 

In addition, a commenter stated that agencies which propose any 

additional or replacement monitoring plans should also be required to 

consider cost effectiveness and choose those plans that can reasonably 

assure compliance at least cost. Under this approach, commenters 

argued that states would have the burden of demonstrating that their 

recommended protocol is more appropriate in terms of performance and 

additional costs. Another commenter proposed adding a definition of 

"cost-effective" to § 64.1 and revising draft §§ 64.6, 64.7, and 64.9 to 

clarify that cost-effectiveness is a factor to be considered in determining 

what monitoring is required by CAM. 

Steel industry commenters noted that if the rule does not explicitly provide 

for the consideration of cost as a factor in monitoring selection and CAM 

plan evaluation, states could establish a "top-down" approach to 

monitoring selection. The commenters opposed such an approach as 

contrary to both section 504(b) of the CAA, which provides that CEMS are 

not required where alternative monitoring methods are available and the 

legislative history of the 1990 CAAA. These commenters argued that, if 

sources can demonstrate that there is no cost-effective monitoring 

method which satisfies the rule's technical criteria, the rule should allow 

sources the option of proposing either monitoring that nearly meets the 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 217 

criteria or the use of no monitoring rather than requiring them to 

implement monitoring which is not cost-effective. They stated that such 

an option is consistent with the statement in the preamble that sources 

need not be considered in noncompliance if they cannot or do not certify 

to being in continuous compliance. 

Other commenters argued that the rule should distinguish between 

significant and insignificant sources. The likely effects of applying one set 

of criteria to such a wide range of sources will be uncertainty as to what is 

required and conflicts during the permitting process as individual permit 

writers apply their own subjective interpretations of these provisions, 

according to the commenters. A commenter stated as an example, that 

the rule would basically require the same monitoring for a vent with 

controlled emissions of 1 ton as a vent with controlled emissions of 

several hundred tons. Assuming the two vents used the same basic 

control device (except for size), the commenter argued that the draft CAM 

criteria would not allow distinguishing what is appropriate for these two 

situations. This commenter also pointed to the preamble discussion 

which hints that continuous monitoring is likely for most types of control 

devices in order to meet the frequency performance criterion. The 

commenter argued that, besides being a legal violation, this approach is 

bad policy that at a minimum will lead to different interpretations in 

different jurisdictions. 

Finally, this commenter cited to several provisions in the current draft at 

which EPA appears to specifically exclude consideration of cost as an 

appropriate criterion, including the factors listed in § 64.4(a)(2) and the 

criteria for allowing "no monitoring" under Subpart C. In the latter 

example, the commenter stated that the rule would seem to require 

monitoring of an insignificant unit if monitoring was needed to assure 

compliance even if such monitoring was too expensive in light of the 

emissions at stake. The commenter also argued that the testing 

requirements fail to allow for a cost consideration in determining whether 

testing should be conducted (see detailed summary under section 8.2 

(Part III)). 

Response: The Agency agrees that site-specific considerations relative to the factors 

listed by the commenters can and should affect the design of monitoring. 

The final rule lists factors of history of process or control device operation, 

actual emission relative to the compliance limit, and the ability of the 

monitoring to detect changes in pollution control performance to be 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 218 

considered in both the design of monitoring and in the review of the permit 

application. The final rule still includes the requirement that the source 

owner or operator design and propose the monitoring in the permit 

application and allows a good deal of flexibility to accomplish this. 

Further, the rule stipulates that any existing monitoring be evaluated in 

determining its applicability for complying with this rule. In this way, the 

rule makes clear that the lowest cost monitoring approach, applying the 

current monitoring, is considered and evaluated before other approaches. 

Because the source owner has control over the design of proposed 

monitoring and the permitting authority must use the same performance 

evaluation criteria as used in designing monitoring, the Agency believes 

that cost consideration are inherently part of the design and evaluation 

and should not be a required factor in implementing the rule. Although 

EPA requested comment in 1994 on whether cost should be an explicit 

factor that could be relied upon to justify not achieving the part 64 

monitoring criteria, EPA has instead chosen a lower cost approach to 

achieving the requirements of section 114(a). EPA decided against the 

approach described in the 1994 notice for several reasons. First, cost 

considerations were a major factor in modifying EPA’s approach to 

enhanced monitoring from the 1993 proposal to the CAM approach. 

Because CAM generally involves significantly lower costs than the earlier 

proposal, cost concerns for individual units are also lowered. Second, 

the design of monitoring is not equipment-specific or tiered such that a 

top-down selection scheme is applied. Rather, as explained above, 

source owners can consider cost in designing the monitoring system. 

Third, specifying a cost evaluation criteria would require establishing a 

baseline cost for comparison purposes which would be difficult for the 

broadly applicable part 64 given the range of situations encountered. 

Finally, a related concern is that adding cost as an explicit design criteria 

may compromise national consistency under CAM. Many commenters 

criticized the proposed monitoring criteria as vague even absent the 

addition of a factor which would allow monitoring not to achieve the 

criteria in certain circumstances. The Agency has modified the criteria in 

response to such comments and also believes these comments have 

been somewhat overstated. Nonetheless, EPA recognizes that 

monitoring criteria that are intended to give source owners broad flexibility 

in designing monitoring must not be overly prescriptive and thus presents 

the potential problem of inconsistent application. Adding cost as a 

grounds for not achieving the monitoring criteria only exacerbates this 

potential problem. Taking all of these factors into account, EPA decided 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 219 

against adding cost as an explicit factor that could be relied upon to justify 

not achieving the part 64 monitoring criteria. 

Letter(s): American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); American 

Gas Association (VI-D-154); Chemical Manufacturers Association 

(VI-D-152); CITGO Petroleum Corporation (VI-D-172); Clean Air 

Implementation Project (VI-D-153); Coalition for Clean Air Implementation 

(VI-D-164); DuPont Engineering (VI-D-127); Electronic Industries 

Association (VI-D-137); General Electric Company (VI-D-156); Mobil 

Corporation (VI-D-115); Mobil Corporation (VI-D-248); National 

Environmental Development Association (VI-D-169 and 269); Ohio 

Chamber of Commerce, et al. (VI-D-160); Specialty Steel Industry of 

North America (VI-D-143); Steel Manufacturers Association (SMA) 

(VI-D-144) 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 220 

Section 7: Subpart B CAM Plans

Section 7.1: General Comments

Comment a: A number of commenters noted general support for § 64.7. One state 

agency supported the flexibility of § 64.7, which lays out five elements of 

a CAM plan without excessively detailing the specifics, allowing 

unit-by-unit adjustments while mandating the resolution of heretofore 

ambiguous concepts, such as monitoring frequency and indicator ranges. 

This is an example of the leeway the CAM proposal gives authorities to 

work with sources to determine the most effective monitoring that will 

satisfy CAM, according to the commenter. Another commenter 

supported the draft preamble's statement that the § 64.7(a)(4) obligation 

to take corrective action to bring operations back within the appropriate 

ranges should be met as "expeditiously as practicable." This commenter 

did not support the option of establishing a "critical path requirement" 

which owners and operators would have to follow when taking corrective 

action. Another commenter noted that this is an improvement over the 

1995 draft. A federal agency noted that the CAM plan requirements are 

neither technologically proscriptive nor onerous to develop or maintain. 

The commenter noted that sources have the option of proposing a 

number of different methods to verify that equipment is working properly; 

for example pressure drops and/or opacity information could be used to 

indicate whether a regulated pollutant was exceeding emission limitations 

or standards. CAM plans should also generally not require expensive 

equipment modifications, although they will probably require greater 

maintenance and tracking of records, according to this commenter. An 

industry commenter noted that the list of CAM plan elements in 64.7 is 

sensible and as detailed as necessary. The commenter suggested that 

the rest of subpart B should be made consistent with this simple approach 

and the extra requirements scattered throughout the rule should be 

dropped or moved into this section. 

Response: The Agency agrees with the comment that reorganization and 

consolidation of requirements is appropriate. The final rule represents 

such a reorganization of requirements. The rule no longer refers to a 

"CAM plan" because there is no need to distinguish between monitoring 

for units with control devices and those units without control devices. 

However, the basic elements of the 1996 part 64 Draft have been 

incorporated into § 64.6(c) of the final rule. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 221 

Letter(s): Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (VI-D-186); Department of Defense 

(VI-D-209); Exxon Chemical Americas (VI-D-128); State of Washington 

Dept. of Ecology (VI-D-167); Wellman, Inc. (VI-D-237) 

Comment b: Some commenters suggested that the rule should not require a source to 

develop a separate CAM plan for each unit at the source. They argued 

that it is redundant to require a separate CAM plan for each unit at a 

source if the CAM plan will be the same for all units at a source. They 

suggested that sources should be given the flexibility to combine all CAM 

plans into one document that addresses all applicable units. For 

example, for a facility which uses water scrubbers, condensers and 

carbon absorbers to control its VOC emissions, a single CAM plan with 

three sections would be sufficient to address all the control devices at the 

facility, according to one commenter. Another commenter stated that the 

rule should only require one CAM plan per control device, even if multiple 

units are connected to that control device, while another suggested 

generally that it would be better to allow for the development of a single 

CAM plan for a facility. In addition, one commenter stated that EPA 

should consider allowing a company to develop a generic CAM plan that, 

if approved by EPA, could be used for facilities in different States. 

Response: The exact wording contained in § 64.7 of the 1996 part 64 Draft is not 

included in the final rule. The Agency agrees that a monitoring approach 

that satisfies part 64 may be applied to any number of similar 

pollutant-specific emissions units at a particular source and that 

consolidation of such monitoring description in the permit application is 

appropriate. Nothing in part 64 prohibits such consolidation as long as 

the application adequately identifies the PSEU(s) for which the monitoring 

applies. Further, development of an industry-wide or company-wide 

monitoring approach for similar control technologies is certainly valid and 

encouraged for consistency purposes. Again, nothing in part 64 prohibits 

such generic monitoring development as long as each application properly 

documents and applies the monitoring. 

Letter(s): Colorado Association of Commerce & Industry (VI-D-182); County 

Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California (VI-D-231); Department 

of Energy (VI-D-196); NESCAUM (VI-D-192); Pharmaceutical Research 

and Manufacturers of America (VI-D-217); South Dakota Dept. of 

Environment & Natural Resources (VI-D-223) 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 222 

Comment c: One commenter stated that the CAM plan requirements for existing 

monitoring should not have to be equivalent to the elements prescribed in 

 § 64.7, and cited as an example stack monitoring under part 61, subpart 

H. The commenter stated that compliance with the emission standards in 

subpart H is based on calculation of annual dose from the facility, even 

though the facility conducts monitoring at individual stacks. The 

commenter argued that it would be meaningless to apply "excursions" and 

"indicator ranges" to the individual stacks, especially given the constant 

change at research facilities. 

Response: The monitoring requirements in subpart H, National Emission Standard for 

Radionuclides other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities, is 

defined by the rule as a continuous compliance determination method. 

As such, the monitoring for these pollutant-specific emission units is 

exempt from part 64. No additional documentation is necessary. 

Letter(s): Los Alamos National Laboratory (VI-D-210) 

Section 7.2: Permit Interface

Comment a: Certain commenters proposed changes to § 64.7 to allow CAM plan 

adjustments without the need for permit modification. One commenter 

stated that CAM plan details and changes should be "off permit." The 

commenter proposed that, in § 64.7(a)(4), EPA should make the terms 

and conditions for all the CAM requirements an "obligation to develop" 

and require permitting authority approval since this approach would allow 

CAM plans to be adjusted without going through the permit modification 

process. Another commenter argued that the list of elements under § 

64.7(a)(1)-(4) required to be in a CAM plan and become permit terms is 

too detailed. In particular, according to the commenter, subsections 

64.7(a)(1)(iv) and (v) are too broad to be translated into simple permit 

terms (unless it is possible to cite pre-existing regulations), but also are 

the kind of requirements that are most likely to require fine-tuning. Thus, 

the commenter recommended that EPA delete these subsections and, to 

ensure that the performance criteria in CAM plans are being met and 

QA/QC being performed, require establishment of a permit term or 

condition that requires implementation of the performance criteria in an 

approved CAM plan. The commenter further recommended edits to the 

introductory language in 64.7 so that it is clear that only certain minimum 

elements, not necessarily an entire CAM plan, must be included in the 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 223 

permit. The commenter stated that EPA must recognize that a CAM plan 

may include additional information that need not be part of the permit, and 

provided example text to clarify this provision. 

Response: The Agency believes that the permit revisions process under development 

will provide sufficient flexibility for changing monitoring as necessary to 

accommodate the changing needs of the industry. The Agency also 

agrees that not every detail of the monitoring must be part of a permit. In 

the final rule the elements required for the permit have been reduced and 

described more clearly to avoid unnecessary information for the permit 

that may be difficult to change in the future. These are: (1) the approved 

monitoring approach including the indicator(s) to be monitored (such as 

temperature, pressure drop, emissions, or similar parameter), the means 

or device to be used to measure the indicator(s) (such as temperature 

measurement device, visual observation, or CEMS), and the performance 

requirements (such as monitoring frequency, averaging period, and 

general QA/QC); (2) the means by which the owner or operator will define 

an exceedance or excursion for purposes of responding to and reporting 

exceedances or excursions; for defining an excursion from an indicator 

range or designated condition, the permit may either include the specific 

value at which an excursion shall occur, or the specific procedures that 

will be used to establish that value; (3) the obligation to conduct the 

monitoring and fulfill the other obligations of part 64 (such as a general 

duty to operate the monitoring at all times and other requirements that the 

permitting authority deems necessary; and (4) if appropriate, a minimum 

data availability requirement for valid data collection for each averaging 

period, and, if appropriate, a minimum data availability requirement for the 

averaging periods in a reporting period. The Agency believes that these 

minimum elements can define the monitoring sufficiently for the permit 

and afford the source owner or operator the opportunity to maintain and 

update the details of day-to-day monitoring operation without permit 

revision. For instance, the minimum QA/QC procedures to include in the 

permit should not be confused with a set of standard operating 

procedures (SOP) or a detailed QA/QC plan. The permit should include 

the basic required QA/QC procedures (e.g., daily operational checks and 

annual calibration of a pressure drop gauge). 

Letter(s): Chemical Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); Utility Air Regulatory 

Group (VI-D-140) 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 224 

Section 7.3: Ability to Add Elements

Comment a: Some commenters stated that the permitting authority should not have 

unfettered discretion to add other elements into a CAM Plan. They 

argued that this provision is a standardless and unlawful delegation of 

authority to local agencies. Some of these commenters recommended 

explicitly deleting § 64.7(a)(5). 

Response: The Agency disagrees that the permitting authority should not have 

discretion in determining what monitoring, in addition to part 64 

monitoring, would be appropriate for a pollutant-specific emission unit. 

On the other hand, the Agency agrees that the process for reviewing and 

approving monitoring that satisfies part 64 is required to focus only on part 

64 related requirements. The revised approval process in part 64 reflects 

this approach, and the final rule does not include a provision that parallels 

§ 64.7(a)(5) of the 1996 part 64 draft. 

Letter(s): American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); Coalition for 

Clean Air Implementation (VI-D-164); Eastman Chemical Company 

(VI-D-173); KBN Engineering & Applied Sciences, Inc. (VI-D-229); Phillips 

Petroleum Company (VI-D-131) 

Section 7.4: Corrective Action Provisions

Comment a: An environmental organization argued that the corrective action provisions 

are inadequate. The group stated that the corrective action obligation 

applies only to subpart B sources that have a duty to monitor control 

device parameters, and the rule does not specify what must be done in a 

corrective action or how soon the problems that necessitated it must be 

corrected. Industry commenters, however, suggested that corrective 

action should not be required for all excursions/exceedances. They 

argued that one reason corrective action should not be required for all 

excursions/exceedances is because the event could be corrected prior to 

the operator taking any action. For instance, the commenter stated that 

computerized distributed control systems can correct process deviations 

without action on part of the operator. Some commenters argued that it 

is a waste of resources for operators to take corrective action when the 

event has already been corrected. One commenter suggested that the 

rule should only require corrective action if the problem persists for a 

significant period. Another commenter noted that excursions may be the 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 225 

result of an anomaly in production and may not require corrective action, 

and stated that corrective action should only be required if the source 

determines that an exceedance of an applicable requirement has 

occurred. Another commenter argued that the requirement to take 

corrective action should only apply where an excursion or exceedance 

has been validated because of the possibility of false indications of 

excursions or exceedances. Similarly, one commenter suggested that 

the rule should allow for qualitative checks to determine if monitored 

"excursions" are in fact control performance changes that should be 

corrected. The commenter stated that this type of double-checking could 

avoid misguided attempts to adjust control equipment that is in fact 

operating properly. The commenter argued that if the qualitative check 

indicates that the excursion was a "false alarm" the excursion should not 

count as an actual excursion, and if the monitoring produces too many 

false alarms, then the CAM plan should be revised. In addition, the 

commenter requested that a CAM plan explicitly detail the procedures to 

be used as qualitative checks. Another commenter agreed and 

recommended that the word "validated" be added so that it is clear that 

corrective action is not required where the data inaccurately indicates an 

excursion. 

Response: The Agency believes it is critical to underscore the need to maintain 

operation within the established indicator ranges. Therefore, the rule 

includes the requirement to take prompt and effective corrective action 

when the monitored indicators of compliance show that there may be a 

problem. Requiring that owners and operators are attentive and respond 

to the data gathered by part 64 monitoring has always been central to the 

CAM approach. The Agency reiterates its belief that part 64 monitoring 

can provide a reasonable assurance of compliance with applicable 

requirements. This is consistent with the approach suggested by many 

commenters throughout the development of part 64; however, because 

the data will not necessarily allow a direct determination of compliance, 

the Agency believes that it is essential to the CAM goal of ongoing 

compliance operation that part 64 require that owners or operators 

respond to the data so that any problems indicated by the monitoring are 

corrected as soon as possible. Without this corrective action obligation, 

source owners or operators might tend to ignore excursions because such 

excursions may not necessarily allow a determination of a violation. 

Thus, EPA believes that the corrective action component of part 64 is 

critical to assuring that the information form the enhanced monitoring 

required by part 64 is heeded by source owners and operators. On the 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 226 

other hand, the Agency agrees that not every indicated excursion is 

necessarily a result of a control device problem. The final rule specifies 

in § 64.7(d) that "corrective action" can include documenting that the 

parameters monitored returned to the normal ranges without operator 

action. In addition, the responsible official has the opportunity to describe 

and explain the circumstances behind any indicated excursions in the 

semi-annual report or the annual compliance certification and document 

that such instances reflect conditions unrelated to compliance operation. 

The EPA disagrees with the comment that the rule does not specify what 

must be accomplished in a corrective action. The rule specifies that 

“[u]pon detecting an excursion or exceedance, the owner or operator shall 

restore operation of the pollutant-specific emission unit (including the 

control device and associated capture system) to its normal or usual 

manner of operation as expeditiously as practicable in accordance with 

good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions.” (40 CFR 

§64.7(d)) Given the wide range of units and control devices that the rule 

applies to it would be difficult to include more specific requirements in the 

rule. 

As described in the discussion accompanying the 1996 part 64 Draft, the 

Agency did consider requiring owners or operators to specify maximum 

periods for conducting various types of corrective action, but stakeholders 

raised concerns that it would be extremely difficult to establish the 

appropriate time frames for every possible contingency. The Agency 

continues to agree that it would be difficult to establish appropriate time 

frames for all corrective action scenarios and therefore has adopted the 

general obligation requirement in the final rule. The Agency also 

believes, however, that as situations develop at a particular facility it may 

be possible in subsequent rounds of permitting to provide specific 

timetables for certain high priority concerns if a permitting authority 

desires to make this requirement more specific. In addition, if an existing 

site-specific plan, such as a malfunction abatement plan, already 

establishes required time frames for certain types of excursions, the 

owner or operator or the permitting authority could incorporate those 

specific time frames into the permit. 

 

The obligation to correct excursions as expeditiously as practicable is the 

enforceable component associated with establishing an indicator range 

under part 64. Part 64 does not establish that an excursion from an 

indicator range constitutes an independent violation by itself. The 1996 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 227 

part 64 Draft did provide that the permit may specify that an excursion 

could be considered a failure to satisfy an applicable permit term or 

condition in various situations. First, if existing requirements already 

require the owner or operator to comply with the indicator ranges, the 

1996 Draft indicated that the ranges would be enforceable requirements. 

Second, the 1996 Draft indicated that an owner or operator could propose 

this approach. Finally, the 1996 Draft stated that, if consistent with 

existing authority, the permitting authority could specify in the permit that 

excursions from the indicator ranges will be considered enforceable 

permit deviations. The Agency believes that the corrective obligation in 

conjunction with enforcement agency oversight is an effective and 

enforceable element in a compliance assurance program. 

Letter(s): Air Control Techniques, P.C. (VI-D-202); American Automobile 

Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); Association of Battery Recyclers 

(VI-D-155); General Electric Company (VI-D-156); Natural Resources 

Defense Council (VI-D-151); Phillips Petroleum Company (VI-D-131); 

Texas Chemical Council (VI-D-236); UCAR Carbon Company, Inc. 

(VI-D-122) 

Section 7.5: Miscellaneous Comments

Comment a: One commenter proposed changes to § 64.7 which would require that 

CAM plans include information on the relationship between parameters to 

be monitored and compliance with emission limits or standards. (See 

related comments in Section 6.1-subpart B General Criteria.) The 

commenter proposed revisions to § 64.7(a)(1) to add a requirement that 

the CAM plan contain a "credible demonstration of the validity of the 

indicator to be monitored" including the demonstrated relationship 

between the indicator and actual emissions, the demonstrated margin of 

compliance, and the potential variability of emissions. 

Response: The Agency believes that there is a reasonable assurance of compliance 

with emission limits so long as the emissions unit is operated under the 

conditions anticipated and the control equipment that has been proven 

capable of complying continues to be operated and maintained properly. 

This is the basis for the monitoring approach described in part 64. In 

most cases, this relationship can be shown to exist through the 

performance testing without additional site-specific correlation of 

operational indicators with actual emission values. The Agency agrees 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 228 

with the commenter that the evaluation criteria mentioned by the 

commenter are important in developing and approving monitoring in a 

manner that both allows flexibility in design and provides a reasonable 

assurance of compliance. The rule specifically allows for the use and 

augmenting of existing monitoring in lieu of developing and installing 

completely new monitoring approaches and § 64.3(c) references the 

evaluation factors to apply in developing and reviewing monitoring to meet 

part 64 requirements. The Agency believes that in this manner, the 

owner or operator and the permitting authority can agree on cost-effective 

monitoring that result in the reasonable assurance of compliance required 

by part 64. 

Letter(s): NESCAUM (VI-D-192) 

Comment b: Another commenter recommended that the rule should provide for 

situations where it will not be possible to determine indicator ranges until 

equipment is operational. The commenter suggested that the rule permit 

a source to include a time period within which indicator ranges will be 

determined after the CAM plan is approved. 

Response: The Agency agrees and has included in the rule that if the monitoring 

submitted by the owner or operator requires installation, testing, or other 

necessary activities prior to use of the monitoring, the owner or operator 

shall include an implementation plan and schedule for installing, testing 

and performing any other appropriate activities prior to use of the 

monitoring. The implementation plan and schedule shall provide for use 

of the monitoring as expeditiously as practicable after approval of the 

monitoring in the part 70 or 71 permit, but in no case shall the schedule 

for completing installation and beginning operation of the monitoring 

exceed 180 days after approval of the permit. 

Letter(s): Exxon Chemical Americas (VI-D-128) 

Comment c: One commenter recommended moving § 64.7(a)(4) to apply to subparts A 

and B because this paragraph is actually a permit requirement and not a 

CAM plan element. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 229 

Response: The final rule has been reorganized significantly to improve the flow of the 

rule and avoid these types of possible conflicts. The reorganization 

effectively addresses this comment. 

Letter(s): Exxon Chemical Americas (VI-D-128) 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 230 

 Section 8: Documentation Requirements

Section 8.1: Rationale for Monitoring

Comment a: An environmental organization objected that the rule fails to require 

owners to provide meaningful support for their monitoring proposals 

because section 64.8 merely lists possible elements that owners may 

include without setting any standard for documentation that owners must 

include. Additionally, this organization asserted that, because the 

documentation section provided that testing is not required over the entire 

indicator range, the indicator ranges will in effect sanction operation when 

it is unknown as to whether compliance is being achieved. Industry 

commenters, on the other hand, objected that the requirement to submit a 

rationale should be deleted because it is overly prescriptive, burdensome 

and will generally be superfluous. One commenter argued that this 

should be worked out by the permitting authority and the source. 

Similarly, others noted that the CAM plan documentation requirements are 

overly burdensome, especially given the large number of units subject to 

subpart B. One commenter suggested that the rule should only require 

documentation of the rationale behind the monitoring approach where 

proposed monitoring differs from generally accepted approaches, that 

such documentation should be minimal, and that no justification should be 

necessary where indicator ranges are set below applicable emission 

limitations or standards. Others suggested that written justification for the 

monitoring should be required only at the request of the permitting 

authority because this requirement will be a waste of resources in many 

situations where the proposed monitoring does not need justification. If 

questions arise during the permit process, additional supporting 

documentation can be provided. 

Response: The Agency disagrees with the suggestion that documentation of 

monitoring is unnecessary. This information will be necessary for the 

permitting authority, the public, and EPA to judge the appropriateness of 

the proposed monitoring for satisfying the design criteria in the rule. In 

addition, this requirement builds on similar regulatory precedents in the 

NSPS and NESHAP programs. Under those programs, EPA has 

routinely required the owner or operator to submit a proposed monitoring 

approach and supporting rationale where the owner or operator intends to 

use a control device for which the underlying standard does not contain 

specific monitoring procedures. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 231 

As discussed in greater detail in Section II.C.1 of the preamble to the final 

rule, the Agency also disagrees that the documentation requirements are 

insufficient to assure that monitoring have meaningful support in terms of 

demonstrating a reasonable assurance of compliance. The final rule 

requires that an owner or operator propose indicator ranges supported by 

data obtained during the conduct of the applicable compliance or 

performance testing at the pollutant-specific emissions unit and 

supplemented, as necessary, by engineering assessments and 

manufacturer's recommendations. To assure that conditions that occur 

during performance testing are also generally representative of 

anticipated operating conditions, a performance test is to be conducted 

under conditions specified by the applicable rule or, if not specified, 

generally under conditions representative of maximum emission potential 

under anticipated operating conditions. In addition, the rule allows for 

adjusting the baseline values recorded during a performance test to 

account for the inappropriateness of requiring that indicator conditions 

stay exactly the same as during a test. The rule does not require 

performance testing over the entire indicator range; however, that does 

not mean that the entire indicator range does not need to be adequately 

justified as providing a reasonable assurance of compliance. The range 

of indicator levels can be justified not only by performance data but by 

engineering and historical data as well as manufacturer’s specifications. 

Letter(s): American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); Association 

of Battery Recyclers (VI-D-155); Eli Lilly Company (VI-D-124); General 

Electric Company (VI-D-156); Phillips Petroleum Company (VI-D-131) 

Comment b: Some industry commenters noted support for the provision allowing 

sources to base CAM plans on monitoring approaches that a permitting 

authority has established as presumptively acceptable. A coalition group 

stated that this provision fosters development of state programmatic 

approaches which could be a very useful tool for states with a large 

number of CAM plans to administer. It also fulfills the provision of section 

114 that states be authorized to develop procedures for carrying out its 

requirements. Others noted that this provision would reduce plan 

development and case-by-case review costs in states where 

programmatic approaches are not developed. One commenter stated, 

however, that the rule must allow time for states to adopt/revise rules. 

Finally, another commenter stated specific support for the ability to use 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 232 

MACT monitoring as presumptively acceptable for CAM where it applies 

to control of non-HAPs. 

Response: The Agency agrees that the monitoring prescribed by state or local rules 

be considered acceptable, if that monitoring meets part 64 requirements. 

The final rule includes a provision that allows the owner or operator to rely 

presumptively upon this type of programmatic rule requirement as the 

primary documentation of the appropriateness of its monitoring. This 

approach would reduce the number of case-by-case reviews necessary to 

implement part 64. On the other hand, EPA does not agree with 

commenters who suggest that states that choose to use programmatic 

rulemaking should be allowed to apply different criteria in determining 

monitoring and to have additional time to implement such an approach. 

The EPA believes monitoring decisions should be made on the same 

basis whether done on a programmatic or case-by-case basis. Second, 

EPA questions both the need for a substantial delay for programmatic 

rulemaking and whether the purported advantages of a programmatic 

approach justify any substantial delay. The final part 64 does not include 

an option for permitting authorities to delay implementation of part 64 

through use of a programmatic approach. Lastly, determination of 

whether monitoring specified for a MACT rule or any other rule is 

applicable for monitoring the control of other pollutants to satisfy part 64 

must be made on a case-by-case basis. In many cases, the Agency 

would expect such monitoring as specified in a MACT rule of a control 

device that is designed to remove both a MACT pollutant and other 

non-HAPs may very well satisfy part 64 requirements. 

Letter(s): Association of Battery Recyclers (VI-D-155); Clean Air Implementation 

Project (VI-D-153); DuPont Engineering (VI-D-127); Phillips Petroleum 

Company (VI-D-131); Texas Chemical Council (VI-D-236) 

Section 8.2: Indicator Range Verification

8.2.1: Presumption that Testing is Required

Comment a: One industry commenter supported the concept that parameter limits do 

not always have to be based on performance tests. The commenter 

agreed with the statement in the discussion document that performance 

tests are not always essential in order to establish parameter limits. 

According to the commenter, existing regulations specify various methods 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 233 

of demonstrating compliance including design evaluations and other 

approaches and the rule should allow similar flexibility. Another industry 

group stated generally that the provisions in § 64.8(c) are important so 

that testing is not required, especially given the broad applicability criteria. 

Most industry commenters on this section, however, objected to the 

presumption that indicator ranges are to be established based on 

compliance testing. Commenters objected to requiring indicator ranges 

to be developed in conjunction with applicable test methods and to be set 

at levels that will ensure emissions are below numerical limits at all times. 

 Some commenters argued that this increases the stringency of 

underlying standards which were developed with limited data and with an 

expectation that properly operated sources would be likely to exceed the 

limits 5-10 percent of the time. The commenters believed that this 

approach basically requires a statistical correlation of parameter values 

with emission values, makes CAM diverge from its focus on good O&M, 

and turns indicator monitoring into de facto continuous compliance 

monitoring as in the EM proposal. EPA should act to completely sever 

the connection in CAM between actual emissions and indicator 

parameters, according to some commenters. Two commenters 

suggested that the rule require only that available compliance data be 

considered or evaluated when developing the plan. Another commenter 

suggested that the permitting authority could also be required to make a 

determination of whether compliance testing is cost-effective or if an 

engineering assessment in combination with the monitoring is sufficient to 

assure compliance. Finally, one commenter claimed generally that use 

of snapshot testing to set indicator ranges will result in increased 

stringency, especially where there is a large margin of compliance during 

the test. 

An industry coalition group also argued that the cost of compliance testing 

could easily reach a billion dollars just to do the single performance test 

indicated in the draft rule (assuming 100,000 emission points). In 

addition, this commenter stated that sources will want to conduct more 

tests just to avoid the increased stringency impacts and enforcement 

actions based on overly restrictive indicator ranges. The commenter 

stated that the rule provides no limits on the costs of testing and 

verification. 

Another commenter argued that compliance testing is not necessary since 

most sources have already been determined to be capable of achieving 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 234 

applicable requirements as a result of rule or permit compliance 

demonstration requirements. The commenter added that it is particularly 

unreasonable to require testing at smaller sources. Similarly, 

commenters stated that engineering assessments and manufacturer 

recommendations are generally adequate to establish indicators that 

demonstrate that a control device is operating as designed. They also 

argued that using data collected during a test does not add value to this 

process and CAM should not be used as a vehicle for implementing 

compliance testing on sources. Commenters also noted that not all CAM 

"control devices" have required performance tests, and some which do 

have tests do not have approved methods. Other sources of information 

can be just as useful or superior for setting indicator ranges, according to 

these commenters. For example, the commenters stated that testing is 

generally unnecessary to determine the appropriate temperature for 

operating a condenser to achieve a given level of control. The 

commenters recommended that the provision be rewritten to promote the 

use of engineering assessments and other information. Finally, a 

commenter argued that there are many situations where unit specific 

compliance testing is not currently required. It is not necessary or 

appropriate for CAM to override reasoned decisions made in underlying 

rules, according to this commenter; for example, controls used for fugitive 

emissions do not require performance tests because their high cost is not 

justified for the small amount of emissions handled. The commenter 

noted that CAM's pre-control applicability threshold will subject all fugitive 

sources to subpart B, and added that CAM plans will also be required for 

work practice and other requirements where the term "performance test" 

does not apply. 

One industry trade group recommended that EPA replace this section with 

a much simpler provision stating that the appropriate parameter 

monitoring range(s) may be determined by representative test data from 

any applicable source, plus supporting information, such as engineering 

assessments, manufacturer's data and recommendations, subject to the 

permitting authority's approval.

Commenters also suggested that where compliance test data is used to 

establish indicator ranges, the rule should make clear that this does not 

imply a specific correlation between the test data and the range selected. 

The commenters stated that a single test is not necessarily representative 

of the entire range of operating conditions at a source, and that indicator 

ranges should be determined based on historical operating data, 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 235 

engineering data, etc. One commenter claimed that it was not possible 

to establish a correlation or quantitative relationship between emissions 

and an indicator value based on a single performance test. The 

commenter argued that when multiple parameters were involved the 

ability of setting meaningful indicator values based on a single 

performance test became even less likely. Additionally, this commenter 

claimed that because performance tests themselves allegedly could be 

highly variable parameter values established based on a single 

performance test are invalid. Finally, this commenter asserted that EPA 

had not provided sufficient guidance on how to take information other than 

performance data into account in setting indicator ranges. 

One commenter claimed that it was not possible to establish a correlation 

or quantitative relationship between emissions and an indicator value 

based on a single performance test. The commenter argued that when 

multiple parameters were involved the ability of setting meaningful 

indicator values based on a single performance test became even less 

likely. Additionally, this commenter claimed that because performance 

tests themselves allegedly could be highly variable parameter values 

established based on a single performance test are invalid. Finally, this 

commenter asserted that EPA had not provided sufficient guidance on 

how to take information other than performance data into account in 

setting indicator ranges. 

Certain pharmaceutical industry commenters also objected to the 

requirement that an owner or operator must obtain approval to use 

engineering assessments and other data for the establishment of indicator 

ranges. The commenters stated that the pharmaceutical industry is an 

industry that primarily uses batch manufacturing operations which are 

inherently nonsteady-state with flow rates and compositions rapidly 

changing. The commenters argued that because most existing test 

methods are adaptations of methods developed for steady-state sources, 

requiring performance testing for batch industries will place an unfair 

burden on those industries because reliable batch testing technology has 

not yet been developed. The commenters added that for many years, 

the pharmaceutical industry has calculated controlled emissions using the 

Control Technology Guidelines developed by EPA, which are recognized 

as approved factors by state and federal permitting authorities. Requiring 

prior approval for techniques already approved by EPA and the state 

agencies is unnecessary and time-consuming, according to these 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 236 

commenters, and they recommended revisions to § 64.8(c) to eliminate 

the requirement to obtain such approval. 

Response: The Agency believes that performance testing plays an important role in 

two ways in establishing indicator ranges that will provide a reasonable 

assurance of ongoing compliance for pollutant-specific emissions units 

with pollution control devices. First, the performance or compliance test 

is generally necessary to demonstrate that the emission unit is capable of 

compliance with the emission limitation or standard. Many applicable 

regulations require such a test at least at unit start-up; if not, the 

permitting authority often prescribes an appropriate test or other means to 

make this demonstration. Second, the Agency believes the use of 

operational data collected during performance testing is a key element in 

establishing indicator ranges. The Agency has long recognized the 

importance of establishing representative site-specific baseline conditions 

during performance testing. For instance, nearly all NSPS subparts that 

rely on parameter monitoring require indicator ranges to be set based on 

baseline conditions during performance testing. In addition, relevant 

portions of EPA's Air Compliance Inspection Manual (docket item 

A-91-52-VI-A-3) notes the importance of this approach so that parameter 

data can be relied on in the inspection process to reach a conclusion 

about a source's compliance status. Thus, the presumptive approach for 

establishing indicator ranges in part 64 is to establish the ranges in the 

context of performance testing. 

The Agency recognizes that information collected during performance do 

not necessarily provide all the information needed to develop indicator 

ranges that are representative of compliance performance across the 

entire operating range. For this reason, the rule allows for adjusting the 

baseline values recorded during a performance test to account for the 

inappropriateness of requiring that indicator conditions stay exactly the 

same as during a test. Other relevant information that may be used in 

establishing indicator ranges would be engineering assessments, 

historical data, and vendor data. The rule also provides that the owner 

may submit indicator ranges (or procedures for establishing indicator 

ranges) that rely alone on engineering assessments and other data, 

provided that the owner or operator demonstrates that factors specific to 

the type of monitoring, control device, or pollutant-specific emissions unit 

make compliance or performance testing unnecessary. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 237 

The Agency believes that the comment suggesting that meaningful 

indicator values could not be established based on a performance test 

incorrectly assumed that EPA was requiring that indicator values be 

statistically correlated to emission levels as in the 1993 enhanced 

monitoring proposal. As noted above, EPA believes that performance 

data used in connection with engineering, vendor, and historical 

information can be used to set indicator values that provide a reasonable 

assurance of compliance. Thus, EPA is not requiring a statistical 

correlation between indicator values and emission levels such as in the 

1993 proposal. As to the concern regarding the variability of 

performance tests, EPA believes that performance variability is a potential 

problem with individual standards and performance tests but is not a bar 

to parameter monitoring. If the performance test is highly variable, 

mistaken judgments regarding compliance will occur whether relying on 

the performance test itself or parameter values based on the performance 

test. Finally, EPA has not set forth a host of detailed regulatory 

requirements regarding the use of non-performance data in setting 

indicator levels so as to allow source owners and operators and 

permitting authorities the flexibility to adapt monitoring and indicator levels 

to the specific circumstances at the unit in question. This rule applies to 

too many different types of units and different types of control devices to 

allow for such a prescriptive approach. EPA intends to issue guidance 

on parameter monitoring to aid source owners and operators in the design 

of CAM plans. 

Lastly, the issue of revising the stringency through establishing indicator 

ranges based on performance testing is not relevant given that the 

Agency has made clear that an excursion from an indicator range or 

designated condition indicates a potential problem in the operation and 

maintenance of the control device and a possible exception to compliance 

with applicable requirements. The excursion signals, at a minimum, that 

the owner or operator should take appropriate corrective action to return 

operations within the established ranges. However, an excursion from an 

indicator range does not necessarily constitute a failure to comply with the 

underlying emissions limitation or standard. See section 14 of this 

document for additional discussion. The assertion that requiring 

monitoring to ensure that emission standards are met at all times makes 

the standards more stringent because many standards do not require 

continuous compliance is incorrect. Part 64 is a monitoring rule; it does 

not -- in fact, could not -- change the compliance obligations of individual 

emission standards. EPA would note its disagreement with the theory 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 238 

that continuous compliance is not the norm for emission standards. This 

issue was discussed in great detail in the preamble to the Credible 

Evidence Rulemaking and the Response to Comments document 

associated with that rule. 

EPA disagrees with the comment that it should sever the link between 

CAM and actual emissions. CAM is designed to provide source owners 

and operators with information for compliance certifications. If CAM had 

no linkage to actual emissions it would have no value for compliance 

certifications. 

