49344 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 190 / Monday, October 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 
new regulatory requirements. It is 
deregulatory in that it proposes to remove required leak repair and maintenance practices and associated recordkeeping for appliances containing non-exempt substitute refrigerant. This document also seeks comments on withdrawal of additional refrigerant management requirements for appliances containing non-exempt substitute refrigerant. We have therefore concluded that this action will relieve regulatory burden for directly regulated small entities. 
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
This action does not contain any 
unfunded mandate as described in 
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. 
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 
This action does not have federalism 
implications. It will not have substantial 
direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. 
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 
and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments 
This action does not have tribal 
implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. 
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 
Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks 
This action is not subject to Executive 
Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866. EPA has not conducted a separate analysis of risks to infants and children associated with this proposed rule. 
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 
This action is not a ‘‘significant 
energy action’’ because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) 
This rulemaking does not involve 
technical standards. 
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal 
Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations 
EPA believes that it is not feasible to 
quantify any disproportionately high and adverse effects from this action on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82 
Environmental protection, Air 
pollution control, Chemicals, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements. 
Dated: September 18, 2018. 
Andrew R. Wheeler, 
Acting Administrator. 
For the reasons set forth in the 
preamble, the Environmental Protection 
Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part 82 as follows: 
PART 82—PROTECTION OF 
STRATOSPHERIC OZONE 
■1. The authority citation for part 82 
continues to read as follows: 
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671– 
7671q. 
■2. Amend § 82.154 by revising 
paragraph (a)(2)(i) to read as follows: 
§ 82.154 Prohibitions. 
(a) * * * 
(2) * * * (i) The applicable practices in 
§ 82.155 and § 82.156 are observed, the 
practices in § 82.157 are observed for appliances that contain a class I or class II refrigerant, recovery and/or recycling machines that meet the requirements in § 82.158 are used whenever refrigerant is removed from an appliance, the technician certification provisions in § 82.161 are observed, and the reclamation requirements in § 82.164 are observed; or 
* * * * * 
■3. Amend § 82.157 by revising 
paragraph (a) to read as follows: 
§ 82.157 Appliance maintenance and leak 
repair. 
(a) Applicability. This section applies 
as of January 1, 2019. This section 
applies only to appliances with a full charge of 50 or more pounds of any class I or class II refrigerant or blend containing a class I or class II refrigerant. Notwithstanding the use of the term refrigerant in this section, the requirements of this section do not apply to appliances containing solely substitute refrigerants. Unless otherwise specified, the requirements of this section apply to the owner or operator of the appliance. 
* * * * * 
[FR Doc. 2018–21084 Filed 9–28–18; 8:45 am] 
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 
AGENCY 
40 CFR Part 86 
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0755; FRL–9984–54– 
OAR] 
RIN 2060–AT75 
Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Program 
Technical Amendments 
AGENCY : Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA). 
ACTION : Proposed rule. 
SUMMARY : EPA is proposing two 
technical corrections to the light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards regulations finalized in the 2012 rulemaking that established standards for model years 2017–2025 light-duty vehicles. First, EPA proposes to correct regulations pertaining to how auto manufacturers must calculate credits for the GHG program’s optional advanced technology incentives. The regulations currently in place result in auto manufacturers receiving fewer credits than the agency intended for electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, fuel cell electric vehicles, and natural gas fueled vehicles. Auto manufacturers requested through a petition letter submitted jointly by the Auto Alliance and Global Automakers in June 2016 that EPA correct the regulations to provide the intended level of credits for these technologies. Second, the regulations regarding how manufacturers must calculate certain types of off-cycle credits contain an error and are inconsistent with the 2012 final rule preamble, raising implementation concerns for some manufacturers. The proposed amendments would clarify the calculation methodology in the regulations. Both of these corrections allow the program to be implemented as originally intended. The proposed corrections are not expected to result in any additional regulatory burdens or costs. 
DATES : 
Comments: Written comments must 
be received on or before October 31, 2018. If EPA receives a request for a 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Sep 28, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01OCP1.SGM 01OCP1amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS149345 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 190 / Monday, October 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 
1‘‘Light-duty vehicle,’’ ‘‘light-duty truck,’’ and 
‘‘medium-duty passenger vehicle’’ are defined in 40 
CFR 86.1803–01. Generally, the term ‘‘light-duty vehicle’’ means a passenger car, the term ‘‘light- duty truck’’ means a pick-up truck, sport-utility vehicle, or minivan of up to 8,500 lbs gross vehicle weight rating, and ‘‘medium-duty passenger vehicle’’ means a sport-utility vehicle or passenger van from 8,500 to 10,000 lbs gross vehicle weight rating. Medium-duty passenger vehicles do not include pick-up trucks. public hearing by October 9, 2018, we 
will publish information related to the timing and location of the hearing and a new deadline for public comment. 
