u ^ı TE ° S MTo

, ^ ^ ^

^z^ ^^^ 

# 9

· 

# rT'°

^ l PAOT E. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION The Honorable James M. Itthofe United States Senate Washington, DC. 20510

Dear Senator Inhofe:

Thank you for your letter of January 12, 2012, co-signed by five of your colleagues, concerning the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's forthcoming proposal of the "Tiei- 3" light-duty vehicle emissions and gasoline standards.

The EPA is developing the Tier 3 standards to respond to the critical need to improve air quality, and to enable a harmonized national vehicle emissions control program. This rule would reducemotor vehicle emissions and help state and local areas attain and maintain the existing healthbased air quality standards in a cost-effective and timely way. Lower sulfur gasoline is necessary to operate the pollution control equipment to achieve new Tier 3 vehicle standards, and will facilitate the development of lower cost technologies to improve fuel economy. Improvements in fuel economy reduce gasoline consumption and save consumers money.

The Tier 3 standards would create a comprehensive regulatory approach that provides certainty for both the auto and oil industries. Under a single harmonized national vehicle program, the Tier 3 standards would provide for coordinated implementation with the California vehicle program and the EPA and Department of Transportation's recently proposed light-duty vehicle standards to reduce carbon pollution and improve fuel economy for model years 2017 through 2025. The proposed standards are projected to save approximately 4 billion barrels of oil and 2 billion metric tons of carbon pollution over the lifetime of the vehicles. Vehicles meeting these standards are projected to provide average net savings to consumers of $3,000 to $4,000 per vehicle. Further, the coordinated timing of the Tier 3 and refinery sector rules provides the oil industry regulatory certainty and opportunities for cost-efficiency.

We understand that even minimal increases in the cost of gasoline are of importance to the American public. That is why EPA conducted extensive refinery modeling to understand the cost impacts of a variety of fuel requirements. As a result, the only fuel requirement we are considering for Tier 3 is one that would lower the amount of sulfur in gasoline. As with lead, sulfur in fuel impairs the functioning of emission control equipment. By focusing only on sulfur requirements in Tier 3, we estimate the costs to be approximately one penny per gallon in 2017, an estimate that is supported by a recent study by Mathpro.

Your letter expressed concern about the regulation's potential effects on the refining industry and gasoline supply. Let me assure you that as many as 17 refineries are already able to meet the 10 ppm sulfur standards we are considering, and some are currently producing and exporting to

Interrre Address (URL) •hltp I/wwwepa gov RecycIedlRecycIabe Pnnted with Vegetable 01 Based Inks on 100% Postconsurrer. Process Chlorine Free Recycled PaperEuropean countries gasoline that meets this standard (which is also required in places like Japan,

South Korea, and a number of other countries). The regulatory flexibility we intend to build into the Tier 3 standards, similar to the flexibility we provide in our current fuel programs, will ensure that the Tier 3 standards under consideration would not cause refinery closures or negatively impact gasoline supply.

Your letter points to the need for thorough scientific, cost, and benefits analyses before proceeding. Let me assure you and your colleagues that we agree that this major rule requires robust and transparent analyses of air quality, technological feasibility, and costs, as well as potential benefits. As we continue to develop the proposed rule, which has not yet been published for comment, we are conducting and documenting a wide range of analyses in all of these areas.

Your letter also asks that the public should be allowed to consider the results of the antibacksliding study required under the Energy Independence and Security Act. I want to emphasize that the Tier 3 rule is independent of the anti-backsliding study required by sections 211(q) and 211(v) of the Clean Air Act. The Tier 3 rule is focused on vehicle emissions standards in response to our obligations and authority under section 202(a) and the fuel necessary to enable them in response to our obligations and authority under section 211(c). In contrast, the anti-backsliding study will examine the broader issues related to impacts of renewable fuels, and it is required as a prerequisite to regulations under section 211(v). The anti-backsliding study will not affect any decisions about gasoline sulfur, which are being informed by a thorough analysis of the impact of gasoline sulfur on vehicle emissions and the air quality benefits of reduced motor vehicle emissions. We are not promulgating standards under section 211(v) in the Tier 3 rulemaking.

