Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US 

04/28/2008 10:26 AM

	

To

Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject

next batch for Pb RIA docket









Kathy Kaufman

EPA/OAQPS Mail Code C539-03

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone 919 541 0102

Fax  919 541 5489

----- Forwarded by Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US on 04/28/2008 10:25 AM
-----

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

01/07/2008 02:20 PM

	

To

Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Janet Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ken Adler/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia
Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, David Misenheimer/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Darryl
Weatherhead/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Allen
Basala/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Bryan Hubbell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rosalina
Rodriguez/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Johansson, Robert"
<Robert_C._Johansson@omb.eop.gov>

Subject

RE: follow-up to your phone call  RESEND









Hi Ron,

Thanks for your response.  Email addresses were the same from both of

your emails, so I hope this reaches you and I'll follow up with a phone

call to make sure.

Ozone NAAQS RIA baseline for analysis:

Your first option works well, Friday 1/11 at 11am.  I have a couple of

solutions to propose, and I trust you to include the appropriate folks

on your end including Lydia and/or others. 

Energy EO for Ozone NAAQS:

Let's have the meeting to review the analysis supporing the conclusion

from the NPRM as soon as possible.  Agenda: Let's review the

requirements of the EO and make sure we are all reading from the same

guidance.  While we of course all read this language from the proposal,

elements of the RIA would imply that OMB guidance might require further

Energy EO analysis, and this meeting is the opportunity to gain

alignment on requirements and expectations.

Energy EO for Pb NAAQS:

Again, let's have the meeting, but let's include additional RIA topics

in this meeting (we are due for another conversation on this RIA).  I

would like to make sure that all parties are on the same page with

respect to OMB's guidance on implementing the requirements of this EO,

and how it relates to this particular rulemaking, but I suspect this

will be a shorter conversation than the Ozone conversation.

Thanks, Ron  --

Heidi

Heidi R. King

OMB/OIRA

(202) 395-4551

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

Heidi, I got your voicemail about setting up a few meetings.   You

requested discussions on both the Energy E.O. analysis for ozone and Pb

plus a conversation on the baseline issue for the ozone RIA.   I am

going to take up the baseline issue first.

BASELINE    I presume this will be our opportunity to get Lydia and Art

together to talk per our previous conversation that this issue was ready

to raise up the management chain.   The ideal time will be from 11:00 to

12:00 this Friday the 11th.   I already have this time blocked on

Lydia's calendar for another meeting so I have high confidence that she

will be available.  She is also available after 3:30 on Friday.  Lydia

is also available from 4 to 5 on Thursday: however, I personally would

only be available until 4:45.  I would suggest this as a 3rd fallback

time.   We will have control strategy people from OAQPS and OTAQ on the

line to address any technical questions that Art may have during the

discussions.  Let me know if one of these times would work for you.

Energy EO Analysis  You indicated that DOE was interested in how our

energy impacts analysis is carried out.  I have reproduced the

discussion from the ozone NAAQS proposal RIA below.  As you can see from

the writeup, it is our determination that the setting of the NAAQS

standard is not a significant energy action as defined by the EO.  This

language is consistent with that which appeared in the PM NAAQS RIA and

was accepted as part of the Interagency review process.  Based on this I

don't believe that there is a need for a discussion.  Please let me know

if you have questions about this.

9.8 Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy

Supply, Distribution or Use  (from page 9-4)

This proposed rule is not a "significant energy action" as defined in

Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use"

(66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because in the Agency's judgment it is not

likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution,

or use of energy. The purpose of this rule is to establish revised NAAQS

for ozone. The rule does not prescribe specific pollution control

strategies by which these ambient standards will be met. Such strategies

will be developed by States on a case-by-case basis, and EPA cannot

predict whether the control options selected by States will include

regulations on energy suppliers, distributors, or users. Thus, EPA

concludes that this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy

effects and does not constitute a significant energy action as defined

in Executive Order 13211.

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

From: Evans.Ron@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Evans.Ron@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 1:48 PM

To: King, Heidi R.

