Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US 

04/30/2008 08:24 PM

	

To

"Lee, Amanda I." <Amanda_I._Lee@omb.eop.gov>

cc

"King, Heidi R." <Heidi_R._King@omb.eop.gov>, Kathy
Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia
Wegman, fann.neal@epa.gov, darryl weatherhead, walton.tom@epa.gov,
simon.nathalie@epa.gov, Brian Heninger

Subject

response to chapter 1 comments









Amanda, same process.  Here are your comments with my responses.   My
proposed language is in bold 

page 2

Economic Cost factors cannot be considered. 

I would prefer to keep the term "economic", it is the word we have used
consistently in all the previous NAAQS RIAs.

page 2

 For the RIA to be issued with the final rulemaking, the agency plans to
also conduct cost-effectiveness analysis and uncertainty analysis.

Consistent with my comments on the executive summary piece, I prefer to
go with the following

EPA will also investigate doing a cost-effectiveness analysis and more
formal uncertainty analysis as part of the final RIA.

page 6

.  (For the final RIA, we intend to consider assessing an alternative
higher than 0.3 µg/m3). 

Consistent with my comments on the executive summary piece, I prefer to
go with the following

 For the RIA to be issued with the final rulemaking, the agency will
examine will analyze at least one more stringent and one less stringent
alternative than the selected standard consistent with the OMB A-4
Guidelines.

page 6

using hypothetical strategies

OK, same as accepted in Exec Sum

page 6

Since the secondary is being set to be equivalent to the primary
standard, few no additional costs and benefits are expected

I am not aware of any separate impacts of the secondary, your change is
OK.

Ron Evans

Leader, Air Benefit & Cost Group

HEID/OAQPS/OAR/EPA

Mail Drop C-439-02

919-541-5488

919-541-0839 fax

