Document 5DRY4zEdQe9R6qDp69Yyg67Rz

707 CAST STBCCT , o. O* 'S3S SiChmOnO, viWQiNi* c*-*-zoo o< st, haul's oulcvabo d. o. VOX 3609 NSHrOLR,VlttaiNA 235/4 ao*-*-ssoi Huntox & Williams 1919 Pennsylvania AvEnuC.N.W. P. O, Box 19230 Washington, D.C. 20036 Te^C*o*C 202*223*0630 July 1, 1982 s * t $uh6ing P.O.BOX 10 9 pmcioh, noath caOuna 7 02 919-62 -9371 NO' 31531.130002 To: Industry Petitioners in the Section 120 Litigation Response to EPA's June 16, 1982 Letter to the D.C. Circuit Ladies and Gentlemen: On June 16, 1982, EPA sent a letter to the Clerk of the D.C. Circuit, seeking to clarify three of the points EPA made during oral argument of the procedural issues and the TVA and Duquesne Light SIP issues. I am enclosing a copy of that letter. (Although the letter states and Chris Herman swears that copies of the letter were sent to all counsel of record, I do not know of any petitioner who received a copy of the letter before today. I have notified Judy Norris that, as far as I know, no industry petitioners were timely served with copies of the letter.) On June 30, 1982, in response to EPA's June 16 letter, the Court, sua sponte, issued an order asking EPA to respond by July 5 to the following questions: 1. Do the positions in EPA's June 16, 1982 letter differ in any respects from the positions taken by the Agency during oral argument? 2. If so, how do they differ and why? Industry then has until July 15, 1982, to respond to EPA's June 16 letter and any July 5 filing. The Clerk of the Court has mailed copies of that order to all counsel of record. So that we can `file a joint response by July 15, it is important that each of you promptly review and, if appropriate, prepare responses to EPA's June 16 letter and the July 5 filing. I will assume that Squire, Sanders & Dempsey will take the lead in responding to point 1 of the June 16 letter and that Reed Smith Shaw & McClay and TVA will take the lead in addressing points 2 and 3 of that letter. GNC OHiss