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 amendments 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 below: 

Alliance and Global Automaker Comments Regarding Proposed Changes 

1. Deletion of coastdown language pointing to use of manufacturer test methods 

This deletion was originally identified in a June 27, 2014, letter to from the Alliance to Michael Olechiw EPA. 

Since then, we have discussed and corresponded further with EPA on this issue. However, the Alliance and 

Global Automakers still have concerns with deleting the language “determining road load parameters and

applying.” Under previous regulations and historical practices, EPA has routinely used manufacturer supplied 

road load parameters for confirmatory testing. However these values have been subject to audit by EPA. Under 

EPA’s audit authority, it could perform testing using the SAE procedures for road load determination. If initial 

audit testing indicated there were errors in what the manufacturer had provided, EPA would work with the 

manufacturer to further investigate whether corrections were warranted. If it was concluded that original 

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 parameters 

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 for confirmatory testing. Manufacturers recognize that the 

current regulatory language in 86.101(b)(1) does not undermine EPA’s authority to perform audit testing 

according to any procedure EPA deems necessary, but instead is meant to minimize test to test variability of 

official testing and provide manufacturers with some 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 above, 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 confusing. 

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 § 86.1845–04(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 Typos 
2

1. We have identified several typo/errors that were not address in your proposed amendments. These are included in 

the attached PDF file entitled “Global Comments outside of EPA Tier 3 Draft DFR.” 

2. Fuels volume and identification incorrect 

The proposal by EPA (July 7, 2014 A. Stout Draft) for correcting Subpart H, Section 1065.710 Table 2 (final rule, 79 FR 

at 23810) is not the solution the Alliance/Global recommends. We still prefer that the units be kept as volume % 

and the decimal points be corrected accordingly (see below). While a value of 0.10 m3/m3 is numerically equivalent 

to 10% by volume, changing the “unit” to m3/m3 is not 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 that EPA keep the unit as vol. %, and fix the decimals as follows: 

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

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

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

• Aromatic limit for the general testing test fuel should 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 requirements 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 subpart, except for standards that are specified to apply only 

at certification. These useful life requirements also apply to all air conditioning leakage credits, air conditioning 

efficiency credits, and other credit programs used by the manufacturer to comply with the fleet-average CO2

emission standards in § 86.1818. Useful life values 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 useful life of 10 years or 120,000 

miles for LDV and LLDT and 11 years or 120,000 miles for HLDT and MDPV. Manufacturers may alternatively 

certify based on a longer useful life as specified in paragraph (d) of this section. 

(c) Cold temperature emission standards. The cold temperature NMHC emission standards in § 86.1811 apply 

for a useful life of 10 years or 120,000 miles for LDV and LLDT, and 11 years or 120,000 miles for HLDT and 

HDV. The cold temperature CO emission standards in § 86.1811 apply for a useful life of 5 years or 50,000 miles. 

4. The use of “Related” leads to an unnecessarily broad interpretation 

It is unclear how to interpret “...related...” in 1065.210 (below), since all test procedures could be related to the 

standards in some way. Since the scope of this sentence is already limited to test procedures, we suggest 

deleting “...to the extent that these changes are not related to new emission standards” or clarifying the scope. 

It should be noted that all standards have roll-out provisions anyway so deleting this phrase would have no 

impact. 

§1065.10 Other procedures. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(6) During the 12 months following the effective date of any change in the provisions of this part 1065 (and 40 

CFR part 1066 for vehicle testing), you may use data collected using procedures specified in the previously 

applicable version of this part 1065 (and 40 CFR part 1066 for vehicle testing). This also applies for changes to 

test procedures specified in the standard-setting part to the extent that these changes are not related 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 Automakers 

 

 

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.gov; 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 accomplish any change 

in policy or revisit our conclusions on any issue. We have had interactions with industry folks on some of these 

items, but this is a full set of edits we have come up with for the whole vehicle program. 

 

The goal is to publish these changes in a direct final rule by the end of the year. This means that it is essential for us to 

have agreement beforehand that none of the individual elements are objectionable to any prospective 

commenter. Toward that end, we would appreciate your help in facilitating a wide-ranging review of this material 

before we reach publication. 

 

Our timeline will likely involve submitting the final documents for internal review at the end of August. If we could 

arrange for this round of review to be completed with 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 review leads us to 

expand the list of necessary changes, we will do our best to address those issues as well. 

 

Thanks in advance for your help in coordinating these 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