1 

### Stout, Alan

From: Giedrius Ambrozaitis <gambrozaitis@autoalliance.org > Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 3:52 PM To: Stout, Alan; Julia Rege; scarter@arb.ca.gov; Lance Tunick Cc: Olechiw, Michael; Fernandez, Antonio; Laroo, Chris; Chris Nevers; John Cabaniss Subject: RE: Tier 3 Amendments Attachments: Global Comments outside of EPA Tier 3 Draft DFR.pdf

Dear Alan:

Thank you very much for sharing your proposed amend ments to the Tier 3 rule with us and allowing us to review the proposed changes. Our comments below refer to the version of the amendment package that you sent to us via email dated July 7, 2014.

We support the proposed changes except as listed be low:

Alliance and Global Automaker Comments Regarding Pr oposed Changes

1. Deletion of coastdown language pointing to use o f manufacturer test methods This deletion was originally identified in a June 2 7, 2014, letter to from the Alliance to Michael Ole chiw EPA. Since then, we have discussed and corresponded furt her with EPA on this issue. However, the Alliance a nd Global Automakers still have concerns with deleting the language “determining road load parameters and applying.” Under previous regulations and historica l practices, EPA has routinely used manufacturer su pplied road load parameters for confirmatory testing. However these values hav e been subject to audit by EPA. Under EPA’s audit authority, it could perform testing usi ng the SAE procedures for road load determination. If initial audit testing indicated there were errors in what t he manufacturer had provided, EPA would work with t he manufacturer to further investigate whether correct ions were warranted. If it was concluded that orig inal values used for testing were not representative of production vehicles, EPA and the manufacturer would work out a plan for correction or retesting as necessary . Including the language “determining road load pa rameters and applying” gives the manufacturer the assurance that EPA will continue with this approach and will not simply make changes to the road load values used fo r confirmatory testing. Manufacturers recognize th at the current regulatory language in 86.101(b)(1) does no t undermine EPA’s authority to perform audit testin g according to any procedure EPA deems necessary, but instead is meant to minimize test to test variabil ity of official testing and provide manufacturers with som e level of confidence in their own test results.. Based on our discussions with EPA we understand that it is EPA’s intent to maintain the current practices noted ab ove, and we agree with that approach.

2. Need for revision of language in 86.1846- 01(b)(1)(ii). This has been verbally discussed with you and we believe you have agreed that the language that was included in the amendment version you sent to us was confus ing. We understand that you plan to revise the language as follows and we agree that this language would be appropriate:

“ The vehicle tested under the requirements of § 86.1 845–04(c)(2) with a minimum odometer miles reading of

105,000 miles or 75% of useful life , whichever is less, will not be included in determining if a test group meets the triggering criteria.”

Alliance and Global Automaker Identified Errors and Typos2 1. We have identified several typo/errors that were not address in your proposed amendments. These ar e included in the attached PDF file entitled “Global Comments out side of EPA Tier 3 Draft DFR.”

2. Fuels volume and identification incorrect The proposal by EPA (July 7, 2014 A. Stout Draft) f or correcting Subpart H, Section 1065.710 Table 2 ( final rule, 79 FR at 23810) is not the solution the Alliance/Global r ecommends. We still prefer that the units be kept as volume % and the decimal points be corrected accordingly (se e below). While a value of 0.10 m3/m3 is numerically equivale nt to 10% by volume, changing the “unit” to m3/m3 is n ot consistent with the standard unit for reporting hydrocarbon content (vol. %), and is not consistent with units used in the regulation in other fuel specification tables (see , e.g ., 86.113, 1065.710 Table 1). Therefore, we request t hat EPA keep the unit as vol. %, and fix the decima ls as follows:

• Olefin limit for the general testing test fuel shou ld be 10%v/v maximum, not 0.10 %v/v maximum

• Aromatic limit for the general testing test fuel sh ould be 35%v/v maximum, not 0.35 %v/v maximum

• Olefin limit for the low temperature test fuel shou ld be 17.5%v/v maximum, not 0.175 %v/v maximum

• Aromatic limit for the general testing test fuel sh ould be 30.4%v/v maximum, not 0.304 %v/v maximum.

