The United States Court of Appeals 

for the Sixth Circuit in its August 7, 

2012, decision in Summit Petroleum 

Corporation v. EPA, et al, Case Nos. 

09-4348/10-4572 vacated and 

remanded this single source 

determination. 
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGIONS 

WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD 

CHICAGO. IL 60604-3590 

RecycledlRecycl8ble • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based 

77 

OCT 18 2010 

REPLY TO THE ATIENTION OF 

A-18J 

BY CERTIFIED MAIL and ELECTRONIC MAIL 

Mr. Scott Huber 

Summit Petroleum Corporation 

P.O. Box 365 

Mount Pleasant, Michigan 48804 

Dear Mr. Huber: 

This letter supplements the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's September 8, 2009, 

letter to Gina Bozzer, Zimmerman, Kuhn, Darling, Boyd, regarding Summit Petroleum 

Corporation's (Summit) operations in Mount Pleasant, Michigan. In a February 23, 2010, letter 

from Cheryl Newton, Director, Region 5 Air and Radiation Division, to you, EPA granted your 

request for an administrative stay of the date by which Summit was to have submitted an 

application for an operating permit under Title V ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA). Pursuant to this 

administrative stay, EPA gave Summit the opportunity to submit additional information and 

certifications for EPA's consideration. EPA is now in receipt of the additional information, 

certifications, and maps which Summit provided under cover letter of April 29, 2010, pursuant to 

40 C.F.R. §§ 71.3(e)(I) and 71.5(d). Ourletter today reiterates EPA's September 8, 2009, 

determination, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 71.3(a)(I), that Summit's sour gas wells, sweetening 

plant, and associated flares constitute a single source for purposes of permitting under Title V of 

theCAA. 

Analysis 

The Federal Operating Permits Program is set out at 40 C.F.R. Part 71. EPA's 

regulations provide that, for purposes of the Title V {Part 71 program, a stationary source "means 

any building, structure, facility, or installation that emits or may emit any regulated air pollutant 

or any pollutant listed under section 112(b) ofthe Act.,,1 EPA's regulations state: 

Major source means any stationary source (or any group of stationary sources that 

are located on one or more contiguous or adjacent properties, and are under 

common control of the same person (or persons under common contro!), 

belonging to a single major industrial grouping .... For the purposes of defining 

'major source,' a stationary source or group of stationary sources shall be 

considered part of a single industrial grouping if all ofthe pollutant emitting 

activities at such source or group of sources on contiguous or adjacent properties 

I 40 C.F.R. § 71.2 (2009). 

Inks on 100% Recyded Paper (50% Postconsumer) 
belong to the same Major Group (i.e., all have the same two-digit code) as 


described in the Standard Industrial Classification manual, 1987.2 


Major sources are further defined as belonging to one ofthree categories. One of these 

categories is defined as: 

A major stationary source of air pollutants or any group of stationary sources as 

defined in section 302 of the [Clean Air] Act, that directly emits, or has the 

potential to emit, 100 tpy [i.e., tons per year] or more of any air pollutant. ...3 

In making its determination that Summit's sour gas wells, sweetening plant, and 

associated flares constitute a single source for purposes of permitting under Title V of the CAA, 

EPA followed the guidance provided in the September 22, 2009, memorandum entitled 

"Withdrawal of Source Determinations for Oil and Gas Industries," from Gina McCarthy, U.S. 

EPA's Assistant Administrator ofthe Office ofAir and Radiation, to Regional Administrators 

("McCarthy Memorandum,,).4 The McCarthy Memorandum recognizes the complex operational 

issues surrounding the operation of some oil and gas industries and emphasizes a case-by-case, 

fact-specific approach to making aggregation determinations for purposes ofNew Source 

Review (NSR) and Title V permitting programs. The McCarthy Memorandum notes that: 

Permitting authorities should therefore rely foremost on three regulatory criteria 

for identifying emissions activities that belong to the same 'building,' 'structure,' 

'facility,' or 'installation.' These are (1) whether the activities are under the 

control ofthe same person (or person under common control); (2) whether the 

activities are located on one or more contiguous or adjacent properties; and (3) 

whether the activities belong to the same industrial grouping. 40 C.F.R. 

52.21(b)(6).5 

Consistent with this Memorandum and other applicable Agency guidance, EPA has made the 

following analysis in support of its determination. 