Regarding the refinery sector rule, we agree that thorough analysis of available data is crucial in the generation of common sense emission control standards. We have worked diligently to evaluate and analyze data received through the Information Collection Request. We have taken and will continue to take into consideration the perspective and input of stakeholders as we strive to develop a reasonable rulemaking that will achieve meaningful and cost-effective pollution reductions in the refining industry.

Again, thank you for your letter. If you have further questions, please contact me, or your staff may call Josh Lewis in EPAs Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations at (202) 564-2095.

Gina MtCarthy Assistant AdministratorST.q,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, DC. 20460

PRO.0

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION The Honorable John Barrasso United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Barrasso:

Thank you for your letter of January 12, 2012, co-signed by five of your colleagues, concerning the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's forthcoming proposal of the "Tier 3" light-duty vehicle emissions and gasoline standards.

The EPA is developing the Tier 3 standards to respond to the critical need to improve air quality, and to enable a harmonized national vehicle emissions control program. This rule would reducemotor vehicle emissions and help state and local areas attain and maintain the existing healthbased air quality standards in a cost-effective and timely way. Lower sulfur gasoline is necessary to operate the pollution control equipment to achieve new Tier 3 vehicle standards, and will facilitate the development of lower cost technologies to improve fuel economy. Improvements in fuel economy reduce gasoline consumption and save consumers money.

The Tier 3 standards would create a comprehensive regulatory approach that provides certainty for both the auto and oil industries. Under a single harmonized national vehicle program, the Tier 3 standards would provide for coordinated implementation with the California vehicle program and the EPA and Department of Transportation's recently proposed light-duty vehicle standards to reduce carbon pollution and improve fuel economy for model years 20 1 7 through 2025. The proposed standards are projected to save approximately 4 billion barrels of oil and 2 billion metric tons of carbon pollution over the lifetime of the vehicles. Vehicles meeting these standards are projected to provide average net savings to consumers of $3,000 to $4,000 per vehicle. Further, the coordinated timing of the Tier 3 and refinery sector rules provides the oil industry regulatory certainty and opportunities for cost-efficiency.

We understand that even minimal increases in the cost of gasoline are of importance to the American public. That is why EPA conducted extensive refinery modeling to understand the cost impacts of a variety of fuel requirements. As a result, the only fuel requirement we are considering for Tier 3 is one that would lower the amount of sulfur in gasoline. As with lead, sulfur in fuel impairs the functioning of emission control equipment. By focusing only on sulfur requirements in Tier 3, we estimate the costs to be approximately one penny per gallon in 2017, an estimate that is supported by a recent study by Mathpro.

Your letter expressed concern about the regulation's potential effects on the refining industry and gasoline supply. Let me assure you that as many as 17 refineries are already able to meet the 10 ppm sulfur standards we are considering, and some are currently producing and exporting to

Internet Address URL) http //wwwepagov Recycled/Recyclable . Prurrled wi/h Vegetable Oil Based inks on 100% Poetconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled PaperEuropean countries gasoline that meets this standard (which is also required in places like Japan,

South Korea, and a number of other countries). The regulatory flexibility we intend to build into the Tier 3 standards, similar to the flexibility werjvile in our current fuel programs, will ensure that the Tier 3 standards under consideration would not cause refinery closures or negatively impact gasoline supply.

Your letter points to the need for thorough scientific, cost, and benefits analyses before proceeding. Let me assure you and your colleagues that we agree that this major rule requires robust and transparent analyses of air quality, technological feasibility, and costs, as well as potential benefits. As we continue to develop the proposed rule, which has not yet been published for comment, we are conducting and documenting a wide range of analyses in all of these areas.

