Meeting tomorrow 

Lydia Wegman to: Laity, James A. 06/01/2010 08:09 PM

Cc:

"Mancini, Dominic J.", Scott Mathias, Richard Wayland, Kevin 

McLean, Tricia Crabtree, James Hemby, Sara Schneeberg, Mike 

Thrift, Charlotte Bertrand, Bridgid Curry

Yes, if that is the earliest that works for you, we'll make it work. We can use 919-541-4407 as the call-in 

number.

-----"Laity, James A." <James_A._Laity@omb.eop.gov> wrote: -----

To: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

From: "Laity, James A." <James_A._Laity@omb.eop.gov>

Date: 06/01/2010 07:51PM

cc: "Mancini, Dominic J." <Dominic_J._Mancini@omb.eop.gov>, Scott Mathias/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, 

Richard Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Kevin McLean/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia 

Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject: RE: language Insert for Section III

Lydia:  We will need a little time to go over everything in the morning and discuss internally.  We have a

staff meeting at 11 AM.  Can we say noon for a call?  ‐‐ jim

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

Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 7:50 PM

To: Laity, James A.

Cc: Mancini, Dominic J.; Mathias.Scott@epamail.epa.gov; Wayland.Richard@epamail.epa.gov; 

Mclean.Kevin@epamail.epa.gov; Crabtree.Tricia@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: Re: language Insert for Section III

Great--thanks Jim. We'll fix that typo. I'm about to send you a couple of other things. 

-----"Laity, James A." <James_A._Laity@omb.eop.gov> wrote: -----

To: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

From: "Laity, James A." <James_A._Laity@omb.eop.gov>

Date: 06/01/2010 07:46PM

cc: "Mancini, Dominic J." <Dominic_J._Mancini@omb.eop.gov>

Subject: language Insert for Section III

Lydia, This language looks good to us. (Note that the last sentence has a typo, should say, “...as it

develops its implementation guidance.”)   ‐‐ jim

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

Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 6:04 PM

To: Laity, James A.; Mancini, Dominic J.
Cc: Mathias.Scott@epamail.epa.gov; Wayland.Richard@epamail.epa.gov;

Hemby.James@epamail.epa.gov; schneeberg.sara@epamail.epa.gov; Mclean.Kevin@epamail.epa.gov; 

thrift.mike@epamail.epa.gov; Wallace.Larry@epamail.epa.gov; Crabtree.Tricia@epamail.epa.gov

Subject:

Jim and Dom, 

Below is an edited version of the paragraph Jim sent us on the use of monitoring and modeling. Based 

on our discussion, we believe it addresses your concerns. If you agree with this language, we would 

plan to place it at the end of the Section III. Let us know what you think. 

For the reasons discussed above, EPA has determined that it is appropriate and efficient to principally 

use modeling to assess compliance for medium to larger sources, and to rely more on monitoring for 

groups of smaller sources and sources not as conducive to modeling. EPA’s revised monitoring network 

requirements have been developed to be consistent with this approach. However, EPA is still 

considering how monitoring and modeling data would be used together in specific situations to define 

attainment and nonattainment boundaries and under what circumstances it may be appropriate to rely on 

monitoring data alone to make attainment determinations. EPA intends to address these issues as it 

develops in implementation guidance.