To: Michael Ling/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Linda Chappell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA From: "King, Heidi R." <Heidi_R._King@omb.eop.gov> Date: 04/29/2010 08:55AM cc: Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Subject: RE: Tailoring RIA - next steps Summa ry of Interagency Comments during EO 12866
Review

Thank you

I suspect the information is all in the draft, but folks have been confused with the current structure and terms, so restructuring will probably go a long way.

Best,

heidi

-----Original Message----- From: Ling.Michael@epamail.epa.gov [ mailto:Ling.Michael@epamail.epa.gov ] Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:47 AM To: King, Heidi R.; Chappell.Linda@epamail.epa.gov Cc: Evans.Ron@epamail.epa.gov Subject: Re: Tailoring RIA - next steps Summary of Interagency Comments during EO
12866 Review

Heidi - thanks for these comments. In case Ron has not done so already, I will forward them to Linda Chappell, who works for Ron and is the lead author for the tailoring RIA. In response to yur voice mail request, Linda's phone number is
919-541-2864. Thanks.

Michael Ling
Associate Director Air Quality Policy Division
U.S. EPA - OAQPS (919) 541-4729

|------------> | From: | |------------>

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

>------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------| |------------> | To: | |------------>

>------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------| |Michael Ling/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA |

>------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------| |------------> | Date: | |------------>

>------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

### Page 1 of 3

5/13/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\ p lon g \Local Settin g s\Tem p \notesFCBCEE\~web0284.htm---------------------------------------------------| |04/28/2010 09:33 PM |

>------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------| |------------> | Subject: | |------------>

>------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------| |Tailoring RIA - next steps Summary of Interagency Comments during EO 12866 Review |

>------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------|

Apologies that we haven’t yet discussed the rough draft RIA for the Tailoring Rule. Here are some suggested next steps that summarize comments and questions arising during interagency review. Responding to these comments will help us move
forward to a final draft:

Let’s align the RIA with the final rule under review, including
- Title of the rule - Language describing what the rule does -- perhaps we should use some of the preamble language to make sure we’re consistent - Terms (such as sources in step 1 of phase-in, are they “anyways sources” or are they “non-GHG trigger” sources? Let’s align the terms so that readers can understand the relationship between the rule and analysis) - Regulatory Requirements -- I don’t think we are promulgating reg relief beyond 2013, but rather a commitment – so should we analyze tailoring primarily for step 1 and 2?

I suggest we follow a structure that helps the reader to understand the analysis as it relates to the rule. In the current draft, the chapter headers are not well matched to the language contained in the chapter – so I suggest we adopt a simple

structure

- Intro / exec sum to 1) describe the rule briefly, statement of need for the regulatory action, how the rule is linked to expected benefits, then 2) the results of the analysis (baseline, alternatives, benes, costs) clearly including unquantified benefits and costs, as well as 3) key assumptions and uncertainties, discount rates etc. A-4 also asks for expected undesireable side-effects and ancillary benefits. - Structure of the analysis – 1) what is baseline? Key assumptions? 2) What regulatory alternatives analyzed and why? (sources, time period) 3) Key assumptions in the analysis (such as what happens after 2013, BACT etc) - Benefits 1) From baseline 2) How calculated in detail, including simplifying assumptions 3) uncertainties / uncertainty analysis if available - Costs 1) from baseline 2) how calculated in detail, including simplifying assumptions 3) uncertainties / analysis if
available 

### Page 2 of 3

5/13/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\ p lon g \Local Settin g s\Tem p \notesFCBCEE\~web0284.htm- Net Benefits of each regulatory alternative, including a discussion of non-quantified benefits and costs of EPA concludes they are significant enough that it would be useful to provide in summary information. - Analysis of Impacts on Small Entities - Analysis of Impacts of Energy Supply - Other Analysis ??
- References - Appendices

I’m happy to discuss further in the morning,

heidi 

### Page 3 of 3

5/13/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\ p lon g \Local Settin g s\Tem p \notesFCBCEE\~web0284.htm