Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

49834

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 169 / Friday, September 3, 2021 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2

refrigerant leakage.536 Manufacturers can improve the efficiency of A/C
systems though redesigned and refined A/C system components and controls.537 That said, such improvements are not measurable or recognized using 2-cycle test procedures since A/C is turned off during 2-cycle testing. Any A/C system efficiency improvements that reduce load on the engine and improve fuel economy is therefore not measurable on those tests.
The CAFE program includes flexibilities to account for the real-world fuel economy improvements associated with improved A/C systems and to include the improvements for compliance.538 The total A/C efficiency credits is calculated by summing the individual credit values for each efficiency improving technology used on a vehicle, as specified in the A/C
credit menu. The total A/C efficiency credit sum for each vehicle is capped at 5.0 grams/mile for cars and 7.2 grams/
mile for trucks. Additionally, the offcycle credit program contains credit earning opportunities for technologies that reduce the thermal loads on a vehicle from environmental conditions solar loads or parked interior air temperature.539 These technologies are listed on a thermal control menu that provides a predefined improvement value for each technology. If a vehicle has more than one thermal load improvement technology, the improvement values are added together, but subject to a cap of 3.0 grams/mile for cars and 4.3 grams/mile for trucks.
Under its EPCA authority for CAFE, EPA calculates equivalent FCIVs and applies them for the calculation of manufacturers fleet CAFE values.
Manufacturers seeking credits beyond the regulated caps must request the added benefit for A/C technology under the off-cycle program discussed in the 536 Notably, manufacturers cannot claim CAFErelated benefits for reducing A/C leakage or switching to an A/C refrigerant with a lower global warming potential. While these improvements reduce GHG emissions consistent with the purpose of the CAA, they generally do not impact fuel economy and, thus, are not relevant to the CAFE
program.
537 The approach for recognizing potential A/C
efficiency gains is to utilize, in most cases, existing vehicle technology/componentry, but with improved energy efficiency of the technology designs and operation. For example, most of the additional A/C-related load on an engine is because of the compressor, which pumps the refrigerant around the system loop. The less the compressor operates, the less load the compressor places on the engine resulting in less fuel consumption. Thus, optimizing compressor operation with cabin demand using more sophisticated sensors, controls, and control strategies is one path to improving the efficiency of the A/C system.
538 See 40 CFR 86.186812.
539 See 40 CFR 86.186912b.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:48 Sep 02, 2021

Jkt 253001

next section. The agency is not proposing to change its A/C efficiency flexibility and will retain its provisions in its current form.
3 Flexibilities for Off-Cycle Technologies Off-cycle technologies are those that reduce vehicle fuel consumption in the real world, but for which the fuel consumption reduction benefits cannot be fully measured under the 2-cycle test procedures city, highway or correspondingly FTP, HFET used to determine compliance with the fleet average standards. The cycles are effective in measuring improvements in most fuel economy improving technologies; however, they are unable to measure or underrepresent certain fuel economy improving technologies because of limitations in the test cycles.
For example, off-cycle technologies that improve emissions and fuel economy at idle such as stop start systems and those technologies that improve fuel economy to the greatest extent at highway speeds such as active grille shutters which improve aerodynamics receive less than their real-world benefits in the 2-cycle compliance tests.
In the CAFE rule for MYs 20172025, EPA, in coordination with NHTSA, established regulations extending the off-cycle technology flexibility to the CAFE program starting with MY 2017.
For the CAFE program, EPA calculates off-cycle fuel consumption improvement values FCIVs that are equivalent to the EPA CO2 credit values, and applies them in the calculation of manufacturers CAFE compliance values for each fleet instead of treating them as separate credits as for the EPA GHG
program.
For determining benefits, EPA created three compliance pathways for the offcycle program. The first approach allows manufacturers to gain credits using a predetermined approach or menu of credit values for specific offcycle technologies which became effective starting in MY 2014 for EPA.540 541 This pathway allows manufacturers to use credit values established by EPA for a wide range of off-cycle technologies, with minimal or no data submittal or testing requirements.542 Specifically, EPA
540 See 40 CFR 86.186912b. The first approach requires some technologies to derive their predetermined credit values through EPAs established testing. For example, waste heat recovery technologies require manufacturers to use 5-cycle testing to determine the electrical load reduction of the waste heat recovery system.
541 EPA implemented its off-cycle GHG program starting in MY 2012.
542 The Technical Support Document TSD for the 2012 final rule for MYs 2017 and beyond
PO 00000

Frm 00234

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

established a menu with a number of technologies that have real-world fuel consumption benefits not measured, or not fully measured, by the two-cycle test procedures, and those benefits were reasonably quantified by the agencies at that time. For each of the pre-approved technologies on the menu, EPA
established a menu value or approach that is available without testing verifications. Manufacturers must demonstrate that they are in fact using the menu technology, but not required to submit test results to EPA to quantify the technologys effects, unless they wish to receive a credit larger than the default value. The default values for these off-cycle credits were largely determined from research, analysis, and simulations, rather than from full vehicle testing, which would have been both cost and time prohibitive. EPA
generally used conservative predefined estimates to avoid any potential credit windfall.543
For off-cycle technologies not on the pre-defined technology list, EPA created a second pathway which allows manufacturers to use 5-cycle testing to demonstrate off-cycle improvements.544
Starting in MY 2008, EPA developed the five-cycle test methodology to measure fuel economy for the purpose of improving new car window stickers labels and giving consumers better information about the fuel economy they could expect under real-world driving conditions.545 As learned through development of the five-cycle methodology and prior rulemakings, there are technologies that provide realworld fuel consumption improvements, provides technology examples and guidance with respect to the potential pathways to achieve the desired physical impact of a specific off-cycle technology from the menu and provides the foundation for the analysis justifying the credits provided by the menu. The expectation is that manufacturers will use the information in the TSD
to design and implement off-cycle technologies that meet or exceed those expectations in order to achieve the real-world benefits of off-cycle technologies from the menu.
543 While many of the assumptions made for the analysis were conservative, others were central.
For example, in some cases, an average vehicle was selected on which the analysis was conducted. In that case, a smaller vehicle may presumably deserve fewer credits whereas a larger vehicle may deserve more. Where the estimates are central, it would be inappropriate for the agencies to grant greater credit for larger vehicles, since this value is already balanced by smaller vehicles in the fleet. The agencies take these matters into consideration when applications are submitted for credits beyond those provided on the menu.
544 See 40 CFR 86.186912c. EPA proposed a correction for the 5-cycle pathway in a separate technical amendments rulemaking. See 83 FR
49344 Oct. 1, 2019. EPA is not approving credits based on the 5-cycle pathway pending the finalization of the technical amendments rule.
545 https www.epa.gov/vehicle-and-fuelemissions-testing/dynamometer-drive-schedules.

E:FRFM03SEP2.SGM

03SEP2