Alternative Method for Calculating Off-Cycle Credits Under the Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Program: Applications From BMW Group, Ford Motor Company, and Hyundai Motor Group, 27819-27822 [2017-12737]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 116 / Monday, June 19, 2017 / Notices
Sanctuary’s recommendations and has
responded via letter.
Regulatory Flexibility Act. Under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq., a federal agency must
prepare an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis ‘‘for any proposed rule’’ for
which the agency ‘‘is required by
section 553 of the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA), or any other law,
to publish general notice of proposed
rulemaking.’’ The RFA exempts from
this requirement any rule that the
issuing agency certifies ‘‘will not, if
promulgated, have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.’’ EPA has
concluded that NPDES General Permits
are permits, not rulemakings, under the
APA and thus not subject to APA
rulemaking requirements or the RFA.
Authority: This action is taken under the
authority of Section 402 of the Clean Water
Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1342. I hereby
provide public notice of the revised draft
General Permit for Offshore Seafood
Processors in Federal Waters off the
Washington and Oregon Coast in accordance
with 40 CFR 124.10.
Dated: May 25, 2017.
Christine Psyk,
Acting Director, Office of Water and
Watersheds, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2017–12734 Filed 6–16–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0189; FRL–9962–95–
OAR]
Alternative Method for Calculating OffCycle Credits Under the Light-Duty
Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Program: Applications From BMW
Group, Ford Motor Company, and
Hyundai Motor Group
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is requesting comment on
applications from BMW of North
American (BMW), Ford Motor Company
(Ford), and Hyundai Motor Group for
off-cycle carbon dioxide (CO2) credits
under EPA’s light-duty vehicle
greenhouse gas emissions standards.
‘‘Off-cycle’’ emission reductions can be
achieved by employing technologies
that result in real-world benefits, but
where that benefit is not adequately
captured on the test procedures used by
manufacturers to demonstrate
compliance with emission standards.
EPA’s light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:09 Jun 16, 2017
Jkt 241001
program acknowledges these benefits by
giving automobile manufacturers several
options for generating ‘‘off-cycle’’
carbon dioxide (CO2) credits. Under the
regulations, a manufacturer may apply
for CO2 credits for off-cycle technologies
that result in off-cycle benefits. In these
cases, a manufacturer must provide EPA
with a proposed methodology for
determining the real-world off-cycle
benefit. These three manufacturers have
submitted applications that describe
methodologies for determining off-cycle
credits. The off-cycle technologies vary
by manufacturer and include thermal
control technologies such as solar
reflective glass/glazing and solar
reflective surface coating (paint), a high
efficiency alternator, and an efficient air
conditioning compressor. Pursuant to
applicable regulations, EPA is making
descriptions of each manufacturer’s offcycle credit calculation methodologies
available for public comment.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before July 19, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2017–0189, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or withdrawn. The EPA may
publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points
you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or
comment contents located outside of the
primary submission (i.e. on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Roberts French, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality,
Compliance Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2000
Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI
48105. Telephone: (734) 214–4380. Fax:
(734) 214–4869. Email address:
french.roberts@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
27819
I. Background
EPA’s light-duty vehicle greenhouse
gas (GHG) program provides three
pathways by which a manufacturer may
accrue off-cycle carbon dioxide (CO2)
credits for those technologies that
achieve CO2 reductions in the real
world but where those reductions are
not adequately captured on the test used
to determine compliance with the CO2
standards, and which are not otherwise
reflected in the standards’ stringency.
The first pathway is a predetermined
list of credit values for specific off-cycle
technologies that may be used beginning
in model year 2014.1 This pathway
allows manufacturers to use
conservative credit values established
by EPA for a wide range of technologies,
with minimal data submittal or testing
requirements, as long as the
technologies meet EPA regulatory
definitions. In cases where the off-cycle
technology is not on the menu but
additional laboratory testing can
demonstrate emission benefits, a second
pathway allows manufacturers to use a
broader array of emission tests (known
as ‘‘5-cycle’’ testing because the
methodology uses five different testing
procedures) to demonstrate and justify
off-cycle CO2 credits.2 The additional
emission tests allow emission benefits
to be demonstrated over some elements
of real-world driving not adequately
captured by the GHG compliance tests,
including high speeds, hard
accelerations, and cold temperatures.
These first two methodologies were
completely defined through notice and
comment rulemaking and therefore no
additional process is necessary for
manufacturers to use these methods.
The third and last pathway allows
manufacturers to seek EPA approval to
use an alternative methodology for
determining the off-cycle CO2 credits.3
This option is only available if the
benefit of the technology cannot be
adequately demonstrated using the 5cycle methodology. Manufacturers may
also use this option for model years
prior to 2014 to demonstrate off-cycle
CO2 reductions for technologies that are
on the predetermined list, or to
demonstrate reductions that exceed
those available via use of the
predetermined list.