Cc: Cakir.Janet@epamail.epa.gov; Adler.Ken@epamail.epa.gov;

Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov; Misenheimer.David@epamail.epa.gov;

Weatherhead.Darryl@epamail.epa.gov; Kaufman.Kathy@epamail.epa.gov;

Basala.Allen@epamail.epa.gov; Hubbell.Bryan@epamail.epa.gov;

Rodriguez.Rosalina@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: follow-up to your phone call RESEND

Importance: High

Heidi, I was working within a different e-mail base when I sent this

e-mail a moment ago.  Please respond to this e-mail instead of the

previous one, the other comes from an archive database which means that

when you respond I will not see the e-mail come in.  Sorry for the

confusion.

Ron Evans

Leader, Air Benefit & Cost Group

HEID/OAQPS/OAR/EPA

Mail Drop C-439-02

919-541-5488

919-541-0839 fax

----- Forwarded by Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US on 01/07/2008 01:43 PM -----

                                                                        

             Ron                                                        

             Evans/RTP/USEPA/                                           

             US                                                      To 

                                      "King, Heidi R."                  

             01/07/2008 01:42         <Heidi_R._King@omb.eop.gov>       

             PM                                                      cc 

                                      Janet Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ken 

                                      Adler/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia      

                                      Wegman, David                     

                                      Misenheimer/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,     

                                      darryl weatherhead, Kathy         

                                      Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Allen   

                                      Basala, Bryan Hubbell, rosalina   

                                      rodriguez                         

                                                                Subject 

                                      follow-up to your phone call      

                                                                        

                                                                        

                                                                        

                                                                        

                                                                        

                                                                        

Heidi, I got your voicemail about setting up a few meetings.   You

requested discussions on both the Energy E.O. analysis for ozone and Pb

plus a conversation on the baseline issue for the ozone RIA.   I am

going to take up the baseline issue first.

BASELINE    I presume this will be our opportunity to get Lydia and Art

together to talk per our previous conversation that this issue was ready

to raise up the management chain.   The ideal time will be from 11:00 to

12:00 this Friday the 11th.   I already have this time blocked on

Lydia's calendar for another meeting so I have high confidence that she

will be available.  She is also available after 3:30 on Friday.  Lydia

is also available from 4 to 5 on Thursday: however, I personally would

only be available until 4:45.  I would suggest this as a 3rd fallback

time.   We will have control strategy people from OAQPS and OTAQ on the

line to address any technical questions that Art may have during the

discussions.  Let me know if one of these times would work for you.

Energy EO Analysis  You indicated that DOE was interested in how our

energy impacts analysis is carried out.  I have reproduced the

discussion from the ozone NAAQS proposal RIA below.  As you can see from

the writeup, it is our determination that the setting of the NAAQS

standard is not a significant energy action as defined by the EO.  This

language is consistent with that which appeared in the PM NAAQS RIA and

was accepted as part of the Interagency review process.  Based on this I

don't believe that there is a need for a discussion.  Please let me know

if you have questions about this.

9.8 Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy

Supply, Distribution or Use  (from page 9-4)

This proposed rule is not a "significant energy action" as defined in

Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use"

(66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because in the Agency's judgment it is not

likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution,

or use of energy. The purpose of this rule is to establish revised NAAQS

for ozone. The rule does not prescribe specific pollution control

strategies by which these ambient standards will be met. Such strategies

will be developed by States on a case-by-case basis, and EPA cannot

predict whether the control options selected by States will include

regulations on energy suppliers, distributors, or users. Thus, EPA

concludes that this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy

effects and does not constitute a significant energy action as defined

in Executive Order 13211.

Ron Evans

----- Forwarded by Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US on 04/28/2008 10:25 AM
-----

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

01/07/2008 03:13 PM

	

To

Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Allen Basala/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Bryan Hubbell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Darryl
Weatherhead/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, David Misenheimer/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Janet
Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ken
Adler/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Johansson,
Robert" <Robert_C._Johansson@omb.eop.gov>, Rosalina
Rodriguez/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

RE: follow-up to your phone call  RESEND









Heidi

I will arrange for this baseline discussion to get on Lydia and our

control strategy experts calendars; I will also arrange for a conference

call line.  Who else will be joining us?

