[1]

August 10, 2011

Mr. Peter Tsirigotis

Director, Sector Policies and Programs Divisions Division

Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards

U.S. Environment Protection Agency

109 T.W. Alexander Drive

Mail Code: D205-01

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

Re: Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources -- National Emission Standards for Hazardous

Air Pollutants

Dear Mr. Tsirigotis:

I am writing on behalf of the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA) regarding the 

forthcoming proposed Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources (CMAS) rule.1 This proposal is the result of 

EPA’s welcome decision to reconsider the existing CMAS rule.2

We were glad to hear that the new, reconsidered CMAS Rule was sent to the Office of Management and Budget 

at the end of July, and we appreciate your office’s work in getting it there. In order to enable our members to 

comply on a timely basis with the new rule, and to save them from potentially investing millions of dollars 

unnecessarily to comply with aspects of the current rule that may be changed, SOCMA respectfully urges you 

and your office to:

 Work with OMB to now get the proposal out as soon as possible; and

 Extend the compliance date for the CMAS rule when the agency does issue the new, reconsidered 

proposal. 

This letter explains why both of these requests are critically important to our members.

 

1

SOCMA is the only U.S.-based trade association dedicated solely to the batch, custom and specialty chemical industry. Having 

represented a diverse membership of small, medium and large chemical companies since 1921, SOCMA is the leading authority on 

this sector. SOCMA’s more than 200 member companies make the products and refine the raw materials that make our standard of 

living possible. Over 70% of SOCMA’s active members are small businesses. In fact, 71% of our members have fewer than 100 

employees. Forty-six percent of our manufacturing members report sales under $10 million, and another 35% report sales between 

$10.1-$40 million. From pharmaceuticals to cosmetics, soaps to plastics and all manner of industrial and construction products, 

SOCMA members make materials that save lives, make our food supply safe and abundant, and enable the manufacture of literally 

thousands of other products.

2

40 CFR Part 63, Subpart VVVVVV, 74 Fed. Reg. 56008 (Oct. 29, 2009).
[2]

Recent CMAS Chronology

Both of our requests derive from the recent history surrounding the rule. As you know, the final CMAS rule 

was published in the Federal Register on October 29, 2009. Existing facilities were required to comply with the 

rule by October 29, 2012.

That compliance date is increasingly problematic. To be respectfully honest, given the Agency’s track record 

over the past 18 months, we have very little confidence that the Agency will issue a revised CMAS rule before 

the current compliance date. To substantiate those doubts, we offer the following chronology:

 February 12, 2010 -- SOCMA (and the American Chemistry Council) filed a Petition for 

Reconsideration with the Agency regarding several aspects of the final rule.

 Early May -- SOCMA began raising concerns with EPA about whether the Agency interpreted the 

rule’s Title V provision to require existing synthetic minor sources to apply for a permit by October of 

that year.

 June 16 -- Assistant Administrator McCarthy informed SOCMA counsel that the agency intended to 

initiate the reconsideration process for the CMAS rule; we were also told that the Agency would identify 

issues on which it was granting reconsideration (as well as the specifics of the reconsideration process) 

in a forthcoming proposed rule in the Federal Register.

 Early July -- EPA provided some more information on the status of our petition, telling us that the 

agency had gotten started on a supplemental proposal in response to our Petition, but didn’t have a 

specific date or schedule for its release. (EPA staff speculated “by the end of the year, probably.”) Staff 

added that EPA intended to “go through it as fast as we can” and that staff “didn’t think it will take that 

long to put the package together but that it still needs to go through review before it’s proposed.”

 August 5 -- In a call with ACC and SOCMA counsel, EPA staff confirmed that EPA was officially 

granting reconsideration on the Title V issue but would seek comment on all the issues we raised in our 

petition. Agency staff reiterated that they had started organizing the rulemaking package, but added 

that the package had to take a back seat to some other rules that were higher priorities in the regulatory 

process.

o During this call, after our group protested about our members committing money -- possibly 

unnecessarily -- because of the uncertainty surrounding the "family of materials" concept, EPA 

staff stated they would set an internal goal of November to finish work and added that they 

did not think OMB would need to review it under Executive Order 12866 because EPA would 

not actually be proposing anything new.

o SOCMA advocated for a proposal by November 1, rather than November30.

o EPA confirmed that they didn’t have an official answer yet to our inquiries and concerns about a 

possible looming compliance deadline for the Title V provision. We were told that we would be 

informed of what to do by the first week after Labor Day.

