## MEMORAMDUM

FROM: Byron Bunker

TO: Docket Number EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2010

- 0162

SUBJECT: Emails Regarding EO12866 GHG and Fuel Eff iciency Standards for Med

- Heavy

Duty Engines and Vehicles 2060

- AP61 FRM

From: Byron Bunker/AA/USEPA/US

To: Chandana_L._Achanta@omb.eop.gov

Cc: james.tamm@dot.gov, lily.smith@dot.gov, Angela Cullen/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Kathryn Sargeant/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Ken Davidson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ann
Wolverton/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Heather Klemick/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 07/07/2011 08: 25 PM Subject: MD & HD FE and GHG interagency question 12 response

Hi Chandana,

Following is our response to interagency question 12 on comparisons to the AEO2011 baseline.

Thanks,

Byron

Agency Response 12:

The existing alternatives section already provides the reader with the ability to compare the reductions estimated in the AEO2011 case to the standards the agencies are finalizing. We do not intend to extend that presentation to include presentations of c ost and benefits beyond the existing text. We have made

this decision for several reasons. First, we are not able to make a directly comparable estimate of the compliance costs for the EIA 2011 estimate because the AEO2011 analysis assumes different

tech nologies and has different cost estimates for the technologies we do have in common. For example, the EIA model does not include idle shutdown technologies or the use of diesel APUs in reaching its projections. Since diesel APUs represent well over half of the projected costs for combination tractors in our analysis, it is self evident that the two analyses cannot be directly compared for costs.

We are similarly reluctant to make comparisons of the projected fuel economy improvements and hence

CO2 reduc tions between the AEO2011 analysis and our own. The AEO2011 analysis includes two assumptions/projections that are substantially different and which are problematic in comparing the analysis. For Class 2b pickups, EIA assumes that commercial truck makers will automatically carry over the same level of improvement as is required in the 2012

- 2016 light

- duty regulations. This is different from our joint analysis which assumes absent regulation truck OEMs would not realize improvements in fuel efficiency. T hroughout the rulemaking process, truck OEMs in this market have been clear that these regulations will force the introduction of technology that would not otherwise be offered on these vehicles. Equally troublesome in comparing the two analyses, the AEO2 011 analysis assumes that all other vocational trucks (many of which use the same engines and transmissions as the Class 2b pickups) will see an increase in fuel consumption over time. We do not see a clear basis for assuming a 15 percent improvement in f uel efficiency from 2b pickups (those between 8500

- 10,000 lbs) at the same time that virtually identical Class 3 pickups (those between 10,000

- 14,000 lbs) are assumed to see a loss in fuel efficiency. This is driven in part by differences in how vehicles are grouped in our regulatory program and in the transportation demand model used by EIA. We understand that EIA intends to fundamentally revisit its HD analysis for AEO2012 to reflect more up

- to

- date data on heavy

- duty truck technologies and

to make the analysis approach consistent with our heavy

- duty rulemaking requirements.****************************************************************** Byron Bunker

Center Director

- Heavy

- Duty Onroad Center

Assessment and Standards Division Office of Transportat ion and Air Quality US Environmental Protection Agency

2000 Traverwood Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48105 (734) 214

- 4155 (734) 214

- 4050 (fax) (734) 353

- 9623 (cell)

e

- mail: bunker.byron@epa.gov

**********************************************************

From: Byron Bunker/AA/USEPA/US

To: Chandana_L._Achanta@omb.eop.gov

Cc: james.tamm@dot.gov, rebecca.yoon@dot.gov, lily.smith@dot.gov, Ann Wolverton/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,
Heather Klemick/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Paul Balserak/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ken
Davidson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, To dd Sherwood/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Angela
Cullen/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Gloria Helfand/AA/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 07/08/2011 12:45 PM Subject: Additional information on interagency questions

Hi Chandana,

Attached are updated responses to three of the interagency questions based on your previous request to the agencies.

· Comment #8: In addition to the aggregate table, please provide individual tables for PU&V,
Vocational, and Line Haul. · Comment #3: Please provide the added tables separately (A SAP) so the agencies may review the

content. · Comment #25 Learning: Please provide summarized results

Thanks,

Byron

**Attachment included: EO 12866_GHG+Fuel Eff Stds for Med

- Heavy

- Duty Engines+Vehicles 2060

- AP61 FRM Response to OMB_20110708.docx**

****************************************************************** Byron Bunker

Center Director

- Heavy

- Duty Onroad Center

Assessment and Standards Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality US Environmental Protection Agency

2 000 Traverwood Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48105 (734) 214

- 4155 (734) 214

- 4050 (fax)(734) 353

- 9623 (cell)

e

- mail: bunker.byron@epa.gov

**********************************************************

From: Byron Bunker/AA/USEPA/US

To: Chandana_L._Achanta@omb.eop.gov

Cc: james.tamm@dot.gov, Ann Wolverton/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Heather Klemick/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, lily.smith@dot.gov, rebecca.yoon@dot.gov, Paul Balserak/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Angela
Cullen/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Ken Davidson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, William Charmley/AA/USEPA/US@EPA , Kathryn Sargeant/AA/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 07/14/2011 08:07 AM Subject: Crediting NGVs in the HD Rule

Hi Chandana,

I am sorry that it has taken us so long to respond. Like you, the EPA and NHTSA teams have had a number of overlapping priorities over the last few weeks.

I believe the following description and analysis is the clearest way to understand the choices on NGV

credits. For explanatory purposes, I have assumed that the credits would apply equally to EPA and NHTSA's program. To be clear, we believe our current approach based on tailpipe CO2 is the most appropriate and are not recommending an alternative approach.

To make the calculations more transparent, I have rounded some of the inputs. Given the purpose of the presentation I think thi s is better and will facilitate understanding. If we need to redo with more significant digits, we can do so.