>> Thanks, Ron, I've included Art and Rob.

As to the Energy EO discussion, it may be best for you and I to chat via

phone so I can understand what your (or DOE) concerns are prior to

setting up a meeting.  As you can see from the writeup, the conclusion

is not so much a function of economic analysis as applicable scope.

Since this writeup was accepted during prior NAAQS RIA interagency

reviews, I would like a clearer understand of what is different here

prior to setting up a larger meeting.  Please give me a call at your

convenience.

>> That's a great idea!  I'm not sure there are concerns so much as an

opportunity to make sure we're on the same page.  We'll need to have the

interagency discussion anyway, as I want the group to be aligned on the

guidance document available at the link below, but it will be a good

chance for us to review EPA's thoughts reflected in the NPRM language.

As you are probably aware, OIRA bears the responsibility of designating

whether a regulation is a significant energy action, and the Statement

of Energy Effects would follow similar guidance to the RIA so that there

is likely not a need for additional modeling above what satisfies the

RIA.  

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m01-27.html

As to the broader discussion about the Pb NAAQS RIA, I will check in

with Kathy Kaufman tomorrow on when she will be ready.  She is out at a

conference this afternoon and will not be back until the morning.  Have

you discussed a specific list of pending topics with Kathy ?

>> I would like to begin to introduce the interagency group to the Pb

RIA, in part to control expectations that this will not be as complex as

the Ozone NAAQS RIA, and also to give other agencies a chance to suggest

additional data which they might be able to contribute given the short

timelines and derth of data available to support this analysis.  I trust

that your group has done a thorough review, but given the data and

timeline constraints, I'd like to make sure we have as a group taken the

opportunity to welcome additional information while there is still time

to incorporate such contributions.  It seems particularly important

given the multi-media nature of Pb.

Thanks for your time Ron,

heidi

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

From: Evans.Ron@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Evans.Ron@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 2:42 PM

To: King, Heidi R.

Cc: Basala.Allen@epamail.epa.gov; Hubbell.Bryan@epamail.epa.gov;

Weatherhead.Darryl@epamail.epa.gov; Misenheimer.David@epamail.epa.gov;

Cakir.Janet@epamail.epa.gov; Kaufman.Kathy@epamail.epa.gov;

Adler.Ken@epamail.epa.gov; Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov; Johansson,

Robert; Rodriguez.Rosalina@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: RE: follow-up to your phone call RESEND

Heidi

Got it!  Thanks

I will arrange for this baseline discussion to get on Lydia and our

control strategy experts calendars; I will also arrange for a conference

call line.  Who else will be joining us?

As to the Energy EO discussion, it may be best for you and I to chat via

phone so I can understand what your (or DOE) concerns are prior to

setting up a meeting.  As you can see from the writeup, the conclusion

is not so much a function of economic analysis as applicable scope.

Since this writeup was accepted during prior NAAQS RIA interagency

reviews, I would like a clearer understand of what is different here

prior to setting up a larger meeting.  Please give me a call at your

convenience.

As to the broader discussion about the Pb NAAQS RIA, I will check in

with Kathy Kaufman tomorrow on when she will be ready.  She is out at a

conference this afternoon and will not be back until the morning.  Have

you discussed a specific list of pending topics with Kathy ?

Ron

                                                                        

             "King, Heidi R."                                           

             <Heidi_R._King@o                                           

             mb.eop.gov>                                             To 

                                      Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA        

             01/07/2008 02:20                                        cc 

             PM                       Janet Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ken 

                                      Adler/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia      

                                      Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, David    

                                      Misenheimer/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,     

                                      Darryl                            

                                      Weatherhead/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,     

                                      Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,   

                                      Allen Basala/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,    

                                      Bryan Hubbell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,   

                                      Rosalina                          

                                      Rodriguez/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,       

                                      "Johansson, Robert"               

                                      <Robert_C._Johansson@omb.eop.gov> 

                                                                Subject 

                                      RE: follow-up to your phone call  

                                      RESEND                            

                                                                        

                                                                        

                                                                        

                                                                        

                                                                        

                                                                        

Hi Ron,

Thanks for your response.  Email addresses were the same from both of

your emails, so I hope this reaches you and I'll follow up with a phone

call to make sure.

