HOECHST CELANESE INTERPRETED THE EXEMPTION AT 40 C.F.R. SECT. 61.110(C)(2) SUCH THAT THEY BELIEVED THEIR OPERATIONS AT THE CELLO PLANT IN NARROWS, VA, WEREN'T SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF 40 C.F.R. PART 61, SUBPARTS A, J, AND V. ACCORDINGLY THEY MADE NO SYSTEMATIC EFFORTS TO COMPLY. EPA BELIEVES THAT HOECHST CELANESE'S INTERPRETATION OF THE EXEMPTION IN QUESTION WAS ERRONEOUS. EPA IS SEEKING PENALTIES FOR THE PERIOD OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITHIN THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 8/88 - 5/91. SUPPLEMENTAL REFERRAL 9/30/93 REQUESTING AN ADDITIONAL CLAIM FOR RELIEF. THE BULK OF THE CASE WAS PREVIOUSLY REFERRED ON 6/30/93. THE CASE STEMS FROM HOECHST CELANESE'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE BENZENE NESHAP FOR EQUIPMENT LEAKS. BY LETTER DATED 7/26/93, IN RESPONSE TO AN EPA INFORMATION REQUEST, HOECHST CELANESE IDENTIFIED ITS VIOLATION OF 40 C.F.R. 61.242-11. EPA HAD NOT BEEN AWARE OF THIS VIOLATION AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL REFERRAL. THE SUPPLEMENTAL REFERRAL ALSO INCLUDES A RECALCULATED SETTLEMENT PENALTY BASED ON NEW INFORMATION.