Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language under									

E.O.	13563	and	12866	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

9Comments on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Proposed Rule, “Control of Air Pollution from 

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 compliance, 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 emissions 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 disbenefits of these emissions increases.

f. It is 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 include the caveats that NSR compliance costs are assumed to be part of 

EPA’s estimated compliance costs for Tier 3.

3) It is suggested that EPA provide a crosswalk that compares the various provisions of Tier 3 with 

Carliforina’s LEV 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. The paragraph EPA is contemplating for the preamble that says that CA and other states 

have already adopted similar programs, it is suggested that EPA insert a footnote for all 

tables 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 

identifying 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 ozone, PM, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), 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 

PM2.5 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 PM2.5 NAAQS. Few other strategies exist that 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 areas will continue to have 

ambient ozone and PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 regulations 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 nonattainment counties are likely to be California counties. We suggest using

text identical to what we would be used in the RIA Executive 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 vehicles. 

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 the effectiveness of catalysts at different

fuel sulfur concentrations.