240 C.F.R. § 71.2 (2009). 


340 C.F.R. § 71.2 (2009). 


'The McCarthy Memorandum specifically withdrew a January 12,2007, memorandum from William Wehrum, 


entitled "Source Determinations for Oil and Gas Industries" (Wehrum Memorandum) (Summit Petroleum Corp. v. 


U.S. £I/I't'l Protection Agencv tlllIl Lisa JaL'k"on, Case No. 09-4348 (6th Cir.), U.S. Administrative Record 

Document Ihere.fter Documentl 28) The purpose of the Wehrum Memorandum was to set out a "non-binding 

policy statement that set forth a possible methodology for making source determinations" for the oil and gas industry 

that made proximate distance the primary basis on which to determine whether to aggregate multiple emissions 

sources into a single source for permitting purposes. Memorandum from Gina McCarthy, EPA Assistant 

Administrator, to Regional Administrators, Sept. 22, 2009, at I (henceforth, "McCarthy Memorandum"); available 

at hltp://www.epa.goviregion7iairinsrinsrmemosloilgaswilhdrawaJ.pdj The McCarthy Memorandum found that 

"the simplified approach provided in the [Wehrum Memorandum] should not be relied on by permitting authorities 

as a sufficient endpoint in the decision-making process," and restored the Agency's previous methodology for 

making source determinations based on existing New Source Review regulations and guidance. McCarthy 

Memorandum at I. 

S McCarthy Memorandum at 2. 

2 

l. 	The activities are under the control of the same person (or person under common 

control). 

EPA's regulations do not specify how control is defined, but EPA's practice has been to rely 

on a fact-specitic inquiry, and which includes a presumption that common ownership constitutes 

common control.6 The Agency looks at other factors as appropriate. 7 Summit has stated that it 

"operates a gas sweetening plant located at 4725 N. Isabella Road, Rosebush, Michigan. 

Summit Petroleum also owns and operates approximately 100 sour gas production wells that 

supply gas to the gas sweetening plant."g Additionally, in attachments to an April 18,2008, 

letter from Ms. Bozzer to Pamela Blakley, Summit provided a list of emissions from wells, 

flares, and pumping equipment associated with the Rosebush gas sweetening plant.9 Ms. 

Bozzer's April 29, 2010, letter provides further information, described in two maps and two 

spreadsheets (NOx Potential to Emit Summary, and S02 Potential to Emit Summary) which 

detail Summit's current emissions sources, including sour gas wells, flares, and natural gas 

engines. The April 29, 2010, letter "reflects current PTE information and location ofrelevant 

emissions units for Summit."lo 

In an April 26, 2007, letter from Pamela Blakley to Gina Bozzer, EPA stated that "the gas 

production wells and the gas sweetening plant are controlled and operated by the same company, 

Summit Petroleum,"" and Summit has not since disputed this statement. Accordingly, EPA has 

determined that the additional clarification provided by Summit in its letter of April 29, 2010, 

does not change EPA's previous determination that all of the emissions sources listed in 

Summit's submissions ofJanuary 18, 2005, April 18, 2008, and April 29, 20 I 0, are owned and 

operated by, and thus are under the common control of, Summit. 

2. 	 The activities are located on one or more contiguous or adjacent properties. 

The second part of EPA's inquiry into whether it is appropriate to aggregate multiple 

emission points into a single source for permitting purposes turns on whether the activities are 

6 Letter from William Spratlin, U.S. EPA, to Peter Hamlin, Iowa Department ofNatural Resources, September 18, 

1995, at I (Document 4). 


7 See Memorandum from John Seitz, U.S. EPA, to Addressees, "Major Source Determinations for Military 


Installations under the Air Toxics, New Source Review, and Title V Operating Permit Programs ofthe Clean Air 


Act," August 2,1996, at 3 (Document 5) (emphasizing the fact-specific nature of common control determinations). 


See also Letter from Richard Long, U.S. EPA, to Julie Wrend, Colorado Department of Public Health and 


Environment, November 12, 1998, at 2 (Document II) ("... EPA has established several mechanisms by which 


sources and permitting authorities can determine whether there may be 'common control' over a group of stationary 


sources. First, common control can be established through ownership of multiple sources by the same parent 


corporation or by a parent and a subsidiary ofthe parent corporation. Second, common control can be established if 


an entity such as a corporation has the power to direct the management and policies of a second entity, thus 


controlling its operations, through a contractual agreement or a voting interest.") 