Valuing the current CO2 based incentive.

Due to lower carbon content of natural gas we expect natural gas engines to over comply (generate credits) against the diesel and gasoline engine standards by 20

- 30%. Information submitted as comments by the NG industry suggest 22% compared to diesel. For this analysis, I am going to use the

round number of 20%.

Similarly the Class 8 tractor standa rd is projected to achieve approximately a 20% reduction in CO2.

For our purposes here, I am going to assume that a NG tractor would fully comply without any new hardware added from today's NG baseline performance (1 NGV tractor = 1 2017 compliant diesel tractor).

With these assumptions, I think we can express the value of the NGV credit and the impact of an

individual NGV vehicle.

NGV Tractor CO2 based Incentive

Offsets compliance cost of one tractor = $6,215

CO2 Reduction = 264 m etric tons (matching tailpipe reduction of std) SCC benefit = $5,808 (264 tons x $22/ton) Fuel Savings = 130,740 gallons (lifetime diesel consumption fully displaced by NG) Energy Security Benefit = $22,225 ($0.17/gallon x 130,74 0 gallons)

Valuing a 85% Petroleum Equivalent ApproachCurrent light

- duty vehicle approach under EPCA would convert Natural Gas to an equivalent petroleum (energy) level and then would reduce the actual compliance level by 85%.

For simplicity sake I am treating the CO2 and Fuel Consumption credits as the same although the conversion first to PEF space would cause a offset of roughly 20 percent.

For our purposes here, I am going to assume that a NG tractor would fully comply without any new

hardware added from today's NG baseline performance and would generate enough credits for another 5 tractors to comply with no change (1 NGV tractor = 1 2017 compliant diesel tractor + 5 2010 baseline tractors). With these assumptions, we can express the value of the NGV credit and the impact of an

individual NGV vehicle.

NGV Tractor CO2 based Incentive

Offsets compliance cost of six tractors = $37,290 CO2 Increase = 1,056 metric tons (1 NGV tractor gets 264 reduction, 5 conventional stay at baseline) SCC Loss = $22,232 (1,056 tons x $22/ton) Fuel Savings = 0 gallons (Petroleum reduction from NGV truck is offset by 5 conventional trucks with no reduction) Energy Security Benefit = 0

The two approaches can then be compared and contrasted on a per tractor basis.

1) Value of Credit: CO2 based = $6,215 per truck, 0.15 incentive = $37,290 per truck

2) CO2 Reductions: CO2 based = 264 tons (no change), 0.15 incentive = 1,056 increase in CO2

emissions

3) SCC Benefit: CO2 based = $5,808 (no change), 0.15 incentive = $22,232 loss

4) Fuel Savings: CO2 based = 130,740 gallons, 0.15 incentive = 0 gallons

4) Energy Security Benefit: CO2 based = $22,225, 0.15 incentive = $0

Projected NGV Tractor Sales

We do not have a cross elasticity of demand for NGV tractors against diesel tractors. Hence, we can not project the likely increase in NGV sales.

We would be glad to discuss these results with the interagency.

Thanks,

Byron

****************************************************************** Byron Bunker

Center Director

- Heavy

- Duty Onroad Center

Assessment and Standards Division Office of Transportation and Air QualityUS Environmental Protection Agency

2000 Traverwood Drive

A nn Arbor, MI 48105 (734) 214

- 4155 (734) 214

- 4050 (fax) (734) 353

- 9623 (cell)

e

- mail: bunker.byron@epa.gov

**********************************************************

From: Byron Bunker/AA/USEPA/US

To: Chandana_L._Achanta@omb.eop.gov

Cc: james.tamm@dot.gov, lily.smith@dot.gov, Ann Wolverton/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Heather Klemick/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Paul Balserak/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Kathryn Sargeant/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Angela Cullen/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Todd

Sherwood/AA/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 07/14/2011 06:31 PM Subject: Marginal Cost of Reductions by Segment

Chandana,

At our last call, there was a question about the marginal cost of control for the individual truck segments. This was part of a broader discussion of the relative desirability of credit tradi ng between vehicle classes. Following is a summary table that I believe is responsive to the request. The cost per ton is calculated on

the increment from alt 2 to alt 3.



### 2014

- 18 MY

Lifetime

Alt 2 Alt 3

CO2

Reductions

(up + down)

(metric ton) Program Costs ($mil) CO2

Reductions

(up + down)

(metric ton) Program Costs ($mil) Cost/ton

Pickup Trucks

22,189,077 1,800 25,490,976 2,700 $

273

Vocational

21,188,323 600 33,711,178 1,100 $

40

Tractors

202,181,449 3,300 217,024,721 5,000 $

115

As a point of reference, a metric ton of CO2 is about 100 gallons of diesel fuel. So you could also think of these ratios as Cost/100 gallon reduction.

Thanks,

Byron

****************************************************************** Byron BunkerCenter Director

- Heavy

- Duty Onroad Center

Assessment and Standards Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality US Environmental Protection Agency

2000 Traverwood Drive

A nn Arbor, MI 48105 (734) 214

- 4155 (734) 214

- 4050 (fax) (734) 353

- 9623 (cell)

e

- mail: bunker.byron@epa.gov

**********************************************************

From: Byron Bunker/AA/USEPA/US

To: Chandana_L._Achanta@omb.eop.gov, Amanda_I._Lee@omb.eop.gov

Cc: james.tamm@dot.gov, lily.smith@dot.gov, Todd Sherwood/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Ann
Wolverton/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Heather Klemick/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Paul Balserak/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Kathryn Sargeant/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Ken

Davidson/DC/USEPA/US@ EPA, rebecca.yoon@dot.gov, Angela Cullen/AA/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 07/14/2011 06:44 PM Subject: HD Truck Rule

- Fuel Price Sensitivity

HI Chandana,

Attached is a spreadsheet showing the impact of 3 fuel price scenarios, AEO2011 Low, High, and

Reference case. This is meant to be responsive to the question of uncertainty in the analysis. We would be glad to talk with your team about the best way to characterize this information.

