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

From: Shrager.Brian@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Shrager.Brian@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 3:32 PM 

To: Higgins, Cortney 

Cc: Walton.Tom@epamail.epa.gov; Lamson.Amy@epamail.epa.gov;Wayland.Robertj@epamail.epa.gov 

Subject: RIA Update memo 

Cortney, 

Attached is the revised RIA update memo in response to the interagency 

comments. Please let me know if you have any questions. 

Thanks! 

Brian 

(See attached file: boilersriaproposalrecon111201.docx) 
From:Brian Shrager/RTP/USEPA/US 

To:"Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

Cc:Amy Lamson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tom Walton/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, 

 RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US 

Date:12/01/2011 03:40 PM 

Subject:Replacement RIA update memo 

Cortney, 

Please disregard the previous version I sent. A few clarifications have 

been added, but no changes. Attached is the revised RIA update memo in 

response to the interagency comments. Please let me know if you have any 

questions. 

Thanks! 

Brian 

(See attached file: boilersriaproposalrecon111201.docx) 

Page 1 of 1
From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> 

To: Brian Shrager/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: Tom Walton/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Amy Lamson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 12/01/2011 05:35 PM 

Subject: RE: RIA Update memo 

Hi Brian, 

Is it possible to add a couple/few sentences explaining the " Changes due to Provision changes in this Proposal" -- in particular, for 

the benefits estimate? It's late in the date and it's not clear to me whey there are $2.7 to 6.6 billion in additional benefits from the 

changes made since the final rule? 

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

From: Shrager.Brian@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Shrager.Brian@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 5:52 PM 

To: Higgins, Cortney 

Cc: Lamson.Amy@epamail.epa.gov; Wayland.Robertj@epamail.epa.gov;Walton.Tom@epamail.epa.gov 

Subject: RE: RIA Update memo 

I added the following sentence to the table footnote. 

"The change in benefits due to provision changes in this proposal is a significant positive change because the solid fuel HCl limit is 

somewhat lower, which resulted in increased SO2 reductions and increased benefits." 

The revised file is attached. Any word on when the package will be cleared? 

Thanks! 

Brian 

(See attached file: boilersriaproposalrecon111201.docx) 

From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> 

To: Brian Shrager/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: Amy Lamson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, RobertJWayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tom Walton/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 12/01/2011 06:02 PM 

Subject: RE: RIA Update memo 

Hi Brian, 

Can the following change also be made for clarity (moving/editing the phrase "with a central estimate of +1,600")? 

The change in employment estimates between the RIA and the reconsideration proposal is minimal. The estimated employment 

changes range between −3,100 to +6,500 employees, with a central estimate of +1,700 employees for the major source NESHAP 

in the RIA. For the reconsideration proposal, the estimated employment changes decreased to +1,600 with the range between 

−3,000 to +6,300 employees, with a central estimate of +1,600. 
----- Forwarded by Brian Shrager/RTP/USEPA/US on 12/07/2011 09:40 AM 

----- 

From:"Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

To:Brian Shrager/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date:12/01/2011 06:10 PM 

Subject:RIA Memo 

Here’s the change in redline 

(See attached file: boilersriaproposalrecon111201 (2) (2).docx) 

Page 1 of 1