Your letter also asks that the public should be allowed to consider the results of the antibacksliding study required under the Energy Independence and Security Act. I want to emphasize that the Tier 3 rule is independent of the anti-backsliding study required by sections 211(q) and 211(v) of the Clean Air Act, The Tier 3 rule is focused on vehicle emissions standards in response to our obligations and authority under section 202(a) and the fuel necessary to enable them in response to our obligations and authority under section 211(c). In contrast, the anti-backsliding study will examine the broader issues related to impacts of renewable fuels, and it is required as a prerequisite to regulations under section 211(v). The anti-backsliding study will not affect any decisions about gasoline sulfur, which are being informed by a thorough analysis of the impact of gasoline sulfur on vehicle emissions and the air quality benefits of reduced motor vehicle emissions. We are not promulgating standards under section 211(v) in the Tier 3 rulemaking.

Regarding the refinery sector rule, we agree that thorough analysis of available data is crucial in the generation of common sense emission control standards. We have worked diligently to evaluate and analyze data received through the Information Collection Request. We have taken and will continue to take into consideration the perspective and input of stakeholders as we strive to develop a reasonable rulemaking that will achieve meaningful and cost-effective pollution reductions in the refining industry.

Again, thank you for your letter. If you have further questions, please contact me, or your staff may call Josh Lewis in EPA's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations at (202) 564-2095.

Gina Mccarthy Assistant Administrator

## u .^ E ° ST

AT^ 

## s, Z ^^
^ 2-iz ^

^ıp R orS' UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, DC. 20460

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION The Honorable Mark Begich United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Begich:

Thank you for your letter of January 12, 2012, co-signed by five of your colleagues, concerning the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's forthcoming proposal of the "Tier 3" light-duty vehicle emissions and gasoline standards.

The EPA is developing the Tier 3 standards to respond to the critical need to improve air quality, and to enable a harmonized national vehicle emissions control program. This rule would reducemotor vehicle emissions and help state and local areas attain and maintain the existing healthbased air quality standards in a cost-effective and timely way. Lower sulfur gasoline is necessary to operate the pollution control equipment to achieve new Tier 3 vehicle standards, and will facilitate the development of lower cost technologies to improve fuel economy. improvements in fuel economy reduce gasoline consumption and save consumers money.

The Tier 3 standards would create a comprehensive regulatory approach that provides certainty for both the auto and oil industries. Under a single harmonized national vehicle program, the Tier 3 standards would provide for coordinated implementation with the California vehicle program and the EPA and Department of Transportation's recently proposed light-duty vehicle standards to reduce carbon pollution and improve fuel economy for model years 2017 through 2025. The proposed standards are projected to save approximately 4 billion barrels of oil and 2 billion metric tons of carbon pollution over the lifetime of the vehicles. Vehicles meeting these standards are projected to provide average net savings to consumers of $3,000 to $4,000 per vehicle. Further, the coordinated timing of the Tier 3 and refinery sector rules provides the oil industry regulatory certainty and opportunities for cost-efficiency.

We understand that even minimal increases in the cost of gasoline are of importance to the American public. That is why EPA conducted extensive refinery modeling to understand the cost impacts of a variety of fuel requirements. As a result, the only fuel requirement we are considering for Tier 3 is one that would lower the amount of sulfur in gasoline. As with lead, sulfur in fuel impairs the functioning of emission control equipment. By focusing only on sulfur requirements in Tier 3, we estimate the costs to be approximately one penny per gallon in 2017, an estimate that is supported by a recent study by Mathpro.

Your letter expressed concern about the regulation's potential effects on the refining industry and gasoline supply. Let me assure you that as many as 17 refineries are already able to meet the 10 ppm sulfur standards we are considering, and some are currently producing and exporting to

Internet Address (URL)

. htlp I/wwwepa gov Recycled/Recyclable Prnted with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer Process Chlorine Free Recycled PaperEuropean countries gasoline that meets this standard (which is also required in places like Japan,

South Korea, and a number of other countries). The regulatory flexibility we intend to build into the Tier 3 standards, similar to the flexibility we provide in our current fuel programs, will ensure that the Tier 3 standards under consideration would not cause refinery closures or negatively impact gasoline supply.