Ozone NAAQS RIA baseline for analysis:

Your first option works well, Friday 1/11 at 11am.  I have a couple of

solutions to propose, and I trust you to include the appropriate folks

on your end including Lydia and/or others.

Energy EO for Ozone NAAQS:

Let's have the meeting to review the analysis supporing the conclusion

from the NPRM as soon as possible.  Agenda: Let's review the

requirements of the EO and make sure we are all reading from the same

guidance.  While we of course all read this language from the proposal,

elements of the RIA would imply that OMB guidance might require further

Energy EO analysis, and this meeting is the opportunity to gain

alignment on requirements and expectations.

Energy EO for Pb NAAQS:

Again, let's have the meeting, but let's include additional RIA topics

in this meeting (we are due for another conversation on this RIA).  I

would like to make sure that all parties are on the same page with

respect to OMB's guidance on implementing the requirements of this EO,

and how it relates to this particular rulemaking, but I suspect this

will be a shorter conversation than the Ozone conversation.

Thanks, Ron  --

Heidi

Heidi R. King

OMB/OIRA

(202) 395-4551

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

Heidi, I got your voicemail about setting up a few meetings.   You

requested discussions on both the Energy E.O. analysis for ozone and Pb

plus a conversation on the baseline issue for the ozone RIA.   I am

going to take up the baseline issue first.

BASELINE    I presume this will be our opportunity to get Lydia and Art

together to talk per our previous conversation that this issue was ready

to raise up the management chain.   The ideal time will be from 11:00 to

12:00 this Friday the 11th.   I already have this time blocked on

Lydia's calendar for another meeting so I have high confidence that she

will be available.  She is also available after 3:30 on Friday.  Lydia

is also available from 4 to 5 on Thursday: however, I personally would

only be available until 4:45.  I would suggest this as a 3rd fallback

time.   We will have control strategy people from OAQPS and OTAQ on the

line to address any technical questions that Art may have during the

discussions.  Let me know if one of these times would work for you.

Energy EO Analysis  You indicated that DOE was interested in how our

energy impacts analysis is carried out.  I have reproduced the

discussion from the ozone NAAQS proposal RIA below.  As you can see from

the writeup, it is our determination that the setting of the NAAQS

standard is not a significant energy action as defined by the EO.  This

language is consistent with that which appeared in the PM NAAQS RIA and

was accepted as part of the Interagency review process.  Based on this I

don't believe that there is a need for a discussion.  Please let me know

if you have questions about this.

9.8 Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy

Supply, Distribution or Use  (from page 9-4)

This proposed rule is not a "significant energy action" as defined in

Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use"

(66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because in the Agency's judgment it is not

likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution,

or use of energy. The purpose of this rule is to establish revised NAAQS

for ozone. The rule does not prescribe specific pollution control

strategies by which these ambient standards will be met. Such strategies

will be developed by States on a case-by-case basis, and EPA cannot

predict whether the control options selected by States will include

regulations on energy suppliers, distributors, or users. Thus, EPA

concludes that this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy

effects and does not constitute a significant energy action as defined

in Executive Order 13211.

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

From: Evans.Ron@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Evans.Ron@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 1:48 PM

To: King, Heidi R.

Cc: Cakir.Janet@epamail.epa.gov; Adler.Ken@epamail.epa.gov;

Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov; Misenheimer.David@epamail.epa.gov;

Weatherhead.Darryl@epamail.epa.gov; Kaufman.Kathy@epamail.epa.gov;

Basala.Allen@epamail.epa.gov; Hubbell.Bryan@epamail.epa.gov;

Rodriguez.Rosalina@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: follow-up to your phone call RESEND

Importance: High

Heidi, I was working within a different e-mail base when I sent this

e-mail a moment ago.  Please respond to this e-mail instead of the

previous one, the other comes from an archive database which means that

when you respond I will not see the e-mail come in.  Sorry for the

confusion.

