To: Melissa Payne/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
From: Susmita Dubey/DC/USEPA/US@EPA
Date: 04/07/2009 03:28PM 
Subject: Re: Review of OMB changes- paints (Document link: Melissa Payne)    
                                                                        
Melissa -- this looks fine.  If this is all we're sending back to OMB on the p. 22 issue, I don't need to run it by Wendy.  Thanks.

Susmita Dubey
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of General Counsel
(202) 564-5577
(202) 564-5603 (fax)

-----Melissa Payne/RTP/USEPA/US wrote: -----

To: Susmita Dubey/DC/USEPA/US@EPA
From: Melissa Payne/RTP/USEPA/US
Date: 04/07/2009 03:11PM
Subject: Review of OMB changes- paints

Hi Susmita,
Here are a couple of sentences for your blessing- red text highlights any changes.  As you can tell, I'm trying to keep it short and simple (hopefully not overly-simple).

pg. 66
We have determined that small entity compliance costs, as assessed by the facilities' cost-to-sales ratio, are expected to be, on average, 0.13 percent for the estimated 460 facilities that would not initially be in compliance.
-----------------
pg. 22
We recognize that standards limited to the emission points of the listed urban HAP in this area source category would be sufficient to  satisfy the requirement in section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B) that EPA regulate sufficient source categories to account for 90 percent of the urban HAP emissions.  However, section 112 of the CAA does not prohibit EPA from regulating other HAP emitted from area sources listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3).  Section 112(d)(5) states that for area sources listed pursuant to section 112(c), the Administrator may, in lieu of  section 112(d)(2) "MACT" standards, promulgate standards or requirements "applicable to sources" which provide for the use of GACT or management practices "to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants." This provision does not limit EPA's authority to regulate only those urban HAP emissions for which the category is needed to achieve the 90 percent requirement in section 112(c)(3).  Finally, we do not expect this requirement to cause significant additional cost to the regulated facilities, while it will have added environmental benefit.

Thanks again for the quick turnaround!
Melissa Payne
Regulatory Development and Policy Analysis Group Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
919.541.3609
