Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 1, 2013 / Notices 60275 

1On November 16, 2011, DOE’s Acting General 

Counsel delegated to Western’s Administrator all 

the authorities of the General Counsel respecting 

environmental impact statements. 

ROW could not be expanded to ensure 

adequate clearances and access. 

Mitigation Measures 

Practicable methods to avoid or 

minimize environmental impacts from 

the selected alternative are adopted in 

this Record of Decision. Western’s 

standard practices and project-specific 

protection measures, listed in the Final 

EIS, will be implemented. Many of the 

protection measures will be 

implemented through design and the 

project construction contract. A 

Mitigation Action Plan will be prepared 

that includes protective measures that 

will be implemented during design, 

construction, and routine maintenance 

or Forest Service agreements. 

Comments on Final EIS 

Western received two comment letters 

on the Final EIS. Colorado Parks and 

Wildlife submitted a letter reiterating 

their preference to keep the project on 

the existing ROW and further from the 

sage grouse lek, and requesting that 

Western ensure that wildlife resource 

protection measures be implemented. 

The Final EIS responded to these 

comments and described protective 

measures for wildlife. The 

Environmental Protection Agency 

commented that it was unclear whether 

new sources of power would be needed 

for the project. No new sources of power 

would be needed for the project. The 

resource mix would not be modified for 

the project. Other comments on the 

Final EIS included email comments 

stating a preference for undergrounding 

and requesting additional information 

on the construction schedule. 

Decision 

Western’s decision is to construct the 

project along the preferred alternative 

described in the Final EIS.1 This 

satisfies Western’s statutory mission 

while minimizing harm to the 

environment. This decision is based on 

the information in the Final EIS. This 

Record of Decision was prepared 

according to the requirements of the 

Council on Environmental Quality’s 

regulations for implementing NEPA (40 

CFR parts 1500–1508) and DOE’s 

procedures for implementing NEPA (10 

CFR part 1021). 

Dated: September 23, 2013. 

Mark A. Gabriel, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2013–23988 Filed 9–30–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9901–57–OAR] 

Alternative Method for Calculating OffCycle Credits for Mercedes-Benz 

Vehicles Under the Light-Duty 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In the light-duty vehicle 

greenhouse gas rule for model year 2012 

through 2016 vehicles, EPA established 

a program to allow automobile 

manufacturers to generate ‘‘off-cycle’’ 

carbon dioxide (CO2) credits by 

employing technologies that achieve 

CO2 reductions in the real world but are 

not appropriately captured on the test 

procedures used by manufacturers to 

demonstrate compliance with the CO2

standards. Under one of the program 

options, a manufacturer may develop 

and submit to EPA for approval an 

alternative demonstration methodology 

justifying eligibility for off-cycle credits 

and their amount. The regulations 

concerning off-cycle credits require an 

opportunity for public comment as part 

of EPA’s review of such an alternative 

methodology. EPA is requesting 

comment on an alternative methodology 

submitted by Mercedes-Benz for 

determining off-cycle credits for the 

following technologies: engine stopstart, high efficiency exterior lighting, 

infrared glazing, and active seat 

ventilation. The application is only for 

off-cycle credits for Mercedes-Benz 

vehicles for the 2012 through 2016 

model years. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 31, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2013–0643, by one of the 

following methods: 

• On-Line at http://

www.regulations.gov: Follow the OnLine Instructions for Submitting 

Comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–1741. 

• Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0643, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. Please include a total of two 

copies. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

Public Reading Room, EPA West 

Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

On-Line Instructions for Submitting 

Comments: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0643. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. 

The http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site 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 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through http://www.regulations.gov, 

your email address will automatically 

be captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. 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. 

Materials relevant to this proceeding 

are contained in the Air and Radiation 

Docket and Information Center, 

maintained in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2013–0643. Publicly available 

docket materials are available either 

electronically through http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA 

Headquarters Library, EPA West 

Building, Room 3334, located at 1301 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

to the public on all federal government 

work days from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; 

generally, it is open Monday through 

Friday, excluding holidays. The 

telephone number for the Reading Room 

is (202) 566–1744. The Air and 

Radiation Docket and Information 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
60276 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 1, 2013 / Notices 

1 75 FR 25438–25440, May 7, 2010. 

