Comment submitted by R. H. Reynolds

I am strongly opposed to this ruling and urge you to reconsider what has been proposed to you as a minor change but will result in significant changes in a chemical processing plant. It seems greatly contradictory and ironic that an industry that so proudly proclaims itself to be ?green? and ?environmentally sensitive? should strive to be allowed to increase its monitored emissions from 1 TON annually to 2.5 TON annually. Does this not seem highly irregular and irresponsible? Additionally, there is fine print in this ruling that will allow these plants to experience ?fugitive emissions? without ANY regulation on these emissions at all. A fugitive emission is defined by the Environmental Protection Agency as any emission by the processing plant that is not directly linked to a process stack or vent. Currently those fugitive emissions are required to be included in the 1 ton figure, the new ruling will permit unlimited and unregulated fugitive emissions. That concept is inconceivable to me! As a resident living within 1 mile of South Dakota's largest Ethanol Plant, VeraSun Energy in Aurora, SD, please recognize that VeraSun was able to build a profitable plant within the current guidelines and continues to be highly profitable. It is not a coincidence that Sen. John Thune has presented this rule change on behalf of one of his former lobbying clients... an ethanol producer that simply doesn't want to realize the expense of meeting current standards. Be very aware, this is not as simple a change as you have been told. This is dirty politics that results in dirty air. The Environmental Protection Agency should be protecting our environment, not dirty producers!