Unfortunately, the NHTSA team has not been able to fully review this work. Normally, we would duplicate the analysis using our individual agency tools for comparison. We have not had time to do so with this quick turnaround analysis.

Thanks,

Byron

**Attachment included: GHGHG MY Summary using 3 AEO fuel price cases_20110713 .xlsx**

****************************************************************** Byron Bunker

Center Director

- Heavy

- Duty Onroad Center

Assessment and Standards Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality US Environmental Protection Agency

2000 Traverw ood Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48105 (734) 214

- 4155 (734) 214

- 4050 (fax) (734) 353

- 9623 (cell)e

- mail: bunker.byron@epa.gov

**********************************************************

- From: Byron Bunker/AA/USEPA/US

To: Chandana_L._Achanta@omb.eop.gov

Cc: james.tamm@dot.gov, lily.smith@dot.gov

Date: 07/15/2011 01:51 PM Subject: Fw: Updated Slides and Worksheets

Chandana,

Can you print these for the 2;00?

Thanks,

Byron

----- Forwarded by Byron Bunker/AA/USEPA/US on 07/15/2011 01:53 PM

-----

From: Byron Bunker/AA/USEPA/US

To: Patricia Shaffer/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: John Hannon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Steven Silverman/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Lori

Stewart/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 07/15/2011 01:36 PM Subject: Updated Slides and Worksheets

Hi Pat,

Can you please print both the slides and the excel spreadsheet. The spreadsheet has two tabs that both need to be printed. They are already formatted so each tab will print on one page.

Thanks

Byron

**Attachments included: Background OMB Issues 15 July 2011.pptx & N GV Comparisons v3.xlsx**

****************************************************************** Byron Bunker

Center Director

- Heavy

- Duty Onroad Center

Assessment and Standards Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality

US Environmental Protection Agency

2000 Traverwood Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48105 (734) 214

- 4155 (734) 214

- 4050 (fax) (734) 353

- 9623 (cell)e

- mail: bunker.byron@epa.gov

**********************************************************

From: Byron Bunker/AA/USEPA/US

To: Chandana_L._Achanta@omb.eop.gov

Cc: lily.smith@dot.gov, james.tamm@dot.gov

Date: 07/21/2011 12:00 PM Subject: Slides from yesterday and underlying spreadsheets

Hi Chandana,

Attached are the slides the agencies shared with the interagency yesterday along with the two spreadsheets summarizing the analyses.

Thanks,

Byron

**Attachments included: MD and HD GHG and FE Rule 20 July 2011 v5 with NHTSA slides.pptx; GHGHG MY uncertainty analysis summary_20110719.xlsx; and GHGHD Summary of Alts by class 201 1

- 07

- 19.xlsx**

****************************************************************** Byron Bunker

Center Director

- Heavy

- Duty Onroad Center

Assessment and Standards Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality US Environmental Protection Agency

2000 Traverwood Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48105 (734) 214

- 4155 (734) 214

- 4050 (fax) (734) 353

- 9623 (cell)

e

- mail: bunker.byron@epa.gov

**********************************************************

From: Byron Bunker/AA/USEPA/US

To: Chandana_L._Achanta@omb.eop.gov

Cc: james.tamm@dot.gov, lily.smith@dot.gov, Angela Cullen/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Lauren

Steele/AA/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 07/21/2011 05:59 PM Subject: Part of E.O. 12866 Review: Revised Preamble pertaining to Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium

- and Heavy

- Duty Engines and Vehicles 2060

- AP61

Hi Chandana,

Attached is the most up to date version of the preamble.Thanks,

Byron
**Attachments included: “0721 FRM Preamble EO12866_GHG+Fuel Eff Stds for Med

- Heavy

- Duty Engines + Vehicles 2060

- AP61.docx**

****************************************************************** Byron Bunker

Center Director

- Heavy

- Duty Onroad Center

Asses sment and Standards Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality US Environmental Protection Agency

2000 Traverwood Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48105 (734) 214

- 4155 (734) 214

- 4050 (fax) (734) 353

- 9623 (cell)

e

- mail: bunker.byron@epa.gov

********************** ************************************

From: Byron Bunker/AA/USEPA/US

To: Chandana_L._Achanta@omb.eop.gov

Cc: lily.smith@dot.gov, rebecca.yoon@dot.gov, james.tamm@dot.gov, Gloria Helfand/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Angela Cullen/AA/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 07/21/2011 08:54 PM Subject: EO12866 GHG + Fuel Efficiency Stds for MD and HD Engines + Vehicles 2060

- AP61 Comment Responses RIA Chapter 9

Hi Chandana,

Attached are our responses to the questions and comments forwarded from the interagency on July 19

and 20. Th e attached copy of RIA chapter 9 reflects how we intended to carry through the changes in the package.