Your letter points to the need for thorough scientific, cost, and benefits analyses before proceeding. Let me assure you and your colleagues that we agree that this major rule requires robust and transparent analyses of air quality, technological feasibility, and costs, as well as potential benefits. As we continue to develop the proposed rule, which has not yet been published for comment, we are conducting and documenting a wide range of analyses in all of these areas.

Your letter also asks that the public should be allowed to consider the results of the antibacksliding study required under the Energy Independence and Security Act. I want to emphasize that the Tier 3 rule is independent of the anti-backsliding study required by sections 211(q) and 211(v) of the Clean Air Act. The Tier 3 rule is focused on vehicle emissions standards in response to our obligations and authority under section 202(a) and the fuel necessary to enable them in response to our obligations and authority under section 211(c). In contrast, the anti-backsliding study will examine the broader issues related to impacts of renewable fuels, and it is required as a prerequisite to regulations under section 21 1(v). The anti-backsliding study will not affect any decisions about gasoline sulfur, which are being informed by a thorough analysis of the impact of gasoline sulftir on vehicle emissions and the air quality benefits of reduced motor vehicle emissions. We are not promulgating standards under section 211(v) in the Tier 3 rulemaking.

Regarding the refinery sector rule, we agree that thorough analysis of available data is crucial in the generation of common sense emission control standards. We have worked diligently to evaluate and analyze data received through the Information Collection Request. We have taken and will continue to take into consideration the perspective and input of stakeholders as we strive to develop a reasonable rulemaking that will achieve meaningful and cost-effective pollution reductions in the refining industry.

Again, thank you for your letter. If you have further questions, please contact me, or your staff may call Josh Lewis in EPAs Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations at (202) 564-2095.

Gina Mccarthy Assistant Administrator.,rW EOST Aro ^^^



## 17 T 

## '° Alp^.TE C ' UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION The Honorable David Vitter United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Vitter:

Thank you for your letter of January 12, 2012, co-signed by five of your colleagues, concerning the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's forthcoming proposal of the "Tier 3" light-duty vehicle emissions and gasoline standards.

The EPA is developing the Tier 3 standards to respond to the critical need to improve air quality, and to enable a harmonized national vehicle emissions control program. This rule would reducemotor vehicle emissions and help state and local areas attain and maintain the existing healthbased air quality standards in a cost-effective and timely way. Lower sulfur gasoline is necessary to operate the pollution control equipment to achieve new Tier 3 vehicle standards, and will facilitate the development of lower cost technologies to improve fuel economy. Improvements in fuel economy reduce gasoline consumption and save consumers money.

The Tier 3 standards would create a comprehensive regulatory approach that provides certainty for both the auto and oil industries. Under a single harmonized national vehicle program, the Tier 3 standards would provide for coordinated implementation with the California vehicle program and the EPA and Department of Transportation's recently proposed light-duty vehicle standards to reduce carbon pollution and improve fuel economy for model years 2017 through 2025. The proposed standards are projected to save approximately 4 billion barrels of oil and 2 billion metric tons of carbon pollution over the lifetime of the vehicles. Vehicles meeting these standards are projected to provide average net savings to consumers of $3,000 to $4,000 per vehicle. Further, the coordinated timing of the Tier 3 and refinery sector niles provides the oil industry regulatory certainty and opportunities for cost-efficiency.

We understand that even minimal increases in the cost of gasoline are of importance to the American public. That is why EPA conducted extensive refinery modeling to understand the cost impacts of a variety of fuel requirements. As a result, the only fuel requirement we are considering for Tier 3 is one that would lower the amount of sulfur in gasoline. As with lead, sulfur in fuel impairs the functioning of emission control equipment. By focusing only on sulfur requirements in Tier 3, we estimate the costs to be approximately one penny per gallon in 2017, an estimate that is supported by a recent study by Mathpro.

