Bob
Martineau
<
Bob.
Martineau@
wallerlaw.
com>

10/
25/
2005
02:
31
PM
To
Bill
Harnett/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
cc
Subject
Question
Bill,

As
a
follow­
up
to
your
questions
last
night,
I
want
to
amplify
on
my
response
a
bit
to
help
provide
some
additional
information.

I
think
the
view
that
this
is
not
an
issue
because
wet
mills
always
were
100
ton
source
well
is
not
accurate.
I
have
spoken
with
someone
in
wet
milling
business
and
they
sai
they
always
look
at
themselves
as
250
ton
PSD
threshold
sources
and
the
primary
SIC
cod
is
the
grain
processing
code
(
2046).
Some
of
their
plants
make
ethanol,
some
do
not.
It
for
them
but
one
of
the
products
in
their
mix.
The
point
is,
the
process
is
the
grain
milling
process.
And
it
is
well
down
the
process
chain
that
the
milled
product
will
tracked
to
be
made
into
corn
syrup,
other
starch
products,
or
alcohol.
Under
the
logic
that
if
any
ethanol
is
produced
they
are
in
the
chemical
process
plant
but
if
not
they
stay
a
2046
SIC
code
facility,
it
would
mean
if
a
wet
mill
decided
to
make
a
100
gallo
of
ethanol
in
addition
to
its
other
products
like
corn
syrup,
it
would
switch
from
bein
250
ton
source
for
PSD
to
a
100
ton
category.
That
makes
no
sense.
Additionally,
as
I
mentioned,
I
would
suggest
that
at
best
it
is
not
at
all
clear
fro
the
supposed
history
how
these
plants
should
be
characterized
and
that
is
exactly
why
i
makes
sense
to
do
a
rulemaking
to
define
chemical
process
plant.
The
determinations
th
have
been
made
do
not
seem
to
be
based
on
valid
distinctions..
why
is
beverage
alcohol
different
for
PSD
purposes
than
alcohol
for
ethanol
when
the
only
difference
in
product
is
that
the
alcohol
has
to
have
constituent
added
so
it
is
not
consumed.
EPA
has
some
discretion
to
define
the
term
chemical
process
plant
as
it
is
an
ambiguo
term
in
the
statute
and
OAR's
attempt
to
define
in
this
rulemaking
(
and
leave
these
pla
off
list)
is
a
good
faith
implementation
of
what
Congress
intended
because
if
you
look
back
at
what
information
was
available
in
76
and
77,
it
is
clear
that
Congress
never
intended
to
cover
these
plants.
To
the
extent
some
have
attempted
to
do
so
in
the
past
reached
a
contrary
position,
OAR
and
hopefully
EPA
is
saying
upon
reflection,
that
such
decision
does
not
make
sense
given
legislative
history
and
careful
analysis
of
what
thi
process
mostly
closely
looks
like
when
looking
at
SIC
codes.
Hope
this
is
helpful.
Let
me
know
if
you
need
additional
information.
Thanks
for
your
attention
on
this
matter.
As
you
know
,
it
is
of
critical
importance
to
the
ethanol
industry.

Robert
J.
Martineau,
Jr.
Waller
Lansden
Dortch
&
Davis,
PLLC
511
Union
Street,
Suite
2700
Nashville,
TN
37219
Phone:
(
615)
850­
8910
Cell:
(
615)
491­
7901
Fax:
(
615)
244­
6804
E­
mail:
rmartineau@
wallerlaw.
com
Website:
http://
www.
wallerlaw.
com
***************************************************************************************
*********************************
We
are
required
by
IRS
Circular
230
to
inform
you
that
any
statements
contained
herein
not
intended
or
written
to
be
used,
and
cannot
be
used,
by
you
or
any
other
taxpayer,
f
the
purpose
of
avoiding
any
penalties
that
may
be
imposed
by
federal
tax
law.
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
The
information
contained
in
this
message
and
any
attachments
is
intended
only
for
the
of
the
individual
or
entity
to
which
it
is
addressed,
and
may
contain
information
that
privileged,
confidential
and
exempt
from
disclosure
under
applicable
law.
If
you
have
received
this
message
in
error,
you
are
prohibited
from
copying,
distributing,
or
using
the
information.
Please
contact
the
sender
immediately
by
return
e­
mail
and
delete
the
original
message.

***************************************************************************************
*********************************