Thanks,

Byron

**Attachments included: 0721 Response to InterAgency comments received 7_19 and 7_20 EO
12866_GHG+Fuel Eff Stds for Med

- Heavy

- Duty Engines + Vehicles 2060

- AP61.docx 7 0721 RIA CH9 Economic Impacts EO 12866_GHG+Fuel Eff Stds for Med

- Heavy

- Duty Engines + Vehicles 2060

- AP61.docx**

****************************************************************** Byron Bunker

Center Director

- Heavy

- Duty Onroad CenterAssessment and Standards Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality US Environmental Protection Agency

2000 Traverwood Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48105 (734) 214

- 4155 (734) 214

- 4050 (fax) (734) 353

- 9623 (cell)

e

- mail: bunker.byron@epa.g ov

**********************************************************

From: Byron Bunker/AA/USEPA/US

To: Chandana_L._Achanta@omb.eop.gov

Cc: james.tamm@dot.gov, lily.smith@dot.gov, Angela Cullen/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Gloria
Helfand/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, rebecca.yoon@dot.gov

Date: 07/22/2011 02:00 PM Subject: Part of E.O. 12866 Review: Revised RIA pertaining to Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium

- and Heavy

- Duty Engines and Vehicles 2060

- AP61

Hi Chandana,

We can't quickly compile the RIA into a single document, but I can send you the most up to date versions of the relevant chapters. The new tables on net benefits by category start on page 20 of chapter 6. The new tables on cost sensitivity are in RIA chapte r 9 starting on page 53.

You probably already noticed, but I sent the preamble not RIA language last night. The full RIA chapter 9

is attached below.

Chapters 2, 5, and 7 are also attached since they may contain analysis that informs the summary tables
in chapters 6 and 9.

Thanks,

Byron

**Attachments included:

******************************************************************** Byron Bunker

Center Director

- Heavy

- Duty Onroad Center

Assessment and Standards Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality US Environmental Protection Agency

2000 Traverwood Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48105 (734) 214

- 4155 (734) 214

- 4050 (fax) (734) 353

- 9623 (cell)

e

- mail: bunker.byron@epa.gov

**********************************************************

From: Byron Bunker/AA/USEPA/US

To: Chandana_L._Achanta@omb.eop.gov

Cc: Lori Stewart/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, lily.smith@dot.gov, james.tamm@dot.gov, rebecca.yoon@dot.gov, "Mancini, Dominic J." <Dominic_J._Mancini@omb.eop.gov>, Angela Cullen/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Paul
Balserak/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ann Wolverton/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 07/25/2011 02:32 PM Subject: EO12866 GHG + Fuel Efficiency Stds for MD and HD Engines + Vehicles 2060

- AP61 Draft ABT Paragraph

Hi Chandana,

Following is the language the agencies plan to add to the preamble on broader consideration of ABT.

Thanks,

Byron

The agencies considered even broader trading provisions, but decided that in this first phase of a new regulatory program, it would be prudent to start with a program that aligned with t he current market

structure and the well

- established criteria pollutant trading provisions. We intend to investigate whether, after an initial transition period in which a new program is put in place, significant additional cost savings

could be realized through broader trading provisions. We emphasize that reducing the cost of regulation through broader use of flexible approaches and market tools is a high priority for the Administration. See Executive Order 13563 and in particular section 1(b)(5) and se ction 4. Consistent with this principle, we intend to give serious consideration to allowing broader trading in the future and to seek public comment on that topic. We expect to do so after credit trading begins in 2013, the first year we expect

manufactu rers to begin certifying 2014 model year vehicles. We believe that public input will be better informed by the work the agencies and the regulated industry will have put into implementing this first phase of heavy

- duty regulations. Using this input, and emphasizing the Administration’s strong preference for flexible approaches and maximizing the use of market tools, the agencies intend to consider whether broader credit trading is more appropriate in developing the next phase of heavy

- duty regulations.

****************************************************************** Byron Bunker

Center Director

- Heavy

- Duty Onroad Center

Assessment and Standards Division Office of Transportation and Air QualityUS Environmental Protection Agency

2000 Traverwood Drive

A nn Arbor, MI 48105 (734) 214

- 4155 (734) 214

- 4050 (fax) (734) 353

- 9623 (cell)

e

- mail: bunker.byron@epa.gov

**********************************************************

--

From: Byron Bunker/AA/USEPA/US

To: Chandana_L._Achanta@omb.eop.gov

Cc: Lori Stewart/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, lily.smith@dot.gov, james.tamm@dot.gov, rebecca.yoon@dot.gov, "Mancini, Dominic J." <Dominic_J._Mancini@omb.eop.gov>, Angela Cullen/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Paul
Balserak/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ann Wolverton/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 07/25/2011 02:32 PM Subject: EO12866 GHG + Fuel Efficiency Stds for MD and HD Engines + Vehicles 2060

- AP61 Draft ABT Paragraph

Hi Chandana,

Following is the language the agencies plan to add to the preamble on broader consideration of ABT.

Thanks,

Byron

The agencies considered even broader trading provisions, but decided that in this first phase of a new regulatory program, it would be prudent to start with a program that aligned with the current market

structure and the well

- established criteria pollutant tr ading provisions. We intend to investigate whether, after an initial transition period in which a new program is put in place, significant additional cost savings could be realized through broader trading provisions. We emphasize that reducing the cost o f regulation through broader use of flexible approaches and market tools is a high priority for the Administration. See Executive Order 13563 and in particular section 1(b)(5) and section 4. Consistent with this principle, we intend to give serious consid eration to allowing broader trading in the future and to seek public comment on that topic. We expect to do so after credit trading begins in 2013, the first year we expect manufacturers to begin certifying 2014 model year vehicles. We believe that public input will be better informed by the work the agencies and the regulated industry will have put into implementing this first phase of heavy

- duty regulations. Using this input, and emphasizing the Administration’s strong preference for flexible approaches and maximizing the use of market tools, the agencies intend to consider whether broader credit trading is more appropriate in developing the next phase of heavy

- duty regulations.

