Comment submitted by A. Grimes

10 October 2007 Environmental Protection Agency EPA Docket Center Air and Radiation Docket Mail Code 2822T 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 Re: Proposed Rule: Operating Permit Programs and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR); Flexible Air Permitting Rule Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0087 Dear Madam or Sir, I write to cast my general support for the EPA?s proposed Flexible Air Permitting Rule. This rulemaking would protect our nation?s environmental and economic well-being and be extremely beneficial to industries that face continuous demands in dynamic markets. The flexibility offered under this rule would facilitate a regulatory environment that does not hinder business innovation but rather encourage a practical regulatory approach that assures compliance with current emission standards. As I am sure you are aware, the chemical and pharmaceutical manufacturing industry are clear examples of two sectors that often need to alter operations quickly to effectively meet market demands. By allowing such industries the option to obtain flexible air permits, they can better compete in the global economy. While on the whole I believe this rule offers a sound basis for a more balanced regulatory system, there are two particular aspects of the Green Groups portion of the proposed rule that I wish to comment more directly upon. The first concerns the permit duration of the Green Groups designation. I urge you to keep in place the 10-year timeframe for a Green Groups permit. Though I agree with your assertion that control technology ?is typically quite stable? within a 15-year period and it is ?less likely that a subsequent BACT/LAER determination at a Green Group will require a new control device within a 15-year period,? I believe the rule is already going far enough to offer businesses operational flexibility and this aspect of the revisions should err on the side of environmental caution. Maintaining the general 10-year duration offers a sufficient time period for a facility to experience regulatory certainty and lessens administrative burdens on permitting authorities. Secondly, while I agree with making the Green Groups permit designation a ?mandatory program element? within State implementation plans, the timeframe for States should be either extended or be made more responsive to some States who express concern in adopting the revisions. I believe that it is in the best interest of State and local agencies who have no existing Green Groups-like permitting programs and who demonstrate possible problems in their ability to appropriately and effectively revise elements of their own regulatory schemes, to be afforded more time to execute a Green Groups program. This could assure State and regional air quality goals are better met and state oversight capacity is not hindered by sudden administrative changes. I propose that the 3-year deadline for State and local agencies to revise implementation plans either be extended to a general 5-year maximum or preserve the 3-year provision and grant permissible extensions up to five years on a case-by-case basis if a permitting authority proves that it needs a period exceeding the three years. I ask for your consideration of these two comments on the Flexible Air Permitting Rule and commend the Agency in creating an innovative and workable rule that provides a fundamental start to ameliorating the government-industry regulatory relationship. Sincerely, Andrew Grimes