From: William Charmley/AA/USEPA/US 

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

Cc: james.tamm@dot.gov, Maureen Delaney/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, rebecca.yoon@dot.gov, 

Robin Moran/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Steve.Wood@dot.gov, Paul 

Balserak/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Elizabeth 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 which 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 

CO2 emissions for vehicle models within the footprint ranges covering most vehicle 

models, but that the single (as 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 manufacturers offer small, sporty coupes below 41 

square feet, such as the BMW Z4 and Mini, 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 passenger car market, yet often have performance, 

utility, and/or structural characteristics that could make it technologically infeasible 

and/or economically impracticable for manufacturers focusing on such vehicles to 

achieve the very challenging average requirements that could 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 the 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 currently 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 will 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 function at the same footprint, although no light 
trucks are currently offered below 41 square feet. The agencies further noted that above 

56 square feet, the only passenger car model present in the MY 2008 fleet were four 

luxury vehicles with extremely low sales volumes—the Bentley Arnage and three 

versions of the Rolls Royce Phantom. NHTSA 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 information 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, Nissan 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 the light truck function at 66 square feet. 

From: "Achanta, Chandana L." <Chandana_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]