 Middle of September -- EPA informed us that the Title V interpretation was taking longer than 

anticipated, but staff did not expect that SOCMA members would be required to comply with that 

provision by the following month.
[3]

 October 28, 2010 – SOCMA finally learned from EPA that the agency believed that Title V permit 

applications for CMAS synthetic minor sources must be filed by the following day (October 29) -- this 

was the interpretation we had been trying to clarify for months.

o That evening, SOCMA and ACC sent EPA a formal request, asking the agency to stay the aspect 

of the CMAS rule applying Title V permitting to these area sources “pending completion of the 

reconsideration process.”

o On November 5, EPA informed us that they would grant an administrative stay regarding these 

Title V permit applications and would also propose a rule to stay the Title V aspect of the rule, 

after the expiration of the administrative stay, until the reconsideration process is completed.

 Early December -- EPA signed off on two stays related to the Title V deadline; we were also told that 

that the reconsideration package was still being worked on, and that it might be out by the end of 

January.

 December 14 -- EPA published its administrative stay of the Title V permit application provision and 

the proposed supplementary stay rule in the Federal Register.

2011

 January 28 -- SOCMA submitted comments in support of this proposed rule.

 February 24 -- EPA informed us that “We currently don't have a set date for the CMAS proposal 

package, but it should hopefully be coming out in the next few months (probably not until at least 

April).”

 March 10 (and March 24)-- EPA staff elaborated on that estimate, stating that the agency hoped to get 

the proposal off to OMB by the end of April, and noting that “it was mostly finished here.” It was 

suggested that the rule could be published by June or July.

 March 14 -- The Title V final rule stay was published in the Federal Register.

 May 5 -- We were informed that the CMAS package was basically done, and would probably get to 

OMB by the middle of the month. We were told that we could see the proposal in the July – August 

timeframe.

 May 26 -- We were alerted that the rule had not yet been sent to OMB.

 July 25 -- We were told that the rule was being sent to OMB, and it seems to have arrived there on July 

27. Thus, it seems likely that the proposal won’t be issued until the end of September at the absolute 

earliest.3

 

3

In fact, that would seem to be a very optimistic estimate. Inside EPA writes that, according to OMB, “the proposed reconsideration 

is scheduled for release sometime in December.” Inside EPA, “EPA Advances Chemical Air Rule,” August 5, 2011
[4]

Urgent Need for Compliance Extension

This chronology is critically important because of the looming October 29, 2012 compliance deadline. (As you 

know, the rule that was finalized in March 2011 only stayed the Title V provision of the rule; the broader rule 

remains in effect.) It is now approaching one year and two months since we first heard from Assistant 

Administrator McCarthy that EPA would be reconsidering the CMAS rule, and we still have yet to see what 

will be in this new proposal. This is of particular importance since, come October of this year, two of the three 

years allotted for compliance with the final 2009 CMAS rule will have elapsed.

Our members, most of whom are small or medium sized businesses, make decisions about capital investments 

for the upcoming year each fall. These members have not been able to plan for – and spend valuable resources 

complying with – a revised rule which they haven’t seen and which may very well contain significant changes 

from the rule finalized in 2009.

Given the delayed development of this new proposed package and CMAS’ standing amidst competing agency 

priorities in the face of agency budget cuts, it is not unreasonable to assume that our members may not see the 

final rule until after the compliance deadline! (Even now, Inside EPA suggests that, according to OMB, the 

“reconsidered rule is slated for issuance by September, 2012”4– a month before the compliance date.) As a 

result, our members will in all likelihood have to make financial commitments and spend money to meet the 

October 2012 compliance deadline, even if the final rule ultimately relieves them of the obligation to spend that 

money. In fact, because of the need for advance planning to invest in capital improvements, the final rule 

would need to be issued by next spring in order for them to meet an October, 2013 compliance deadline. It is 

obvious that EPA cannot meet that deadline.

For the foregoing reasons, we urge EPA to issue the proposal as soon as possible, accompanied by a proposed 

extension of the October 29, 2012 compliance deadline to three years from the promulgation date of the new 

rule.

Thank you very much for your consideration of this request. Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any 

questions. We have had very constructive communications with your staff on this rulemaking thus far, and we 

look forward to further engagement with EPA – on a less nerve-wracking timetable – as we proceed with this 

CMAS rulemaking process.

Sincerely,

Daniel Moss

Senior Manager, Government Relations

Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates

 

4

Ibid