Your letter expressed concern about the regulation's potential effects on the refining industry and gasoline supply. Let me assure you that as many as 17 refineries are already able to meet the 10 ppm sulfur standards we are considering, and some are currently producing and exporting to

Internet Address CURL)

.hIIp 1/wwwepa gov RecyctedlRecyclable Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer. Process Chlorine Free Recycled PaperEuropean countries gasoline that meets this standard (which is also required in places like Japan,

South Korea, and a number of other countries). The regulatory flexibility we intend to build into the Tier 3 standards, similar to the flexibility we provide in our current fuel programs, will ensure that the Tier 3 standards under consideration would not cause refinery closures or negatively impact gasoline supply.

Your letter points to the need for thorough scientific, cost, and benefits analyses before proceeding. Let me assure you and your colleagues that we agree that this major rule requires robust and transparent analyses of air quality, technological feasibility, and costs, as well as potential benefits. As we continue to develop the proposed rule, which has not yet been published for comment, we are conducting and documenting a wide range of analyses in all of these areas.

Your letter also asks that the public should be allowed to consider the results of the antibacksliding study required under the Energy Independence arid Security Act. I want to emphasize that the Tier 3 rule is independent of the anti-backsliding study required by sections 211(q) and 211(v) of the Clean Air Act. The Tier 3 rule is focused on vehicle emissions standards in response to our obligations and authority under section 202(a) and the fuel necessary to enable them in response to our obligations and authority under section 211(c). In contrast, the anti-backsliding study will examine the broader issues related to impacts of renewable fuels, and it is required as a prerequisite to regulations under section 211(v). The anti-backsliding study will not affect any decisions about gasoline sulfur, which are being informed by a thorough analysis of the impact of gasoline sulfur on vehicle emissions and the air quality benefits of reduced motor vehicle emissions. We are not promulgating standards under section 211(v) in the Tier 3 rulemaking.

Regarding the refinery sector rule, we agree that thorough analysis of available data is crucial in the generation of common sense emission control standards. We have worked diligently to evaluate and analyze data received through the Information Collection Request. We have taken and will continue to take into consideration the perspective and input of stakeholders as we strive to develop a reasonable rulemaking that will achieve meaningful and cost-effective pollution reductions in the refining industry.

Again, thank you for your letter. If you have further questions, please contact me, or your staff may call Josh Lewis in EPA's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations at (202) 564-2095.

Gina M€Carthy Assistant Administrator„r^1'1E°:Mr^ ^

S ^Z

^

^AL 9R0

TE8 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, DC. 20460

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION The Honorable Mary L. Landrieu United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Landrieu:

Thank you for your letter of January 12, 2012, co-signed by five of your colleagues, concerning the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's forthcoming proposal of the "Tier 3” light-duty vehicle emissions and gasoline standards.

The EPA is developing the Tier 3 standards to respond to the critical need to improve air quality, and to enable a harmonized national vehicle emissions control program. This rule would reducemotor vehicle emissions and help state and local areas attain and maintain the existing healthbased air quality standards in a cost-effective and timely way. Lower sulfur gasoline is necessary to operate the pollution control equipment to achieve new Tier 3 vehicle standards, and will facilitate the development of lower cost technologies to improve fuel economy. Improvements in fuel economy reduce gasoline consumption and save consumers money.

The Tier 3 standards would create a comprehensive regulatory approach that provides certainty for both the auto and oil industries. Under a single harmonized national vehicle program, the Tier

3 standards would provide for coordinated implementation with the California vehicle program and the EPA and Department of Transportation's recently proposed light-duty vehicle standards to reduce carbon pollution and improve fuel economy for model years 2017 through 2025. The proposed standards are projected to save approximately 4 billion barrels of oil and 2 billion metric tons of carbon pollution over the lifetime of the vehicles. Vehicles meeting these standards are projected to provide average net savings to consumers of $3,000 to $4,000 per vehicle. Further, the coordinated timing of the Tier 3 and refinery sector rules provides the oil industry regulatory certainty and opportunities for cost-efficiency.