Public Hearing: EPA will not hold a 
public hearing on this matter unless a request is received by the person identified in the 
FOR FURTHER  
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 
preamble by October 9, 2018. If EPA receives such a request, we will publish information related to the timing and location of the hearing and a new deadline for public comment. 
ADDRESSES : Submit your comments, 
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2017–0755, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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 http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : 
Christopher Lieske, Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ), Assessment and Standards Division (ASD), Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: (734) 214–4584; email address: lieske.christopher@epa.gov ; fax number: 
734–214–4816. 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : 
I. General Information 
A. Does this action apply to me? 
This action affects companies that 
manufacture or sell new light-duty 
vehicles, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, as defined under EPA’s CAA regulations.
1 Regulated categories and entities include: 
Category NAICS 
codesA Examples of potentially 
regulated entities 
Industry ...... 336111 
336112 Motor Vehicle Manufactur-
ers. 
Industry ...... 811111 
811112 
811198 
423110 Commercial Importers of 
Vehicles and Vehicle 
Components. 
Industry ...... 335312 
811198 Alternative Fuel Vehicle 
Converters. 
ANorth American Industry Classification System 
(NAICS). 
B. What action is the Agency taking? 
EPA is proposing two technical 
corrections to the light-duty vehicle 
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards regulations finalized in the 2012 rulemaking that established standards for model years 2017–2025 light-duty vehicles. First, EPA proposes to correct an error in the regulations pertaining to how auto manufacturers must calculate credits for the GHG program’s optional advanced technology incentives. The regulations currently in place result in auto manufacturers receiving fewer credits than the agency intended for electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, fuel cell electric vehicles, and natural gas fueled vehicles. Auto manufacturers requested through a petition letter submitted jointly by the Auto Alliance and Global Automakers in June 2016 that EPA correct the regulations to provide the intended level of credits for these technologies. Second, the regulations regarding how manufacturers must calculate certain types of off-cycle credits contain an error and are inconsistent with the 2012 final rule preamble, raising implementation concerns for some manufacturers. The proposed amendments would clarify the calculation methodology in the regulations. Both of these corrections allow the program to be implemented as originally intended. The corrections are described in detail in Section III below. 
C. What is the Agency’s authority for 
taking this action? 
EPA is proposing technical 
amendments to provisions of the light- duty vehicle GHG regulations under section 202 (a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) ((42 U.S.C. 7521 (a)). D. What are the incremental costs and benefits of this action? 
The proposed corrections are not 
expected to result in any significant changes in regulatory burdens, costs, or benefits. 
II. Public Participation A. How do I prepare and submit 
information? 
Direct your submittals to Docket ID 
No EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0755. EPA’s policy is that all submittals received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the submittal includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Do not submit information to the 
docket that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov. The 
www.regulations.gov website is an 
‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your submittal. If you submit an electronic submittal, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your submittal and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 
B. Submitting CBI 
Do not submit this information to EPA 
through www.regulations.gov or email. 
Clearly mark the part or all of the 
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI). In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 
C. Tips for Preparing Your Comments 
When submitting comments, 
remember to: 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Sep 28, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01OCP1.SGM 01OCP1amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS149346 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 190 / Monday, October 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 
277 FR 62812–62816 (October 15, 2012) and 40 
CFR 86.1866–12(b). 
340 CFR 86.1866–12(b)(1). 
440 CFR 86.1866–12(b)(2). 
5‘‘Petition for Direct Final Rule with Regard to 
Various Aspects of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Program and the Greenhouse Gas 
Program,’’ Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Association of Global Automakers, June 20, 2016. 
6See 40 CFR 86.1866–12(b)(3). 7The descriptions of the terms in the above 
equations have been simplified somewhat for 
illustrative purposes compared to the proposed 
regulations. See the proposed language at 40 CFR 86.1866–12(b) for the proposed detailed regulatory provisions. •Identify the action by docket 
number and other identifying 
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number). 
•Explain why you agree or disagree; 
suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. 
•Describe any assumptions and 
provide any technical information and/ or data that you used. 
•If you estimate potential costs or 
burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. 
•Provide specific examples to 
illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. 
•Explain your views as clearly as 
possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. 
•Make sure to submit your 
comments by the comment period deadline identified in the 
DATES section 
above. 