Ron Evans

Leader, Air Benefit & Cost Group

HEID/OAQPS/OAR/EPA

Mail Drop C-439-02

919-541-5488

919-541-0839 fax

----- Forwarded by Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US on 01/07/2008 01:43 PM -----

             Ron

             Evans/RTP/USEPA/

             US                                                      To

                                      "King, Heidi R."

             01/07/2008 01:42         <Heidi_R._King@omb.eop.gov>

             PM                                                      cc

                                      Janet Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ken

                                      Adler/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia

                                      Wegman, David

                                      Misenheimer/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,

                                      darryl weatherhead, Kathy

                                      Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Allen

                                      Basala, Bryan Hubbell, rosalina

                                      rodriguez

                                                                Subject

                                      follow-up to your phone call

Heidi, I got your voicemail about setting up a few meetings.   You

requested discussions on both the Energy E.O. analysis for ozone and Pb

plus a conversation on the baseline issue for the ozone RIA.   I am

going to take up the baseline issue first.

BASELINE    I presume this will be our opportunity to get Lydia and Art

together to talk per our previous conversation that this issue was ready

to raise up the management chain.   The ideal time will be from 11:00 to

12:00 this Friday the 11th.   I already have this time blocked on

Lydia's calendar for another meeting so I have high confidence that she

will be available.  She is also available after 3:30 on Friday.  Lydia

is also available from 4 to 5 on Thursday: however, I personally would

only be available until 4:45.  I would suggest this as a 3rd fallback

time.   We will have control strategy people from OAQPS and OTAQ on the

line to address any technical questions that Art may have during the

discussions.  Let me know if one of these times would work for you.

Energy EO Analysis  You indicated that DOE was interested in how our

energy impacts analysis is carried out.  I have reproduced the

discussion from the ozone NAAQS proposal RIA below.  As you can see from

the writeup, it is our determination that the setting of the NAAQS

standard is not a significant energy action as defined by the EO.  This

language is consistent with that which appeared in the PM NAAQS RIA and

was accepted as part of the Interagency review process.  Based on this I

don't believe that there is a need for a discussion.  Please let me know

if you have questions about this.

9.8 Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy

Supply, Distribution or Use  (from page 9-4)

This proposed rule is not a "significant energy action" as defined in

Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use"

(66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because in the Agency's judgment it is not

likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution,

or use of energy. The purpose of this rule is to establish revised NAAQS

for ozone. The rule does not prescribe specific pollution control

strategies by which these ambient standards will be met. Such strategies

will be developed by States on a case-by-case basis, and EPA cannot

predict whether the control options selected by States will include

regulations on energy suppliers, distributors, or users. Thus, EPA

concludes that this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy

effects and does not constitute a significant energy action as defined

in Executive Order 13211.

Ron Evans

----- Forwarded by Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US on 04/28/2008 10:25 AM
-----

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

01/10/2008 10:55 AM

	

To

Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject

RE: Pb next week?









That's ok; if it was the risk assessment email, I was referring to

research references and data sources.

Thanks Kathy!

h

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

From: Kaufman.Kathy@epamail.epa.gov

[mailto:Kaufman.Kathy@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 10:53 AM

To: King, Heidi R.

Cc: Basala.Allen@epamail.epa.gov; Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov;

Fann.Neal@epamail.epa.gov; Evans.Ron@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: RE: Pb next week?

Heidi, no problem.  I couldn't find the "source information" reference

in past emails,  -- maybe I mistakenly deleted something or heard it

verbally from my management -- but it sounds like we're on the same page

anyway.

Kathy Kaufman

EPA/OAQPS Mail Code C539-03

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone 919 541 0102

Fax  919 541 5489

                                                                        

             "King, Heidi R."                                           

             <Heidi_R._King@o                                           

             mb.eop.gov>                                             To 

                                      Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA    

             01/10/2008 10:47                                        cc 

             AM                       Allen Basala/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,    

                                      Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,    

                                      Neal Fann/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ron   

                                      Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA            

                                                                Subject 

                                      RE: Pb next week?                 