Letter(s): American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); Association 

of Battery Recyclers (VI-D-155); Chemical Manufacturers Association 

(VI-D-152); Clean Air Implementation Project (VI-D-153); Coalition for 

Clean Air Implementation (VI-D-164); Dow Chemical Company 

(VI-D-120); DuPont Engineering (VI-D-127); Eastman Chemical Company 

(VI-D-173); Eli Lilly (VI-D-124); Exxon Chemical Americas (VI-D-128); 

General Electric Company (VI-D-156); Kennecott Corporation (VI-D-119); 

National Environmental Development Association (VI-D-169); Ohio 

Chamber of Commerce, et al (VI-D-160); Pennsylvania Chamber of 

Business and Industry (VI-D-114); Pharmaceutical Research and 

Manufacturers of America (VI-D-217); Phillips Petroleum Company 

(VI-D-131); Texas Chemical Council (VI-D-236); Utility Air Regulatory 

Group (VI-D-140); Virginia Power (VI-D-226); Wisconsin Electric Power 

Company (VI-D-130) 

8.2.2: Testing over Entire Operating Range 

Comment a: Industry commenters did support the provision stating that test data need 

not reflect the entire indicator range. One trade association urged EPA to 

retain the provision in the final version of this section. Another 

commenter noted that testing at nonrepresentative conditions can provide 

misleading results, and thus this same provision should be added to § 

64.8(c) where existing test data are not available. An environmental 

organization, on the other hand, argued that the rule improperly sanctions 

the operation of sources under conditions for which the owners do not 

know the emission levels. Noting that the rule states that parameter 

ranges should be based on compliance tests but provides that testing is 

not required to be conducted over the entire indicator range, the 

commenter stated that the rule improperly allows sources to conduct the 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 239 

compliance testing at an unspecified date in the future or to rely on other 

data.

Response: The Agency agrees that the conditions under which the performance 

testing is conducted are critical to assuring that the testing or the resulting 

indicator ranges are representative of compliance performance. To 

assure that conditions represented by performance testing are generally 

representative of anticipated operating conditions, the final rule prescribes 

that a performance test should be conducted under conditions specified 

by the applicable rule or, if not specified, generally under conditions 

representative of maximum emission potential under anticipated operating 

conditions. The Agency believes that use of data from performance tests 

under such conditions in conjunction with other engineering data provide a 

basis for establishing indicator ranges and that full-scale performance 

testing across the indicator range is unnecessary. The Agency notes that 

it has used this same approach in many recent MACT rules under 40 CFR 

part 63 as well (see, e.g., 40 CFR 63.654(f)(3)(ii)(A) and 63.1334(c)). 

Letter(s): Chemical Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); Eastman Chemical 

Company (VI-D-173); Natural Resources Defense Council (VI-D-151) 

8.2.3: Use of Existing Test Data

Comment a: Several industry commenters recommended that EPA delete the 

provisions of § 64.8(b)(2) relating to age of test data and other restrictions. 

 The commenters argued that there is no technical justification for 

arbitrarily excluding from consideration data over five years old. They 

stated that test data obtained using approved methods should remain 

valid no matter when the test was conducted, so long as significant 

operational changes have not been made to the control device or 

associated system since the test was conducted. One commenter noted 

that this requirement could be misinterpreted by a permitting authority to 

require a performance test every five years to revalidate the results. 

Another commenter added that taking the time to do an unnecessary 

performance test and review the results only delays the start of 

monitoring. 

A state agency also agreed that the use of old test data should be 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The commenter stated that age of a 

source emissions test should not be the sole criteria for using the data 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 240 

from that test; other factors, such as the operational parameters and use 

of control equipment during the test, should be considered. 

Response: The Agency agrees that the relevance of existing performance testing 

results, regardless of age, should be made on a case-by-case basis and 

has removed that provision from the final rule. 

Letter(s): American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); Chemical 

Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); Exxon Chemical Americas 

(VI-D-128); General Electric Company (VI-D-156); National Environmental 

Development Association (VI-D-169); PPG Industries, Inc. (VI-D-136); RR 

Donnelley & Sons Company (VI-D-221); State of Tennessee Department 

of Environment and Conservation (VI-D-234); Texas Chemical Council 

(VI-D-236); UCAR Carbon Company, Inc. (VI-D-122) 

Comment b: One commenter stated that the requirement of additional testing of a 

control device any time it has been modified is not justifiable across the 

board. The commenter suggested that retesting should only be required 

where the modification can be expected to have affected the validity of the 

test data.

Response: The Agency agrees that the need for performance testing for process or 

control device modifications must be made in the context of the applicable 

requirement on a case-by-case basis. The final rule does not allow a 

source to rely on existing test data if modifications have been made since 

the testing was conducted that could result in a significant change in 

control system performance or the appropriate indicator range. This 

limitation on the use of existing data allows for the particular 

circumstances of the change to be taken into account. 

Letter(s): Chemical Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152) 

Comment c: A commenter noted that the section does not specifically provide for the 

use of test data on one unit to represent the performance of a similar 

process unit. The commenter suggested that permitting authorities 

should have discretion to accept data from one unit with supplemental 

information to take into account design and operating variations. 

According to the commenter such an approach is consistent with Section 

II.A.2 of White Paper 2, which recommends the use of General Permits to 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 241 

transfer streamlined requirements from one source to other similar 

sources. Another commenter stated that the cost burdens of the rule 

would be reduced by allowing any accurate, representative data to be 

used, and that the use of data from one unit to support monitoring 

decisions at similar units would result in considerable savings to industry 

with no deterioration to the environment. 

Response: As noted above, the rule provides that the owner may submit indicator 

ranges (or procedures for establishing indicator ranges) that rely alone on 

engineering assessments and other data, including performance testing 

data from similar emission units, provided that the owner or operator 

demonstrates that factors specific to the type of monitoring, control 

device, or pollutant-specific emissions unit make compliance or 

performance testing unnecessary. 

Letter(s): Chemical Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); Union Carbide 

Corporation (VI-D-170) 

8.2.4: Miscellaneous Comments 

Comment a: A state agency association recommended that the rule should provide for 

the use of more than one compliance test method procedure. The 

commenter suggested modifying section 64.8(b)(1) to clarify that indicator 

ranges may be based on data obtained from the conduct of more than 

one compliance test method procedure where appropriate or necessary. 

Response: The final rule specifies that performance testing should be conducted 

under conditions specified by the applicable rule including the method 

used. An alternative to the method specified in the applicable rule may 

be approved following the applicable administrative procedures, but that is 

outside the scope of part 64. 

Letter(s): NESCAUM (VI-D-192) 

Comment b: A state agency association requested clarification of whether verification 

testing is required only for initial baseline calculations or more frequently, 

such as once every permit renewal. The commenter supported an 

explicit statement in the rule that verification testing frequency is left to the 

discretion of the permitting authority. Other commenters requested 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 242 

similar clarification. They noted that the requirement that test data be no 

more than five years old could be interpreted to require testing every five 

years. They recommended that this provision be modified so that it 

applies only to the initial CAM plan submittal, not renewal of previously 

approved CAM. Another commenter stated generally that the rule 

provides no clear guidance on when and how much testing must occur, 

and that this is a particular concern for small sources. 

Response: As noted above, the age of information collected during performance 

testing or the frequency of repeating performance testing should be made 

on a case-by-case basis. The final rule does not specify testing 

frequency. 

Letter(s): American Municipal Power-Ohio (VI-D-159); Eastman Chemical Company 

(VI-D-173); NESCAUM (VI-D-192) 

Comment c: One commenter requested that EPA make it explicit that a source can 

extrapolate baseline emission test data or other data up to a level that is a 

reasonable approximation of the emission limit. The commenter noted 

that because it would be inappropriate to create artificial test conditions at 

or near the emission limit for purposes of establishing an indicator range, 

sources with low emission test results must be able to extrapolate upward. 

 The commenter recommended that the extrapolation should take into 

account the confidence interval of the data over the range of interest. 

Response: The Agency agrees that creating artificial conditions that produce 

emissions at or near the applicable emission limitation or standard (that 

may be more representative of control device malfunctions than proper 

operation) is not consistent with the requirement of part 64 that the 

indicator ranges reflect the proper operation and maintenance of the 

control device (and associated capture system), in accordance with 

applicable design properties, for minimizing emissions over the 

anticipated range of operating conditions at least to the level required to 

achieve compliance with the applicable requirements. The final part 64 

requires that performance testing be conducted under conditions specified 

by the applicable rule. If the applicable rule does not specify testing 

conditions or only partially specifies test conditions, the performance test 

generally shall be conducted under conditions representative of maximum 

emissions potential under anticipated operating conditions at the 

pollutant-specific emissions unit. As noted above, the final rule allows for 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 243 

adjusting the baseline values recorded during a performance test to 

account for the inappropriateness of requiring that indicator conditions 

stay exactly the same as during a test. There is no need for, nor is it 

desirable that, the process or control device be operated outside of the 

anticipated operating range during the performance testing. 

Letter(s): Air Control Techniques, P.C. (VI-D-202) 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 244 

Section 9: Subpart C Requirements 

Section 9.1: General Comments

Comment a: A few commenters expressed support for EPA's approach in draft subpart 

C, which they believed provides permitting authorities the flexibility to 

determine what level of monitoring, if any, to require. One noted that this 

level of decision making is best made on a case-by-case basis with 

permitting authorities that are familiar with the processes and equipment. 

 Another supported the listed examples of various types of monitoring and 

the idea that no monitoring may be appropriate. 

Response: No response necessary. 

Letter(s): Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (VI-D-186); California Association of 

Sanitation Agencies (VI-D-206); County Sanitation Districts of Orange 

County, California (VI-D-231); Tri-TAC (VI-D-225) 

Comment b: Other commenters stated that EPA should clarify the standards for 

subpart C monitoring. Some argued that the standards for subpart B and 

C monitoring are similar and vague. They argued that the draft rule 

repeats the general standard of "reasonable assurance of compliance" for 

both subparts and, in section 64.9(a)(3), essentially refers back to subpart 

B, potentially subjecting subpart C units to all the requirements of subpart 

B. This eliminates any advantages of differentiating between these two 

categories, according to the commenters, and they stressed that subpart 

B requirements should not be imposed on subpart C pollutant-specific 

emission units. Some commenters proposed revisions to section 64.9(a) 

to clarify that not all of the listed monitoring elements should be included 

in an operating permit's subpart C monitoring description, arguing that 

those listed in section 64.7(a)(1)(i)-(v) should only be required "where 

appropriate" or "as applicable". Others proposed eliminating section 

64.9(a)(3) because it is not clear how subpart B requirements, such as the 

requirement to set indicator ranges, would apply to units without control 

devices. 

One commenter agreed that subpart C monitoring should be governed by 

the same reasonable assurance of compliance standard as subpart B and 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 245 

that reference to subpart B concepts is a reasonable way to articulate 

what subpart C monitoring needs to consider. However, this commenter 

argued that given that the applicability of subpart C is even more broad 

than the EM proposal, the CAM rule will impose crushing burdens and will 

not be implementable unless subpart C monitoring is significantly less 

demanding than subpart B monitoring. 

This commenter and others argued that the draft part 64 includes no 

standards that limit subpart C requirements, and that EPA has not 

articulated any standard for imposing the more onerous requirements. 

One commenter argued that the rule should provide a mechanism for 

resolving disputes between a source and the permitting authority as to 

what monitoring is appropriate. Another suggested that the rule appears 

to encourage permitting authorities to subject subpart C sources to 

subpart B requirements. A few commenters argued that subpart C as 

drafted is an unlawful delegation of authority to the states to create 

federally enforceable monitoring requirements, especially since states 

could impose requirements even more stringent than subpart B monitoring 

under subpart C. They stated that while states can always impose more 

stringent state requirements, those are state-only, not federal, 

requirements. 

A State agency stated that the draft rule provides no guidance on what is 

meant by the phrase "reasonable assurance of compliance" in the context 

of subpart C monitoring and section 64.9(a). This commenter suggested 

adding a definition in either section 64.9(a)(2) or section 64.1 which states 

that assurance of compliance is reasonable if it is sufficient to detect, at 

least a majority of the time, failures or improper unit operations which 

could reasonably cause a violation. 

Another commenter argued that many of the provisions of CAM are 

ill-defined and subject to multiple interpretations and that one possible 

interpretation of section 64.9(c)(3) would subject many units to EPA's 

proposed EM requirements. 

Response: Because of the delays in finalizing part 64 and the delayed 

implementation schedule included in the final rule, the Agency believes 

that many part 70 permits will address periodic monitoring issues prior to 

implementation of part 64. To address concerns about the potential 

duplication and disruption that this situation could cause, EPA has 

rejected the inclusion of subpart C in part 64 and, instead will rely on the 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 246 

existing part 70 monitoring, including periodic monitoring, requirements to 

apply to units not covered by part 64. Because the majority of emissions 

units do not use control devices, this decision will result in part 64 creating 

no duplication or disruption for the majority of emissions units. The 

Agency has issued several guidance documents to address periodic 

monitoring, including White Paper 2, and is finalizing more specific 

guidance for permitting authorities and source owners to use in 

addressing part 70 periodic monitoring requirements for the current 

implementation of the operating permits program. These guidance 

materials coincide with the scope and basic thrust of the text of the 1996 

part 64 Draft subpart C section with additional clarification for the issues 

raised by commenters. 

Letter(s): American Gas Association (VI-D-154); American Municipal Power-Ohio 

(VI-D-159); American Petroleum Institute (VI-D-146); Chemical 

Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); Cinergy Corp. (VI-D-141); Coastal 

Corporation (VI-D-123); Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry 

(VI-D-182); Electronic Industries Association (VI-D-137); General Electric 

Company (VI-D-156); Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

(VI-D-193); Independent Liquid Terminals Association (VI-D-178); KBN 

Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc. (IV-D-229); LaClede Gas 

Company (VI-D-198); Los Alamos National Laboratory (VI-D-210); 

NESCAUM (VI-D-192); Ohio Chamber of Commerce, et al (VI-D-160); 

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (IV-D-217); 

UCAR Carbon Company, Inc. (VI-D-122); Utility Air Regulatory Group 

(VI-D-140) 

Comment c: Some commenters recommended that EPA should clearly state that 

record keeping or existing monitoring are adequate to satisfy subpart C 

requirements. One commenter noted that at the September 10, 1996 

CAM public meeting, EPA's presentation indicated that the Agency 

intended for subpart C requirements to be record keeping requirements. 

The commenter noted that the proposed rule, however, did not include a 

clear statement that subpart C would require only record keeping. Some 

commenters recommended stating clearly that record keeping should 

satisfy subpart C requirements, because determining the appropriate level 

of record keeping is less burdensome than the thorough review generally 

needed for subpart B. Commenters also recommended clarifying that 

subpart B units can use record keeping as appropriate. Another 

commenter recommended that section 64.9(c)(1) be revised so that the 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 247 

listed approaches satisfy subpart C without the need for approval. Other 

commenters argued that subpart C requirements should be limited to 

existing monitoring specified in the applicable underlying requirement, or 

to record keeping, or suggested revisions to section 64.9(b) which state 

that any and all existing monitoring at subpart C pollutant-specific 

emissions units satisfies the subpart C CAM requirements. At a 

minimum, two commenters suggested that this approach be presumed 

appropriate with specific rule text added to create the presumption. They 

also noted that monthly record keeping should be indicated to be 

acceptable because shorter time frames provide no added protection but 

greatly increase costs and harm competitiveness. One commenter noted 

that the requirement that existing monitoring may have to be upgraded is 

inconsistent with part 70 and with EPA's stated intent that part 70 should 

not be used to add new requirements. Similarly, commenters suggested 

that sources with existing monitoring should be exempt from subpart C 

and in other cases, the rule should create a presumption that record 

keeping (including the use of emission factors) is presumptively 

acceptable absent a showing that additional monitoring is necessary to 

assure compliance. One commenter noted that if the discretion under 

subpart C is not limited in the manner suggested by these comments, 

then the RIA for the CAM rule must account for the potential impacts of 

this discretion on the costs associated with the rule. 

One commenter recommended revising section 64.9(c)(1) to add mass 

balances and fuel analysis to the list of requirements for which 

documentation of compliance satisfies subpart C requirements. The 

commenter noted that for glycol dehydrators and other uncontrolled 

emission units, these may be the only feasible monitoring approaches. 

Another commenter suggested that the wording of section 64.9(a)(3) 

should be modified to clarify that subpart C can be satisfied by recorded 

findings of inspection and maintenance activities. According to the 

commenter, this clarification is important because subpart B-type 

monitoring would be cost-prohibitive for the smaller units subject to 

subpart C. 

An industry coalition recommended that EPA reduce confusion by 

specifying that subpart C monitoring is comparable to the periodic 

monitoring concept as written in Part 70 and not as described in the 1994 

draft Periodic Monitoring Guidance Document. Another trade association 

stated that cost should be a factor in determining what monitoring is 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 248 

required under subpart C, and proposed adding a definition of 

"cost-effective" to section 64.1 and revising sections 64.6, 64.7, and 64.9 

to clarify that cost-effectiveness is a factor to be considered in determining 

what monitoring is required by CAM. 

Finally, an environmental group opposed subpart C and argued that the 

monitoring provisions should require monitoring that is capable of being 

correlated with emission limits. The group stated that record keeping, 

which is all that will be required of most subpart C sources, is not 

sufficient monitoring for major sources. 

Response: Because EPA has decided not to include the draft subpart C provisions in 

the final rule as discussed in detail in section II.B. of the preamble to the 

final rule, no further response to these comments is necessary. The 

Agency notes that the significant adverse comments on the draft subpart 

C applicability and content provisions, as summarized above and in 

section 2.2 (Part III) above, were one consideration in the Agency's 

decision to retain the current periodic monitoring provisions in part 70 as 

opposed to replacing those requirements with provisions similar to draft 

subpart C. The Agency believes that the periodic monitoring 

requirements provide enhanced monitoring for those sources not covered 

by part 64. 

Letter(s): American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); American 

Gas Association (VI-D-154); American Petroleum Institute (VI-D-146); 

Chemical Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); Clean Air 

Implementation Project (VI-D-153); Colorado Association of Commerce 

and Industry (VI-D-182); Electronic Industries Association (VI-D-137); Eli 

Lilly Company (VI-D-124); Enron Operations Corp. (VI-D-235); General 

Electric Company (VI-D-156); Los Alamos National Laboratory (VI-D-210); 

Mobil Corporation (VI-D-115); Natural Resources Defense Council 

(VI-D-151); NorAm Gas Transmission Company (VI-D-142); 

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (VI-D-217); 

Rubber Manufacturers Association (VI-D-171); Wisconsin Electric Power 

Company (VI-D-130) 

Section 9.2: No Monitoring Option

Comment a: Some commenters noted support for the subpart C provisions allowing no 

monitoring for certain requirements. One commenter specifically 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 249 

supported the provisions of section 64.9(c)(2)(i),(ii) and (iii) requiring no 

monitoring for generic applicable requirements such as opacity, design 

requirements not requiring ongoing verification, and emissions from 

insignificant activities. Another commenter suggested as another 

example units that are assumed to run at design capacity (e.g., no 

monitoring of fuel usage should be necessary for small process boilers 

that are assumed to operate 8760 hours/year). Another commenter also 

noted support for this provision and the general CAM provisions requiring 

sources with passive emission controls to comply with the record keeping 

requirements of subpart C but exempting them from the requirement to 

develop CAM plans. Finally, another commenter suggested that section 

64.9(c)(2) can be strengthened by establishing that no monitoring is 

required for the emissions units and applicable standards listed and 

eliminating the requirement to propose this approach to the permitting 

authority. 

One commenter requested that section 64.9(c)(3) be clarified so it is clear 

that units covered by this section are still only subject to subpart C, not 

subpart B, while another recommended deleting section 64.9(c)(3) 

because section 64.2(b) already states that units subject to subpart B are 

not subject to subpart C. Another commenter recommended that the 

limitations in section 64.9(c)(3) on the "no monitoring" option provided in 

section 64.9(c)(2) not apply to internal combustion engines because the 

combustion control techniques that act to limit emissions from these 

sources are designed and certified to maintain their effectiveness over the 

engine's entire useful life, so monitoring is unnecessary. The commenter 

recommended that the no monitoring option be available so long as actual 

emissions do not exceed the applicable part 70 major source thresholds, 

and noted that this approach is consistent with the SBA proposals. 

Response: Because EPA has decided not to include the draft subpart C provisions in 

the final rule, no further response to these comments is necessary. 

Letter(s): Eli Lilly Company (VI-D-124); Engine Manufacturers Association 

(VI-D-117); Enron Operations Corp. (VI-D-235); Los Alamos National 

Laboratory (VI-D-210); NorAm Gas Transmission Company (VI-D-142); 

UCAR Carbon Company, Inc. (VI-D-122) 

Section 9.3: More Stringent State/Local Requirements
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 250 

Comment a: Several industry commenters recommended deleting section 64.9(d). 

They argued that the section 64.9(d) requirement that owners and 

operators subject to more stringent monitoring requirements under state 

and local law propose, at a minimum, to use such monitoring to satisfy 

subpart C converts state-only and local-only requirements into federally 

enforceable applicable requirements under the Act. This provision 

represents an inappropriately broad use of EPA's statutory authority under 

section 114(a)(3) of the Act, according to the commenters. One 

commenter stated that this provision has no place in a federal rule that 

should prescribe the federal requirements, not encourage additional state 

requirements. The commenter argued that this is another example of 

how the rule is drafted to make underlying requirements more stringent. 

The commenter added that this provision is at odds with all prior EPA 

pronouncements that the title V permit process is not intended to 

federalize state-only requirements or add new requirements. Another 

commenter stated that this provision should be deleted to prevent local 

governments from using CAM as a local revenue enhancing mechanism. 

Response: Because EPA has decided not to include the draft subpart C provisions in 

the final rule, no further response to these comments is necessary. 

Letter(s): American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); Coalition for 

Clean Air Implementation (VI-D-164); Eli Lilly Company (VI-D-124); 

General Electric Company (VI-D-156); KBN Engineering and Applied 

Sciences, Inc. (VI-D-229); Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers 

of America (VI-D-217); Southern Company Services (VI-D-171); Utility Air 

Regulatory Group (VI-D-140); Virginia Power (VI-D-226) 

Section 9.4: Miscellaneous Comments

Comment a: Commenters offered other proposed revisions to subpart C monitoring 

requirements. One commenter noted that the draft rule lists emissions 

from insignificant activities, as defined in section 70.5(c), as those for 

which an owner/operator can propose that no monitoring is necessary. 

The commenter noted that part 70 insignificant activities cannot be 

subject to any specific emission limit or standard and are therefore not 

covered by part 64. Thus the commenter proposed revising section 

64.9(c)(2)(iii) to refer to emission from activities that would be insignificant 

"but for the fact that an applicable requirement (which does not specify 

monitoring) applies." Another commenter argued that the ability to 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 251 

require performance testing to establish indicator ranges under section 

64.9(c)(1)(ii) should be deleted. Another commenter recommended that 

in section 64.9(c)(1)(ii), EPA should clarify that the permit can reference 

existing indicators rather than include the indicators explicitly, because 

this is consistent with part 70 guidance. 

Another commenter requested that EPA provide examples of descriptions 

proposing subpart C monitoring. Finally, one commenter questioned why 

CAM plans are not required for subpart C as well as subpart B given that 

units subject to both subparts will have to include similar monitoring 

information in permit applications and permits. The commenter also 

supported a single CAM plan for a facility as opposed to unit-specific 

plans. This commenter also noted two places in the rule where EPA 

appears to be implying that CAM plans are required for subpart C units as 

well as subpart B units: first, EPA references 64.3(a)(1) in paragraph 

(a)(2) and second, the QIP provisions in section 64.11(a)(2) refer to CAM 

plans exclusively even though QIPs are applicable to both subpart B and 

C units. 

Response: Because EPA has decided not to include the draft subpart C provisions in 

the final rule, no further response to these comments is necessary. 

Letter(s): County Sanitation Districts, Orange County, California (VI-D-231); 

Department of Energy (VI-D-196); General Electric Company (VI-D-156); 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (VI-D-193); Los Alamos 

National Laboratory (VI-D-210) 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 252 

Section 10: Quality Improvement Plans (QIPs)

Section 10.1: QIPs - Need for More Flexibility 

Comment a: A few commenters generally supported the concept of the QIP 

requirements. One commenter noted that the general concept of QIPs 

could serve as an encouragement for owners or operators to take steps to 

prevent pollution through control performance optimization, but other 

commenters cautioned that the details of the current QIP provisions 

provide disincentives for this type of optimization. Another commenter 

stated that sections 64.10-64.11 will allow sources to comply with the law, 

clean up the air, and engage all interested parties without acrimony. This 

commenter believed that any arbitrary limitations on the use of QIP 

procedures to allow sources to comply would hurt the process of meeting 

the goals of the Clean Air Act. 

Response: No response necessary. 

Letter(s): Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry (VI-D-182); Department 

of Defense (VI-D-209); Eli Lilly Company (VI-D-124); Pharmaceutical 

Research and Manufacturers of America (VI-D- 217); The Society of the 

Plastics Industry, Inc. (VI-D-148) 

Comment b: State and local agency commenters argued against adopting the QIP 

requirements. These commenters argued that these provisions 

complicate the rule and increase the burdens on state and local agencies' 

resources by requiring agencies to set the thresholds and review sources' 

QIP activities. The commenters also did not believe that the QIP 

provisions result in emissions reductions, and were not convinced that 

permitting authorities will not have to expend resources on oversight of 

QIPs although their approval is not required. Comments from permitting 

authorities also reflected concern that the QIP provisions may impede 

state and local agency enforcement initiatives. Another agency 

association noted support for STAPPA/ALAPCO's comments on QIPs and 

believes QIPs only provide sources with the chance to delay necessary 

corrective action for up to six months. 

The agency commenters argued that EPA can rely on CAM plans and 

corrective action to ensure compliance. One agency noted that state 

programs allow for initiation of enforcement actions with confirmed high 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 253 

levels of exceedances and that the threat of such enforcement is sufficient 

motivation for the regulated community to take corrective actions without 

the implementation of a complex administrative process like a QIP. This 

commenter added that it is unreasonable to impose plan preparation and 

submission requirements on an over-regulated community, or an approval 

process burden on regulatory agencies already strapped for resources. 

One state agency association argued that if the QIP provisions are not 

eliminated, QIPs should be incorporated directly into CAM plans in a 

manner similar to the incorporation of operation and maintenance plans in 

air permits. 

Another agency expressed concern that numerous QIPs will likely be 

resource intensive for regulatory agencies. The commenter predicted 

that a CAM source may initiate a QIP prior to the trigger level in order to 

prevent a violation, and stated that since the CAM rule does not limit the 

number of QIPs, a source may have a number of QIPs in various stages 

at any one time. The commenter felt that QIP tracking and compliance 

determinations at such a source would become unnecessarily 

burdensome. Finally, the commenter suggested that the QIP provisions 

should be eliminated or strictly limited since they are not an essential part 

of CAM and realistic and appropriate compliance indicator ranges would 

prevent the need for the QIP provisions. 

Finally, another agency argued against QIPs and stated that excursions 

should be enforceable, with any excused level of excursions included in 

the permit based on data for a source category. 

Response: The Agency agrees that the QIP concept can be applied on a 

case-by-case by the permitting more effectively than a generally 

applicable requirement. The final rule provides for the QIP mechanism to 

be applied at the option of the permitting authority so that permitting 

authorities have a specific regulatory tool to address situations in which an 

owner or operator operates in a manner that involves excursions followed 

by ineffective actions to bring the monitored indicators back into the 

acceptable ranges established in the permit. Thus, the QIP will help 

assure that the owner or operator pays attention to the data and, if 

necessary, improves performance to the point where ongoing compliance 

with applicable requirements is reasonably assured.

Letter(s): Missouri Department of Natural Resources (VI-D-260); NESCAUM 

(VI-D-192); Ohio EPA, Division of Air Pollution Control (VI-D-180); San 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 254 

Diego County Air Pollution Control District (VI-D-191); STAPPA/ALAPCO 

(VI-D-179); State of New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection 

(VI-D-215) 

Comment c: Some industry commenters also expressed disapproval of the QIP 

concept. Commenters stated that the QIP concept of trying to fix a 

problem before it has begun has become a futile effort because of the 

enforcement concerns related to the use of CAM data as CE. These 

commenters argued that CAM triggers will be set as broadly as possible 

because of the potential enforcement consequences and that this problem 

is exacerbated by designating the second QIP as a violation where there 

may have been no violation of a permit term or underlying standard. The 

commenters proposed eliminating current QIP provisions and relying on 

existing state procedures, such as NOVs and consent agreements, to be 

used only where actual permit violations have occurred. 

Another industry commenter agreed that the QIP requirements are 

inconsistent with encouraging sources to set early warning trigger levels 

so that they can take corrective action before any noncompliance point 

can be reached. The commenter argued that sources should not have to 

give up "internal margins" that they have proactively set to assure 

compliance. The commenter added that the requirements to develop a 

QIP and submit it for approval are inconsistent with the role of the source 

in self-determining and self-reporting compliance status. The commenter 

stated that only if a source violates an applicable requirement should a 

permitting authority be concerned with how many times a source may 

exceed an indicator range. This commenter described the QIP 

requirements as being indicative of a complete distrust of the regulated 

community to manage compliance and imposing greater stringency than 

existing requirements which only require sources to report corrective 

action if noncompliance occurs (such as NSPS). The commenter 

concluded that this requirement should be deleted. 

Finally, a federal agency and another commenter recommended that the 

detailed QIP requirements be replaced with guidelines. The agency 

stated that the detailed requirements deny permitting authorities and 

facilities the flexibility to achieve the same or similar results in a more 

cost-effective manner. This commenter added that in other similar 

settings, water and air permitting authorities exercise much greater 

enforcement discretion. An industry commenter supported this position 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 255 

and stated that turning quality improvement planning into a regulatory 

requirement will likely impede its usefulness and acceptability as a 

management tool. 

Response: The Agency agrees and, as noted above, the final rule includes only a 

description of the QIP concept and guidance on how this tool might be 

applied. The Agency also decided to delete the draft requirement that a 

second QIP during a permit term constitutes a violation. The final rule, 

consistent with the precedent of 40 CFR 60.11(d), provides for the general 

use of part 64 data and other information to document that the owner or 

operator has failed to operate and maintain an emission unit properly and 

provides for the QIP mechanism as one option for addressing situations in 

which such a failure has occurred. In that respect, any time a QIP is 

required there will be an underlying finding that the owner or operator has 

failed to take appropriate action and may be subject to enforcement for 

that violation. Thus, there is no need for the final rule to include separate 

enforcement consequences related to multiple QIPs. 

Letter(s): Coastal Corporation (VI-D-123); Colorado Association Commerce and 

Industry (VI-D-182); Tennessee Valley Authority (VI-D-162); U.S. Small 

Business Administration (VI-D-239); UCAR Carbon Company, Inc. 

(VI-D-122) 

Comment d: Certain commenters stated that QIP requirements should apply only to 

units with control devices. One commenter argued that it is not even 

clear how QIP requirements could apply to Subpart C units, many of 

which will be able to satisfy CAM with existing monitoring or even no 

monitoring, or with recordkeeping and work practices. The commenter 

proposed revisions to § 64.3(b)(4) to establish that the requirement to 

implement a QIP only applies to pollutant-specific emissions units with a 

control device. Another commenter stated that if Subpart C is intended to 

be a clarification of part 70 periodic monitoring, then it is inappropriate to 

subject Subpart C monitoring to the QIP provisions. A state agency 

requested clarification of whether QIP requirements are applicable to 

Subpart C units. 

Response: Because subpart C has been deleted from the final rule, part 64 

monitoring, and thus, QIPs, if deemed necessary would apply only to units 

with control devices. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 256 

Letter(s): Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (VI-D-186); NorAm Gas Transmission 

Company (VI-D-142); Ohio EPA, Division of Air Pollution Control 

(VI-D-180) 

Comment e: One commenter stated its belief that the QIP provisions were intended to 

provide a mechanism for sources to experiment with low indicator ranges 

or gain experience with implementing CAM. The commenter's 

suggestion for altering the QIP provisions of the 1996 draft Part 64 to 

realize the goals the commenter described included: shielding a 

reasonable number of QIPs, such as four, in a permit term from 

enforcement; allowing a "free" QIP during a unit's first year of operation; 

deleting the requirement that a QIP period be reported as a deviation; and 

allowing flexibility in establishing the QIP threshold. Another commenter 

also stated that it interpreted corrective action and QIPs as practices to be 

encouraged rather than sanctioned. 

Response: The intent of the QIP provisions is to assure that where poor performance 

is identified, the corrective actions taken result in improved performance. 

Thus, the Agency disagrees with the commenter's approaches to QIP 

implementation. The final rule, consistent with the Agency's intent, allows 

for a permitting authority to require implementation of a QIP upon 

determination that the owner or operator has failed to meet its duty to take 

proper corrective action. 

Letter(s): Can Manufacturers Institute (VI-D-181); National Environmental 

Development Association (VI-D-169) 

Section 10.2: Threshold for Requiring a QIP (64.10)

10.2.1: Appropriate Threshold Issues

Comment a: Environmental groups argued that the 5 percent threshold is too high. 

One of the commenters argued that a threshold of 5 percent allows 

sources to operate outside their chosen ranges for more than a week 

every six months before triggering a QIP which is particularly inappropriate 

for units relying on active control devices to control emissions. The 

commenter explained that a device that is not maintained or operated 

properly could cause a source to substantially exceed its emission limits 

and gave an example of failure of a control device expected to achieve 90 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 257 

percent which would lead to emissions as much as ten times the 

applicable emission limit. Assuming that this happens for 5 percent of an 

operating period, the commenter stated that emissions for that period 

would have increased by 50 percent. The commenter also discussed the 

PSC case in Colorado where the CAM rule would not have required a QIP 

since the 19,000 violations only represented 4 percent of operating time. 

This commenter concluded that the CAM rule's fundamental flaws make it 

incapable of distinguishing between excursions that lead to significant 

emissions increases and those that do not. 

Industry commenters, however, generally argued that the 5 percent 

threshold for triggering a QIP is too low. (See related comments in 

Section 14-Enforcement Concerns.) Several commenters agreed that 

formal QIPs may be appropriate when corrective action has not prevented 

recurring deviations and that the improvement process consists of both an 

evaluation procedure and a corrective action plan, but they stated that the 

5 percent QIP implementation threshold is arbitrary. Another commenter 

noted that EPA could not possibly have sufficient information to know that 

it is reasonable to expect all sources to have less than 5 percent 

excursions when operating and maintaining properly given that this is a 

new program. The commenter requested that the program be more 

flexible and recognize the nature of implementing a new program. 

Others added that this approach once again serves to drive operators to 

set trigger levels as loosely as possible. 

Certain commenters relied on a report submitted to the docket (see 

Docket Item A-91-52-IV-D-777) to show that, in setting NSPS, EPA has 

incorporated a percentage of expected exceedances ("typically 5 percent 

to 10 percent"). The commenters argued that setting an arbitrary 

percentage of 5 percent now would violate EPA's own quantitative 

framework in the NSPS rulemakings and possibly other rulemakings. 

These commenters stated that even moving from a 10 percent to 5 

percent expected exceedance has significant implications for the 

achievability of a particular standard discussing an example based on 

Table 2 of the cited report. The commenters concluded by stating that 

setting the threshold of 5 percent for triggering a QIP will increase the 

stringency of all standards and in some cases will increase the stringency 

of a standard by at least an order of magnitude. Similarly, a state agency 

noted that the proposed 5 percent threshold is not consistent with the 6 

percent de minimis value established in 40 CFR 60.284(e)(1)(ii) (Subpart 

BB). 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 258 

One industry commenter argued that the 5 percent QIP threshold is both 

too stringent and inconsistent with the 90 percent data availability 

requirement in § 64.6(b). The commenter recommended revising 

§ 64.10(b)(2) to read that "The threshold shall be set at no higher than 10 

percent unless . . . ." 

A number of commenters urged EPA to delete the presumptive 5 percent 

QIP trigger and provide sources with the flexibility to set this percentage at 

a high level. Some of the commenters argued that these percentages may 

need to be high at first, decreasing over the term of the initial permit to 

allow sources to "shake down" their operations with respect to proposed 

monitoring. Another commenter similarly proposed that the default value 

in § 64.10(b)(2) be set initially at 10 percent and then gradually reduced to 

5 percent over the course of the first permit term as both sources and 

permitting authorities gain more experience in the implementation of CAM. 

 Similarly, a commenter suggested that no threshold be required but that 

the permitting authority be given discretion to require a QIP when 

necessary taking into account various factors such as compliance history, 

size of the source and pollutant toxicity. One commenter noted that the 

triggering of a QIP if indicator ranges are exceeded more than once is too 

quick a trigger. 

A number of commenters also argued that any single percentage 

threshold is too simplistic. Commenters asserted that a 5 percent 

presumptive indicator range threshold is not an appropriate means of 

determining what does or does not need corrective action and is certainly 

not an acceptable way to determine what constitutes a permit violation. 

A commenter suggested that the magnitude of any exceedances and not 

merely their duration should be considered noting that Public Service 

Company would not have been required to implement a QIP under the 

facts of that case despite the fact that there were nearly 20,000 

exceedances and EPA made a determination that the situation was 

environmentally significant. The commenter explained that this result 

comes about because violations only represented 4 percent of operating 

time with data recorded in six-minute intervals. Industry commenters 

likewise asserted that in some cases, the threshold could be triggered by 

many small excursions over a tightly established indicator range while 

another source with large excursions (but of shorter duration) of a loosely 

established indicator range would never trigger the threshold. A 

commenter stated that sources must be given the flexibility to implement 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 259 

these provisions in a manner that results in the intended continued 

performance improvement. Commenters also argued that the single 

threshold is another example of the rule unnecessarily limiting the 

discretion of the permitting authority to implement the rule in an effective 

manner and reiterated that it runs completely contrary to the objective of 

having sources establish conservative trigger levels. 

Commenters arguing against a single percentage threshold stated that 

threshold levels should be determined on a case-by-case basis and 

should consider factors such as the stringency of the CAM indicator 

ranges, the nature of the process and its inherent variability, and the type 

of controls installed. Similarly, commenters noted that the 5 percent 

threshold would generally be too harsh for units subject to limitations on 

hours of operation and/or where indicator ranges are set well below 

applicable emissions limitations or standards. Some commenters 

suggested that permitting authorities should be allowed to set 

case-specific thresholds at a percentage that allows a unit to use 

"cost-effective" monitoring while offering a reasonable assurance that the 

unit is complying with permit terms. Finally, one coalition group provided 

several examples of issues that the 5 percent threshold does not account 

for. In the commenter's first example they pointed out that a source that 

uses Method 22 to screen for "any visible emissions" should not be held 

to a 5 percent QIP trigger if subsequent follow up with Method 9 readings 

shows no problem. The commenter gave another example based on the 

fact that, where Method 9 is used, EPA studies have shown that a positive 

error of 5 percent can occur 5 percent of the time which would be 

sufficient to trigger a QIP alone. The commenter concluded that, since 

other parameters could likewise exceed the threshold depending on 

factors such as precision of the measurement, inherent variability of a 

source under proper operating conditions, and how the indicator range 

was set, these and other factors should be considered in setting an 

appropriate threshold. 

A state agency also noted that determining exceedances or excursions 

would be difficult where the applicable regulations do not have an 

averaging period and that the 5 percent threshold to trigger a QIP may not 

be practical for situations when monitoring under the CAM rule is 

established on a less frequent basis such as daily, weekly, or monthly. 

Because it would be inappropriate and difficult to establish a percentage 

threshold for triggering a QIP that covers all types of monitoring, 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 260 

commenter recommends that the QIP trigger should be established rule 

by rule based on the source category and type of monitoring involved. 

Two commenters urged EPA to provide sources with the flexibility to set a 

higher percentage QIP trigger for excursions than for exceedances, since 

parameter ranges may be set below the emission limit and excursions 

may occur more frequently than exceedances. 