**Attachment included: EO 12866_GHG+Fuel Eff Stds for Med

- Heavy

- Duty Engin es + Vehicles 2060

- AP61 FRM Preamble 20110725.docx**

****************************************************************** Byron Bunker

Center Director

- Heavy

- Duty Onroad Center

Assessment and Standards Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality

US E nvironmental Protection Agency

2000 Traverwood Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48105(734) 214

- 4155 (734) 214

- 4050 (fax) (734) 353

- 9623 (cell)

e

- mail: bunker.byron@epa.gov

**********************************************************

From: Byron Bunker/AA/USEPA/US

To: Chandana_L._Achanta@omb.eop.gov, lily.smith@dot.gov

Cc: Karen Orehowsky/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Lori Stewart/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Patricia
Shaffer/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Paul Balserak/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ann
Wolverton/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Heather Klemick/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 07/27/2011 11:58 AM Subject: Materials for our 12:00 on Mass Reduction

Hi Chandana,

Attached are the materials for our 12:00. I will open the line in just a minute.

Thanks,

Byron

** Attachment included: E.O. 12866 Review Mass Reduction 2060

- AP61.ppt**

****************************************************************** Byron Bunker

Center Director

- Heavy

- Duty Onroad Center

Assessment and Standards Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality US Environmental Protection Agency

2000 Tr averwood Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48105 (734) 214

- 4155 (734) 214

- 4050 (fax) (734) 353

- 9623 (cell)

e

- mail: bunker.byron@epa.gov

**********************************************************

From: Byron Bunker/AA/USEPA/US

To: Chandana_L._Achanta@omb.eop.gov, lily.smith@dot.gov

Cc: Karen Orehowsky/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Lori Stewart/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Patricia
Shaffer/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Paul Balserak/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ann
Wolverton/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Heather Klemick/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 07/27/2011 11:58 AM Subject: Materials for our 12:00 on Mass Reduction

Hi Chandana,Attached are the materials for our 12:00. I will open the line in just a minute.

Thanks,

Byron

** Attachment included: EO12866_GHG+Fuel Eff Stds for Med

- Heavy

- Duty Engines + Vehicles 2060

- AP61 FRM Response to OMB_20110628 without 12.docx**

****************************************************************** Byron Bunker

Center Director

- Heavy

- Duty Onroad Center

Assessment and Standards Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality US Environmental Protection Agency

2000 Traverwood Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48105 (734) 214

- 4155 (734) 214

- 4050 (fax) (734) 353

- 9623 (cell)

e

- mail: bunker.byron@epa.gov

**********************************************************

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

To: Byron Bunker/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, "james.tamm@dot.gov" <james.tamm@dot.gov>, "Neil.Eisner@dot.gov" <Neil.Eisner@dot.gov>, "'Steve.Wood@dot.gov'" <Steve.Wood@dot.gov>, "analiese.wilcox@dot.gov" <analiese.wilcox@dot.gov>, Chet France/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, John Hannon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Margo Oge/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Gina McCarthy/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 06/06/2011 01:06 PM Subject: Heavy Duty FRM Briefing: June 10th at 11:30 in WHCC's Lincoln Room



### Hi All,

The heavy duty final rule briefing is scheduled for 11:30AM this Friday, June 10 th 

### . It will be held in the

Lincoln Room of the White House Conference Center. We just need full names of all attendees (no need

for SSN, DOB, etc).

Please provide a consolidated list of full name s for your agency by COB Thursday, June 9 th



### .

We will have a call in number for anyone who cannot attend in person. Will send those details soon.

It would be great if you can send a copy of your presentation by COB Thursday so that we can distribute

ahe ad of time to interagency reviewers joining by phone.

Thanks!

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

To: Byron Bunker/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, "james.tamm@dot.gov" <james.tamm@dot.gov>, "Neil.Eisner@dot.gov" < Neil.Eisner@dot.gov>, "analiese.wilcox@dot.gov" <analiese.wilcox@dot.gov>, Ann Wolverton/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Heather Klemick/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, "Steve.Wood@dot.gov" <Steve.Wood@dot.gov>, "rebecca.yoon@dot.gov" <rebecca.yoon@dot.gov>

Date: 06/17/2011 03:50 PM Subject: Summary of interagency comments received on draft rule under EO 12866 review



### Hi All,

Please find attached a summary of initial interagency working comments received on draft
joint rule under EO 12866 review. They are for your consideration and subject to further
policy review. We may follow

- up with additional interagency comments soon.

Please provide responses to these comments by Friday, June 24 th

.

Thanks and have a great weekend!

Chandana

**Attachment included: Summary of interagency working comments received on draft rule

under EO 12866 review subject to further policy review1.pdf**

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

To: 'Jim Tamm' <james.tamm@dot.gov>, Byron Bunker/AA/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 07/07/2011 10:00 AM Subject: RE: Heavy Duty



### Jim,

Do you think we can get the additional responses by 12 noon today?

Thanks.

Chandana

From: Achanta, Chandana L.

Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 5:45 PM

To: Jim Tamm; Bunker.Byron@epamail.epa.govSubject: Heavy Duty



### Jim, Byron,

Should we expect additional responses to interagency comments from you? Also, what are your

availabilities this week for a policy level meeting?

Thanks.

Chandana

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

To: Byron Bunker/AA/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: "james.tamm@dot.gov" <james.tamm@dot.gov>, "lily.smith@dot.gov" <lily.smith@dot.gov>, Angela Cullen/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Kathryn Sargeant/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Ken
Davidson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ann Wolverton/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Heather

Klemick/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 07/08/2011 09:17 AM Subject: RE: MD & HD FE and GHG interagency question 12 response



### Thanks, Byron.

Can you please send us responses to the other interagency questions from Friday by 10 today? I need to

circulate responses before the call today.

Thanks.

Chandana

From: Byron Bunker [mailto:Bunker.Byron@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 8:23 PM

To: Achanta, Chandana L.

Cc: james.tamm@dot.gov; lily.smith@dot.gov; Angela Cullen; Kathryn Sargeant; Ken Davidson; Ann

Wolverton; Heather Klemick
Subject: MD & HD F E and GHG interagency question 12 response

Hi Chandana,

Following is our response to interagency question 12 on comparisons to the AEO2011 baseline.