2 77 FR 62832–62839, October 15, 2012. 

3 40 CFR 86.1869–12(c). 

4 40 CFR 86.1869–12(c). 

5 40 CFR 86.1869–12(d). 

6 40 CFR 86.1869–12(d) and (e). 

7 40 CFR 86.1869–12(d)(2). 

8 40 CFR 86.1869–12(a). 

Center’s Web site is http://www.epa.gov/ 

oar/docket.html. The electronic mail 

(email) address for the Air and 

Radiation Docket is: a-and-r-docket@

epa.gov, the telephone number is (202) 

566–1742, and the fax number is (202) 

566–9744. An electronic version of the 

public docket is available through the 

federal government’s electronic public 

docket and comment system. You may 

access EPA dockets at http://

www.regulations.gov. After opening the 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site, 

enter EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0643 in the 

‘‘Enter Keyword or ID’’ fill-in box to 

view documents in the record. Although 

a part of the official docket, the public 

docket does not include Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

EPA will keep the record open until 

October 31, 2013. All information will 

be available for inspection at the EPA 

Air Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0643. Persons with comments 

containing proprietary information must 

distinguish such information from other 

comments to the greatest extent possible 

and label it as ‘‘Confidential Business 

Information’’ (‘‘CBI’’). If a person 

making comments wants EPA to base its 

decision on a submission labeled as CBI, 

then a non-confidential version of the 

document that summarizes the key data 

or information should be submitted to 

the public docket. To ensure that 

proprietary information is not 

inadvertently placed in the public 

docket, submissions containing such 

information should be sent directly to 

the contact person listed below and not 

to the public docket. Information 

covered by a claim of confidentiality 

will be disclosed by EPA only to the 

extent allowed, and according to the 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

If no claim of confidentiality 

accompanies the submission when EPA 

receives it, EPA will make it available 

to the public without further notice to 

the person making comments. 

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 

In the model year (MY) 2012–2016 

light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas (GHG) 

rule, EPA established an option for 

manufacturers to generate credits by 

employing technologies that achieve 

carbon dioxide (CO2) reductions in the 

real world but are not captured on the 

2-cycle test procedures used to 

determine compliance with the fleet 

average standards (i.e., ‘‘off-cycle’’ 

credits). EPA adopted the off-cycle 

credit option to encourage the 

introduction of these types of 

technologies, believing that off-cycle 

CO2 reductions should be considered in 

determining a manufacturer’s fleet 

average, and that a credit mechanism is 

an effective way to achieve this. 

The MY 2012–2016 rule provided two 

ways for manufacturers to demonstrate 

the off-cycle emissions reduction 

capabilities of a technology and generate 

off-cycle credits, either through 5-cycle 

testing (which captures elements of realworld driving not captured by the 2- 

cycle compliance tests, including high 

speeds, rapid accelerations, and cold 

temperature operation) or an alternative 

demonstration methodology developed 

by the manufacturer and approved by 

EPA.1 The MY 2017–2025 light-duty 

GHG rule streamlined the off-cycle 

credits program and provided a third 

pathway for credits, a pre-determined 

credits list that may be used beginning 

in MY 2014.2

The first pathway for a manufacturer 

to demonstrate off-cycle technology is to 

conduct 5-cycle emissions testing with 

and without the technology applied to 

the vehicle.3 If the off-cycle emissions 

benefit of the technology is able to be 

adequately captured through 5-cycle 

testing, the manufacturer must conduct 

testing per the regulations, and submit 

the data to EPA.4 This methodology was 

proposed in detail in the rulemakings, 

which included an opportunity for 

public comment, and therefore 

manufacturers’ applications for credits 

using the 5-cycle process do not 

undergo additional public review. 