III. Proposed Provisions 
This proposed rule would correct two 
technical provisions in the regulations 
for the model year (MY) 2017–2025 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards. The first correction addresses how manufacturers must apply advanced technology vehicle multipliers during credit calculations in order to ensure that credits are calculated as EPA intended in the 2012 final rule. The second correction addresses how manufacturers must 
calculate off-cycle credits under the program’s 5-cycle credit calculation methodology. EPA views these items as technical amendments that correct and clarify the regulations and are not changes in how the program functions. Therefore, neither of these technical amendments introduce or remove any requirements on automobile manufacturers, nor do these changes impose additional regulatory costs or benefits. We describe each of these changes in the following sections. We note that in the recent ‘‘Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021–2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks’’ issued by EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding GHG and Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for Model Years (MY) 2021 to 2026 (see 83 FR 42986, August 24, 2018), the agencies are broadly seeking comment on various incentives and flexibilities, including the availability and scope of advanced technology multipliers and off-cycle credits for those model years. Today’s proposal would correct the application of advanced technology vehicle multipliers for MYs 2017 through 2021, and an off-cycle credit calculation methodology for MY 2012 and later vehicles. 
A. Clarification of the Advanced 
Technology Multiplier Regulations 
As part of the MY 2017–2025 rule, 
EPA adopted temporary incentive multipliers for battery electric vehicles (BEVs), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), fuel cell vehicles (FCVs), and compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles.
2 
The multipliers allow manufacturers to count these lower CO
2emitting vehicles 
as more than one vehicle in their fleet average compliance calculations. For example, the 2.0 multiplier for MY 2017 BEVs would allow a manufacturer to count every MY 2017 BEV produced as two vehicles produced. The multipliers established in the MY 2017–2025 rule are shown in Tables 1 and 2 below. 
TABLE 1—T HEPRODUCTION MULTI-
PLIERS , BYMODEL YEAR, FORELEC-
TRIC VEHICLES AND FUELCELLVE-
HICLES3 
Model year Production 
multiplier 
2017 .......................................... 2.0 
2018 .......................................... 2.0 
2019 .......................................... 2.0 
2020 .......................................... 1.75 
2021 .......................................... 1.5 TABLE 2—T HEPRODUCTION MULTI-
PLIERS , BYMODEL YEAR, FORPLUG- 
INHYBRID ELECTRIC VEHICLES , 
DEDICATED NATURAL GASVEHI-
CLES , AND DUAL-FUEL NATURAL  
GASVEHICLES4 
Model year Production 
multiplier 
2017 .......................................... 1.6 
2018 .......................................... 1.6 
2019 .......................................... 1.6 
2020 .......................................... 1.45 
2021 .......................................... 1.3 
EPA and NHTSA received a joint 
petition from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Association of Global Automakers on June 20, 2016 regarding various aspects of the CAFE and GHG programs.
5Item 
8 of the petition, titled ‘‘Correct the Multiplier for BEVs, PHEVs, FCVs, and CNGs,’’ correctly notes that ‘‘the equation through which the number of earned credits is calculated is inaccurately stated in the regulations’’ and that credits would be inadvertently lost due to the error. EPA is proposing to modify the regulations so that the credits are calculated correctly in all cases. The calculations are done separately for the passenger car and light truck fleets. These advanced vehicle technology multipliers do not apply to the NHTSA CAFE program. 
The current regulations regarding the 
application of the multipliers state that ‘‘[T]the actual production of qualifying vehicles may be multiplied by the applicable value according to the model year, and the result, rounded to the nearest whole number, may be used to represent the production of qualifying vehicles when calculating average carbon-related exhaust emissions under § 600.512 of this chapter.’’
6The 
following shows the application of this regulatory text in equation form:
7 
CO 2Credits = (S¥E adj) × VLM × P ÷ 
1,000,000 [Megagrams] 
Where: 
S = Production weighted fleet average 
standard Eadj= Production weighted fleet average 
carbon related exhaust emissions (CREE) 
with the multiplier(s) applied to the advanced technology production in the CREE average value calculation 
VLM = Vehicle lifetime miles (195,264 for 
cars and 225,865 for light trucks) 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Sep 28, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01OCP1.SGM 01OCP1
EP01OC18.005</GPH>amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS149347 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 190 / Monday, October 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 
8Vehicle and fleet average compliance is based 
on a combination of CO 2, hydrocarbon (HC), and 
carbon monoxide (CO) emissions. This is consistent with the carbon balance methodology used to 
determine fuel consumption for the labeling and CAFE programs. The GHG regulations account for these total carbon emissions appropriately and refer to the sum of these emissions as the ‘‘carbon related exhaust emissions’’ (CREE). P = Annual total vehicle production (for 
either cars or light trucks) 
Target = Model type footprint target 
Volume = Model type vehicle production Volume
adj= Model type vehicle production 
with multiplier(s) applied to advanced technology vehicle production 
Under the current regulations at 40 
CFR 86.1865–12(k)(4), the multiplier for advanced technology production is applied by modifying the way the CREE
8(Eadjin the equation above) is 
calculated. The petitioners noted that applying the multiplier only to E
adjdoes 
not produce the intended credit. The 
petitioners provided an example of the incorrect calculation for a manufacturer producing 5,000 battery electric vehicles (BEVs), which have a CREE of zero, showing that such a manufacturer 
would not receive any additional credits from the multiplier because the E
adjterm 
would remain zero (regardless of the multiplier or how many vehicles were produced) and the fleet average standard term (i.e., the footprint-based 
standard) remains unchanged because the multiplier does not affect the fleet average standard calculation. 