                                                                        

                                                                        

                                                                        

                                                                        

                                                                        

                                                                        

You are correct - previous briefing but opened up to the interagency

group, with awareness that MACT is an area of interest to some and we

also want to speak briefly on Energy Exec Order.

Thank you for being thorough, Kathy, it saves us all time in the long

run.

Best regards,

heidi

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

From: Kaufman.Kathy@epamail.epa.gov

[mailto:Kaufman.Kathy@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 9:07 AM

To: King, Heidi R.

Cc: Basala.Allen@epamail.epa.gov; Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov;

Fann.Neal@epamail.epa.gov; Evans.Ron@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: RE: Pb next week?

Heidi, thanks, your answers are really helpful.

On the question about "source information" -- I'll shoot the email back

to you, but yes, it was the risk assessment email.  So I'm surmising

there's nothing additional beyond what was in the previous briefings,

but please tell me if I'm wrong.

Thanks for your prompt reply!

-- Kathy

Kathy Kaufman

EPA/OAQPS Mail Code C539-03

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone 919 541 0102

Fax  919 541 5489

             "King, Heidi R."

             <Heidi_R._King@o

             mb.eop.gov>                                             To

                                      Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

             01/09/2008 03:58                                        cc

             PM                       Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia

                                      Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Allen

                                      Basala/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Neal

                                      Fann/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

                                                                Subject

                                      RE: Pb next week?

Hi Kathy, thank you for your work on this.  I tried to reply thoroughly

to each of your questions below.

-- are you asking whether the cost analysis will take into account

controls that have been or will be applied as a result of MACT

standards?  The short answer is yes, we are taking that co-control into

account for the stationary sources near potentially violating monitors

>> Thank you, that is indeed the question as I understood it from

interagency colleagues.  They may have more specific questions on

specific controls, but that has not been shared with me.

-- but is there more detail needed for next week's meeting in regard to

specific MACT standards?  I'm trying to figure out who I may need to

pull in.

>> Not that I know of.  (I also wouldn't recommend that this become a

MACT meeting - we have too much to cover - so follow ups to specific

detailed questions would be appropriate, in my opinion.)

-- Also, in your original note last week you mentioned wanting to focus

on "source information" -- is that what the MACT question above refers

to, or are there additional "source" questions that we should be

prepared to answer?

>> I'm sorry, an email on the Pb NAAQS RIA using the term "source

information" doesn't come to mind quickly - but this is not likely the

MACT question.  I was probably referring to a) information about sources

of Pb, including emitting sources or other environmental sources, and/or

b) paucity of data sources that we'll be able to use in this analysis

and/or c) identifying what are the sources (research and data) used in

the analysis.  If you could bounce that email back to me I'd be happy to

clarify; I'm sorry I can't find it in my outbox.  (Is this the Risk

Assessment note?)

If so, do you know what those might be?   (i.e. cost questions,

inventory questions, etc.). Again I want to make sure I have the right

people and/or briefing material.

>> I thought the briefing you shared with OMB was about right as an

introduction, with the addition of time identified to talk about the

Energy EO, and an awareness that MACT assumptions in the baseline was

likely to come up from briefing participants.

Two other questions that came up when we talked with Lydia today:

1.  It would be helpful to know which agencies will be represented at

the meeting next week.

>> Invitees include:

Ag

Commerce

Defense

Energy

Interior

SBA

Transportation

CEQ

OVP

OSHA and another of the health agencies - I'll check (but it was not

CDC, rather a standards-setting group) CEA and OMB Budget colleagues

have also been invited, but I haven't heard replies yet

Also, Lydia was wondering if you had identified a CDC representative,

and if so, who that is.  Thanks.

>>  I have invited and shared a draft of materials with Dept of

Health/Dept of Labor.  They have not accepted yet.

2.  Per Ron's earlier conversation with you on deadlines:   Given the

ozone deadlines in February, we're presuming you will be needing

February to be focusing on ozone.  Therefore our current plan is to get

the Pb RIA to you by late February.   Are we correct in assuming late

February is a reasonable plan for the Pb RIA?  (We're just trying to be

as realistic as we can).