8 Letter from Chris Hare, MDEQ; Scott Huber, Summit Petroleum; and Gina Bozzer to Pamela Blakely, U.S. EPA, 


January 18,200[6], at I (Document 20). See also Laura Cossa, U.S. EPA, Conversation Record from telephone call 


with Chris Hare, MDEQ, April 4, 2006 (Document 23) (citing common ownership of Summit's emissions sources). 


9 Letter from Gina Bozzer to Pamela Blakley, April 18,2008, at Tables I and 2 (Document 30) ("Potential to Emit 


Summary, Rosebush Field, Summit Petroleum"). 


10 Letter from Gina Bozzer to Pamela Blakley, April 29, 2010, at 3. 

11 Letter from Pamela Blakley to Gina Bozzer, April 26, 2007, at 2 (Document 29). 

3 

located on one or more contiguous or adjacent properties. 12 EPA has never established "a 

specific distance between pollutant emitting activities" for determining whether two noncontiguous facilities are "adjacent," but EPA has historically interpreted the term to include 

concepts other than the physical distance between two facilities.13 In fact, EPA has repeatedly 

included an evaluation of the nature of the relationship between the facilities and the degree of 

interdependence between them in determining whether multiple non-contiguous emissions points 

should be considered a single source. 

14 

In the initial promulgation ofthe 3-part major source definition, EPA explained that we could 

not "say precisely ... how far apart activities must be in order to be treated separately" and 

directed that such determinations be made on a case-by-case basis. IS Since that time, analyses 

conducted by EPA and state permitting authorities have continued to take the position that a factspecitic inquiry is necessary to establish whether emissions sources should be grouped 

together. 16 EPA expects that this inquiry will be based on a "case-by-case," "highly factspecific" basis, where "no single determination can serve as an adequate justification for how to 

treat any other source determination for pollutant-emitting activities with different fact-specific 

circumstances." 17 As noted above, EPA has historically recognized that emissions units need not 

be on properties that are physically touching in order to be to be aggregated,18 and the McCarthy 

"See 40 C.F.R. § 71.2 (2009). 

13 Memo from Robert G. Kellam. EPA OAQPS, to Richard R. Long, Director of EPA Region 8 Air Program, 

August 27, 1996, at 3 (explaining that the contiguous and adjacent analysis must be "detennined on a case-by-case 

basis, based on the relationship between the facilities"). 

14 See guidance cited in n.l3, supra, and n. 18, infra. See also letter from Letter from Pamela Blakely, U.S. EPA, to 

Don Sutton, Illinois EPA, March 14,2006 at 2 (using the "common sense notion of a plant" as the guiding principle 

in detennining that 4 facilities operated by one company but located up to 8 miles apart were a single title V source 

because "'the activities occurring at these sites all assist in supporting" the main manufacturing operation of the 

company). 

IS 45 Fed. Reg. 52,676, 52,695 (August 7, 1980). While this language is taken from the preamble to the fin.al rule 

promUlgating the major source definition for the NSR pennitting program, EPA was clear in promUlgating Ihe Title 

V major source definition found at 40 C.F.R. section 71.2, that the language and application of the Title V definition 

was to be consistent with the NSR program. See 61 Fed. Reg. 34,202, 34,210 (July I, 1996). 

16 See e.g., Inter-office Communication from Jim Geier, et ai, to Stationary Sources Program Staff and Local 

Agencies, "Glycol Dehydration Units - permit issues," January 4, 1995, at 2 (Document 3): 

The Division will review oil and gas facilities under the operating pennit rules to detennine if a 

pennit is needed for criteria pollutants. As is the case for construction pennits, emissions units on 

the same or contiguous properties will be added together to detennine if the source is major. 

Sources owned or controlled by the same company that are located on widely separated, noncontiguous property will need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis to detennine if an operating 

pennit is needed. 

See also Letter from Richard Long, U.S. EPA, to Lynn Menlove, Utah Division of Air Quality, "Response to 

Request for Guidance in Defining Adjacent with Respect to Source Aggregation," May 21, 1998 at I (Document 10) 

("'the distance associated with 'adjacent' must be considered on a case-by-case basis"). 