The second pathway allows 

manufacturers to demonstrate off-cycle 

emissions reduction technology using 

an alternative methodology developed 

by the manufacturer in cases where the 

real world benefit of the technology 

cannot be adequately demonstrated 

using the 5-cycle test procedures.5 The 

regulations regarding the alternative 

methodology, excerpted below, specify 

the data and information needed to 

support a manufacturer’s off-cycle credit 

application.6 The alternative 

methodology must be approved by EPA 

prior to the manufacturer generating 

credits. Also, as part of the EPA review, 

the alternative methodology must be 

made available for public comment.7

EPA will consider public comments as 

part of its final decision to approve or 

deny the credit request. 

The regulations for the alternative 

methodology provided at 40 CFR 

86.1869–12(d)(1)(i)–(iv) specify that the 

alternative demonstration program must 

be approved in advance by the 

Administrator and should be based on 

modeling, on-road testing, on-road data 

collection, or other approved analytical 

or engineering methods, and should be 

robust, verifiable, and capable of 

demonstrating the real-world emissions 

benefit of the technology with strong 

statistical significance. Further, the 

alternative program should result in a 

demonstration of baseline and 

controlled emissions over a wide range 

of driving conditions and vehicles in 

order to minimize issues of data 

uncertainty. Additionally, the 

regulations at 40 CFR 86.1869– 

12(e)(1)(ii)–(iii) and (e)(2)(i)–(iv) provide 

specificity regarding the data and 

information that must be submitted to 

EPA as part of an application for credits 

using an alternative demonstration 

methodology. 

As noted above, as part of the MY 

2017–2025 rule, EPA adopted a list of 

pre-approved off-cycle technologies and 

credits that manufacturers can use 

beginning in MY 2014.8 This third 

option was included in the MY 2017– 

2025 rule because certain types of offcycle credits are amenable to 

quantification without further 

demonstration, and EPA’s specification 

of these credits therefore significantly 

streamlines the off-cycle credits 

program and reduces the testing and 

data burden that the program otherwise 

entails. Manufacturers using the preapproved list only need to provide EPA 

at the time of certification with 

information demonstrating that their 

technology meets applicable definitions 

and qualifies for credits. There are no 

testing or other requirements for 

demonstrating emissions reductions. 

Manufacturers may however use the 5- 

cycle or alternative methodology 

pathways in MY 2014 and later to 

demonstrate that their technology 

achieves greater off-cycle emissions 

reductions than are provided by the predefined list. Also, manufacturers would 

need to use the 5-cycle or alternative 

methodology pathways to demonstrate 

eligibility for credits for technologies 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 1, 2013 / Notices 60277 

9 § 86.1869–12(e)(3). 

10 Joint Technical Support Document: Final 

Rulemaking for 2017–2025 Light-duty Vehicle 

Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for Corporate 

Average Fuel Economy Standards, United States 

Environmental Protection Agency and National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, August 

2012, EPA–420–R–12–901. 

11MY2017–2025 Technical Support Document, 

Chapter 5, Section 5.2.8.1. 

12Of these states, only California is a major 

market for Mercedes-Benz. 

that are not on the list, as well as the 

extent of the credits. 

Mercedes-Benz is applying for credits 

for model years prior to MY 2014 and 

for credits in excess of the credits on the 

pre-approved list. The technologies 

cannot be adequately demonstrated over 

the 5-cycle test and therefore MercedesBenz has applied for credits under the 

alternative methodology approach 

discussed above. 

II. Mercedes-Benz Off-Cycle Credit 

Application and Alternative 

Methodology 

Mercedes-Benz has applied for offcycle credits using the alternative 

demonstration methodology pathway 

for the following technologies: engine 

stop-start, high efficiency exterior 

lighting, infrared glazing, and active seat 

ventilation. The application covers MY 

2012–2016 vehicles. EPA has reviewed 

the application for completeness and is 

now making the application available 

for public review and comment per the 

regulations.9 The Mercedes-Benz offcycle credit application with 

confidential business information 

redacted has been placed in docket 

EPA–HQ– OAR–2013–0643 and on 

EPA’s Web site at http://www.epa.gov/

otaq/regs/ld-hwy/greenhouse/ldghg.htm. 

