From: William Charmley/AA/USEPA/US

To: "Achanta, Chandana L." <Ch andana_L._Achanta@ omb.eop.gov>

Cc: james.tamm@dot.gov, Maureen Delaney/D C/USEPA/US@EPA, rebecca.yoon@dot.gov, Robin Moran/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Steve.Wood@dot.gov, Paul Balserak/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Eliz abeth Kopits/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 03/29/2010 03:59 PM Subject

: Re: Summary of Interagency working comments on draft final rule under EO 12866

Chandana -

In response to the first issue identified in the attachment you sent us on Friday, Section II.C's discussion of the 41 sq foot cutoff point, the edits shown in your document on page 2 are what the agencies had already added, and the OMB edits are shown on page 3. We have made a few minor changes to that text - our recommended wording is shown below in blue and bold.



### [from Section II.C ]

Before fitting the sloped portion of the constrained linear form, NHTSA and EPA selected footprints above and below whic h to apply constraints (i.e., minimum and maximum values) on the function. The agencies believe that the linear form performs well in describing the observed relationship between footprint and fuel consumption or

CO 2 

### emissions for vehicle models within th e footprint ranges covering most vehicle models, but that the single (a s opposed to piecewise) linear form does not perform well in describing this relationship for the smallest and largest vehicle models. For passenger cars, the agency noted that several manufact urers offer small, sporty coupes below 41 square feet, such as the BMW Z4 and Mi ni, Honda S2000, Mazda MX-5 Miata, Porsche Carrera and 911, and Volkswagen New Beetle. Because such vehicles represent a small portion (less than 10 percent) of the passenge r car market, yet often have performance, utility, and/or structural ch aracteristics that could make it technologically infeasible and/or economically impract icable for manufacturers focusing on such vehicles to achieve the very challenging average requirements that coul d apply in the absence of a constraint, EPA and NHTSA proposed to “cut off” the linear portion of the passenger car function at 41 square feet. The agencies recognize that for manufacturers who make small vehicles in this size range, this cut off creates some incentive to downsize (i.e., further reduce the size, and/or increase th e production of models currently smaller than 41 square feet) to make it easier to meet the target. The cut off may also create

the incentive for manufacturers who do not cu rrently offer such models to do so in the future. However, at the same time, the agencies believe that there is a limit to the market for cars smaller than 41 square feet - most consumers likely have some minimum expectation about interior volume, among other things. The agencies thus

believe that the number of consumers who w ill want vehicles smaller than 41 square feet (regardless of how they are priced) is small, and that the incentive to downsize in response to this final rule, if present, will be minimal. For consistency, the agency proposed to “cut off” the light truck functi on at the same footprint, although no light

### trucks are currently offered below 41 square f eet. The agencies further noted that above 56 square feet, the only pa ssenger car model present in the MY 2008 fleet were four luxury vehicles with extremely low sale s volumes—the Bentley Arnage and three versions of the Rolls Royce Phantom. NHTS A and EPA therefore also proposed to “cut off” the linear portion of the passenger car function at 56 square feet. Finally, the agencies noted that although public informati on is limited regarding the sales volumes of the many different configurations (cab designs and bed sizes) of pickup trucks, most of the largest pickups (e.g., the Ford F-150, GM Sierra/Silverado, Ni ssan Titan, and Toyota Tundra) appear to fall just above 66 square feet in footprint. EPA and NHTSA therefore proposed to “cut off” the linear portion of th e light truck function at 66 square feet.

From: "Achanta, Chandana L." <Ch andana_L._Achanta@ omb.eop.gov>

To: William Charmley/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Robin Moran/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, <rebecca.yoon@dot.gov>, <james. Delaney/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 03/26/2010 03:23 PM Subject: Summary of Interagency working comments on draft final rule under EO 12866

Please find attached a summary of interagency working comments received on the draft final

rule under EO 12866 review. They are for your consideration, and subject to further policy

review.

Thanks.[attachment "Summary of Interagency working comments on draft rule under EO 12866 3.26.pdf" deleted by Tad Wysor/AA/USEPA/US]