Example 1 below shows the 
calculation of credits without the multiplier and Example 1a shows the 
calculation with the incorrect application of the multiplier using the 5,000 BEV example, assuming a footprint-based standard of 210 g/mile and a multiplier of 2.0. Example 1a: Calculation of Credits 
Without the Multiplier 
CO
2Credits = (210¥0) × 195,264 × 
5,000 ÷ 1,000,000 = 205,027 
Megagrams 
Example 1b: Incorrect Application of 
the Multiplier Under Current Regulations 
CO
2Credits = (210¥0) × 195,264 × 
5,000 ÷ 1,000,000 = 205,027 
Megagrams 
Where the production weighted fleet 
average carbon related exhaust emissions, or E
adj, with the multiplier 
applied is calculated as follows: 
In order for the calculation to produce 
the correct result, the multiplier must be 
applied not only to the advanced technology vehicle production in the CREE average value, E
adj, calculation but also to the advanced technology vehicle production in the average standard calculation and the advanced technology vehicle production portions of the total production. The calculation of credits in megagrams with the 
multiplier correctly applied is represented by the following equations: 
Where: 
Sadj= Production weighted fleet average 
standard with the multiplier(s) applied 
to the advanced technology vehicle production in the footprint target calculation 
E
adj= Production weighted fleet average 
CREE with the multiplier(s) applied to the advanced technology production in the CREE value calculation 
VLM = Vehicle lifetime miles (195,264 for 
cars and 225,865 for light trucks) 
P
adj= Annual vehicle production with the 
multiplier(s) applied to the advanced 
technology vehicle production 
Target = Model type footprint target Volume
adj= Model type vehicle production 
with multiplier(s) applied to advanced technology vehicle production 
Using the corrected methodology, 
manufacturers would determine the 
additional credits associated with using the multiplier(s) by calculating fleet 
credits with and without the multiplier applied (the credits without the multiplier applied are shown below as term C). The credits calculated without the multiplier would be subtracted from the credits calculated with the multiplier with the difference reflecting the additional credits attributable to the multiplier. 
Credits due to multiplier = (S
adj¥E adj) × 
VLM × Padj÷ 1,000,000 ¥ C 
[Megagrams] 
Applying the above corrected 
equation to Example 1 produces the 
expected credits due to the multiplier. As shown using Example 1 from above, the correct application of the 2.0 multiplier doubles the resulting credit in this example, which is what EPA intended and manufacturers expected 
when the program was finalized. 
Example 1a: Calculation of Credits 
Without the Multiplier 
CO
2Credits(C) = (210¥0) × 195,264 × 
5,000 ÷ 1,000,000 = 205,027 
Megagrams 
Example 1c: Correct Application of the 
Multiplier 
CO 2CreditsM = (210¥0) × 195,264 × 
(5,000 × 2.0) ÷ 1,000,000 = 410,054 
Megagrams 
Where the production weighted fleet 
average standard and fleet average 
carbon related exhaust emissions, or CREEavg, are calculated with the multiplier as follows: 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Sep 28, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01OCP1.SGM 01OCP1
EP01OC18.006</GPH> EP01OC18.007</GPH>amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS149348 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 190 / Monday, October 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 
And finally, the credits due to 
application of the multiplier are: 
Credits due to multiplier = 
410,054¥205,027 = 205,027 Example 2 below provides an example 
calculation for a fleet that consists of both conventional and advanced technology vehicles. The example consists of a fleet mix of two conventional vehicle models, one plug- in hybrid electric (PHEV) model, and one battery electric vehicle (BEV) model, where the PHEV multiplier is 1.6 and the EV multiplier is 2.0. 
TABLE 3—E XAMPLE 2 FLEET MIX 
Vehicle model Production Footprint 
target 
(CO 2g/mi) CREE 
(CO 2g/mi) Multiplier 
Conventional 1 ................................................................................................. 10,000 300 320 N /A 
Conventional 2 ................................................................................................. 8,000 210 210 N/A 
PHEV ............................................................................................................... 5,000 210 50  1.6 
BEV .................................................................................................................. 5,000 210 0 2.0 
Total .......................................................................................................... 28,000 ........................ ........................ ........................
