Amy M. Lincoln 456 Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104

- 1251

Di rect: (415) 262

- 4000 Fax: (415) 262

- 4040 alincoln@bdlaw.com December 1 4 , 2011 **VIA E -**  **MAIL &**  **FIRST CLASS U.S. MA IL**  The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Mail Code: 1101A Wa shington, DC 20460 Re: **EPA -**  **HQ -**  **OAR -**  **2010 -**  **0895**

**– R** **equest to Extend Public Comment Period** Proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Ferroalloy s Production, 76 Fed. Reg. 72508 (Nov. 23, 2011) Dear Administrator Jackson: I write on beh alf of Felman Production, Inc. (“Felman”) to request a 45

- day extension of the public comment period on the above

- referenced proposed rule (the “Ferroallo ys NESHAP”) from January 9, 2012 to February 22, 2012. Felman is one of onl y two companies directly i mpacted by the Ferroallo ys NESHAP. The other compan y, Eramet Marietta Inc. (“EMI”), previousl y s ubmitted a request for a 45

- day extension of the public comment deadline on December 8, 2011. ( See Letter from J. Willoughby , EMI, to Administrator Jackson, EPA, December 8, 2011.) Felman’s request for an extension of the public comment deadline is premised on many of the same reasons set forth in EMI’s December 8, 2011 letter:

• The Ferroallo ys NESHAP is a complex rulemaking that proposes to establish: (1) whol ly new emissions standards for four HAPs under Sections 112(d)(2) and (3) of the Clean Air Act, (2) “beyond the MACT floor” standards for two of those HAPs, and (3) a new, lower standard for particulate matter emissions based on a proposed residual risk an aly sis under Section 112(f)(2). Each aspect of the proposal presents a range of technical and legal issues warranting review. The 45

- day comment period is patently insufficient for conducting a thorough review of such a complex rulemaking.December 14, 2011

Page 2

• The comment period is especially short when considering the regulated entities

affected. Felman, in particular, is comprised of a single facility, currently employing 256 people. As one of onl y two remaining ferrosilicomanganese producers in the United States, Fel man does not have the benefit of a trade association, and must instead rel y on its in

- house environmental staff and the very limited number of outside consultants and advisers that have experience with this industry
.
• Moreover, the potential impact of the rule on Felman is significant. EPA has estimated the implementation of the NESHAP, as proposed, to cost over $11 million in initial capital costs and nearl y $5 million annually ( See Table 6 at 76 Fed. Reg. at 72539.) Based on Felman ’ s initial review of the rule, these numbers appear to grossly underestimate the actual implementation cost . But even a ssuming EPA ’ s numbers are correct, f or Felman, the projected annual c osts represent almost 10 % of its 2011 operating and maintenance budget (excluding raw materials) , and the capital costs are more than doub le its entire 2011 capital budget. The economic significance of the rule on Felman, which represents half the U.S. ferrosilicomanganese industry , warrants a more thorough evaluation of the proposal and feasible alternatives than can be accomplished by January 9.

• Granting the extension would provide a 90

- day public comment period, which would still allow EPA ample time to meet the June 29, 2012 issuanc e deadline in the Sierra Club v. EPA consent order governing this and several other NESHAPs.

• A 90

- day public comment period will ensure the rulemaking is consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice requirements, which the D.C. Circuit has st ated “are designed (1) to ensure that agency regulations are tested via exposure to diverse public comment, (2) to ensure fairness to affected parties, and (3) to giv e affected parties an opportunity to develop evidence in the record to support their objec tions to the rule and thereb y enhance the quality of judicial review. ” Environmental Integrity Project v. EPA , 425 F.3d 992, 996 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (quoting International Union, United Mine Workers of America v. Mine Safety & Health Administration , 407 F.3d 1250, 1259 (D.C. Cir. 2005).

• A 90

- day public comment period would also ensure consistency with Executive Order 13563, which directs that, “[t]o the extent feasible and permitted by law, each agency shall afford the public a meaningful opportunity to comment through the Internet on any proposed regulation, with a comment period that should generall y be at least 60 days.” (Section 2(b)).December 14, 2011

Page 3 Given the impending January 9, 2012 deadline and the upcoming federal holiday s, Felman appreciates your prompt considerati on of this request. If you should have an y questions, pleased do not hesitate to contact me at 415

- 262

- 4029. Sincerel y,

Amy M. Lincoln
Cc. Gina A. McCarth y Conrad K. Chin J ohn S. Konrady , Plant Manager , Felman Production, Inc. Robert Powell, General Counsel , Felman Production , In c. a - and

- r - docket@epa.gov