We understand that even minimal increases in the cost of gasoline are of importance to the American public. That is why EPA conducted extensive refinery modeling to understand the cost impacts of a variety of fuel requirements. As a result, the only fuel requirement we are considering for Tier 3 is one that would lower the amount of sulfur in gasoline. As with lead, sulfur in fuel impairs the functioning of emission control equipment. By focusing only on sulfur requirements in Tier 3, we estimate the costs to be approximately one penny per gallon in 2017, an estimate that is supported by a recent study by Mathpro.

Your letter expressed concern about the regulation's potential effects on the refining industry and gasoline supply. Let me assure you that as many as 17 refineries are already able to meet the 10 ppm sulfur standards we are considering, and some are currently producing and exporting to

Irternet Address CURL)

. htIp.Ilwwwepa gov RecycledlRecyclable . Pnnred with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 1OO Poatconsumer. Process Chlorine Free Recycled PaperEuropean countries gasoline that meets this standard (which is also required in places like Japan,

South Korea, and a number of other countries). The regulatory flexibility we intend to build into the Tier 3 standards, similar to the flexibility we provide in our current fuel programs, will ensure that the Tier 3 standards under consideration would not cause refinery closures or negatively impact gasoline supply.

Your letter points to the need for thorough scientific, cost, and benefits analyses before proceeding. Let me assure you and your colleagues that we agree that this major rule requires robust and transparent analyses of air quality, technological feasibility, and costs, as well as potential benefits. As we continue to develop the proposed rule, which has not yet been published for comment, we are conducting and documenting a wide range of analyses in all of these areas.

Your letter also asks that the public should be allowed to consider the results of the antibacksliding study required under the Energy Independence and Security Act. I want to emphasize that the Tier 3 rule is independent of the anti-backsliding study required by sections 211(q) and 211(v) of the Clean Air Act. The Tier 3 rule is focused on vehicle emissions standards in response to our obligations and authority under section 202(a) and the fuel necessary to enable them in response to our obligations and authority under section 2 11(c). In contrast, the anti-backsliding study will examine the broader issues related to impacts of renewable fuels, and it is required as a prerequisite to regulations under section 211(v). The anti-backsliding study will not affect any decisions about gasoline sulfur, which are being informed by a thorough analysis of the impact of gasoline sulfur on vehicle emissions and the air quality benefits of reduced motor vehicle emissions. We are not promulgating standards under section 211(v) in the Tier 3 rulemaking.

Regarding the refinery sector rule, we agree that thorough analysis of available data is crucial in the generation of common sense emission control standards. We have worked diligently to evaluate and analyze data received through the Information Collection Request. We have taken and will continue to take into consideration the perspective and input of stakeholders as we strive to develop a reasonable rulemaking that will achieve meaningful and cost-effective pollution reductions in the refining industry.

Again, thank you for your letter. If you have further questions, please contact me, or your staff may call Josh Lewis in EPA's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations at (202) 564-2095.

ma McCrthy Assistant Administrator^

, ^E DS TA^

. Z ^ ^ 8^ 

# ^SSiZZ^

^r^l P^OTB UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION The Honorable Lisa Murkowski United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Murkowski:

Thank you for your letter of January 12, 2012, co-signed by five of your colleagues, concerning the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's forthcoming proposal of the "Tier 3" light-duty vehicle emissions and gasoline standards.

The EPA is developing the Tier 3 standards to respond to the critical need to improve air quality, and to enable a harmonized national vehicle emissions control program. This rule wou]d reducemotor vehicle emissions and help state and local areas attain and maintain the existing healthbased air quality standards in a cost-effective and timely way. Lower sulfur gasoline is necessary to operate the pollution control equipment to achieve new Tier 3 vehicle standards, and will facilitate the development of lower cost technologies to improve fuel economy. Improvements in fuel economy reduce gasoline consumption and save consumers money.