Under the regulations, a manufacturer
seeking to demonstrate off-cycle credits
with an alternative methodology (i.e.,
under the third pathway described
previously) must describe a
1 See
40 CFR 86.1869–12(b).
40 CFR 86.1869–12(c).
3 See 40 CFR 86.1869–12(d).
2 See
E:\FR\FM\19JNN1.SGM
19JNN1
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
27820
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 116 / Monday, June 19, 2017 / Notices
methodology that meets the following
criteria:
• Use modeling, on-road testing, onroad data collection, or other approved
analytical or engineering methods;
• Be robust, verifiable, and capable of
demonstrating the real-world emissions
benefit with strong statistical
significance;
• Result in a demonstration of
baseline and controlled emissions over
a wide range of driving conditions and
number of vehicles such that issues of
data uncertainty are minimized;
• Result in data on a model type basis
unless the manufacturer demonstrates
that another basis is appropriate and
adequate.
Further, the regulations specify the
following requirements regarding an
application for off-cycle CO2 credits:
• A manufacturer requesting off-cycle
credits must develop a methodology for
demonstrating and determining the
benefit of the off-cycle technology, and
carry out any necessary testing and
analysis required to support that
methodology.
• A manufacturer requesting off-cycle
credits must conduct testing and/or
prepare engineering analyses that
demonstrate the in-use durability of the
technology for the full useful life of the
vehicle.
• The application must contain a
detailed description of the off-cycle
technology and how it functions to
reduce CO2 emissions under conditions
not represented on the compliance tests.
• The application must contain a list
of the vehicle model(s) which will be
equipped with the technology.
• The application must contain a
detailed description of the test vehicles
selected and an engineering analysis
that supports the selection of those
vehicles for testing.
• The application must contain all
testing and/or simulation data required
under the regulations, plus any other
data the manufacturer has considered in
the analysis.
Finally, the alternative methodology
must be approved by EPA prior to the
manufacturer using it to generate
credits. As part of the review process
defined by regulation, the alternative
methodology submitted to EPA for
consideration must be made available
for public comment.4 EPA will consider
public comments as part of its final
decision to approve or deny the request
for off-cycle credits.
4 See
40 CFR 86.1869–12(d)(2).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:09 Jun 16, 2017
Jkt 241001
II. Off-Cycle Credit Applications
A. Denso SAS Air Conditioning
Compressor
Using the alternative methodology
approach discussed previously, BMW,
Ford, and Hyundai are applying for
credits for an air conditioning
compressor manufactured by Denso that
results in air conditioning efficiency
credits beyond those provided in the
regulations. This compressor, known as
the Denso SAS compressor, improves
the internal valve system within the
compressor to reduce the internal
refrigerant flow necessary throughout
the range of displacements that the
compressor may use during its operating
cycle. The addition of a variable
crankcase suction valve allows a larger
mass flow under maximum capacity and
compressor start-up conditions (when
high flow is ideal), and then it can
reduce to smaller openings with
reduced mass flow in mid- or lowcapacity conditions. The refrigerant
exiting the crankcase is thus optimized
across the range of operating conditions,
reducing the overall energy
consumption of the air conditioning
system.
The ‘‘5-cycle’’ methodology does not
adequately measure the real-world
greenhouse gas reduction benefits of
this compressor because the only one of
the five tests with the air conditioner
operating is conducted under worst-case
conditions (high temperature, high solar
load, and high humidity), not the more
moderate conditions where the
technology provides the majority of its
benefits.
In December 2014, General Motors
(GM) requested off-cycle GHG credits
for the use of the Denso SAS
compressor. GM worked with Denso to
perform bench testing of compressors
with and without the improvements and
quantified the impact, which supported
an off-cycle credit of 1.1 grams/mile.
GM substantiated these results by also
performing vehicle tests using the AC17
procedure. After public notice and
comment, EPA approved GM’s request
in September 2015.5
The credits calculated for the Denso
SAS compressor would be in addition to
the credits of 1.7 grams/mile for
variable-displacement A/C compressors
already allowed under EPA
regulations.6 However, it is important to
note that EPA regulations place a limit
5 ‘‘EPA Decision Document: Off-cycle Credits for
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, Ford Motor Company,
and General Motors Corporation.’’ Compliance
Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA–420–
R–15–014, September 2015.
6 See 40 CFR 86.1868–12.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
on the cumulative credits that can be
claimed for improving the efficiency of
A/C systems. The rationale for this limit
is that the additional fuel consumption
of A/C systems can never be reduced to
zero, and the limits established by
regulation reflect the maximum possible
reduction in fuel consumption projected
by EPA. These limits, or caps, on credits
for A/C efficiency, must also be applied
to A/C efficiency credits granted under
the off-cycle credit approval process. In
other words, cumulative A/C efficiency
credits for an A/C system—from the
A/C efficiency regulations and those
granted via the off-cycle regulations—
must comply with the stated limits.