17 McCarthy Memorandum at 2. 

18 See Letter from JoAnn Heiman, U.S. EPA, to James Pray, Brown, Winick, Graves, Gross, Baskerville and 

Schoenebaum, PLC, December 6,2004 at 2 ("Generally, the closer two facilities are the more likely they may be 

considered contiguous or adjacent. In addition, the existence of a dedicated pipeline or transportation link ... may 

also be relevant to this detennination."); Letter from Kathleen Henry, U.S. EPA, to John Slade, Pennsylvania DEP, 

January 15, 1999 at I ("detennining whether facilities are contiguous or adjacent depends not only on the physical 

distance between them but [also] on the type of nexus (relationship) between the facilities."); Letter from Richard 

4 

Memorandum is consistent with that guidance in recognizing that while proximity of disparate 

emissions units is important, it is not necessarily the deciding factor in making an aggregation 

determination. 19 

Summit provided information to EPA in January 2006, which included the following 

statement: 

Summit Petroleum Corporation operates a gas sweetening plant located at 4725 

N. Isabella Road, Rosebush, Michigan. Summit Petroleum also owns and 

operates approximately 100 sour gas production wells that supply the gas to the 

gas sweetening plant. The closest production well is approximately 500 feet from 

the gas sweetening plant and the farthest production well is slightly over eight 

miles trom the gas sweetening plant. ...[Ilfthe potential emissions from the sour 

gas production wells are included with the gas sweetening plant emissions, the 

aggregated sources combined may be considered a single major source for criteria 

pollutants, namely nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxides ... .zo 

Summit has stated that "two of the well sites are within a quarter-mile radius of the sweetening 

plant," and that the others are "separated from the sweetening plant by a considerable distance 

and intervening properties."zl Summit further notes that the closest flare is approximately 3,000 

Long, U.S. EPA, to Lynn Menlove, Utah Division of Air Quality, "'Response to Request for Guidance in Defining 

Adjacent with Respect to Source Aggregation," May 21, 1998 at 2 (Document 10) ("a detennination of 'adjacent' 

should include an evaluation of whether the distance between two facilities is sufficiently small enough that it 

enables them to operate as a single 'source. "'). 

19 EPA has not adopted a "quarter mile" presumption of adjacency, such as Summit argues in its April 29, 2010 

letter from Gina Bozzer to Pamela Blakley. 

'OLetter from Chris Hare, et aI., to Pamela Blakley, January 18,200[6) at I (Document 20). Summit also provided 

infonnation demonstrating that the aggregated emissions units would constitute a major source. A January 2006 

summary table entitled "Potential to Emit Summary, Rosebush Field, Summit Petroleum," showed potential 

emissions from the hydrogen sulfide combustion facility (gas sweetening plant) of98 tpy ofS02, and an additional 

52 tpy ofS02 from 17 field flares. The table also showed six categories of natural gas engines and other emissions 

units with combined NOx emissions in excess of200 tpy. Letter from Chris Hare, et aI., to Pamela Blakley, January 

18,200[6), at Tables I and 2 (Document 20) ("Potential to Emit Summary, Rosebush Field, Summit Petroleum"). 

Supplemental infonnation submitted by Summit in April 2010 stated that the gas sweetening plant is supplied by 

sour gas from the Wise, Leaton, and Rosebush fields. Summit confirmed that its gas sweetening plant has a 

potential to emit 98 tpy ofS02 and also stated that it had the potential to emit 78.3 tpy ofNOx. Additionally, 

Summit stated that each of its 16 sour gas flares have a potential to emit 3.1 tpy of S02. Summit also stated that it 

has 84 pumpjack engines in its oil fields, with 39 of these having associated equipment with the potential to emit 

between 0.25 and 0.31 tpy NOx. The 98 tpy of S02 from the sweetening plant combined with the 3.1 tpy S02 from 

the nearest sour gas flare, alone, exceeds the 100 tpy threshold for Title V applicability. Leiter from Gina Bozzerto 

Pamela Blakley, April 29, 2010, at I. 

21 Letter from Gina Bozzerto Pamela Blakley, April 29, 2010, at 2. EPA notes that Summit appears to have made 

an error in its representation of distances relating to the maps it submitted. The legend for Maps I and 2 give a scale 

of I inch to 1,000 feet, but Summit's April 29, 2010, letter states thatthe maps have a scale of I inch to 2,000 feet. 