The Tier 3 standards would create a comprehensive regulatory approach that provides certainty for both the auto and oil industries. Under a single harmonized national vehicle program, the Tier 3 standards would provide for coordinated implementation with the California vehicle program and the EPA and Department of Transportation's recently proposed light-duty vehicle standards to reduce carbon pollution and improve fuel economy for model years 2017 through 2025. The proposed standards are projected to save approximately 4 billion barrels of oil and 2 billion metric tons of carbon pollution over the lifetime of the vehicles. Vehicles meeting these standards are projected to provide average net savings to consumers of $3,000 to $4,000 per vehicle, Further, the coordinated timing of the Tier 3 and refinery sector rules provides the oil industry regulatory certainty and opportunities for cost-efficiency.

We understand that even minimal increases in the cost of gasoline are of importance to the American public. That is why EPA conducted extensive refinery modeling to understand the cost impacts of a variety of fuel requirements. As a result, the only fuel requirement we are considering for Tier 3 is one that would lower the amount of sulfur in gasoline. As with lead, sulfur in fuel impairs the functioning of emission control equipment. By focusing only on sulfur requirements in Tier 3, we estimate the costs to be approximately one penny per gallon in 2017, an estimate that is supported by a recent study by Mathpro.

Your letter expressed concern about the regulation's potential effects on the refining industry and gasoline supply. Let me assure you that as many as 17 refineries are already able to meet the 10 ppm sulfur standards we are considering, and some are currently producing and exporting to

Internet Address (L)RL) http.11wwwepa gov RecycledlRecyclable Printed wirn Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% PoStconsurner. Process Chlorine Free Recycled PaperEuropean countries gasoline that meets this standard (which is also required in places like Japan,

South Korea, and a number of other countries). The regulatory flexibility we intend to build into the Tier 3 standards, similar to the flexibility we provide in our current fuel programs, will ensure that the Tier 3 standards under consideration would not cause refinery closures or negatively impact gasoline supply.

Your letter points to the need for thorough scientific, cost, and benefits analyses before proceeding. Let me assure you and your colleagues that we agree that this major rule requires robust and transparent analyses of air quality, technological feasibility, and costs, as well as potential benefits. As we continue to develop the proposed rule, which has not yet been published for comment, we are conducting and documenting a wide range of analyses in all of these areas.

Your letter also asks that the public should be allowed to consider the results of the antibacksliding study required under the Energy Independence and Security Act. I want to emphasize that the Tier 3 rule is independent of the anti-backsliding study required by sections 211(q) and 211(v) of the Clean Air Act, The Tier 3 rule is focused on vehicle emissions standards in response to our obligations and authority under section 202(a) and the fuel necessary to enable them in response to our obligations and authority under section 211(c). In contrast, the anti-backsliding study will examine the broader issues related to impacts of renewable fuels, and it is required as a prerequisite to regulations under section 211(v). The anti-backsliding study will not affect any decisions about gasoline sulfur, which are being informed by a thorough analysis of the impact of gasoline sulfur on vehicle emissions and the air quality benefits of reduced motor vehicle emissions. We are not promulgating standards under section 211(v) in the Tier 3 rulemaking.

Regarding the refinery sector rule, we agree that thorough analysis of available data is crucial in the generation of common sense emission control standards. We have worked diligently to evaluate and analyze data received through the Information Collection Request. We have taken and will continue to take into consideration the perspective and input of stakeholders as we strive to develop a reasonable rulemaking that will achieve meaningful and cost-effective pollution reductions in the refining industry.

Again, thank you for your letter. If you have further questions, please contact me, or your staff may callJosh Lewis in EPA's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations at (202) 564-2095.

ma Mc'arthy Assistant Administrator