[ 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 Ma nufacturing Area Sources

-- National Emission Standards for Hazardous

Air Pollutants

Dear Mr. Tsirigo tis:

I am writing on behalf of the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA) regarding the forthcoming proposed Chemical Ma nufacturing Area Sources (CMAS) r ule. 1 This proposal is the result of

EPA’s welcome decision to r econsider 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 o f July, and we appreciate your office’s work in getting it there. In order to enable o ur 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 cur rent rule that may be changed, SOCMA respectfully urge s you and your office to:

 W ork 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

.

Th is 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 th e 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 r efine 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 mil lion, 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 literal ly 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 Regi ster 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 l ittle 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

Reco nsideration with the Agency regarding several aspects of the final rule.

 E arly 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 reconsidera tion 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 st aff “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. A gency 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 hig her 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 Novemb er30.

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. W e 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 learne d 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 r egarding 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

-- EP A signed off on two stays relat ed to the Title V deadline; we were also told that that the reconsideration package was still being worked on , and that it migh t be out by the end of January.

 December 14

-- EPA published its administrative stay of the Title V permit application provi sion 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, b ut it should hopefully be coming out in the next few months (probabl y not until at least April).”

 March 10 (and March 24)

-- EPA staff elaborated on that e stimate , 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

-- W e were informed that the CMAS package was basically done, a nd 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

-- W e were alerted that the rule had not yet been s ent to OMB.

 July 25

-- W e were told that the rule was being se nt 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 propose d 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 becau se 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 fir st 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 allotte d for compliance with the final 200 9 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 valuab le resources complying with

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

fr om the rule finalized in 2009.

Given the delayed development of this new proposed package and CMAS’ standing amidst compe ting 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 a fter the compliance deadline! (Even now, Inside EPA suggests that, according to OMB, the

“reconsidered rule is sl ated 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 ultimatel y 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 deadlin e. 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 co mpliance deadline to three years from the promulgation date of the new

rule

.

Thank you very much for you r 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