UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY 

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE 

ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498 

 OFFICE OF 

 AIR AND RADIATION 

May 2, 2013 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Meeting with Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium Members Regarding the 

Proposed Tier 3 Standards 

FROM: Catherine Yanca, Assessment and Standards Division 

Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

TO: EPA Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135 

This memo documents a meeting held on May 2, 2013 between representatives of the Lake 

Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

to discuss EPA’s proposed Tier 3 standards for motor vehicle emissions and fuels. The 

following LADCO members attended the meeting via phone: 

Illinois

Laurel Kroack 

Jim Ross 

David Bloomberg 

Indiana

Keith Baugues 

Scott Deloney 

Michigan

Vince Helwig 

Mary Maupin 

Minnesota 

David Thornton 

Ohio

Bob Hodanbosi 
Wisconsin 

Bart Sponseller 

Joe Hoch 

LADCO

Rob Kaleel

The following EPA representatives participated in the meeting: 

EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

Leila Cook 

Rudy Kapichak 

Paul Machiele 

Michael Olechiw 

Kathryn Sargeant 

Catherine Yanca 

EPA Region 5 

John Summerhays 

Frank Acevedo 

The meeting included an overview of the proposed Tier 3 standards presented by EPA, slides 

attached below, followed by a clarifying questions from LADCO members. 

Attachment: 
Tier 3 Vehicle and Fuel Standard

Proposal Overview

April 2013
Overview

• What is Tier 3?• Why Tier 3?• Overview of the Program• Benefits and Costs
What is Tier 3?

• Systems approach to reducing motor vehicle 

pollution: more stringent vehicle standards en

by gasoline sulfur control by gasoline sulfur control

• Creates a harmonized vehicle program

– Coordinated with California LEV III and Light-duty 

standards finalized last year for model years (MY) standards finalized last year for model years (MY) 2025

– Enables auto industry to produce and sell one veh

nationwide

• Part of comprehensive approach to create cle

more efficient vehicles

– Begins phasing in with model year 2017

Begins phasing in with model year 2017

– To allow coordinated compliance with LEV III and 
Why Tier 3: Air Quality and Public H

• Tier 3 standards would have immediate h

and air quality benefits

• Will help attain and maintain ozone and P

NAAQS

– Provides cost-effective national reductions tha

more expensive local controls

• Reduces pollution near roads

– More than 50 million people live work or go t

More than 50 million people live, work, or go t

near major roads
Why Tier 3: Harmonized Vehicle Pro

• California finalized LEV III standards last 

– EPA i d i d CAA i D b 

EPA issue

d a waiver un

der CAA in 

Decem

be

• The auto industry supports Tier 3 becaus

The auto industry supports Tier

3 becaus

want to produce and sell one vehicle nati

• Tier 3 is harmonized with LEV III

– Would begin in 2017 to allow coordinated com

with GHG and LEV III with GHG and LEV III
Tier 3 Vehicle Standards

• Phase in between 2017 and 2025 Phase in between 2017 and 2025• Tighter VOC and NOx tailpipe standards

– 80% reduction from today’s fleet average

• Tighter PM tailpipe standard

– 70% reduction in per-vehicle standard

• Evaporative emissions standards Evaporative emissions standards

– Reduced fuel vapor emissions and improved system d

• Revised certification test fuel to better reflect in-u

gasoline expected in 2017 gasoline expected in 2017

– Current certification test fuel has no ethanol

• Regulatory streamlining/harmonization changes 

response t th P id t’ R l t R i i 

to the 

President’s 

Regula

tory 

Review i
Why Lower Sulfur Gasoline?

• B h Ti 3 d LEV III hi l d d d d 

Bot

h Tier 

3 an

d LEV III vehi

cle stan

dar

ds 

depen

d upo

sulfur gasoline

– Sulfur at current levels degrades the performance of vehicl

converters the primary emission control system on vehicles converters the primary emission control system on vehicles

• Tier 3 vehicle standards not achievable without lower s• Lower sulfur also provides immediate reductions in NO

emissions from the existing fleet

• California alread has lo er s lf r gasoline (as do E r

California already has lo

wer

s

ulf

u

r gasoline (as do

E

ur

Japan, S. Korea, and several other countries)

– Other states prohibited from controlling gasoline sulfur on t

• Enables some lower-cost technologies for complying w

greenhouse gas standards
Tier 3 Fuel Standards

• Lower the average sulfur standard from 3

pp g y m startin

g Januar

y 1, 2017

– California is already 10 ppm sulfur on averag

Europe and Japan have a 10 ppm cap

• Proposing to either maintain the current p

gallon sulfur caps (80 ppm at refinery gatgallon sulfur caps (80 ppm at refinery gat

ppm at retail) or lower them to 50 ppm anppm respectively
Fuel Flexibilities

• Proposing the superset of flexibilities that have proven su

Proposing the superset of flexibilities that have proven su

past EPA fuel programs

• Annual average standard with a sufficiently high per-gallo

• Early credit program to phase in the sulfur standard from 

2014 through December 31, 2019

• Relief for small refiners and refineries Relief for small refiners and refineries <75 000 barrels 

<75,000 barrels 

– Delay of 3 years through December 31, 2019, consistent with th

early credit phase-in for large refiners

– Total of 35 refineries representing a total of 10% of gasoline pro

• Economic and Technical Hardship provisions available 

refiners

– EPA has granted hardship relief to over a dozen refineries unde

regulations; many more for RFS regulations; many more for RFS
Tier 3 Emission Impacts

National Onroad Inventory Reductions

2017 2030

Tons Percent Tons Percent

NO

x 284,000 8 525,000 28

VOC 45,000 3 226,000 23PM 2.5 NA NA 7,500 10CO 747,000 4 5,765,000 30Ben ene Ben

zene 1 625 , 4 8 581 , 36

Total air toxics 15,000 3 90,000 23

• Emission reductions will continue to grow beyond 2030 as more 

continues to turn over to Tier 3 vehicles 
Benefits of Tier 3

 Total Ozone and PM-related Premature Mortality Avoided: 

 820-2,400 in 2030 (based on range of ozone and PM mortality st

 Other PM- and ozone-related health impacts avoided in 203

 Hospital admissions and asthma-related ER visits: 3,200 Asthma exacerbations: 22,000 Upper and lower respiratory symptoms in children: 23,000 Lost school days, work days, and minor restricted activity days: 1

 Total Monetized Benefits in 2030 (2010$):

 $8 to $23 Billion
Summary of Costs and Benefits

• Fuel Sulfur Standard

– 0.89 cents per gallon– $2.1 billion in ca

p yp ital costs over 6 

year 

phase-in 

period

– Based on a detailed, peer-reviewed, refinery-by-refinery 

• Vehicle Standards in 2025

– $130 per vehicle $130 per vehicle

• Annual Cost in 2030

– Vehicle Program: $2.0 billion– Fuel Program: $1.3 billion

– Total Program: $3.4 billion

• Total Monetized Benefits in 2030 Total Monetized Benefits in 2030

– $8 to $23 Billion