## Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language under

E.O.	13563	and	12866	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.
**9 Comments on U.S.**  **Environmental Protection Agency Proposed Rule, “** **Control of Air Pollution f rom**  **Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards ,” RIN 2060** **- AQ86** 
1) It is requested that EPA provide the vehicle miles traveled for VMT1 through VMT4, using the same categories as laid out in Table III

- 2, Section III.B of the preamble. 

### 2017 **2030** Reduction from pre

- Tier 3 fleet due to sulfur standard VMT1 VMT2 Reduction from Tier 3 fleet due to vehicle and sulfur standards VMT3 VMT4

**Total VMT1 + VMT3**  **VMT2 + VMT4** 2) It is suggested that EPA take comment on several aspects of the NSR permitting impacts. a. Suggested that EPA take comment on 9

- 12 month estimate for the time it takes authorities to issue a permit, once the application is complete. Also suggest taking comment on the assumption that it will take less time for the NSR GHG permitting process
. b. How long does it take for refineries to prepare the permits? It is assumed that the time required to prepare a permit application would be added to the front end of the process. Does EPA discuss this in Section V.B.? c. EPA stated that the NSR cost of compli ance , presumably for the 19 projected refineries, is incorporated into the engineering cost analysis conducted by EPA. For NSR permits that may require the installation of conventional emission control equipment or process energy efficiency upgrades, EPA should discuss this assumption in section V.B. of the preamble and in the appropriate cost analysis section of the RIA. d. Will EPA explain how the projected NSR analysis projects just 6 refineries (or would it be 19) triggering NRS for GHG emission increases when EPA estimates in the preamble that there would be GHG emissions increases of 4.9 million tons? e. Based on EPA’s NSR permitting analysis, the appears that the NOx and PM2.5 emissions increases would be small relative to the cumulative NOx and VOC emissi ons reductions projected from the Tier 3 fuel sulfur and vehicle program. It is suggested that EPA discuss the emissions changes in the cost/benefit portion of the RIA and mention that EPA did not quantify the disbenefi ts of these emissions increases

. f. It i s suggested that EPA discuss this in the Regulatory Flexibility Act portion of the preamble if any of the 19 refineries that are projected to trigger NSR are small refineries . This discussion should in clude the caveats that NSR compliance costs are assum ed to be part of EPA’s estimated compliance costs for Tier 3

. 3) I t is suggested that EPA provide a crosswalk that compares the various provisions of Tier 3 with Carliforina ’ s L EV III and fuel sulfur program. This will be helpful in letting automakers and refiners understand the similarities and differences between the programs.

## Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language under

E.O.	13563	and	12866	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review. 4) It is requested that EPA update all of the numbers in the preamble that would be affected by the 12

- 16% change in costs/benefits due to the inclusion of CA in the baseline. In addition, it is requested that EPA explain that other states, listing each state, have adopted the CA program and that these costs/benefits were not included in the baseline

. a. T he paragraph EPA is contemplating for the preamble that says that CA and other states have already adopted similar prog rams, it is suggested that EPA insert a footnote for all ta bles in Section III (i.e. each table should have the same footnote) with : “The models upon which these reductions are based did not account for reductions that might reasonably be attributed to pre

- existing State regulations in places such as California and xxxxx. For the final rule EPA will separate the emissions reductions associated with Tier III from those associated with pre

-existing State regulations.” Suggest also using the same footnote for the cost tables as well. 5) Given the fact that a large portion of the people to whom EPA is referring in Page 11 of the preamble live in California or other states where similar regulations have been promulgated, we recommend deleting the following sentences. Just as a note , we had originally suggested iden tifying the proportion of those who live in California, but that would make the other sentences in the paragraph false. The standards set forth in this proposed rule would significantly reduce levels of multiple air pollutants (such as ambient levels of o zone, PM, nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), and mobile source air toxics (MSATs)) across the country, with immediate impacts expected due to the proposed sulfur control standards starting in 2017. These reductions would help state and local agencies in their effort to attain and maintain health

- based National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In the absence of additional controls such as Tier 3 standards, many areas will continue to have ambient ozone and PM 2.5 concentrations exceeding the NAAQS in the future. Specifically, in 2017 almost 50 million people will live in counties that are projected to exceed the 2008 8

- hour ozone NAAQS, without additional controls. Nonattainment with the NAAQS will continue into the future unless additional controls such as Tier 3 are adopted; in 2030 almost 32 million people will live in counties that are projected to exceed the 2008 8

- hour ozone NAAQS, and 31 million people will live in counties that are projected to exceed the 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. Few other strategies exist t hat would deliver the same magnitude of multi

- pollutant reductions projected to result from the proposed Tier 3 standards. 6) Similarly, we recommend the following edits to page 29. In the absence of additional controls such as Tier 3 standards, many area s will continue to have ambient ozone and PM 2.5 concentrations exceeding the NAAQS in the future. Specifically, in 2017 almost 50 million people will live in counties that are projected to exceed the 2008 8

- hour ozone NAAQS, without additional controls. Nonattainment with the NAAQS will continue into the future unless additional controls are adopted; in 2030 almost 32 million people will live in counties that are projected to exceed the 2008 8

- hour ozone NAAQS, and 31 million people will live in counties that are projected to exceed the 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. States and local areas are required to adopt control measures to attain the NAAQS and, once attained, to demonstrate that control measures are in place sufficient to maintain the NAAQS for ten years ( and eight years later, a similar demonstration is required for another ten

-year period). The proposed Tier 3 standards would contribute to be a critical part of areas’ strategies to attain and maintain the

## Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language under

E.O.	13563	and	12866	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.
standards. Maintaining the standards has been challenging in the past, particularly for areas where high population growth rates lead to significant annual increases in vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled

. We project that in 2017 over 120 counties (with over 68 million people) will be within 10 percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, in the absence of additional controls. These Counties that are not already located in States that have already adopted similar re gulations in particular would benefit from the proposed Tier 3 standards as they work to ensure long

-term maintenance of the NAAQS. 7) In the summary section of Section VII in the RIA, suggest adding a couple of sentences about the CA 12

- 16% as most of the n onattainment counties are likely to be C alifornia counties . We suggest using text identical to what we would be used in the RIA Exec utive Summary
. 8) Would like to discuss further the Ethanol vs Alcoholic Beverage Exposure Pathway discussion in the RIA. 9) Suggest EPA provide provide further clarifying language concerning the sensitivity analysis of using higher percent rate of return on investments for the refinery retrofits. 10) One commenter requested EPA to explanation their rationale for proposed to remove the national security exemption for vehic les. 11) Requested EPA to go out for comment on various options for the length of time that early reduction credits may be solvent under both the fuel sulfur and vehicle programs

. 12) Suggest that EPA take comment on the trade

- off between t he effectiveness of catalysts at different fuel sulfur concentrations.