Thanks,

Byron

Agency Response 12:

The existing alternatives section already provides the reader with the ability to compare the reductions estimated in the AEO2011 case to the standards the agencies are finalizing. We do not intend to extend that presentation to include presentations of c ost and benefits beyond the existing text. We have made this decision for several reasons. First, we are not able to make a directly comparable estimate of thecompliance costs for the EIA 2011 estimate because the AEO2011 analysis assumes different

tech nologies and has different cost estimates for the technologies we do have in common. For example, the EIA model does not include idle shutdown technologies or the use of diesel APUs in reaching its projections. Since diesel APUs represent well over half of the projected costs for combination tractors in our analysis, it is self evident that the two analyses cannot be directly compared for costs.

We are similarly reluctant to make comparisons of the projected fuel economy improvements and hence

CO2 reduc tions between the AEO2011 analysis and our own. The AEO2011 analysis includes two assumptions/projections that are substantially different and which are problematic in comparing the analysis. For Class 2b pickups, EIA assumes that commercial truck makers will automatically carry over the same level of improvement as is required in the 2012

- 2016 light

- duty regulations. This is different from our joint analysis which assumes absent regulation truck OEMs would not realize improvements in fuel efficiency. T hroughout the rulemaking process, truck OEMs in this market have been clear that these regulations will force the introduction of technology that would not otherwise be offered on these vehicles. Equally troublesome in comparing the two analyses, the AEO2 011 analysis assumes that all other vocational trucks (many of which use the same engines and transmissions as the Class 2b pickups) will see an increase in fuel consumption over time. We do not see a clear basis for assuming a 15 percent improvement in f uel efficiency from 2b pickups (those between 8500

- 10,000 lbs) at the same time that virtually identical Class 3 pickups (those between 10,000

- 14,000 lbs) are assumed to see a loss in fuel efficiency. This is driven in part by differences in how vehicles are grouped in our regulatory program and in the transportation demand model used by EIA. We understand that EIA intends to fundamentally revisit its HD analysis for AEO2012 to reflect more up

- to

- date data on heavy

- duty truck technologies and

to make the analysis approach consistent with our heavy

- duty rulemaking requirements.

****************************************************************** Byron Bunker

Center Director

- Heavy

- Duty Onroad Center

Assessment and Standards Division Office of Transportat ion and Air Quality US Environmental Protection Agency

2000 Traverwood Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48105 (734) 214

- 4155 (734) 214

- 4050 (fax) (734) 353

- 9623 (cell)

e

- mail: bunker.byron@epa.gov

**********************************************************

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

To: Byron Bunker/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, "'james.tamm@dot.gov'" <james.tamm@dot.gov>, "'Neil.Eisner@dot.gov'" <Neil.Eisner@dot.gov>, "'analiese.wilcox@dot.gov'" <analiese.wilcox@dot.gov>,

Ann Wolverton/DC/ USEPA/US@EPA, Heather Klemick/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, "'Steve.Wood@dot.gov'" <Steve.Wood@dot.gov>, "'rebecca.yoon@dot.gov'" <rebecca.yoon@dot.gov>

Date: 07/08/2011 06:17 PM Subject: Summary of interagency comments received on draft rule under EO 12866 review

Please find attached a summary of additional interagency working comments received on
draft joint rule under EO 12866 review. They are for your consideration and subject to
further policy review. We may follow

- up with additional interagency comments soon

.Please provide responses to these comments and other outstanding interagency comments
by COB Monday, July 11 th

.

Thanks

Chandana



### **Attachment included: Summary of interagency working comments received on draft ruel under EO

12866 review subjuect to further policy review 2.pdf**

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

To: Byron Bunker/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, "james.tamm@dot.gov" <james.tamm@dot.gov>, "rebecca.yoon@dot.gov" <rebecca.yoon@dot.gov>, "lily.smith@dot.gov" < lily.smith@dot.gov>, Ann
Wolverton/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Heather Klemick/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Paul
Balserak/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ken Davidson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Todd Sherwood/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Angela Cullen/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Gloria
Helfand/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, "Analiese.Marche sseault@dot.gov" <Analiese.Marchesseault@dot.gov>, "Neil.Eisner@dot.gov" <Neil.Eisner@dot.gov>, "'Steve.Wood@dot.gov'" <Steve.Wood@dot.gov>

Date: 07/19/2011 12:25 PM Subject: Summary of interagency working comments received on draft rule under EO 12866 r eview



### Hi All,

Please find attached additional interagency working comments received on draft final rule under EO

12866 and EO 13563 review. These are subject to further policy review. Please provide responses by

COB Wednesday, July 20 th



### .

Thanks.

Chandana

**Attachment included: Summary of interagency working comments received on draft ruel under EO

12866 review subjuect to further policy review 3.pdf**

----- Forwarded by Byron Bunker/AA/USEPA/US on 07/28/2011 03:05 PM

-----

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

To: Byron Bunker/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, "james.tamm@dot.gov" <james.tamm@dot.gov>

Cc: "Mancini, Dominic J." <Dominic_J._Mancini@omb.eop.gov>

Date: 07/19/2011 03:25 PM Subject: FW: NHTSA/EPA Heavy

- duty Rule

Byron, Jim

-FYI

- We received the following note and attached document from David Bookbinder. We wanted to make
sure both agencies received this information as well.

Please let us know what your thoughts/reactions are to the attached.

Thanks.

Chandana

From : David Bookbinder <david.bookbinder@verizon.net>

To : Mancini, Dominic J.