A summary of Mercedes’ alternative 

methodology for each of the four 

technologies is provided below. For 

context and comparison, in 

summarizing the Mercedes-Benz 

alternative methodology, EPA provides 

some background on how the MercedesBenz methodology compares to that 

developed by EPA in the MY 2017–2025 

light-duty GHG rulemaking for the preapproved list of off-cycle credits, which 

is contained in the Joint Technical 

Support Document (TSD), Chapter 5.10

A. Engine Stop-Start 

Mercedes-Benz is applying for engine 

idle stop-start credit covering all of their 

MY 2012–2016 U.S. model product 

range (e.g., small/mid-size/large cars 

and light-duty trucks) (See Section II–III 

of Mercedes-Benz Application). 

Mercedes-Benz is following a similar 

methodology to the one EPA described 

in the TSD for the MY2017–2025 rule, 

but with unique inputs for idle time and 

stop-start system effectiveness which 

includes parameters related to 

Mercedes’ unique control strategy for its 

stop-start system.11

The basic methodology entails the 

following steps: estimate or measure the 

total idle fraction as a percentage of all 

vehicle operation in the real-world; 

estimate or measure the percentage of 

idle fraction that the stop-start system is 

enabled out of all the available idle time 

(i.e., eligible stop-start percentage or 

stop-start system effectiveness); 

determine the benefit of the stop-start 

system in grams per mile based on A– 

B testing (i.e., technology on and off); 

and multiply the eligible real world 

stop-start time (relative to the 2-cycle 

eligible time) by the stop-start system 

benefit to estimate the engine idle stopstart credit. 

In lieu of the EPA default idle time 

derived from the MOVES model, 

Mercedes-Benz is proposing to apply a 

unique idle time specific to its vehicles. 

To estimate the total idle time as a 

percentage of all vehicle operation, 

Mercedes-Benz conducted a field study 

in calendar years 2010–2011 including 

29 instrumented customer vehicles, 

randomly selected from the MercedesBenz customer base. The field study was 

performed for a period of 13 months in 

eight states: California, New York, New 

Jersey, Florida, Texas, Illinois, Virginia, 

and Arizona. These eight states 

represented about 65% of the MercedesBenz sales volume. The remaining 35% 

of the Mercedes-Benz sales fleet was 

distributed in the other 42 states not 

included in the idle fraction study. 

During the course of the study, the 

vehicles accumulated 311,118 miles. 

The 29 vehicle sample broadly 

represents the Mercedes-Benz models 

equipped with stop-start technology 

sold in the United States. Based on this 

study, Mercedes-Benz estimated that its 

vehicles have a 23.83% total idle 

fraction as a percentage of all vehicle 

operation. 

To provide further support for its idle 

fraction estimate, Mercedes-Benz 

acquired an independent estimate of 

idle fraction for its vehicles from 

Progressive Insurance. Progressive 

Insurance has about 1.4 million vehicles 

in its ‘‘Snapshot’’ Program covering 44 

states (excluding California, North 

Carolina, Tennessee, Indiana, Arkansas, 

and Hawaii), over a six month period.12

In the Progressive data set, there are 

17,484 Mercedes-Benz vehicles which 

are represented in proportion to current 

industry sales shares. Based on the 

Progressive data set, the Mercedes-Benz 

vehicles are estimated to have an idle 

fraction of 23.9%. This is almost exactly 

the same as the 23.83% idle fraction 

found in the Mercedes-Benz study 

discussed above and used by MercedesBenz in their analysis. Further, since the 

Progressive Insurance data covers 37 out 

of the other 42 states not included in the 

Mercedes-Benz idle fraction study, this 

data implies that the other 35% of the 

sales volume not represented by the 

Mercedes-Benz data has consistent idle 

fractions. Mercedes indicated that none 

of the other 42 states, except for 

Pennsylvania, have equivalent sales 

volumes to the states used in the idle 

fraction study. As such, Mercedes-Benz 

concludes that the idle fraction for the 

other 35% of the sales volume, if 

different, would not have significantly 

altered the idle fraction estimate. 