1. BMW
BMW is requesting an off-cycle GHG
credit of 1.1 grams CO2 per mile for the
Denso SAS compressor (the same as was
approved for GM in 2015). BMW
repeated the bench test modeling
analysis using vehicle-specific BMW
input data, and, like the original Denso
analysis, demonstrated a benefit of 1.1
grams/mile. Like GM, BMW also ran
vehicle tests using the AC17 test. Six
tests were conducted on a 3-series
BMW, resulting in a calculated benefit
of 1.2 grams/mile, thus substantiating
the bench test results. Based on these
results, BMW is requesting a credit of
1.1 grams/mile for all BMW vehicles
equipped with the Denso SAS
compressor with variable crankcase
suction valve technology, starting with
2016 model year vehicles. Details of the
testing and analysis can be found in the
manufacturer’s application.
2. Ford
Ford is requesting an off-cycle GHG
credit of 1.1 grams CO2 per mile for the
Denso SAS compressor (the same as was
approved for GM in 2015). Ford cited
the bench test modeling analysis
referenced in the original GM
application, which demonstrated a
benefit of 1.1 grams/mile. Ford also ran
vehicle tests using the AC17 test. Six
tests were conducted on a 2017 Lincoln
MKC, resulting in a calculated benefit of
1.5 grams/mile, thus substantiating the
bench test results. Based on these
results, Ford is requesting a credit of 1.1
grams/mile for all 2017 and later model
year Ford vehicles equipped with the
Denso SAS compressor with variable
crankcase suction valve technology.
Details of the testing and analysis can be
found in the manufacturer’s application.
3. Hyundai
Hyundai is requesting an off-cycle
GHG credit of 1.4 grams CO2 per mile
for the Denso SAS compressor. Hyundai
repeated the bench test modeling
E:\FR\FM\19JNN1.SGM
19JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 116 / Monday, June 19, 2017 / Notices
analysis using vehicle-specific Hyundai
input data, which demonstrated a
benefit of 1.4 grams/mile. Like the other
manufacturers, Hyundai also ran vehicle
tests using the AC17 test. Two tests
were conducted on a Hyundai Sonata,
resulting in a calculated benefit of 9.3
grams/mile, substantially more than the
bench test results. Based on these
results, Hyundai is requesting a credit of
1.4 grams/mile for all 2015 through
2017 model year Hyundai Sonata
models equipped with the Denso SAS
compressor with variable crankcase
suction valve technology. Details of the
testing and analysis can be found in the
manufacturer’s application.
B. High Efficiency Alternator
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Ford is requesting GHG credits for
alternators with improved efficiency
relative to a baseline alternator. This
request is for the 2009 and later model
years. Automotive alternators convert
mechanical energy from a combustion
engine into electrical energy that can be
used to power a vehicle’s electrical
systems. Alternators inherently place a
load on the engine, which results in
increased fuel consumption and CO2
emissions. High efficiency alternators
use new technologies to reduce the
overall load on the engine yet continue
to meet the electrical demands of the
vehicle systems, resulting in lower fuel
consumption and lower CO2 emissions.
Some comments on EPA’s proposed rule
for GHG standards for the 2016–2025
model years suggested that EPA provide
a credit for high-efficiency alternators
on the pre-defined list in the
regulations. While EPA agreed that
high-efficiency alternators can reduce
electrical load and reduce fuel
consumption, and that these impacts are
not seen on the emission test procedures
because accessories that use electricity
are turned off, EPA noted the difficulty
in defining a one-size-fits-all credit due
to lack of data.7 Ford proposes a
methodology that would scale credits
based on the efficiency of the alternator;
alternators with efficiency (as measured
using an accepted industry standard
procedure) above a baseline value could
get credits from 0.2 to 1.9 grams/mile.
Details of the testing and analysis can be
found in the manufacturer’s application.
C. Thermal Control Technologies
1. Glass/Glazing
Ford is requesting off-cycle credits for
glass/glazing that reduces the amount of
solar energy that is transmitted through
the windows. By doing so, interior cabin
temperatures can be reduced, which
7 See
77FR 62730, October 15, 2012.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:09 Jun 16, 2017
Jkt 241001
results in a reduction in the amount of
energy needed to cool the cabin and
maintain passenger comfort. Ford’s
request is fundamentally identical to the
request submitted by Chrysler in 2013,
which EPA subsequently approved in
September of 2015.8
Ford’s request is for 2010 and later
model year vehicles, whereas the credits
approved for Chrysler were limited to
the model years before 2014 (after
which EPA expects that credits would
be gained via the regulatory ‘‘menu’’,
since the methodology essentially
replicates EPA’s methodology and
produces similar credit values). Note
that the regulations limit glass/glazing
credits to 2.9 grams/mile for cars and
3.9 grams/mile for trucks, and that EPA
will require that these caps be observed
for all glass/glazing credits, regardless of
the regulatory pathway by which those
credits are claimed or granted. This is
also true for the caps specified for the
total credits from thermal control
technologies (3.0 grams/mile for cars
and 4.3 grams/mile for trucks). The
technical and engineering reasons for
these limits remain applicable and are
not rendered moot because credits are
granted through this public process.