Cc : Keohane, Nathaniel

Sent : Mon Jul 18 16:16:28 2011
Subject : NHTSA/EPA Heavy

- duty Rule 

# Dom:

Following up on our June 27 meeting, attached

is a short memo that addresses implementation
issues with the fuel economy credit sought by
the natural gas vehicle interests (which we did
not discuss at our meeting), and a proposal for a

much smaller fuel

- economy credit (13% v.
85%) coupled with an equivalent 13% GHG

credi t.

Please feel free to contact me with any
questions.

David Bookbinder

**Attachment included: Follow

- up to June Meeting memo.docx**From: "Achanta, Chandana L." <Chandana_L._Achanta@omb.eop.gov>

To: Byron Bunker/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, "'james.tamm@dot.gov'" <james.tamm@dot.gov>, "'rebecca.yoon@dot.gov'" <rebecca.yoon@dot.gov>, "'lily.smith@dot.gov'" <lily.smith@dot.gov>, Ann
Wolverton/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Heather Klemick/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Paul
Balserak/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ken Davidson/DC/USEPA/ US@EPA, Todd Sherwood/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Angela Cullen/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Gloria Helfand/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, "'Analiese.Marchesseault@dot.gov'" <Analiese.Marchesseault@dot.gov>, "'Neil.Eisner@dot.gov'" <Neil.Eisner@dot.gov>, "'Steve.Wood@dot.gov'" <Steve.Wood@dot .gov>
Date: 07/20/2011 12:45 PM Subject: Summary of interagency working comments received on draft rule under EO 12866 review



### Please find attached additional interagency working comments received on draft final rule under EO

12866 and EO 13563 review. These are subject to further policy review.

Thanks.

Chandana

**Attachment included: Summary of interagency working comments r eceived on draft ruel under EO

12866 review subjuect to further policy review4.pdf**

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

To: Byron Bunker/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, "'james.tamm@dot.gov'" <james.tamm@dot.gov>, "'rebecca.yoon@dot.gov'" <rebecca.yoon@dot.gov>, "'lily.smith@dot.gov'" <lily.smith@dot.gov>, Ann
Wolverton/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Heather Klemick/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Paul
Balserak/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ken Davidson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Todd Sherwood/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Angela Cullen/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Gloria Helfand/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, "'Analiese.Marchesseault@dot.gov'" <Analiese.Marchesseault@dot.gov>, "'Neil.Eisner@dot.gov'" <Neil.Eisner@dot.gov>, "'Steve.Wood@dot.gov'" <Steve.Wood@dot.gov>

Date: 07/23/2011 12:19 PM Subject: Su mmary of interagency working comments received on draft rule under EO 12866 review



### Hi All,

Please find attached additional interagency working comments received on draft final rule
under EO 12866 and EO 13563 review. These are subject to further policy review.

Thanks.

Chandana

**Attachment included: Summary of interagency working comments received on draft ruel under EO

12866 review subjuect to further policy review5.pdf**From: "Achanta, Chandana L." <Chandana_L._Achanta@omb.eop.gov>

To: Byron Bunker/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, "'james.tamm@dot.gov'" <james.tamm@dot.gov>, "'rebecca.yoon@dot.gov'" <rebecca.yoon@dot.gov>, "'lily.smith@dot.gov'" <lily.smith@dot.gov>, Ann
Wolverton/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Heather Klemick/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Paul
Balserak/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ken Davidson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Todd Sherwood/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Angela Cullen/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Gloria Helfand/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, "'Analiese.Marchesseault@dot.gov'" <Analiese.Marchesseault@dot.gov>, "'Neil.Eisner@dot.gov'" <Neil.Eisner@dot.gov>, "'Steve.Wood@dot.gov'" <Steve.Wood@dot.gov>

Date: 07/26/2011 03:14 PM Subject: Su mmary of interagency working comments received on draft rule under EO 12866 review



### Please find attached additional interagency working comments received on draft final rule
under EO 12866 and EO 13563 review. These are subject to further policy review.

Thanks.

Chandana

**Attachment included: Summary of interagency working comments r eceived on draft ruel under EO

12866 review subjuect to further policy review6.pdf**

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

To: Byron Bunker/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, "'james.tamm@dot.gov'" <james.tamm@dot.gov>, "'rebecca.yoon@dot.gov'" <rebecca.yoon@dot.gov>, "'lily.smith@dot.gov'" <lily.smith@dot.gov>, Ann
Wolverton/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Heather Klemick/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Paul
Balserak/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ken Davidson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Todd Sherwood/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Angela Cullen/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Gloria Helfand/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, "'Analiese.Marchesseault@dot.gov'" <Analiese.Marchesseault@dot.gov>, "'Neil.Eisner@dot.gov'" <Neil.Eisner@dot.gov>, "'Steve.Wood@dot.gov'" <Steve.Wood@dot.gov>

Date: 07/27/2011 04:16 PM Subject: Summary of interagency wor king comments received on draft rule under EO 12866 review



### Please find attached additional interagency working comments received on draft final rule
under EO 12866 and EO 13563 review. These are subject to further policy review.

Thanks.

Chandana

**Attachment included: Summary of interagency working comments received on draft ruel under EO

12866 review subjuect to further policy review7.pdf**From: Byron Bunker/AA/USEPA/US

To: Chandana_L._Achanta@omb.eop.gov

Cc: lily.smith@dot.gov, Lauren Steele/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Angela Cullen/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Solveig Irvine/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, james.tamm@dot.gov, Paul Balserak/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,

Ann Wolverton/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 08/01/2011 15:43 Subject: EO12866 GHG + Fuel Efficiency Stds for MD and HD Engines + Vehicles 2060

- AP61 Update Preamble 1 August 2011

Hi Chandana,

Attached please find the latest update of the preamble and regulations for the HD package. This draft should reflect up to date edits responsive to all of the interagency comme nts save mass reduction.

