.

Phil
Wakelyn
<
PWAKELYN@
cotton.
org>

04/
12/
2006
07:
08
PM
To
Bob.
Avant@
agr.
state.
tx.
us,
jcpotter@
cox.
net,
Erika
Sasser/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
JCPotter@
oconnorhannan.
com,
KBlase@
oconnorhannan.
com
cc
bshaw@
tamu.
edu,
c­
parnell@
tamu.
edu
Subject
RE:
PM10
and
PM10­
2.5
equivalence
I
also
looked
at
it
quickly.
It
indicates
that
there
is
an
Analysis
12
­­
PM10­
2.5
equivalence
to
PM10
NAAQS
(
daily
standard).
Analysis
12
is
Output
A
12.
I
also
could
no
see
where
it
specifically
demonstates
the
mathematical
equivalence
of
150
being
the
sam
as
70,
as
Bachmann
indicated
that
he
would
send
us.
This
appears
to
be
a
typical
EPA
'
analysis'
with
many
pages
and
charts
with
superficial
data
[
e.
g.,
PM10­
2.5
data
is
based
on
simple
subtraction
and
from
limited
measurement
­­
used
only
12
urban
sites;
PM10
and
PM2.5
determined
at
different
times,
etc.].

Phil
>>>
"
Bob
Avant"
<
Bob.
Avant@
agr.
state.
tx.
us>
4/
12/
2006
4:
40
PM
>>>
This
only
gives
the
Federal
Register
proposal
for
the
98th
percentile,
but
I
don't
see
where
it
specifically
demonstates
the
mathematical
equivalence
of
150
being
the
same
as
70?
­­­­­
Original
Message­­­­­
From:
Kurt
Blase
[
mailto:
KBlase@
oconnorhannan.
com]
Sent:
Wednesday,
April
12,
2006
3:
17
PM
To:
Sasser.
Erika@
epamail.
epa.
gov;
Bob
Avant;
J.
Craig
Potter;
jcpotter@
cox.
net;
pwakelyn@
cotton.
org
Subject:
RE:
PM10
and
PM10­
2.5
equivalence
Got
it,
thanks.
________________________________

From:
Sasser.
Erika@
epamail.
epa.
gov
[
mailto:
Sasser.
Erika@
epamail.
epa.
gov]
Sent:
Wed
4/
12/
2006
2:
56
PM
To:
bob.
avant@
agr.
state.
tx.
us;
J.
Craig
Potter;
jcpotter@
cox.
net;
pwakelyn@
cotton.
org;
Kurt
Blase
Subject:
PM10
and
PM10­
2.5
equivalence
We
have
received
several
inquiries
regarding
the
analyses
that
have
been
completed
by
EPA
on
the
question
of
equivalence
between
the
existing
24­
hour
PM10
standard
and
the
proposed
24­
hour
PM10­
2.5
standard
level
of
70
ug/
m3.
A
summary
of
these
analyses
is
available
in
the
public
docket
for
the
PM
NAAQS
rulemaking,
EPA­
HQ­
OAR­
2001­
0017,
item
number
­
0396,
beginning
at
page
103.
This
analysis
can
be
accessed
via
the
docket
portal
(
www.
regulations.
gov),
and
for
your
convenience
I
have
also
attached
the
entire
technical
support
memo
completed
by
Mark
Schmidt
which
contains
the
equivalence
analysis.
If
you
have
further
questions,
please
let
me
know.

Thank
you,

Erika
Sasser
_______________
Erika
N.
Sasser,
Ph.
D.
U.
S.
EPA
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards
HEID/
OD
C504­
01
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711
Phone
(
919)
541­
3889
Fax
(
919)
541­
0804
sasser.
erika@
epa.
gov
(
See
attached
file:
Schmidt
Memo
to
Docket
0396.
pdf)
This
email
(
including
any
attachments)
is
intended
only
for
use
by
the
designated
recipient(
s)
and
may
contain
legally
privileged
and/
or
confidential
information.
No
one
other
than
the
intended
recipient(
s)
is
authorized
to
read,
retain,
disseminate
or
copy
this
communication.
If
you
received
this
in
error,
please
notify
the
sender
immediately
by
reply
e­
mail
and
delete
this
email.
Thank
you.

**********************************************************************
CONFIDENTIALITY
NOTE:
This
email
and
any
attachments
may
be
confidential
and
protected
by
legal
privilege.
If
you
are
not
the
intended
recipient,
be
aware
that
any
disclosure,
copying,
distribution
or
use
of
the
email
or
any
attachment
is
prohibited.
If
you
have
received
this
email
in
error,
please
notify
us
immediately
by
replying
to
the
sender
and
deleting
this
copy
an
the
reply
from
your
system.
Thank
you
for
your
cooperation.