State agencies that opposed a single percent threshold noted that the 

potential exists for some facilities to set broad indicator ranges in order to 

avoid excursions that would result in exceedances of the 5 percent 

threshold. One agency suggested that the 5 percent operational time 

threshold should be issued as guidance, similar to the NSPS excess 

emission report program. The commenter stated that this would allow 

permitting authorities to evaluate the conditions involving the 

non-compliance event where otherwise, permitting authorities would have 

to implement a QIP unnecessarily or would be unable to require a QIP 

because they are locked into an operational time value. 

Another state agency suggested revising § 64.10(a)(1) to refer to the 

percent threshold "measured as a percentage of operating time or as a 

percentage of all possible deviations over the operating period" in order to 

clarify how the threshold should be calculated where processes do not 

operate continuously. The commenter discussed the example of a 

Non-Metallic Mineral Processing unit, employing a fabric filter, which is 

required to collect data daily even though the process may not operate for 

the entire day. 

Still another state commenter supported EPA for recognizing that some 

deviations from standards can be reasonably expected to occur. This 

commenter provided a copy of a state regulation for CEMS [Tenn. Rule 

1200-3-20-.06] which establishes de minimis levels below which no 

notices of violations will be issued. The commenter explained that the 

rule establishes different de minimis levels for each source subject to the 

rule and each pollutant monitored. 

Certain commenters recommended allowing the threshold to be set at any 

reasonable level in order to provide an incentive to set low trigger levels. 

The commenters argued that if a source sets the trigger level low, then a 

higher threshold for triggering a QIP would be appropriate. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 261 

Response: The Agency agrees that no one threshold applies equally to all control 

device situations. Further, the Agency recognizes that individual 

situations may call for shorter or longer thresholds or thresholds related to 

parameters values rather than duration of excursions. The final rule 

provides that a QIP trigger may be set in the permit but does not require it. 

 Where such a trigger is used, a level of 5 percent is suggested as a 

potentially appropriate threshold. The final rule also provides that a QIP 

can be required after a determination by the permitting authority or the 

Administrator that a source owner or operator has failed to conduct proper 

operation and maintenance as documented through part 64 monitoring 

and other available information. In this respect, the QIP provisions are 

analogous to existing corrective action remedies available to address 

compliance problems. 

Letter(s): American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); American 

Gas Association (VI-D-154); American Municipal Power - Ohio (VI-D-159); 

Baltimore Gas & Electric Company (VI-D-177); Can Manufacturers 

Institute (VI-D-181); Chemical Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); 

Clean Air Implementation Project (VI-D-153); Coalition for Clean Air 

Implementation (VI-D-164); Coastal Corporation (VI-D-123); Colorado 

Association of Commerce and Industry (VI-D-182); DuPont Engineering 

(VI-D-127); Eastman Chemical Company (VI-D-173); Eli Lilly Company 

(VI-D-124); Exxon Company, USA (VI-D-135); General Electric Company 

(VI-D-156); Georgia Department of Natural Resources (VI-D-193); Mobil 

Corporation (VI-D-115); National Environmental Development Association 

(VI-D-169); Natural Resources Defense Council (VI-D-151); Nebraska 

Department of Environmental Quality (VI-D-211); NorAm Gas 

Transmission Company (VI-D-142); Pennsylvania Chamber of Business 

and Industry (VI-D-114); Rubber Manufacturers Association (VI-D-149); 

San Diego Air Pollution Control District (VI-D-191); Sierra Club, Lone Star 

Chapter (VI-D-242); State of Tennessee Department of Environment and 

Conservation (VI-D-234); Texaco Environment Health & Safety 

(VI-D-199); Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission 

(VI-D-189); Utility Air Regulatory Group (VI-D-140); Virginia Power 

(VI-D-226); Wisconsin Electric Power Company (VI-D-130) 

10.2.2: Particular Threshold Concerns

Comment a: Certain commenters recommended deleting the authority of the permitting 

authority to require a more stringent threshold. One commenter 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 262 

proposed eliminating the phrase ". . . set no higher than . . ." from § 

64.10(b)(2) to eliminate permitting authority discretion to set the 

percentage for requiring a QIP at less than 5 percent. Another 

commenter argued that the provision enabling a permitting authority to 

impose a percent threshold for triggering a QIP that is less than 5 percent 

is too open-ended and stringent. The commenter stated that this is 

particularly true for the initial six-month CAM reporting period where CAM 

experience is being gained for the first time. Commenter suggests that a 5 

percent threshold should be the minimum that permitting authorities can 

require. 

Response: This is no longer an issue as the final rule includes no QIP requirement 

nor a specific threshold minimum or maximum if a QIP is to be applied. 

Letters: Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. (VI-D-165); Natural Gas Pipeline 

Company of America (VI-D-118) 

Comment b: One commenter suggested that the QIP trigger should reflect the part 64 

 data availability requirements. The commenter proposed revisions to 

§ 64.10(a)(1) such that the percentage threshold to trigger a QIP would be 

based on monitoring time during any semiannual reporting period, 

consistent with the part 64 minimum data availability percentage 

requirements. Similarly, a state agency noted that § 64.10 is not 

consistent with § 64.3(b)(4) and vice versa. 

Response: The final rule includes neither a required minimum data availability 

requirement or a QIP threshold. Neither is an issue for the final rule. 

Letters: Eli Lilly Company (VI-D-124); Ohio EPA, Division of Air Pollution Control 

(VI-D-180) 

Comment c: One commenter stated that, if EPA does not eliminate provisions making 

the second QIP in a permit term a permit violation, the QIP trigger should 

be based on actual exceedances of emissions limitations or standards. 

The commenter argued that sources could then set indicator ranges 

closer to actual operating parameters without concerns that excursions 

from those ranges will trigger a QIP. Under this approach, the commenter 

recommended that triggering a QIP a specified number of times during the 

permit term still constitute a separate permit violation which would provide 

a further incentive for setting conservative indicator ranges. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 263 

Response: The final rule does not make the second QIP a violation, but leaves the 

enforcement implications of an owner’s failure to operate and maintain 

control equipment within the applicable indicator ranges to the appropriate 

permitting authority. 

Letter(s): Eli Lilly Company (VI-D-124) 

Comment d: One commenter was concerned that any exceedance or excursion could 

trigger a QIP and suggested that an owner or operator be allowed a 

certain number of exceedances/excursions per year before they are 

required to implement a QIP. 

Response: The number of exceedances or excursions allowed before a more 

comprehensive correction plan or other enforcement action is necessary 

is case-specific and left to the discretion of the appropriate permitting 

authority in the final rule. 

Letter(s): Occidental Chemical Corporation (VI-D-166) 

Comment e: Some commenters argued that excursions that occur during specifically 

excused excursions or during startup, shutdown or malfunction should not 

count toward determining whether a QIP is necessary. One commenter 

stated that the fact that a source may not be operating within normal 

ranges during such conditions is not indicative of any failure or defect in 

the CAM plan that would need a QIP. One commenter noted that the 

QIP could be triggered because indicator ranges were set unrealistically 

low due to the use of new and experimental monitoring techniques and 

insufficient data availability about those new techniques. Another 

commenter recommended that a higher threshold be allowed when 

justified for low capacity factor units or other special situations. One 

commenter recommended that § 64.3(b)(4) should be revised to explicitly 

allow permitting authorities to exempt certain types of excursions from 

calculating the QIP threshold. Another stated that this would mirror EPA 

NSPS policy. Another commenter agreed that excused excursions 

should not count toward the QIP threshold since the entire concept of 

excusing an excursion is based on the idea that adverse consequences 

are unwarranted in some cases. The commenter specified recent 

standards, such as the HON, which provide a number of excused 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 264 

excursions which diminishes over time as problems with a new device are 

resolved and also specifically exempt certain excursions such as those 

that occur during start-up, shutdown and malfunction. The commenter 

explained that counting these excursions toward a QIP would increase the 

stringency of such standards. This commenter agreed with others who 

stated that excursions which are not associated with excess emissions, 

such as excursions from indicator ranges that were set very low, should 

not be counted in calculating the QIP threshold. 

Response: The Agency agrees that there is a plethora of process and control device 

situations for which determining the appropriate threshold for applying a 

QIP or other appropriate enforcement action is not possible in a general 

format of a rule such as part 64. Further, the Agency recognizes that a 

particular emission unit may be subject to emission limitations with 

designated periods of exceptions including start-up, shutdown, and 

malfunctions. It is reasonable to delete excursions that occur during such 

periods in determining the total duration of excursions during a reporting 

period. It is also reasonable that such site-specific determinations are 

possible only on a case-by-case basis. For this and other reasons noted 

above, the final rule does not include specific threshold requirements for 

implementing QIP nor does the rule specify that a QIP is the only 

appropriate enforcement response to egregious control equipment 

problems. 

Letter(s): Baltimore Gas & Electric Company (VI-D-177); Dow Chemical Company 

(VI-D-120); Houston Lighting & Power Company (VI-D-228); Niagara 

Mohawk (VI-D-168); Ohio Chamber of Commerce, et al (VI-D-160); 

Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry (VI-D-114); Southern 

Company Services (VI-D-171); Southwestern Public Service Company 

(VI-D-224); Texas Utilities Services, Inc. (VI-D-121); Total Petroleum, 

Inc. (VI-D-190); Utility Air Regulatory Group (VI-D-140); Virginia Power 

(VI-D-226); Wisconsin Electric Power Company (VI-D-130) 

Comment f: One commenter supported the current CAM draft's use of a percentage 

threshold as a QIP trigger rather than the use of a numerical threshold 

and noted that a percentage threshold is a more rational way of 

determining whether or not a facility has a problem. A group of 

commenters requested that EPA clarify that CAM compliance plans are 

not required in any circumstances where a QIP is necessary and stated 

that this would clear up a perceived redundant requirement. Finally, 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 265 

another commenter requested clarification of the phrase "in any reporting 

period." The commenter asked whether this meant the frequency with 

which the Part 70 permit requires submittal of emissions reports. The 

commenter noted that the reporting frequency can significantly affect the 

number of QIPs that are prepared during a permit term (i.e., the more 

frequent the reporting frequency the greater the possibility that a QIP 

could be required), and recommended that the 5 percent threshold be 

determined on an annual basis. 

Response: The Agency agrees that a QIP requirement in part 64 could result in 

redundant compliance schedules and, as noted above, has removed the 

requirement from the final rule. Clarification of the reporting frequency 

and how such might affect QIPs, if applicable, are to be determined on a 

case-by-case basis with the permitting authority. 

Letter(s): American Electric Power (VI-D-129); California Association of Sanitation 

Agencies (VI-G-206); County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County 

(VI-D-232); Niagara Mohawk (VI-D-168); Tri-TAC (VI-D-225) 

Section 10.3: Elements of QIPs (64.11(a))

Comment a: Certain commenters recommended that § 64.11(a)(3) should allow QIPs 

to fix only monitoring problems if monitoring problems cause the high level 

of excursions. A commenter stated that this is especially warranted given 

the likely trial and error process during early CAM implementation. Other 

commenters noted that § 64.11(a)(2) appears to assume that "control 

performance problems" is the only reason a QIP would be triggered. The 

commenters argued that QIPs could also be triggered because indicator 

ranges were set unrealistically low (e.g., because adequate data were not 

available). These commenters recommended that this provision should 

be revised to be neutral with respect to the likely cause of the QIP, and 

§ 64.11(a)(3) should be revised to include "modifications of levels 

specified in the CAM plan" as one of the actions that might follow 

completion of the QIP. 

Response: The Agency disagrees. The Agency notes that the final rule, like the 1996 

part 64 Draft, does not provide for QIPs that address monitoring only. 

The Agency believes that this type of change should not be made through 

a QIP. By its nature, a QIP focuses on situations where the owner or 

operator has failed to meet its obligation to properly operate and maintain 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 266 

an emissions unit or control device properly. The QIP requirements in 

the final rule clarify this approach and no longer mandate that a QIP be 

implemented solely because a set duration of excursions or exceedances 

occurs. A source owner who needs to change approved part 64 

monitoring can address any monitoring problems directly through the 

appropriate permit modification process. 

Letter(s): Mobil Corporation (VI-D-115); National Environmental Development 

Association (VI-D-169); Utility Air Regulatory Group (VI-D-140); Virginia 

Power (VI-D-226) 

Comment b: One commenter noted that § 64.11(a)(3) requires the QIP to be modified 

to include corrective actions. The commenter requested that the rule 

specify when it is envisioned that the QIP be modified. 

Response: Because there is no requirement for a QIP to be submitted or approved, 

the timing of this issue is not addressed specifically in the rule. Because 

the QIP obligations should be implemented as expeditiously as 

practicable, EPA would expect the corrective action procedures to be 

added to the QIP as soon as the source as determined the appropriate 

steps to take based on its investigative phase. 

Letter(s): Niagara Mohawk (VI-D-168) 

Comment c: One commenter suggested that where a QIP is required for a major 

facility, it should be on a source/pollutant-specific basis, while other 

Subpart B sources should be required to develop a QIP and modify it as 

necessary to gain experience. 

Response: The QIP provisions in the final rule include significant flexibility in how the 

permitting authority can use the QIP tool to improve performance. The 

suggested approach could be followed by a particular agency in 

appropriate circumstances. 

Letter(s): Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (VI-D-174) 

Comment d: One commenter stated that, for Subpart C units, the QIP concept does 

not apply in many cases, and the rule should provide significant flexibility 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 267 

in these cases. The commenter described indicator ranges, excursions, 

and thresholds as inappropriate for many simple monitoring approaches 

and recommended that specific content be left to the permitting authority's 

discretion and that source be allowed to use existing non-compliance 

reports where appropriate. 

Response: Because the final rule does not include the subpart C provisions, no 

response to this comment is necessary. 

Letter(s): Los Alamos National Laboratory (VI-D-210) 

Section 10.4: Timing of QIPs (64.11(b))

Comment a: Some commenters expressed support for the time allowed for QIP 

completion in the rule. Commenters noted support for the flexibility in 

draft § 64.11(b) which allows an owner or operator to obtain a site-specific 

time extension allowing more than 180 days to complete a QIP if 

necessary. However, one commenter did not feel that EPA approval 

would be necessary since the permitting authority would have knowledge 

of site-specific circumstances. Another commenter stated generally that 

it believes 180 days is a reasonable period. 

Environmental groups and some state agencies, however, argued that a 

period of 180 days is too long for completing a QIP. One environmental 

group stated that it is inappropriate to allow six months to solve a problem 

that may be causing a source to have emissions that are grossly in excess 

of its emission limits, particularly when the rule does not require this 

period to be reported as noncompliance. A state agency agreed and 

proposed that a plan be submitted within 14 days outlining an enforceable 

compliance schedule for implementing a QIP. This commenter argued 

that without an approved, enforceable schedule, possible emission 

violations could continue without recourse from the permitting authority. 

Another state agency stated that 180 days may be too long for completing 

a QIP, especially since the rule seems to allow sources the opportunity to 

extend this period. The commenter asked that states be given discretion 

to decide the time period for completing a QIP on a case-by-case basis. 

Finally, a state agency association stated that, if the QIP provisions are 

not eliminated from the CAM rule, it recommends reducing the time 

allowed for QIP completion from 180 days to 30 days. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 268 

In addition, some industry commenters argued that a period of 180 days is 

too short for completing a QIP. One commenter noted that the 

pharmaceutical industry is a batch manufacturing industry where products 

are run in campaigns which may last a few weeks, a few months or all 

year. The commenter stated that in the situation, if the need for a QIP 

has been identified near the end of a product campaign, the opportunity to 

implement the QIP may not occur for some time, until the product is 

manufactured again and that implementation of the QIP immediately upon 

permitting authority notification and completion within 180 days may not 

be practicable. The commenter also noted that the 180 day limit may 

also not be feasible where a permit modification becomes necessary. 

This commenter recommended revisions to § 64.11(b) to allow completion 

of the QIP in a period of more than 180 days without the approval of the 

permitting authority or EPA. Other commenters stated that if equipment 

must be ordered or a permit revision must be obtained, QIP 

implementation often will require longer than 180 days to complete. 

These commenters suggested that the rule require that the completion of 

the QIP should be in accordance with the schedule outlined in the 

source's QIP. 

Finally, one commenter stated generally that the time periods for 

implementation, completion and notification of a QIP are arbitrary and 

should be set in the context of an individual QIP. 

Response: The Agency agrees that site-specific situations will dictate the appropriate 

time necessary to complete appropriate control equipment or process 

corrections. For this reason, the final rule requires source owners and 

operators to complete any QIP, if applied, as expeditiously as practicable 

and to notify the permitting authority if they determine that a QIP will take 

longer than 180 days rather than establishing a specific amount of time 

within which the QIP must be completed. Within this guideline is an 

inherent role for the permitting authority to review the correction activity 

and take appropriate enforcement action if the source owner has not 

responded expeditiously with effective behavior. 

Letter(s): American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); Association 

of Battery Recyclers (VI-D-155); Chemical Manufacturers Association 

(VI-D-152); General Electric Company (VI-D-156); Georgia Department of 

Natural Resources (VI-D-193); Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 

(VI-D-197); Natural Resources Defense Council (VI-D-151); Nebraska 

Department of Environmental Quality (VI-D-211); NESCAUM (VI-D-192); 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 269 

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (VI-D-217); 

Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter (VI-D-242); Texaco Environment Health 

and Safety (VI-D-199); Utility Air Regulatory Group (VI-D-140) 

Comment b: One commenter stated that the period for completing a QIP should not 

include any time necessary to obtain approval of a CAM plan modification. 

 Given the uncertainties concerning the process by which permitting 

authorities will approve modifications to CAM plans, the commenter 

requested that EPA state that the 180 day period for completing a QIP 

does not include any time necessary to gain approval of a permit 

modification request resulting from a QIP. 

Response: The Agency disagrees. The QIP process should not be applied to 

developing and obtaining modifications to the monitoring. Such 

modifications should be implemented through the permit revisions 

process. 

Letter(s): Eli Lilly Company (VI-D-124) 

Comment c: One commenter requested that EPA clarify the meaning of the term 

"completion" in § 64.11(b)(2). The commenter noted that "completion" 

can mean either that the QIP be prepared and implementation begun or 

that all elements of the QIP are finished. Another commenter requested 

clarification as to how long a source must adhere to an implemented QIP. 

 The commenter stated that the requirement to follow a QIP should end 

when certain criteria are met. 

Response: The Agency intends that completion of a QIP mean that the control 

equipment modification, correction, or replacement deemed necessary to 

provide that the pollution-specific emissions unit is again operating in 

compliance with the applicable limitation or standard has been completed. 

Letter(s): Georgia Department of Natural Resources (VI-D-193); NESCAUM 

(VI-D-192) 

Comment d: One commenter suggested that during the first round of permits, QIP 

applicants should have the opportunity to modify a proposed QIP before 

submitting it for permitting authority approval. The commenter 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 270 

recommended giving the applicant at least two or three modifications for 

their QIP before submitting it to the permitting authority and then requiring 

implementation of the QIP within 60 days after approval. 

Response: Because the final rule provides that the QIP be applied at the discretion of 

the permitting authority, no response to this comment is necessary. 

Letter(s): Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (VI-D-174) 

Section 10.5: Recordkeeping and Reporting for QIPs (64.11(c))

Comment a: Some commenters objected to the § 64.11(c)(2) requirement to report that 

a QIP has reduced the likelihood of similar levels of excursions or 

exceedances. The commenters stated that this requirement is 

unnecessary because the QIP requirement, by definition, is designed to 

reduce the likelihood of excursions or exceedances.

Response: Because the final rule provides that the QIP be applied at the discretion of 

the permitting authority, no response to this comment is necessary. 

Letters: American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); Chemical 

Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); General Electric Company 

(VI-D-156) 

Comment b: A few commenters stated that sources should not be required to report 

test method results after a source has implemented its QIP. These 

commenters noted that parametric levels and ranges are established on 

the basis of testing or other relevant information and argued that triggering 

a QIP should not automatically mean that the validity of those tests or 

information is suspect. 

Response: The Agency agrees that a performance test is not always necessary to 

confirm that a control equipment or process modification is necessary. 

What is necessary is left to the discretion of the permitting authority in the 

final rule. 

Letter(s): American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); Chemical 

Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); General Electric Company 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 271 

(VI-D-156); National Environmental Development Association 

(VI-D-169)Total Petroleum, Inc. (VI-D-190) 

Comment c: One commenter suggested that § 64.11(d) should be deleted because 

this issue is already addressed by part 70. 

Response: The Agency has deleted the subject requirement for the owner to certify 

that the QIP has been successful; however, the Agency believes that this 

type of statement is an appropriate provision designed as a 

certification-style requirement which indicates to the permitting authority 

that the source owner or operator believes the QIP has been successful. 

Letter(s): General Electric Company (VI-D-156) 

Comment d: Two commenters suggested that the rule should be modified so that a full 

permit revision is not required for CAM plan changes that result from 

implementing a QIP. 

Response: The level of permit revision necessary following a QIP is left to the 

discretion of the permitting authority in the final rule. 

Letters: Utility Air Regulatory Group (VI-D-140); Virginia Power (VI-D-226) 

Section 11: [Reserved]
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 272 

Section 12: Part 70/71 Revisions

Section 12.1: Monitoring Revisions

12.1.1: Revision of Periodic Monitoring Language

Comment a: Two commenters stated that the draft revisions would eliminate backstop 

monitoring at too many sources. They argued that the gap-filling 

provided by CAM is incomplete since Subpart C allows owners to propose 

to perform no monitoring even at units that may not be insignificant. 

While periodic monitoring may be unnecessary for units that are truly 

insignificant, EPA must ensure that any exceptions to monitoring are 

narrowly tailored to such units. In supplemental comments, an 

environmental organization added that leaving a large number of sources 

subject to periodic monitoring as described in part 70 is inappropriate. 

The commenter argued that it is not clear that part 70 would require 

anything beyond existing monitoring and it is inconceivable that the intent 

of the enhanced monitoring requirement was for the vast majority of 

sources to do what they were already doing. 

A State agency noted that the CAM revisions to periodic monitoring 

requirements do not cover certain sources, and therefore, the periodic 

monitoring revisions should be revised such that permitting authorities 

have the discretion to determine what monitoring will be appropriate for 

sources which are not subject to CAM, NSPS or NESHAP requirements 

but are subject to periodic monitoring requirements. 

Response: The final rule does not include subpart C but instead retains the periodic 

monitoring provisions in part 70 and 71 based on these and other 

concerns (see sections 2.2 and 9 (Part III), above). The part 70 and 71 

periodic monitoring provisions require that all existing monitoring be 

included in permits and that, if such monitoring does not exist or is 

inadequate to provide a reasonable assurance of compliance, additional, 

periodic monitoring must be included in the permit.

Letter(s): Natural Resources Defense Council (VI-D-151 and 244); State of 

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (VI-D-234) 

Comment b: Some commenters supported the provision for streamlining multiple 

requirements. Commenters noted that this change to Part 70 will 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 273 

promote the important streamlining concept outlined in White Paper No. 2. 

 However, one commenter noted concern over whether subsumed limits 

under a streamlining concept count as "emission limitations or standards" 

for triggering CAM applicability (see detailed summary under section 2.3.1 

(Part III)). 

Response: Because there were no adverse comments on this draft revision, the final 

rule contains this revision to §70.6(a)(3)(i). As mentioned above in 

Section 2.3.1 (Part III), Comment c, subsumed limits that do not appear in 

a title V permit would not count as "emission limitations or standards" for 

purposes of part 64 applicability. 

Letters: Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (VI-D-186); Clean Air Implementation 

Project (VI-D-153); Integrated Waste Services Association (VI-D-147); 

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (VI-D-116); Utility Air Regulatory 

Group (VI-D-140) 

Comment c: One commenter argued that EPA should delete references to sections 

114(a)(3) and 504(b) in the proposed amendments to Part 70 and Part 71. 

 The commenter stated that the phrase "and any other procedures and 

methods that may be promulgated pursuant to sections 114(a)(3) or 

504(b) of the Act" should be deleted from 70.6(a)(3)(1) and Part 71. 

According to the commenter, the CAM rule implements those sections 

and it would be a breach of faith after the long development of CAM with 

stakeholder input to promulgate other rules under these provisions. 

Response: The Agency disagrees. These references merely indicate that the 

Agency has the ability to promulgate additional requirements under these 

statutory provisions, including specific procedures and methods that could 

supplement the general requirements in Part 64. 

Letter(s): Chemical Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152) 

Comment d: One state agency suggested that EPA should consider revising the part 

70 definition of "insignificant activities." The commenter noted that if the 

definition of "insignificant activity" were revised so that a permitting 

authority would have discretion to classify some trivial units that are 

subject to applicable requirements as "insignificant activities," many of the 

concerns about periodic monitoring could be addressed. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 274 

Response: This suggestion is beyond the scope of the Part 64 rulemaking, and thus 

is not addressed in this document. This issue goes beyond monitoring 

and potentially affects other applicable requirements such as underlying 

emission limits that may apply to small emissions units. 

Letter(s): Georgia Department of Natural Resources (VI-D-193) 

Comment e: A commenter noted in supplemental comments that the portions of the 

RIA released for comment indicate that the final rule will not provide the 

clarification of the part 70 periodic monitoring requirements promised by 

the CAM program. 

Response: The commenter is correct that the final rule does not include provisions 

analogous to subpart C of the 1996 part 64 Draft. See the response to 

Comment b in section 9.1 (Part III) for the Agency's response to this 

issue. 

Letter(s): Utility Air Regulatory Group (VI-D-252) 

12.1.2: Interim Issues for Periodic Monitoring

Comment a: Several commenters noted that they support the concept of eliminating 

periodic monitoring from part 70 so that all monitoring required above and 

beyond existing monitoring occurs through part 64 only. One of these 

commenters noted that addressing both periodic monitoring and 

enhanced monitoring in one rule promotes regulatory efficiencies. 

However, several of these commenters argued that EPA should 

immediately suspend the existing periodic monitoring requirements of Part 

70 and Part 71 or make clear that existing monitoring satisfies those 

requirements. They argued that EPA should not require states and 

sources to expand resources to comply with a rule which the Agency 

intends to replace. They also noted that timing problems will make the 

transition unworkable. The CAM rule will not be finalized until mid-1997 

and will not be incorporated into state implementation plans until well after 

that. In the meantime, it is not desirable for states currently drafting Part 

70 permits to be required to implement existing periodic monitoring 

requirements which the CAM rule will replace, according to these 

commenters. One trade association suggested that EPA immediately 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 275 

issue a narrowly-focused rule eliminating the periodic monitoring 

requirements in section 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B). The rulemaking process could 

be accelerated by simultaneously issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking 

and a provision that the rule will become effective within 30 days if no 

substantive adverse comment is received. Another commenter stated 

that if states continue to implement current Part 70 periodic monitoring 

requirements in their permit programs, regulated sources may be faced 

with overlapping and duplicative regulatory requirements when CAM is 

implemented. 

Other commenters noted generally that EPA should address periodic 

monitoring in concert with CAM. One commenter stated that the current 

EPA strategy indicates a plan to address periodic monitoring in two years, 

while another stated that EPA should provide states with immediate 

guidance on periodic monitoring so that any current state development 

and implementation of Part 70 periodic monitoring will be as consistent as 

possible with the CAM requirements which will replace these provisions of 

Part 70. 

Response: As mentioned in Section I.C.4 of the preamble to the final rule, the Agency 

disagrees with the commenters’ suggestions to immediately suspend or 

remove the monitoring provisions of parts 70 and 71. Moreover, because 

the Agency has decided not to delete the periodic monitoring requirement 

in part 70 or to replace that provision with provisions similar to the draft 

subpart C of part 64, these comments are generally no longer applicable. 

Letter(s): Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (VI-D-186); American Automobile 

Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); American Gas Association 

(VI-D-154); American Petroleum Institute (VI-D-146); BP Oil Company 

(VI-D-113); Chemical Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); CITGO 

Petroleum Corporation (VI-D-172); Class of '85 Regulatory Response 

Group (VI-D-161); Clean Air Implementation Project (VI-D-153); Coastal 

Corporation (VI-D-123); Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry 

(VI-D-182); County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California 

(VI-D-231); Eastman Chemical Company (VI-D-173); Eli Lilly Company 

(VI-D-124); General Electric Company (VI-D-156); Mobil Corporation 

(VI-D-115); Ohio Chamber of Commerce, et al (VI-D-160); Pennzoil 

Company (VI-D-133); Phillips Petroleum Company (VI-D-131); South 

Carolina Electric & Gas Company (VI-D-116); Southern Company 

Services (VI-D-171); Tennessee Valley Authority (VI-D-162); Utility Air 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 276 

Regulatory Group (VI-D-140); Wisconsin Electric Power Company 

(VI-D-130) 

Section 12.2: Compliance Certification

Comment a: A few commenters noted general support for the compliance certification 

provisions. A state agency agreed with EPA regarding the need for the 

proposed compliance certification provisions. An industry commenter 

supported EPA's decision that not all deviations constitute violations and 

the concept that states may classify some excursions as "excused." The 

commenter stated that excused excursions, which are also provided for in 

recent EPA regulations such as the HON and the Group 1 and Group 4 

Polymers and Resins MACT standards, are important because no 

monitoring system or control device can work perfectly all the time and 

there is an ever-increasing emphasis on using data from parameter 

monitoring as proof of violations. 

Public interest groups, however, argued that the draft rule improperly 

eliminates the need to certify compliance with emission standards. The 

groups stated that sources will not really be able to certify compliance 

because they will not have emissions information to compare with the 

standards and that the rule improperly allows them to state that they do 

not know whether they are in compliance or not. They claimed that, to 

accommodate the absence of emissions data, the draft rule allows owners 

to provide a statement on their compliance status based on uncorrelated 

parameter measurements in place of a compliance certification. In this 

statement, owners can claim some sort of compliance regardless of 

monitoring results, according to the commenters. They argued that 

sources with no excursions can identify continuous compliance although 

the absence of excursions from owner-selected ranges does not 

necessarily constitute compliance with emission limits, and even sources 

that have experienced excursions can claim compliance by specifying 

intermittent compliance. They concluded by stating that owners are 

absolved of any duty to know their compliance status and report it 

accurately, and that this "statement" provides a false appearance of 

compliance with standards. 

Response: The Agency disagrees with the commenters’ suggestions that the rule 

promotes ignorance by responsible officials on the compliance status of 

their pollutant specific emissions units with control devices. On the 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 277 

contrary, the Agency believes the rule changes enhance responsible 

officials’, permitting authorities’, the Agency’s, and the public’s knowledge 

concerning pollutant specific emissions units’ compliance status. As a 

result of today’s rulemaking activity, owners or operators will be required 

to collect data, and pay attention to that data, from emissions control 

devices, which should lead to better operation and maintenance of those 

devices. Better operation and maintenance should lead to 

consistently-achieved emissions reductions, as opposed to temporary 

reductions achieved during sporadic emissions unit testing. Moreover, 

the permitting authorities will be better able to target their enforcement 

and future rulemaking activities by focusing on those emissions units with 

one or more possible exceptions to compliance. Likewise, the public will 

benefit by being able to identify non-complying or potential non-complying 

pollutant-specific emissions units without performing resource-intensive 

reviews. 

The Agency also disagrees with the assertion that compliance certification 

on the basis of part 64 data provides a false appearance of compliance 

with emission standards. Commenters’ claims here are based on the 

mistaken notion that compliance certifications can be made based only on 

direct measurement of emissions or on statistically correlated parameter 

monitoring. As explained in the preamble and in section 6 of this 

document, EPA believes that a reasonable assurance of compliance can 

be provided by monitoring using indicator levels established on the basis 

of performance testing data and other engineering and historical data. 

Owners and operators will not be able to certify to compliance regardless 

of the monitoring results under part 64. Owners and operators may not 

certify to continuous compliance if monitoring shows exceedances or 

excursions from indicator levels. In such circumstances, owners and 

operators may, at most, certify to intermittent compliance. If a source is 

in a constant state of exceedance or excursion for an entire certification 

period, the owner or operator cannot even certify to intermittent 

compliance. Thus, it is inaccurate to claim, as some commenters did, 

that owners and operators can assert some type of compliance regardless 

of the monitoring results. 

Letter(s): American Lung Association et. al. (VI-D-238); Dow Chemical Company 

(VI-D-120); General Electric Company (VI-D-156); Natural Resources 

Defense Council (VI-D-151); Natural Resources Defense Council 

(VI-D-267 and 268); Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission 

(VI-D-189) 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 278 

Comment b: Several industry commenters supported EPA's interpretation of section 

114 regarding the term "continuous or intermittent." These commenters 

supported EPA's explanation in the preamble and the revisions to the part 

70 compliance certification provisions that "continuous or intermittent" 

refers to the methodology used to produce the data on which a 

certification is based. One commenter cautioned that requiring a source 

to state whether data are intermittent or continuous is reasonable, but 

assuming noncompliance for periods without test data would not be. 

Another commenter noted that this approach ensures that CEMS are not 

required in order to certify continuous compliance, while still another 

commenter cautioned generally that continuous compliance should not be 

interpreted to mean that monitoring was performed using a CEMS or 

COMS. 

An environmental group, however, argued that the rule does not meet the 

Act's requirement that sources be able to certify whether compliance is 

continuous or intermittent. The commenter argued that sources will not 

be able to use the monitoring under part 64 to certify whether compliance 

was continuous or intermittent since they will not have adequate 

emissions information to compare with emissions standards, and 

emphasized their view of the Act as requiring certification as to whether 

compliance is continuous or intermittent. The commenter stated that 

EPA's argument that the Act can be interpreted to require that sources 

certify whether the method used to certify compliance is continuous or 

intermittent is erroneous, adding that the language of the statute is not 

ambiguous and does not require clarification by EPA. Further, if 

clarification were needed, the legislative history supports the conclusion 

that this section of the Act is focused on compliance, according to the 

commenter. Another commenter also recommended that EPA use the 

definition of "intermittent" included in the part 70 preamble (i.e., that 

intermittent means that periods of noncompliance occurred). 

Response: The Agency believes additional explanation of what it means to certify to 

intermittent compliance is necessary. The Agency disagrees with the 

view that the statutory term “intermittent” refers only to the methodology 

used to measure compliance but agrees that “intermittent” refers to 

compliance. Any suggestions following the “methodology” interpretation 

do not accurately reflect the interpretation relied upon by EPA in 

promulgating this rule. Nonetheless, the methodology used in 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 279 

determining compliance is relevant to whether a certification can be for 

continuous or intermittent compliance. The Agency has required source 

owners to identify whether the methodology used for the certification 

provides data on a continuous basis or intermittently so that EPA can 

evaluate whether the methodology provides a basis for a continuous or 

intermittent certification. 

The question remains as to what constitutes “intermittent” compliance. 

The Agency disagrees with the view that a certification of intermittent 

compliance is a certification of noncompliance as to periods not shown to 

be in compliance. Rather, EPA interprets “intermittent” compliance as 

meaning no more than the fact that monitoring or other information is not 

available to demonstrate compliance for certain periods in the overall 

certification period. As to other periods covered by the certification, a 

certification of intermittent compliance means either the source was in 

noncompliance or the data were not sufficient (e.g., excursions from 

indicator ranges occurred or no data were available) to make an accurate 

determination regarding whether the source was in or out of compliance. 

EPA believes this is a reasonable interpretation of the term “intermittent” 

compliance. 

The certification provision does not require owners and operators to 

expressly use the terms continuous or intermittent in their certifications. 

Rather, EPA believes it more useful to have owners and operators submit 

the data and information in the certification that show whether the 

certification is for intermittent or continuous compliance. Critical to this 

showing is the information on whether the method used produces 

intermittent or continuous data and whether any deviations, exceedances, 

or excursions have occurred during the certification period. For example, 

when a responsible official certifies compliance based on a method 

providing intermittent data or notes any deviations, exceedances, or 

excursions, this will show that the certification is for intermittent 

compliance. When a responsible official certifies compliance based on a 

method providing continuous data and no deviations, excursions, or 

exceedances have occurred (or all such occurrences have been 

adequately addressed by other information), this will show that the 

certification is for continuous compliance. Accordingly, EPA believes that 

this rulemaking is consistent with the statutory command that compliance 

certifications include whether compliance is “continuous or intermittent.” 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 280 

CAM monitoring has been designed to produce data so that certifications 

can be made which show whether compliance is continuous or 

intermittent. The CAM rule requires data collection at the frequency 

necessary to indicate changes in control device performance. See

§ 64.3(b)(4). Where no changes are detected outside the indicator 

ranges set to provide a reasonable assurance of compliance, then the 

CAM data are sufficient to allow a certification of continuous compliance 

with applicable emission standards. Where CAM data indicate that 

episodes of excursions or exceedances have occurred, the CAM 

monitoring data do not provide a reasonable assurance that the source is 

in compliance for duration of the excursion or exceedance and thus 

cannot serve as a basis for certifying continuous compliance for the 

certification period. Unless other data exist to show compliance for the 

time when excursions or exceedances occurred, the owner or operator 

would be certifying to intermittent compliance for that certification period. 

Letter(s): Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (VI-D-186); American Automobile 

Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); California Association of Sanitation 

Agencies (VI-D-206); Chemical Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); 

Class of '85 Regulatory Response Group (VI-D-161); Clean Air 

Implementation Project (VI-D-153); County Sanitation Districts of Orange 

County, California (VI-D-231); Eastman Chemical Company (VI-D-173); 

Kennecott Corporation (VI-D-119); Los Alamos National Laboratory 

(VI-D-210); National Environmental Development Association (VI-D-169); 

Natural Resources Defense Council (VI-D-151); Tennessee Valley 

Authority (VI-D-162); Tri-TAC (VI-D-225); Wellman, Inc (VI-D-237) 

Comment c: Some commenters raised concerns about how the draft revisions to part 

70 were written, and that the revisions may not be consistent with EPA's 

intent. Some commenters opposed the requirement to identify all 

deviations as "exceptions" to the compliance certifications. One group 

stated that some deviations may be excused and, by definition, would not 

be "exceptions." Two utility commenters argued that this language could 

prevent sources from certifying compliance in the face of any excess 

emissions or excursions. Others noted that to match EPA's intent stated 

in the preamble of the CAM proposal, i.e., that deviations are only 

potential exceptions to compliance, both § 70.6(c)(5)(iii)(C) and the 

parallel section of part 71 should be revised to read: "The certification 

shall identify as possible exceptions to the certification of compliance any 

period for which the owner or operator identifies a deviation." 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 281 

Two commenters argued for a more significant change to the draft 

revisions. They argued that so long as a source successfully takes 

corrective actions when CAM shows a possible problem and no reference 

method testing determines that a violation has occurred, a source should 

be able to certify without exceptions. According to these commenters, 

any other result effectively changes the underlying standards by 

determining compliance based on means other than required compliance 

test procedures. 

Some commenters also opposed having to categorize exceedances and 

excursions as deviations and having to identify excursions in certifications. 

 The commenters noted that, first, EPA has failed to provide protections 

in part 70 from states categorizing any deviation as a violation, but rather 

has limited that protection to part 71. The commenters also stated that 

even if a deviation is not always a violation, identifying exceptions to 

compliance based on inconclusive excursion values could inappropriately 

stigmatize a source and interfere with its business dealings with other 

companies or with the general public. They added that citizens could 

also try to use the information to bring a citizen suit even where the 

information has no actual bearing on proof of noncompliance. This 

problem will be especially acute if EPA proceeds with the CE rulemaking, 

according to the commenters. They cited to the Unitek decision as an 

example where a judge used a permit compliance certification against a 

source in just this fashion. One commenter stated that instead, 

excursions should be identified in a separate section of the certification 

which would highlight adverse trends and those sources that may need 

follow up attention. Coupled with a shield from the use of CAM as CE, 

this would encourage sources to set aggressive trigger levels that truly 

provide early warning levels, according to the commenter. The 

commenter stated that, if EPA continues to classify excursions as 

deviations, then the part 71 definition must be included in part 70 so that it 

is clear that deviations will not always be violations. Even with that 

protection, the commenter argued that there will likely be de facto 

increased stringency through establishing indicator levels as enforceable 

requirements and thus there will be incentive to set trigger levels as 

loosely as possible. 