Letter from Gina Bozzer to Pamela Blakley, April 29, 20 I 0, at I. Based on infonnation previously submitted by 

Summit and the scale on the maps themselves, it appears that the correct scale of the maps is I inch to 1,000 feet. 

Contrary to Summit's assertion in its April 18,2008 letter stating that "there are no sour-gas wells located within the 

one-mile radius of the Plant," Letter from Gina Bozzer to Pamela Blakley, April 18,2008, at 3 (Document 30), it 

appears that there are a dozen or more sour gas wells within a one-mile radius of the sweetening plant. 

5 

feet from the sweetening plant, with others located a mile or more away.22 Summit argues that 

because the gas wells and associated flares are separated from the sweetening plant "by a 

considerable distance and intervening properties," these emissions sources "are neither 

'contiguous' nor 'adjacent' and they do not fit the 'common sense notion' of a plant.,,23 

According to a schematic provided by Summit of its sweetening plant operations, the 

natural gas wells from Summit's three fields are connected to the gas sweetening plant through a 

"collection system.,,24 Further, flares are spread throughout the 3 well fields between the wells 

and the collection system.25 Finally, the sweet gas wells "are plumbed to the collection system to 

retrieve the natural gas for sales and fuel.,,26 The natural gas wells and flares that are connected 

to the sweetening plant together produce a single product: "gas sales. ,,27 

Summit has not presented any evidence to show that the "far flung well sites" from the 

three fields do not provide product to the sweetening plant or that they do or can provide product 

to any other processing plants. Nor does Summit provide any information showing that the well 

sites themselves are owned by any other entity than Summit. In fact, the information provided 

by Summit shows that the sour gas wells are truly interdependent on the sweetening plant - the 

wells provide all their sour gas to the sweetening plant, the sour gas cannot flow anywhere else, 

and Summit owns and operates the sweetening plant and well sites.2s 

Accordingly, on the basis ofthe information Summit has submitted through April 2010, 

EPA concludes that these emissions sources are adjacent given the particular facts Summit has 

presented about the interdependent nature of its natural gas production facilities, Summit's sour 

gas flares, natural gas wells and associated equipment, and the sweetening plant. Accordingly, 

they should not be considered separate emissions sources. 29 

22 Letter from Gina Bozzer to Pamela Blakley, April 29, 2010, at 2. 


23 Letter rrom Gina Bozzer to Pamela Blakley, April 29, 2010, at 2. 


"Letter rrom Gina Bozzer to Pamela Blakley, April 18,2008, at 2 (Document 30) (stating that Figure I, an 


attachment to the letter, consists of "a map of the inrrastructure (collection system) that gathers sour gas rrom three 


(3) fields, all located within Isabella County, Michigan. The three fields are designated as the Wise Oil Field, the 


Rosebush Oil Field, and the Leaton Oil Field."). See also Letter rrom Gina Bozzer to Pamela Blakley, April 18, 


2008, at Figure I (Document 30). 


" Letter rrom Gina Bozzer to Pamela Blakley, April 29, 20 I 0, at 3. 


26 Letter rrom Gina Bozzer to Pamela Blakley, April 18,2008, at 3 (Document 30). See also Letter rrom Gina 


Bozzer to Pamela Blakley, April 18,2008, at Figure 3 (Document 30) ("Rosebush Plant Flow Diagram"). 


27 Letter rrom Gina Bozzer to Pamela Blakley, April 18,2008, at Figure 3 (Document 30) ("Rosebush Plant Flow 


Diagram"). 

28 See Letter rrom Gina Bozzer to Pamela Blakley, January 18,200[6], at I (Document 20). 

29 We note that a state permitting authority has reached a similar conclusion interpreting identical language. The 

routing ofthe gas to Summit's sweetening plant is similar to the routing of crude oil, water and hydrocarbon gases to 

the production center discussed in the October 22, 2003 Statement of Basis for a Title V permit issued to BP 

Exploration (Alaska) Inc., in which the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) considered 

adjacency of a processing plant and production wells, which fed directly to that plant under the common sense 

notion of a plant. In the Statement of Basis, ADEC explained that, "[d]ue to the nature of the oil and gas extraction 

business, stationary sources must be scattered across the resource area .... The hub and spoke production model 

develops naturally rrom the logistics of the business." In that analysis, ADEC found that, because the wells and the 

central production center could not exist without each other, they constituted a single production plant. Alaska 

Department of Environmental Conservation, Statement of Basis ofTerms and Conditions for Permit No. 