Example 2a: Calculation of Credits for Mixed Fleet With No Multiplier 
CO
2Credits(C) = (242¥183) × 195,264 × 
28,000 ÷ 1,000,000 = 322,576 
Megagrams Where the production weighted fleet 
average standard (S) and fleet average 
CREE (E) terms are calculated as follows: 
Example 2b: Incorrect Application of 
the Multiplier Under Current Regulations 
CO
2Credits = (242¥147) × 195,264 × 
28,000 ÷ 1,000,000 = 519,402 
Megagrams Where the production weighted fleet 
average Standard (S) and adjusted CREE with the multiplier applied (E
adj) are 
calculated as follows: 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Sep 28, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\01OCP1.SGM 01OCP1
EP01OC18.008</GPH> EP01OC18.009</GPH> EP01OC18.010</GPH>amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS149349 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 190 / Monday, October 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 
975 FR 25438–25440 (May 7, 2010) and 75 FR 
25697–25698. 
1077 FR 62726–62738, 77 FR 62832–62840, and 
40 CFR 86.1869–12. 
11The 5-cycle methodology is currently used to 
determine fuel economy label values. EPA 
established the 5-cycle test methods to better represent real-world factors impacting fuel economy, including higher speeds and more aggressive driving, colder temperature operation, and the use of air conditioning. 
1277 FR 62837. 
1375 FR 25698. Example 2c: Calculation of Credits for 
Mixed Fleet Using Corrected Multiplier Methodology 
CO
2Credits with multipler = (235¥147) 
× 195,264 × 36,000 ÷ 1,000,000 = 
618,596 Megagrams Where the production weighted fleet 
average S adjand E adjterms and the P adj 
terms, are calculated using the 
multiplier as follows: 
Padj= 10,000 + 8,000 + (5,000 × 1.6) + 
(5,000 × 2.0) = 36,000 
Under the proposed regulations, 
manufacturers would use the above 
approach to calculate Megagrams of credits with and without the multipliers applied and report the difference to EPA as the credits attributed to the use of the advanced technology multipliers. In the above Example 2, the credits attributable to the multipliers are 618,596¥322,576 = 296,020. The previously established incorrect methodology, which applies the multiplier only to the CREE term, would provide fewer credits (519,402¥322,576 = 196,826 Mg) for this example. 
The descriptions of the terms in the 
above equations have been simplified somewhat for illustrative purposes compared to the proposed regulations. See the proposed language at 40 CFR 86.1866–12(b) for the proposed detailed regulatory provisions. Previously, § 86.1866–12(b)(3) simply modified the CREE term in the equation in § 86.1865– 12(k)(4) to incorporate the multiplier. Now, since the multiplier should have been applied as discussed above, EPA proposes to revise the regulations to add additional steps to the calculation process. First, manufacturers would use the new equation to calculate the total number of credits generated with multipliers included. Then, manufacturers would subtract from that calculation the credits calculated without the multipliers applied, using the equation that already exists in § 86.1865–12(k)(4). The result provides the credit attributable to the multipliers to be reported to EPA as part of the credits portion of the year end compliance report. 
The advanced technology multiplier 
incentive is available starting with the 2017 model year. Manufacturers are required to report all credit information by May 1 of the year following the end of the model year, which, for model year 2017, is May 1, 2018. EPA recognizes that the timing of this rulemaking precludes the ability to finalize the multiplier-based credits by the deadline, and, given this, the submissions made by manufacturers on or before May 1, 2018 will be evaluated using the current incorrect multiplier. For the 2017 model year reporting, EPA has asked that manufacturers enter all their test data as they normally would (which needs to be done for CAFE calculations anyway), and that reports be submitted on time, with fleet credits calculated from the values as determined by EPA’s current regulatory calculation. After the regulations proposed today are finalized, EPA will allow manufacturers to request through EPA’s online system, used by manufacturers to submit data to EPA for vehicle emissions certification and compliance purposes, that the EPA system recalculate the manufacturer’s fleet performance based on the corrected values. EPA does not expect this to be burdensome, as the necessary data for the recalculation will have previously been submitted electronically by the manufacturer. 
B. Off-Cycle Credit Calculations Based 
On the 5-Cycle Methodology 
EPA’s GHG emissions standards allow 
manufacturers to generate credits toward compliance through the application of off-cycle technologies. In model years 2017 and later, fuel economy off-cycle credits equivalent to EPA CO
2credits are also available in the 
CAFE program. Off-cycle technologies are those that result in real-world emissions reductions that are not fully captured on the 2-cycle emissions tests used for compliance with the GHG standards (i.e., the city and highway test 
cycles). EPA originally adopted the off- cycle credits program as part of the rulemaking establishing the MY 2012– 2016 standards.
9EPA later modified the 
off-cycle program in the MY 2017–2025 final rule.