2. Solar Reflective Surface Coating
Ford is requesting off-cycle credits for
solar reflective paint. Like glass, by
reducing the heat that is transmitted to
the interior, interior cabin temperatures
can be reduced, which results in a
reduction in the amount of energy
needed to cool the cabin and maintain
passenger comfort. Ford’s request is
largely similar to the request submitted
by Chrysler in 2013, which EPA
subsequently approved in September of
2015.9 However, there is one significant
difference. Chrysler noted two data
points regarding the impact of reflective
paint: A study by the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
that determined a cabin air breath
temperature reduction of 1.2 degrees C,
and a study by the Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory for the California
Energy Commission that showed a
reduction of 5–6 degrees C. Chrysler’s
methodology, which EPA approved,
used the more conservative value from
the NREL study (as did EPA in our
8 ‘‘EPA Decision Document: Off-cycle Credits for
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, Ford Motor Company,
and General Motors Corporation.’’ Compliance
Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA–420–
R–15–014, September 2015.
9 ‘‘EPA Decision Document: Off-cycle Credits for
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, Ford Motor Company,
and General Motors Corporation.’’ Compliance
Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA–420–
R–15–014, September 2015.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
27821
Technical Support Document to
establish the menu values for reflective
paint). Chrysler’s methodology, which
does not differ substantially from EPA’s
methodology outlined in our Technical
Support Document, would produce
credits of 0.4 grams/mile, comparable to
the menu values for a paint with high
reflectivity. Ford provided test data that
indicated a cabin air breath temperature
reduction closer to the California Energy
Commission study, and the resulting
credits would be up to about 2 grams/
mile for the highest reflectivity paint, or
five times the menu credit value
documented in EPA’s Technical
Support Document. EPA is particularly
interested in comments on Ford’s data
and methodology for these credits
because of the different inputs used by
Ford as well as the data those inputs are
based on and the magnitude of the
requested credits compared to the
regulatory menu of credits for this
technology.
Ford’s request is for 2010 and later
model year vehicles, whereas the credits
approved for Chrysler were limited to
the model years before 2014 (after
which EPA expects that credits would
be gained via the regulatory ‘‘menu’’,
since the methodology used by Chrysler
essentially replicated EPA’s
methodology and produced similar
credit values). Note that the regulations
limit the cumulative credits from
thermal control technologies to 3.0
grams/mile for cars and 4.3 grams/mile
for trucks, and that EPA will require
that these caps be observed for all
thermal control credits, regardless of the
regulatory pathway by which those
credits are claimed or granted. The
technical and engineering reasons for
these limits remain applicable (a fact
that is acknowledged by Ford in their
application materials) and are not
rendered moot because credits are
granted through this public process
instead of through the regulatory menu.
III. EPA Decision Process
EPA has reviewed the applications for
completeness and is now making the
applications available for public review
and comment as required by the
regulations. The off-cycle credit
applications submitted by BMW, Ford,
and Hyundai (with confidential
business information redacted) have
been placed in the public docket (see
ADDRESSES section in this preamble) and
on EPA’s Web site at the following
locations:
BMW: https://www.epa.gov/vehicle-andengine-certification/bmw-compliancematerials-light-duty-greenhouse-gasghg-standards
E:\FR\FM\19JNN1.SGM
19JNN1
27822
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 116 / Monday, June 19, 2017 / Notices
Ford: https://www.epa.gov/vehicle-andengine-certification/ford-compliancematerials-light-duty-greenhouse-gasghg-standards
Hyundai: https://www.epa.gov/vehicleand-engine-certification/hyundaicompliance-materials-light-dutygreenhouse-gas-ghg-standards
EPA is providing a 30-day comment
period on the applications for off-cycle
credits described in this action, as
specified by the regulations. The
manufacturers may submit a written
rebuttal of comments for EPA’s
consideration, or may revise an
application in response to comments.
After reviewing any public comments
and any rebuttal of comments submitted
by manufacturers, EPA will make a final
decision regarding the credit requests.
EPA will make its decision available to
the public by placing a decision
document (or multiple decision
documents) in the docket and on EPA’s
Web site at the same manufacturerspecific pages shown previously. While
the broad methodologies used by these
manufacturers could potentially be used
for other vehicles and by other
manufacturers, the vehicle specific data
needed to demonstrate the off-cycle
emissions reductions would likely be
different. In such cases, a new
application would be required,
including an opportunity for public
comment.
Dated: May 16, 2017.
Byron J. Bunker,
Director, Compliance Division, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air
and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2017–12737 Filed 6–16–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0738; FRL–9963–44–
OAR]
Notice of Final Approval for an
Alternative Means of Emission
Limitation at Chevron Phillips
Chemical Company LP
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice; final approval.
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
This notice announces our
approval of the Alternative Means of
Emission Limitation (AMEL) request
from Chevron Phillips Chemical
Company LP (CP Chem) under the Clean
Air Act (CAA) to operate a multi-point
ground flare (MPGF) at their ethylene
plant in Baytown, Texas, and to operate
an MPGF at their polyethylene plant in
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:09 Jun 16, 2017
Jkt 241001
Old Ocean, Texas. This approval notice
specifies the operating conditions and
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements that these
facilities must follow to demonstrate
compliance with the approved AMEL.