Other commenters noted that EPA is encouraging sources to set indicator 

ranges significantly below actual emission limits or standards to promote 

good O & M practices, but that excursions from low indicator ranges do 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 282 

not indicate violation of either emission standards or permit terms. These 

commenters stated that excursions should therefore not have to be 

reported as deviations in annual compliance certifications unless the 

source's permit states that excursions are a permit violation. One 

commenter noted that this is analogous to getting a speeding ticket for 

traveling 54 mph in a 55 mph zone, or being issued a ticket when the 

speedometer is not functioning properly. The commenter argued that 

EPA should eliminate any aspects of the rule that would create the 

situation where a source is in compliance with originally permitted limits at 

all times during a reporting period, but is unable to certify continuous 

compliance with those limits. One commenter believed generally that 

indicator monitor excursions should not be considered immediately to be 

deviations of the permit, while another stated that the rule should state 

clearly that indicator range exceedances are to be used to trigger 

corrective action and not to establish violations. 

Another commenter suggested that if a source has sufficient information 

to determine that an excursion does not constitute a violation of 

underlying emission limitations or standards, it should not be required to 

identify the excursion as a deviation or an exception to compliance in a 

compliance certification. 

Certain commenters argued that the rule requires too much information to 

be included in the certification. One commenter argued that because 

excursions do not necessarily imply noncompliance, reporting every one 

does not make sense, and that the over reporting will make it difficult for 

the agencies to determine which sources are in fact likely to be violating 

applicable requirements. The commenter stated that, if a source is in 

compliance, it should just be able to say so. Another commenter 

recommended that EPA allow sources to cross reference previously filed 

reports. Finally, a commenter added that excursions should not be 

construed or reported as deviations unless the source requests that the 

indicator range be an enforceable permit condition. The commenter 

suggested establishing a separate notification and reporting requirement 

for excursions. 

Two commenters stated that the rule text should clearly state the owners 

and operators are not required to determine whether any exceedances or 

excursions constitute deviations or noncompliance. They also stated that 

the intent expressed in the preamble that a certification identifying 

deviations is not an admission of noncompliance must be reflected in the 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 283 

rule. One of the commenters added that the rule should not require 

sources to categorize both excursions and exceedances as deviations; 

doing so contradicts EPA's stated intent to leave room for states to 

interpret the term deviation. The commenter argued that requiring 

sources to indicate excursions as deviations is yet another way in which 

compliance obligations are being changed and enforcement opportunities 

created. 

One environmental commenter argued that EPA had weakened the 

existing compliance certification language by only requiring a “statement” 

on compliance. 

Response: Consistent with many of these comments, the final rule requires an owner 

or operator to classify excursions and exceedances as "possible 

exceptions to compliance" and not as "deviations" for purposes of part 70. 

 For part 71, EPA has already developed a definition of "deviation." 

Today's rulemaking revises that definition to incorporate the concepts of 

excursions and exceedances and makes clear that those events are not 

necessarily violations. However, the Agency disagrees with suggestions 

that the rule not require reporting of all excursions or exceedances. The 

existence of an excursion or exceedance raises the possibility that a 

source has not met its applicable requirements, and thus an excursion or 

exceedance needs to be identified as a possible exception in the 

certification. This is true even where corrective action is taken and a 

reference test has not been run. As the CE rule made clear, 

noncompliance with emission standards can be shown by evidence other 

than reference tests. 

The Agency notes that, as in the 1996 part 64 Draft, the final rule allows 

an owner or operator to cross-reference previous reports that identify the 

excursions or exceedances. Thus, this provision does not significantly 

affect the reporting burdens involved with certifying compliance. Of 

course, an owner or operator is always free to add any explanatory text to 

document that an identified excursion or exceedance did not in fact 

indicate a failure to meet an underlying applicable requirement. To 

provide for a simple certification process, however, the Agency has 

determined not to require such explanations for all identified exceedances 

or excursions. Sections I.C.5 and II.K.2, of the preamble to the final rule 

contain additional discussion of the compliance certification provisions. 

EPA did not intend by adding the word “statement” to the requirement for 

a compliance certification to imply that anything less than a certification 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 284 

was required. EPA has therefore rephrased the provision to delete the 

word “statement.” 

Letter(s): American Gas Association (VI-D-154); ASARCO Incorporated (VI-D-187); 

BP Oil Company (VI-D-113); Chemical Manufacturers Association 

(VI-D-152); Cinergy Corp. (VI-D-141); Clean Air Implementation Project 

(VI-D-153); Coalition for Clean Air Implementation (VI-D-164); Colorado 

Association of Commerce and Industry (VI-D-182); DuPont Engineering 

(VI-D-127); Eastman Chemical Company (VI-D-173); Eli Lilly Company 

(VI-D-124); Exxon Company, USA (VI-D-135); Gas Processors 

Association (VI-D-163); Houston Lighting & Power Company (VI-D-228); 

Mobil Corporation (VI-D-115); Mobil Corporation (VI-D-248); Natural 

Resources Defense Council (VI-D-151); Niagara Mohawk (VI-D-168); 

Ohio Chamber of Commerce, et. al. (VI-D-160); PPG Industries, Inc. 

(VI-D-136); Rubber Manufacturers Association (VI-D-149); Southwestern 

Public Service Company (VI-D-224); Texas Title V Planning Committee 

(VI-D-188); The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. (VI-D-148); Utility Air 

Regulatory Group (VI-D-140); Virginia Power (VI-D-226) 

Comment d: One commenter stated that EPA should indicate how deviations from 

indicator ranges will be reconciled with the actual operating conditions at a 

source. The commenter suggested that the rule indicate how to address 

situations where, due to the operating conditions at a source, a deviation 

from CAM plan parametric ranges does not indicate a violation of 

applicable standards. For example, implementation of a QIP to correct a 

deviation in the exit gas temperature of a condenser used to control VOCs 

above the temperature specified in the CAM plan for control of VOCs may 

not indicate a violation if, at the time of the deviation, the VOC being 

controlled is of a relatively low volatility. 

Response: The Agency believes that the commenter’s suggestion is included in the 

final rule, as sources with deviations from indicator ranges are required to 

adjust those ranges, if they prove insufficient. In addition, specific 

conditions which preclude non-compliance, such as the use of materials 

with low volatility, should be considered and identified to the extent known 

in developing indicator ranges. 

Letter(s): Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (VI-D-217) 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 285 

Comment e: Many industry commenters objected that the requirement that "any other 

material information" be identified in a compliance certification is flawed 

and should be deleted. Several commenters argued that the discussion 

of this requirement in the preamble is inconsistent because the preamble 

states that this requirement "merely" implements the statutory prohibition 

against knowing false statements, but no regulatory language is 

necessary to implement this self-effectuating provision. They argued that 

EPA should delete the Part 70 and Part 71 language which states that 

other material information may be required and rely on section 113(c)(2) 

alone. Commenters also noted that the preamble refers more generally 

to "information [that] potentially affects compliance status." This broad 

approach to the requirement may make it difficult for responsible officials 

to certify compliance with any confidence or certainty, according to some 

commenters. One commenter argued that this provision will also raise 

issues regarding its relationship to environmental audit policies. 

Several commenters also stated that distinguishing whether information 

may be considered "material" or not will be difficult, and is often a 

disputable issue that is resolved only through administrative or judicial 

processes. They suggested that, to avoid disputes over this issue, a 

certification should be based solely on information that is required by 

applicable requirements. Two commenters also argued that compliance 

is properly determined only by the required compliance determination 

method, and that requiring sources to also determine compliance based 

on other "material" information changes the stringency of the standard 

and is unmanageably vague and ambiguous. Finally, some commenters 

stated that the inability to determine what is "material" will be made 

impossible if EPA proceeds with a CE rule. 

Commenters also argued that section 113(c)(2) is not a wide open 

requirement to identify and record/report information that someone could 

consider material. These commenters added that the legislative history 

documents that for criminal sanctions to apply under section 113(c)(2), the 

source must be on notice of the recordkeeping, information or monitoring 

requirements in question. 

Response: The Agency disagrees with the commenters’ suggestion to remove from 

the compliance certification provisions language that requires responsible 

officials to identify, if necessary, any other material information used in 

developing compliance certifications. The Agency believes these 

provisions are consistent with and help explain the existing duty under 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 286 

parts 70 and 71 for responsible officials to perform a reasonable inquiry 

concerning data that could impact the compliance certification. For 

example, in the Response to Comments Document for the Title V 

Operating Permits Program (see EPA Air Docket Item A-90-33-V-C-1) the 

Agency noted that having knowledge that a deviation occurred (either 

through required monitoring or self-auditing) and not reporting that 

information in a compliance certification would constitute criminal conduct 

(see p. 5-20 of that document). The Agency notes that this provision is 

limited to material information that the owner or operator is aware of -- 

information beyond required monitoring that has been specifically 

assessed in relation to how the information potentially affects compliance 

status. This requirement merely emphasizes the general prohibition in 

section 113(c)(2) of the Act on knowingly making a false certification or 

omitting material information and the general criminal section on 

submitting false information to the government codified at 18 USC 1001. 

The revised part 70 provision does not impose a duty on the owner or 

operator to assess every possible piece of information that may have 

some undetermined bearing on compliance. For the reasons stated in 

the CE rulemaking, EPA does not believe that requiring the certification to 

take into account other material information makes standards more 

stringent. 

Letter(s): American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); BP Oil 

Company (VI-D-113); Can Manufacturers Institute (VI-D-181); Chemical 

Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); Chemical Manufacturers 

Association (VI-D-258); Clean Air Implementation Project (VI-D-153); 

Coalition for Clean Air Implementation (VI-D-164); Eastman Chemical 

Company (VI-D-173); General Electric Company (VI-D-156); Integrated 

Waste Services Association (VI-D-147); National Environmental 

Development Association (VI-D169); Ohio Chamber of Commerce, et. al. 

(VI-D-160); South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (VI-D-116) Southern 

Company Services (VI-D-171); Southern California Gas Company 

(VI-D-222); Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission 

(VI-D-189); The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. (VI-D-148); Utility Air 

Regulatory Group (VI-D-140); Utility Air Regulatory Group (VI-D-252); 

Virginia Power (VI-D-226); Wisconsin Electric Power Company (VI-D-130) 

Comment f: Two commenters objected to the requirement to base certifications on 

"such other facts as the permitting authority may require." They stated 

that this grants unlimited discretion to permitting authorities, with no 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 287 

regard for the legal relevance of the information being requested, or the 

cost and time involved in gathering the information. These commenters 

also argued that sources should not have to submit certifications to both 

EPA and permitting authorities. They stated that the requirement to 

submit certifications to EPA is a waste of resources and imposes an 

unnecessary paperwork processing burden on EPA regional offices. 

Another commenter suggested that the compliance certification should be 

changed to annual. Finally, one local government entity recommended 

allowing sources to specify only those permit terms or conditions for which 

compliance is in question and certify compliance with all other permit 

terms and conditions. The commenter stated that listing all permit 

conditions would be very burdensome for both sources and permitting 

authorities. 

Response: The Agency notes that many of the commenters’ suggestions refer to 

provisions that were promulgated as part of the original part 70 

requirements on July 21, 1992, 57 FR 32250 and are not directly affected 

by the provisions which have been revised. The Agency believes that the 

rule changes with explicit language allowing cross-referencing and group 

treatment of pollutant-specific emissions units in compliance, as opposed 

to individual treatment of pollutant-specific emissions units with possible 

exceptions to compliance or non-compliance, should satisfy one 

commenter’s concerns. 

Letter(s): American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); County 

Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (VI-D-232); General Electric 

Company (VI-D-156); Southern Company Services (VI-D-171) 

Comment g: State and local agency associations supported the use of data other than 

reference test method data for compliance certification. They noted that 

using such other information will provide additional flexibility in ensuring 

that sources are complying with applicable emission limits. A state 

agency also supported statements made in the preamble and in the draft 

rule that establish that compliance determinations can be made using 

data other than compliance or reference test method data. An industry 

commenter, however, argued that CAM data should not be used for 

determining compliance with emissions standards. The commenter 

proposed eliminating the revisions to Part 70 which provide for the use of 

CAM data in compliance certifications. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 288 

Response: The Agency disagrees with the commenter’s suggestion to remove 

provisions that would allow compliance certifications to use part 64 data. 

As mentioned above, the Agency believes these provisions are consistent 

with and help explain the existing duty under part 70 for responsible 

officials to perform a reasonable inquiry concerning data that could impact 

the compliance certification. 

 

Letter(s): Coastal Corporation (VI-D-123); Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources (VI-D-193); STAPPA/ALAPCO (VI-D-179) 

Comment h: A state agency recommended revising the proposed § 70.6(c)(5)(iii)(B) to 

refer to methods used to determine the "apparent compliance status." 

This would ensure that compliance certifications are consistent with the 

nature of the data generated by CAM plans. 

Response: The Agency believes that this concern is adequately addressed by 

identifying excursions and exceedances as "possible exceptions." 

Letter(s): Texas Natural Resource Conservation Committee (VI-D-189) 

Section 12.3: Deviation Definition

Comment a: Several industry commenters argued that EPA should state that a 

"deviation is not always a violation" in the Part 70 revisions. They 

objected to the statement in the preamble that "deviation" is not defined in 

Part 70 to avoid constraining permitting authorities in their interpretation of 

the term. They argued that the whole point of CAM, as opposed to EM, 

is to de-link CAM monitoring data from compliance so that such data is 

not necessarily demonstrative of noncompliance. Therefore, they argued 

that making deviations, or a specific number of them, violations 

undermines the CAM goal of monitoring additional parameters at levels 

below regulatory limits. One group noted that adequate flexibility for 

states would be provided by a provision in Part 70 stating only that a 

deviation is not necessarily a violation and leaving out the rest of the 

language used in the Part 71 approach. Commenters concluded that, to 

assure that EPA's intent is carried out, the part 71 definition of deviation 

should be included in both part 70 and part 64. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 289 

One commenter objected to leaving the definition out of Part 70 in order to 

give states flexibility in interpreting the term. The commenter argued that 

it would be intolerable to have every permitting authority making different 

interpretations of what conduct violated the same laws; there is a crucial, 

overriding need for uniformity on this point. 

Response: The final part 64 rule does not rely on the term "deviation" (see Comment 

c under section 12.2 (Part III), above). Therefore, the issues raised in 

these comments are no longer material for purposes of this rulemaking. 

As an aside, the Agency rejects one commenter’s assertion “that the 

whole point of CAM...is to de-link CAM monitoring data from compliance.” 

 The primary purpose of part 64 is to provide a reasonable assurance of 

compliance with applicable requirements. Additionally, CAM monitoring 

is intended to provide owners and operators with data to make 

compliance certifications. Neither of these goals can be accomplished if 

CAM data are disassociated from compliance. 

Letter(s): American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); ASARCO 

Incorporated (VI-D-187); Chemical Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); 

Chevron Companies (VI-D-132); Clean Air Implementation Project 

(VI-D-153); Coalition for Clean Air Implementation (VI-D-164); Coastal 

Corporation (VI-D-123); Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry 

(VI-D-182); Dow Chemical Company (VI-D-120); Eastman Chemical 

Company (VI-D-173); Eli Lilly Company (VI-D-124); Gas Processors 

Association (VI-D-163); General Electric Company (VI-D-156); Georgia 

Department of Natural Resources (VI-D-193); Mobil Oil Corporation 

(VI-D-248); National Environmental Development Association 

(VI-D-169)Texas Title V Planning Committee (VI-D-148); The Society of 

the Plastics Industry, Inc. (VI-D-148); UCAR Carbon Company, Inc. 

(VI-D-122) 

Comment b: Some commenters argued that part 71 should not state that every 24 

hours of a deviation is a new deviation. They stated that the Act already 

provides that a new violation occurs every 24 hours, and they saw no 

value in arbitrarily multiplying the number of non-violation deviations other 

than to make sources look bad. One commenter added that the 

identification of any exceedance or excursion for purposes of compliance 

certification should be based on the appropriate averaging period as 

specified in the applicable requirement and not based on a 24 hour time 

period. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 290 

Response : This provision is included as part of part 71 as promulgated on July 1, 

1996, 61 FR 34202 and is retained in the definition adopted in today's 

rulemaking. 

Letter(s): Chemical Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); Eli Lilly Company 

(VI-D-124); Utility Air Regulatory Group (VI-D-140)

Comment c: A state agency recommended specific rule language to clarify that 

deviations are only indicators of compliance and should not be used as de 

facto compliance determination statements. 

Other commenters recommended that the definition should not equate all 

excursions and exceedances with a deviation. One commenter noted 

that such an approach could have serious implications for 

recordkeeping/reporting burdens, while others recommended that the 

definition of "deviation" in § 71.6(a) (and any similar definitions added to 

§§ 70 and/or 64.1) be revised to establish that an excursion is only a 

deviation if the indicator range is an enforceable permit term. Finally, one 

commenter noted that an excursion has no bearing on whether a 

deviation has occurred. 

Response: The final rule does not equate excursions or exceedances with deviations 

for part 70 purposes; see further response under section 12.2 (Part III), 

above. 

Letter(s): American Gas Association (VI-D-154); Coastal Corporation (VI-D-123); 

General Electric Company (VI-D-156); Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission (VI-D-189); Utility Air Regulatory Group 

(VI-D-140); Virginia Power (VI-D-226) 

 

Comment d: One commenter recommended that part 70 be revised to include the 

authority to excuse some excursions as is provided in § 71.6. The 

commenter stated that the two rules should be consistent on this point 

because otherwise states will not have the authority to do this under part 

70. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 291 

Response: Part 64 does not establish excursions as necessarily constituting a 

violation of any requirement; thus there is no need to include any explicit 

provision stating that certain excursions are "excused." 

Letter(s): Total Petroleum, Inc. (VI-D-190) 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 292 

Section 13: General Statutory Issues

Comment a: Some commenters argued that the draft rule does not satisfy the statutory 

mandate for EPA to require "enhanced monitoring" of emissions at major 

stationary sources. A vendor association stated that "enhanced 

monitoring" must refer to no less than direct monitoring of emissions 

because section 114(a)(1) only permits owners and others to "keep 

records on control equipment parameters, production variables or other 

indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is impractical." 

According to the commenter, since direct monitoring was in widespread 

use in 1990, it is difficult to imagine that "enhanced" monitoring could refer 

to anything less than direct monitoring. Public interest groups argued 

that the draft rule does not require monitoring that can be correlated with 

emissions standards, or compliance certifications that actually certify 

compliance. They also stated that the requirements for enhanced 

monitoring and compliance certification were intended to address the 

ongoing problem of the lack of reliable information on air emissions. 

They argued that, rather than implement the statute to promote reliable 

information that supports right to know and effective enforcement, the 

draft CAM approach provides poor information that will make a sham out 

of the compliance certification. The commenters concluded that the rule 

should be called the scam rule, not the CAM rule. 

The vendor association stated that to have the minimum level of 

monitoring needed to meet the legislative intent of section 114(a)(3), EPA 

should withdraw the current CAM proposal and re-propose CAM as a rule 

requiring direct monitoring of emissions from major sources. Given the 

information EPA has already collected pursuant to the development of 

Part 64, the commenter argued that re-proposal and promulgation should 

be possible by the current July 1997 deadline or shortly thereafter. The 

association recommended, as an alternative, that major sources be 

required to directly monitor pollutant emissions only from emission points 

that exceed major source emission thresholds, as defined in sections 112, 

182, 187, and 302 of the Clean Air Act. The association stated that, 

unlike CAM, direct monitoring is consistent with Vice President Gore's call 

to "[g]ive the EPA a way to measure the progress and then throw away 

the rule book altogether." 

An environmental group also argued that part 64 monitoring must produce 

data capable of correlation to actual emissions. This commenter stated 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 293 

that CEMS and COMS must be used for this purpose where they are 

already required to be in place and parameter monitoring that is capable 

of correlation would be acceptable for other sources. Another 

commenter added that the CAM proposal does not satisfy the requirement 

in section 504 that alternative monitoring methods must "provide 

sufficiently reliable and timely information for determining compliance." 

The commenter stated that EPA has not proven that indicator ranges are 

sufficiently reliable to meet the statutory standard. Since EPA has 

provided no scientific basis for correlating monitored parameters with 

emission rates for most control devices, it has not demonstrated that a 

source which stays within established indicator ranges will be in 

compliance with applicable emission limits or standards. 

The environmental group also argued that the rule does not meet the 

Act's requirement that SIPs include enforceable emission limitations. 

The group stated that section 110, which was included in the original 

Clean Air Act of 1970, provides that SIPs shall include enforceable 

emission limitations, requires monitoring and reporting of emissions, and 

provides that SIPs shall require states to correlate emission reports with 

emission limitations. According to the commenter, limitations are not 

enforceable unless it is possible to compare them with sources' actual 

emissions and this capability is not provided by the draft rule. The 

commenter concluded that the rule cannot meet the requirements of the 

1990 Amendments, which were intended to improve the level of 

monitoring, if it does not even meet the requirements of the original Act. 

Contrary to these arguments, some industry commenters stated that the 

CAM approach can satisfy the requirements of the Act. One commenter 

added that the proposed rule reasonably achieves the goal of meeting the 

statutory requirement to develop enhanced monitoring plans. Another 

noted that the approach of documenting good O&M, indicating excursions 

and taking corrective action fulfills the statute in a reasonable manner. 

Response: The Agency disagrees that the final rule fails to satisfy the Act. As 

discussed in section I.C.3. of the preamble to the final rule, part 64 is 

intended to provide a reasonable means of supplementing existing 

regulatory provisions that are not consistent with the enhanced monitoring 

requirements of title VII of the 1990 Amendments to the Act. The EPA 

believes that the CAM approach is a reasonable approach commensurate 

with this role. The Agency agrees with incorporating direct emissions and 

compliance monitoring where the technology is available and feasible, 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 294 

and promoting public disclosure of air pollution emissions information. 

However, the Agency does not believe that such a broad, expensive, and 

technically complex objective can be accomplished through a single 

rulemaking at this time. Not only would trying to impose such monitoring 

requirements across the board in the short term be technically unrealistic, 

doing so would put in jeopardy the possibility of advancing monitoring of 

existing emissions sources through part 70 operating permits program 

already in progress. 

The Agency notes that current requirements for submission of emission 

statements prepared by owners of industrial air pollution sources continue 

independent of part 64 (such as statements required under section 

182(a)(3) of the Act) and such statements will be based on the most 

currently available information, including new monitoring data produced 

under part 64. 

The Agency firmly believes that continued proper operation and 

maintenance of process operations and air pollution controls 

demonstrated capable of achieving applicable standards is vital to 

ongoing compliance. By providing the necessary data and requiring 

appropriate corrective action, part 64 will result in owners and operators 

being more conscientious in the attention paid to the operation and 

maintenance of air pollution control equipment and practices than has 

been the case in the past. This approach has proven effective in 

reducing air pollution emissions and improving compliance performance in 

the implementation of many existing regulations with similar requirements. 

 See also preamble section I.C.5. for further discussion of the use of part 

64 data for purposes of part 70 compliance certifications. 

EPA disagrees that the “enhanced monitoring” required by section 

114(a)(3) must be direct emission monitoring because section 114(a)(1) 

specifies that keeping records on control equipment parameters is 

authorized “when direct monitoring of emissions is impractical.” The 

cited provision in section 114(a)(1) is intended to broaden the scope of 

EPA’s investigative power and there is no suggestion in the statute that 

Congress intended the term “enhanced monitoring” in section 114(a)(3) to 

be limited by the language in section 114(a)(1). Comments arguing that 

CAM provides no correlation to emissions are responded to at length in 

section 6 of Part III of this response to comments document. Briefly, 

CAM does not require a statistical correlation between indicator levels of 

control equipment operation and emissions; however, CAM does require a 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 295 

demonstration based on, among other things, performance test data, that 

compliance with indicator levels will provide a reasonable assurance of 

compliance with emission standards. Thus, commenters are in error to 

claim that there will be no correlation between CAM monitoring and 

emissions. 

EPA does not believe that section 110 somehow requires that “enhanced 

monitoring” under section 114(a)(3) must be directly correlated to 

emissions. Section 110(a)(1)(A) does require that the state plans include 

“enforceable” emission standards. However, it is certainly not clear that 

use of the term “enforceable” here as anything to do with monitoring much 

less “enhanced monitoring” under section 114(a)(3). Additionally, section 

110(a)(2)(F) does specify that states must “correlate” emissions data that 

is collected with emissions limitations. Again, however, it is unclear how 

a requirement specifying that a state shall correlate collected emissions 

data with emissions standards relates to a separate requirement for 

“enhanced monitoring.” Perhaps most telling with regard to the relevance 

of section 110(a) to the meaning of section 114(a)(3) is that an industry 

commenter cites it as support for its argument that nothing is intended 

“enhanced monitoring” other than compliance certifications based on 

performance tests. 

As to the assertion that EPA has not met the requirements in section 

504(b), EPA would note that this rule is being promulgated under section 

114 and not section 504(b). Nonetheless, EPA believes that CAM 

monitoring is designed to “provide sufficiently reliable and timely 

information for determining compliance.” Part 64 requires that the 

indicator levels for CAM monitoring be based performance test results and 

other compliance-related information. See also section 6 of this 

response to comments document. 

Letter(s): American Lung Association et. al. (VI-D-238); Clean Air Implementation 

Project (VI-D-153); Clean Steel Coalition (VI-D-195); Institute of Clean Air 

Companies (VI-D-139); Natural Resources Defense Council (VI-D-151); 

Natural Resources Defense Council (VI-D-267 and 268); Pacific Gas 

Transmission Company (VI-D-230); S. Fitzsimmons (VI-D-201); Sierra 

Club, Lone Star Chapter (VI-D-242); The Fertilizer Institute (VI-D-145) 

Comment b: One industry commenter argued that the draft rule exceeds the statutory 

mandate of the Clean Air Act Amendments. The commenter argued that 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 296 

by making indicator ranges enforceable in and of themselves, the current 

CAM draft exceeds the original intent of the CAM program to better 

identify when corrective actions needed to be taken. The commenter 

also stated that it is also not clear that the control technologies which 

served as the basis for the original underlying emission limitations and 

standards can meet compliance with the shorter averaging periods 

necessary to satisfy the CAM rule. The CAM rule therefore creates new 

compliance obligations rather than serving as a vehicle to better achieve 

existing obligations, according to the commenter. Another commenter 

added that using CAM data and other information reported as indicators 

of a need for further investigation is all that is appropriate under Congress' 

intent to cure the Clean Air Act's general lack of ongoing monitoring of any 

kind. 

Response: The final rule does not include the provision cited by the commenter 

concerning enforceable indicator ranges. In addition, nothing in part 64 

affects the averaging period associated with underlying requirements. 

Thus, the Agency disagrees with these comments. 

Letter(s): Can Manufacturers Institute (VI-D-181); Centerior Energy (VI-D-134) 

Comment c: One commenter stated that the draft rule ignores Clean Air Act 

procedures for making changes in state Title V permit programs. The 

commenter stated that although the draft will require states to amend their 

Title V permit programs to implement part 64, the draft rule ignores the 

proper procedure set forth in the Act and EPA's own implementing 

regulations by which EPA may bring about such changes in state permit 

programs. 

Response: The Agency disagrees and has provided a full response to this concern in 

responding to comments in Section 3.1.4 (Part III), above. 

Letter(s): Marathon Oil Company (VI-D-185) 

Comment d: Another commenter argued that section 114(a)(3) does not provide a legal 

basis for the CAM proposal. The commenter stated that section 

114(a)(3) cannot be used to justify changes to Title V permit program 

requirements. Section 114(a)(3) is codified with statutory provisions on 

EPA's general information gathering authority and not in Title V, indicating 

no congressional intent to affect Title V requirements, according to the 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 297 

commenter. The commenter also argued that other statutory provisions 

show that section 114(a)(3) is not intended to impact Title V. The 

commenter noted that section 114(b) allows but does not require states to 

develop investigative powers and programs similar to those authorized for 

EPA whereas Title V programs are mandatory for states. The 

commenter also noted that section 114(a)(3) is to be implemented by rule, 

and not by permit, within two years while Title V rules are required in one 

year. The commenter went on to argue that section 114(a)(3) does not 

authorize EPA to develop new compliance methodologies, and that 

nothing in the limited legislative history suggests that Congress intended 

section 114(a)(3) to authorize a program as sweeping as CAM. The 

commenter stated that section 114 simply provides EPA with authority to 

compel performance testing according to the methods provided for in 

individual standards. Using section 114(a)(3) to redefine compliance 

determination methods and to require additional monitoring is contrary to 

section 114's long-understood meaning and cases, such as Portland 

Cement Ass'n v. Ruckelshaus, which establish a relationship between 

standards and associated compliance methods, according to the 

commenter. Finally, the commenter argued that Congress would not 

have refined SIP monitoring requirements under section 110(a)(2)(F) in 

1990 if section 114(a)(3) could be used for wholesale redefinition of 

compliance methods. The commenter stated that the 1990 Amendments 

only adds the authority to request detailed compliance certifications based 

on the results of source testing and suggested that the certification of test 

results satisfies the "enhanced monitoring" portion of 114(a)(3). 

The commenter went on to state that Title V also does not provide a legal 

basis for the CAM proposal because section 504(b) establishes that 

individual monitoring requirements must be developed by rule and not in 

the context of individual permits. 

Response: The Agency rejects the commenter’s cramped reading of section 

114(a)(3). Congress was not overly prescriptive when it required EPA to 

mandate “enhanced monitoring” for major sources. Accordingly, a wide 

range of monitoring might well qualify as “enhanced” including increased 

performance testing or an across-the-board requirement for continuous 

emission monitors. EPA believes that part 64 represents a reasonable, 

middle course to fulfilling the statutory requirement in section 114(a)(3) 

that the Agency promulgate rules on enhanced monitoring for all major 

stationary sources. The commenter’s argument regarding the implied 

meaning of Congress’ amendment of section 110(a)(2)(F) for section 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 298 

114(a)(3) is nothing more than speculation. It certainly is not controlling 

on how section 114(a)(3) must be implemented. 

EPA also rejects the assertion that section 114(a)(3) must be 

implemented by rule and cannot be implemented through the Title V 

permit program. The part 64 requirements are established by rule as 

required by section 114(a)(3), although the particular monitoring used to 

satisfy the part 64 requirements will be established through the permit 

process. This is consistent with the statutory language which requires 

EPA to "promulgate rules to provide guidance and to implement this 

paragraph . . ." (emphasis added). In addition, a Senate Committee 

Report on this provision stated that this "new authority will be 

implemented by EPA through regulations or implementation plan and 

permit program requirements . . . " (See Senate Committee Report 

101-228, p. 368 (1989).) Both the statutory language and this legislative 

history indicate that it is appropriate for EPA to promulgate a rule 

containing general criteria requirements implemented through the permit 

process. 

In addition, the Agency disagrees with the commenter's assertions 

concerning section 504(b). Section 504(b) and section 114 are separate 

provisions addressing monitoring. If section 504(b) is read as a limitation 

on section 114, much of section 114's broad authorization to EPA would 

be read out of the statute. 

Contrary to the commenter's suggestion, part 64 does not redefine 

compliance determination methods, as the specified compliance test 

method for a particular standard remains as the benchmark for 

establishing compliance with that standard. The part 64 rulemaking 

merely adds monitoring requirements for particular types of sources and 

emissions units. For the same reason, part 64 also does not change title 

V permit program requirements because the requirements in part 64 are 

independently applicable standards. 

Letter(s): Texas Title V Planning Committee (VI-D-188) 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 299 

Section 14: Enforcement Concerns

Section 14.1: Effect on Existing Standards

Comment a: A number of commenters argued that part 64 would unlawfully increase 

the stringency of existing emission standards. Several commenters 

stated that the focus of CAM has shifted from its original concept of 

creating a monitoring regime to ensure proper operation and maintenance 

of emissions control devices in accordance with good engineering 

practices to imposing a requirement of determining continuous 

compliance with numerical emission limits. These commenters 

recommended that EPA amend the proposed rule to return to the original 

focus of the CAM proposal. Some commenters pointed out that because 

many emission limitations or standards were established based on limited 

reference method test data, the nature of the reference method test, the 

frequency of testing, and the variability of operations were taken into 

account in developing the standards. Commenters asserted that 

changes in the method of compliance can affect a source's ability to 

comply with limits. Also, commenters stated that it is highly probable that 

numerical limits will be exceeded 5-10 percent of the time by a unit that is 

properly operated and maintained. One commenter added that 

regardless of whether it was always intended that standards be complied 

with 100 percent of the time, as a matter of environmental policy, if CAM 

is ever to help get a handle on inherent process/control variability, it must 

reward sources for efforts to record and respond to such occurrences 

rather than penalizing them. Another commenter stated that EPA’s 

attempt to link historical compliance practices based on a single numerical 

emission limit with practices relating to the "good operation and 

maintenance" of pollution control equipment in fact changes the standard 

of compliance for existing emission limits. 

Some commenters argued that EPA must comply with the requirements of 

sections 110, 111, 112, and 307 of the Act if it wants to increase the 

stringency of existing emission standards. These commenters also 

stated that it is unlawful for the Agency to use CAM as a back door to 

increase the stringency of existing standards. Other commenters 

asserted that increasing the stringency of existing standards would include 

any changes to the existing monitoring requirements, even if not used to 

determine compliance, but stated that the concern is even greater if 

compliance determination issues (such as test methods or averaging 

times) will be impacted. One commenter stated that many standards 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 300 

were developed with only limited information, and the new monitoring 

under CAM may detect deficiencies not contemplated when the standard 

was originally set. The commenter added that the ability to comment 

effectively on these issues requires rule by rule revisions. Some 

commenters cited to the Ajax paper included in the docket and various 

court decisions, including Amoco v. EPA, Portland Cement, and Donner 

Hanna, to document how changing compliance-related procedures can 

impermissibly increase the stringency of a standard. 

Commenters also argued that specific aspects of the CAM proposal would 

increase the stringency of existing standards. One commenter asserted 

that the draft rule subjects too many emission units to Subpart B 

requirements, and that the draft rule encourages States to impose 

Subpart B requirements on Subpart C sources and to establish indicator 

ranges as enforceable limits. This commenter also stated that the draft 

rule turns QIPs into liabilities and fails to provide a shield from 

enforcement where a source fully meets its obligations under CAM. 

Taken together, the commenter concluded, these features of the CAM 

rule demonstrate EPA's intent to use CAM and the related credible 

evidence rule to increase the stringency of existing emission standards. 

Another commenter stated that the combined effect of the following 

aspects of the draft rule lead to increased stringency: (1) the ability of 

States to impose enforceable indicator ranges; (2) the use of a second 

QIP as a violation; (3) the requirement that indicator ranges be set at 

levels that assure that emissions are always maintained below applicable 

requirements; (4) the lack of a CAM shield; and (5) the ability to bootstrap 

State-only monitoring requirements into federal requirements under § 

64.9(d). (Note: The details of these comments are included in the 

sections specifically addressing these issues.) Another commenter noted 

concerns about the averaging times associated with monitoring and 

standards, the fact that compliance testing is prescribed although it does 

not establish the range over which an indicator might vary while the unit is 

in compliance, and lack of a need for monitoring at certain units. 

Some commenters raised objections to the draft rule provisions 

addressing quality improvement plans (QIPs). A commenter stated that 

the provisions of the rule that make the second trigger of a QIP an 

enforceable violation makes standards more stringent to the extent that 

the indicator range being monitored is tighter than the relevant limitation 

or standard. Two commenters stated that the stringency problem is 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 301 

compounded by the 5 percent QIP trigger, since standards may have 

been set with an expectation of exceedances 5 or 10 percent of the time 

based on annual testing. 

Some commenters noted additional factors that may result in increased 

stringency: (1) the rule provides States with discretion to consider 

deviations to be violations; (2) all deviations must be included as 

"exceptions" to compliance in the certification, even if they are excused; 

(3) the rule requires many new enforceable requirements related to CAM 

to be included in permits; (4) the rule provides States with discretion, and 

even encourages them to make indicator ranges enforceable permit 

terms; and (5) most importantly, the decision to proceed with the credible 

evidence rule affects CAM's relationship to documenting compliance. 

(See Section 14.2, below, for further comments on the CAM/credible 

evidence relationship.) In supplementary comments following the 

promulgation of the CE rule, one of the commenters reiterated its 

concerns regarding changes in the way compliance is determined. 

One commenter identified three possible solutions to avoid the increased 

stringency problem. First, EPA could revise the applicable emission 

limits to move from a periodic compliance demonstration to a continuous 

compliance demonstration through appropriate notice and comment 

rulemaking, or at least provide a period of years to allow for petitions for 

reconsideration before the credible evidence rule would become effective. 

Second, the Agency could undertake a generic rulemaking to establish a 

30 day compliance period as a general presumptive averaging period. 

Third, the Agency could provide explicitly that CAM data cannot be used 

as credible evidence, and allow owners or operators to opt in to CAM to 

obtain this shield. 

Response: The Agency disagrees that the final part 64 rule will affect the stringency 

of any existing standards. Part 64 contains independent applicable 

monitoring requirements promulgated under the authority of section 114 

and other provisions of the Act. Part 64 does not amend any existing 

emission standard. Rather, part 64 provides for the collection of data 

relevant to compliance so that sources may make the required 

compliance certifications. The scope of the compliance obligation will 

continue to be defined by the emission standard. To the extent part 64 

monitoring data pertain to periods when compliance is not required by the 

emission standard, those data cannot be used to prove noncompliance 

with the standard. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 302 

Part 64 requires monitoring to provide a reasonable assurance of 

compliance with existing requirements; it does not change the method 

established in a particular standard as the compliance test method for that 

standard. The reasonable assurance is provided by maintaining key 

parameters within operating ranges that reflect proper operation and 

maintenance of the control device, in accordance with applicable design 

properties, for minimizing emissions at least to the levels required to 

achieve compliance. The final rule generally requires the ranges to be 

set at least in part based on performance test data to establish an 

appropriate baseline for the specific unit; the rule does not contemplate 

a statistical correlation of emissions and parameters across the whole 

range of potential emissions. See Section II.D.2. of the Final Rule 

Preamble for further discussion. To the extent the commenters are 

claiming that the use of any data other than performance test data to 

determine compliance modifies the compliance obligation, the 

commenters are attacking the credible evidence rulemaking not this one. 

As noted below, EPA disagrees with these criticisms of the CE rule. 

In addition, the final rule contains other changes from the 1996 part 64 

Draft that address the comments. First, the final rule does not discuss 

the State's independent authority to require that indicator ranges be 

established as enforceable permit terms. A State is always free to 

establish that type of requirement using its independent authority to do so. 

 Second, the final rule does not establish that a second QIP is an 

automatic permit violation, and does not include a required 5 percent 

trigger for a QIP. Third, the use of the term "deviation" has been deleted 

and the final rule clarifies that part 64 excursions are to be reported as 

"possible exceptions" to compliance in a compliance certification. Fourth, 

the applicability provisions have been clarified and narrowed to focus only 

on units with control devices. Fifth, the provision concerning the use of 

State-only monitoring in § 64.9(d) of the 1996 part 64 Draft is no longer 

applicable with the removal of subpart C. These changes also respond 

to many of the comments. 

There are several specific comments with which the Agency disagrees. 

First, the Agency disagrees that the promulgation of the credible evidence 

rulemaking will in turn result in part 64 increasing the stringency of existing 

emission limits. The Agency's reasoning for why the stringency of a 

standard is not affected by the use of data other than specified reference 

method test data to prove compliance or non-compliance is discussed at 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 303 

length in the preamble to the credible evidence rulemaking (see 62 FR 

8314, February 24, 1997) and in the response to comment document for 

that rulemaking (see Docket Item A-91-52-V-C-2). 

Second, the Agency disagrees that because part 64 will add more 

conditions to a permit, part 64 will make existing standards more stringent. 

 Part 64 is an independently applicable requirement promulgated 

pursuant to section 114 of the Act as well as other statutory provisions. 