>> Of course, the earlier the better, but I'm assuming that end of Feb

is the best we all can do -- I appreciate your willingness to give the

reviewers a leg-up with this pre-brief.

I hope this answers your questions; please feel free to give me a call

also if I've been too wordy or unclear!

Heidi

Heidi R. King

OMB/OIRA

(202) 395-4551

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

From: Kaufman.Kathy@epamail.epa.gov

[mailto:Kaufman.Kathy@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 3:21 PM

To: King, Heidi R.

Cc: Evans.Ron@epamail.epa.gov; Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov;

Basala.Allen@epamail.epa.gov; Fann.Neal@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: RE: Pb next week?

Heidi -- we just talked a little with Lydia, and we have a couple of

followup questions.

But first, on your note below -- by "treatment of all Pb MACT standards"

-- are you asking whether the cost analysis will take into account

controls that have been or will be applied as a result of MACT

standards?  The short answer is yes, we are taking that co-control into

account for the stationary sources near potentially violating monitors

-- but is there more detail needed for next week's meeting in regard to

specific MACT standards?  I'm trying to figure out who I may need to

pull in.

Also, in your original note last week you mentioned wanting to focus on

"source information" -- is that what the MACT question above refers to,

or are there additional "source" questions that we should be prepared to

answer? If so, do you know what those might be?   (i.e. cost questions,

inventory questions, etc.).   Again I want to make sure I have the right

people and/or briefing material.

Two other questions that came up when we talked with Lydia today:

1.  It would be helpful to know which agencies will be represented at

the meeting next week.  Also, Lydia was wondering if you had identified

a CDC representative, and if so, who that is.  Thanks.

2.  Per Ron's earlier conversation with you on deadlines:   Given the

ozone deadlines in February, we're presuming you will be needing

February to be focusing on ozone.  Therefore our current plan is to get

the Pb RIA to you by late February.   Are we correct in assuming late

February is a reasonable plan for the Pb RIA?  (We're just trying to be

as realistic as we can).

Thanks!

-- Kathy

Kathy Kaufman

EPA/OAQPS Mail Code C539-03

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone 919 541 0102

Fax  919 541 5489

             "King, Heidi R."

             <Heidi_R._King@o

             mb.eop.gov>                                             To

                                      Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

             01/09/2008 02:56                                        cc

             PM

                                                                Subject

                                      RE: Pb next week?

Kathy,

I sent out the invitations for our Pb RIA meeting, scheduled for Wed

10:30 - noon.

A couple of items that would be helpful to include on the agenda, as

I've been hearing these questions from interagency folks:

- Review of how the agency plans to assess whether this rule triggers

the Energy Exec Order (I suspect this will be quick!)

- Treatment of all Pb MACT standards in the RIA

Otherwise, I think the briefing you took OMB through would be great to

get this process started.

Thanks so much, let me know if there's anything I can do to facilitate

or clarify etc

Heidi

(202) 395-4551

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

From: Kaufman.Kathy@epamail.epa.gov

[mailto:Kaufman.Kathy@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 11:49 AM

To: King, Heidi R.

Subject: RE: Pb next week?

Heidi, Margaret is working on setting up a meeting on the Pb RIA for

next week.

As an aside, she asked me to let you know that your other meeting is set

for this Friday, 1/11/08 @ 11:30am.  The call-in # is (919) 541-4407.

Kathy Kaufman

EPA/OAQPS Mail Code C539-03

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone 919 541 0102

Fax  919 541 5489

----- Forwarded by Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US on 04/28/2008 10:25 AM
-----

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

01/15/2008 10:04 AM

	

To

Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject

RE: invitation for FAA specifically for meeting with OMB Wed.









Kathy - by way of follow up, I haven't heard back from DoT yet but have

reached out to Warren at FAA to ask for his contact and add him to the

mailing list.

Best regards,

heidi 

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

From: Kaufman.Kathy@epamail.epa.gov

[mailto:Kaufman.Kathy@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 12:50 PM

To: King, Heidi R.