3. Incorrect applicability of full useful life Delete “and HDV” as shown below because cold NMHC r equirements only apply to LDV, LLDT and HLDT. § 86.1805-17 Useful life. (a) General provisions . The useful life values specified in this section apply for all exhaust, evaporative, refueling, and OBD emission requirements described in this sub part, except for standards that are specified to ap ply only at certification. These useful life requirements al so apply to all air conditioning leakage credits, a ir conditioning efficiency credits, and other credit programs used by the manufacturer to comply with the fleet-averag e CO 2 emission standards in § 86.1818. Useful life value s are specified as a given number of calendar years or miles of driving, whichever comes first. (b) Greenhouse gas pollutants. The emission standards in § 86.1818 apply for a use ful life of 10 years or 120,000 miles for LDV and LLDT and 11 years or 120,000 mile s for HLDT and MDPV. Manufacturers may alternative ly certify based on a longer useful life as specified in paragraph (d) of this section. (c) Cold temperature emission standards. The cold t emperature NMHC emission standards in § 86.1811 app ly for a useful life of 10 years or 120,000 miles for LDV and LLDT, and 11 years or 120,000 miles for HLD T and
HDV

. The cold temperature CO emission standards in § 86. 1811 apply for a useful life of 5 years or 50,000 m iles.

4. The use of “Related” leads to an unnecessarily broad interpretation It is unclear how to interpret “...related...” in 1 065.210 (below), since all test procedures could be related to the standards in some way. Since the scope of this sen tence is already limited to test procedures, we sug gest deleting “...to the extent that these changes are not related to new emission standards” or clarifying t he scope. It should be noted that all standards have roll-out provisions anyway so deleting this phrase would ha ve no impact.

§1065.10 Other procedures. * * * * * (c) * * * (6) During the 12 months following the effective da te of any change in the provisions of this part 106 5 (and 40 CFR part 1066 for vehicle testing), you may use data collected using procedures specifi ed in the previously applicable version of this part 1065 (and 40 CFR part 1066 for vehicle testing). This a lso applies for changes to test procedures specified in the standard-setting p art to the extent that these changes are not relate d to new emission standards. This paragraph (c)(6) does not restrict the use of carryover certification data otherwise allowed by the standard-setting part.

Sincerely,3 Giedrius Ambrozaitis Julia Rege Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers Global Automa kers

Giedrius Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers

(248) 915-8836 The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been mov ed, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.

From: Stout, Alan [stout.alan@epa.gov] Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 4:15 PM To: Julia Rege; Giedrius Ambrozaitis; scarter@arb.ca.g ov; Lance Tunick Cc: Olechiw, Michael; Tony Fernandez Subject: Tier 3 Amendments

Giedrius, Julia, Lance, and Sarah, The attached file has draft regulatory language to make a variety of corrections and clarifications to the Tier 3 program. We believe all these items align with the program as adopted -- we are not aiming to accompl ish any change in policy or revisit our conclusions on any issue. We have had interactions with industry folks on so me of these items, but this is a full set of edits we have com e up with for the whole vehicle program.

The goal is to publish these changes in a direct fi nal rule by the end of the year. This means that i t is essential for us to have agreement beforehand that none of the individu al elements are objectionable to any prospective commenter. Toward that end, we would appreciate yo ur help in facilitating a wide-ranging review of th is material before we reach publication.

Our timeline will likely involve submitting the fin al documents for internal review at the end of Augu st. If we could arrange for this round of review to be completed wi th any comments reaching us by August 5, we will be well positioned to keep our schedule. We hope that this represents a full set of corrections, but if this round of re view leads us to expand the list of necessary changes, we will do ou r best to address those issues as well.

Thanks in advance for your help in coordinating the se changes. Let us know if you have any questions along the way.

Alan

_________________

Alan Stout U.S. EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality 2000 Traverwood Dr. Ann Arbor, MI 48105

734-214-4805 The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been mov ed, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.

734-214-4816 The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been mov ed, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. (fax) stout.alan@epa.gov www.epa.gov/otaq/

# Typo: § 86.513

This should be 148.9

- 162.8.

# Typo: § 86.1811

- 17(b)(8)(ii)(B)

This should be SFTP

# Wrong Equation: § 1066.235(c)(1)(i)

Advance Copy Ver.

FR Version