To estimate the percentage of idle 

fraction during which the stop-start 

system is enabled, Mercedes-Benz used 

EPA’s methodology in Chapter 5 of the 

Technical Support Document (TSD) for 

the MY2017–2025 rule, with inputs 

specific to Mercedes-Benz vehicles and 

control strategies. 

The following background is provided 

to give some additional context on how 

EPA derived off-cycle credits for stopstart systems for the pre-approved menu 

in the MY 2017–2025 rulemaking. EPA 

constrained stop-start system 

effectiveness based on three operating 

temperature ranges: cold temperatures 

below 40 degrees Fahrenheit, midtemperatures between 40 and 80 degrees 

Fahrenheit, and hot temperatures above 

80 degrees. For the cold temperature 

range, EPA assumed that passenger 

demand for heat would reduce stop-start 

effectiveness unless the vehicle 

possesses an electric heater circulation 

pump, or equivalent system, that 

supplies sufficient heat during engine 

off operation. For the hot temperature 

range, EPA assumed that passenger 

demand for air conditioning (A/C) 

would render the stop-start system 

inoperable, unless the manufacturer has 

some supplemental system to support 

cabin cooling. For all the temperature 

ranges, EPA assumed that the stop-start 

system always defaults on when the 

vehicle is keyed on. EPA assumed the 

overall system effectiveness would be 

reduced to 87.75% due to these 

temperature effects. 

Mercedes Benz’s stop-start system has 

several design features that differ from 

those used by EPA for the pre-approved 

menu analysis. As described in Section 

III of the Mercedes-Benz application, 

Mercedes-Benz took these factors into 

account in analyzing its system 

performance. First, the Mercedes-Benz 

stop-start system includes an electric 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
60278 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 1, 2013 / Notices 

13 40 CFR 86.1869–12(a)(ii). 

14MY2017–2025 Technical Support Document, 

Chapter 5, Section 5.2.3. 

15Schoettle, B., et al., ‘‘LEDS and Power 

Consumption of Exterior Automotive Lighting: 

Implications for Gasoline and Electric Vehicles,’’ 

University of Michigan Transportation Research 

Institute, October, 2008. For the MY2017–2025 

Rule, the high efficiency exterior lighting wattage 

for one lighting element, low beam head lights, was 

revised based on manufacturer comment. 

16Title 17 California Code of Regulations 

§ 95600–95605: ‘‘Cool Car Standards and Test 

Procedures—2012 and Subsequent Model-Year 

Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and MediumDuty Vehicles.’’; Air Resources Board; May 8, 2009 

(see:http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2009/coolcars09/

coolcarsappa.pdf). 

17Rugh, J., Farrington, R. ‘‘Vehicle Ancillary Load 

Reduction Project Close-Out Report,’’ National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory Technical Report 

NREL/TP–540–42454, January, 2008. 

18MY2017–2025 Technical Support Document, 

Chapter 5, Section 5.2.10. 

19 International Organization for 

Standardization’s (ISO) 13837: ‘‘Road vehicles— 

Safety glazing materials—Method for the 

determination of solar transmittance,’’ April 15, 

2008. 

heater circulation pump that maintains 

cabin heating in cold temperatures, and 

thus enables stop-start capability when 

heat is demanded. Second, the 

Mercedes-Benz system has a 

supplemental 12 volt battery system that 

supplies power for all the electrical 

components and accessories. This 

allows the main battery to support 

restarting and also enables stop-start 

capability even when A/C is demanded. 

Mercedes-Benz also made an adjustment 

to account for OBD and stop-start 

interactions, which limits the 

availability of stop-start during the first 

170 seconds of vehicle operation. These 

adjustments resulted in an estimated 

fraction of effectiveness (i.e., when the 

system is active) of about 91.32%, 

compared to EPA’s generic estimate of 

87.75%. 

In addition, the Mercedes-Benz 

system includes an ‘‘EcoButton’’ that 

allows customers to disable the stopstart system. An estimate of the 

frequency of use of the EcoButton to 

disable the stop-start system is included 

in the Mercedes-Benz calculations. 