As such, it is expected that a part 70 permit will include monitoring 

conditions that implement part 64 which may be in addition to the 

permittee's existing applicable monitoring requirements. Third, EPA 

disagrees with a concept of a CAM enforcement shield as discussed in 

Section 14.5 (Part III), below. Finally, the Agency disagrees with the 

argument that part 64 monitoring simply by adding more monitoring has 

increased the stringency of the underlying standards. The Agency has 

previously used its section 114 authority, even before the express 

enhanced monitoring authority under the 1990 Amendments, to require 

additional monitoring for an NSPS standard. (See 53 FR 50354, 50360, 

December 14, 1988, adding monitoring retroactively for Portland cement 

plants affected by 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart F.) 

Because the Agency does not believe that part 64 will affect the 

stringency of existing requirements, no response is necessary to the 

suggestions for how to avoid this concern. 

Letter(s): Alyeska Pipeline Service Company (VI-D-126); American Petroleum 

Institute (VI-D-146); Arizona Mining Association (VI-D-150); BP Oil 

Company (VI-D-113); Can Manufacturers Institute (VI-D-181); Chemical 

Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); Cinergy Corp. (VI-D-141); CITGO 

Petroleum Corporation (VI-D-172); Clean Air Implementation Project 

(VI-D-153); Coalition for Clean Air Implementation (VI-D-164); Colorado 

Association of Commerce and Industry (VI-D- 182); DuPont Engineering 

(VI-D-127); Eastman Chemical Company (VI-D-173); Independent Liquid 

Terminals Association (VI-D-178); Kennecott Corporation (VI-D-119); 

Marathon Oil Company (VI-D-185); Mobil Corporation (VI-D-115); Mobil 

Corporation (VI-D-248); National Environmental Development Association 

(VI-D-169); Pennzoil Company (VI-D-133); Rubber Manufacturers 

Association (VI-D-149); South Carolina Electric & Gas Company 

(VI-D-116); Southern Company Services (VI-D-171); Specialty Steel 

Industry of North America (VI-D-143); Steel Manufacturers Association 

(SMA) (VI-D-144); Texas Utilities Services, Inc. (VI-D-121); The Society of 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 304 

the Plastics Industry, Inc. (VI-D-148); Utility Air Regulatory Group 

(VI-D-140); Wisconsin Electric Power Company (VI-D-130) 

Comment b: Two commenters expressed concern about a specific emission limit 

whose stringency would be increased by CAM. These commenters 

stated that the NSPS for Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen 

Decarburization vessels (40 CFR Part 60, Subparts AA and AAa) set 

opacity standards at 3 percent to correlate with NSPS particulate 

standards of 0.0052 gr/dscf. The commenters stated that this standard 

essentially requires no visible emissions, complied with through Method 9 

testing. The commenters note that some electric arc furnace facilities are 

also required to install CEMS or COMS, and that under the current 

proposal, such facilities would have to use these systems to comply with 

CAM and establish an indicator range for COMS monitoring. They stated 

that this would be difficult because the 3 percent "no visible emissions" 

standard does not have room for an indicator range to be established 

below the standard. In addition, the commenters pointed out that EPA 

has determined that all COMS have an inherent potential positive bias of 

7.5 percent opacity, meaning that a source using a COMS could report a 

7.5 percent opacity reading when the actual opacity was zero. The 

commenters explained that under CAM, this false reading could have to 

be reported as a deviation in a compliance certification, could trigger a 

QIP, and could be used as credible evidence of an emissions violation 

where there was no actual violation. 

Response: To address this comment, the final rule clarifies that an indicator range for 

a COMS may be the same as the opacity standard established for a 

pollutant-specific emissions unit where appropriate for meeting the 

general criteria in § 64.3(a)(2). The Agency does not believe this 

rulemaking is an appropriate forum for resolving commenter’s claims 

regarding potential COMS bias, and thus will not address the substance of 

the commenters' claim that COMS generally have a potential high bias of 

7.5 percent opacity. However, the Agency does note that the issue of 

any potential high bias in readings from a COMS (or any other monitoring 

instrument) will be taken into account in evaluating monitoring reports and 

compliance certifications, and determining what follow-up actions, if any, 

use appropriate (including the implementation of a QIP). It does not, 

however, affect the owner or operator's obligations to report 

measurements above the opacity standard (and part 64 indicator range, if 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 305 

applicable) as exceedances/excursions, even if the measurements are 

within the potential bias. 

Letter(s): Specialty Steel Industry of North America (VI-D-143); Steel Manufacturers 

Association (SMA) (VI-D-144) 

Section 14.2 Relationship of CAM and Credible Evidence (CE) Rule

Comment a: A number of comments addressed the relationship between CAM and the 

credible evidence rule, stating that the impact of the CAM rule on 

enforcement concerns cannot be fully determined without consideration of 

the interaction of CAM with the proposed credible evidence regulations. 

Some commenters stated that the preamble to the draft CAM rule and the 

discussion at the September 10, 1996 stakeholder meeting demonstrate 

that the CAM rule and the credible evidence rule are inextricably 

connected. 

Commenters also recommended that, because one rule cannot be 

evaluated without considering the other, EPA should issue a new proposal 

that combines both rules for public comment. Some commenters stated 

that separating issues under the CE rule and CAM forces a bifurcated and 

inefficient consideration of what are, in fact, linked elements. Two other 

commenters also expressed concern about the omission of the "credible 

evidence" portion of the proposal under the CAM rule. The commenters 

stated that they recognize that these concerns may be allayed by the 

imminent publication of the CE rule as a separate document, but one 

commenter added that EPA should better explain its enforcement strategy 

under CE and CAM and in the context of the definition of "reasonable 

assurance of compliance." One commenter added that proposing and 

beginning implementation of CAM separate from the credible evidence 

rule will result in the misinterpretation of CAM, confusion among the 

regulated community and permit writers, misguided and overly stringent 

monitoring proposals, and counterproductive challenges to the program's 

contents. The commenter concluded that both programs will suffer from 

separate promulgation. 

Response: In general, the above comments all state that the CE Revisions and the 

CAM proposal are inextricably connected, impact each other, and should 

be proposed together in order for meaningful public comment from 

interested stakeholders. The Agency reviewed these comments but 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 306 

decided to proceed with the CE rulemaking separately from this 

rulemaking for several reasons. First, the Agency decided to 

promulgate the CE Revisions separate from part 64 because the two 

programs are different in scope. The CE Revisions are not limited to part 

64 data or information collected pursuant to a part 70 permit generally. 

Other types of CE could include information from monitoring that is not 

required by regulation (such as monitoring conducted pursuant to a 

consent agreement or a specific section 114 request) or information from 

inspections by the permitting authority. In addition, the CE Revisions 

affect all sources regulated by 40 CFR parts 51, 52, 60, and 61, not just 

sources who will be covered by 40 CFR part 64. Thus, although sources 

covered by this rulemaking will be affected by the CE Revisions, both the 

sources covered by this rulemaking and the data generated by this 

rulemaking are a subset of the sources and potential credible evidence 

addressed in the CE Revisions. Therefore, it was appropriate for the 

Agency to promulgate these two rulemakings separately. See 62 FR 

8314 for a discussion of the scope of the CE Revisions. 

Second, the CE Revisions and this rulemaking did not need to be 

promulgated together because these regulations have different statutory 

bases. The Agency promulgated the CE Revisions based primarily on 

section 113(a) of the Act, which authorizes EPA to bring an administrative, 

civil or criminal action "on the basis of any information available to the 

Administrator." See 62 FR at 8320-23. The part 64 regulations, 

however, respond to the statutory mandates of the CAA Amendments of 

1990, including but not limited to section 114(a)(3). Therefore, the 

statutory basis for these two rules are different, supporting their separate 

promulgation. 

Finally, the Agency believes that there was sufficient opportunity for all 

interested parties to comment on any perceived relationship or any 

substantive issues regarding the proposed credible evidence revisions 

and the CAM proposal before the promulgation of the CE Revisions in 

February, 1997, and the finalization of part 64. The Agency released a 

public draft of the CAM approach in September, 1995, and then 

conducted a public meeting in April, 1996, on the credible evidence 

revisions. The Agency accepted public comments on the credible 

evidence rulemaking and the CAM proposal between September, 1995, 

and the promulgation of the CE Revisions. For example, when EPA 

released the 1996 CAM draft it specifically asked commenters to assume 

that the CE revisions would be promulgated. Thus, all interested parties 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 307 

had the opportunity to comment on the two proposals and the Agency 

received numerous comments on this topic before the CE Revisions were 

promulgated. 

In addition, there was also ample opportunity for public comment on any 

perceived relationship after promulgation of the CE Revisions and before 

the finalization of part 64. The Agency released a public draft of the CAM 

approach in August, 1996, and held several public meetings regarding the 

proposal. The Agency also reopened the comment period on Part 64 on 

April 25, 1997, (62 FR 20147) to allow for comments on the relationship 

between part 64 and the CE Revisions. Thus, all interested stakeholders 

had the opportunity to comment on the relationship between part 64 and 

the CE Revisions before each of these rulemakings were promulgated. 

Letter(s): American Petroleum Institute (VI-D-146); American Gas Association 

(VI-D-154); American Electric Power (VI-D-129); American Public Power 

Association (VI-D-158); Centerior Energy (VI-D-134); Chemical 

Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); Dow Chemical Company 

(VI-D-120); Eli Lilly Company (VI-D-124); Enron Operations Corp. 

(VI-D-235); State of Illinois EPA (VI-D-183); Independent Liquid Terminals 

Association (VI-D-178); Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas 

Association (VI-D-184); Mobil Corporation (VI-D-115); Natural Gas 

Pipeline Company of America (VI-D-118); Ohio Chamber of Commerce, 

et. al. (VI-D-160); Pennzoil Company (VI-D-133); Questar Corporation 

(VI-D-220); Southern California Gas Company (VI-D-222); Specialty 

Steel Industry of North America (VI-D-143); Steel Manufacturers 

Association (SMA) (VI-D-144); Tennessee Valley Authority (VI-D-162); 

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (VI-D-189); The 

Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. (VI-D-148); Wellman, Inc. (VI-D-237) 

Comment b: Two commenters stated that the separate promulgation of the credible 

evidence rule and CAM results from the settlement in the Sierra Club v. 

Browner litigation. The commenters argued that the settlement is 

procedurally flawed because it was not properly noticed for comment 

pursuant to section 113(g) of the Act, and therefore, the deadlines 

established in that settlement are unenforceable. 

Response: Although the timing of the promulgation of the CE Revisions and part 64 

may result from the settlement in Sierra Club v. Browner, the Agency 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 308 

promulgated the two regulations separately because they have different 

scopes and justifications as discussed above. 

Letter(s): Cinergy Corp. (VI-D-141); Ohio Chamber of Commerce, et. al. (VI-D-160) 

Comment c: Several commenters recommended that EPA at least reconsider its 

decision to finalize the credible evidence rule without providing an 

opportunity for submitting meaningful comments on the interaction of 

credible evidence and CAM. One commenter added that without the 

benefit of simultaneously reviewing the draft CAM and credible evidence 

rules, it is impossible to effectively determine the impacts of either rule. 

Commenters also stated that States and other affected parties also 

cannot comment appropriately on the CAM rule. For example, one 

commenter stated, it is unclear how EPA will reconcile indicator range 

excursions with source operating conditions in the context of using the 

excursions as credible evidence. As another example, commenters 

stated that it is not clear if EPA or a permitting authority could use an 

excursion from an indicator range, which is an enforceable permit term, as 

evidence in an enforcement action under the credible evidence rule where 

there has been no exceedance of an emission limit or other applicable 

requirement. One commenter suggested that at the very least, the CAM 

public comment period should be extended two weeks beyond the release 

of the final credible evidence revisions to allow comment on the 

enforcement of CAM. 

Response: The Agency believes that both the 1996 part 64 Draft and the preamble of 

the CE Revisions published in the FR discussed in some detail the 

interaction of CE and CAM and the Agency’s enforcement policies with 

respect to these regulations. Therefore, stakeholders were on notice of 

the Agency’s views on how these two rules relate to one another before 

the Agency reopened the comment period on part 64 on April 25, 1997 

(62 FR 20147) to allow for comments on the relationship of part 64 and 

the recently promulgated credible evidence rule (62 FR 8314, February 

24, 1997). The comments submitted during the reopened comment 

period on this relationship are summarized and responded to elsewhere in 

this document. 

Letter(s): American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); Chevron 

Companies (VI-D-132); Cinergy Corp. (VI-D-141); Clean Air 

Implementation Project (VI-D-153); Exxon Company, USA (VI-D-135); 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 309 

Mobil Corporation (VI-D-115); Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America 

(VI-D-118); NorAm Gas Transmission Company (VI-D-142); Ohio 

Chamber of Commerce, et. al. (VI-D-160); Pharmaceutical Research and 

Manufacturers of America (VI-D-217); Southern California Gas Company 

(VI-D-222); Virginia Power (VI-D-226) 

Comment d: Some commenters recommended that the CAM rule expressly provide 

that information generated under CAM plans is not credible evidence for 

purposes of establishing a violation. Two commenters stated that EPA 

should prevent the use of CAM data for enforcement actions or citizen 

suits unless the data demonstrates a violation of permit conditions. Two 

commenters explained that for parameter excursions to prove an emission 

limit violation the monitored parameter must be directly related to the 

emission limit and the emission limit must have applied at the operating 

conditions at which the excursion occurred. One commenter noted that 

the CAM proposal states that, under the CE rule, EPA or the owner or 

operator will have the burden of proof that a violation has or has not 

occurred based on adequate information to support a predicted outcome 

of a compliance test. The commenter expressed concern that where 

"adequate information" is lacking the owner or operator will be required or 

forced to perform a compliance test to defend its position. Other 

commenters stated that using CAM data to indicate a need for testing 

would be appropriate while using the same data to directly prove a 

violation would not be. 

A commenter expressed concern about the tremendous increase in the 

amount of monitoring and recordkeeping that will be required by the CAM 

rule where the commenter lacks knowledge of how EPA will use this 

information to determine if enforcement actions are needed under the CE 

rule. 

Response: Complete compliance with an approved part 64 monitoring plan does not 

shield a source from enforcement actions for violations of applicable 

requirements of the Act if credible evidence proves violations of applicable 

emission limitations or standards. EPA expects that a unit that is 

operating within appropriately established indicator ranges as part of 

approved monitoring will, in fact, be in compliance with its applicable 

limits. Part 64 does not prohibit the Agency, however, from undertaking 

enforcement where appropriate (such as cases where the part 64 

indicator ranges may have been set improperly and other data such as 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 310 

information collected during an inspection provides clear evidence that 

enforcement action is warranted). 

If a party (EPA, a state or local agency, or public citizens) brings an 

enforcement action to enforce applicable standards under the Act for a 

source covered by part 64, the party may be able to use CAM information 

as credible evidence of a violation if the credible evidence satisfies the 

criteria set forth in the CE Revisions -- that the evidence is relevant to 

whether the source would have been in compliance with applicable 

requirements if the appropriate performance or compliance test had been 

performed. 

Letter(s): American Gas Association (VI-D-154); American Automobile 

Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); Association of Battery Recyclers 

(VI-D-155); Chemical Manufacturers Association (VI-D-258); Colorado 

Association of Commerce and Industry (VI-D-182); Coastal Corporation 

(VI-D-271); Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. (VI-D-246); Occidental 

Chemical Corporation (VI-D-261); Pharmaceutical Research and 

Manufacturers of America (VI-D-217); Utility Air Regulatory Group 

(VI-D-252); Wellman, Inc. (VI-D-237) 

Comment e: Several commenters stated that the proposal to use information 

generated by CAM monitoring as credible evidence to demonstrate the 

existence of a violation is legally unfounded and would increase the 

stringency of many standards. Some commenters also stated that the 

credible evidence proposal, together with defining all CAM exceedances 

and excursions as deviations, improperly changes the focus of CAM and 

raises the same stringency problems as the enhanced monitoring 

proposal. A commenter stated that minor improvements in the CAM rule 

give little comfort to the regulated community in light of the CE rule's 

unauthorized alteration of underlying standards. 

Two commenters argued that because CAM has the potential to be used 

as credible evidence, CAM would increase the stringency of underlying 

rules by fundamentally altering the compliance determination procedures 

established in those rules. The commenters stated that a numerical 

emission limit cannot be divorced from the methods of determining 

compliance, and included several references to support this position. 

The commenters also stated that because of the credible evidence rule, 

the draft CAM rule would impose continuous compliance determination 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 311 

methods on sources that are currently only subject to periodic compliance 

testing. This type of change requires formal rulemaking for the applicable 

standard being affected. In addition, the use of CAM data for certifying 

compliance in light of the credible evidence rule will create substantial 

uncertainty for the certification program and improperly expose managers 

to potential liability on inconclusive information.

A commenter stated that the proposed CAM and CE rules will result in 

increased stringency of emission standards, increased compliance costs 

and administrative burdens, greater uncertainty regarding what constitutes 

compliance, and increased liability regarding enforcement actions and 

citizen suits. The commenter noted that these burdens will acutely affect 

utilities operating in areas of the country with already tightened emission 

standards like California and the northeast. Another commenter added 

that these increased costs are particularly unwarranted in attainment 

areas. 

Response: The above comments all claim that the combination of part 64 with the CE 

rule will increase the stringency of emission limitations because 

information generated under part 64 could be used for enforcement of 

emission violations. The Agency disagrees with these comments 

because the CE rule revisions are evidentiary rules that do not affect any 

underlying emission standards. As stated in the final preamble to the CE 

rulemaking, the revisions do not increase the stringency of any applicable 

requirement because “they maintain the focus of the compliance 

determination on whether or not the appropriate reference test would have 

shown a violation.” 62 FR at 8323. Monitoring under part 64 will provide 

more data regarding compliance with emission standards; however, the 

collection of more compliance-related data has no effect on the stringency 

of the emission standard. The EPA also disagrees with commenters’ 

assertion that continuous compliance is not required for many emission 

standards. Under the Act, its regulations, and the case law, a source’s 

compliance with emission limitations must be continuous (consistent with 

any averaging times) except where a particular emission standard 

specifically provides for periods of noncompliance. For a more detailed 

explanation of EPA’s position that the CE revisions do not increase the 

stringency of emission standards, see 62 FR at 8323-8327. 

Letters: American Public Power Association (VI-D-158); BP Oil Company 

(VI-D-113); Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry (VI-D-182); 

Council of Industrial Boiler Operators (VI-D-263); Hawaiian Electric 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 312 

Company, Inc. (VI-D-246); Independent Liquid Terminals Association 

(VI-D-178); Mobil Corporation (VI-D-115); Ohio Chamber of Commerce, 

et. al. (VI-D-160); Rubber Manufacturers Association (VI-D-149); South 

Carolina Electric & Gas Company (VI-D-116); Specialty Steel Industry of 

North America (VI-D-143); Steel Manufacturers Association (SMA) 

(VI-D-144); Utility Air Regulatory Group (VI-D-252); Utility Air Regulatory 

Group (VI-D-140) 

Comment f: Another commenter noted that EPA has indicated that credible evidence 

generated by part 64 may not by itself be sufficient to prove a violation of 

an emission standard. The commenter expressed support for this 

statement. As an illustration, the commenter stated that when a 

parameter goes outside a range, it does not demonstrate noncompliance; 

it means only that compliance is not demonstrated, even though the unit 

may actually be in compliance. The commenter expressed a desire to 

see the same position adopted in the credible evidence rulemaking, and 

noted that it is not really possible to separate the two rulemakings as EPA 

desires. 

Response: The commenter’s statement that information generated by part 64 may 

not by itself be sufficient to prove a violation of an emission standard is 

correct. As stated by the Agency in the preamble to the final rule, while 

staying within appropriately established indicator ranges gives a 

reasonable assurance of compliance, excursions from a source’s indicator 

ranges does not necessarily indicate noncompliance. The Agency may 

investigate such excursions for possible violations and may use any 

credible evidence, which may include part 64 information, to prove any 

violation of an emission standard. 

Letter(s): Dow Chemical Company (VI-D-120) 

Comment g: An environmental organization argued that the 1996 part 64 Draft fails to 

do what Congress intended since it does not require monitoring that will 

produce data that can be considered credible evidence of emission limit 

violations. 

Response: Although the final part 64 does not require monitoring that will produce 

data statistically correlated to emission limitations, the Agency believes 

that the final part 64 does comply with section 114(a)(3)’s requirements 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 313 

concerning enhanced monitoring and compliance certification. In 

addition, information collected under part 64 may, in many circumstances, 

constitute credible evidence on the issue of whether a source is complying 

with emission limitations. 

Letter(s): Natural Resources Defense Council (VI-D-244) 

Comment h: Commenters requested EPA to clarify if the intent of part 64 is to 

encourage good maintenance of air pollution control equipment or to use 

monitoring data directly for enforcement purposes. If the latter, one 

commenter stated, EPA should propose the CAM and CE rules together. 

 Another commenter added that using CAM information pursuant to the 

credible evidence rule would result in an "un-level playing field" since 

different sources subject to the same standard will have different methods 

of demonstrating compliance. This commenter stated that this use of 

CAM information is unfair because it converts CAM from a rule that 

facilitates compliance through the generation of information indicative of 

compliance to a rule that facilitates enforcement. 

Response: As stated in the final preamble to part 64, the purpose of this rule is to 

document continued operation of the control measures within ranges of 

specified indicators of performance that are designed to provide a 

reasonable assurance of compliance with all applicable requirements. 

Thus, the purpose of this rule is facilitate compliance with applicable 

requirements not to specifically facilitate enforcement. This does not 

mean, however, that the information obtained from part 64 cannot be 

used for enforcement purposes if it is credible evidence of a source’s 

noncompliance with applicable requirements. 

Letter(s): Integrated Waste Services Association (VI-D-147); Pharmaceutical 

Research and Manufacturers of America (VI-D-217); Texas Natural 

Resource Conservation Commission (VI-D-256) 

Comment i: One commenter stated that credible evidence should apply to all of the 

monitoring requirements included by a State in a Title V permit, since any 

requirements would be based on either State requirements or CAM 

requirements and would therefore be within the realm of the CAM rule and 

EPA's intent to treat information generated by CAM monitoring as credible 

evidence. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 314 

Response: The credible evidence rule does apply to any monitoring included in the 

permit as well as any other information that may become available. 

Letter(s): State of Illinois EPA (VI-D-183) 

Comment j: One commenter stated that CAM data should be understood to be fairly 

indicative of the potential credible evidence available to be used in 

compliance determinations. Likewise, compliance with a CAM plan should 

be considered compliance with the underlying emission limits, thereby 

providing a "CAM shield." 

Response: The Agency agrees that part 64 data will be fairly indicative of the 

potential credible evidence available because it will encompass much of 

the monitoring contained in a part 70 permit. However, the extent to 

which part 64 data will constitute sufficiently credible evidence to prove 

compliance or non-compliance in an enforcement action will require a 

case-by-case evaluation. Finally, see Section I.E. of the preamble to the 

final rule for a discussion of why EPA disagrees with the concept of an 

enforcement shield in the context of part 64. 

Letter(s): American Municipal Power - Ohio (VI-D-159) 

Section 14.3: Purpose of CAM and its Role in Enforcement

Comment a: Several commenters argued that the draft proposal reflects a shift toward 

a more enforcement-oriented approach for CAM. Some commenters 

stated that the CAM rule, contrary to its stated intent, creates many 

enforcement issues. One commenter expressed concern that the 

emphasis of the CAM rule had shifted from compliance assurance to 

creation of enforcement opportunities and that enforcement actions may 

not be limited to situations where there is real, significant noncompliance. 

 A commenter explained that bad actors will still hide their deeds from the 

agency while those acting in good faith will now be subjected to extensive 

review of huge amounts of data. Commenters also stated that the 

original approach held out the opportunity for a truly reinvented, common 

sense approach, but the 1996 part 64 draft appeared to favor the 

traditional, command and control, enforcement oriented approach. 

Another commenter recommended that EPA use CAM to provide a 

positive inducement for compliance, rather than focusing on the ability to 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 315 

punish sources that are attempting to meet extremely difficult and 

sometimes impossible compliance requirements. 

Some commenters stated that when CAM was originally devised, it was 

based on the idea that the interests of all stakeholders would be best 

served by a system that provided a reasonable assurance of compliance 

through monitoring that was indicative of compliance. According to these 

commenters, the revised CAM draft moved back to the enforcement 

orientation of the proposed EM rule and subjected sources to multiple new 

enforceable requirements related to the development and implementation 

of CAM plans. Commenters noted several examples: (1) the ability of 

permitting authorities to make parametric levels independently 

enforceable; (2) implementation of a QIP more than once during a permit 

term constituting a violation of CAM; (3) omission of the draft "deviation" 

definition in part 70 would allow permitting authorities to make deviations 

new, separately enforceable requirements; (4) requiring numerous CAM 

plan elements to be included in Part 70 permits as enforceable 

requirements; (5) CAM development and implementation requirements 

constituting separately enforceable requirements (such as submitting a 

justification for proposed monitoring) and (6) the statement in the 

preamble to the revised CAM draft that information generated by CAM 

monitoring may be used as "credible evidence" to show the existence of a 

violation either in Agency enforcement actions or citizen suits. Another 

commenter added that the multiplicity of new requirements significantly 

increases the risk of enforcement where no underlying requirement has 

been violated and without providing any benefit to the environment. 

Response: The Agency believes that the final rule, including the revised general 

criteria language in § 64.3(a), properly reflects the CAM approach of 

providing a reasonable assurance of compliance by documenting that a 

pollutant-specific emissions unit is operated and maintained so as to 

remain in compliance across its anticipated operating conditions. Many 

of the specific comments have been addressed in the final rule and in 

response to comments under Section 14.1 (Part III), above. However, as 

noted in that section, part 64 is an independent applicable requirement, 

and as such will result in some independently enforceable requirements, 

such as an obligation to submit the appropriate rationale to support 

proposed monitoring. In response to comments on the 1996 part 64 

Draft, the Agency has attempted to limit these types of requirements to 

those which the Agency believes are essential to effective implementation 

of part 64. Comments related to credible evidence have been discussed 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 316 

in Section I.E. of the Final Rule Preamble and Section 14.2 (Part III), 

above. 

Letter(s): American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); Association 

of Battery Recyclers (VI-D-155); Centerior Energy (VI-D-134); Chemical 

Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); Chevron Companies (VI-D-132); 

Clean Air Implementation Project (VI-D-153); Coastal Corporation 

(VI-D-271); Electronic Industries Association (VI-D-137); Independent 

Liquid Terminals Association (VI-D-178); Mobil Corporation (VI-D-115); 

Ohio Chamber of Commerce, et. al. (VI-D-160); Pharmaceutical Research 

and Manufacturers of America (VI-D-217) 

Comment b: One commenter stated that because of the credible evidence rule, the 

requirement to develop new continuous compliance methods under CAM, 

and the definition of CAM excursions as deviations and exceptions to 

compliance, the rule creates the ability for parties to allege violations 

through CAM. The commenter stated that although EPA states that it or 

anyone else seeking to use credible evidence will carry the burden of 

proof, that requirement is undone by the fact that CAM requires indicator 

ranges to be established during tests. According to the commenter, the 

burden will shift back to the source to document why subsequent data 

should not be considered consistent with the relationship initially 

established. 

Response: The Agency disagrees that part 64 establishes new continuous 

compliance methods. Part 64 requires monitoring to provide a 

reasonable assurance of compliance with existing requirements; it does 

not change the method established in a particular standard as the 

compliance test method for that standard. The reasonable assurance is 

provided by maintaining key parameters within operating ranges that 

reflect proper operation and maintenance of the control device, in 

accordance with applicable design properties, for minimizing emissions at 

least to the levels required to achieve compliance. The final rule 

generally requires the ranges to be set at least in part based on 

performance test data to establish an appropriate baseline for the specific 

unit; the rule does not contemplate a statistical correlation of emissions 

and parameters across the whole range of potential emissions. See 

Section II.D.2. of the Final Rule Preamble for further discussion. 

Letter(s): Mobil Corporation (VI-D-115); Mobil Corporation (VI-D-248) 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 317 

Comment c: Another commenter added that the extensive review a responsible official 

will need to do to certify compliance in light of the CE rule seems contrary 

to the 5th amendment. 

Response: Reporting and compliance certification requirements such as imposed by 

Part 70 do not implicate the Fifth Amendment. See United States v. 

Ward, 448 U.S. 916 (1980). 

Letter(s): Coastal Corporation (VI-D-271) 

Comment d: One commenter stated that its experience has been that EPA 

enforcement guidance are not relied on and enforcement policy is 

therefore unpredictable. The commenter asserted that sources are, in 

effect, guilty until proven innocent. Thus, the commenter recommended, 

EPA should convert its current enforcement guidelines to regulation so 

that all parties understand what constitutes compliance in terms of 

monitoring availability and adherence to emission standards. 

Response: These comments are beyond the scope of this rulemaking and will not be 

addressed in this response to comments. 

Letter(s): Public Service Company of Colorado (VI-D-219) 

Comment e: Another commenter stated that the enforcement aspects of the rule create 

uncertainty; for example, the decision to issue notices of violations for 

indicator range deviations will become a subjective decision by individual 

inspectors or enforcement agencies. A second commenter suggested 

that EPA clarify what effect existing federal and State compliance 

enforcement policies will have on the designation of exceedances. A 

state agency recommended reducing uncertainty by allowing permitting 

authorities to define which CAM data are considered credible evidence. 

Another commenter recommended that the CAM rule impose only two 

applicable requirements in order to reduce enforcement concerns: the 

obligation to have a CAM plan and the requirement to report deviations. 

The commenter noted that this would also simplify the permit modification 

process since CAM plan changes would not require permit changes. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 318 

Response: Because the final part 64 rule does not require that monitoring provide the 

degree of certainty that would have been provided by enhanced 

monitoring proposed in 1993, EPA recognizes that the interpretation of 

data for potential use in an enforcement action will be subject to some 

degree of uncertainty. However, the Agency believes that the standards 

included in the final CE rulemaking for what constitutes credible evidence 

clarify adequately the degree of certainty required before non-reference 

test method data, including part 64 data, can be used to determine the 

existence of a violation. 

Letter(s): American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); Coalition for 

Clean Air Implementation (VI-D-249); DuPont Engineering (VI-D-127); 

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (VI-D-256); Virginia 

Power (VI-D-226) 

Comment f: Commenters also argued that the enforcement aspects of the draft CAM 

rule create disincentives for developing strong CAM plans with indicator 

ranges below emission limits. One commenter stated that although 

States have the power to be more stringent, EPA should discourage this 

approach. According to this commenter, penalizing deviations will result in 

sources proposing as little monitoring as possible and setting indicator 

ranges at the same level as emission standards, which frustrates the 

goals of gaining more information about and reducing emissions. Other 

commenters stated that the potential that CAM data could be used as 

credible evidence provides disincentives for sources to perform more than 

the minimum monitoring and to bring possible problems to EPA's 

attention. A commenter stated that a focus on optimizing control 

performance rather than enforcement would encourage sources to set 

more ambitious indicator ranges and ease negotiations between sources 

and states. Another commenter predicted that the pressure placed on 

negotiations over part 64 monitoring by the CE rule could strangle the 

federal operating permits program in many states. 

 

In addition to comments stating that CE encourages sources to do the 

minimum amount of monitoring under CAM, some commenters argued 

that without an enforcement shield, the type of monitoring used will be 

racheted up because of the relationship between the two rules. A 

commenter argued that the CE rule pushes sources toward CAM 

protocols that are comparable to reference methods for actively controlled 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 319 

units and units without active controls. Another commenter stated that 

permitting authorities will negotiate CAM elements with the gathering of 

credible evidence in mind while sources will seek to develop CAM plans 

that do not produce credible evidence. However, another commenter 

stated that the potential for enforcement creates a disincentive for sources 

to directly monitor levels of emissions. The commenter reasoned that, 

because the credible evidence rule would allow for enforcement based on 

CAM data, sources would have a strong incentive to monitor only 

parameters which could not be correlated with emissions. One 

commenter stated that the rule generally seems to emphasize the 

enforcement consequences of excursions from indicator ranges. 

According to this commenter, the source has the burden of assuring 

compliance and should be provided incentives to generate improved 

monitoring without the fear of automatic presumptions of noncompliance. 

Similarly, several commenters stated that because of the enforcement 

consequences associated with QIPs, terms included in permits, the 

credible evidence rule, and similar concerns, sources will design CAM 

plans to minimize potential liability. These commenters pointed out that 

this is contrary to the original CAM objective of encouraging sources to set 

lower indicator ranges, which would provide early warning of potential 

operation and maintenance problems. One commenter added that the 

proper result could be achieved by making two changes in the draft rule: 

exceedances of indicator ranges should never be a violation, and there 

should be no enforcement liabilities associated with QIPs except for 

failure to carry them out. Another commenter added that the current draft 

of the CAM rule will result in more emissions to the atmosphere than it 

would if it did not provide a disincentive for setting indicator ranges well 

below the emissions limitations or standards. A commenter stated that 

enforcement aspects of the draft rule will inevitably lead to conflicts 

between permit writers and owner/operators seeking indicator ranges as 

close as possible to emission limits. Another commenter argued that 

sources should not be penalized for good faith mistakes, and those who 

are ready, willing and able to comply must be given clear guidance as to 

what compliance entails. This commenter concluded that there should be 

no unfunded increase in State burdens or additional impacts on sources 

without commensurate emission benefits. 

One commenter stated that EPA's stated goals for the CAM rule would be 

better served by relying on corrective action rather than creating 

enforcement opportunities. A second commenter argued that even if 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 320 

EPA itself does not bring enforcement action based on CAM excursions, 

or sources have certain defenses available, enforcement aspects frustrate 

the stated goals of CAM because sources tend to settle faced with 

litigation costs or permit agency enmity. 

In contrast, one commenter stated that CAM simply results in information 

and although the use of that information may raise enforcement concerns, 

the proper use of CAM data is to assure compliance, a use that does not 

raise enforcement concerns. This commenter also stated that the 

credible evidence rule is a discrete program with separate concerns, and 

that proper quality improvement planning should obviate the need for 

enforcement action in most instances. 

Response: The Agency disagrees that the potential enforcement consequences 

related to part 64 data will alter significantly the use of part 64 data to 

improve control performance. Section 64.3 of the final rule describes the 

minimum criteria for monitoring under part 64. The Agency believes that 

if a source meets these criteria, the monitoring will be adequate to provide 

a reasonable assurance of compliance. In addition, the Agency cannot 

expect that the majority of sources would go beyond the minimum 

requirements even if, for the sake of argument, no enforcement 

consequences existed at all. However, given that exceedances and 

excursions must be reported and considered in compliance certifications, 

EPA anticipates that prudent owners or operators will establish internal 

operating ranges as early warning signals to avoid excursions or 

exceedances. The Agency believes that this system of establishing 

separate ranges for regulatory and internal purposes fulfills the goals of 

CAM and will focus review of reported data on those situations for which 

compliance oversight may be warranted. This approach also reduces the 

unwarranted paperwork burdens that would be associated with EPA 

encouraging sources to set more stringent indicator ranges that may 

involve an increase in the number of false indications of control device 

problems that would have to be recorded and reported. 

Letter(s): American Gas Association (VI-D-255); American Petroleum Institute 

(VI-D-146); Association of Battery Recyclers (VI-D-155); Can 

Manufacturers Institute (VI-D-181); Can Manufacturers Institute 

(VI-D-262); Chemical Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); Clean Air 

Implementation Project (VI-D-153); Coalition for Clean Air Implementation 

(VI-D-249); Coastal Corporation (VI-D-271); DuPont Engineering 

(VI-D-127); El Paso Energy Corporation (VI-D-257); Gas Processors 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 321 

Association (VI-D-163); Institute of Clean Air Companies (VI-D-139); 

National Environmental Defense Association (VI-D-169); Pharmaceutical 

Research and Manufacturers of America (VI-D-217); State of 

Washington, Department of Ecology (VI-D-167); Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission (VI-D-189); Texas Title V Planning Committee 

(VI-D-188); UCAR Carbon Company (VI-D-122); Utility Air Regulatory 

Group (VI-D-252) 

Section 14.4: Effectiveness of CAM Information for Enforcement 

Comment a: Some commenters stated that they object to the draft proposal’s efforts to 

link control device performance with emission limitations. Two 

commenters asserted that much of the burden of CAM plan development 

will result from provisions (such as § 64.8(b)) requiring an applicant to 

demonstrate a relationship between the selected control device 

parameter(s) and the underlying emission rate. These commenters 

added that EPA's statements that parameter "discrepancies" can be used 

as a basis for enforcing underlying emission limits are based on the 

questionable assumption that there is a well-defined relationship between 

control device parameters and pollutant emission rates. One commenter 

recommended that the final rule confirm that no presumptions apply to the 

credibility of CAM data since this information could be given undue weight 

by states and courts. Commenters also stated that a relationship 

between control device parameters and the underlying emission rate does 

not need to be established to meet the CAM goal of establishing 

parameters that define good control device O&M. Commenters also 

stated that the parameter monitoring could serve as a indicator for further 

investigation and corrective action, but that it is inadequate to support 

actual enforcement. 

Response: The reasons for relying on performance testing to assist in establishing 

appropriate site-specific indicator ranges is discussed in section 8 (Part 

III), above. Part 64 does not create any presumption about the value of 

data from part 64 monitoring as potential credible evidence to prove a 

violation of an emission limit. As noted in the preamble to the final CE 

rule, any excursions from part 64 indicator ranges will have to be 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis (see 62 FR 8314, February 24, 1997). 

 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 322 

Letter(s): ASARCO Incorporated (VI-D-187); Coalition for Clean Air Implementation 

(VI-D-164); Gas Processors Association (VI-D-163); Kennecott 

Corporation (VI-D-119); The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. 

(VI-D-250); Texas Title V Planning Committee (VI-D-188) 

Comment b: A number of commenters noted EPA's statement in a letter from John 

Seitz dated June 3, 1996 that data from CAM plans will be one of the 

primary forms of "credible evidence" used in federal enforcement actions. 

One commenter asserted that the CAM draft must be revised to require a 

closer link between monitored parameters and actual emissions in order 

for CAM plan data to be a valid form of "credible evidence" for use in 

enforcement actions. 

Response: The referenced letter made this observation because the monitoring 

under part 64 will encompass all of the required monitoring for many 

emissions units with control devices. The letter was not intended to 

indicate that all part 64 monitoring data would constitute credible evidence 

in a particular circumstance. The Agency's position on the correlation 

issue is discussed in section 8 (Part III), above, and in Section II.D.2. of 

the preamble to the final rule. 

Letter(s): Coastal Corporation (VI-D-271); El Paso Energy Corporation (VI-D-257); 

NESCAUM (VI-D-192) 

Comment c: State and local agency commenters stated that the draft CAM rule does 

not provide an enforcement nexus with data collected. The commenters 

pointed out that permitting authorities need the ability to follow up as 

necessary to remedy compliance problems that are detected by CAM 

measures and requirements. An association of state and local authorities 

suggested a scheme for categorizing sources according to the type of 

monitoring used and specified enforceable terms to be included in permits 

for each type. Similarly, agencies recommended that the CAM rule 

establish that State and local agencies have the authority to enforce all 

elements of operating permits within their jurisdictions. The commenters 

noted that the draft proposed rule considers and supports State agency 

enforcement of existing permit conditions as well as those to be added by 

CAM, but expressed the belief that EPA must make it explicitly clear that 

State and local agencies have both the power and discretion to enforce all 

operating permit elements within those agencies' jurisdiction. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 323 

Response: The Agency disagrees that the rule does not provide an appropriate 

enforcement nexus with the data collected. First, if sources fail to 

respond appropriately to reported excursions, that failure would constitute 

a violation of part 64. In addition, under the CE rule, a reported 

exceedance or excursion can be used to prove a violation of a condition of 

the permit if the burdens of proof associated with that use of the data are 

met. Finally, a permitting authority may establish an indicator range as 

an enforceable condition of the permit consistent with its independent 

authority to assure compliance with the permit (see, e.g., 40 CFR 

70.6(a)(1)) 

Letter(s): City of Jacksonville AWQD (VI-D-272); State of Illinois EPA (VI-D-183); 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources (VI-D-260); STAPPA/ALAPCO 

(VI-D-179); STAPPA/ALAPCO (VI-D-274) 

Comment d: Some commenters argued that the draft CAM proposal would restrict 

citizens' right to know about and enforce emission standards. 

Commenters stated that operating permits and reports will not contain 

accurate emissions and compliance information, and that qualified opinion 

statements by owners and parameter data will not enable citizens to know 

about emissions and enforce emission standards. Commenters also 

stated that by requiring only monitoring of parameters not correlated with 

emissions, CAM does not provide the public with information about the 

number of people potentially exposed to air pollutants or the level of 

pollutants to which they have been exposed. Similarly, an environmental 

group argued that the draft CAM rule does not generate the kind of 

information contemplated by Congress. The commenter stated that the 

legislative history indicates that Congress intended the Act to produce 

certifications and data that facilitate enforcement. This commenter noted 

that the Senate Report compares the monitoring and certification 

requirements to those of the Clean Water Act, which require sources to 

monitor their actual discharges; however, the CAM rule fails to require 

sources to gather similar data. The commenter added that the Senate 

Report also states that compliance certification and emissions data will 

facilitate enforcement since they can be used as evidence, but the draft 

CAM rule would not facilitate enforcement, since even gross exceedances 

of CAM plan ranges will not establish a violation of emissions standards. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 324 

Response: The Agency has previously responded to certain of these comments 

directly in a letter from John Seitz (dated April 17, 1997) to various 

concerned parties (see Docket Item A-91-52-VI-C-17). With respect to 

"right to know" concerns, the Agency remained committed to its stated 

goals of providing all citizens with information about emissions to the 

environment. The Agency uses several tools to reach that goal, including 

the toxic release inventory, emission statements required under title I of 

the Act, emission estimates used to establish title V permit fees, and 

compliance monitoring data. In all these situations, however, the Agency 

must balance the cost of recordkeeping and reporting with the usefulness 

of the data for compliance assessment and the public's right to know. 

The Agency believes that in the context of a broadly applicable monitoring 

rule, the final part 64 rule properly balances those considerations. 

The EPA does not agree that part 64 is inconsistent with the legislative 

history for section 114(a)(3). The Senate Report cited by the commenter 

noted that data submitted under section 114(a)(3) could be used for 

enforcement purposes as are data submitted under the reporting 

requirements of the Clean Water Act. Although the monitoring under part 

64 will, at times, differ from the type of monitoring required under the 

Clean Water Act, data gathered under part 64 will be available for 

enforcement purposes. 

Letter(s): American Lung Association et. al. (VI-D-238); Clean Steel Coalition 

(VI-D-195); Institute of Clean Air Companies (VI-D-139); Natural 

Resources Defense Council (VI-D-151); Natural Resources Defense 

Council (VI-D-267 and 268); Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter (VI-D-242) 

Section 14.5: CAM Shield

Comment a: Several commenters recommended that the CAM rule provide a shield 

that would protect a source fully complying with CAM from enforcement of 

emission limitations or standards. One commenter argued that the 

availability of a CAM shield could encourage owners and operators to 

voluntarily subject additional emission units to the CAM requirements, 

which would further the original CAM concept of encouraging sources to 

obtain additional monitoring data to help ensure proper operation and 

maintenance. Other commenters stated that the failure to offer a shield 

against enforcement under the credible evidence rule to sources in 

compliance with a CAM plan aggravates concerns relating to the 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 325 

interaction of the CAM rule and the credible evidence rule including the 

disincentive for establishing indicators below emission limits. 

Commenters also stated that without a CAM shield, this interaction allows 

CAM improperly to have it both ways: deviations from established 

indicator ranges can be used as credible evidence, but there is no 

protection for sources that stay within their ranges. A commenter added 

that a source that is complying with its CAM obligations, including any QIP 

obligations, should not be subject to an enforcement action unless the 

source has failed a reference method test. 

A commenter asserted that the rule requires sources to set indicator 

ranges at levels below the emission limits and that, therefore, sources that 

comply with the rigorous CAM monitoring requirements should be 

shielded from additional enforcement actions. One commenter stated 

that compliance with a CAM plan should be considered compliance with 

the underlying emission limits. Another commenter asserted that if the 

goal of CAM is to require corrective action in response to problems with 

control device performance, then proper monitoring and corrective action 

should shield a source from allegations of noncompliance, because the 

trigger for corrective action in the absence of compliance method data 

does not necessarily indicate a violation. Finally, one commenter 

reasoned that compliance with a good CAM will preclude the existence of 

other factors indicating non-compliance and EPA, therefore, would 

sacrifice no enforcement opportunities by providing a shield. The 

commenter also viewed the lack of a shield as an indication that EPA 

retains the right to reject previously accepted part 64 monitoring at any 

time, and stated that this is unfair and creates uncertainty. Another 

commenter agreed that the approach deprives sources of fair notice as to 

what is required of them. 

Some commenters made specific suggestions for a CAM shield. One 

commenter recommended that industry should earn CAM shields by 

providing data that establishes the relationship between monitored 

parameters and actual emissions. Sources that could demonstrate such 

a relationship through a methodology approved by EPA or the state would 

not be given the protection of the shield. According to the commenter, 

this approach is preferable to the current CAM shield proposal, which 

places the burden of determining the adequacy of a proposed CAM plan 

on permitting authorities. Some commenters expressed support for a 

shield that would prevent the use of CAM data for citizen suits or any 

federal enforcement action, including notices of violations and fines, 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 326 

unless the source had violated the permit conditions implementing the 

CAM plan. According to these commenters, such a shield would be 

necessary for the CAM rule to remain consistent with its goals of 

promoting good O&M of control devices and techniques. A commenter 

explained that the Agency should provide a shield that recognizes that 

CAM is designed to accomplish quicker problem identification and 

resolution and the data are suited only for that purpose. Another 

commenter recommended allowing permitting authorities to provide 

limited exclusions on the use of CAM data for enforcement based on a 

percent of time or conditions such as startup, shutdown or malfunction. 

Two commenters added that if EPA or a citizen group wanted to bring an 

action against a source that was in compliance with its CAM plan, they 

should have the burden of demonstrating that the CAM plan was 

insufficient, that the source knew the plan was insufficient, and that a 

reference test would have shown an emissions violation if it had been 

conducted. 

A commenter stated that if a source experiences a major excursion or 

exceedance while operating in good faith under a QIP (as indicated by 

factors such as prompt action and notification), the rule should provide 

some shield from agency enforcement action and citizens suits. The 

commenter recommended that if this subject cannot be addressed in the 

CAM rule, it should be addressed in the CE rule. Another commenter 

stated generally that a source should be shielded from credible evidence 

rule enforcement if the source is operating under a QIP. 

Response: See Section I.E. of the Final Rule Preamble for a discussion of why EPA 

disagrees with the concept of an enforcement shield in the context of part 

64. 

Letter(s): American Gas Association (VI-D-255); American Municipal Power - Ohio 

(VI-D-159); American Petroleum Institute (VI-D-146); BP Oil Company 

(VI-D-113); Can Manufacturers Institute (VI-D-262); Chemical 

Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); Chevron Companies (VI-D-132); 

Clean Air Implementation Project (VI-D-153); Coalition for Clean Air 

Implementation (VI-D-164); Coalition for Clean Air Implementation 

(VI-D-249); Coastal Corporation (VI-D-123); Coastal Corporation 

(VI-D-249); Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry (VI-D-182); 

El Paso Energy Corporation (VI-D-257); Fertilizer Institute (VI-D-253); 

Integrated Waste Services Association (VI-D-147); Questar Corporation 

(VI-D-220); State of New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection 

(VI-D-215); Specialty Steel Industry of North America (VI-D-143); Steel 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 327 

Manufacturers Association (SMA) (VI-D-144); Texas Title V Planning 

Committee (VI-D-188); The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. 

(VI-D-250); Utility Air Regulatory Group (VI-D-252)

Comment b: One commenter suggested that a source that voluntarily develops part 64 

monitoring that provides an extra margin of protection is voluntarily 

reporting more than it is required to and should get the protection offered 

by EPA's audit policy. 

Response: If an owner or operator voluntarily establishes an indicator range that 

more than satisfies the minimum requirements of part 64, and includes 

that range as the range which triggers the reporting and corrective action 

requirements of part 64, the information reported would be required 

information, and thus the audit policy would not apply. 

Letter(s): American Gas Association (VI-D-255) 

Section 14.6: Miscellaneous

Comment a: One commenter recommended revising the CAM rule so that it applies 

only to approved local programs. According to this commenter, this 

change would be necessary to prevent local governments from using 

CAM as nothing more than a local revenue enhancing mechanism. 

Response: The Agency is uncertain as to what the commenter meant by this 

comment. However, in accordance with part 70, all permitting authorities 

have been required to demonstrate the authority to implement any 

enhanced monitoring regulations promulgated under the Act, and EPA will 

assure that all permitting authorities implement part 64 so that at least the 

minimum monitoring necessary to satisfy part 64 is adopted. In addition, 

a permitting authority may require more stringent monitoring than 

necessary to satisfy part 64, using its independent authority. 

Letter(s): Southern Company Services (VI-D-171) 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 328 

Section 15: Procedural Issues

Section 15.1: Administrative Procedures Act

Comment a: A number of commenters argued that the CAM rule should or must be 

formally proposed to satisfy section 553(b) of the APA, which requires 

every notice of proposed rulemaking to be published in the Federal 

Register. Several commenters stated that the August 13, 1996 CAM 

notice of document availability did not satisfy the formal proposal 

requirement. Some commenters stated that the notice’s statement that 

the CAM draft was available on the TTN did not meet the requirements of 

the APA and that the notice limited availability of the document to those 

with the technological means to connect to the TTN. Two commenters 

also noted that the earlier CAM draft had stated that EPA planned to 

formally propose the CAM rulemaking. Some commenters also stated 

that EPA's failure to issue a full RIA with the August 13, 1996 notice was 

another reason that EPA had failed to satisfy the APA's notice and 

comment requirements. Another commenter urged EPA to formally 

repropose CAM with an RIA to allow review and public comment on the 

changes made to the proposed rule as a result of the current comment 

period. 

Some commenters stated that EPA must provide all interested parties 

with adequate notice of its intent to issue a final rule. Commenters 

further stated that adequate notice can only be provided by publishing a 

notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register describing the 

terms and substance of the proposed rule. The only exception is limited 

to notice for parties named in a proposed rule who may be personally 

served or otherwise provided with actual notice. The commenters cited 

Rodway v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. One of these commenters added 

that the APA does not countenance any other sort of constructive notice, 

even in cases where publication in the Federal Register seems 

unnecessary, citing Riverbend Farms Inc. v. Madigan. Also, two 

commenters stated that EPA cannot ignore APA requirements just 

because the Agency must comply with statutory or court-ordered 

deadlines, such as the consent agreement governing CAM and the 

“credible evidence” rulemaking. These commenters cited Mobay 

Chemical Corp. v. Gorsuch, AISI v. EPA, and Sharon Steel Corp v. EPA. 

Further, commenters argued that the current CAM proposal does not 

satisfy APA notice and comment requirements because many issues 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 329 

(such as how indicator ranges are to be established, how CAM plans or 

monitoring protocols are to be modified, how SIPs should be revised to 

incorporate Part 64, and how EPA reached its conclusions about 

cost-effectiveness of the program (i.e., EPA failed to release an RIA)), are 

either not addressed or left unacceptably vague in the proposal. 

Commenters also stated that the CAM proposal is procedurally flawed 

because it does not provide adequate notice that would allow informed 

public comment. One commenter recommended that EPA revise and 

reissue the current draft of the CAM rule in draft form for additional public 

comment. This commenter stated that if a second draft were issued, it 

should be accompanied by a complete technical guidance document and 

a regulatory impact analysis in order to allow affected parties to better 

analyze the draft rule and prepare comments in response to the draft. 

Some commenters argued that there must be an appropriate opportunity 

for the entire regulated community to review and participate in discussion 

of a proposed CAM rule, and that without this type of formal proposal, it is 

impossible to comment meaningfully on the rule. 

Response: EPA believes the procedures it followed in promulgating the CAM rule fully 

complied with the notice requirements of section 307(d) of the CAA and 

section 553(b) of the APA. In fact, the procedures followed by EPA in 

this case far exceeded statutory requirements and demonstrated EPA’s 

responsiveness to the concerns of commenters. Ironically, the 

unprecedented nature of EPA’s efforts to obtain public comment on CAM 

is noted with approval by the some of the same commenters who have 

asserted EPA has committed procedural error. See, e.g., CMA, Cover 

letter (commending EPA for its “degree of openness”); CAIP, p. 1 (“We 

also want to commend the EPA staff, led by Peter Westlin, for their 

extensive efforts to solicit the viewpoints of all interested stakeholders 

during the development of the CAM program.”). 

As discussed in response to comment b, below, EPA believes that the 

final rule is justified as a logical outgrowth of the 1993 EM proposal and 

thus no new proposal was required under the CAA or the APA. Even 

assuming, however, that certain provisions in the final rule could be found 

not to be a logical outgrowth of the original proposal, the Agency further 

believes that the procedures used to solicit further comment on its 

revisions to the 1993 proposal are in compliance with the requirements of 

section 307(d) of the CAA and section 553(b) of the APA. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 330 

The part 64 rulemaking was initially proposed on October 22, 1993 (58 FR 

54648). The initial comment period was extended on December 15, 

1993 (58 FR 65573). During that initial comment period over 2,000 

letters were received on the proposal. On December 28,1994, EPA 

reopened the comment period on particular issues. In response, the 

Agency received an additional 215 comment letters. In April and May 

1995, the Agency announced its intention to consider a different approach 

to providing data for compliance certification purposes through part 64 

than the approach proposed in the original proposal (see docket items 

VI-E-1 through VI-E-5 and 60 FR 27943, May 26, 1995). This approach 

was consistent with the vast majority of industry commenters on the 

proposed rule. Those comments argued that the proposal would 

impermissibly create new continuous compliance test methods for existing 

applicable requirements. The Agency's revised approach was designed 

to focus on providing a reasonable assurance of compliance by 

monitoring to assure that control equipment, once installed, was properly 

operated and maintained so that the control equipment would continue to 

achieve compliance with applicable requirements. 

The Agency first provided notice of and solicited comment on its revised 

approach -- the CAM approach -- in September 1995 (see 60 FR 48679, 

September 20, 1995). The Agency published a brief summary of the 

proposed CAM approach in the Federal Register, referenced the legal 

authority for the proposed rule, and gave notice of when comments must 

be submitted and of a public meeting on the proposal. The notice 

supplied the docket number for the rulemaking, the location of the docket, 

and the times the docket was open to the public. In addition, the Federal 

Register notice informed the public how it could obtain a full text version of 

the revised proposed rule text and a statement of basis and purpose for 

the proposed rule. The Agency received numerous comments on that 

revised proposal both in the form of written submittals and oral comments 

at the public meeting which was held. After considering the comments on 

the CAM approach, EPA decided that the overall thrust of the CAM 

approach should be retained but that some adjustments were necessary. 

Rather than promulgate CAM at that point, the Agency initiated another 

round of comment on the CAM approach with publication of a Federal 

Register notice in August 1996 (see 61 FR 41991, August 13, 1996). 

This notice contained the same elements as the notice in September 

1995 including making available a full text of the revised CAM approach 

and a statement of basis and purpose. Again, numerous comments were 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 331 

received on that draft through both written submittals and oral comments 

at a public meeting. 

The notices published in September 1995 and August 1996 and the 

accompanying rule text and statements of basis and purpose meet each 

of the requirements specified in section 553(b) of the APA and section 

307(d)(3). Those provisions require publication in the Federal Register of 

a notice that describes the public rulemaking proceedings (including the 

period for public comment), information regarding the rulemaking docket, 

references legal authority for the rulemaking, and explains either the 

terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of subjects and 

issues involved. Further, the notice must be accompanied by a 

statement of basis and purpose which includes a summary of factual data 

relied upon (including the methodology for obtaining the data) and major 

legal interpretations and policy considerations. As detailed above, each 

of these requirements was met. The cases cited by commenters to show 

procedural error are not on point. In each of these cases no notice of 

proposed rulemaking was published and the public was provided with far 

less opportunity to participate in the rulemaking. Riverbend Farms v. 

Madigan, 958 F.2d 1479, 1486-1487 (9th Cir. 1992) (notice of proposed 

rule not published in Federal Register; no allowance for submission of 

written comment); Mobay Chemical Corp. v. Gorsuch, 682 F.2d 419, 

425-426 (3rd Cir. 1982) (notice of proposed rule not published in Federal 

Register; circulation of working draft was too late to get comments from 

many interested parties); Rodway v. United States Dept. of Agriculture, 

514 F.2d 809, 814-815 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (notice of proposed rule not 

published in Federal Register; no notice whatsoever and no period of 

public comment; “the APA procedures were ignored from start to finish”). 

Commenters also claim procedural error occurred under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) and Executive Order 12866. The RFA generally 

requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule 

subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities. (5 U.S.C. § 605(b)) The EPA 

made such a certification in regard to its 1993 proposal and the CAM 

drafts and took comments on the certification. See 62 FR 20147 (April 

25, 1997); 61 FR 41991 (August 13, 1996); 58 FR 54648, 54680-54681 

(October 22, 1993). Thus, EPA fully complied with the RFA. Executive 

Order 12866 creates procedures for intergovernmental review of 

rulemaking proposals including specifying that Regulatory Impact 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 332 

Statements (RIA) be prepared for significant rules. EPA prepared a RIA 

and released it for public comment in connection with the 1993 proposal. 

The heart of the RIA prepared for CAM -- its analysis of the affected firms 

and the costs of CAM -- was also released to the public for review and 

comment. 

In sum, EPA committed no procedural errors in the promulgation of part 

64. Each of the commenters claiming otherwise -- as well as numerous 

other members of the public -- submitted extensive comments on the 

CAM approach, reflecting the adequacy of the public notices and 

opportunities for comment. Moreover, commenters have not made any 

credible showing that part 64 would have been significantly changed if 

some other procedure had been followed. See CAA § 307(d)(7)(B). 

Such a showing is not possible because the public has been given 

unparalleled rights of participation in this rulemaking. 

Letter(s): American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); American 

Petroleum Institute (VI-D-146); Armstrong, Teasdale, Schafly & Davis 

(VI-D-205); BP Oil Company (VI-D-113); Chemical Manufacturers 

Association (VI-D-152); Chevron Companies (VI-D-132); Cinergy Corp. 

(VI-D-141); Clean Air Implementation Project (VI-D-153); Coalition for 

Clean Air Implementation (VI-D-164); Coastal Corporation (VI-D-123); 

Electronic Industries Association (VI-D-137); Exxon Company, USA 

(VI-D-135); Fertilizer Institute (VI-D-253); General Electric Company 

(VI-D-156); Independent Liquid Terminals Association (VI-D-178); 

Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association(VI-D-184); Marathon Oil 

Company (VI-D-185); Mobil Corporation (VI-D-115); National 

Environmental Development Association (VI-D-169); Ohio Chamber of 

Commerce, et. al. (VI-D-160); Pennzoil Company (VI-D-133); Specialty 

Steel Industry of North America (VI-D-143); Steel Manufacturers 

Association (SMA) (VI-D-144); Texas Natural Resource Conservation 

Commission (VI-D-256) 

Comment b: Some commenters argued that the CAM proposal does not constitute a 

logical outgrowth of the previous enhanced monitoring proposal. 

Commenters stated that because the CAM proposal represents a 

fundamentally different approach and raises numerous issues, such as 

the QIP provisions, which are not the logical outgrowth of the enhanced 

monitoring proposal, EPA may not rely on the October 1993 publication of 

the enhanced monitoring proposal to satisfy the formal proposal 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 333 

requirement. Similarly, other commenters argued that, since the draft 

CAM rule is a major revision of the 1993 EM proposal, it would be 

inappropriate to finalize this revision without issuing a formal proposal in 

the Federal Register. According to these commenters, EPA's decision to 

 proceed with final promulgation of CAM without reproposal violates the 

notice and comment requirements of the Clean Air Act. 

Some commenters further stated that the CAM rule changes the basic 

relationship of monitoring to compliance and expands the rule's 

applicability. According to these commenters, when an agency strikes 

out in a new direction because of criticism of its initial rulemaking, the 

agency must formally propose the redesigned rule. Some commenters 

included cites to relevant cases on point. In particular, commenters cited 

to the Shell Oil case, which involved a similar fact pattern involving 

significant changes in the monitoring required under the proposed and 

final rules. Other commenters cited Fertilizer Industry v. EPA. One 

commenter acknowledged that the "harmless error" doctrine applies to 

failure to comply with the APA, and that the extensive and laudable 

outreach process conducted by EPA may be sufficient provided that 

comment is taken on the RFA and RIA. This commenter cited Riverbend 

Farms. Two commenters also stated that the proposed changes to Parts 

70 and 71 were not part of the original proposal and thus have never been 

subject to formal public notice and comment. Thus, even if the CAM rule 

could qualify as a logical outgrowth of the 1993 EM proposal, these Part 

70 and 71 changes cannot qualify. 

Response: As indicated in the release of a draft proposal in 1995, the Agency did at 

one point consider publishing the full text of a new proposed version of 

part 64 to reflect the revisions made since the original 1993 EM proposal. 

Subsequently EPA did release two revised versions of part 64 for 

comment. As explained in the prior response, EPA believes these 

procedures fully complied with the requirements of the APA and the CAA 

for the reasons there stated. Additionally, the Agency believes this 

approach is justified because, as demonstrated in the preamble to the 

final rule, the final rule is a logical outgrowth of the original proposal. The 

revisions which industry claims are the provisions which cannot be 

considered a logical outgrowth are either in direct response to the 

suggestions they made on the original proposal, or are provisions which 

have been dropped from the final rule even though they were included in 

the 1996 part 64 Draft. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 334 

Although there have been substantial changes made to the 1993 proposal 

in adapting it to the CAM approach, the 1993 proposal identified all of the 

critical issues in the rulemaking and gave affected parties notice that 

their interests were at stake. Importantly, the basic form of the rule 

remained the same as the focus shifted to the CAM approach. There are 

several key elements to part 64: (1) applicability; (2) implementation 

through permits; (3) use of the data to determine compliance and submit 

compliance certifications; and (4) the criteria that must be met to satisfy 

the monitoring requirements. As discussed in detail in the preamble to 

the final rule, each of the final rule provisions in these areas is a logical 

outgrowth of the original proposal. For applicability, the original proposal 

requested comment on numerous different applicability options based on 

potential to emit or on uncontrolled emissions. Numerous commenters 

urged EPA to further narrow applicability so that work practice and other 

non-numeric emission standards would not be subject to part 64. In 

addition, commenters argued that the type of monitoring considered for 

part 64 is best suited to emissions units with add-on control equipment. 

By limiting the rule to emissions units with control devices, the Agency 

believes that it has responded effectively to these concerns. The other 

applicability provisions are closely related to the options discussed in the 

original proposal, or are exemptions specifically requested in the 

comments received from various industry commenters.

For implementation, the Agency has retained the basic concept of 

implementing the rule through permits, although the final rule focuses only 

on title V operating permits and extends the implementation time period in 

response to concerns about burdens to the permit process. The 

possibility of an extended implementation schedule was raised in the 

December 1994 notice reopening the comment period on the original 

proposal and thus commenters had a full opportunity to comment on 

possible options for extending the implementation schedule. 

With respect to the use of data for certification purposes, the original 

proposal would have required the owner or operator to use the monitoring 

to determine compliance for purposes of submitting a compliance 

certification. Although the 1993 proposal did not include revisions to the 

part 70 or part 71 rules, it did include appropriate cross-referencing that 

would have impacted how the part 64/part 70 (or 71) compliance 

certification interface would be implemented. The final rule retains the 

basic approach that part 64 monitoring must be relied on in submitting 

compliance certifications and makes appropriate revisions to the actual 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 335 

provisions in parts 70 and 71 in order that part 64 will be implemented 

appropriately. The Agency believes that the revisions to parts 70 and 71 

are a logical outgrowth of the original proposal and clarify how part 64 

monitoring should be evaluated for purposes of certifying compliance. 

Finally, the monitoring criteria in the final rule are less strict than in the 

proposal, primarily in response to industry comments on the proposal and 

in response to the Agency reconsidering the certainty with which an owner 

or operator must determine compliance for purposes of submitting a 

compliance certification. However, many of the basic requirements 

included in the proposal with respect to the types of monitoring criteria 

that must be achieved and the flexibility for monitor selection that best 

suits the needs of a facility are retained in the final rule. Although the 

focus of CAM is now directed primarily at monitoring control equipment, 

such parameter monitoring was contemplated to play a major role in the 

monitoring approach proposed in 1993. 

In addition, particular aspects of the 1996 part 64 Draft, most notably the 

QIP requirements, which commenters claimed could not be considered a 

logical outgrowth of the 1993 proposed rule, have been significantly 

changed in the final rule. The QIP provisions in the final rule do not 

include an automatic trigger provision or an automatic violation provision 

upon a second QIP occurring. Rather, the QIP provisions lay out a 

procedural mechanism that a permitting authority or EPA may require if an 

owner or operator is determined to have failed to meet the general duty to 

operate and maintain an emissions unit properly. The Agency believes 

that this non-mandatory provision is appropriate for the final rule even 

though it was not included in the original proposal. The QIP provisions 

have been revised extensively in light of the numerous public comments 

received and it is unlikely that further public comment and review would 

result in significant changes to the QIP provisions. 

Letter(s): American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); American 

Petroleum Institute (VI-D-146); Chemical Manufacturers Association 

(VI-D-152); CITGO Petroleum Corporation (VI-D-172); Clean Air 

Implementation Project (VI-D-153); Coalition for Clean Air Implementation 

(VI-D-164); Electronic Industries Association (VI-D-137); Enron 

Operations Corp. (VI-D-235); Exxon Company, USA (VI-D-135); Fertilizer 

Institute (VI-D-253); General Electric Company (VI-D-156); Mobil 

Corporation (VI-D-115); Ohio Chamber of Commerce, et. al. (VI-D-160); 

Southern California Gas Company (VI-D-222); Southwestern Public 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 336 

Service Company (VI-D-224); Specialty Steel Industry of North America 

(VI-D-143); Steel Manufacturers Association (SMA) (VI-D-144); Texas 

Utilities Services, Inc. (VI-D-121) 

Comment c: One commenter stated that failing to repropose CAM would unfairly 

limit the opportunity of parties to comment on CAM and obtain judicial 

review, because a number of new significant issues have arisen since the 

changes from the original 1993 EM proposal and the legal status, in terms 

of judicial review, of comments on CAM drafts released through the TTN 

is uncertain. 

Response: The EPA has included all comments received on this rulemaking in the 

docket. This docket will become the record for judicial review if such 

review is sought. In the three parts of this response to comments 

document EPA has responded in detail to all comments received on the 

1993 proposal, the December 1994 reopended comment period, the 

August 1996 revised CAM approach, and impact analyses released in 

1997. The Agency has reviewed all of the comments received in 

response to the September, 1995 notice and determined that EPA’s 

response to comments received in 1996 and 1997 address all of the 

significant comments received on the earlier notice. 

Letter(s): General Electric Company (VI-D-156) 

Comment d: One commenter also stated that the August 1996 draft failed to explain 

how the Agency arrived at the current CAM draft from the original EM 

proposal, what factors were evaluated, or how the Agency considered the 

comments on the original proposal. This commenter stated that EPA 

cannot propose such a dramatic policy shift and maintain that the original 

proposal provided adequate notice for comment on all portions of the rule. 

Response: As explained in responses to Comments a and b above, EPA believes 

that the August, 1996 revised CAM draft independently meets the 

applicable procedural requirements and that this final rule is a logical 

outgrowth of the 1993 proposal. Thus, EPA believes all affected parties 

received adequate notice and opportunity to comment. 

Letter(s): Ohio Chamber of Commerce, et. al. (VI-D-160) 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 337 

Comment e: Some commenters argued that even if the August 13, 1996 notice of 

document availability did satisfy the requirements of the APA, it did not 

satisfy the requirements of SBREFA, which applies to all notices of 

proposed rulemaking issued after June 29, 1996. Two commenters 

asserted that by failing to satisfy SBREFA requirements, EPA failed to 

satisfy APA notice and comment requirements. Another commenter 

stated that EPA cannot have it both ways: if the August 13th notice was 

the functional equivalent of a reproposal, then the notice was required to 

meet the new SBREFA requirements. A commenter explained that a 

SBREFA review panel would allow for more meaningful input on small 

business impacts and added that the Agency should recognize that even 

without reproposal of the rule SBREFA provisions such as the 

Congressional Review and regulatory flexibility analysis requirements will 

apply to the final rule. 

One commenter asserted that EPA's reason for failing to publish a notice 

of proposed rulemaking was to avoid its obligation to release the initial 

RFA and RIA that would accompany the Federal Register notice. 

Response: As made clear in the response to Comment a, EPA has fully complied 

with the RFA. The EPA has also made the most relevant portions of the 

RIA available for comment. 

Letter(s): American Petroleum Institute (VI-D-146); Chemical Manufacturers 

Association (VI-D-152); Chevron Companies (VI-D-132); Coalition for 

Clean Air Implementation (VI-D-164); Council of Industrial Boiler 

Operators (VI-D-263); Exxon Company, USA (VI-D-135); Mobil 

Corporation (VI-D-115); Specialty Steel Industry of North America 

(VI-D-143) ; Steel Manufacturers Association (SMA) (VI-D-144); The 

Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. (VI-D-148) 

Comment f: One commenter also reiterated its previously expressed concern about 

EPA's tendency to publish proposed rules via computer bulletin boards 

(and now web sites) rather than publishing them in the Federal Register. 

The commenter reasoned that many people have difficulty getting access 

to such systems and that diagrams, tables, and the like are often distorted 

or lost altogether. Similarly, another commenter objected to the manner 

in which the draft CAM rule was made available for comment, and 

expressed the hope that for all other future rules EPA will publish the 

entire rule in the Federal Register. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 338 

Response: The Agency published a notice of document availability in the Federal 

Register. That notice indicated that the document was available not only 

through the TTN but also through the docket. The notice also provided 

instructions for contacting appropriate Agency staff for further information 

so that, among other things, interested parties that cannot access the 

material through electronic media or the docket could obtain a hard copy 

directly from EPA. The Agency distributed copies of the draft rule and 

discussion directly to all individuals requesting copies. 

Letter(s): Chemical Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); Metropolitan Council 

(VI-D-214) 

Comment g: Some commenters stated that the lack of proposed credible evidence 

language in the draft CAM package also made the rule procedurally 

flawed. These commenters noted that this is true even if the release of 

the draft on the TTN was sufficient to satisfy the APA. Other 

commenters agreed. Two commenters stated that the CAM rule must be 

joined with a credible evidence rule if EPA intends to proceed with a 

credible evidence rule. Commenters also asserted that, to comply with 

the APA, EPA should rejoin the credible evidence and CAM proposals 

and issue a reproposal that fully explores the authority for, the relationship 

between, and the joint impact of the two rules. Some commenters stated 

that the credible evidence and CAM rules are inextricably intertwined, with 

the impact of each rule on industry being determined in many respects by 

the content of the other rule. One commenter stated that despite EPA's 

assurances, environmental groups and citizens will use CAM information 

as credible evidence, which will increase the Responsible Official's legal 

exposure and make it difficult to sign the biannual certification. Finally, a 

commenter stated that the lack of formal proposal for both the CAM and 

credible evidence rules makes them more vulnerable to legal challenge 

and heightens regulatory uncertainty, which is not desirable for regulatory 

agencies or the regulated community. 

Response: The Agency disagrees with those comments that argue that the CE 

revisions and part 64 must be proposed together. The Agency has 

finalized the CE revisions (see 62 FR 8314, February 24, 1997). In 

Section I.A. of the preamble to the final CE revisions, the Agency fully 

explained the rationale for why the rules can be treated separately. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 339 

Letter(s): American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); Baltimore 

Gas & Electric Company (VI-D-177); BP Oil Company (VI-D-113); 

Eastman Chemical Company (VI-D-173); Electronic Industries Association 

(VI-D-137); General Electric Company (VI-D-156); Independent Liquid 

Terminals Association (VI-D-178); Ohio Chamber of Commerce, et. al. 

(VI-D-160); Pennzoil Company (VI-D-133); Southern Company Services 

(VI-D-171); Tennessee Valley Authority (VI-D-162); The Society of the 

Plastics Industry, Inc. (VI-D-148); Utility Air Regulatory Group (VI-D-140) 

Section 15.2: OMB Review/Regulatory Impact Analysis (prior to release of RIA 

sections)

Comment a: Some commenters stated that Executive Order No. 12866 requires EPA 

to issue both an initial and final Regulatory Impact Analysis. One 

commenter added that EPA may not simply ignore the requirements to 

issue initial and final RIAs that assess the costs and benefits of the 

Agency’s approach and reasonably feasible alternatives when a 

rulemaking is subject to statutory and court-imposed deadlines. The 

commenter stated that EPA must schedule rulemaking proceedings to 

allow for compliance to the extent practicable. Two commenters stated 

that EPA should also make the entire RIA available for public comment 

prior to promulgation, instead of making available only the excerpts that 

EPA plans to post on the electronic bulletin board.

Two commenters also stated that the current CAM proposal must be 

considered a "significant" proposed rule under the Executive Order. The 

proposal would have an annual effect on the economy of at least $100 

million, and it involves novel legal and policy issues associated with 

section 114(a)(3) which affect implementation under other provisions of 

the CAA, notably Title V. One of the commenters concluded that EPA 

must therefore issue an RIA for the CAM rule for public comment; the 

other stated that EPA must use proper data analyzing costs and benefits 

using reasonably current and accurate practices and dollar amounts. 

Some commenters stated that making the initial RIA available helps the 

public determine whether to submit comments and makes the comments 

submitted more meaningful, particularly for a major rule like CAM, which 

will impact every State and federal regulation. Two commenters 

reasoned that EPA would assure even better constructive notice and 

meaningful comments on the CAM rule by publishing the initial RIA. For 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 340 

example, one commenter continued, it is impossible to comment 

effectively on issues such as the minimum data availability requirement, 

the 5 percent QIP threshold or the rule’s method of determining 

applicability without knowing the statistical and technical basis underlying 

those requirements. Commenters also stated that the RIA must be 

available for sources to evaluate the rule impacts, comment effectively, 

and determine whether EPA understands the potential impacts and has 

chosen the most cost-effective proposal. Another commenter stated that 

since EPA has not released the RIA, the public has no information on how 

many emissions units EPA expects to be covered by Subpart B, Subpart 

C, or the rule in general. Two commenters stated that the unavailability 

of the RIA undermines the public's ability to comment on the 

cost-effectiveness of the CAM rule and to evaluate the rule's compliance 

with the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

Commenters also stated that EPA cannot consider the initial RIA prepared 

for the enhanced monitoring proposal to qualify as the initial RIA for the 

CAM rule. These commenters stated that the RIA for the enhanced 

monitoring proposal was based on data from 1981 and was flawed in 

other ways. Also, these commenters stated that the RIA for the 

enhanced monitoring proposal reflected costs and benefits of the 

enhanced monitoring rule and not the very different costs and benefits 

that would be associated with the CAM rule. 

Some commenters stated that there is an increased need to make the 

entire RIA, not just the portions published on EPA’s electronic bulletin 

board, available for public comment prior to publication of the final rule 

because the current CAM draft is significantly different from the 1995 

proposal. For example, these commenters noted, the current draft would 

allow permitting authorities to subject Subpart C sources to Subpart B 

requirements, and the impact analysis should reflect the resulting potential 

increase in costs. 

A commenter stated that EPA has failed to address the fundamental 

question of the need for additional monitoring and has not publicly 

documented any analysis of the benefit of the rule. The commenter 

concluded that a cost/benefit analysis must be conducted. 

Some commenters also stated that EPA’s failure to publish the RIA further 

supports the position that the CAM "proposal" is procedurally defective 

and must be published as a proposed rule. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 341 

Several commenters recommended that EPA make the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis available for comments before promulgating the CAM rule. One 

commenter added that the RIA should be released at lease 180 days 

before the CAM rule is finalized. This commenter strongly recommended 

that EPA account for the number of additional emission limitations in an 

RIA if EPA plans to include minor new source review under the CAM rule. 

 Other commenters stated that the failure to release the RIA only causes 

mistrust and suspicion. Another commenter stated that affected entities 

should have the opportunity to suggest revisions to the analysis and to 

use its findings in their assessment of the proposed rule. Two 

commenters asserted that the overall cost of CAM will be a burden on the 

States through the Title V program, thus requiring an increase in Title V 

fees to implement the program. 

Response: The initial RIA for part 64 was released with the proposal in October 1993. 

 The Agency received numerous comments on the initial RIA. To assure 

the broadest possible participation in rule development, EPA made 

available portions of a revised RIA and accepted public comment on those 

materials. The portion of the RIA made available contained the bulk of 

the factual analysis in the document and addressed such issues as what 

firms would be affected and the size of the impact. Thus, affected 

parties, to the extent it is relevant to this rulemaking, have had an 

opportunity to comment on EPA’s analysis of the impacts of the CAM 

approach. 

Letter(s): American Gas Association (VI-D-154); American Petroleum Institute 

(VI-D-146); BP Oil Company (VI-D-113); Chemical Manufacturers 

Association (VI-D-152); Chevron Companies (VI-D-132); Cinergy Corp. 

(VI-D-141); Clean Air Implementation Project (VI-D-153); Coalition for 

Clean Air Implementation (VI-D-164); Coastal Corporation (VI-D-123); 

Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry (VI-D-182); Eastman 

Chemical Company (VI-D-173); Electronic Industries Association 

(VI-D-137); Independent Liquid Terminals Association (VI-D-178); 

Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association (VI-D-184); Mobil 

Corporation (VI-D-115); Ohio Chamber of Commerce, et. al. (VI-D-160); 

Pennzoil Company (VI-D-133); Phillips Petroleum Company (VI-D-131); 

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (VI-D-217); 

Specialty Steel Industry of North America (VI-D-143); Steel Manufacturers 

Association (SMA) (VI-D-144); Southern Company Services (VI-D-171); 

Southwestern Public Service Company (VI-D-224); Texas Natural 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 342 

Resource Conservation Commission (VI-D-189); Texas Utilities Services, 

Inc. (VI-D-121); UCAR Carbon Company, Inc. (VI-D-122) 

Section 15.3: Regulatory Impact Analysis (Reopened Comment Period)

Comment a: A commenter argued that because of the length of time it took EPA to 

place the RIA in the docket, the review period was unreasonably 

foreshortened and deliberation was curtailed. 

Response: The Agency believes that the more than 30-day period for review of the 

draft portions of the RFA and RIA was adequate to provide meaningful 

comment. 

 

Letter(s): Council of Industry Boiler Operators (VI-D-263) 

Comment b: One commenter stated that the RIA generally understates costs since it 

failed to consider the impact of the CAM and CE rules working 

simultaneously, increased stringency of standards, and unique adverse 

impacts for small and medium sized businesses. A commenter argued 

that the time allocated to CAM plan preparation in the RIA is inadequate in 

light of the consequences associated with monitoring decisions under the 

CE rule. Another commenter agreed generally that the costs of 

establishing and running monitoring under part 64 is increased by the CE 

rule, adding that the potential for extended negotiations after public 

comment or EPA review has not been considered. 

A commenter argued that if the final rule does not provide a shield against 

the use of CAM data in enforcement, the RIA improperly ignores one of 

the uses of CAM data and is therefore invalid. 

Response: The Agency has already responded to comments on the CE rule and 

potential impacts on stringency in finalizing that rule (see 62 FR 8314, 

February 24, 1997). Because the Agency does not believe the rule will 

have the effect of increasing stringency, it disagrees with these comments 

suggesting that EPA should take into consideration as a regulatory cost of 

part 64 the concerns of some industry commenters that the CE rule will 

increase the stringency of underlying rules. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 343 

Letter(s): Coalition for Clean Air Implementation (VI-D-249); Council of Industry 

Boiler Operators (VI-D-263); National Environmental Development 

Association (VI-D-254) 

Comment c: One commenter argued generally that the RIA underestimates costs by 

relying on liberal interpretations of the 1996 part 64 Draft which would not 

necessarily prevail. For example, the commenter disagreed with the 

assumption made in the partial RIA that subpart C of the 1996 part 64 

Draft would not result in any costs beyond those incurred as a result of 

part 70. This commenter noted, and other commenters agreed, that 

sources subject to these requirements could be required to establish 

indicator ranges or implement QIPs under the 1996 Draft. A commenter 

added that the standard for indicator ranges in the RIA was not consistent 

with the 1996 part 64 Draft. The commenter stated that higher costs 

would be incurred to establish monitoring designed to assure compliance 

with applicable limits at all times, and requested clarification of these 

issues in the final rule. A commenter stated in particular that the 

relationship between CAM and the CE rule will cause sources to 

implement more extensive and costly monitoring than that reflected in the 

partial RIA. The commenter recommended making the rule reflect the 

RIA's assumption regarding the monitoring required by part 64, but stated 

that if such changes are not made in the final rule, the RIA must be 

adjusted to accurately reflect the requirements of the final rule. 

Another commenter also expressed concern over the standard for 

indicator ranges in the RIA. This commenter based its objections to the 

standard used on both the language of the 1996 part 64 Draft and the 

potential for CAM data to be used as credible evidence. This commenter 

also cited other examples in which the RIA assumed that part 64 imposes 

no cost over those already established by part 70 for which the 1996 part 

64 Draft does seem to create new requirements such as performance 

testing, recordkeeping, reporting, compliance certification and QIPs. 

Another commenter agreed that costs should have been allocated for 

subpart C and QIPs in the RIA. 

Response: The Agency believes that the final rule clarifies these issues and that the 

lack of cost consideration for these issues in the RIA is appropriate. 

First, the final rule does not include a subpart C and thus those comments 

are no longer applicable. Second, the QIP provisions have been 

substantially modified so that it is clear that QIPs are intended as one 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 344 

possible response to a source that has been found in violation. Third, the 

criteria for indicator ranges have been clarified (see response to section 

6.1 (Part III) above), and the Agency believes that the assumptions 

included in the final RIA are consistent with the requirements of the final 

rule. For the other cost categories mentioned, the Agency believes that 

the final RIA adequately estimates the costs EPA expects will be incurred 

above and beyond the baseline part 70 costs. 

Letter(s): Can Manufacturers Institute (VI-D-262); Coalition for Clean Air 

Implementation (VI-D-249); El Paso Energy (VI-D-257); National 

Environmental Development Association (VI-D-254); Texas Natural 

Resource Conservation Commission (VI-D-256) 

Comment d: One commenter requested clarification of whether sources with PTE limits 

are subject to CAM. The commenter explained that if PSEUs that are 

kept out of Title V and NSR, or RATS and NSPS by add-on controls, 

process controls, pollution prevention or throughput limitations are subject 

to CAM, the RIA has not addressed these costs. 

Response: If sources are not subject to title V permitting, they are not subject to part 

64. However, once a source is subject to title V permitting, individual 

units will be subject to part 64 if they are subject to applicable 

requirements (including federally-enforceable PTE limits) for which the 

owner or operator relies on a control device to achieve compliance. 

Letter(s): National Environmental Development Association (VI-D-254) 

Comment e: Several commenters noted that the partial RIA does not present a 

consideration of the benefits of the rule or a description of alternatives to 

the approach proposed. According to these commenters, without these 

discussions, EPA has no basis for rejecting their arguments that the costs 

of CAM outweigh its benefits and the benefits that do exist could be 

achieved by a less intrusive program. These commenters also noted that 

omitting the benefits analysis did not meet regulatory requirements. 

Commenters also objected to the Agency's failure to provide background 

information to support the assumptions or data sources used in the RIA 

such as the sample of emission points used to estimate the costs of 

implementing CAM. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 345 

Response: The EPA is not relying on its benefits analysis in support of part 64 

because section 114(a)(3) does not require a cost-benefit analysis for 

enhanced monitoring and compliance certification regulations. 

On the issue of the Agency not providing extensive background 

information in making the draft cost analysis available to the public in April 

1997, the Agency did not intend that draft to be conclusive nor 

comprehensive on every analytical result. Instead, the Agency intended 

to respond to stakeholders questions about the methodology used in 

developing the RIA. Providing extensive background on the values used 

in that methodology would have been unnecessary. On the other hand, 

many commenters on that document provided extensive comments on the 

accuracy of the draft results even without all the background information. 

All the background information on the development of the RIA is made 

available at the time the rule is finalized. 

Letter(s): Can Manufacturers Institute (VI-D-262); Coalition for Clean Air 

Implementation (VI-D-249); Institute of Clean Air Companies (VI-D-139); 

Mobil Corporation (VI-D-248); National Environmental Development 

Association (VI-D-254) 

Comment f: Commenters identified four cost categories for which the RIA reported no 

incremental CAM costs. The comments indicated that positive, and 

possibly significant, costs would be incurred by sources due to CAM 

requirements for these types of costs. The cost categories included: Part 

70 costs associated with operating permit requirements; CAM costs for 

subpart C emission units; CAM costs related to development of a Quality 

Improvement Plan (QIP); and costs associated with approval and 

negotiation of CAM monitoring criteria. 

Response: Part 70 costs: Comment was offered that future public comment made 

pursuant to title V procedures would impose additional costs on sources 

and permitting authorities. The CAM RIA does not include these costs 

because these costs are more appropriately viewed as part of the existing 

part 70 requirements. 

Subpart C costs: Chapter IV of the draft portions of the RIA released for 

public comment states that incremental costs for subpart C emission units 

are not included in the CAM cost analysis because the requirements for 

subpart C units are intended to be no more stringent than requirements 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 346 

already in place for periodic monitoring under part 70. As described 

above subpart C is not included in final rule and thus those comments are 

no longer applicable. 

QIP costs: Several commenters suggested that the costs of QIP 

development and corrective actions be included in the cost analysis. The 

CAM cost analysis adopts the perspective that sources will maintain 

compliance with applicable requirements under Compliance Assurance 

Monitoring. The indicator ranges proposed by source owners or 

operators should identify problems so that actions to maintain compliance 

can be initiated in a timely manner. If a source owner or operator does 

not maintain surveillance of monitoring data, a QIP may be required, but 

this should not be treated as a cost of the rule. Similarly, the costs of 

coming into compliance are not separately identified in the RIA. These 

costs have already received attention in the costing of the underlying 

applicable requirement. 

Approval and Negotiation: Chapter IV of the RIA does not identify 

separate costs for approval and negotiation of CAM plans for subpart B 

emission units. The August 1996 draft CAM rule does not identify a 

specific process for negotiation and approval. The RIA assumes that 

there will be no incremental costs for these activities. For those source 

owners or operators who must upgrade or newly install monitoring to meet 

CAM requirements, the RIA assumes that the effort incurred to identify 

part 64 monitoring criteria will lead to acceptable monitoring. Note, the 

RIA cost analysis provides for incremental costs incurred for revisions 

should a source or permitting authority determine that criteria initially 

proposed are too binding or too lenient. Any additional costs for 

negotiating approval should not be significant. 

Letter(s): El Paso Energy (VI-D-257); Mobil Corporation (VI-D-248); National 

Environmental Development Association (VI-D-254); Utility Air Regulatory 

Group (VI-D-140) 

Comment g: Several comments were concerned with the underestimation of costs in 

the cost categories for which the draft RIA did report incremental costs. 

The RIA develops cost estimates based on similar costs identified for 

other regulations, comparisons with part 70, and expert judgment. The 

comments generally indicated that the RIA underestimated costs to 

sources by a factor of five and underestimated costs to permitting 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 347 

authorities by a factor of forty. In particular, commenters expressed 

concern about a number of specific costs such as those associated with 

the verification of indicator ranges, costs for acquiring, installing and 

operating additional hardware, and reporting, recordkeeping and 

certification costs. The commenters also discussed costs related to 

permitting beyond the initial negotiation of part 64 monitoring, such as the 

potential need to reopen or revise permits should changes in the 

monitoring be required. 

Response: The discrepancies cited are due to a confusion on the applicable units of 

the cost analysis, the incremental burden of CAM above existing part 70 

requirements, and the requirements of regulatory impacts analysis to 

evaluate only the burdens associated with meeting Federal requirements. 

A key element of all cost estimates is that they represent the incremental

costs of CAM. For example, costs due to part 70 requirements are 

assumed to be in the baseline and do not contribute to the costs of CAM. 

One commenter cited State programs in Ohio and Oregon as proof of 

underestimates in the CAM Rule RIA. The Oregon monitoring program is 

a part 70 response to periodic monitoring requirements and will need to 

be upgraded to meet some CAM requirements. This is an example of the 

incremental nature of CAM in that the majority of monitoring program 

costs in Oregon have already been included in the part 70 program costs 

and, therefore, it is expected that CAM will have a small incremental cost. 

 Rather than confirming a substantial underestimation of the burden on 

State and local permit authorities (a factor of forty), the Oregon 

information tends to supports the small incremental burden of CAM above 

the existing burdens imposed by part 70. 

The information submitted based on Ohio’s Operation and Maintenance 

(O&M) Guidelines is misdirected for a similar reason. Ohio’s O&M 

Guidelines were developed to support New Source Review, part 70 and 

other existing programs. This document was developed in 1992 and is 

not responsive to CAM. Costs associated with implementing this 

guidance would be attributable to part 70 or other requirements. 

Furthermore, should a State elect to implement a program with 

requirements more rigorous than CAM, these costs cannot be attributed to 

the Federal rule. For these reasons, these comments also tend to 

support the incremental nature of CAM. 

The CAM costs are intended to represent a typical or average respondent 

burden. Some examples of CAM costs were based on worst-case 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 348 

assumptions. The estimates in the CAM RIA reflect a mixture of 

respondent costs based on survey results from the five-State survey. 

While a limited number of high cost responses are anticipated, responses 

for some units, such as thermal oxidizers with existing temperature 

monitoring, will have very low response costs. One commenter 

produced a per facility cost and used this for comparison with costs in the 

RIA which reflected costs per pollutant specific emissions unit (cost per 

pollutant per emissions unit). These approaches will lead to substantially 

higher estimated costs than those predicted in the RIA. 

Letter(s): Coalition for Clean Air Implementation (VI-D-249); El Paso Energy 

(VI-D-257); National Environmental Development Association (VI-D-254); 

Mobil Corporation (VI-D-248) 

Comment h: Commenters raised questions concerning the completeness and 

representativeness of the five-State sample that was used to determine 

the number of CAM pollutant specific emissions units. 

Response: With respect to completeness, it should be noted that the complete data 

bases for the sample States were used to determine the number of 

potentially affected pollutant points. The random survey of 375 points 

was conducted to determine how the full set of potentially affected points 

would be allocated to the various CAM response categories. As part of 

the survey, information was also collected on the fraction of potentially 

affected points that would not be subject to Federal regulation as well as 

the fraction of points that would be judged to have acceptable existing 

monitoring systems. The core set of potentially affected points, however, 

reflects all available data. Since some States did not have complete lists 

of title V sources as of the date of data collection, supplemental reviews 

were conducted to add to the set of identified title V sources, and to 

include other sources in the State data bases that were likely to be subject 

to title V requirements. EPA has reviewed the final set of affected points 

and believes that this is a good estimate. Large discrepancies noted by 

commenters may reflect a misapplication of the applicability conditions. 

With respect to the representativeness of the five-State sample, EPA 

notes that supporting documents prepared for the Enhanced Monitoring 

docket describe a more complex extrapolation methodology which does 

take into account the distribution of major sources across States. As a 

result of the earlier analysis, EPA concluded that the five States provided 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 349 

a representative sample. Furthermore, a multiplicative scale factor equal 

to the ratio of sample States to all States would be appropriate for 

extrapolation. With the CAM rule, an additional representativeness test 

was performed. This test examined the distribution of SIC codes by 

intervals. With a representative sample, one expects that about 10 

percent of all sources in a specific SIC group would be in the five sample 

States. This result was confirmed for about 15 percent of all SIC 

categories. For all intervals, the 10 percent interval was the median of 

the distribution. To provide additional clarification, the RIA for the final 

rule will identify those two-digit SIC categories for which the five-State 

sample appears most representative. 

Letter(s): National Environmental Development Association (VI-D-254); Texas 

Natural Resource Conservation Commission (VI-D-256)

Comment i: A commenter also noted that separate costs were not computed for 

applicability determination by permitting authorities. 

Response: This activity was not included in the April 25, 1997 release but is included 

in the final RIA for part 64. 

Letter(s): Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (VI-D-256) 

Comment j: Comments were also provided concerning the count of municipally owned 

electric utilities included in the analysis of small government impacts. 

One comment provided additional information on municipally-owned 

electric utilities in one of the survey States (Colorado). 

Response: Although the commenter provided additional information on small utilities, 

including minor sources not subject to CAM, none of the information 

provided affected any of the conclusions regarding burdens on small 

entities. 

Letter(s): Arkansas River Power Authority (VI-D-245) 

Section 15.4: Paperwork Reduction Act 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 350 

Comment a: Some commenters asserted that CAM will result in an increased 

paperwork burden for both the regulated community and State and local 

agencies. Two commenters requested that EPA demonstrate how the 

proposed CAM rule and its increased reporting burden comply with the 

March 4, 1995 Presidential initiative on eliminating unnecessary 

recordkeeping and reporting burdens. Another commenter stated that 

adding new monitoring and reporting requirements, rather than revising 

existing requirements, does not seem to be in keeping with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. 

Response: The final Information Collection Request estimates the reporting and 

recordkeeping burdens associated with part 64. See docket item 

A-91-52-VI-A-5. The Agency believes that the reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements in part 64 are appropriate and in most cases 

reflect baseline requirements already established in part 70. 

Letter(s): Cinergy Corp. (VI-D-141); Texas Natural Resource Conservation 

Commission (VI-D-189); Texas Utilities Services, Inc. (VI-D121); 

Wisconsin Electric Power Company (VI-D-130) 

Section 15.5: Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Comment a: One commenter stated that CAM triggers Title II of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act, because it does not meet the requirement that 

EPA "select the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule." 

Response: The EPA believes it has selected the an alternative for implementing the 

enhanced monitoring requirements that fully complies with UMRA. A full 

description of EPA’s compliance with UMRA is set forth in the final RIA. 

Letter(s): Institute of Clean Air Companies (VI-D-139) 

Section 15.6: Regulatory Flexibility Act

Comment a: Several commenters stated that EPA must issue and accept comment on 

an initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis regarding the draft CAM rule. 

Some commenters added that the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended 

by SBREFA, requires EPA to issue a detailed regulatory flexibility analysis 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 351 

during the proposal process to allow the public to comment on the impact 

of the rule. Two commenters also stated that EPA cannot rely on the 

initial RFA screening analysis prepared for the enhanced monitoring 

proposal to show that a substantial number of small entities would not be 

affected by CAM because the CAM approach differs dramatically in 

applicability from the enhanced monitoring proposal. One of these 

commenters encouraged EPA to release an initial RFA describing the 

CAM approach in sufficient time that EPA can thoughtfully review 

comments it receives and modify the CAM rule appropriately. A 

commenter stated that with the comment period on the CAM rule closed, 

any parties who become aware of the impacts of the rule only after 

publication of the RFA will be deprived of an opportunity to provide 

meaningful comment on the draft CAM rule. This commenter 

recommended that EPA accept comments on the substance of the rule 

during the comment period established for the RFA. 

One commenter stated that, among other things, EPA must convene a 

stakeholder process under SBREFA prior to proposing a rule. In this 

context, the commenter added, EPA must at least accept the SBA's 

proposals or explain why they are inappropriate. 

Response: The EPA’s compliance with the RFA is explained in response to Comment 

a of Section 15.1 (Part III). No regulatory flexibility analysis or small 

business panel review is necessary for part 64 because, among other 

reasons, EPA has certified that there will be no significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. As to the comment concerning the 

limited nature of the comment period on the RFA analysis, EPA believes 

the comment period was appropriately limited to issues raised by the RFA 

analysis. EPA specifically stated that comments related to applicability 

definitions would be accepted. These definitions determine which 

sources are covered by the rule. 

Letter(s): Chemical Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); Chevron Companies 

(VI-D-132); Clean Air Implementation Project (VI-D-153); Engine 

Manufacturers Association (VI-D-117); Ohio Chamber of Commerce, et. 

al. (VI-D-160); Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America 

(VI-D-217); Specialty Steel Industry of North America (VI-D-143); Steel 

Manufacturers Association (SMA) (VI-D-144) 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 352 

Section 16: Guidance 

Comment a: A state agency stated that an unnecessary second determination of 

whether or not the emissions unit is located at a major source seems to 

be included in figure 1-2, step 10 of the CAM applicability flow diagram in 

the September 5, 1996 technical guidance document. The agency asked 

that the diagram and the rule be made consistent. 

Response: The guidance will reflect this change. 

Letter(s): Ohio EPA, Division of Air Pollution Control (VI-D-180) 

Comment b: A local agency requested that the CAM Illustration section of the October 

11, 1996 technical guidance document be expanded to include all control 

equipment codes in the AIRS system. 

Response: The Agency intends to include guidance on as much as possible given 

current resources. The agency plans to further expand the guidance to 

include more examples including input from State and local agencies and 

industry once the rule is in effect. 

Letter(s): South Coast Air Quality Management District (VI-D-233) 

Comment c: One commenter stated that section 4.2.1 of the draft guidance should be 

expanded to include manual reading of temperature because remote 

facilities may not have the electrical capacity to use the electronic 

temperature reading approaches outlined in the guidance. 

Response: A number of alternative approaches to measurements will be included as 

appropriate, including manual methods. 

Letter(s): Texaco Environment Health & Safety (VI-D-190) 

Comment d: One commenter was concerned about the philosophy that will guide the 

development of examples. The commenter noted that the idea of having 

to validate calibration of devices that were previously used as indicators 

and were done on an as needed basis is not very cost-conscious. In 

addition, the commenter added that physical logging of data takes time 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 353 

and converting it to electronic data is expensive and causes additional 

calibration problems. 

Response: The guidance is intended to be sensitive to current practices as much as 

possible and will take into account cost, where appropriate, in presenting 

examples. 

Letter(s): Wisconsin Electric Power Company (VI-D-130) 

Comment e: Several commenters supported generally the expansion of current 

guidance materials and the development of supplemental guidance 

materials. Several state and local agencies supported the preparation of 

a guidance document as discussed in Section II.B.3.a of the proposed 

preamble. One agency added that this guidance should not be 

incorporated into the regulation because it will initially need to be changed 

and improved frequently. A number of agencies suggested that EPA 

should make supplemental technical assistance available to state and 

local agencies in order to ensure that CAM is implemented uniformly and 

in a manner consistent with the issues and policies developed during its 

formulation. Similarly, an agency association urged that guidance and 

sample CAM plans should be developed for as many control devices as 

possible to promote national consistency in the development of CAM 

plans. Two agencies also supported the standardization of the CAM plan 

review process through technical guidance, making the need for 

time-consuming case-by-case review of proposed plans the exception to 

the norm. A local agency also suggested that the CAM technical 

guidance document should include information on units subject to Subpart 

C monitoring. 

An industry commenter also recommended that guidance should be 

provided to state and local agencies using control device performance 

indicator ranges as enforceable permit requirements if and only when 

indicator ranges are used directly to determine compliance or 

noncompliance with applicable limitations or standards. 

Two commenters recommended that a complete technical guidance 

document be made available for public comment prior to promulgation of 

the final rule. 

One commenter requested to be included in stakeholder development of 

guidance. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 354 

Response: The Agency intends to coordinate with affected parties in the development 

of guidance as the current development of rules demonstrates (e.g., 

public meetings, distribution of drafts, etc.). To the extent possible within 

resource limits, the agency will continue this practice and provide as much 

technical assistance to State and local agencies. 

Letter(s): American Gas Association (VI-D-154); Engine Manufacturers Association 

(VI-D-17); Marathon Oil Company (VI-D-185); NESCAUM (VI-D-192); 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection; South Coast Air 

Quality Management District (VI-D-233); STAPPA/ALAPCO (VI-D-274); 

State of Illinois EPA (VI-D-183); State of New Jersey Dept. of 

Environmental Protection (VI-D-215); State of Tennessee Department of 

Environment and Conservation; Wellman, Inc. (VI-D-237) 

Comment f: One commenter suggested specifically that if EPA has not made a draft of 

the technical guidance document listing examples of continuous 

compliance determination methods available for comment prior to 

promulgation of CAM, EPA should defer to any guidance developed by 

permitting authorities which addresses these issues. The commenter 

argued that such deferral is necessary because states lack the resources 

to undertake a case-by-case review of every element of a CAM plan. 

Another commenter recommended that EPA either publish the list of 

continuous compliance determination methods as a rule or make sure that 

the availability of draft guidance is widely noticed and that EPA allow for 

notice and comment prior to finalizing the guidance (including updates to 

the guidance). 

Response: On August 30, 1996 a draft technical guidance document was placed on 

the EPA Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Table 1-2 of this 

document lists examples of continuous compliance determination 

methods as a resource for permitting authorities to use for CAM 

monitoring. In the future, the table will be improved and additions will be 

made as appropriate. Updates and additions to the technical guidance 

document will be announced and also made available on the EPA’s TTN. 

 

Letter(s): Metropolitan Council (VI-D-214); State of Tennessee Department of 

Environment and Conservation (VI-D-243) 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 355 

Comment g: An agency association suggested that sample QIPs should be included in 

the CAM technical guidance document. 

Response: The Agency disagrees. Implementation of a QIP is, by necessity, a 

site-specific response to a particular compliance problem. Preparing 

guidance on specific QIP examples would be inappropriate. The general 

description of the QIP in the preamble should suffice as an outline for a 

site-specific QIP. 

Letter(s): NESCAUM (VI-D-192) 

Comment h: The same agency association suggested that sample reporting forms like 

those contained in the Acid Rain Program and the 10/93 Enhanced 

Monitoring Guidance Document should be included in the CAM guidance 

document. 

Response: The Agency believes that State and local agencies should have the 

flexibility to describe and define reporting requirements for monitoring as 

required under part 70, and in many cases, permitting authorities have 

already done so. 

Letter(s): NESCAUM (VI-D-192) 

Comment i: One industry commenter urged that EPA develop a guidance document 

for the development of indicator ranges to ensure that permitting 

authorities allow flexibility needed to allow for variability of ranges based 

on design characteristics and site-specific factors. The commenter 

noted, for example, that the impact of small changes in manifold pressure 

and manifold temperature on internal combustion engine emission rates 

will vary considerably. 

Response: The commenter is correct in that the applicability of design factors and 

historical data will be considered and presented in example monitoring in 

the guidance. 

Letter(s): NorAm Gas Transmission Company (VI-D-142) 

Comment j: One industry commenter stated that if EPA does not eliminate the section 

64.6(a)(4) requirement to conduct monitoring to detect any bypass of a 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 356 

control device or capture system, EPA should develop guidance 

describing what types and levels of monitoring are necessary to satisfy 

this requirement. 

Response: The guidance will include such examples. 

Letter(s): Eli Lilly Company (VI-D-124) 

Comment k: A number of commenters stated that the currently available CAM 

guidance materials are inadequate. One commenter stated that EPA has 

not provided sufficient examples of existing monitoring that would satisfy 

CAM requirements. The commenter argued that examples currently 

posted on EPA's TTN bulletin board are vague, and that EPA has stated 

that more detailed examples may not be developed until after the rule is 

issued, but suitable guidance is necessary to assist states with the 

burdensome process of reviewing existing monitoring. Another 

commenter stated that if the case-by-case approach used in CAM is to 

work at all, EPA must prepare, with industry input and prior to rule 

promulgation, model plans for the most common types of control devices. 

This commenter noted that such plans will greatly reduce the 

implementation burdens and improve consistency of implementation. 

Another commenter argued that the examples provided in the 9/11/96 

CAM technical guidance document do not demonstrate that indicator 

ranges provide a reasonable assurance of compliance with applicable 

emission limits and standards. The document's fabric filter example 

proposes monitoring the parameters of differential pressure drop over the 

filter and of stack exhaust opacity, but the commenter argued that EPA's 

example of stack test results which show that all applicable requirements 

were satisfied over the proposed indicator ranges do not justify the 

conclusion that the unit will not violate applicable requirements if kept 

within the indicator ranges. The commenter noted that opacity can vary 

based on both particulate size and on particulate concentration, and noted 

further that the same reduction in pressure drop could indicate either a 

large hole in one bag or the presence of multiple badly worn bags, even 

though very different emissions would result from such scenarios. 

Another commenter complained that the examples in the guidance 

document would be very expensive, such as daily Method 9 readings, 

since many such readings could be required across a facility, such as a 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 357 

rubber manufacturing plant. Opacity monitoring, another option, would 

likewise be expensive, and recording pressure drop data once per shift 

could be time consuming, especially in large facilities according to the 

commenter. Finally, the baghouse example includes two parameters in 

combination, which the commenter believed to be inappropriate for most 

cases. This commenter also argued that the text of the guidance 

document places too much emphasis on testing to establish indicator 

ranges and noted specific places in the document where the flexibility to 

propose other approaches must be included. Finally, the commenter 

stated that the draft technical guidance document could lead permitting 

authorities to require overly burdensome corrective action plan such as in 

the example of hourly observations in the appendix to section 3. 

Finally, one commenter stated that to improve the current guidance, EPA 

should develop training programs for local permitting authorities, based on 

individual source categories, that will help them work with sources to 

develop reasonable, practical and cost-effective monitoring programs. 

Based on commenter's experience working with the Part 70 permit 

program, local permitting authorities often lack in-house technical 

expertise with regard to the sources they are regulating, and are often 

unfamiliar with the regulations they are implementing. 

Response: The Agency intends to improve and continue improving the guidance 

document including incorporating experience developed through case 

studies and actual applications of the CAM rule. As for the commenter’s 

concerns about pressure drop or visible emissions checks of fabric filter 

operations being insufficient to provide a reasonable assurance of 

compliance, the Agency believes that the commenter may have 

overstated the role that indicator ranges are to play in implementing the 

CAM rule. The Agency recognizes that some variability in the 

relationship between the levels of measured operational variables and 

actual emissions will occur and, as such, the indicator ranges are not 

intended as absolute confirmation of compliance, but as indicative of a 

reasonable assurance of compliance given the anticipated range of 

operations and the design of the control device. The Agency also 

requires through the CAM rule that excursions from established indicator 

ranges trigger a prompt inspection and correction to any detected problem 

to ensure that any periods of uncertain pollution control levels and 

possible excess emissions are minimized, if not prevented. For the 

example of the same pressure drop change indicating a single large bag 

tear or several small bag tears, the Agency would expect that an adequate 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 358 

monitoring combination of pressure drop, frequent visible emissions 

checks, and other operational monitoring would detect bag tears before 

one tear became significantly large or before smaller tears developed in 

more than one bag. 

The Agency disagrees that frequent visible emissions checks or 

monitoring of pressure drop is excessively expensive relative to the cost 

and operation of the control technology or to the benefits of reducing 

excess emissions during periods of operation with defective control 

equipment. The Agency does agree that certain types of monitoring 

approaches (e.g., COMS) are more expensive than others that may be 

equally effective (e.g., frequent operating parameter checks) in providing a 

reasonable assurance of compliance. The rule includes a good deal of 

flexibility in selecting what parameters will be monitored and how such 

monitoring will be conducted. This flexibility is intended to mitigate the 

cost concerns raised by the commenter. 

EPA also disagrees that part 64 places too much emphasis on 

performance testing to establish indicator levels. EPA has scaled back 

the performance testing contained in the 1993 proposal but believes that 

generally some minimum amount of performance testing is necessary to 

insure that the indicator levels established do provide a reasonable 

assurance of compliance. 

Letter(s): Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. (VI-D-176); Pharmaceutical 

Research and Manufacturers of America (VI-D-217); RR Donnelley & 

Sons Company (VI-D-221); Rubber Manufacturers Association (VI-D-149); 

S. Fitzsimmons (VI-D-201) 

Comment l: Some commenters urged that EPA clearly establish that the CAM 

guidance document provides guidance not requirements. For instance, 

they believed that EPA should state explicitly that the guidance lists 

examples of acceptable monitoring and not presumptive standard 

monitoring plans. A commenter added that the document should state 

that cost-effectiveness may be a factor in determining a unit's appropriate 

monitoring plan. Others added that the document should make it clear 

that monitoring protocols which are acceptable examples of Subpart B 

monitoring may be neither necessary nor cost-effective for Subpart C 

sources. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 359 

Response: The Agency will make clear that the guidance document is to provide 

examples, not requirements. 

Letter(s): American Gas Association (VI-D-154); Coastal Corporation (VI-D-123); 

Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry (VI-D-182); Total 

Petroleum, Inc. (VI-D-190) 

Comment m: One commenter suggested that EPA develop generic flowcharts to be 

incorporated into the rule which track the process of determining CAM 

applicability and the steps which must be taken to satisfy CAM. The 

commenter explained that such flowcharts would promote state-to-state 

consistency in applicability determination and implementation of CAM. 

The commenter noted that the complex nature of the current CAM draft 

makes development of such charts difficult and encloses a sample 

flowchart for reciprocating engines. 

Response: The guidance document will include improved flow charts to reflect the 

final rule. 

Letter(s): LaClede Gas Company (VI-D-198) 

Comment n: One commenter cited EPA's request in the draft discussion document for 

comment on any existing State data availability requirements so that EPA 

can compile an inventory of such requirements in CAM guidance 

materials. The commenter stated that it would not be appropriate to use 

guidelines based on other areas to provide examples for CAM purposes. 

Response: The Agency believes that an inventory of existing requirements will serve 

as a useful resource for developing monitoring approaches. Such an 

inventory is not intended as an endorsement or a requirement to use such 

monitoring for any specific application. 

Letter(s): Wisconsin Electric Power Company (VI-D-130) 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 360 

Section 17: General Comments

Section 17.1: CAM Approach

Comment a: Some commenters expressed general support for the CAM approach, 

stating that it is preferable to the approach of the 1993 Enhanced 

Monitoring proposal. Specifically, two commenters stated that the CAM 

proposal represents a dramatic improvement over the original Enhanced 

Monitoring proposal.” One commenter stated that it supports EPA's 

decision to require monitoring that is indicative of compliance rather than 

requiring direct measuring of compliance, such as use of CEMS. The 

commenter added that systems such as CEMS are expensive and difficult 

to install and use and they provide little, if any, incremental benefit over 

the use of parametric monitoring systems. Another commenter referred 

to ways in which CAM improved on Enhanced Monitoring and 

complimented EPA on the degree of openness it had shown in developing 

the CAM approach, particularly over the last two years. A commenter 

expressed general support for the CAM approach and the use of a QIP 

process to respond to excursions. However, the commenter 

recommended that the rule be further streamlined to avoid being overly 

burdensome. One commenter stated that it approved of the general 

flexibility reflected in some aspects of the rule, specifically the provisions 

that give permitting authorities permit-specific options relative to CAM 

requirements. 

One commenter discussed the goals of the CAM program. The 

commenter recommended that the goals of the CAM program include 

identifying means to minimize emissions and should not be limited to 

providing a reasonable assurance of compliance. The commenter also 

recommended that establishing relationships between actual emission 

rates and control device parameters to be monitored should be a goal of 

the CAM program. At a minimum, the commenter stated, CAM should 

require industry groups (with State or EPA oversight) to identify the most 

critical parameters for process and control equipment performance. 

Two commenters stated that they would prefer a direct monitoring 

approach to the CAM approach. One commenter stressed the 

importance of EPA’s decisions on CAM, stating that these decisions are 

crucial since real monitoring and compliance certification bring about 

improved compliance, which is the most promising source for gains in 

clean air, and this rule will determine the quality of available emissions 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 361 

data for years to come. Another commenter stated that a rule requiring 

direct emissions monitoring would allow sources to recoup costs through 

improved process control, better operating decisions as a result of better 

information, and the flexibility to operate closer to emissions limits. CAM 

does not provide these benefits, which would balance the paperwork and 

manpower burdens. Such burdens are higher under this rule than they 

would be with direct monitoring. This commenter also asserted that CAM 

would result in excessive entanglement of government in private industrial 

operations, because it would force permitting agencies to become 

intimately familiar with plant operation. The commenter questioned 

whether such entanglement is a legitimate function of government. The 

commenter suggested that direct monitoring of emissions data would 

keep agencies, appropriately, at arms length from plant operation. In 

supplemental comments this commenter reiterated its recommendation 

that part 64 require direct monitoring. The commenter stated that given 

the small number of sources subject to Subpart B of the 1996 part 64 

Draft according to the partial RIA, monitoring correlated with actual 

emissions could be required at little extra cost relative to the additional 

benefits that would be obtained. 

Response: The Agency believes that the CAM approach is a reasonable means of 

fulfilling the statutory requirement to promulgate rules on enhanced 

monitoring and compliance certification. The Agency disagrees that the 

goal of the program ought to be more than providing a reasonable 

assurance of compliance. With respect to direct emissions monitoring, 

the Agency believes that there is a role for that type of monitoring, but that 

a broad, cross-cutting rule such as part 64 is not the appropriate vehicle 

for requiring such monitoring. Finally, the Agency does not believe that 

the rule will involve excessive entanglement of agencies with industrial 

activities. The structure of the rule is based on similar compliance 

monitoring provisions that already exist under some applicable 

requirements, such as NSPS and NESHAP requirements. See Section 

I.C. of the preamble to the final rule for further discussion of these general 

issues. 

Letter(s): Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. (VI-D-176); Chemical 

Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); Colorado Association of 

Commerce and Industry (VI-D-182); Department of Energy (VI-D-196); 

Dow Chemical Company (VI-D-120); Fertilizer Institute (VI-D-253); 

Independent Liquid Terminals Association (VI-D-178); Institute of Clean 

Air Companies (VI-D-139); Institute of Clean Air Companies (VI-D-247); 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 362 

Natural Resources Defense Council (VI-D-151); Pacific Gas Transmission 

Company (VI-D-230); Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry 

(VI-D-114); Questar Corporation (VI-D-220); Southwestern Public 

Services Company (VI-D-224); State of New Jersey Dep. of 

Environmental Protection (VI-D-215) 

Section 17.2: General Comments on the Current Proposal

Comment a: Some commenters stated that the current CAM draft is an improvement 

over the 1995 draft. One commenter stated that with some important 

changes, CAM will be a workable approach to enhanced monitoring and 

compliance certification. A State agency commenter stated that it 

believes the current draft is less resource intensive than the original 

proposal and will be more environmentally beneficial through the use of 

properly established and monitored parameters. Two commenters 

specified that revising the three tier classification in the applicability 

section into two Subparts, EPA streamlined and clarified the applicability 

provisions. Another commenter complimented EPA on the degree of 

openness it has shown in developing the CAM approach, particularly over 

the last two years. One commenter noted that the rule remains 

ambiguous as to how it will be applied to sources by local permitting 

agencies. 

Response: No response is necessary to most of these comments. The Agency 

believes that the applicability provisions and design criteria in the final rule 

properly indicate how the rule will be implemented.

Letter(s): Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (VI-D-186); American Electric Power 

(VI-D-129); Arizona Electric Power Cooperative. Inc. (VI-D-176); Chemical 

Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); Department of Energy (VI-D-196); 

Independent Liquid Terminals Association (VI-D-178); Natural Gas 

Pipeline Company of America (VI-D-118); Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (VI-D-174); STAPPA/ALAPCO (VI-D-179) 

Comment b: Some commenters stated that the current draft is less favorable than the 

direction EPA appeared to be taking in the September 1995 draft. 

Commenters stated that they had supported the original CAM concept of 

a shift from direct emissions monitoring to a program designed to ensure 

that good O&M practices were followed. However, they stated that the 

current rule is more akin to the Enhanced Monitoring proposal with wide 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 363 

applicability to units having little environmental significance and with 

stringent thresholds that trigger violations rather than corrective action. 

Another commenter stated that improvements in compliance assurance 

can be achieved by fully implementing existing monitoring programs. The 

draft rule therefore does not "focus on situations where existing 

requirements fail to assure ongoing compliance . . ." as stated in the Sept. 

1995 preamble. 

Some commenters also stated that EPA's intent, as expressed in the 

preamble or otherwise, is often not reflected in the language of the 

proposed rule itself. Two commenters stated that the CAM concepts 

set forth in the preamble of the proposed rule, of focusing on improved 

control technology, operation and maintenance, and reduced burdens on 

small sources are undermined by the draft rule's enforcement-related 

concepts that result in much greater source burden and, when coupled 

with the credible evidence approach, expose the industry to unwarranted 

enforcement activity. These commenters also stated that the preamble 

provides three criteria for determining when equipment that in some cases 

would be considered a control device is more akin to an inherent part of 

the process, and thus exempt from Subpart B requirements. The 

commenters agreed that these criteria are appropriate but noted that the 

rule itself contains no mention of these criteria. As another example, the 

commenters stated that the preamble expresses an intent that not all 

deviations constitute permit violations; however, this intent is contravened 

by the rule's authorization of states to make deviations enforceable 

regardless of whether they constitute violations of the underlying 

standard. 

In support of their argument that the rule does not reflect EPA's intent as 

expressed in the preamble or other statements, the same commenters 

noted that the preamble characterizes the CAM approach as providing a 

reasonable assurance of compliance, but the rule text departs from that 

goal in such "penalty box" provisions as requiring compliance certifications 

to include QIP periods as deviations and providing that a second QIP in a 

permit term constitutes a direct violation of CAM. The commenters 

added that throughout its discussions with industry regarding CAM, EPA 

has supported a shield from credible evidence enforcement to sources 

that abide by their CAM plans. In the discussion of CAM's relationship to 

credible evidence and enforcement issues (sections I.D.1 and I.D.3.a of 

the document accompanying the 1996 part 64 Draft), EPA states that 

units operating within their CAM parameters will be presumed to be in 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 364 

compliance and not targeted for enforcement proceedings. The text of 

the rule itself does not provide any statement of these protections or a 

CAM shield. The commenters further stated that Section II.G of the draft 

preamble states that EPA has limited the CAM elements that have to be 

incorporated in a part 70 permit. In contrast, the actual rule language 

requires that a wealth of detail be incorporated into the permit. 

Another commenter, stating that the CAM rule does not reflect EPA's 

intent as expressed in the preamble or other statements, objected to the 

use throughout the rule of the terms "practicable" and "feasible." These 

words are typically interpreted by courts to mean "capable of being done" 

rather than meaning "practical" and "reasonable," which commenter 

believes to be EPA's intent. The use of these terms means that courts 

will give almost no consideration to cost so the terms "practical" and 

"reasonable" should be used instead. 

Some commenters recommended that the CAM rule be redrafted to clear 

up ambiguities. One commenter stated that the CAM rule is somewhat 

ambiguous in its construction, has multi-tiered cross-references, and 

could be better organized. The commenter added that it is 

understandable that the rule's draftsmanship has suffered because it has 

been subject to considerable political and substantive revision. The CAM 

technical guidance document is extremely clear, but it cannot substitute 

for clarity in the rule itself. The commenter stressed the importance that 

the rule be understood because the rule represents an important step in 

air pollution control. Two commenters provided minor edits to several 

sections to clarify the rule's intent. 

Response: As discussed above in Sections 1-12 (Part III) of this document, the final 

rule includes a number of rule changes that both clarify the intent and 

process for implementing part 64. The sections have been reorganized 

to track the process for implementing the rule. This restructuring has 

improved the rule's organization. As discussed in sections 6 and 8 (Part 

III), the process for establishing indicator ranges has been clarified 

consistent with EPA's stated intent for the CAM approach. The Agency 

disagrees that it has supported a shield against enforcement actions for 

sources that meet part 64. This was not presented as an option in either 

the 1995 or 1996 part 64 drafts. For other comments that oppose 

specific provisions in the 1996 part 64 Draft, see the responses included 

for such comments in the relevant substantive sections of this document. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 365 

Letter(s): Chemical Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); Dow Chemical Company 

(VI-D-120); Eastman Chemical Company (VI-D-173); General Electric 

Company (VI-D-156); Phillips Petroleum Company (VI-D-131); Specialty 

Steel Industry of North America (VI-D-143); State of Washington 

Department of Ecology (VI-D-167); Steel Manufacturers Association 

(SMA) (VI-D-144); Texaco Environment Health & Safety (VI-D-199); 

Texas Title V Planning Committee (VI-D-188) 

Section 17.3: Complexity and Clarity of CAM

Comment a: Some commenters asserted that the CAM rule is unnecessarily complex. 

Two commenters recommended that the rule be simplified so that sources 

and States can understand and follow the process for developing and 

implementing CAM monitoring. Another commenter stated that the draft 

CAM rule has strayed from the original concept of focusing on good 

operation and maintenance of control equipment by focusing instead on 

acceptable numerical indicator ranges, deviations from which would likely 

be considered violations. Under this approach, short term and 

sometimes continuous measurements are inappropriately expected to 

serve as a proxy compliance demonstration for periodic compliance 

demonstrations. The commenter concluded that the resulting approach 

is overly complex. Two commenters stated that the current CAM draft 

utilizes many undefined terms and contains numerous cross-references to 

other rules and other documents, resulting in an extremely complicated 

rule that leaves room for varying interpretations from State to State. 

These commenters added that there will be no way to predict how CAM 

will be implemented in any given State. The commenters urged EPA to 

simplify the rule, clarify existing definitions and add further definitions in 

order to minimize potential variations in interpretation. One commenter 

stated that nothing in the legislative history suggests that Congress 

intended for the rules to be as prescriptive as drafted, and recommended 

that EPA give States more leeway in determining the appropriate level of 

monitoring and how to interpret deviations from indicator ranges. A 

commenter also expressed the belief that EPA has underestimated the 

cost and burdens that are likely to occur as a result of CAM. 

One commenter stated that because compliance with and enforcement of 

complex regulations is difficult and expensive, EPA should promulgate the 

simplest rule that meets the requirements of section 114(a)(3). The 

commenter further stated that CAM is more complex than a requirement 

to directly monitor emissions. A commenter from the natural gas industry 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 366 

stated that CAM will create costly new applicable requirements that are no 

different or less substantive than work practice standards currently used. 

The commenter added that EPA has incorrectly assumed that current 

programs do not require and the industry does not pay appropriate 

attention to control device performance. The commenter added that EPA 

should at least provide substantial evidence of such inadequacies before 

imposing burdensome new requirements on the industry. 

One commenter, arguing that the CAM rule is unnecessarily complex, 

stated that the CAM proposal is an example of EPA micro management, 

which places the burden of compliance on applicants and State agencies. 

 The commenter summarized the requirements of the CAM proposal as 

follows: a Title V permit applicant is required to divide its site into various 

emissions units and analyze each unit on a pollutant by pollutant basis. 

An applicant must develop and gain approval of a CAM plan for each 

combination of emission unit with a control device, applicable requirement 

and regulated pollutant. The burden is on the applicant to justify in 

writing that its proposed CAM plan will satisfy the requirements of the rule. 

 The applicant is then subject to both technical judgments, which may 

vary from an applicant's applicability analysis, and inconsistent 

determinations by permit writers. Finally, the State agency and its permit 

writers must go through burdensome and time-consuming case by case 

reviews. 

Response: The Agency has restructured the final rule to simplify and clarify 

implementation of part 64. The final rule does continue to rely on part 70 

definitions, as well as implementation on a pollutant-specific emissions 

unit basis. However, the rule only applies to part 70 major sources. 

Such sources should have a clear understanding of part 70 definitions, 

and are required to submit applications that identify emissions units and 

air pollution control equipment. Thus, the Agency believes that reliance 

on these part 70 concepts will streamline implementation, not add 

complexity as some commenters suggested. 

EPA does not believe that the alleged simplicity of requiring direct 

emission monitoring is a justification for abandoning the CAM approach. 

EPA moved to the CAM approach is much less costly than direct emission 

monitoring. Moreover, for units with control technology, EPA believes 

that forcing sources to pay attention to such technology, as the CAM 

approach does, can be more effective than direct emission monitoring for 

reducing emissions because monitoring control technology will often 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 367 

identify the reason for excess emissions. If complexity is a concern for 

source owners and operators as to CAM, they have the option of adopting 

direct emissions monitoring to satisfy part 64. EPA also does not agree 

that CAM will create costly new applicable requirements that duplicate 

existing work practice standards. First, part 64 would apply to work 

practice standards only to the extent that a source owner or operator 

relied upon control technology to comply with the statute. Second, if 

requirements for monitoring such control technology already exist, these 

monitoring requirements can be part of the CAM plan and thus should not 

impose major new costs. As to whether there is a need for enhanced 

monitoring of major sources, EPA would note that Congress has already 

made that determination. Finally, EPA disagrees with the commenter 

who suggests that CAM is too complex because of the allegedly 

burdensome case-by-case review by the permitting authority. Part 64 

was designed to give source owners and operators flexibility in 

establishing monitoring plans and does so by establishing general criteria 

for monitoring and not, as the commenter suggested, through EPA 

micromanagement. However, because part 64 is not overly prescriptive 

and gives source owners and operators broad latitude, of necessity there 

must be a case-by-case review. 

Letter(s): Centerior Energy (VI-D-134); Clean Air Implementation Project (VI-D-153); 

Engine Manufacturers Association (VI-D-117); Gas Processors 

Association (VI-D-163); Institute of Clean Air Companies (VI-D-139); 

LaClede Gas Company (VI-D-198); Ohio Chamber of Commerce, et. al. 

(VI-D-160); Rubber Manufacturers Association (VI-D-149); UCAR Carbon 

Company, Inc. (VI-D-122) 

Section 17.4: CAM Rulemaking Process

Comment a: Some commenters expressed general support for EPA’s efforts in the 

CAM rulemaking. Two commenters commended the EPA staff for their 

extensive efforts to solicit the viewpoints of all interested stakeholders 

during the development of the CAM program. Two commenters also 

stated that they support the general approach set forth in the CAM rule. 

One commenter expressed support for the goals of the program, but 

believes that the relationship of the monitoring to compliance needs to be 

strengthened. A State agency commented that it found little 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 368 

objectionable in the proposed rule and noted that, although the CAM rule 

has been long in the making, "the time has not been wasted." 

One commenter opposed the stakeholder process that EPA has used, 

stating that the process has given unfair treatment to selected groups. 

The commenter stated that using a front table with seating for others in 

the back has unfairly given weight to the views of a small group of 

participants at the disadvantage of others. The commenter 

recommended that EPA return to standard public meetings where 

everyone is accorded the same ability to be heard. 

Response: The Agency has attempted to provide as much opportunity as possible for 

interested parties to participate in the part 64 rulemaking process, and 

believes that these efforts have been successful. The Agency believes 

that the public meeting formats effectively stimulated discussions while 

still allowing anyone that wished to be heard to provide input to the 

Agency. 

Letter(s): Clean Air Implementation Project (VI-D-153); NESCAUM (VI-D-192); 

Pacific Gas Transmission Company (VI-D-230); Phillips Petroleum 

Company (VI-D-131); The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. (VI-D-148); 

State of Washington Department of Ecology (VI-D-167) 

Section 17.5: Other General Concerns

Comment a: One commenter argued that CAM creates a conflict between public 

access to emissions data and the regulated community's right to protect 

trade secrets. The commenter stated that section 114(c) of the Act, 

which requires that records, reports or information obtained under section 

114(a) shall be available to the public, makes "methods or processes 

entitled to protection as trade secrets" confidential but excludes "emission 

data" from such confidentiality. For some sources, process data that 

constitutes confidential business information may be the only emission 

data collected under CAM. The commenter added that the use of direct 

emissions measurement technologies and methodologies would allow full 

disclosure of emission levels without compromising the confidentiality of 

trade secrets. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 369 

Response: Data on excursions or exceedances cannot be protected as trade secrets 

under the Act. Owners or operators will have to evaluate trade secret 

concerns in developing and proposing monitoring to satisfy part 64. 

Letter(s): Institute of Clean Air Companies (VI-D-139) 

Comment b: A commenter argued that CAM and other EPA regulations and actions 

favor electric utilities over alternative energy providers and other sources. 

The commenter stated that the Act's permit structure favors electric 

utilities, the worst polluters. The structure is such that the more a 

stationary source pollutes, the less it pays per unit. Lignite-fueled 

electrical generating plants pay as little as a few cents per ton of pollutant 

emitted while sources, such as natural gas utility customers, pay $25 per 

ton up to 4,000 tons. The commenter provided graphs based on Texas 

and Missouri emissions inventories. The commenter also stated that the 

CAM Subpart B applicability provisions apparently assume that a unit will 

operate for 8,760 full-load run-hours per year and do not take into account 

emissions controls. This places smaller engine-driven systems at a 

competitive disadvantage, because such systems normally run for far less 

than 8,760 hours per year. The commenter provided a table showing 

average size and yearly hours of operation for such systems. The 

commenter further stated that EPA should not attempt to regulate small 

stationary sources, such as alternative energy providers, out of business 

so that regulatory efforts can be focused on the remaining large sources. 

The commenter stated that the contemplated EPA standards for internal 

combustion engines are an example of this approach. Such an approach 

could have dangerous environmental consequences. The commenter 

enclosed charts illustrating projected increases in CO2 from traditional 

coal-burning electric utilities and the comparative advantage in emissions 

reductions of using natural gas-fueled end-use technology. 

Finally, the commenter stated that control or monitoring of NOx may be 

inappropriate in some circumstances. The commenter cited a National 

Academy of Sciences Report, which suggests that decreasing NOx can 

actually increase ozone where there is a low VOC/NOx ratio. The 

commenter stated that NOx control and monitoring may therefore not be 

appropriate for ozone non-attainment areas where such a ratio exists. 

The commenter noted that the Missouri DNR has submitted a waiver 

application for St. Louis to EPA reflecting this approach, and suggested 

that CAM also reflect this approach. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 370 

Response: Most of the commenter's concerns are beyond the scope of this 

rulemaking. However, the Agency notes that the final rule applies only to 

emissions units that are subject to applicable requirements and are 

required to install a control device to achieve compliance. Thus, many of 

the types of stationary sources discussed by the commenter are unlikely 

to rely on control devices and thus will not be subject to part 64. 

Letter(s): LaClede Gas Company (VI-D-198) 

Section 17.6: Comments on Credible Evidence Rulemaking

Comment a: Several commenters expressed general opinions on the credible evidence 

rulemaking. One commenter expressed support for EPA's position that, 

under the CE rule, the plaintiff would have the burden of showing that, if a 

compliance test had been conducted during the time period covered by 

the evidence, the test would have shown a violation. Another commenter 

stated that it supports the use of data other than reference test method 

data for enforcement actions arguing that using other credible evidence 

will provide additional flexibility in ensuring that sources are complying 

with applicable emission limits. A State agency commenter agreed that 

EPA has the authority to use credible evidence to enforce standards 

under the 1990 CAAA and noted that the use of such information for 

enforcement purposes has always been allowed under the State's 

applicable statutes. 

A utility commented that the credible evidence rule will have a chilling 

effect on the regulated community and will discourage additional 

monitoring and recordkeeping. Other commenters objected to the use of 

credible evidence to determine actual violations of the Act; one 

commenter added that it considers the credible evidence approach to be 

unwise, unnecessary, overreaching, and redundant in light of EPA's other 

enforcement powers. Another commenter suggested limiting credible 

evidence to "any scientifically verifiable evidence." 

A commenter noted that removing CE from the CAM context does not 

solve any of the problems industry has with the credible evidence 

initiative. The commenter also objected to the lack of full 

notice-and-comments in the promulgation of CE. Another commenter 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 371 

cited to the Unitek decision as an example of how opening the door to 

credible evidence will allow any information, regardless of its comparability 

to test data, to be used to prove noncompliance as long as it is admissible 

under the Rules of Evidence. This commenter stated that if EPA means 

for credible evidence to be something more than ordinary evidence, it 

must clearly say so. 

One commenter stated that the credible evidence revisions are based on 

a misreading of section 113 which pertains to penalty assessment criteria 

that may be used once it has been determined that a violation occurred. 

This commenter argued that evidence other than the test method can be 

used, if at all, to determine the duration of a violation which is merely one 

of seven factors in penalty assessment, and that legislative history is not 

relevant since the statutory language is clear. The commenter referred to 

previous discussion of this point by another commenter. 

One commenter recommended defining compliance methods that are 

considered credible evidence for an underlying requirement either by rule 

and/or in a permit, so that the regulated community, the public, and 

permitting authorities know which compliance methods are associated 

with an underlying requirement. 

One commenter noted that the potential to use operating parameters as 

credible evidence of a violation is suspect because of the often weak 

correlation of parameters and emissions. The commenter referred to 

detailed correlation studies conducted at the commenter's sewage sludge 

incinerators (see detailed summary under section 6.1 (Part III)). The 

commenter also noted that the egregious acts which led to the violations 

cited in the Sierra Club v. PSC case left absolutely no doubt that the 

facility was in violation, but that in most cases where credible evidence 

might apply, the cases of noncompliance are not so clear cut. 

Some commenters expressed support for EPA's suggestion in the 

preamble to the 8/2/96 CAM proposal that the categories of 

"presumptively credible evidence" be eliminated from the credible 

evidence revisions to 40 CFR Parts 51, 52, 60 and 61. Two commenters 

expressed support for the elimination of presumptively credible evidence. 

One of these commenters added that, although it is not in favor of the 

credible evidence revisions, the commenter agrees that it is not 

appropriate to presume that CAM excursions are credible evidence of a 

violation. 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 372 

One commenter requested that EPA confirm that credible evidence could 

not be used to show a violation when the time period covered by the 

evidence is less than that required to conduct the test or when the source 

is operating under conditions that are outside those defined in the test 

method. 

A commenter expressed concern with the impact that the credible 

evidence rule will have on compliance with hourly emission rates derived 

from AP-42 emission factors which have been incorporated into many 

SIPs. The commenter suggests that for such emission limits which do 

not specify an averaging period, it would be appropriate to assume a 

one-year period. The commenter expressed a similar concern about the 

lack of startup, shutdown or malfunction excused periods in many states 

which becomes an important issue when the credible evidence rule is 

considered. 

Finally, several commenters incorporated by reference comments that 

they had submitted to the docket in response to the March 1996 credible 

evidence paper. 

Response: No response to these comments is necessary because these comments 

are directed at the credible evidence rulemaking promulgated on February 

24, 1997 (62 FR 8314). See the Response to Comments Document for 

the Credible Evidence Rule (docket item A-91-52-V-C-2) for a response to 

comments raised in the context of that rulemaking. To the extent any of 

these comments concern the relationship of part 64 to the CE rule, see 

the response to comments under Section 14.2 (Part III) of this document. 

Letter(s): American Furniture Manufacturers Association (VI-D-203); Chemical 

Manufacturers Association (VI-D-152); Council of Industry Boiler 

Operators (VI-D-263); Department of Defense (VI-D-209); Georgia 

Department of Natural Resources (VI-D-193); General Electric Company 

(VI-D-156); Integrated Waste Services Association (VI-D-147); Kennecott 

Corporation (VI-D-119); Metropolitan Council (VI-D-214); Mobil 

Corporation (VI-D-115); NorAm Gas Transmission Company (VI-D-142); 

Public Service Company of Colorado (VI-D-219); Rubber Manufacturers 

Association (VI-D-149); Specialty Steel Industry of North America 

(VI-D-143); STAPPA/ALAPCO (VI-D-179); Steel Manufacturers 

Association (SMA) (VI-D-144); Southwestern Public Services Company 

(VI-D-224); Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 373 

(VI-D-189); Texas Utilities Services, Inc. (VI-D-121); United Technologies 

Corporation (VI-D-251) 

Section 17.7: Benefits and Burdens of CAM Rule

Comment a: Some commenters stated that CAM will require excessive monitoring that 

provides little benefit to the environment. Two commenters added that, 

contrary to OAQPS's goal of creating a cost-effective rule which provides 

reasonable assurance that Title V sources comply with permit terms and 

applicable requirements, the current CAM draft requires the regulated 

community to engage in the costly collection and analysis of monitoring 

data that is of little use to determine whether sources are actually 

complying with environmental standards. Another commenter stated that 

the value of the CAM rule is questionable in light of heightened 

compliance oversight through the Title V program and new compliance 

tools resulting from the 1990 CAA Amendments. In the 1990 

Amendments, Congress increased the civil and criminal penalties for 

violations, gave EPA administrative penalty authority, added a field 

citation penalty program, etc. Although CAM implements the periodic 

monitoring requirement of Title V, it also grafts a significantly more 

burdensome monitoring and reporting overlay onto the Title V program. 

One commenter added that EPA has not shown that there is an endemic 

problem with the adequacy of current monitoring, or that a major new 

program is needed to fix any such problem. As demonstrated in the 

docket over the past few years, the existing programs are designed with 

appropriate monitoring and where those fail due to inadequate monitoring, 

they are self-correcting. 

Some commenters noted that the CAM rule will be a significant burden. 

An industry association stated that one facility had estimated the cost for 

maintaining a CAM program in excess of $50 thousand per year. 

Another commenter stated that CAM will result in increased program fees, 

but will have little environmental benefit. 

One commenter argued that there is no demonstrated need for the CAM 

rule. The commenter stated that an additional monitoring rule would not 

be needed if current regulatory programs that require monitoring and 

data-gathering were fully implemented. The commenter added that this 

is supported by the EPA white paper on "paying attention" to good O & M 

practices, which concludes that the actual use of excess emissions 

reports which already must be submitted to EPA could accomplish many 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 374 

of the goals of CAM. In supplemental comments, one commenter 

questioned the value of applying CAM requirements to sources that 

already conduct continuous "excess emissions" monitoring since EPA has 

already promulgated the CE rule to ensure that such data are available for 

emission limit enforcement. The commenter also stated that the CAM 

rule is unnecessary because companies have existing voluntary programs 

to properly operate and maintain control devices. These programs exist 

because companies already have incentives, such as increasing the life of 

a control device, to conduct good O & M. The commenter noted that 

EPA examples show that good O & M can lead to direct cost reductions 

and a reduction in upsets that result in public or regulatory scrutiny. The 

commenter urged EPA to consider that customer demands and 

organizations like the ISO can create additional incentives for such 

voluntary programs, like CMA's "Responsible Care" program. Such 

programs can satisfy the objectives of CAM even if they do not cause the 

same results as CAM. 

In support of its argument that there is no demonstrated need for the CAM 

rule, a commenter stated that EPA has acknowledged that it is better to fill 

gaps in regulatory monitoring requirements through individual rulemakings 

than through a broad rule like CAM through EPA's exempting NSPS and 

NESHAP adopted after 1990 from CAM. As proposed, the CAM rule will 

only require permitting authorities to revisit old rules. This is unnecessary 

because NSPS must be revised at least every eight years. Since all 

pre-1990 NSPS will be re-examined by 1998, these standards can be 

revised before the CAM program can be fully implemented. NSPS 

standards also already require control device parameter monitoring, 

excess emission reports, and subject sources to a general duty provision. 

In states with NSR programs, almost all activities subject to NSPS are 

also subject to NSR permitting and a BACT demonstration. NESHAPs 

do not need to be re-examined under CAM because Part 61 standards 

already include monitoring requirements and a general duty provision. 

NESHAPs are also being largely replaced by MACT standards. 

Finally, in support of its argument that the CAM rule is unnecessary, a 

commenter stated that it is unnecessary to subject SIP provisions to CAM 

requirements because SIPs should already be designed to allow areas to 

attain the NAAQS. Any SIP provision that does not achieve this goal 

should be revised to address monitoring and O & M concerns. The 

commenter cited examples from EPA's "paying attention to good O & M" 

document of SIP provisions from the following States or regions that 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 375 

satisfy the goals of the CAM program: Texas, the Bay Area Quality 

Management District, Ohio, Georgia, Florida, Indiana, Wisconsin, and 

Oregon. The commenter noted that States have complete discretion to 

develop programs necessary to satisfy the NAAQS and that EPA can 

reject inadequate SIP submittals but cannot require a wholesale revision 

of SIP provisions as contemplated under the CAM rule. The commenter 

cited a number of cases limiting EPA's ability to interfere with or 

circumvent approved SIP provisions, including Train v. NRDC, Bethlehem 

Steel v. Gorsuch, and U.S. v. Riverside Labs. 

Some commenters stated that the proposed CAM rule lacks the flexibility 

to allow States to continue pre-existing State programs that provide the 

same outcome as CAM. One State agency commenter expressed 

support for many of the principles of the CAM rule, but noted that many of 

these principals overlap with the State's own program. The CAM rule 

does not allow States to run such pre-existing programs independently of 

CAM and therefore results in redundancy and an increased administrative 

burden for the State agency and the regulated community of the State. 

The commenter provides the following examples of overlap between the 

State program and CAM: (1) Minn. R. 7011.0075, Control Equipment 

General Requirements, requires sources to submit the same general 

information relating to the monitoring of control equipment performance 

and reporting of deviations as must be submitted in a CAM plan; (2) The 

State has an established mechanism to handle noncompliance of control 

equipment operation. Minnesota rules require facilities to report 

deviations from monitored control equipment parameters semiannually. 

The MPCA Compliance Determination Unit then reviews these deviation 

reports to determine compliance and makes recommendations on the 

appropriate follow-up to the Enforcement Unit. The CAM rule's QIP 

requirements merely address the same problems while adding an 

administrative burden; (3) The QIP requirements also limit State options of 

interpreting when a violation occurs and when the permitting authority 

should take action; and (4) State requirements relating to the reporting of 

planned shutdowns, breakdowns and failures of control equipment (e.g., 

Minn. R. 7019.1000) satisfy CAM requirements to notify permitting 

authorities of problems with control equipment. The commenter 

proposed that CAM be revised to allow States the opportunity to 

selectively incorporate the elements of CAM needed for their programs 

and suggests that this procedure could be administered by EPA regional 

offices. Also, an industry commenter from California noted that many 

elements of the CAM rule are unnecessary for Subpart B units in 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 376 

Southern California because facilities containing such units are already 

required to show that they comply with the stringent air quality regulations 

implemented by local air pollution control districts. 

Response: The Agency disagrees with comments that suggest that part 64 is 

unnecessary. Congress has mandated in section 114(a)(3) that EPA 

impose enhanced monitoring and compliance certification requirements. 

Thus, Congress has already settled the question of whether there is a 

“demonstrated need” for enhanced monitoring and compliance 

certifications. In addition, the final rule focuses on units that rely on 

control equipment to remain in compliance, which previous studies have 

shown to be significant compliance problems. See the documents 

referenced in the final preamble on this subject. With respect to existing 

State programs, the final rule should allow existing approaches that are 

similar to part 64 to be used in satisfying part 64. In the Minnesota 

example, the submittal and reporting requirements of part 64 should be 

able to coordinate with the existing State provisions. The QIP provisions 

in the final rule have been modified in response to concerns similar to 

those revised in those comments. 

Letter(s): Alyeska Pipeline Service Company (VI-D-126); American Furniture 

Manufacturers Association (VI-D-203); ASARCO Incorporated (VI-D-187); 

Can Manufacturers Institute (VI-D-181); Coalition for Clean Air 

Implementation (VI-D-249); Coastal Corporation (VI-D-123); Independent 

Liquid Terminals Association (VI-D-178); Minnesota Pollution Control 

Agency (VI-D-197); Public Service Company of Colorado (VI-D-219); 

Southern California Gas Company (VI-D-222); Tennessee Valley 

Authority (VI-D-162); Texas Title V Planning Committee (VI-D-188); Utility 

Air Regulatory Group (VI-D-252) 

Section 17.8: Delegation of Authority to States

Comment a: Some commenters stated that the CAM rule delegates the resolution of 

too many important issues to the States. For example, some 

commenters pointed out that States have complete discretion to 

determine which parameters are appropriate to be monitored, to identify 

appropriate indicator ranges, and to determine which, if any, of the 

resulting conditions will be enforceable permit terms. The broad 

delegation to the States will cause inefficiencies and create inconsistent 

CAM requirements among States. Those inconsistencies could result in 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 377 

different requirements for facilities that are part of the same company 

located in different States and could lead to a competitive disadvantage 

for companies in States with more stringent and costly requirements. A 

commenter recommended that EPA enhance through rulemaking the 

particular monitoring requirements that it deems inadequate. Under the 

draft CAM rule "standards" will no longer be standards at all since 

stringency will vary from State to State and from point to point. Likewise, 

the commenter recommended that States use rulemaking to enhance 

monitoring for SIPs that are not capable of demonstrating compliance. 

According to this commenter, the CAM rule, if promulgated, should only 

be a temporary measure in effect until changes to underlying rules can be 

made. 

Some commenters cited specific provisions where the CAM rule 

improperly leaves the resolution of important issues to the States: § 

64.2(a)(2), where States may apply Subpart B to any other 

pollutant-specific emissions unit they deem appropriate; § 64.3(b)(2)(ii)(B), 

where States may establish, consistent with existing authority, that an 

excursion from an indicator range is a failure to comply with the source's 

part 70 permit; § 64.7(a)(5), in which States are given discretion to add 

any other elements to CAM plans; § 64.9(a)(3), where permitting 

authorities may include all CAM plan monitoring elements deemed 

necessary in a Subpart C unit's part 70 permit; § 64.9(c)(1), where 

permitting authorities may require sources to base monitoring on a 

performance test instead of relying on engineering assessments and 

manufacturer's recommendations as justification for the monitoring; § 

64.9(c)(2)(iii), where permitting authorities have the discretion to 

determine whether no monitoring is appropriate for certain insignificant 

activities; § 70.6(c)(5)(iii)(D), in which certifications are to be based on 

whatever facts the permitting authority may require; and the treatment of 

insignificant activities (as defined in State Part 70 permit programs) under 

the CAM rule. One commenter added that States are currently 

determining what monitoring is required under Part 70 periodic monitoring 

requirements in their Title V programs. Although the CAM rule will 

remove these requirements, there will be inconsistencies between the 

developed State programs and the final CAM requirements. 

In support of their argument that the CAM rule delegates the resolution of 

too many important issues to the States, some commenters stated that 

fundamental principles of constitutional law require that the CAM 

regulations do not exceed the grant of statutory authority in sections 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 378 

114(a)(3) and 504(a) and (b). EPA cannot avoid this constraint by 

subdelegating its rulemaking authority to State and local agencies. The 

rule must therefore establish standards that act to limit those agencies in 

establishing requirements under CAM. These commenters further stated 

that EPA has no mechanism for reviewing and approving the States' 

creation of federally-enforceable requirements through CAM, because the 

draft CAM proposal does not require EPA review and approval of States' 

CAM programs. The commenter recommended that the final rule either 

include such a mechanism or provide that any additional requirements 

beyond the minimum required by CAM are State-only requirements. 

Finally, the rule raises State constitutional issues in that it could be 

interpreted to grant State agencies legislative rulemaking authority that 

must first be granted by a State legislature, not a federal agency. 

Response: The final rule establishes specific criteria to be achieved to satisfy part 64. 

 If an owner or operator meets these criteria, the owner or operator has 

satisfied part 64. If the owner or operator believes that a permitting 

authority has improperly disapproved monitoring, the owner or operator 

may appeal that action through the appropriate mechanisms established 

under title V permit programs. Nearly all of the 1996 part 64 Draft 

provisions cited specifically by the commenters are not included in the 

final rule (including §§ 64.2(a)(2), 64.3(b)(2)(ii)(B), 64.7(a)(5), 64.9(a)(3), 

64.9(c)(1), and 64.9(c)(2)(iii)). The treatment of insignificant activities 

also is not addressed in the final rule. The only specifically cited 

provision that is included in the final rule, § 70.6(c)(5)(iii)(D), is a provision 

that exists in part 70 as originally promulgated in July 1992. Therefore, 

the Agency disagrees that the final rule either improperly delegates 

rulemaking to the States or interferes with title V implementation. 

Letter(s): American Automobile Manufacturers Association (VI-D-157); American 

Public Power Association (VI-D-158); BP Oil Company (VI-D-113); Eli Lilly 

Company (VI-D-124); General Electric (VI-D-156); Kennecott Corporation 

(VI-D-119); National Environmental Development Association (VI-D-169); 

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association (VI-D-217); 

State of New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection; UCAR Carbon 

Company, Inc. (VI-D-122) 

Section 17.9: Implementation Concerns and Recommendations
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 379 

Comment a: One commenter expressed concerns about how to effectively implement 

CAM in certain situations. The commenter asked how CAM should be 

implemented for particulate matter during excursions that occur due to 

exempted emissions (i.e., sootblowing). The commenter noted that some 

States have a separate particulate standard for sootblowing, and stated 

that CAM will apparently require special recordkeeping and tracking for 

such exempted operations. The commenter also asked how a source 

would implement CAM for area-wide fugitive emissions and site-specific 

sources like conveyor belts, which may have opacity limits under Title V. 

The commenter stated that it is unclear how a source would implement 

CAM for a work practice standard such as ash unloading from storage 

silos. 

Response: For fugitive emissions and ash unloading, the final rule likely will not apply 

unless the emissions are captured and routed to a control device. For 

exempted periods, such periods may result in excursions or exceedances 

that would have to be reported, as is done currently for excess emission 

reporting under 40 CFR part 60. If a separate standard applies, the 

owner or operator could use a separate indicator range/exceedance level 

for such periods, but would have to document that the separate 

range/exceedance level was applied only during appropriate periods. 

Letter(s): Southern Company Services (VI-D-171) 

Comment b: A commenter urged EPA to recognize in the CAM rule the differences 

between bulk liquid storage terminals and other types of sources, namely 

that these terminals operate only intermittently and on erratic schedules. 

The commenter recommended that the rule specifically recognize the 

nature of the business, not be required during periods when a product is 

not being stored, piped, or transferred, and be more flexible to 

accommodate the vast differences in facility design and operations. 

Response: Because such operations often do not rely on control devices, EPA does 

not expect that the rule will significantly impact such facilities. 

Letter(s): Independent Liquid Terminals Association (VI-D-178) 

Comment c: One commenter recommended that the rule state that CAM activities are 

eligible for funding under the Title V fee provisions. The commenter 

explained that State and local agencies will be deeply involved in carrying 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 380 

out the CAM program and will therefore have to commit a significant level 

of resources to CAM. These agencies would benefit from a statement in 

the rule establishing that CAM activities are eligible for funding under Title 

V fee provisions. 

Response: Because the review of part 64 monitoring will occur in the context of part 

70 implementation, in the same manner as the review of periodic 

monitoring under § 70.6(a)(3), the costs associated with part 64 

implementation are covered by title V fees. The Agency does not believe 

that any specific rule language is necessary. 

Letter(s): State of Illinois EPA (VI-D-183) 

Comment d: A commenter suggested that CAM would be most efficiently implemented 

when a new facility is constructed so that monitoring can be incorporated 

into the facility design. The commenter added that implementing CAM at 

existing sources, especially in the plastics industry, will have tremendous 

burdens. The same commenter recommended that CAM make clear that 

if a State imposes monitoring more stringent than required by CAM, such 

monitoring is State-only, not federally-enforceable. 

Response: Existing sources are subject to part 64. Those sources are required to 

have an adequate basis to demonstrate and certify compliance with 

applicable requirements. Monitoring more stringent than part 64 may be 

state-only or federally-enforceable. That determination will depend on 

the legal authority relied on by the State to require such monitoring. 

Letter(s): The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. (VI-D-148) 

Comment e: A commenter recommended that CAM allow Part 75 monitoring 

requirements under the Acid Rain Program to supersede Part 60 

requirements, provided that the DAHS computes compliance using 

appropriate averaging times. 

Response: This suggestion is beyond the scope of part 64. However, see the recent 

proposal to coordinate part 60 and part 75 reporting under proposed 

revisions to 40 CFR part 60, subparts Da and Db (62 FR 36948, July 9, 

1997). 
CAM RTC (Part III) 

October 2, 1997 

Page 381 

Letter(s): Niagara Mohawk (VI-D-168) 
October 2, 1997 

APPENDIX III-A 

 LIST OF COMMENT LETTERS FOR RESPONSE (Part III): 

 EPA AIR DOCKET A-91-52 

 SORTED BY ORGANIZATION

Commenting Organization Docket #

Air Control Techniques, P.C. VI-D-202 

Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. VI-D-186 

Alyeska Pipeline Service Company VI-D-126 

American Automobile Manufacturers Association VI-D-157 

American Automobile Manufacturers Association VI-D-266 

American Automobile Manufacturers Association VI-D-270 

American Automobile Manufacturers Association VI-D-273 

American Electric Power VI-D-129 

American Furniture Manufacturers Association VI-D-203 

American Gas Association VI-D-154 

American Gas Association VI-D-255 

American Lung Association, et al. VI-D-238 

American Municipal Power-Ohio VI-D-159 

American Petroleum Institute VI-D-146 

American Public Power Association VI-D-158 

Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. VI-D-176

Arizona Mining Association VI-D-150 

Arkansas River Power Authority VI-D-245 

Armstrong, Teasdale, Schlafly & Davis VI-D-205 

ASARCO Incorporated VI-D-187 

Association of Battery Recyclers VI-D-155 

Baltimore Gas & Electric Company VI-D-177 

BP Oil Company VI-D-113 

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company VI-D-204 

California Association of Sanitation Agencies VI-D-206 

Can Manufacturers Institute VI-D-181 

Can Manufacturers Institute VI-D-262 

Centerior Energy VI-D-134 

Chemical Manufacturers Association VI-D-152 

Chemical Manufacturers Association VI-D-258 

Chevron Companies VI-D-132 

Cinergy Corp. VI-D-141 
Cinergy Corp. VI-D-207 

Commenting Organization Docket #

CITGO Petroleum Corporation VI-D-172 

Class of '85 Regulatory Response Group VI-D-161 

Clean Air Implementation Project VI-D-153 

Clean Steel Coalition VI-D-195 

Coalition for Clean Air Implementation VI-D-164 

Coalition of Clean Air Implementation VI-D-249 

Coastal Corporation VI-D-123 

Coastal Corporation VI-D-271 

Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry VI-D-182 

Columbia Gas System Service Corporations VI-D-175

Cooperative Power Association VI-D-208 

Council of Industrial Boiler Owners VI-D-263 

County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California VI-D-231 

County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County VI-D-232 

Department of Defense VI-D-209 

Department of Energy VI-D-196 

Dow Chemical Company VI-D-120 

DuPont Engineering VI-D-127 

Duquesne Light VI-D-138 

Eastman Chemical Company VI-D-173 

El Paso Energy VI-D-257 

Electronic Industries Association VI-D-137 

Eli Lilly Company VI-D-124 

Enerac VI-D-227 

Engine Manufacturers Association VI-D-117 

Enron Operations Corp. VI-D-235 

Environmental Systems Corporation VI-D-125 

Exxon Chemical Americas VI-D-128 

Exxon Company, USA VI-D-135 

Fertilizer Institute, The VI-D-145 

Fertilizer Institute, The VI-D-253 

Gas Processors Association VI-D-163 

General Electric Company VI-D-156 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources VI-D-193 

Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. VI-D-165 

Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. VI-D-246 

Houston Lighting & Power Company VI-D-228 

Independent Liquid Terminals Association VI-D-178

Commenting Organization Docket #

Institute of Clean Air Companies VI-D-139 
Appendix III-A 

October 2, 1997 

Page 3 

Institute of Clean Air Companies VI-D-247 

Integrated Waste Services Association VI-D-147 

KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc. VI-D-229 

Kennecott Corporation VI-D-119 

LaClede Gas Company VI-D-198 

Los Alamos National Laboratory VI-D-210 

Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association VI-D-184 

Marathon Oil Company VI-D-185 

Merck & Co., Inc. VI-D-212 

Metropolitan Council VI-D-214 

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency VI-D-197 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources VI-D-260

Mobil Business Resources Corporation VI-D-248 

Mobil Corporation VI-D-115 

National Environmental Development Association/ 

Clean Air Regulatory Project (NEDA/CARP) VI-D-169

National Environmental Development Association/ 

Clean Air Regulatory Project (NEDA/CARP) VI-D-254

National Environmental Development Association/ 

Clean Air Regulatory Project (NEDA/CARP) VI-D-269

Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America VI-D-118 

Natural Resources Defense Council VI-D-151 

Natural Resources Defense Council VI-D-244 

Natural Resources Defense Council VI-D-267 

Natural Resources Defense Council VI-D-268 

Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality VI-D-211 

NESCAUM VI-D-192 

NESCAUM VI-D-194 

Niagara Mohawk VI-D-168 

NorAmGas Transmission Company VI-D-142 

NYCOMED, Inc. VI-D-216 

Occidental Chemical Corporation VI-D-166 

Occidental Chemical Corporation VI-D-261 

Ohio Chamber of Commerce, et al VI-D-160 

Ohio EPA, Division of Air Pollution Control VI-D-180 

Pacific Gas Transmission Company VI-D-230 

Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry VI-D-114 

Commenting Organization Docket #

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection VI-D-174 

Pennzoil Company VI-D-133 
Appendix III-A 

October 2, 1997 

Page 4 

Pfizer, Inc. VI-D-218 

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America VI-D-217 

Phillips Petroleum Company VI-D-131 

PPG Industries, Inc. VI-D-136 

Public Service Company of Colorado VI-D-219 

Questar Corporation VI-D-220 

R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company VI-D-221 

Regulatory & Environmental Services Department, 

City of Jacksonville, FL VI-D-272 

Rubber Manufacturers Association VI-D-149 

S. Fitzsimmons VI-D-201 

San Diego County Air Pollution Control District VI-D-191 

Society of the Plastic Industry, Inc. VI-D-148 

Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. VI-D-250 

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company VI-D-116 

South Coast Air Quality Management District VI-D-233 

South Dakota Department of Environment and 

Natural Resources VI-D-223 

Southern California Gas Company VI-D-222 

Southern Company Services VI-D-171 

Southwestern Public Service Company VI-D-224 

Specialty Steel Industry of North America VI-D-143 

STAPPA/ALAPCO VI-D-179 

STAPPA/ALAPCO VI-D-274 

State of Illinois EPA VI-D-183 

State of New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection VI-D-215 

State of Tennessee Department of Environment 

and Conservation VI-D-234 

State of Washington, Department of Ecology VI-D-167 

Steel Manufacturers Association (SMA) VI-D-144 

Tennessee Valley Authority VI-D-162 

Texaco Environment Health & Safety VI-D-199 

Texas Chemical Council VI-D-236 

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission VI-D-189 

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission VI-D-256 

Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission VI-D-265 

Commenting Organization Docket #

Texas Title V Planning Committee VI-D-188 

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. VI-D-121 

Total Petroleum, Inc. VI-D-190 
Appendix III-A 

October 2, 1997 

Page 5 

Tri-TAC VI-D-225 

U.S. Small Business Administration VI-D-239 

UCAR Carbon Company, Inc. VI-D-122 

Union Carbide Corporation VI-D-170 

United Technologies VI-D-251 

Utility Air Regulatory Group VI-D-140 

Utility Air Regulatory Group VI-D-252 

Virginia Power VI-D-226 

Wellman, Inc. VI-D-237 

Wisconsin Electric Power Company VI-D-130 

Wyeth Ayerst VI-D-213