July 22, 2010

VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION & U.S. MAIL

Mr. Steve Souders

Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery

Environmental Protection Agency

Mail Code: 5304P

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20460

Email: souders.steve@epa.gov

Re: Request for Extension of Comment Period

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the Identification and Listing of Special 

Wastes: Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities

75 Fed. Reg. 35128 (June 21, 2010)

Docket No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640

Dear Mr. Souders:

The National Association of Manufacturers (“The Manufacturers”) hereby requests 

a 120-day extension to the comment period on the EPA’s Proposed Rulemaking for the 

“Identification and Listing of Special Wastes: Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals 

from Electric Utilities.” 75 Fed. Reg. 35128 (June 21, 2010).

An extension is necessary because the proposal contains at least four major 

components, all of which involve multifaceted and complex policy, legal, and technical 

issues, including (1) the EPA's proposed reversal of its 2000 Final Regulatory 

Determination for coal combustion residuals (“CCRs”), (2) detailed and highly complex 

proposed Subtitle C regulations for CCRs, (3) detailed and equally complex proposed 

Subtitle D regulations for CCRs, and (4) a range of possible regulatory controls for the 

beneficial use of CCRs. In addition, the EPA seeks comment on a voluminous and 

complex regulatory impact analysis ("RIA"), as well as on a myriad of additional issues 

including, EPA's compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the EPA's proposed 

findings under Executive Order 13211 for “Actions that Significantly Affect Energy 

Supply, Distribution, or Use.” The Manufacturers respectfully suggest that a 90-day 

comment period is not adequate to allow members of the public to respond to the literally 

hundreds of detailed policy, technical, legal, and other substantive issues raised in this farreaching co-proposal.

As the EPA correctly acknowledges, the magnitude and significance of this 

rulemaking initiative demand that any final rule be based on sound science and that the 
2

EPA's decision-making processes “are transparent and encourage the greatest degree of 

public participation.” 73 Fed. Reg. at 35133. Given the breadth of options presented in 

the proposal and the detailed issues associated with each option, a final rule based on the 

greatest degree of public participation and sound science will require more time for the 

public to evaluate and properly respond to the co-proposal. For example, in responding to 

the RIA alone, it will be necessary to develop technical economic reports evaluating the 

cost impacts of the various regulatory scenarios, including some cost impacts that the EPA 

readily acknowledges are not included in the current RIA (i.e., compliance costs under the 

Subtitle C option for CCR management units located upstream of CCR disposal units). In 

addition, the collection, compilation and analysis of market data on the adverse impacts to 

CCR beneficial use that would result under the Subtitle C option will take more than the 90 

days currently allowed for under the proposal.

It is imperative that the EPA allow adequate time for the public to fully analyze, 

understand and respond to this multifaceted proposal which has enormous environmental, 

energy, and policy implications. An extension is especially appropriate where, as here, the 

Agency is not under any statutory or court-ordered deadline to complete this rulemaking 

initiative by a specified date. The Manufacturers therefore respectfully request that the 

EPA extend the comment period on the co-proposal by an additional 120 days to provide 

the public with adequate time to respond.

Thank you for your consideration of our request.

Sincerely,

Keith W. McCoy

Vice President, Energy & Resources Policy

National Association of Manufacturers

cc: Robert Dellinger, EPA; dellinger.robert@epa.gov

 Betsy Devlin, EPA; devlin.betsy@epa.gov