DATES: The approval of the AMEL
request for the MPGF at CP Chem’s
ethylene plant in Baytown, Texas, and
the MPGF at CP Chem’s polyethylene
plant in Old Ocean, Texas, is effective
on June 19, 2017.
ADDRESSES: The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has established
a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0738. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov Web
site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., confidential business information
(CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
https://www.regulations.gov, or in hard
copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA
WJC West Building, Room Number
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading
Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time
(EST), Monday through Friday. The
telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and
the telephone number for the Air Docket
is (202) 566–1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
questions about this final action, contact
Mr. Andrew Bouchard, Sector Policies
and Programs Division (E143–01), Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone
number: (919) 541–4036; fax number:
(919) 541–3470; and email address:
bouchard.andrew@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Acronyms and Abbreviations. We use
multiple acronyms and terms in this
notice. While this list may not be
exhaustive, to ease the reading of this
notice and for reference purposes, the
EPA defines the following terms and
acronyms here:
AMEL alternative means of emission
limitation
Btu/scf British thermal units per standard
cubic foot
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI confidential business information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CP Chem Chevron Phillips Chemical
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Company LP
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
Eqn equation
HAP hazardous air pollutants
HP high pressure
LFL lower flammability limit
LFLcz lower flammability limit of
combustion zone gas
LFLvg lower flammability limit of flare vent
gas
MPGF multi-point ground flare
NESHAP national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants
NHV net heating value
NHVcz net heating value of combustion
zone gas
NHVvg net heating value of flare vent gas
NSPS new source performance standards
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards
scf standard cubic feet
VOC volatile organic compounds
Organization of This Document. The
information in this notice is organized
as follows:
I. Background
A. Summary
B. Regulatory Flare Requirements and CP
Chem’s AMEL Request
II. Summary of Public Comments on CP
Chem’s AMEL Request
III. Final Notice of Approval of CP Chem’s
AMEL Request and Required Operating
Conditions
I. Background
A. Summary
In a Federal Register notice dated
April 4, 2017, the EPA provided public
notice and solicited comment on CP
Chem’s AMEL request under the CAA
for the operation of an MPGF at an
ethylene plant in Baytown, Texas, and
for the operation of an MPGF at a
polyethylene plant in Old Ocean, Texas
(see 82 FR 16392).1 This action solicited
comment on all aspects of the AMEL
request, including the operating
conditions specified in that action that
are necessary to achieve a reduction in
emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) and organic
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) at least
equivalent to the reduction in emissions
required by various standards in 40 CFR
parts 60, 61, and 63 that apply to
emission sources that would be
controlled by these MPGFs. These
standards incorporate the design and
operating requirements for flares in the
General Provisions to parts 60 and 63 as
part of the emission reduction
requirements. Because the two proposed
MPGFs cannot meet the velocity
requirements in these General
1 The MPGFs at both the ethylene plant and
polyethylene plant will utilize pressure-assisted
burners on all the high pressure (HP) stages;
however, the first two stages on the MPGF at the
polyethylene plant will also be steam-assisted.
E:\FR\FM\19JNN1.SGM
19JNN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 116 (Monday, June 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27819-27822]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12737]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0189; FRL-9962-95-OAR]
Alternative Method for Calculating Off-Cycle Credits Under the
Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Program: Applications From
BMW Group, Ford Motor Company, and Hyundai Motor Group
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is requesting
comment on applications from BMW of North American (BMW), Ford Motor
Company (Ford), and Hyundai Motor Group for off-cycle carbon dioxide
(CO2) credits under EPA's light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas
emissions standards. ``Off-cycle'' emission reductions can be achieved
by employing technologies that result in real-world benefits, but where
that benefit is not adequately captured on the test procedures used by
manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with emission standards. EPA's
light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas program acknowledges these benefits
by giving automobile manufacturers several options for generating
``off-cycle'' carbon dioxide (CO2) credits. Under the
regulations, a manufacturer may apply for CO2 credits for
off-cycle technologies that result in off-cycle benefits. In these
cases, a manufacturer must provide EPA with a proposed methodology for
determining the real-world off-cycle benefit. These three manufacturers
have submitted applications that describe methodologies for determining
off-cycle credits. The off-cycle technologies vary by manufacturer and
include thermal control technologies such as solar reflective glass/
glazing and solar reflective surface coating (paint), a high efficiency
alternator, and an efficient air conditioning compressor. Pursuant to
applicable regulations, EPA is making descriptions of each
manufacturer's off-cycle credit calculation methodologies available for
public comment.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 19, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2017-0189, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The
EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roberts French, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Office of Transportation and Air Quality,
Compliance Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000
Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105. Telephone: (734) 214-4380. Fax:
(734) 214-4869. Email address: french.roberts@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