Finally, the Mercedes-Benz stop-start 

system has a maximum engine off 

duration of three minutes; therefore, the 

stop-start system would not be active 

after an idle period exceeds three 

minutes. Based on these features, 

Mercedes-Benz reduced its eligible idle 

time of 23.83% to a total eligible idle 

time of 21.22% using the 91.32% 

system effectiveness discussed above, 

and an additional discount of 2.5% for 

EcoButton usage and idles exceeding 

the Mercedes-Benz system’s 3 minute 

engine off duration. 

To determine the CO2 emissions 

benefit of the stop-start system, 

Mercedes-Benz performed testing of 

Mercedes-Benz vehicles equipped with 

stop-start in different vehicle categories 

with the stop-start system on and off. 

Based on this testing, Mercedes-Benz 

measured a benefit of: 9.8 g/mi CO2 for 

small size cars, 8.1 g/mi CO2 for midsize cars, 16.9 g/mi CO2 for large size 

cars, and 15.2 g/mi CO2 for light-duty 

trucks (e.g., SUVs). These g/mile GHG 

improvement values reflect the 

operational effectiveness of the 

Mercedes-Benz system during the 2- 

cycle testing. The effectiveness (i.e., the 

time the engine is off compared to the 

total idle time in the cycle) of the stopstart system over the 2-cycle test ranged 

from 67.3% to 80.4%. 

Based on the eligible stop-start idle 

fraction of 21.22%, compared with 10% 

idle fraction over the 2-cycle tests, and 

the emissions benefits measured above, 

Mercedes-Benz calculated an engine 

stop-start credit of 11.0 g/mi CO2 for 

small size cars; 9.1 g/mi CO2 for midsize cars; 19.0 g/mi CO2 for large size 

cars; and 17.1 g/mi CO2 for light-duty 

trucks (for example, for small cars, these 

credits were derived as: (9.8 g/mi CO2

× 0.2122/0.10) ¥ 9.8 g/mi CO2 = 11.0 

g/mi CO2). 

High Efficiency Exterior Lighting 

Mercedes-Benz is applying for offcycle credits for high efficiency exterior 

lighting for their MY 2012–2016 U.S. 

model product range with the following 

lighting elements: low beam head lights, 

high beam head lights, parking/position, 

front turn signal, front side marker, tail 

lights, rear turn signal, and license plate 

(See Section IV of the Mercedes-Benz 

application). This list of lighting 

elements is consistent with that 

specified by EPA for the pre-approved 

list in the MY 2017–2025 rule.13

To calculate the high efficiency 

exterior lighting credits, Mercedes-Benz 

used the EPA methodology set forth in 

the TSD for the MY2017–2025 rule.14

Specifically, Mercedes-Benz used the 

MY 2017–2025 rule baseline wattage 

values for each lighting element listed 

above and the time of day (e.g., day 

time, night time) usage rates from a 

study performed by Schoettle et al. 15

and inserted the wattage values from the 

Mercedes-Benz high efficiency exterior 

lighting to determine the wattage 

savings for each lighting element. In 

most cases, the Mercedes-Benz wattage 

savings for each lighting element 

exceeded the wattage savings projected 

in the MY 2017–2025 rule (exceptions: 

parking/position lights at 70% savings 

versus 78% in the MY 2017–2025 rule; 

license plate light at 86% versus 90% in 

the MY 2017–2025 rule). 

For the final credit amounts, 

Mercedes-Benz multiplied the wattage 

savings times the usage rates and a 

constant of 0.032 g/mi CO2/watt (based 

on data showing a 100 watt savings 

equates to 3.2 g/mi CO2 savings) for a 

credit of 1.1 g/mi CO2 total for all the 

high-efficiency exterior lighting 

elements used over the range of 

Mercedes-Benz models. In comparison, 

the default credit value for high 

efficiency exterior lighting in the 

MY2017–2025 rule is 1.0 g/mi CO2. 

