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 09:03AM 

cc: Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Subject: RE: Tailoring RIA - next steps Summary of Interagency Comments during EO 12866 

Review 

I was unable to reach Ron or Linda by phone, but if anyone wants to chat about the 

RIA please give me a call. I should be in my office until ~10am. 

Have a good day, everyone, 

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

file://C:\Documents and Settings\plong\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web8564.htm 5/13/2010
 |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 

 - Net Benefits of each regulatory alternative, including 

Page 2 of 3

file://C:\Documents and Settings\plong\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web8564.htm 5/13/2010
 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

file://C:\Documents and Settings\plong\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web8564.htm 5/13/2010