AQ I 068TVP02: BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., Grind and Inject Facility, Oct. 22, 2003, at 5. See also EPA Region 

10, Permitting ofForest Oi/'s Kustatan Production Facility and Osprey Platform Pursuant to the Alaska SIP, 

6 

3. The activities belong to the same industrial grouping. 

The third factor which EPA analyzes in making a determination as to whether to aggregate 

emissions sources into a single source for permitting is whether the activities belong to the same 

industrial grouping.3o 

Crude petroleum and natural gas production "up to the point of shipment for the producing 

property," is covered by SIC Code 1311. Michigan Department ofNatural Resources and 

Environment (MDNRE, previously Michigan Department of Environmental Quality), had 

assigned SIC \311 to "Summit Petroleum's sweetening plant and production sites.,,3l In an 

April 26, 2007, letter from Pamela Blakley to Scott Huber, Summit Petroleum, stated, 

"[i]nformation we have obtained from MDEQ indicates that Summit Petroleum's plant and wells 

belong to the same single major industrial grouping (SIC \311 ).,,32 In a conference call held 

between EPA and Summit officials on June 17,2009, the parties "agreed that the emission units 

are under common control and belong to a single major industrial grouping code.,,33 Summit has 

not disputed that its production facilities and sweetening plant share the same SIC code. 

Conclusion 

EPA examined the information that Summit provided in April 2008, preliminarily 

concluding "[i]n this case, the production wells supply the gas to the gas sweetening plant 

located within the same oil field; therefore we believe that the sites do meet the common sense 

notion of a plant.,,34 Nothing in the supplemental information Summit provided in April 20 I 0, 

alters EPA's original conclusion of September 8, 2009, that the operations of Summit's 

sweetening plant, flares, wells and associated equipment located in the Wise, Rosebush, and 

Leaton fields are linked together by common ownership, share industrial classification, and are 

adjacent given the common purpose of producing saleable, sweet natural gas, and thus should be 

considered a single source. Consistent with the McCarthy Memorandum and EPA's other 

existing guidance on stationary source determinations, this decision has been made on a case-bycase basis considering the facts specific to this permitting scenario. Thus, neither the final 

determination nor the specific facts considered are binding on other source determinations for 

pollutant-emitting activities with different fact specific circumstances. 

Accordingly, Summit must obtain a permit from EPA under 40 C.F.R. Part 71. As 

required by the requirements 01'40 C.F.R. § 7I.S(l)(i), please submit a complete permit 

August 21, 2001 (finding that two emissions points involved in shoal production and separated by almost 3 miles 


should be considered one source, in part, because their operations were "exclusively dependent" on one another). 


30 See 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(b)(6) (2009); 45 Fed. Reg. 52,676, 52,694-95 (Aug. 7, 1980). 


31 Email from Mark Reed, MDNRE, to Laura Cossa, U.S. EPA, March 1,2007 (Document 47). See also Laura 


Cossa, U.S. EPA, Conversation Record from telephone call with Mark Reed, April 20, 2006 (Document 24); Laura 


Cossa, U.S. EPA, Conversation Record from telephone call with Mark Reed, March 1,2007 (Document 27); 


Summit Petroleum Facility Registry System Facility Detail Report, undated, (Document 40). 


32 Letter from Pamela Blakley to Scott Huber, April 26, 2007, at 2 (Document 28). See also Letter from Pamela 


Blakley to Gina Bozzer, April 26, 2007, at 2 (Document 29). 


" Email from Laura Cossa to J. Scott Huber and others, "Conference Call Summary," June 17,2009 (Document 59). 


34 Letter from Pamela Blakley to Gina Bozzer, April 16,2009, at 3 (Document 34). 


7 

application to Region 5 no later than April IS, 20 II. This deadline reinstates the 6 Y2 months 

that remained at the time of the February 23, 2010, stay in the original I-year period which EPA 

provided in the September 8, 2009, letter for you to submit your Title V application. 

Thank you for the opportunity to work together on these issues. If you have any further 

questions please feel free to contact me. 

- 2nerylL. e on 

G?ire~tbr ._ Ai d Radiation Division 

cc: via electronic mail: GinaBozzer.gabozzer@zimmerman-kuhn.com 

S. Lee Johnson, SLJohnson@honigman.com 

8