Infrared Glazing 

Mercedes-Benz is applying for offcycle credits for infrared glazing for the 

MY 2012–2013 S-Class, ML-Class and 

GL-Class vehicles that utilize infrared 

glazing technology (See Section IV of 

Mercedes-Benz’s application). The 

infrared glazing technology absorbs and/ 

or reflects a percentage of the infrared 

solar energy emitted from the sun and 

reduces the amount of solar heat load 

transmitted into the cabin; this is 

termed ‘‘total solar transmittance’’ or 

‘‘Tts.’’ The Tts is usually expressed as 

a percentage and defined as the amount 

of solar energy that passes through the 

glazing, including energy absorbed and 

subsequently re-radiated to the interior, 

to the amount of solar energy imparted 

on the surface of glazing.16 The higher 

this number, the more solar energy is 

allowed to penetrate into the passenger 

cabin. Therefore, a lower Tts number is 

better since less solar energy will 

penetrate the passenger cabin and, 

consequently, the interior cabin 

temperature is reduced. Infrared glazing 

technologies improve passenger 

comfort, reducing the need for air 

conditioning (A/C) usage, which in turn, 

reduces vehicle fuel consumption. 

EPA’s analysis relied on a study 

performed by the National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

demonstrating that a one degree 

centigrade reduction in cabin air 

temperature results in a 2.2% reduction 

in CO2 emissions resulting from a 

reduction in passenger compartment 

temperature and reduced A/C usage.17

To calculate the infrared glazing 

credits, Mercedes-Benz used the 

methods set forth in Chapter 5 of the 

TSD for the MY 2017–2025 rule.18 This 

method utilizes the International 

Organization for Standardization’s (ISO) 

standard #13837 for measuring the solar 

transmittance of infrared glazing 19 and 

a formula for estimating the effect of the 

solar performance of glazing 

technologies developed by EPA and 

California Air Resources Board with 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 1, 2013 / Notices 60279 

20 40 CFR 86.1869–12(b)(1)(viii)(A). 

21 40 CFR 86.1869–12(b)(4)(viii). 

22MY2017–2025 Technical Support Document, 

Chapter 5, Section 5.2.11. 

23 Ibid 12. 

24 40 CFR 86.1869–12(e)(3)(iii). 

25 40 CFR 86.1869–12(e)(4)(iii). 

input from the National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory (NREL) and the 

Enhanced Performance Glass 

Automotive Association (EPGAA). 

Specifically, the contribution of each 

glass/glazing location to the overall 

interior temperature reduction is 

estimated using its measured Tts, 

relative to a baseline level, and the area 

of the glass/glazing location relative to 

the overall glass area. 20

The infrared glazing used by 

Mercedes-Benz has the same Tts 

performance levels as the baseline Tts 

levels specified in the MY2017–2025 

rule: 62% for all glazing locations, 

except for rooflites and rear side 

glazings of crossovers, SUVs, and 

minivans, which have a baseline Tts of 

40%. Based on the Tts levels for 

Mercedes Benz’s infrared glazing and 

the formula described above, MercedesBenz calculated a credit of 0.8 to 1.7 g/ 

mi CO2 for the infrared glazing used 

over the range of Mercedes-Benz 

models. In comparison, the default 

credit values for infrared glazing in the 

MY2017–2025 rule are scalable 

depending on such factors as the 

amount of glass in the vehicle and the 

performance of the glazing, up to a 

maximum of 2.9 g/mi CO2 for cars and 

3.9 g/mi CO2 for trucks. 

Active Seat Ventilation 

Mercedes-Benz is applying for offcycle credits for applicable vehicles that 

have active seat ventilation on both the 

front row’ driver and passenger seats 

(See Section IV of Mercedes-Benz’s 

application).21 The Mercedes-Benz 

active seat ventilation technology has 

the capability to both pull air away from 

and push air to the seating surface. 