Thanks,

Byron

**Attachment included:

**

****************************************************************** Byron Bunker

Center Director

- Heavy

- Duty Onroad Center

Assessment and Standards Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality US Environmental Protection Agency

2000 Traverwood Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48105 (734) 214

- 4155 (734) 214

- 4050 (fax) (734) 353

- 9623 (cell)

e

- mail: bunker.byron@epa.gov

**********************************************************

From: Byron Bunker/AA/USEPA/US

To: Chandana_L._Achanta@omb.eop.gov, Amanda_I._Lee@omb.eop.gov

Cc: lily.smith@dot.gov, rebecca.yoon@dot.gov, james.tamm@dot.gov, Angela
Cullen/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Lauren Steele/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Chet
France/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Ken Davidson/DC /USEPA/US@EPA, William Charmley/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Ed Nam/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Gloria Helfand/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Solveig Irvine/AA/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 08/03/2011 14:25 Subject: EO12866 GHG + Fuel Efficiency Stds for MD and HD Engines + Vehicles 2060

- AP61

- Mass

Reduction

Hi Chandana,Attached is the new mass reduction cost writeup responsive to our call with OIRA on Monday. We are going to put this in the RIA as is and will then have the same text sans the figure in the preamble. The preamble text will refer to the RIA version with the figure.

Regarding the question about tables VIII

- 3, we think it would be useful to look at OMB Circular A

- 4 specifically the discussion of cost effectiveness calculations.

OMB Circular A

- 4 pages 11

- 12:

With regard to measuring costs, you should be sure to include all the relevant costs to society

- whether public or private . Rulemakings may also yield cost savings (e.g., energy savings associated with new technologies). The numerator in the cost

- effect iveness ratio should reflect net costs, defined as the gross cost incurred to comply with the requirements (sometimes called "total costs") minus any "cost savings."

Thanks,

Byron

**Attachment included: EO 12866_GHG+Fuel Eff Stds for Med

- Heavy

- Duty Engines+Vehicles 2060

- AP61 Mass Reduction_20110803.docx**

****************************************************************** Byron Bunker

Center Director

- Heavy

- Duty Onroad Center

Assessment and Standards Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality US Environmental Protection Agency

2000 Traverwood Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48105 (734) 214

- 4155 (734) 214

- 4050 (fax) (734) 353

- 9623 (cell)

e

- mail: bunker.byron@epa.gov

**********************************************************

From: Byron Bunker/AA/USEPA/US

To: Chandana_L._Achanta@omb.eop.gov

Cc: lily.smith@dot.gov, Angela Cullen/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Amy Kopin/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Solveig

Irvine/AA/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 08/04/2011 10:38 Subject: EO12866 GHG + Fuel Efficiency Stds for MD and HD Engines + Vehicles 2060

- AP61

- RIA 20110804

Hi Chandana,

Attached are the latest versions of RIA chapters 6 and 9.

Thanks,

Byron

**Attachments Included: Ch6 EO12866_GHG+Feul Eff Stds for Med

- Heavy

- Duty Engines+Vehicles 2060

- Ap61 FRM RIA_20110801_Ch 06 Results of the Preferred and Alternative Standards_Revised.docx &Ch9 EO12866_GHG+Fuel Eff Stds for Med

- Heavy

- Duty Engines+Vehicles 2 060

- AP61 FRM RIA_20110801_Ch9 Economic and Social Impacts_Revised.doc**

***************************************************************** Byron Bunker

Center Director

- Heavy

- Duty Onroad Center

Assessment and Standards Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality US Environmental Protection Agency

2000 Traverwood Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48105 (734) 214

- 4155 (734) 214

- 4050 (fax) (734) 353

- 9623 (cell)

e

- mail: bunker.byron@epa.gov

**********************************************************

From: Byron Bunker/AA/USEPA/US

To: Chandana_L._Achanta@omb.eop.gov

Cc: lily.smith@dot.gov, Angela Cullen/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Solveig Irvine/AA/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 08/04/2011 10:47 Subject: EO12866 GHG + Fuel Efficiency Stds for MD and HD Engines + Vehicles 2060

- AP61

- Mass

Reduction 8/4/2011

Hi Chandana,

Attached is an updated version of the mass reduction language we shared yesterday. This version has the same text, but the figure has been updated labeling each of the data points.

Thanks,

Byron

**Attachment Included: EO12866_GHG+Fuel Eff Stds for Med

- Heavy

- Duty Engines+Vehicles 2060

- AP61

Mass Reduction_20110804.docx**

****************************************************************** Byron Bunker

Center Director

- Heavy

- Duty Onroad Center

Assessment and Stan dards Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality US Environmental Protection Agency

2000 Traverwood Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48105 (734) 214

- 4155 (734) 214

- 4050 (fax) (734) 353

- 9623 (cell)

e

- mail: bunker.byron@epa.gov

************************************ **********************From: Byron Bunker/AA/USEPA/US

To: Chandana_L._Achanta@omb.eop.gov

Cc: lily.smith@dot.gov, Solveig Irvine/AA/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 08/05/2011 10:04 Subject: EO12866 GHG + Fuel Efficiency Stds for MD and HD Engines + Vehicles 2060

- AP61 NADA and

RVDA comments

Hi Chandana,

Here are the comments we received from NADA and RVDA.

Thanks,

Byron

**Attachements included: NADA EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2010

- 0162

- 2705[1].pdf & RVDA NHTSA

- 2010

- 0079

- 0117.1[1].pdf**

****************************************************************** Byron Bunker

Center Director

- Heavy

- Duty Onroad Center

Assessment and Standards Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality US Environmental Protection Agency

2000 Traverwood Drive

A nn Arbor, MI 48105 (734) 214

- 4155 (734) 214

- 4050 (fax) (734) 353

- 9623 (cell)

e

- mail: bunker.byron@epa.gov

**********************************************************