Tier 3 Motor Vehicle and Fuel 

Standards

Summary of Comments

Briefing for OMB

November 6, 2013
2

Overview

• Recap of the Proposed Standards

• Commenters

• Overview of Comments

– Fuel Issues

– Vehicle Issues

– State and NGOs

• Next Steps
3

Tier 3 Program Recap

• Systems approach: more stringent vehicle standards 

enabled by gasoline sulfur control

– Sulfur interferes with catalyst function

– Further reductions in gasoline sulfur are needed to allow 

vehicles to reach the Tier 3 standards

– Sulfur reduction achieves large emission reductions from the inuse fleet

• Harmonized vehicle program

– Coordinated with California LEV III and GHG for model years 

(MY) 2017-2025

– Broadly supported by auto industry so they can produce and sell 

a single fleet of vehicles nationwide

• Phase-in begins with MY 2017 for vehicles and CY 2017 

for fuels

– To allow coordinated compliance with GHG and LEV III
4

Proposed Fuel Standards

• Fuel sulfur standards:

– 10 ppm annual average sulfur standard, beginning January 1, 2017

• Small refiner and small volume refinery delay until January 1, 2020

– Two main options for the refinery gate and downstream caps

• Maintain current 80 ppm refinery gate and 95 ppm downstream caps

• Lower to 50 ppm/65 ppm caps (beginning January 1, 2020)

• Asked for comment on 20 ppm/25 ppm caps

• Nationwide credit trading program, with a 3-year early credit 

program (2014-2016) and 3-year early credit use period 

(2017-19)

• Requested comment on potential fuel quality standards for 

flex-fueled vehicle (FFV) fuel

• Various fuel technical amendments and streamlining 

provisions
5

Proposed Vehicle Standards

•Passenger cars 

(all)

• Light trucks and 

SUVs (Escape)

• Minivans and 

crossovers 

(Caravan)

0-6k 

lbs.

• LD Pick-ups 

(F150)

• Large SUVs 

(Jeep GC)

• Medium Duty 

Passenger 

Vehicles (MDPVs) 

– large passenger 

vans

6k8.5k 

lbs.

• HD pickups 

(F250/350)

• Large vans 

(Sprinter, E250)

8.5k14k lbs.

Light-duty Vehicles Heavy-duty Vehicles

5

Vehicles addressed:
6

Proposed Vehicle Standards

• More stringent tailpipe standards 

– Beginning with model year (MY) 2017 for lighter vehicles and MY 2018 

for heavier vehicles

– Tighter non-methane organic gas and nitrogen oxides (NMOG+NOx) 

standards

– Tighter particulate matter (PM) standards

• More stringent evaporative emissions standards

– Lower standards to “zero levels” and improve system durability

– New fuel/evap leak standard

– Upgrade on-board diagnostic system requirements and align with 

California ARB

• Extension of useful life to 150,000 miles

• Revised certification test fuel to E15 (15% ethanol) to better 

reflect in-use gasoline expected in 2017

– Asked for comment on E10 (10% ethanol)

– Also included an option for high-octane E30 (30% ethanol)

• Updated vehicle certification test procedures 
7

Public Comments

• About 140 unique organization comments

• About 3,800 citizen comments (not part of mass 

campaigns)

• About 230,000 comments from 25 unique mass 

campaigns
8

Fuel Industry Commenters

• Refiners

– American Petroleum Institute(API)/American Fuel 

and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)

– BP

– Chevron

– CHS, Inc.

– CountryMark

– ExxonMobil

– Flint Hills Resources

– Marathon

– Monroe Energy

– PBF Energy

– Phillips 66

– Shell

– Small Refiners

– Sunoco

– Wyoming Refining Company

• Aftermarket Additives

– Auto Aftermarket Industry Association

– Automotive Specialty Products Assoc (ASPA)

– Int’l Fed. of Inspection Agencies / America’s 

Petroleum Regional Technical Committee

• Ethanol/Renewables

– American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE)

– American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE)

– Algenol Biofuels

– American Gas Assoc.

– Advanced Biofuels Assoc.

– Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO)

– Clean Fuels Development Coalition

– Growth Energy

– INEOS Bio

– Mid-Continental Energy

– National Biodiesel Board (NBB)

– National Corn Growers Association (NCGA)

– Natural Gas Vehicles for America

– National Propane Gas Association (NPGA)

– Poet

– Renewable Fuels Association (RFA)

– Sutherland Asbill Brennan

• Terminals/Downstream

– Ind. Fuel Terminal Operators Assoc. (IFTOA) (importers)

– Irving Oil

– Kinder Morgan

– Magellan

– Petroleum Marketers Assoc of America (PMAA)

– Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers/National 

Association of Convenience Stores (SIGMA/NACS)

• Other

– Weaver

– Turner, Mason & Company
9

Vehicle and Engine Related Commenters

• Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers / Global 

Automakers (GA)

• American Motorcyclist Association

• Aston-Martin

• BMW

• Chrysler

• Cummins

• Dupont

• Emissions Control Technology 

Association (ETCA)

• Truck and Engine Manufacturers 

Association (EMA)

• Ferrari

• Ford

• GM

• Honda

• Lotus

• McLaren Automotive

• Manufacturers of Emission 

Controls Association (MECA)

• Motor & Equipment Mfrs 

Association

• Mercedes-Benz

• Mitsubishi

• National Automobile Dealers 

Association (NADA)

• National Marine Mfrs Association

• Outdoor Power Equipment 

Association 

• Revecorp Consulting

• Robert Bosch

• U.S. Coalition for Advanced 

Diesel Cars

• Volvo

• Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc. 

• Volkswagen
10

State/NGO commenters

Environmental NGOs

Appalachian Mountain Club

Chesapeake Bay Foundation 

Environmental Defense Fund 

Medical Advocates for Healthy Air and Clean Air Carolina 

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)

Sierra Club

Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)

Consumers Union (CU)

ICCT

Health Organizations

American Lung Association

American Lung Association State and Local Chapters

Children's Environmental Health Network

Joint comments from:

American Academy of Pediatrics

American Lung Association

American Public Health Association

American Thoracic Society

Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America

Health Care Without Harm

National Association of City and County 

Health Officials

Trust for America’s Health

Environmental Justice Organizations

Concerned Citizens Around Murphy

WE ACT for Environmental Justice

Other Commenters of Interest

Mercatus Center (George Mason University)

Art Fraas

State and Local Air Agencies

California Air Resources Board (CARB)

Delaware Department of Natural Resources

Kentucky Division for Air Quality 

Maryland Department of the Environment 

Metropolitan Washington Air Quality Committee 

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)

Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Assoc. (MARAMA)

National Assoc. of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)

New York State Department of Env. Conservation (NY DEP)

Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)

Ozone Transport Commission (OTC)

Pennsylvania Department of Env. Protection (PA DEP)

Utah Air Quality Board (UT AQB)

Other State/Local Agencies

Ann Arundel Country, Maryland

Boulder County Health Board

Maryland Department of Transportation

Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning

Southern California Association of Governments

Sugar House Community Council 

Elected Representatives

Governor of Utah

Congressman Patrick Meehan of Pennsylvania

Attorneys General of NY, CT, DE, MD, MA, ME, NH, NC, OR, RI, VT, 

WA, Washington D.C., New York, Chicago

Governors’ Biofuels Coalition

Utah State Legislators
11

Overview of Fuel Comments

• Primarily focused on several main issues

– Case for additional sulfur control

– Leadtime

– Downstream sulfur cap

• Many comments generally supporting the 

structure of the proposed fuel standards 

– e.g., averaging, banking and trading (ABT), early credits, etc.

– Some of these were detailed comments on suggested changes 

to the proposed program

• Limited number of other issues raised

11
12

Case/Need for Sulfur Control

• Proposed: 10 ppm annual average sulfur standard starting in 

2017

• API/AFPM comments challenged our case for sulfur control, 

including requesting more analysis, but did not provide new 

data or information showing why control was unnecessary

• The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, as well as 

individual auto manufacturers, supported the need for sulfur 

control 

– Significant sulfur reductions needed to meet increasingly stringent 

criteria pollutant requirements because sulfur impedes catalyst 

performance.

– Sulfur reduction also supports increased vehicle efficiency to meet 

CAFE/GHG requirements

– Alliance has submitted supplemental comments addressing API’s 

comments and we expect Ford to also submit additional data

• MECA submitted comments regarding the need for low sulfur 

and supplemental comments in response to API

12
13

Leadtime

• Proposed: 10 ppm average sulfur standard beginning 

January 1, 2017, with small refiners/small volume 

refineries delayed until January 1, 2020

• Refiners argued that 5 years of lead time is needed to 

ensure that any changes made for the rule fall within 

normal 4-5 year maintenance turnaround schedules

13
14

Gasoline Sulfur Cap Comments

• Co-proposed:

– Maintain the current 80 ppm refinery gate and 95 ppm downstream 

caps; or

– Lower to 50 ppm/65 ppm, respectively, beginning January 1, 2020

– Also sought comment on 20 ppm/25 ppm

• Fuels industry supported maintaining the current caps

– Provided a study showing significantly increased costs for lower caps

• Some state and environmental groups supported moving to 50 

ppm/65 ppm

– Some in the fuels industry commented that 50/65 could be done, but would 

reduce supply flexibility

• Other environmental groups and most automakers expressed 

support for 20 ppm/25 ppm

– Fuels industry strongly opposed 20 ppm/25 ppm, saying this would result in:

• Substantial modifications to refineries and pipeline & terminal distribution system

• Less supply flexibility/fuel shortages

• Higher costs

14
15

Other Fuel/Oil Industry Comments

• Fuel costs

– NPRM fuel costs: average of 0.89 cents/gallon

– Fuel industry reiterated past arguments/studies that support marginal cost of 6 to 

9 cents/gallon

– Other commenters thought the fuel standards are cost-effective, and petroleum 

industry costs often exaggerated

• Marathon suggested increased small volume refinery threshold to 

90,000 barrels per calendar day (bpcd)

– NPRM uses 75,000 bpcd (as set by Congress for the Renewable Fuels Standard)

• Range of comments from auto, oil, and ethanol groups on provisions 

for higher level ethanol blends

– Auto, oil, and some ethanol industry comments supported the provisions and 

provided detailed comments

– Renewable Fuels Association simply does not want such fuels to be regulated 

• API/AFPM commented that streamlining items are not related to Tier 

3 and should be finalized sooner

• Oil industry had detailed comments on emissions/air quality 

reductions and benefits of the Tier 3 program

15
16

Overview of Vehicle Comments

• Majority of comments stress the importance of 

harmonizing program with LEV III and finalizing it ASAP 

to support LEV III and LDGHG/CAFE product planning

– Alliance and Chrysler presented arguments for a delay in the 

schedule for >6000 lbs GVWR vehicles

• Many detailed comments submitted related to exhaust 

standards, evaporative emission standards and test 

procedures 

• Priority issues include:

– Start Date/Leadtime

– Certification Test Fuel (Ethanol & RVP)

– PM Standards
17

Vehicle Certification Test Fuel

• Certification test fuel ethanol level

– Proposed: E15 test fuel and requested comment on E10

• Current certification test fuel is E0

– Broad support for move to E10 cert fuel 

• Autos, oil, NGOs/states, nonroad engine/equipment manufacturers, and some in 

the ethanol industry want E10

• Others in the ethanol industry still want E15

– A number of commenters encouraged continued monitoring of ethanol 

trends and some support a trigger if E15 market share increases

• Certification test fuel RVP (Reid Vapor Pressure) level

– Proposed: 9 psi RVP 

• Current certification test fuel is 9 psi 

• Other option not proposed is10 psi

– Auto industry strongly supports 9 psi RVP because changing to 10 psi 

would require system redesigns and testing (large effort/cost)

– Some NGOs support 10 psi because it would be more protective
18

PM Standards

• PM Federal Test Procedure (FTP; represents typical driving) 

Standard for LDVs

– Proposed: PM FTP standard of 3 mg/mi

– States/NGOs recommend adopting CARB’s 1 mg/mi for 2025, or at 

least assessing it through a joint process with CARB

– Alliance and Global automakers did not comment

• PM Supplemental FTP (SFTP; represents aggressive driving) 

Standard for light-duty vehicles

– Proposed: 10 mg/mi and 20 mg/mi for cars and trucks respectively

• NPRM sought comment on whether standards should be lower, given 

recent data (presented in RIA) showing that all tested vehicles perform 

below 5 mg/mi

– State/NGO support lower standard for both cars and trucks

• Under 10 mg/mi; some suggest 4 mg/mi or 6 mg/mi

– Alliance and some individual auto manufacturers support proposed 

10 and 20 mg/mi levels

• Cited potential feasibility issues with 10 mg/mi for trucks

• Did not directly address more recent data showing 5 mg/mi
19

Other Vehicle Comments 

• Small volume manufacturers (SVMs) and auto 

associations support even further relaxing start dates 

and standards for SVMs (NPRM proposed start date of 

MY 2022)

• Detailed comments received from auto manufacturers on 

very specific aspects of evaporative emission and other 

test procedures

• Two commenters thought the vehicle costs might be 

overestimated and included detailed technical 

assessment
20

State/NGO Comments

• Strongly supportive of health and AQ need for Tier 3 

and estimated emissions/AQ reductions and benefits 

of the Tier 3 program

• Emphasize importance of implementation beginning 

in 2017

• Major vehicle-related comments include support for:

– E10 cert fuel

– Tighter PM standards

• Major fuel-related comments:

– Support for lower sulfur cap 

– A few raised issues with streamlining related to refinery 

permitting
21

Next Steps/Project Milestones

21 Draft Deliberative 

Action Target Dates

Brief OMB on key programmatic 

decisions

December 2013

Brief OMB on final rule analyses Early January 2013

Final rule to OMB (30-day review) January 2014

Final rule signature February 2014