Cc: Hoyer.Marion@epamail.epa.gov; Evans.Ron@epamail.epa.gov;

Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov; Basala.Allen@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: Fw: invitation for FAA specifically for meeting with OMB Wed.

Heidi -- please see below -- FAA would like to participate on Wed on the

Pb RIA.  Is there a DC meeting place for interagency people, or is

everyone phoning in?

Thanks!

-- Kathy

Kathy Kaufman

EPA/OAQPS Mail Code C539-03

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone 919 541 0102

Fax  919 541 5489

----- Forwarded by Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US on 01/14/2008 12:47 PM

-----

                                                                        

             Marion                                                     

             Hoyer/AA/USEPA/U                                           

             S                                                       To 

                                      Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA    

             01/14/2008 11:44                                        cc 

             AM                       Bryan Manning/AA/USEPA/US@EPA,    

                                      Glenn Passavant/AA/USEPA/US@EPA   

                                                                Subject 

                                      invitation for FAA specifically   

                                      for meeting with OMB Wed.         

                                                                        

                                                                        

                                                                        

                                                                        

                                                                        

                                                                        

Hi Kathy,

Warren Gillette of FAA (our contact on avgas issues) would like an

invitation to the InterAgency meeting on the Pb RIA this Wed.  Is that

best arranged through Heidi?  Warren's contact info is below.  Do you

know if most of the participants are phoning in or is there a room

reserved for the InterAgency participants?  Warren is in DC so if most

people are attending in person he might want to have that option.

Thanks for facilitating this.

Marion

FAA contact on avgas:

Warren Gillette (202-267-8367)

----- Forwarded by Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US on 04/28/2008 10:25 AM
-----

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

01/16/2008 09:38 AM

	

To

"Laur, Michele N." <Michele_N._Laur@omb.eop.gov>, "King, Heidi R."
<Heidi_R._King@omb.eop.gov>, <Daniel.Cohen@hq.doe.gov>,
<David.R.Hill@hq.doe.gov>, "Fraas, Arthur G."
<Arthur_G._Fraas@omb.eop.gov>, "Farrell, Amy L."
<Amy_L._Farrell@ceq.eop.gov>, <Indur_Goklany@ios.doi.gov>,
<Burleson.Smith@usda.gov>, "Baer, Mitchell" <Mitchell.Baer@hq.doe.gov>,
"Holman, Keith W." <Keith.Holman@sba.gov>, "Mestey, Felix CIV
\(NAVFACHQ\)" <felix.mestey@navy.mil>, "Newton, Drek  CIV NFESC"
<drek.newton@navy.mil>, "Daniels, Jarad" <Jarad.Daniels@hq.doe.gov>,
"Skidmore, Charlotte T." <Charlotte_T._Skidmore@omb.eop.gov>,
<GC-71energyregs@hq.doe.gov>, "Serebrov, Job"
<Job.Serebrov@OGC.USDA.GOV>, <Stefan.Osborne@mail.doc.gov>,
<Cruz.Ubay@HQ.DOE.GOV>, <carmen.difiglio@hq.doe.gov>, "Grahame, Thomas"
<Thomas.Grahame@HQ.DOE.GOV>, <Cecilia.Ho@dot.gov>,
<Camille.Mittelholtz@dot.gov>, <chris.rasmussen@mail.doc.gov>, "Beck,
Nancy" <Nancy_Beck@omb.eop.gov>, <moar.ian@dol.gov>,
<matthew.grove@hhs.gov>

cc

Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

Slides for 10:30 call on Pb NAAQS RIA (866) 299-3188 conf code 919
541-0514









Good morning,

Attached are slides for today's 10:30 am conf call for interagency
review of the Pb NAAQA RIA.

Objective:

Introduce the framework and data available for analysis of the costs and
benefits associated with the Pb NAAQS alternative thresholds prior to
formal review of the completed document, given the anticipated short
timeline for review of the Pb NAAQS (2/29/08 - 3/29/08) and the
complexity of the work.

Heidi

