From: William Charmley/AA/USEPA/US To: Dominic_J._Mancini@omb.eop.gov, Chandana_L._Achanta@omb.eop.gov Cc: Robin Moran/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, rebecca .yoon@dot.gov, james.tamm@dot.gov, steve.wood@dot.gov, Maureen Delaney/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, John Hannon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Steven Silverman/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 03/30/2010 10:07 PM Subject

: Interagency comments from this evening



### Dom and Chandana,

Thank you for the call earlier this eveni ng regarding the interagency comments with respect to several of the EPA tables in the EPA RIA and the joint preamble regarding the presentation of costs and benefits. We unde rstand the interagency request, as discussed during our call a nd in the attachment to the recent email from Chandana (copy attached), is for EPA to replace the prog ram cost values, which in those tables are shown as a negative value, with separate line items for the vehicle technology costs and the fuel savings.

Per Dom’s request, I have discussed this issue with my Divi sion Director, Chet France, and we do not agree with the requested change.

This past Friday, based on our discussi on with OMB, we informed our senior management that on behalf of the interagenc y review, OMB requested that a single table in the Executive Summary of the EPA RIA be modified, and no ot her changes to the preamble or RIA were necessary (see attached email). We took this request very seriously and discussed the request with our senior leadership, and we decided that EPA could make the narrow requested change to the rulemaking package. Since that time OMB has requested several additional cha nges above and beyond the request from Friday. We do not believe additional change s to the rulemaking package regarding the presentation of the costs and benefits are necessary. These tables present costs in a manner which is consistent with EPA’s presentation in the NPRM.

If OMB believes this change is necessar y in order for this rulemaking to be cleared from review, Chet and I recommend that OMB discuss this issue with our Assistant Administrator for the EP A Air Office on Wednesday morning.

With respect to the intera gency requested change in EPA's response to comment on SCC, we have discussed this request with the EPA legal counsel and we believe the changes are not needed and that the request ed edits would weaken the strength of the EPA response to the comment, thus we do not plan on making these requested changes.

Thanks

Bill Charmley

### [attachment "Summary of Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under EO 12866.pdf" deleted by Ta d Wysor/AA/USEPA/US]

----- Forwarded by William Charmley/ AA/USEPA/US on 03/30/2010 09:48 PM -----

From: William Charmley/AA/USEPA/US To: "Achanta, Chandana L." <Ch andana_L._Achanta@ omb.eop.gov> Cc: Robin Moran/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, M aureen Delaney/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Kathryn Sargeant/AA/USEPA/US @ Date: 03/26/2010 01:21 PM Subject: OMB request on preamble and RIA table formats and word changes regarding fuel savings

Chandana -

I just want to clarify our phone discussion.

Regarding the reformatting of tables with respect to the programs costs and benefits, OMB is requesting that only one table in the entire EPA package be altered - Tabl e 7 of the Executive Summary of the RIA. No changes in the preambl e and no changes in the rest of the RIA need to be made.

For Table 7 - which I show below, you would like the two rows I highlighted in red to be moved to be directly beneath the row labled "Fuel Savingss"

With respect to word edits, for both the EPA se ctions of the preamble and in the EPA RIA, OMB would like EPA not to refer to fuel savings as a "negative cost", but simply as a "fuel savings".

For example, in the following sentences from the RIA, OMB's request could be met by deleting the middle sentence:



### "Note that the quantified annual costs shown in Table 1 are negative because fuel savings are included. Fuel savings are considered as negative costs (i.e., pos itive benefits) of the vehicle program. The fuel savings outweigh the costs associated with th e addition of new technology and, therefore, the vehi cle program costs are negative."

Can you please respond to this email ASAP and let me know if I have captured the request correctly.

Thanks Bill

[table deleted]