10One of the methodologies 
for manufacturers to demonstrate off- cycle emissions reductions is by conducting 5-cycle testing
11with and 
without the off-cycle technology applied (i.e., A/B testing).
12The original 
program did not allow off-cycle credits for technologies that showed significant benefits on the 2-cycle segment of the 5- cycle test. The regulations established by the MY 2012–2016 rule stated that the ‘‘CO
2-reducing impact of the 
technology must not be significantly measurable over the Federal Test Procedure and the Highway Fuel Economy Test.’’
13As such, the 
regulations did not require manufacturers to subtract 2-cycle reductions from the 5-cycle benefits when deriving the off-cycle credit because the 2-cycle benefit would necessarily be negligible. 
The program as revised by the MY 
2017–2025 rule allows for the possibility that some qualifying technologies could have a small 2-cycle benefit but a larger off-cycle benefit. The 2012 rule stated ‘‘EPA is removing the ‘‘not significantly measurable over the 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Sep 28, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01OCP1.SGM 01OCP1
EP01OC18.011</GPH>amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS149350 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 190 / Monday, October 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 
1477 FR 62835. 
1577 FR 62832. 
1676 FR 74942 (December 1, 2011) & 77 FR 
62726. 
1777 FR 62650 and 77 FR 62836. 
18Joint Technical Support Document: Final 
Rulemaking for 2017–2025 Light-Duty Vehicle 
Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, August 2012, EPA–420–R–12–901 pp. 5–65 and 5–82. 
1977 FR 62836. 2-cycle test’’ criteria’’ allowing for 
credits for qualifying off-cycle technologies ‘‘providing small reductions on the 2-cycle tests but additional significant reductions off- cycle.’’
14EPA stated ‘‘[t]he intent of the 
off-cycle provisions is to provide an incentive for CO
2and fuel consumption 
reducing off-cycle technologies that would otherwise not be developed because they do not offer a significant 2- cycle benefit and that the program would ‘‘encourage innovative strategies for reducing CO
2emissions beyond 
those measured by the 2-cycle test procedures.’’
15It is plain from the 
proposed and final rules that the revised off-cycle credit program was intended to 
provide credits for the incremental benefit of the off-cycle technology that was not captured on the 2-cycle test. For example, EPA provided extensive discussion of how it developed the standards based on its evaluation of various technologies and their effectiveness as demonstrated on the 2- cycle test.
16EPA further stated that the 
off-cycle credits were intended to recognize GHG reductions in excess of the benefits already reflected in the standards.
17For the menu credits for 
waste heat recovery and active aerodynamics, for example, EPA derived the credits by estimating the 5- cycle benefit and then subtracting out the 2-cycle benefit.
18 
However, EPA inadvertently did not 
make the associated change in the regulations to require that the 2-cycle benefit be subtracted from the 5-cycle benefit for those off-cycle credits which are based on a manufacturer-specific 5- cycle technology demonstration. This could lead to double counting of the 2- cycle benefit of the technology, which is also included in the 2-cycle tailpipe emissions results of the vehicle used to determine compliance with the standards. EPA made clear in the final rule that such ‘‘windfall credits’’ would be inappropriate.
19This issue has been 
raised by manufacturers seeking clarification from the agency. EPA is addressing this oversight and the potential double-counting issue by proposing to change the regulations such that the 2-cycle benefit is subtracted from the 5-cycle benefit of the off-cycle technology. EPA is proposing to add to the regulations the equation below to ensure that credits derived from the 5-cycle methodology are calculated properly. See the proposed regulatory language in 40 CFR 86.1869–12(c) for the complete proposed regulatory text. 
Under the proposed regulatory 
correction, manufacturers would calculate the off-cycle credit in grams per mile using the following formula, rounding the result to the nearest 0.1 grams/mile: 
Credit = (A¥B)¥(C¥D) 
Where: 
Credit = the off-cycle benefit of the 
technology or technologies being 
evaluated, subject to EPA approval 
A = the 5-cycle adjusted combined city/ 
highway carbon-related exhaust emission value for the vehicle without the off-cycle technology; 
B = 5-cycle adjusted combined city/highway 
carbon-related exhaust emission value for the vehicle with the off-cycle technology; 
C = 2-cycle unadjusted combined city/ 
highway carbon-related exhaust emissions value for the vehicle without the off-cycle technology; and 
D = 2-cycle unadjusted combined city/ 
highway carbon-related exhaust emissions value for the vehicle with the off-cycle technology. 
IV. Statutory and Executive Order 
Reviews 
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 
Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review 
This action is a significant regulatory 
action that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This action is a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ because it raises policy issues. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket. 
