From:	Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US

To:	"King, Heidi R." <Heidi_R._King@omb.eop.gov>

Cc:	Bridgid Curry/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, "Mancini, Dominic J."
<Dominic_J._Mancini@omb.eop.gov>, Joseph-J Dougherty/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,
Marta Montoro/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Scott Jenkins/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia
Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date:	01/22/2010 10:38 PM

Subject:	RE: Updated version of the NO2 final notice



That's an interesting point.  I wonder if it should be significant for
the novel legal/policy issues, because you're right, it's not
significant economically.  What advice do you have?

From:	"King, Heidi R." <Heidi_R._King@omb.eop.gov>

To:	Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Mancini, Dominic J."
<Dominic_J._Mancini@omb.eop.gov>

Cc:	Bridgid Curry/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Marta Montoro/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,
Joseph-J Dougherty/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Scott Jenkins/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,
Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date:	01/22/2010 10:36 PM

Subject:	RE: Updated version of the NO2 final notice



Lydia, does EPA want to retain "economically significant" designation in

Section VIII?  As strange as it seems to say this about a NAAQS, I don't

believe this rule meets the definition.

h

-----Original Message-----

From: Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 10:33 PM

To: King, Heidi R.; Mancini, Dominic J.

Cc: Curry.Bridgid@epamail.epa.gov; Montoro.Marta@epamail.epa.gov;

Dougherty.Joseph-J@epamail.epa.gov; Jenkins.Scott@epamail.epa.gov;

Crabtree.Tricia@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: Fw: Updated version of the NO2 final notice

Here's the track changes version.

(See attached file: NO2 primary NAAQS-final (1-22-2010 track

changes).doc.docx)