To calculate the active seat ventilation 

credits, Mercedes-Benz used the 

methods set forth in Chapter 5 of the 

MY 2017–2025 TSD.22 Based on the 

NREL study mentioned above, a 7.5% 

reduction in air conditioning (A/C) 

related emissions could be achieved by 

lowering the surface temperature of the 

vehicle seats.23

Based on the seat location criteria, 

capability, and the methodology 

described above, Mercedes-Benz 

estimated a credit of 1.0 g/mi CO2 for 

cars and 1.3 g/mi CO2 for trucks for the 

active seat ventilation technology used 

over the range of Mercedes-Benz 

models. These values are identical to 

the default values in the pre-approved 

off-cycle credit list in the MY 2017– 

2025 rule. Therefore, Mercedes-Benz 

concludes that its active seat ventilation 

system achieves equivalent performance 

to that assumed in the MY 2017–2025 

rule. Mercedes-Benz could use the preapproved list to claim these credits 

beginning in MY 2014, but since they 

are seeking credits to begin in MY 2012, 

and because these technologies are not 

measurable through the 5-cycle testing 

pathway, Mercedes-Benz is applying for 

these credits through this alternative 

technology pathway. 

III. EPA Decision Process 

EPA is providing a 30-day comment 

period on this application for an 

alternative methodology for off-cycle 

credits, as specified by the regulations. 

The manufacturer may submit a written 

rebuttal of comments for EPA’s 

consideration, or may revise its 

application in response to comments; 

EPA would review a revised application 

as if it were a new application.24 After 

reviewing any public comments and any 

rebuttal of comments submitted by 

Mercedes-Benz, EPA will make a final 

decision regarding the credit request. 

EPA will make its decision available to 

the public by placing a decision 

document in the docket as specified in 

the MY 2017–2025 rule.25 and on EPA’s 

Web site at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/

regs/ld-hwy/greenhouse/ld-ghg.htm. 

An EPA decision to approve Mercedes 

Benz’s off-cycle credit request would 

only apply to the vehicles specified in 

the Mercedes-Benz application for MYs 

2012–2016. Such decision would not 

apply to other Mercedes-Benz vehicles 

or vehicles from other manufacturers. 

While the broad methodology used by 

Mercedes-Benz 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: September 20, 2013. 

Byron Bunker, 

Director, Compliance Division, Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air 

and Radiation. 

[FR Doc. 2013–23964 Filed 9–30–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9901–55–OCFO] 

Notice of Open Meeting of the 

Environmental Financial Advisory 

Board (EFAB) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The United States 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(EPA) Environmental Financial 

Advisory Board (EFAB) will hold a full 

board meeting on October 22–23, 2013. 

EFAB is an EPA advisory committee 

chartered under the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (FACA) to provide 

advice and recommendations on 

environmental financing issues. EFAB 

focuses its advice and recommendations 

on promoting sustainability by reducing 

environmental costs; increasing public 

and private investment; and building 

state, local, and tribal financial capacity. 

The purpose of the meeting is to hear 

from informed speakers on 

environmental finance issues, review 

Agency challenges and priorities; 

discuss progress with EFAB work 

projects currently underway; review and 

consider requests for assistance from 

EPA offices as well as suggestions from 

EFAB members; and, to develop EFAB’s 

FY 2014 Strategic Action Agenda. 

Environmental Finance topics 

expected to be discussed include: 

Transit-Oriented Development in 

Sustainable Communities; Drinking 

Water Pricing and Infrastructure 

Investment; and Green Infrastructure. 

The meeting is open to the public, 

however, seating is limited. All 

members of the public who wish to 

attend the meeting must register in 

advance, no later than Friday, October 

11, 2013. 

DATES: Full Board Meeting is scheduled 

for Tuesday, October 22, 2013 from 

10:15 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Wednesday, 

October 23, 2013 from 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 

p.m. 

ADDRESSES: EPA Potomac Yards North 

Bldg., 2733 S. Crystal City Drive, Room 

4120, Arlington, VA 22202. 

Registration and Information Contact 

To register for this meeting or get 

further information, please contact 

Sandra Williams, U.S. EPA, at (202) 

564–4999 or williams.sandra@epa.gov. 

For information on access or services for 

individuals with disabilities, please 

contact Sandra Williams. To request 

accommodations of a disability, contact 

Sandra Williams, preferably at least 10 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES