40 C.F.R. § 60.100

Applicability, designation of affected facility, and reconstruction

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The provisions of this subpart are applicable to the following affected facilities in petroleum refineries: fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerators, fuel gas combustion devices, and all Claus sulfur recovery plants except Claus plants with a design capacity for sulfur feed of 20 long tons per day (LTD) or less. The Claus sulfur recovery plant need not be physically located within the boundaries of a petroleum refinery to be an affected facility, provided it processes gases produced within a petroleum refinery.

(b) Any fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerator or fuel gas combustion device under paragraph (a) of this section other than a flare which commences construction, reconstruction or modification after June 11, 1973, and on or before May 14, 2007, or any fuel gas combustion device under paragraph (a) of this section that is also a flare which commences construction, reconstruction or modification after June 11, 1973, and on or before June 24, 2008, or any Claus sulfur recovery plant under paragraph (a) of this section which commences construction, reconstruction or modification after October 4, 1976, and on or before May 14, 2007, is subject to the requirements of this subpart except as provided under paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section.

(c) Any fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerator under paragraph (b) of this section which commences construction, reconstruction, or modification on or before January 17, 1984, is exempted from § 60.104(b).

(d) Any fluid catalytic cracking unit in which a contact material reacts with petroleum derivatives to improve feedstock quality and in which the contact material is regenerated by burning off coke and/or other deposits and that commences construction, reconstruction, or modification on or before January 17, 1984, is exempt from this subpart.

(e) Owners or operators may choose to comply with the applicable provisions of subpart Ja of this part to satisfy the requirements of this subpart for an affected facility.

(f) For purposes of this subpart, under § 60.15, the “fixed capital cost of the new components” includes the fixed capital cost of all depreciable components which are or will be replaced pursuant to all continuous programs of component replacement which are commenced within any 2-year period following January 17, 1984. For purposes of this paragraph, “commenced” means that an owner or operator has undertaken a continuous program of component replacement or that an owner or operator has entered into a contractual obligation to undertake and complete, within a reasonable time, a continuous program of component replacement.

[43 FR 10868, Mar. 15, 1978, as amended at 44 FR 61543, Oct. 25, 1979; 54 FR 34026, Aug. 17, 1989; 73 FR 35865, June 24, 2008; 77 FR 56463, Sep. 12, 2012]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1999–2022 · leading case: Star Enter. Texaco Inc. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 235 F.3d 139 (3rd Cir. 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Star Enter. Texaco Inc. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 235 F.3d 139 (3rd Cir. 2000). · cites it 8× “Because we conclude that the stationary gas turbines at issue in this case are not “in” a “petroleum refinery,” we hold that these turbines are not “affected facilities” as defined at 40 C.F.R. § 60.100 (a) and therefore are not subject to regulation under the “Standards of…”

Nat. Resources Def. Council v. Env't Prot. Agency, 559 F.3d 561 (D.C. Cir. 2009). “” Although the comments do not expressly refer to 40 C.F.R. § 60.100 , which codifies EPA’s definition of “natural event,” the introductory phrase — “[ujnder no circumstances” — signals an underlying concern with EPA’s interpretation of what can qualify as a “natural event.”

United States v. Amoco Oil Co., 64 F. Supp. 2d 801 (N.D. Ind. 1999). · cites it 3× “40 C.F.R. § 60.100 (a). “ ‘Modification’ means any physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, an existing facility which increases the amount of any air pollutant .”

United States v. Coffeyville Resources Refining (D. Kan. 2021). “5 40 C.F.R. § 60.100 , et seq. 6 40 C.F.R. § 60 .”

United States v. Coffeyville Resources Refining (D. Kan. 2022). “4 40 C.F.R. § 60.100 , et seq. 5 40 C.F.R. § 60 .”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.