This proposed rule merely clarifies 
and corrects existing regulatory language. EPA does not believe there will not be costs associated with this rule. Also, this proposed rule is not anticipated to create additional burdens to the existing requirements. As such, a regulatory impact evaluation or analysis is unnecessary. 
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing 
Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs 
This action is not expected to be 
subject to Executive Order 13771 because this proposed rule merely clarifies and corrects existing regulatory language and is not expected to result in costs or additional burdens. C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 
This proposed action would not 
impose any new information collection 
burden under the PRA, since it merely clarifies and corrects existing regulatory language. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number of 2060–0104. 
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 
I certify that this proposed action 
would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This proposed rule merely clarifies and corrects existing regulatory language. We therefore anticipate no costs and therefore no regulatory burden associated with this proposed rule. Further, small entities are generally exempt from the light-duty vehicles greenhouse gas standards unless the small entity voluntarily opts into the program. See 40 CFR 86.1801–12(j). We have therefore concluded that this 
proposed action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities. 
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
(UMRA) 
This proposed action does not contain 
any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The proposed action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments. Requirements for the private sector do not exceed $100 million in any one year. 
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 
This proposed action does not have 
federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. 
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 
and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments 
This proposed action does not have 
tribal implications as specified in 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Sep 28, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01OCP1.SGM 01OCP1amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS149351 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 190 / Monday, October 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 
Executive Order 13175. This rule only 
corrects and clarifies regulatory provisions that apply to light-duty vehicle manufacturers. Tribal governments would be affected only to the extent they purchase and use regulated vehicles. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. 
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 
Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks 
This proposed action is not subject to 
Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This proposed rule merely corrects and clarifies previously established regulatory provisions. 
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use 
This proposed action is not subject to 
Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. 
J. National Technology Transfer and 
Advancement Act (NTTAA) 
Section 12(d) of the National 
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs agencies to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable 
voluntary consensus standards. 
This proposed action modifies 
existing regulations to correct errors in the regulations and therefore involves technical standards previously established by EPA. The amendments to the regulations do not involve the application of new technical standards. EPA is continuing to use the technical standards previously established in its rules regarding the light-duty vehicle GHG standards for MYs 2017–2025. See 77 FR 62960. K. Executive Order 12898: Federal 
Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations 
The EPA believes that this action is 
not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an environmental health or safety standard. This proposed regulatory action makes technical corrections to a previously established regulatory action and as such does not have any impact on human health or the environment. 
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 86 
Administrative practice and 
procedure, Confidential business 
information, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 
Dated: September 18, 2018. 
Andrew R. Wheeler, 
Acting Administrator. 
For the reasons set forth in the 
preamble, the Environmental Protection 
Agency is proposing to amend part 86 of title 40, Chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: 
PART 86—CONTROL OF EMISSIONS 
FROM NEW AND IN-USE HIGHWAY VEHICLES AND ENGINES 
■1. The authority citation for part 86 
continues to read as follows: 
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. 
■2. Section 86.1865–12 is amended by 
redesignating paragraph (k)(5)(v) as paragraph (k)(5)(vi) and by adding paragraph (k)(5)(v), to read as follows: 
§ 86.1865–12 How to comply with the fleet 
average CO 2standards. 
* * * * * 
(k) * * * 
(5) * * * (v) Advanced technology vehicle 
credits earned according to the 
provisions of § 86.1866–12(b)(3). 
* * * * * 
■3. Section 86.1866–12 is amended by 
revising paragraphs (b) introductory text 
and (b)(3) to read as follows: 
§ 86.1866–12 CO 2credits for advanced 
technology vehicles. 
* * * * * 
(b) For electric vehicles, plug-in 
hybrid electric vehicles, fuel cell vehicles, dedicated natural gas vehicles, and dual-fuel natural gas vehicles as those terms are defined in § 86.1803–01, that are certified and produced for U.S. sale in the 2017 through 2021 model years and that meet the additional specifications in this section, the manufacturer may use the production multipliers in this paragraph (b) to determine additional credits for advanced technology vehicles. Full size pickup trucks eligible for and using a production multiplier are not eligible for the performance-based credits described in § 86.1870–12(b). 
* * * * * 
(3) Calculate credits for advanced 
technology vehicles for a given model 
year, and separately for passenger automobiles and light trucks, using the following equation. No credits are earned if the result is a negative value. 
Credits due to the multiplier = 
((S
adj¥E adj) × Padj× VLM ÷ 
1,000,000)¥C 
Where: 
Sadj= adjusted CO 2standard calculated 
according to the method described in § 86.1818–12(c) or (d) and rounded to the nearest whole number. For the purpose of this calculation, the actual production of qualifying vehicles under this section must be multiplied by the applicable production multiplier, and the result shall be rounded to the nearest whole number. 