EPA's light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas (GHG) program provides
three pathways by which a manufacturer may accrue off-cycle carbon
dioxide (CO2) credits for those technologies that achieve
CO2 reductions in the real world but where those reductions
are not adequately captured on the test used to determine compliance
with the CO2 standards, and which are not otherwise
reflected in the standards' stringency. The first pathway is a
predetermined list of credit values for specific off-cycle technologies
that may be used beginning in model year 2014.\1\ This pathway allows
manufacturers to use conservative credit values established by EPA for
a wide range of technologies, with minimal data submittal or testing
requirements, as long as the technologies meet EPA regulatory
definitions. In cases where the off-cycle technology is not on the menu
but additional laboratory testing can demonstrate emission benefits, a
second pathway allows manufacturers to use a broader array of emission
tests (known as ``5-cycle'' testing because the methodology uses five
different testing procedures) to demonstrate and justify off-cycle
CO2 credits.\2\ The additional emission tests allow emission
benefits to be demonstrated over some elements of real-world driving
not adequately captured by the GHG compliance tests, including high
speeds, hard accelerations, and cold temperatures. These first two
methodologies were completely defined through notice and comment
rulemaking and therefore no additional process is necessary for
manufacturers to use these methods. The third and last pathway allows
manufacturers to seek EPA approval to use an alternative methodology
for determining the off-cycle CO2 credits.\3\ This option is
only available if the benefit of the technology cannot be adequately
demonstrated using the 5-cycle methodology. Manufacturers may also use
this option for model years prior to 2014 to demonstrate off-cycle
CO2 reductions for technologies that are on the
predetermined list, or to demonstrate reductions that exceed those
available via use of the predetermined list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 40 CFR 86.1869-12(b).
\2\ See 40 CFR 86.1869-12(c).
\3\ See 40 CFR 86.1869-12(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the regulations, a manufacturer seeking to demonstrate off-
cycle credits with an alternative methodology (i.e., under the third
pathway described previously) must describe a
[[Page 27820]]
methodology that meets the following criteria:
Use modeling, on-road testing, on-road data collection, or
other approved analytical or engineering methods;
Be robust, verifiable, and capable of demonstrating the
real-world emissions benefit with strong statistical significance;
Result in a demonstration of baseline and controlled
emissions over a wide range of driving conditions and number of
vehicles such that issues of data uncertainty are minimized;
Result in data on a model type basis unless the
manufacturer demonstrates that another basis is appropriate and
adequate.
Further, the regulations specify the following requirements
regarding an application for off-cycle CO2 credits:
A manufacturer requesting off-cycle credits must develop a
methodology for demonstrating and determining the benefit of the off-
cycle technology, and carry out any necessary testing and analysis
required to support that methodology.
A manufacturer requesting off-cycle credits must conduct
testing and/or prepare engineering analyses that demonstrate the in-use
durability of the technology for the full useful life of the vehicle.
The application must contain a detailed description of the
off-cycle technology and how it functions to reduce CO2
emissions under conditions not represented on the compliance tests.
The application must contain a list of the vehicle
model(s) which will be equipped with the technology.
The application must contain a detailed description of the
test vehicles selected and an engineering analysis that supports the
selection of those vehicles for testing.
The application must contain all testing and/or simulation
data required under the regulations, plus any other data the
manufacturer has considered in the analysis.
Finally, the alternative methodology must be approved by EPA prior
to the manufacturer using it to generate credits. As part of the review
process defined by regulation, the alternative methodology submitted to
EPA for consideration must be made available for public comment.\4\ EPA
will consider public comments as part of its final decision to approve
or deny the request for off-cycle credits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See 40 CFR 86.1869-12(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Off-Cycle Credit Applications
A. Denso SAS Air Conditioning Compressor
Using the alternative methodology approach discussed previously,
BMW, Ford, and Hyundai are applying for credits for an air conditioning
compressor manufactured by Denso that results in air conditioning
efficiency credits beyond those provided in the regulations. This
compressor, known as the Denso SAS compressor, improves the internal
valve system within the compressor to reduce the internal refrigerant
flow necessary throughout the range of displacements that the
compressor may use during its operating cycle. The addition of a
variable crankcase suction valve allows a larger mass flow under
maximum capacity and compressor start-up conditions (when high flow is
ideal), and then it can reduce to smaller openings with reduced mass
flow in mid- or low-capacity conditions. The refrigerant exiting the
crankcase is thus optimized across the range of operating conditions,
reducing the overall energy consumption of the air conditioning system.
The ``5-cycle'' methodology does not adequately measure the real-
world greenhouse gas reduction benefits of this compressor because the
only one of the five tests with the air conditioner operating is
conducted under worst-case conditions (high temperature, high solar
load, and high humidity), not the more moderate conditions where the
technology provides the majority of its benefits.
In December 2014, General Motors (GM) requested off-cycle GHG
credits for the use of the Denso SAS compressor. GM worked with Denso
to perform bench testing of compressors with and without the
improvements and quantified the impact, which supported an off-cycle
credit of 1.1 grams/mile. GM substantiated these results by also
performing vehicle tests using the AC17 procedure. After public notice
and comment, EPA approved GM's request in September 2015.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``EPA Decision Document: Off-cycle Credits for Fiat Chrysler
Automobiles, Ford Motor Company, and General Motors Corporation.''
Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-420-R-15-014, September 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The credits calculated for the Denso SAS compressor would be in
addition to the credits of 1.7 grams/mile for variable-displacement A/C
compressors already allowed under EPA regulations.\6\ However, it is
important to note that EPA regulations place a limit on the cumulative
credits that can be claimed for improving the efficiency of A/C
systems. The rationale for this limit is that the additional fuel
consumption of A/C systems can never be reduced to zero, and the limits
established by regulation reflect the maximum possible reduction in
fuel consumption projected by EPA. These limits, or caps, on credits
for A/C efficiency, must also be applied to A/C efficiency credits
granted under the off-cycle credit approval process. In other words,
cumulative A/C efficiency credits for an A/C system--from the A/C
efficiency regulations and those granted via the off-cycle
regulations--must comply with the stated limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See 40 CFR 86.1868-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. BMW
BMW is requesting an off-cycle GHG credit of 1.1 grams
CO2 per mile for the Denso SAS compressor (the same as was
approved for GM in 2015). BMW repeated the bench test modeling analysis
using vehicle-specific BMW input data, and, like the original Denso
analysis, demonstrated a benefit of 1.1 grams/mile. Like GM, BMW also
ran vehicle tests using the AC17 test. Six tests were conducted on a 3-
series BMW, resulting in a calculated benefit of 1.2 grams/mile, thus
substantiating the bench test results. Based on these results, BMW is
requesting a credit of 1.1 grams/mile for all BMW vehicles equipped
with the Denso SAS compressor with variable crankcase suction valve
technology, starting with 2016 model year vehicles. Details of the
testing and analysis can be found in the manufacturer's application.
2. Ford
Ford is requesting an off-cycle GHG credit of 1.1 grams
CO2 per mile for the Denso SAS compressor (the same as was
approved for GM in 2015). Ford cited the bench test modeling analysis
referenced in the original GM application, which demonstrated a benefit
of 1.1 grams/mile. Ford also ran vehicle tests using the AC17 test. Six
tests were conducted on a 2017 Lincoln MKC, resulting in a calculated
benefit of 1.5 grams/mile, thus substantiating the bench test results.
Based on these results, Ford is requesting a credit of 1.1 grams/mile
for all 2017 and later model year Ford vehicles equipped with the Denso
SAS compressor with variable crankcase suction valve technology.
Details of the testing and analysis can be found in the manufacturer's
application.
3. Hyundai
Hyundai is requesting an off-cycle GHG credit of 1.4 grams
CO2 per mile for the Denso SAS compressor. Hyundai repeated
the bench test modeling
[[Page 27821]]
analysis using vehicle-specific Hyundai input data, which demonstrated
a benefit of 1.4 grams/mile. Like the other manufacturers, Hyundai also
ran vehicle tests using the AC17 test. Two tests were conducted on a
Hyundai Sonata, resulting in a calculated benefit of 9.3 grams/mile,
substantially more than the bench test results. Based on these results,
Hyundai is requesting a credit of 1.4 grams/mile for all 2015 through
2017 model year Hyundai Sonata models equipped with the Denso SAS
compressor with variable crankcase suction valve technology. Details of
the testing and analysis can be found in the manufacturer's
application.
B. High Efficiency Alternator
Ford is requesting GHG credits for alternators with improved
efficiency relative to a baseline alternator. This request is for the
2009 and later model years. Automotive alternators convert mechanical
energy from a combustion engine into electrical energy that can be used
to power a vehicle's electrical systems. Alternators inherently place a
load on the engine, which results in increased fuel consumption and
CO2 emissions. High efficiency alternators use new
technologies to reduce the overall load on the engine yet continue to
meet the electrical demands of the vehicle systems, resulting in lower
fuel consumption and lower CO2 emissions. Some comments on
EPA's proposed rule for GHG standards for the 2016-2025 model years
suggested that EPA provide a credit for high-efficiency alternators on
the pre-defined list in the regulations. While EPA agreed that high-
efficiency alternators can reduce electrical load and reduce fuel
consumption, and that these impacts are not seen on the emission test
procedures because accessories that use electricity are turned off, EPA
noted the difficulty in defining a one-size-fits-all credit due to lack
of data.\7\ Ford proposes a methodology that would scale credits based
on the efficiency of the alternator; alternators with efficiency (as
measured using an accepted industry standard procedure) above a
baseline value could get credits from 0.2 to 1.9 grams/mile. Details of
the testing and analysis can be found in the manufacturer's
application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See 77FR 62730, October 15, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Thermal Control Technologies
1. Glass/Glazing
Ford is requesting off-cycle credits for glass/glazing that reduces
the amount of solar energy that is transmitted through the windows. By
doing so, interior cabin temperatures can be reduced, which results in
a reduction in the amount of energy needed to cool the cabin and
maintain passenger comfort. Ford's request is fundamentally identical
to the request submitted by Chrysler in 2013, which EPA subsequently
approved in September of 2015.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``EPA Decision Document: Off-cycle Credits for Fiat Chrysler
Automobiles, Ford Motor Company, and General Motors Corporation.''
Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-420-R-15-014, September 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ford's request is for 2010 and later model year vehicles, whereas
the credits approved for Chrysler were limited to the model years
before 2014 (after which EPA expects that credits would be gained via
the regulatory ``menu'', since the methodology essentially replicates
EPA's methodology and produces similar credit values). Note that the
regulations limit glass/glazing credits to 2.9 grams/mile for cars and
3.9 grams/mile for trucks, and that EPA will require that these caps be
observed for all glass/glazing credits, regardless of the regulatory
pathway by which those credits are claimed or granted. This is also
true for the caps specified for the total credits from thermal control
technologies (3.0 grams/mile for cars and 4.3 grams/mile for trucks).
The technical and engineering reasons for these limits remain
applicable and are not rendered moot because credits are granted
through this public process.
2. Solar Reflective Surface Coating
Ford is requesting off-cycle credits for solar reflective paint.
Like glass, by reducing the heat that is transmitted to the interior,
interior cabin temperatures can be reduced, which results in a
reduction in the amount of energy needed to cool the cabin and maintain
passenger comfort. Ford's request is largely similar to the request
submitted by Chrysler in 2013, which EPA subsequently approved in
September of 2015.\9\ However, there is one significant difference.
Chrysler noted two data points regarding the impact of reflective
paint: A study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) that
determined a cabin air breath temperature reduction of 1.2 degrees C,
and a study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory for the
California Energy Commission that showed a reduction of 5-6 degrees C.
Chrysler's methodology, which EPA approved, used the more conservative
value from the NREL study (as did EPA in our Technical Support Document
to establish the menu values for reflective paint). Chrysler's
methodology, which does not differ substantially from EPA's methodology
outlined in our Technical Support Document, would produce credits of
0.4 grams/mile, comparable to the menu values for a paint with high
reflectivity. Ford provided test data that indicated a cabin air breath
temperature reduction closer to the California Energy Commission study,
and the resulting credits would be up to about 2 grams/mile for the
highest reflectivity paint, or five times the menu credit value
documented in EPA's Technical Support Document. EPA is particularly
interested in comments on Ford's data and methodology for these credits
because of the different inputs used by Ford as well as the data those
inputs are based on and the magnitude of the requested credits compared
to the regulatory menu of credits for this technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ``EPA Decision Document: Off-cycle Credits for Fiat Chrysler
Automobiles, Ford Motor Company, and General Motors Corporation.''
Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-420-R-15-014, September 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ford's request is for 2010 and later model year vehicles, whereas
the credits approved for Chrysler were limited to the model years
before 2014 (after which EPA expects that credits would be gained via
the regulatory ``menu'', since the methodology used by Chrysler
essentially replicated EPA's methodology and produced similar credit
values). Note that the regulations limit the cumulative credits from
thermal control technologies to 3.0 grams/mile for cars and 4.3 grams/
mile for trucks, and that EPA will require that these caps be observed
for all thermal control credits, regardless of the regulatory pathway
by which those credits are claimed or granted. The technical and
engineering reasons for these limits remain applicable (a fact that is
acknowledged by Ford in their application materials) and are not
rendered moot because credits are granted through this public process
instead of through the regulatory menu.
III. EPA Decision Process
EPA has reviewed the applications for completeness and is now
making the applications available for public review and comment as
required by the regulations. The off-cycle credit applications
submitted by BMW, Ford, and Hyundai (with confidential business
information redacted) have been placed in the public docket (see
ADDRESSES section in this preamble) and on EPA's Web site at the
following locations:
BMW: https://www.epa.gov/vehicle-and-engine-certification/bmw-compliance-materials-light-duty-greenhouse-gas-ghg-standards
[[Page 27822]]
Ford: https://www.epa.gov/vehicle-and-engine-certification/ford-compliance-materials-light-duty-greenhouse-gas-ghg-standards
Hyundai: https://www.epa.gov/vehicle-and-engine-certification/hyundai-compliance-materials-light-duty-greenhouse-gas-ghg-standards
EPA is providing a 30-day comment period on the applications for
off-cycle credits described in this action, as specified by the
regulations. The manufacturers may submit a written rebuttal of
comments for EPA's consideration, or may revise an application in
response to comments. After reviewing any public comments and any
rebuttal of comments submitted by manufacturers, EPA will make a final
decision regarding the credit requests. EPA will make its decision
available to the public by placing a decision document (or multiple
decision documents) in the docket and on EPA's Web site at the same
manufacturer-specific pages shown previously. While the broad
methodologies used by these manufacturers could potentially be used for
other vehicles and by other manufacturers, the vehicle specific data
needed to demonstrate the off-cycle emissions reductions would likely
be different. In such cases, a new application would be required,
including an opportunity for public comment.
Dated: May 16, 2017.
Byron J. Bunker,
Director, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air
Quality, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2017-12737 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P