E
adj= adjusted production-weighted fleet 
average carbon-related exhaust emissions calculated according to the method described in § 600.510–12(j) and rounded to the nearest whole number. For the purpose of this calculation, the actual production of qualifying vehicles under this section must be multiplied by the applicable production multiplier, and the result shall be rounded to the nearest whole number. 
P
adj= total adjusted production of passenger 
automobiles or light trucks, where the actual production of qualifying vehicles under this section must be multiplied by the applicable production multiplier and the result shall be rounded to the nearest whole number. 
VLM = vehicle lifetime miles, which for 
passenger automobiles shall be 195,264 and for light trucks shall be 225,865; and 
C = The credits calculated according to 
§ 86.1865–12(k)(4), without use of multipliers, in whole megagrams. 
■4. Section 86.1869–12 is amended by 
revising paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) 
to read as follows: 
§ 86.1869–12 CO 2credits for off-cycle 
CO 2-reducing technologies. 
* * * * * 
(c) * * * 
(1) Testing without the off-cycle 
technology installed and/or operating. 
(i) Determine carbon-related exhaust 
emissions over the FTP, the HFET, the 
US06, the SC03, and the cold temperature FTP test procedures according to the test procedure provisions specified in 40 CFR part 600 subpart B and using the calculation procedures specified in § 600.113–12 of this chapter. Run each of these tests a 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Sep 28, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01OCP1.SGM 01OCP1amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS149352 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 190 / Monday, October 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 
minimum of three times without the off- 
cycle technology installed and operating and average the per phase (bag) results for each test procedure. 
(ii) Calculate the FTP and HFET 
carbon-related exhaust emissions from the FTP and HFET averaged per phase results. 
(iii) Calculate the combined city/ 
highway carbon-related exhaust emission value from the FTP and HFET values determined in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, where the FTP value is weighted 55% and the HFET value is weighted 45%. The resulting value is the 2-cycle unadjusted combined city/ highway carbon-related exhaust emissions value for the vehicle without the off-cycle technology. 
(iv) Calculate the 5-cycle weighted 
city/highway combined carbon-related exhaust emissions from the averaged per phase results, where the 5-cycle city value is weighted 55% and the 5-cycle highway value is weighted 45%. The resulting value is the 5-cycle adjusted combined city/highway carbon-related exhaust emission value for the vehicle without the off-cycle technology. 
(2) Testing with the off-cycle 
technology installed and/or operating. 
(i) Determine carbon-related exhaust 
emissions over the FTP, the HFET, the 
US06, the SC03, and the cold temperature FTP test procedures according to the test procedure provisions specified in 40 CFR part 600 subpart B and using the calculation procedures specified in § 600.113–12 of this chapter. Run each of these tests a minimum of three times with the off- cycle technology installed and operating and average the per phase (bag) results for each test procedure. 
(ii) Calculate the FTP and HFET 
carbon-related exhaust emissions from the FTP and HFET averaged per phase results. 
(iii) Calculate the combined city/ 
highway carbon-related exhaust emission value from the FTP and HFET values determined in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section, where the FTP value is weighted 55% and the HFET value is weighted 45%. The resulting value is the 2-cycle unadjusted combined city/ highway carbon-related exhaust emissions value for the vehicle with the off-cycle technology. 
(iv) Calculate the 5-cycle weighted 
city/highway combined carbon-related exhaust emissions from the averaged per phase results, where the 5-cycle city value is weighted 55% and the 5-cycle highway value is weighted 45%. The resulting value is the 5-cycle adjusted combined city/highway carbon-related exhaust emission value for the vehicle with the off-cycle technology. 
(3) Calculate the off-cycle credit in 
grams per mile using the following formula, rounding the result to the nearest 0.1 grams/mile: 
Credit = (A¥B)¥(C¥D) 
Where: 
Credit = the off-cycle benefit of the 
technology or technologies being 
evaluated, subject to EPA approval 
A = the 5-cycle adjusted combined city/ 
highway carbon-related exhaust emission value for the vehicle without the off-cycle technology calculated in paragraph (c)(1)(iv) of this section; 
B = 5-cycle adjusted combined city/highway 
carbon-related exhaust emission value 
for the vehicle with the off-cycle technology calculated in paragraph (c)(2)(iv) of this section; 
C = 2-cycle unadjusted combined city/ 
highway carbon-related exhaust emissions value for the vehicle without the off-cycle technology calculated in paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section; and 
D = 2-cycle unadjusted combined city/ 
highway carbon-related exhaust emissions value for the vehicle with the off-cycle technology calculated in paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section. 
* * * * * 
[FR Doc. 2018–21195 Filed 9–28–18; 8:45 am] 
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Sep 28, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\01OCP1.SGM 01OCP1amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1